# ^ ^.^^y RE1LD^^^ ^ L

STATE OF MICHIGAN ^



# = DE ^ 

# ^ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

_ LANSING RICK SNYDER DAN WYANT GOVERNOR DIRECTOR January 14, 2014

VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL ^ 

### Ms. Regina A. McCarthy, Administrator T ^ United States Environmental Protection Agency ^-^ '^-' William Jefferson Clinton Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (1101A) ^^ ^ a Washin ton, DC 20460 g ^ 

# ^ o ^ Dear Ms. McCarthy: I am writing to express the views of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regarding the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) rulemaking on cooling water intake structures at existing electric generation and manufacturing facilities. We encourage the USEPA to finalize a ruie that recognizes and implements a flexible, holistic approach (e.g., considering entrainment, impingement, and thermal issues together) when making best technology available (BTA) decisions. T{ie MDEQ be4eves that the USEPA should account for the following points in the ru:emaking: • Sitt-specKic decision-making and a cost-benefit analysis should be available for all perl-iiit applicariis as a rneans to select BTA for purposes of entrainment. • The quaniirication of nonuse aenefits in individual Nationa: Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting decisions, if any, should be left to the states' discretion. • Permitted facilities that upgrade and modify their plants should not necessarily be required to install closed-cycle cooling. • The schedule for permit application and compliance deadlines needs to be extended to allow for Michigan's five-year rotating watershed permitting approach. On a very important rnatter, we undErstand tnat the USEPA will determine what factors state permitting authorities must consider in making entrainment decisiol;s and that consideration of costs and benefits may not be amorig tfiose factors. We support a final rule that requires permitting authorities to consider all relevant factors as set out in the USEPA's proposed rule, including costs and benefits, when making entrainment permicting dec;sions.

CONSTITUTION HALL • 525 WEST ALLEGAN STREET • P.O. BOX 30473 • LANSING, MiCHIGAN 48909-7973 www.michigan.gov/deq • (800) 662-9278Ms. Regina A. McCarthy

Page 2 January 14, 2014
Our permitting experience shows that consideration of costs and benefits is critical in order to deliver meaningful environmental benefits. The USEPA's final rule should allow states to take costs and benefits into account in permitting decisions in order to provide consistency and to avoid the inappropriate closure of facilities or unnecessary installation of cooling towers, with the resultant higher costs to customers and implications for energy capacity. Thank you for considering our views in obtaining a flexible, balanced rule that is administratively achievable, environmentally protective, and economically justifiable. The MDEQ is ready to work with you and your staff to assure the best possible outcome on this rulemaking. incerely,



### ant 0

vyant Director 517-284-6701 cc: Dr. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, USEPA, Region 5 Mr. Bill McBride, Governor's Washington Office Mr. Eric Brown, Governor's Washington Office Mr. Jim Sygo, Deputy Director, MDEQ Ms. Madhu R. Anderson, Director of Policy, MDEQ Ms. Maggie Datema, Director of Legislative Affairs, MDEQ Mr. William Creal, MDEQ Mr. G. Vinson Hellwig, MDEQr : Q V N
^O CY) 

# N^ .^ 

# 5pzo ep^U o. ^ 

# a
0 ^N^ ^ 

### r ^d S ^^.ur,n o o ^

^ .^

^

^ 

# ^^ ^N ^ V

^ ^LL

J Q ^ C7 J
^ Z W ^ z O Cc > 

### z zW OLL ^O _z ow

cr w r- ^Qa ^w O^ dn^^ m ? Vi,:' W = rtRU_ ^

GYJ 

### ^Z a^ ^ ^ 0 Lo
arn ti a) 0 rn co v Z Q C7

_ -oU_ M ^ ) c C3 Z m N
OZ 

### ag