National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities and Phase I Facilities

Score: 33 / 60
55%
F

View the Complete Report Card at Mercatus.org ➜

What this Rule is Proposing

This proposed rule would establish requirements under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for all existing power generating facilities and existing manufacturing and industrial facilities that withdraw more than 2 million gallons per day (MGD) of water from waters of the U.S. and use at least twenty-five (25) percent of the water they withdraw exclusively for cooling purposes. The proposed national requirements, which would be implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, would establish national requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at these facilities by setting requirements that reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact. The proposed rule constitutes EPA's response to the remand of the Phase II existing facility rule and the remand of the existing facilities portion of the Phase III rule. In addition, EPA is also responding to the decision in Riverkeeper I and proposing to remove from the Phase I new facility rule the restoration-based compliance alternative and the associated monitoring and demonstration requirements. EPA expects this proposed regulation would minimize adverse environmental impacts, including substantially reducing the harmful effects of impingement and entrainment. As a result, the Agency anticipates this proposed rule would help protect ecosystems affected by cooling water intake structures and preserve aquatic organisms and the ecosystems they inhabit in waters used by cooling water intake structures at existing facilities.

Commentary

Although there may be a market failure, all options presented in the proposed rule result in a net cost to society. Although the EPA only includes a partial measure of nonuse benefits for the northeast and middle Atlantic states, if one compares the option with the lowest cost (option 4) with the option (option 3) returning the greatest benefit, the cost on society ($326.55 million [$2009]) is still more than double the benefit ($125.65 million [$2009]). This is still true even if nonuse value for Option 3 is tripled from $75.48 million ($2009) (as reported on page 22247) to 226.44 million ($2009) so that the gross benefit to society would be $276.62 million ($2009).