g U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Evaluation Report
Oversight of North Carolina's
Renewals of Thermal Variances
Report No. 11 -P-0221
May9, 2011
-------
Report Contributors: Dan Engelberg
Jayne Lilienfeld-Jones
Tim Roach
Gerry Snyder
Abbreviations
BIP Balanced, indigenous population
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWA Clean Water Act
DWQ Division of Water Quality
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MO A Memorandum of agreement
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OIG Office of Inspector General
OWM Office of Waste water Management
Hotline
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods:
e-mail: OIGJHotline@epa.gov write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
phone: 1-888-546-8740 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
fax: 703-347-8330 Mailcode 8431P (Room N-4330)
online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm Washington, DC 20460
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
11-P-0221
May 9, 2011
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
The Office of Inspector
General received a Hotline
complaint alleging that the
State of North Carolina's
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permits do not protect waters
from harmful environmental
effects caused by thermal
discharges. We evaluated North
Carolina's and Region 4's
compliance with Clean Water
Act (CWA) requirements for
protecting surface waters from
thermal discharges.
Background
Power and industrial facilities
draw water from rivers and
lakes to cool equipment and
then discharge those cooling
waters at a higher temperature
back into those waterbodies.
Either a state or the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) may issue a
variance under CWA Section
316(a) to allow facilities to
discharge cooling waters at an
alternative thermal effluent
limit that is still protective of
aquatic life.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional, Public Affairs
and Management at
(202)566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2011/
20110509-11-P-0221.pdf
Oversight of North Carolina's Renewals of
Thermal Variances
What We Found
Region 4 has not adequately implemented management controls contained in its
memorandum of agreement with North Carolina. Properly implemented controls
would assure EPA that NPDES permits would comply with the CWA and
applicable federal regulations. In four of the six draft permits we reviewed,
Region 4 did not agree with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality that
there was sufficient information to support the draft permit limits for
temperature. Region 4 requested that the state add conditions to the final permits
so that information could be collected to determine whether the thermal limits
harm aquatic life. The two other draft permits we reviewed either did not
contain a thermal variance request, or the region never commented on the
thermal variance. We also found that the state limited the public's opportunity to
review information and comment on these variances by not following regulatory
requirements for developing complete permit fact sheets and public notices.
Due to procedural lapses by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality and
Region 4, it cannot be determined whether waters are protected from harmful
environmental effects caused by thermal discharges. The state and Region 4 will
not make further determinations on the thermal variances until these facilities
request NPDES permit renewals. As a result, until 2015, these facilities will
continue discharging heated waters as allowed under their current permits and
thermal variances.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the EPA Regional Administrator, Region 4, enforce the
management controls of the NPDES memorandum of agreement; verify that
thermal variances are protective of a balanced, indigenous population; and
verify that permit fact sheets and public notices comply with federal regulations.
The region agreed with our recommendations. We agree that their actions meet
the intent of the recommendations.
-------
(Si)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
%
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
May 9, 2011
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Oversight of North Carolina's Renewals of Thermal Variances
Report No. ll-P-0221
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.
Inspector General
TO: Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming
Regional Administrator, Region 4
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe
the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report
represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position.
Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with
established audit resolution procedures.
The estimated direct labor and travel costs for this report are $245,398.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 90 calendar days. You should include a corrective actions plan for agreed-upon
actions, including milestone dates. Your response will be posted on the OIG's public website,
along with our memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided
as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The final response should not contain data that you do
not want to be released to the public; if your response contains such data, you should identify the
data for redaction or removal. We have no objections to the further release of this report to the
public. We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Wade Najjum at
202-566-0832 or naiium.wade@epa.gov. or Dan Engelberg at 202-566-0830 or
engelberg.dan@epa.gov.
-------
Oversight of North Carolina's Renewals of 11 -P-0221
Thermal Variances
Table of Contents
Purpose 1
Background 1
Clean Water Act Section 316(a) Variances 1
North Carolina's and EPA's Responsibilities for Implementing
CWA 316(a) Thermal Variances 1
Scope and Methodology 3
Results of Review 3
Variance Renewals Lack Adequate Support 4
Permit Fact Sheets Were Missing Critical Information 5
Public Notices Were Missing Required Elements 6
Conclusion 7
Recommendations 7
Agency Response and OIG Comment 7
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 8
Appendices
A List of Reviewed Permits 9
B Agency Comments 10
C Distribution 12
-------
Purpose
In August 2010, the Office of Inspector General received a Hotline complaint
alleging that the State of North Carolina's National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits do not protect waters from harmful
environmental effects caused by thermal discharges into lakes. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Inspector General, evaluated
North Carolina's and Region 4's compliance with Clean Water Act (CWA)
requirements for protecting surface waters from thermal discharges at selected
facilities.
