Information provided for reference purposes only

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now outdated. All the links in the document have been removed.


 



The September public meeting is designed to assist EPA in developing options relating to the development of proposed regulations under 316(b) applicable to cooling water intake structures. The purpose of this meeting is to facilitate an exchange of information that will assist EPA. In particular, EPA is seeking input on technology issues, cost issues, and mitigation issues raised by this rulemaking effort. To help you prepare for this public meeting, EPA thought it would be helpful for attendees to see a set of specific issues on which EPA seeks input from stakeholders. This set of issues is listed below.

Issues for Discussion at the Public Meeting on September 10 and 11, 1998

Regarding 316(b) Rulemaking

Technology Issues

Best Technology Available (BTA) could be a single technology or a suite of technologies that work together to meet the goal of minimizing adverse environmental impacts from cooling water intake structures. EPA has not yet reached a definition, and thus solicits input on the following.

  1. Is there a BTA technology or a suite of BTA technologies that can be applied on a national basis?

  2. Is there a BTA technology that can be applied on a waterbody environment basis (e.g., estuary, lake, larger river, ocean)? If so, what conditions/factors prevent the application of the technology nationwide?

  3. Are there measures other than structural (excluding mitigation) that can effectively minimize adverse environmental impacts from cooling water intake structures (e.g., operational measures)?

  4. What techniques and criteria should be used to measure the efficacy of a technology's performance? Are there performance measures (e.g., a bucket of fish) or rate base measures (e.g., not more than 10% of the standing population of blue crab) that can be used to measure BTA effectiveness?

Cost Issues

EPA solicits input on how, if at all, costs should be taken into account in determining the technology that meets 316(b) requirements; the types of cost tests that should be conducted; and the organizational or structural level at which any cost tests should be carried out.

  1. Role of costs in determining 316(b) requirements on a case-by-case basis.
      a. Should 316(b) requirements be determined by the minimization of adverse environmental impact only, without regard to costs?

      b. Should costs be considered in determining which technology or suite of technologies meets the requirements of 316(b)?

  2. Potential cost tests in the 316(b) proposed rulemaking
      a. If costs are to be considered on a case-by-case basis, what should be EPA's approach? What type of "cost test" should be used? Types of cost tests may include, but are not limited to:
        i. cost-benefit tests (costs compared with benefits or a "wholly-disproportionate" test);

        ii. cost-effectiveness tests (e.g., limit on the absolute cost per unit reduction in environmental impact)

        iii. affordability tests (e.g., costs compared with revenues or profits);

        iv. absolute threshold tests (limits on the absolute level of costs imposed on a facility, category of facility, or industry).

      b. What are the important parameters that EPA should take into account in its cost test approach? Are these important for all industries or only selected industries?

  3. Level of 316(b) cost tests.
      a. What is the appropriate level at which 316(b) cost tests should be conducted to determine the technology that meets the requirements of 316(b)? Levels of cost tests may include, but are not limited to:
        i. the facility (i.e., a permit-by-permit approach);

        ii. the utility or firm;

        iii. the aquatic habitat immediately surrounding a facility (e.g., a watershed or eco-region);

        iv. the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) region;

        v. the industry as a whole.

Mitigation Issues

EPA does not view mitigation as BTA in itself, but sees mitigation as a potential means of supplementing technology to satisfy the requirements of 316(b). Mitigation is typically defined as compensatory activities (e.g., hatcheries for replacement of impinged or entrained organisms) which serve to minimize adverse environmental impacts caused by cooling water intake structures.

  1. What should the role of mitigation play in meeting the requirements of 316(b)?

  2. What types of mitigation if any, should be employed to offset adverse environmental impacts from cooling water intake structures?

  3. What types of demonstration should the applicant have to make to show that any mitigation effort will produce incremental environmental benefits? What information should the applicant be required to provide on the effectiveness of mitigation or the limitations of BTA at their facility?