Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0003-0417
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-09-27T04:00Z

Reply
to:
21
Ocean
Ave.
Marblehead,
MA
01945
(
781)
631­
4119
(
781)
631­
9932/
fax
lisevans@
aol.
com
Main
Office:
18
Tremont
Street
Boston,
MA
02108
(
617)
624­
0234
(
617)
624­
4933/
fax
www.
catf.
us
September
13,
2004
Alexander
I.
Livnat
5306W
USEPA
Headquarters
Ariel
Rios
Building
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
N.
W.
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
Re:
Request
for
investigation
of
adequacy
of
NPDES
permits
for
power
plant
waste
disposal
units
Dear
Mr.
Livnat:

When
examining
the
willingness
of
states
to
control
pollution
from
power
plant
waste
(
PPW),
I
believe
it
is
necessary
for
EPA
to
examine
the
effectiveness
of
NPDES
permits
that
purportedly
monitor
and
control
outflow
from
ash
disposal
units.
I
have
observed
that
most
NPDES
permits
associated
with
PPW
disposal
units
do
not
require
the
monitoring
of
many
the
metals
and
other
contaminants
of
concern
found
in
ash
leachate.
Furthermore,
when
the
rare
NPDES
permits
do
monitor
for
metals,
sulfate
and
chloride,
the
permits
often
have
no
enforceable
limits.

As
a
test
of
whether
the
deficiencies
of
state­
issued
NPDES
permits
are
widespread,
I
did
a
quick
survey
of
the
NPDES
permits
issued
by
the
state
of
Georgia
to
the
ten
largest
coal­
fired
power
plants
in
that
state.
For
this
survey,
I
relied
on
information
from
EPA's
Envirofacts
database.
The
database
unfortunately
had
no
information
on
the
constituents
monitored
by
the
NPDES
permit
at
the
largest
plant
in
the
state.
Of
the
remaining
9
plants,
two
monitored
only
for
pH,
oil
and
grease
and
another
two
only
monitored
for
pH,
oil
and
grease,
TSS
and
chlorine.
One
NPDES
permit
covered
the
latter
list
plus
copper
and
iron.
Two
permits
covered
pH,
oil
and
grease,
TSS,
chromium
and
zinc.
One
plant's
NPDES
covered
pH,
chlorine,
TSS,
oil
and
grease,
arsenic,
selenium,
copper
and
zinc.
The
last
plant
tested
for
pH,
TSS,
oil
and
grease,
copper,
iron
and
"
total
metals."

The
sufficiency
of
NPDES
permits
at
the
Georgia
plants
are
of
particular
concern.
All
of
the
Georgia
coal­
fired
power
plants
employ
surface
impoundments
for
waste
disposal
(
mostly
unlined),
and
Georgia
does
not
require
groundwater
monitoring
at
these
impoundments.
It
was
impossible
to
tell
from
the
Envirofacts
database
whether
the
Georgia
permits
had
enforceable
limits
for
the
listed
constituents
or
whether
the
permits
simply
required
monitoring.
Several
plants,
2
however,
had
a
full
year
of
noted
failures
to
submit
DNRs,
with
no
enforcement
actions
taken.

Lastly,
most
of
the
NPDES
permits
were
issued
relatively
recently.
Three
of
the
permits
were
issued
between
1997
and
2000,
three
between
2000­
2002,
and
four
between
2002
and
2003.
If
one
were
to
find
a
trend,
it
would
not
point
to
increased
vigilance
on
the
permitting
front.
The
longest
list
of
contaminants
was
found
in
permits
issued
in
1999
and
2001.

This
is
only
a
quick
snapshot.
But
I
believe
that
these
results
raise
concerns
that
EPA
should
further
investigate.
Clearly
state
NPDES
programs
do
not
provide
a
safety
net
when
state
solid
waste
programs
are
inadequate.

Thank
you
in
advance
for
your
attention
to
this
issue.

Sincerely,

Lisa
Evans
Senior
Counsel
Clean
Air
Task
Force