Background
Clean Water Act Section 316(a) Variances
Power and industrial facilities draw water from lakes and rivers to cool equipment.
These cooling waters, known as thermal effluents after they are heated, are
discharged from point sources (such as pipes) back into those waterbodies. Thermal
effluents are regulated because heat is identified as a pollutant under 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) §122.2. A facility may be authorized to discharge
pollutants into waters of the United States by obtaining an NPDES permit.
A permitting authority (either a state or EPA) issues NPDES permits, which may
contain a variance to a thermal effluent limit under 40 CFR, subpart H. This
variance allows facilities to discharge cooling waters at an alternative thermal
effluent limit that is still protective of aquatic life. To obtain a CWA 316(a)
thermal variance, the operator of a facility must demonstrate to the permitting
authority that an alternative thermal discharge limit will be protective of the
indigenous aquatic community. This demonstration can be a detailed study from
the permitted facility with supporting data showing that the alternate effluent
limitation assures the "protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous
community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife" as defined in 40 CFR §125.71(c). This
alternative effluent limit, or variance, is only in effect for the duration of the
current permit. To obtain a CWA 316(a) thermal variance, a facility must include
a request for the variance as part of the permit application. The applicant's request
to continue a thermal variance must also include a demonstration that the
alternative effluent limit continues to assure the protection and propagation of the
balanced, indigenous population (BIP).
North Carolina's and EPA's Responsibilities for Implementing
CWA 316(a) Thermal Variances
In 1975, EPA granted the State of North Carolina authority to issue NPDES
permits. In 1983, both parties signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA)
establishing policies, responsibilities, and procedures for administering the
NPDES program. Today, the North Carolina Department of Environment and
11-P-0221
-------
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ), is responsible for surface
water and ground water protection in the state. DWQ's Environmental Services
Section and the Surface Water Protection Section, NPDES Permit Unit, share in
the review of NPDES permit applications and renewals.
In North Carolina, the process for requesting an NPDES permit with a thermal
variance begins with the submission of a facility's signed application to DWQ.
For permit requests that include a CWA 316(a) thermal variance, the
Environmental Services Section described its internal review process. The staff
members review BIP reports for biological and physical/chemical data provided
by the facility. The Environmental Services Section then submits its
determination as to whether there is a BIP to the Permitting Unit, which prepares
a draft NPDES permit. The Permitting Unit makes the final determination about a
permittee's request for continuance of a CWA 316(a) variance. The NPDES
Permit Unit makes the draft permit available for public review and comment
through a public notice. EPA Region 4 should also receive a copy of the draft
permit and any additional information requested for its review.
In 2007, the State of North Carolina and EPA Region 4 updated their MO A.
According to the 2007 MO A, Region 4 will oversee the state's NPDES program
for consistency with the CWA, state legal authorities, the MO A, the state's CWA
Section 106 workplan, and all applicable federal regulations. Under the 2007
MO A, the region may provide comments, recommendations, or objections to a
draft NPDES permit. Under 40 CFR §123.44(c)(5), the Regional Administrator
may object to a draft permit if the Regional Administrator determines that
provisions of the permit relating to the maintenance of records, reporting,
monitoring, sampling, or the provision of any other information by the permittee,
are inadequate to assure compliance with permit conditions. The period of review
may be up to 90 days from receipt of the proposed permit. If the region chooses to
object to the draft permit and the state fails to make the changes detailed in the
objection, the region assumes authority for issuing the NPDES permit under the
MOA.
Under the MOA, DWQ sends a copy of the draft permit package to EPA
Region 4. This package includes a copy of the public notice, the draft permit, the
application, the fact sheet or statement of basis associated with the permit, and
notices of public hearings. According to 40 CFR §124.8, the fact sheet shall
contain, when applicable, a brief summary of the basis for the draft permit
conditions. The September 2010 Permit Writers' Manual suggests that the fact
sheet should include detailed discussions of the development of the permit
limitations for each pollutant. It must also contain, when applicable, a justification
for continuing a thermal variance. Under 40 CFR §124.8(a), DWQ must send the
fact sheet to the permit applicant and to any others requesting a copy.
