4Congre1s:s of @e &it& Stated 

#owe of Bepresentatiberr 

mintrgton, ?BC 205L5-3001 

August 3,201 1 

-8mWCm 

~PMuarr~AUWRlmPrrRrruw --* 

SrrulPPTPPlEDl 

IIL~, -r o* TWM~. 

mxv Tmarrsrre CA-rn 

-7 

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 Admrrustrat . . or Jackson: 

I am writing to you in opposition of the Environmental Proktion Agency's proposed rule 3 1 BB. 

I believe that the ~ancial cost of complying with the proposed rule greatly outweighs any 

emironmental benefit to the environment or marine life. 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 20,201 0.' The proposed rule requires 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. These comments are provided in response to tbat request. 

I remain concerned about the inflexible approach EPA has proposed for dnidzhg impacts due 

to impingement of aquatic organisms by cooling water systems. 

For more than 30 years, state environmental regulators have applied a flexible, site-specific 

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

State environmental regulatom have a unique understanding of the conditions and challenges of 

the local ecosystems under their prevue. This flexible approach should be the basis for this 

rulemaking. 

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

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

site to the state permitting authority. 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. 

Unforhmately, in addressing impingement, EPA proposed to set strict numeric ntdional standards 

for aquatic mortdity and intake water velocity that are unrealistic and likely to be unachievable 

in many cases. It is my understanding that the Salem plant employs the very technology EPA 

referenced as BTA in the proposed rule. However, I further understand that impingement data 

""~onal Pollutant Discharge Ellrninatlon System - Gooling Water Intake Stnrch~res at Wing FacilMes 

and Phase I Fadlitk; Proposed rule," 76 Fed. Reg. 22,174. 
coIlected at Salem indicate that it wiIl not be able to meet the strict impingement standards in the 

proposed mIe. 

On a strict cost-benefit analysis, the implementation of closed cycle cooling technology, which 

the EPA inadvertently proposes to be the best technology available to minimize the mortality 

rate, wodd cost electric companies nearly $1 billion to implement. This astronomical expense 

would result in only $6 million in benefits of saved marine life. Zn this regard, EPA should allow 

impingement and entrainment compliance measures to be evaluated together to maximize 

environmental and economic effectiveness. 

Therefore I am forced to condude that the proposed approach to mhimhhg impingement 

impacts undermines the flexibility provided in entrainment provisions by prescribing 

performance limits tbat are not aligned witb the capabilities of the technologies. It also does 

nothing to ensure that facilities that make the investment in the BTA will be able to operate 

effectively and earn a return on their investment. 

The fmal rule should provide state environmental regulators with the htion to perform sitespecific assessments to determine the best technology available for both impingement and 

entrainment. Also, the final regdations should not require as BTA more tban "closed cycle 

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

ponds, and cooling bash. 

Many electric companies have invested much time and capita1 into projects that restore wildlife 

that is lessened due to impingement and entrainment. PSEG Power, LLC has a project known as 

the Wetlands Restoration Initiative. It bas been documented that for evay 4.8 million fish lost 

due to impingement and entrainment, 18.6 million fish are bred through marine restoration 

efforts. This figure is 3.9 times greater than the average biomass that is lost. 

Short of allowing state BTA determinations for impingement, the regulations should be modsed 

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

intake velocity. Without such flexibility, facilities, such as PSEG Power, LLC, 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 environmentaI policy should not require overspending on 

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

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

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

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

consumers. 

Sincerely, 

- 

Robert Andrews 

Member of Congress