Columbus Office Committees

Phone: (614) 466

- 1507 Commerce & Labor; Insurance ;
Fax: (614) 719

- 39 78 State Government and Elections ; District78@ohr.state.oh.us Rules and Reference



## John Adams

House Majority Whip

77 South High Street • Columbus, Ohio 43215

- 6111 July 8 , 2011

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Water Docket

Mai l 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 comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed cooling water intake structure r ule that was published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2010. 1 The proposed rule would require power plants and other industrial or manufacturing facilities to minimize adverse environmental impacts associated with the operation of cooling water intak e structures, focusing on impingement and entrainment of fish and shellfish. Consistent with the spirit of Executive Order 13132 “Federalism,” EPA explicitly requested comments on the proposed

rule from state and local officials. 2 These comments are prov ided in response to that request.

While I commend EPA for not mandating the retrofitting of closed

- cycle cooling at all facilities covered by the proposed rule, I remain concerned about the inflexible approach EPA has proposed for minimizing impacts due to impingement of aquatic organisms by cooling water systems.

In anticipation of the proposed rule, I urge EPA to avoid a rigid, one

- size

- fits

- all approach to minimizing the environmental impacts associated with the operation of cooling water intake

struct ures. For more than 30 years, EPA and state permit 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 a dverse environmental impacts and making sound decisions that protect our aquatic ecosystems. This approach is equally appropriate to this rulemaking.

EPA’s proposed approach to minimizing 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. Although there may be room for additional improvement to the

1 “ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

– Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities and Phase I Facilities; Proposed rule,” 76 Fed. Reg. 22,174

.

2 76 Fed. Reg. 22,271.proposed entrainment standard, from a public policy perspective, EP A’s proposed approach

appropriately leaves local resource management decisions to state decision makers by facilitating decisions based on meaningful, site

- specific cost

- benefit analysis.

Unfortunately, in addressing impingement, EPA proposes to set uni form numeric national standards for mortality and intake velocity that appear to be unrealistic and are likely to be unachievable in many cases. The proposed approach to minimizing impingement impacts undermines the flexibility provided in entrainment pro visions by prescribing best technology available on a national scale and basing performance limits on that determination. This approach to impingement takes the technology determination out of the states’ hands, and provides no credit for impingement

redu ction technologies that have already been approved by the states as best technology available.

Instead, the final rule should provide state environmental regulators with the discretion to perform

site

- specific assessments to determine the best technolog y available for both impingement and entrainment. This would allow consideration of a range of factors that vary on a site

- by

- site basis, such as the cost of a specific technology at a facility and the likely benefits of that technology, given the unique mix of species in the water body. This approach would also provide consistency between the entrainment and impingement provisions, allowing permitting authorities to work with companies to develop holistic solutions to the related issues of entrainment an d impingement impacts. In this regard, EPA should allow impingement and entrainment compliance measures to be evaluated together to maximize environmental and economic effectiveness. Also, the final regulations should not require as BTA more than “closed cycle cooling,” which should be broadly defined to include such systems as cooling towers, cooling ponds, and cooling basins.

Short of allowing state BTA determinations for impingement, the regulations must be modified to provide compliance flexibility for any national limits on impingement mortality or water intake velocity. Such flexibility should allow permitting authorities to take site

- specific factors into account in circumstances where the costs of modifications necessary to meet the national li mits clearly outweigh the benefits. Without such flexibility, facilities 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 environmental policy should not require overspending on nationally prescribed solutions to local issues, especially when more effective and flexible approaches are available. Such an ap proach could unnecessarily raise electricity costs for financially strapped
consumers. Therefore, I strongly urge EPA to develop a final rule that allows state environmental regulators to protect the environment while balancing the impact on consumers.

Thank you for your personal attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

John Adams State Representative

House Majority Whip