### State Representative

### NanA. Balier District 16



### U.S.E~lviro~l~llelltal Protection Agency Water Docket Mail Code:4203M 1200Pennsylvania Avenue, 

### NW Washington, DC 20460 Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667

Dear Administrator Jackson:



### I ampleased to provide these coininents on tile Enviro~~ine~ital Protection Agency's proposed cooli~~g water incake structure rule that was published in tlle 

### Federal Registev oil April 20,2010.' Theproposed rule would require power plants and other industrial or manufacturing facilitiestominimize adverse envirollinental impacts associated wit11 the operation of cooling water intake structures, focusing on inlpi~lge~nent and entrainment of fish and shellfish. Consislent with the spirit ofExecutive Order 13132 "Federalism," EPA explicitly requested comments on the proposed rule from state and local officia~s.~ These comments are provided in respoilse to that request.

Wlnle 

### I commend EPA lor not mandatmg theretiofitt~ng of closed-cycle cool~ng at all facrlli~es covered by the proposed mle, 

### I remain co~lcerned about the inflex~ble appioachEPAhaspioposed fo~ mlnlmlzlng impacts due to ~mpil~gement of aq~raiic organismsby cooling water systems.

111anticipation of the proposed rule, 

### I urged EPA to avoid a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to mil~imizi~lg the environmental impacts associated with the operation of cooling water intake structures. For more than 30years, EPA and state pesmit writers have applied a site-specific approachtomanaging the impacts of existing cooling water intakes on aquatic environments. State environmental regulators have significant experience in minimizing adverse environmental impacts and making sound decisioi~s that protect our aquatic ecosystems. This approach is equally appropriate to this rulemaking.

EPA's p~oposed approachtomini~u~z~ng the ~mpacts of entrainment secogmzes this experience 

### - leavnig the ult~lnate dec~s~on o what constitutes "best tech~~ology available" (BTA) at a give11 siteto the slate pc~mltting authoiity. Although theremay be room for additional improveine~lt o the proposed entlainmellt standard,from a public policy perspective, 

### EPA's p~oposed approacll appropriately leaves local resource management decisiolls to state decisionmakers by facilitating decisions based on meaningful, site-specific cost-bendit analysis.

"National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities and Phase 

### I Facilities; Proposed rule,"76 Fed. Reg. 22,174.

76 Fed. 

### Reg. 22,271. Co~mnittees: www.house.state.oh.us Contact. Ii~forinalion: Economic & Sniall Business Development, Cliair 77S. High Street,Columl,us, Ohio 43215 Office: 614-466-0961 Eciuclitioii Toll-Free: 1-00-282-0253 Local Goveri~inent Ways andMeans FAX: 614-719-3998 Einail: district16t2olir.stiite.ol~.i1sU~ifortunately, in addressing impingement,EPAproposes to set ~rniform numeric national standards for mortality and intake velocity that appear to be unrealistic and arelikely to be unachievable ill many cases. Theproposed approach to minimizing impingemnentimpacts undermines the flexibility pi-ovidedin entrai~~ment provisions by prescribing best technology available on a national scale and basing performance limits on that determination. This approachtoimpingement takes the technology detel-mi~iation out of tile states' hands, and provides no credit forimpingement reductioi~ technologies that have already been approved by the states as best teclinology available.
Iiistead, the final rule should provide state environ~nental regulators with the discretion toperform sitespecific assessments to determine the best technology available forboth impingement and entrainment. This would allow consideration of a range of ?actors that vary ona site-by-site basis, such as the cost ofa specific technology at a facility and the likely beliefits of that technology, given the unique mix of species in the water body. This approach would alsoprovide consistency between the entrainment and impingeme~lt provisions, allowing permitting authorities to work with companies to developholistic solutions to the related issues of eiltrainment and impingemnent impacts. In this regard, EPA should allow impingement and entrainment compliance measures tobe evaluated together to maximize ei~vironmental and economic effectiveness. Also, the final regulatiolls should not require as BTA more than "closed cycle cooling," which should be broadly defined to include such systems as cooliiig towers, cooliiig ponds, and cooling basins.

Short of allow~~lg state BTA deter~ni~lations for impingement,theregulations must be mod~fied to provlde complia~lce flex~bility for any national limits on impingement mortality orwater intake velocity. Such flexib~lity should allowpermitting authorities totake site-specific factors into accountincircumstai~ces where the costs of modificatio~~s necessary tomeet the liational limits clearly outweigh the benefits. W~tliout such flexibility, facilities that already have greatly reduced impingement and entrainment under stateiegulatory programs may be required tomake additional modifications that yield little environmental benefit, yet impose sign~ficant costs.

In today's difficult econoiny, our env~ronmental pohcy should not requne overspending on natioirally plescribed solutio~ls to local issues, espec~ally when more effective and flexible approaches are ava~lable Such an approach could u~mecessarily raise electricity costs for financially strapped consumers. Theiefore, 

### I [we] st~ongly urge 

### EPA to develop a final rule that allows stale environmentalregulatols to protect the environment while balancing the impact oil consumers.

'Thanli you for your personal attention to this matter.
Sincerely.

Nail Baker State Representative District 16