# 4Congre1s:s of @e &it& Stated 

# #owe of 

# Bepresentatiberr mintrgton, ?BC205L5-3001 August 3,201

### 1 -8mWCm ~PMuarr~AUWRlmPrrRrruw 

### --*

SrrulPPTPPlEDl IIL~, -r o* TWM~. mxv Tmarrsrre CA-rn -7

U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Water 

### Docket Mail Code: 

### 4203M 1200PennsylvaniaAvenue,

### NW Washington, 

### DC 20460 Attn: 

### Docket 

### IDNo. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667
Dear Admrrustrat 

## . . or 

### Jackson:
I 

### am writing to you 

### in opposition 

### ofthe Environmental 

### ProktionAgency's proposed rule 31

### BB. I believe that 

### the ~ancial cost of complying with the proposed 

### rule greatly outweighs any 

### emironmental benefitto 

### the environmentor 

### marine life. 

### I am pleased to 

### provide these comments 

### on the Environmental Protection Agency's 

### proposed coolingwater 

### intake structure 

### rule 

### that was 

### published in the 

### FederalRegister 

### on April 20,2010.' 

### The proposed rule

### requires power plants 

### and other 

### industrial or manufacturing 

### facilitiesto 

### 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 dnidzhgimpacts due to impingement

### ofaquatic organisms

### by cooling 

### water systems.
For 

### more than 

### 30 years, state environmental regulatorshave applied a 

### flexible, site-specific approachto 

### managing the impacts of existing cooling water intakes 

### on aquatic 

### environments. State 

### environmental regulatom

### have a unique understanding

### ofthe 

### 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 mhimkbgthe impacts 

### of entrainment recognizes this experience

## - leaving the 

### ultimate decisionon 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 

### decisionmakers 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 employsthe 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 

### ofclosed cycle coolingtechnology, which 

### the EPA 

### inadvertently proposes to 

### be the best technology 

### availableto minimize 

### the mortality rate, wodd cost 

### electric companies nearly $1 

### billionto 

### 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 evaluatedtogether to maximize environmental and economic effectiveness.
Therefore I 

### am forced to condude that 

### the proposed approachto mhimhhgimpingement impacts 

### undermines the 

### flexibility provided 

### in entrainment provisions 

### by prescribing performance 

### limits tbat 

### are not alignedwitb the capabilities 

### ofthe technologies. It 

### also does nothing to ensurethat facilities that 

### make 

### the investment 

### in the BTA will be able to operate effectivelyand earn a return on 

### their investment.
The fmal 

### rule 

### should provide state environmental regulatorswith the 

### htion to 

### perform sitespecific assessments to determine the best technologyavailable 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 companieshave invested much time and capita1 into projects that restore 

### wildlife that 

### is 

### lessened due to impingement 

### and entrainment. 

### PSEG Power, LLC 

### has aproject known as the Wetlands RestorationInitiative. It 

### bas been documented that 

### for evay4.8 

### million 

### fishlost 

### due to impingement

### and entrainment, 18.6 

### million

### fish are 

### bred through 

### marine restoration efforts. This figure 

### is 3.9 

### times greater 

### thanthe average biomass that is 

### lost.
Short 

### ofallowing 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 additionalmodificationsthat 

### 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 effectiveand 

### flexible approaches are available. Such an approachwodd 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