To assess the quality of NPDES permits, the EPA Office of Water, Office of
Wastewater Management (OWM), began conducting permit quality reviews in
11-P-0221
-------
2007. OWM shared its findings for reviews conducted in Regions 4, 7, and 9.
According to OWM, the permit files containing CWA 316(a) thermal variances
generally did not contain documentation supporting the variances.
To remind states and regions about responsibilities concerning CWA 316(a)
variances, OWM issued a 2008 memorandum clarifying the requirements for
issuing or renewing a CWA 316(a) thermal variance. The memorandum states, "It
is essential that permitting authorities require applicants to provide as much
information described in 40 CFR §125.72(a) and (b) as necessary to demonstrate
the alternative effluent limit assures the protection and propagation of the BIP." In
addition to this memorandum, Region 4 sent comment letters about draft permits
to DWQ. These letters requested that the final permits contain a condition that
permittees perform additional studies to determine whether the thermal variances
allow for a BIP. The final permits contained requests for permittees to conduct
additional studies.
Scope and Methodology
We reviewed permit application materials for seven facilities (appendix A). We
restricted our analysis to DWQ's compliance with requirements for permits with a
CWA 316(a) thermal variance, and Region 4's review of these draft permits. We
discussed with OWM, Region 4, and the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources the requirements to support a CWA 316(a)
variance renewal. We also obtained and reviewed the public law, federal
regulations, and Agency guidance pertaining to CWA 316(a) variances in NPDES
permit renewals.
We conducted our review from November 2010 to March 2011 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require
that we plan and perform our review to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our objectives.
Results of Review
Region 4 has not adequately implemented management controls contained in its
MOA with North Carolina. Properly implemented controls would assure EPA that
NPDES permits comply with the CWA and applicable federal regulations. In four
of the six draft permits we reviewed, Region 4 did not agree with DWQ that there
was sufficient information to support the draft permit limits for temperature. This
information was needed so that Region 4 could determine whether proposed
thermal variances would harm aquatic life. Region 4 requested that the state add
conditions to the final permits so that information could be collected to determine
whether the thermal limits harm aquatic life. According to the documents we
obtained from DWQ, these facilities have been operating with a CWA 316(a)
11-P-0221
-------
thermal variance or collecting water temperature data since the mid-1970s
through the early 1990s. Two other draft permits we reviewed either did not
contain a thermal variance request or the region never commented on the thermal
variance. As of January 2011, DWQ reported that the draft permit had not yet
been developed for one other facility in our sample. We also found that the state
limited the public's opportunity to review information and comment on these
variances by not following regulatory requirements for developing complete
permit fact sheets and public notices.
Due to procedural lapses by North Carolina and Region 4, it cannot be determined
whether waters are protected from harmful environmental effects caused by
thermal discharges. The state and Region 4 will not make further determinations
on the thermal variances until these facilities request NPDES permit renewals.
Region 4 and the public will not be able to assess whether these discharges are
harming the BIP of the waterbodies until the permits expire in 2015.
Variance Renewals Lack Adequate Support
In four of the six draft permits we reviewed, Region 4 did not find sufficient
support to agree with DWQ's decision to continue the CWA 316(a) thermal
variances. To continue a thermal variance, federal regulations allow a permit
applicant to demonstrate that a BIP does not exhibit any appreciable harm from
the prior normal operating discharges. For three of these permits, Region 4 sent
comment letters to DWQ. The region objected to the fourth because it did not
have sufficient support for the thermal variance. In followup correspondence,
Region 4 determined that that DWQ satisfied the conditions of the objections.
During 2010, Region 4 reviewed the draft permits for three facilities and, in each
case, provided comments to DWQ regarding support for approving the
permittee's request to continue with the thermal variance. For each of these draft
permits, Region 4 stated in its comments that the "report lacks detail and did not
generate information sufficient to support a Section 316(a) variance determination
for the next permit cycle." For these three permits, the region developed a list of
items to address in the future study plan for the next permit cycle.
In response to the region's comments, DWQ inserted a condition into the renewed
permits requiring facilities to provide their study plans to Region 4. These permits
do not expire until 2015.
Region 4 objected to one draft permit because it was concerned with the allowed
monthly average temperature difference of 13.9 degrees Celsius as compared with
the receiving waters. DWQ adjusted the permit limit to allow a temperature
change of 8.5 degrees Celsius, resolving Region 4's concerns. DWQ issued the
modified permit on May 26, 2010.
