Columbus Office Committees

 Phone: (614) 466-1507 Commerce & Labor; Insurance;

 Fax: (614) 719-3978 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 

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 comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed 

cooling water intake structure rule 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 intake 

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 provided 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 

structures. 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 adverse 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, 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. 

Unfortunately, in addressing impingement, EPA proposes to set uniform 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 provisions 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 

reduction 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 technology 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 and 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 limits 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 approach 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