U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Subscribe to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Posts

EPA Unveils Final Cooling Water Intake Structures Rule

On May 19, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its long-awaited rule under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) imposing requirements for cooling water intake structures (CWIS) at power plants and manufacturing facilities in order to protect aquatic life.  The rule, on which EPA received input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, will become effective 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

EPA has stated that the withdrawal of large volumes of water from nearby water bodies by power plants and manufacturing facilities results in the removal of billions of aquatic organisms from these water bodies each year.  The main threats CWIS pose to these organisms are impingement (the entrapment of organisms against the outer part of a CWIS) and entrainment (drawing of the organisms into the cooling water system).

The final rule establishes requirements for the location, design, construction and capacity of CWIS at “existing” power generating facilities and manufacturing facilities that withdraw at least two million gallons of water per day from nearby water bodies and use at least 25 percent of that water exclusively for cooling.  The rule defines an “existing facility” as a facility “that commenced construction as described in 40 CFR 122.29(b)(4) on or before January 17, 2002 (or July 17, 2006 for an offshore oil and gas extraction facility) and any modification of, or any addition of a unit at such a facility.”  Section 122.29(b)(4) states that construction commences when the facility’s owner or operator has (1) begun to place, assemble or install facilities or equipment or has begun to conduct “[s]ite preparation work” (e.g., clearing or excavation activities), or (2) entered into a binding contract (other than option contracts, contracts that may be terminated or modified without substantial loss, and contracts for feasibility engineering or design studies) to purchase facilities or equipment it intends to use for its operations within a reasonable time period.  EPA estimates that the rule covers approximately 1,065 facilities – 544 power plants and 521 factories.

The final rule’s requirements will be implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, and EPA stated that the requirements are based on the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing environmental impacts.  The rule establishes a baseline for protecting aquatic life from CWIS, but also allows for state permitting authorities to build in additional facility-specific safeguards.  The rule contains three major components:

  • Covered facilities must reduce impingement of aquatic life through one of seven options for meeting BTA requirements, including operation of a closed-cycle recirculating system, installation of an offshore velocity cap, or potentially using a modified traveling screen;
  • Facilities withdrawing at least 125 million gallons of water per day must conduct studies to assist permitting authorities, through a process involving public input, in determining any site-specific entrainment mortality controls that may be necessary; and
  • New units built at an existing facility to increase the facility’s generating capacity must reduce entrainment and impingement by either reducing actual intake [...]

    Continue Reading



read more

Wind Farms and Eagle “Take” Permits – Litigation is Coming Over the New “30-Year” Permit Rule

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently changed its eagle “take” permitting rules to allow wind developers to apply for 30-year take permits; previously, such permits, which allow the incidental killing of eagles, were available for a maximum of just five years.  Wind developers had lobbied for the rule change based on concerns that shorter permitting periods inhibit their ability to obtain financing.  But now, a bird conservation group, the American Bird Conservancy (ABC), is threatening litigation to overturn the “30-Year” rule.

How strong are ABC’s claims?

Not especially strong, because the FWS has powerful responses to each of ABC’s contentions.  The FWS will also be protected by the deferential standard of review that typically applies in this type of lawsuit.  And even if ABC were to prevail on its claims, the end result is less likely to be wholesale revocation of the rule than some delays in implementing it.  That is because ABC’s claims are largely procedural in nature, not substantive.

ABC’s claims are summarized in an April 30 letter to the U.S. Department of the Interior and the FWS announcing the group’s intention to file suit over the 30-Year rule.  The letter contends that the FWS committed three legal errors when it extended the maximum take permitting period from five years to 30 years.  According to ABC, the FWS violated:  (1) the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment for the 30-Year rule; (2) the Endangered Species Act (ESA), by allegedly failing to ensure that the rule is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species; and (3) the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), which is the statute that authorizes take permits, by prioritizing the concerns of wind developers over those of the eagles the statute is designed to protect.

The problem for ABC – and the good news for wind developers – is that FWS has strong defenses to ABC’s assertions.  First, the NEPA claim will almost certainly turn on whether the FWS correctly concluded that the 30-Year rule falls within a “categorical exclusion” from NEPA’s requirements.  In its letter, ABC quibbles with the FWS’s conclusion, but courts generally review such conclusions under a highly deferential standard of review.  Indeed, agencies often prevail on such claims simply by offering a facially plausible explanation of why NEPA does not apply.  Here, the FWS has done that.  The agency’s NEPA implementation regulations permit the FWS to forego NEPA analysis for rules that have broad or speculative impacts, provided that those impacts will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis in the future.  The FWS contends that is the situation here – it will conduct a NEPA analysis on a permit-by-permit basis in the future.  Courts have rejected NEPA claims under similar circumstances in the past.

The FWS has a similar defense to ABC’s ESA claim.  That claim turns on whether the FWS had a duty to engage in internal consultation about the potential impact of [...]

Continue Reading




read more

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Ranked In Chambers USA 2022
GCR 100 global elite