Clean Water Act Section Section 316(b) Pro

Pro

Regulations for Cooling Water Intake Struct

Existing Facilities

April 6, 2011
Background

• Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that National Pollu

Elimination System (NPDES) permits for facilities with cooling water inta

ensure that the l i ocat on, d i es gn, construction, and capacity of the struct

the best technology available (BTA) to minimize harmful impacts on the 

• Withdrawal of cooling water removes aquatic organisms, including fish, 

eggs, crustaceans, shellfish, sea turtles, and marine mammals, from wat

each year.

• Most impacts are to early life stages of fish and shellfish through imping

entrainment.

• Impingement happens when fish and other organisms are trapped against sc

water is drawn into the facility’s cooling system.

• Entrainment happens when organisms are drawn into the facility, resulting in 

to pressure and high temperatures.

• EPA estimates that 2.1 billion fish, crabs, and shrimp on an age‐1 equivalent 

annually by impingement and entrainment.
Rulemaking History

• Under a consent decree with environmental organizations, the section 3

rulemaking rulemaking was divided divided into three phases: phases:

• Phase I addressed all new facilities except offshore oil and gas exploration fa

(December 2001)

• Phase II addressed addressed existing existing large electric electric‐generating generating facilities facilities (February (February 2004

• Phase III addressed existing small electric‐generating, all manufacturing facil

offshore oil and gas exploration facilities (June 2006)

• EPA conducted conducted a Small Business Business Advocacy Advocacy Review Panel for this rulemaking rulemaking in 200

incorporated a number of recommendations of SERs in the existing facilities propo

• Phase II and the existing facility portion of Phase III were remanded to E

reconsideration

• This proposal, called the Existing Facilities proposal, combines Phases II a

rule and provides a holistic approach to protecting aquatic life impacted 

water intakes
Scope of Rule

• Potentially affected facilities are existing power plants and manuf

facilities that generate electricity or manufacture other goods an

withdraw at least 2 million gallons per day (MGD)of cooling wate

percent percent of which is for cooling cooling purposes purposes

• The proposed rule covers roughly 1,260 existing facilities that dis

heat through water withdrawals

• Approximately 590 are manufacturers

• Other 670 are power plants

• App o ate y roximately 740 fac t es acilities a eady lr use tec o og es technologies t at h a er like yl 

the impingement requirements of the proposal
Identification of Best Technology Available

• In selecting the BTA, a number of factors were considered:

• Availability and feasibility of various technologies

• Costs including potential costs to facilities as well as households, and e

impacts of different technologies

• Efficacy of technologies in reducing impingement and entrainment 

including cost‐effectiveness relationships

• Age, size, and type of facility

• Non‐water quality effects of different technologies on energy prod

availability

• Electricity reliability• Potential adverse environmental effects from the use of the differe• US Supreme Court’s decision in Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et 

EPA has the authority to balance costs and benefits in promulgating 

regulations
Identification of BTA for Impingement Mortality

• The use of f his ‐f dl rien y modf d i ie traveling screens with a f his h dl an ing a

system or reduced intake velocity is proposed as BTA for impingement m

• EPA’s record shows modified traveling screens are available for all facili

reduced reduced intake velocity velocity may not be available available at all locations locations

– Facility would determine technology best suited to meeting the lim

– Subject to an upper limit on how many fish can be killed by the fac

impingement impingement – impingement impingement mortality mortality not to exceed: exceed:

• 12% on an annual average

• 31% on a monthly average

• Requires facility to sample and hold up to 48 hours to determine morta

– Alternately, facility could reduce their intake velocity to 0.5 feet per 

• Data indicate that at this velocity, there is a significant reduction in the 

impingement and impingement mortality to a level equal to/better tha

numeric impingement mortality mortality restrictions restrictions

• Most fish can swim away from the cooling water intake of the facility a• Facility can comply either through an engineering design demonstratio

monthly monitoring and reporting of velocity
Identification of BTA for Entrainment Mortality

• For entrainment, no single technology that represented BTA for 

facilities could be identified

• Four key factors support determining entrainment mortality contro

specific basis (except with respect to new units) in lieu of a nationa

energy reliability, increased air emissions, land availability, and rem

useful life

• Instead, EPA is proposing to adopt regulations that establish a proc

permitting authority to determine entrainment BTA controls on a s

basis

• Permitting authority could consider social costs and benefits on a site s

in establishing additional entrainment mortality controls, if any

• Facilities Facilities above 125 MGD actual intake flow are required required to submit add

add

studies to permit authority, and have studies peer reviewed

• Facilities may have to meet impingement requirements before learning 

their entrainment requirements

• Permitting process includes opportunity for public input
Identification of BTA for New Units at Existing Facilities

• Closed cycle cooling (or wet cooling towers) are proposed as BTA 

impingement mortality and entrainment mortality for new units 

existing facilities

– Applies only to new unit portion of facility, not to entire facility

– Capital costs for closed‐cycle cooling are lower than capital costs for once‐th

cooling when constructing a new unit

– Requirements for entrainment mortality require the facility to reduce their 

to a level similar to a closed cycle cooling system

– Alternately, facility could demonstrate to permitting authority that it has ins

will operate/maintain operate/maintain technologies technologies capable capable of achieving achieving entrainment entrainment morta

morta

reductions equal to at least 90% of the reduction achievable through compl

the intake flow reduction requirement

• Proposal establishes January 17, 2002 as the date for disting 

uish

existing facilities from new facilities because that is the effective 

the Phase I new facility rule
Compliance

• Requirements would be applied to individual cooling water intak

through NPDES permits issued by authorized States or EPA

• Regulations would become effective 60 days after FR publication 

promulgation notice (~July 2012 + 60 days)

• Technologies Technologies to meet the impingement impingement requirements requirements of the rule 

to be implemented as soon as possible but facilities may request 

time (not to exceed 8 years)

• Most facilities should be able to comply within in 5 years

• Existing facilities subject to entrainment requirements would ha

as soon as possible under a schedule of compliance established 

permitting authority

• New units have to comply by the time they begin operating
Benefits & Costs of Proposed Rule

• Proposal would reduce impingement and entrainment mortality by 615 

on an age‐1 equivalent basis , of total of 2.2 billion lost to I&E mortality

• Annual monetized monetized benefits benefits are estimated estimated at $17 6. million million (2009$; (2009$; 3% d

d

• Annualized social costs are estimated at $384 million (2009$; 3% discou

• Electric Generators segment of the proposed rule accounts for the majority 

(direct (direct compliance compliance costs of $319 million million at 3% discount discount rate, including including cost 

• Annual costs of closed cycle cooling at new generating units are estimated s

$15 million, but benefits, even in age‐1 equivalent terms, cannot be calcula

• Estimates do not include costs associated with complying with permit autho

determinations on site‐specific BTA

• Majority of facilities (86%) and parent entities (89%) that would be subj

proposed rule are estimated to incur annualized costs of less than 1% o

(assuming (assuming zero cost pass‐through) through)

• National compliance cost of proposed rule, on average, is estimated to 

per KWh (assuming full cost pass‐through)

• For a typical typical U S. . household household , proposed proposed rule is estimated estimated to result in cos

per household per year (assuming full cost pass‐through)