Region 4 also reviewed draft permits for two of the three other facilities in our
sample. In one case, the region did not comment on the thermal variance in the
11-P-0221
-------
draft permit. In another one, Region 4 has not yet reviewed the draft permit
because the state is currently developing it. In the final draft permit we reviewed,
there is no thermal variance. DWQ told us the receiving water is classified as a
cooling pond and is not considered a "water of the State"; therefore, the facility
can discharge at a higher temperature. The permit states that in no case should the
ambient temperature exceed 32 degrees Celsius as a result of operations. One of
the two water-sampling locations in the permit is at the discharge point from the
dam, which we estimate to be approximately 2 miles downstream from the
facility.
We discussed this distance with the Region 4 permit reviewer and were told that
the dam discharge sampling point may not be appropriate, and that this matter will
be discussed with the state during the next permit renewal. The permit reviewer
agreed that without a variance, the discharge must meet the water quality
standards at all points in the lake.
In the four draft permits we reviewed that contain a thermal variance, Region 4
concluded that there were insufficient data to support the state's determination
that thermal variances will result in no appreciable harm to the waterbodies' BIP.
These were all permit renewals rather than new permits; therefore, Region 4 had
previous opportunities to request that more data be collected to determine the
effects of these variances. Had the region more closely monitored these draft
permits as required under the current and previous MO As, it would be in a
position to determine whether renewing the thermal variances was appropriate.
Without this support, we cannot determine whether these waterbodies are
protected from harmful environmental effects caused by thermal discharges at the
facilities we reviewed.
Permit Fact Sheets Were Missing Critical Information
Most of the draft permits we reviewed were missing critical information needed to
allow EPA and the public an opportunity for review and comment as required by
federal regulations. Five fact sheets we reviewed contained insufficient
information to explain the basis for approving the thermal variance and the
associated permit limits. As of January 2011, a DWQ permit writer reported that
one permit is under review and the state has not developed the fact sheet. The
other draft permit we reviewed did not contain a CWA 316(a) thermal variance,
so reference to it in the fact sheet was not necessary. Without a complete
summary of the state's CWA 316(a) variance decision in the fact sheet, neither
EPA nor the public has the needed information to understand the state's rationale
for approving these thermal variances.
According to 40 CFR §124.8, every draft NPDES permit that incorporates a
variance must include a fact sheet. The fact sheet establishes the principal facts
and the significant factual, legal, methodological, and policy questions considered
in preparing the draft permit, as well as the basis for the permit limits, including
11-P-0221
-------
references to applicable statutory or regulatory provisions. A fact sheet provides a
critical internal control mechanism because it is a source of information that
explains a state's decision to both the region and the public. OWM's 2008
memorandum reiterated the importance of facts sheets. The memorandum stated
that not only is a fact sheet required as part of an NPDES permit containing a
CWA 316(a) thermal variance, but it must explain why the permitting authority
believes the variance is justified. The fact sheet should also explain the thermal
variance history (if it is a renewal) as well as the basis for continuing the variance.
For the five fact sheets with insufficient information, details about CWA 316(a)
thermal variances ranged from general information to no information whatsoever.
In compliance with 40 CFR §124.8(b)(5), DWQ stated why the variance appears
justified in four of the five fact sheets. DWQ concluded that the waterbody
receiving thermal waters has a balanced indigenous macroinvertebrate and fish
community. One fact sheet did not contain this statement. These five fact sheets
also did not contain a brief summary of the basis for the permit conditions (i.e.,
thermal variances), as required by 40 CFR §124.8(b)(4). Region 4 did not
comment on the contents of these fact sheets when it reviewed the draft NPDES
permit packages sent by DWQ. Without complete information in fact sheets, the
public may not fully know the permit conditions pertaining to the CWA 316(a)
thermal variance.
Public Notices Were Missing Required Elements
The public notices for five of six draft permits did not contain the required
statements describing the proposed thermal variance. Because one facility does
not have a thermal variance, the public notice did not need information about
thermal variances. A final permit request was not under review by DWQ, and a
public notice had not been issued. Statements about thermal variances alert the
reader that one is being proposed for the facility. It provides a comparison of the
water-quality-based limit and the less-stringent proposed limit allowed under the
variance. The regulations require that a public notice for a draft permit with a
thermal variance contain statements that address the following:
1. The thermal component of the discharge is subject to effluent
limitations under CWA Section 301 or 306 and a brief description,
including a quantitative statement, of the thermal effluent limitations
proposed under Section 301 or 306.
2. A Section 316(a) request has been filed and that alternative, less-
stringent effluent limitations may be imposed on the thermal
component of the discharge under Section 316(a), and a brief
description, including a quantitative statement, of the alternative
effluent limitations, if any, included in the request.
