### August 10,2011

U.S. 

### Environmental Protection Agency Water Docket Mail Code: 4205M 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington,DC 20460 Attn: Docket 

### ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667

Dear Administrator Jackson: We are pleased to provide these comments on the proposed Environmental ProtectionAgency rulemaking published in the 

### Federal Register 

### on April 20,2010.' The proposed rule would require power plants and other industrial or manufacturing facilitiesto minimize adverse environmental impacts associatedwith the operation of cooling water intake structures (CWIS). The proposal will affect virtually everypower plant in the country and could have significant adverse economic, environmental, and energy consequences. Thus, we believe it is important for EPA to take a measured approach to the rulemaking, ensuringthat any final rule includes sufficient flexibilityand that the benefits of any requirementsit imposes are commensurate with the costs. We believe that there is more EPA can do to achieve these objectives. The proposed rule would require most electric generating facilities and many manufacturing facilitiesthat use cooling water to meet an array of new requirements, even though these facilitieshave been minimizing adverse environmental impactsunder state-issuedClean Water Act permits for years. Given the long history of stateregulationinthis area, the proposed rule appropriately gives the statesprimary responsibilityfor making technology decisionsregarding how best to minimize entrainmentof aquatic organismsat affected facilities. This approach recognizes the importance of site-specific factors, such as the composition of aquatic populations, source water characteristics,and facility configuration and location. Consideration of factors like these is vital in determining the extent of any environmental impacts, definingthe range of available solutions, and evaluating the feasibility and cost-effectivenessof such solutions. Unfortunately, EPA has not adopted a similar approachto minimizing the impacts of impingement.
- 

### In contrastto the approach applied to entrainment, EPA is proposing to adopt uniform national impingement standards that have not been demonstrated to be widely achievable and that, infact, many facilitiesmay not be able to meet. This approach to impingement takes the technology determination out ofthe states' hands, and provides no credit for impingementreductiontechnologies that have alreadybeen approved by the states as best technology available.

'National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities and Phase I Facilities; Proposed rule," 76 Fed. Reg. 22,174.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERInstead, the rule should provide an approach to impingement and entrainmentthat allows for simultaneous consideration of unaddressed adverse impacts, if any, and gives state environmentalregulatorsthe discretion to perform site-specific assessments to determine the best technology available for both impingement and entrainment. This would allow consideration of a range of factors that vary on a site-by-site basis, such as the cost of a specific technology at a facility and the likely benefits ofthat technology, given the unique mix of species in the water body and other site-specific factors. This approach would alsoprovide consistency, allowing permitting authorities to develop holistic solutions to the related issues of entrainment and impingement.
EPA has proposed a rule that, by its own estimate, would impose costs more than twenty times greaterthan estimated benefits. Notably, EPA's cost estimate does not include the cost of controls to address entrainment. Given the wide disparity between the costs and benefits associated with imposing a national impingement standard,we believe that permittees should be able to select from a fullrange of compliance options that would minimize adverse environmental impacts, as warranted, while accountingfor site-specific variability including benefits and costs. Furthermore, given the inherent variability ofhow technology will perform at each site, EPA should focus on simply identifyingbeneficial technology optionsrather than setting rigid performance standards. 

### In addition, any facility that already employsclosed-cycle cooling, including the use of cooling ponds or other impoundments, should be considered compliant.
The proposed rule as presently crafted could result in premature power plant retirements, energy capacity shortfalls, and higher costs for consumers. Theseresults would not be helpful to our efforts to restore the nation's economic health and a private sector capable ofrobust job creation. Therefore, we Wherurge you to modifythe proposed rule to ensure-thatany new requirements will produce benefits that are at least commensurate with, ifnot greater than costs, and will maximizethe net benefits of the options available, consistent with President Obarna's Executive OrderNo. 13563. 

# 1 

# iIiL

-- Mike Ross (AR)Bill 

### Owens (NY)

--Ti- - 

### - '.., 

### Leonard Boswell (IA)

Tim Huelskarnp (KS) 

# Jw 

# Kd Larry Kiksell (NC)

Tim Scott (SC) Mike McIntyre (NC)

Brian Bilbray 

### (CA) Tom Latharn (IA) 

### , A 

## \ 

# r.i! /



### Leonard Lance 

### (NJ)..



### Rick Crawford (AR) 

# 166yb4q - Bill Cassidy 

### (LA) Dennis Ross 

### (FL)