State Representative Nan A. Balier 

District 16 

U.S. E~lviro~l~llelltal Protection Agency 

Water Docket 

Mail Code: 4203M 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667 

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

I am pleased 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.' The proposed 

rule would require power plants and other industrial or manufacturing facilities to minimize 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 of Executive 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 the retiofitt~ng of closed-cycle cool~ng at all facrlli~es covered 

by the proposed mle, I remain co~lcerned about the inflex~ble appioach EPA has pioposed fo~ mlnlmlzlng 

impacts due to ~mpil~gement of aq~raiic organisms by cooling water systems. 

111 anticipation 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 

30 years, EPA and state pesmit writers have applied a site-specific approach to managing 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 approach to mini~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 site to the slate 

pc~mltting authoiity. Although there may be room for additional improveine~lto the proposed 

entlainmellt standard, from a public policy perspective, EPA's p~oposed approacll appropriately leaves 

local resource management decisiolls to state decision makers 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 77 S. High Street, Columl,us, Ohio 43215 Office: 614-466-0961 

Eciuclitioii Toll-Free: 1-00-282-0253 Local Goveri~inent 

Ways and Means FAX: 614-719-3998 

Einail: district16t2olir.stiite.ol~.i1s 
U~ifortunately, in addressing impingement, EPA proposes to set ~rniform numeric national standards for 

mortality and intake velocity that appear to be unrealistic and are likely to be unachievable ill many cases. 

The proposed approach to minimizing impingemnent impacts undermines the flexibility pi-ovided in 

entrai~~ment provisions by prescribing best technology available on a national scale and basing 

performance limits on that determination. This approach to impingement takes the technology 

detel-mi~iation out of tile states' hands, and provides no credit for impingement 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 to perform sitespecific assessments to determine the best technology available for both impingement and entrainment. 

This would allow consideration of a range of ?actors that vary on a 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 also provide consistency between the entrainment and 

impingeme~lt provisions, allowing permitting authorities to work with companies to develop holistic 

solutions to the related issues of eiltrainment and impingemnent impacts. In this regard, EPA should allow 

impingement and entrainment compliance measures to be 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, the regulations must be mod~fied to provlde 

complia~lce flex~bility for any national limits on impingement mortality or water intake velocity. Such 

flexib~lity should allow permitting authorities to take site-specific factors into account in circumstai~ces 

where the costs of modificatio~~s necessary to meet the liational limits clearly outweigh the benefits. 

W~tliout such flexibility, facilities that already have greatly reduced impingement and entrainment under 

state iegulatory programs may be required to make 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 environmental regulatols 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