# United

# Bt~ta 

# Sirenate
WASHINGTON, DC 20510

July 26,2011

The Honorable 

### Lisa 

### P. Jackson, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

### 1200Pennsylvania Avenue, N.

### W. Washington, 

### DC 20460-000

### 1
Dear Administrator Jackson:
We write to you out of concernregarding aproposed rule by the 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency @PA) to require 

### power plants 

### and other industrial and 

### manufacturing facilitiesto minimize the impacts associated with the operation of coolingwater intake structures (CWIS), as published 

### in the Federal

### Regisferon April 

### 20,20 1

### 1. Given the economic, environmental, 

### and 

### energy 

### impacts this proposed rule could have, we 

### urge 

### the 

### EPA to take a measured approach to this rulemaking 

### in order to ensure sufficient flexibility and that any costs imposed by the requirements 

### in the final rule 

### are commensurate with 

### the likely benefits. Section 

### 3

### 16(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires 

### CWIS to 

### reflect the best technology available 

### for 

### minimizing adverse environmental impact. 

### Formore than thirty years, the EPA and state governmentshave applied this requirement on a site-by-sitebasis, examiningthe impacts of C



### WIS on the surrounding aquatic environment. 

### As such, 

### the 

### proposed rule 

### appropriately gives state governments the primary responsibility for making technology decisionsregarding how best to minimi7~ the entrainment of aquatic organisms at affected facilities, an approach which recognizes the importanceof site-specific factors. A site-by-site examinationof aquatic populations, 

### source water characteristics, 

### and facility configuration and location 

### is vital in determining any environmental impacts, the range of available solutions, mdthe feasibility and cost-effectiveness of such solutions. Unfortunately, the 

### EPA has 

### not adopted 

### a similar 

### approachto 

### minimizing the impacts of impingement,but rather, is proposing uniform national impingement mortality standards. This 

### approach to 

### impingement setsperformance 

### and technology standardsnot demonstrated to 

### be widely achievable and likely unattainable formany facilities. 

### This method also takes away the technology 

### determination from 

### state governments and ignores the impingementreduction technologies already 

### approved by 

### these states 

### asthe 

### best technology available.
And 

### in so doing, the EPA 

### has proposed a 

### rule 

### costing more than twenty times the estimated benefits - according to its very own estimate. This is notable considering the cost estimatedoes not include the cost of controlsto address 

### entrainment,
As an alternative, 

### we believe the rule should give state environmental 

### regulators the discretion to perform site-specific assessments to determinethe best tschology available for addressingbothJuly 26,2011 

### Page 2

impingement and entrainment together. This approach stands 

### in stark contrast to a national onesize-fits-allapproach and allows a considerationof 

### factors on a site-by-site basis, 

### We feel 

### this would provide consistency 

### and 

### give permitting authoritiesthe 

### abilityto select from a full range 

### ofcompIiance options to 

### minimize adverse environmental impacts, as 

### warranted, 

### while accounting 

### for 

### site-specificvariability, including cost and 

### benefits. Furthermore,we believe the EPA 

### should focus on 

### identifyingbeneficial 

### technology options, rather 

### than setting 

### rigid performance standards; and the 

### EPA should 

### not define closed-cycle cooling to exclude those recirculating systems 

### relying on 

### man-made ponds, basins, or channels to 

### remove excess heat. 

### Giventhe proposed rule's potential to 

### impact every power plant 

### across 

### our country, 

### an 

### inflexible 

### standardcould result 

### in premature powerplant retirements, 

### energy capacity shortfalls, 

### and higher energy costs for consumers. Therefore, we urge you to use the flexibility

### provided by the Supreme Court 

### and the 

### Presidential Executive Order on regulatoryreform, 

### E.O. 13

### 563, Improving Regulation 

### andRegulatory 

### Review, 

### and modify the proposed rule to 

### ensure that my new requirements will produce benefits commensuratewith the costs 

### involved and maximize the net 

### bencfits ofthe 

### options available. Thank you 

### for your considerationof ow request. We 

### look 

### forward to 

### your 

### response. 

### Sincerely,July 26,2011 Page 

### 3