July 8,2011 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Water Docket 

Mail Code: 4203M 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667 

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

I am pleased to provide these comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed 

cooling water intake structure rule that was published in the Federal Register on April 20,2010.' 

The proposed rule would require power plants and other industrial or manufacturing facilities to 

minimize adverse environmental impacts associated with the operation of cooling water intake 

structures, focusing on impingement and entrainment of fish and shellfish, Consistent with the 

spirit of Executive Order 13132 "Federalism," EPA explicitly requested comments on the 

proposed rule from state and local official^.^ These comments are provided in response to that 

request. 

While 1 commend EPA for not mandating the retrofitting of closed-cycle cooling at all facilities 

covered by the proposed rule, I remain concerned about the inflexible approach EPA has 

proposed for minimizing impacts due to impingement of aquatic organisms by cooling water 

systems. 

In anticipation of the proposed rule, I urge EPA to avoid a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to 

minimizing the environmental impacts associated with the operation of cooling water intake 

structures. For more than 30 years, EPA and state permit writers have applied a site-specific 

approach to managing the impacts of existing cooling water intakes on aquatic environments. 

State environmental regulators have significant experience in minimizing adverse environmental 

impacts and making sound decisions that protect our aquatic ecosystems. This approach is 

equally appropriate to this rulemaking. 

EPA's proposed approach to minimizing the impacts of entrainment recognizes this experience - 

leaving the ultimate decision on what constitutes "best technology available" (BTA) at a given 

site tothe state permitting authority. Although there may be ro& for additional improvement to 

the proposed entrainment standard, from a public policy perspective, EPA's proposed approach 

appropriately leaves local resource management decisions to state decision makers by facilitating 

decisions based on meaningful, site-specific cost-benefit analysis. 

'National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Cooiing Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities 

and Phase I Facilities; Proposed rule," 76 Fed. Reg. 22,174. 

* 76 Fed. Reg. 22,271. 7.. qw! 

OFFICE: PO. BOX 8952, STATE CAPITOL - MADISON, WI 53708-8952 

(608) 266-0610 a TOLL-FREE: (888) 534-0021 - FAX: (608) 282-3621 - REP.HONADEL@LEGIS.WI.GOV 

DISTRICT: 1219 MANITOBA AVE. SOUTH MILWAUKEE, Wl53172 (414) 764-9921 
Unfortunately, in addressing impingement, EPA proposes to set uniform numeric national 

standards for mortality and intake velocity that appear to be unrealistic and are likely to be 

unachievable in many cases. The proposed approach to minimizing impingement impacts 

undermines the flexibility provided in entrainment provisions by prescribing best technology 

available on a national scale and basing performance limits on that determination. This approach 

to impingement takes the technology determination out of the states' hands, and provides no 

credit for impingement reduction technologies that have already been approved by the states as 

best technology available. 

Instead, the final rule should provide state environmental regulators with the 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 of 

that technology, given the unique mix of species in the water body. This approach would also 

provide consistency between the entrainment and impingement provisions, allowing permitting 

authorities to work with companies to develop holistic solutions to the related issues of 

entrainment and impingement impacts. In this regard, EPA should allow impingement and 

entrainment compliance measures to be evaluated together to maximize environmental and 

economic effectiveness. Also, the final regulations should not require as BTA more than "closed 

cycle cooling," which should be broadly defined to include such systems as cooling towers, 

cooling ponds, and cooling basins. 

Short of allowing state BTA determinations for impingement, the regulations must be modified 

to provide compliance flexibility for any national limits on impingement mortality or water 

intake velocity. Such flexibility should allow permitting authorities to take site-specific factors 

into account in circumstances where the costs of modifications necessary to meet the national 

limits clearly outweigh the benefits. Without such flexibility, facilities that already have greatly 

reduced impingement and entrainment under state regulatory programs may be required to make 

additional modifications that yield little environmental benefit, yet impose significant costs. 

In today's difficult economy, our environmental policy should not require overspending on 

nationally prescribed solutions to local issues, especially when more effective and flexible 

approaches are available. Such an approach could unnecessarily raise electricity costs for 

financially strapped consumers. Therefore, I strongly urge EPA to develop a final rule that 

allows state environmental regulators to protect the environment while balancing the impact on 

consumers. 

Thank you for your personal attention to this matter. 

/ Mark Honadel 

Wisconsin State Representative 

9ar qw! 

OFFICE: PO. BOX 8952, STATE CAPITOL - MADISON, WI 53708-8952 

(608) 266-0610 . TOLL-FREE: (888) 534-0021 . FAX: (608) 282-3621 * REP.HONADEL@LEGIS WI.GOV 

DISTRICT: 1219 MANITOBA AVE. . SOUTH MILWAUKEE, WI 53172 (414) 764-9921