United Bt~ta Sirenate 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

July 26,201 1 

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Washington, DC 20460-000 1 

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

We write to you out of concern regarding a proposed rule by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency @PA) to require power plants and other industrial and manufacturing facilities to 

minimize the impacts associated with the operation of cooling water intake structures (CWIS), as 

published in the Federal Regisfer on 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. For more than thirty years, the EPA and 

state governments have applied this requirement on a site-by-site basis, examining the impacts of 

C WIS on the surrounding aquatic environment. 

As such, the proposed rule appropriately gives state governments the primary responsibility for 

making technology decisions regarding how best to minimi7~ the entrainment of aquatic 

organisms at affected facilities, an approach which recognizes the importance of site-specific 

factors. A site-by-site examination of aquatic populations, source water characteristics, and 

facility configuration and location is vital in determining any environmental impacts, the range 

of available solutions, md the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of such solutions. 

Unfortunately, the EPA has not adopted a similar approach to minimizing the impacts of 

impingement, but rather, is proposing uniform national impingement mortality standards. This 

approach to impingement sets performance and technology standards not demonstrated to be 

widely achievable and likely unattainable for many facilities. This method also takes away the 

technology determination from state governments and ignores the impingement reduction 

technologies already approved by these states as the 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 estimate does 

not include the cost of controls to address entrainment, 

As an alternative, we believe the rule should give state environmental regulators the discretion to 

perform site-specific assessments to determine the best tschology available for addressing both 
July 26,20 1 1 

Page 2 

impingement and entrainment together. This approach stands in stark contrast to a national onesize-fits-all approach and allows a consideration of factors on a site-by-site basis, We feel this 

would provide consistency and give permitting authorities the ability to select from a full range 

of compIiance options to minimize adverse environmental impacts, as warranted, while 

accounting for site-specific variability, including cost and benefits. Furthermore, we believe the 

EPA should focus on identifying beneficial 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. 

Given the proposed rule's potential to impact every power plant across our country, an inflexible 

standard could result in premature power plant 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 regulatory reform, E.O. 1 3 563, 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and modify the proposed rule to ensure that my 

new requirements will produce benefits commensurate with the costs involved and maximize the 

net bencfits of the options available. 

Thank you for your consideration of ow request. We look forward to your response. 

Sincerely, 
July 26,201 1 

Page 3