July 8,2011



### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Docket Mail Code: 4203M 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Attn: Docket IDNo. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667

Dear Administrator Jackson:



### I am pleased to provide these comments onthe Environmental Protection Agency's proposed cooling water intake structure rule that was published in theFederal 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 onimpingement 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 1commend 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 EPAhas 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 approachto 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 approachto minimizing the impacts ofentrainment recognizes this experience

- leavingthe 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 Structuresat 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) 764-9921Unfortunately,in addressing impingement, 

### EPA proposes to set uniform numericnational standards for mortality and intake velocity that appear to be unrealistic and are likely to be unachievable in many cases. The proposed approachto 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 determinationout of the states' hands, and provides no credit for impingement reduction technologies that have alreadybeen approved by the states as best technology available.

Instead, the final rule should provide state environmental regulators with the discretionto perform site-specificassessmentsto determine the best technology available for both impingementand entrainment. This would allow consideration of a range of factorsthat vary on a site-by-sitebasis, such as the cost of a specifictechnology at a facility and the likely benefits of that technology, giventhe unique mix of species inthe water body. This approachwould also provide consistencybetween the entrainment and impingement provisions, allowing permitting authoritiesto work with companies to develop holistic solutions to the related issues of entrainment and impingement impacts. In this regard, EPA should allowimpingement 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 determinationsfor impingement, the regulationsmust be modified to provide compliance flexibility for any national limits on impingement mortality or water intake velocity. Such flexibility should allowpermitting authoritiesto take site-specific factors into accountin circumstances where the costs of modifications necessaryto meet the national limits clearly outweighthe benefits. Without such flexibility, facilities that already have greatly reduced impingementand entrainment under stateregulatory programs may be required to make additional modifications that yield little environmentalbenefit, yet impose significant costs.

Intoday's difficult economy, our environmentalpolicy should not require overspending on nationally prescribed solutions to local issues, especially when more effectiveand flexible approaches are available. Such 

### an approachcould 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