According to the regional staff person who reviews the state's draft permits, the
public notice should discuss the thermal variance. The permit reviewer said the
11-P-0221
-------
state may not send a copy of the public notice with the draft permit, but it is
sometimes attached to the fact sheet. She was not aware that the public notices we
reviewed did not meet the regulatory requirements. Failing to include this
information in the public notice significantly reduces the public's awareness of
the state's decision to allow a thermal variance in the permit.
Conclusion
We cannot determine whether North Carolina's approval of permits with CWA
316(a) thermal variances protects aquatic populations. The region determined that
the thermal limits for four of the six facilities we reviewed were renewed based on
insufficient documentation of proposed thermal variances. The process for issuing
six of the seven facilities' permits did not follow important process safeguards.
North Carolina and Region 4 have not followed a number of requirements
contained in federal regulations, leading to incomplete documentation of the
state's decision to approve these variances. After Region 4 determined that North
Carolina had not gathered the information needed to determine whether variances
were warranted, it developed a list of items to address in future study plans for the
next permit cycle. In our opinion, the region should have noted the deficiencies in
North Carolina's fact sheets and public notices in previous permit renewal
packages. Incomplete fact sheets and public notices limit the public's ability to
make informed judgments about, comment on, or dispute these decisions by
North Carolina. These facilities will continue discharging heated waters as
allowed under their current permits and thermal variances for the next 4 years.
Consequently, Region 4 and the public will not know whether these discharges
are harming the BIP of the waterbodies until the permits come up again for
renewal.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Regional Administrator, Region 4:
1. Enforce the management controls of the NPDES MOA.
2. Verify that thermal variances are protective of a balanced, indigenous
population.
3. Verify that permit fact sheets and public notices comply with federal
regulations.
Agency Response and OIG Comment
The region agreed with our recommendations. We agree that their actions meet
the intent of the recommendations.
11-P-0221
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
POTENTIAL MONETARY
RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in SOOOs)
Planned
Rec. Page Completion Claimed Agreed-To
No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date Amount Amount
7 Enforce the management controls of the NPDES 0 Regional Administrator,
MOA. Region 4
7 Verify that thermal variances are protective of a 0 Regional Administrator,
balanced, indigenous population. Region 4
7 Verify that permit fact sheets and public notices 0 Regional Administrator,
comply with federal regulations. Region 4
0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
11-P-0221
-------
Appendix A
List of Reviewed Permits
Facility permit documentation reviewed as part of Hotline complaint:
1. Asheville Coal Power Plant (NC0000396)
2. Belews Creek Steam Station (NC0024406)
3. Blue Ridge Paper Products Canton Mill (NC0000272)
4. Buck Steam Station (NC0004774)
5. Cliffside Steam Station (NC0005088)
6. Marshall Steam Station (NC0004987)
7. McGuire Nuclear Power Plant (NC0024392)
11-P-0221
-------
Appendix B
Agency Comments
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Draft Report:
Oversight of North Carolina's Renewals of Thermal Variances
OIG Project No. 2011-0003
FROM: Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming
Regional Administrator
TO: Wade Najjum
Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation
This is in response to your memorandum to me dated April 5, 2011, regarding an Office
of Inspector General (OIG) draft report on several final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits issued by the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
(NCDNR). The permits contain provisions for thermal variances to comply with requirements of
Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Below are recommendations in the draft report with our responses:
1. OIG Recommendation: Enforce the management controls of the NPDES Memorandum
of Agreement.
EPA Response: We concur. Section IV.B.3. of EPA Region 4's Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) with NCDNR states, "EPA may provide to the State written comments on,
recommendations with respect to, or objections to the issuance of the draft permit."
Regional review of a particular draft NPDES permit, or type of permit, is a discretionary
oversight activity. It is also within the Region's discretion to object, comment, or choose not
to comment to a draft NPDES permit. Based on information available at the time we
reviewed the draft permits, we implemented the MOA by providing comments on and
recommendations with respect to proposed 316(a) thermal variances. We recommended that
during the next permit term facilities should collect targeted data that would assist the State
in determining if the thermal component of the effluents was allowing maintenance of a
balanced and indigenous population (BIP) offish, shellfish and wildlife in the receiving
water body near the discharge point. This data will be more detailed than the data previously
used by the State in its determination of compliance with CWA Section 316(a).
11-P-0221 10
-------
2. OIG Recommendation: Verify that thermal variances are protective of a balanced,
indigenous population.
EPA Response: We concur. By the end of each permit's term, as directed by EPA in our
comment letters on the draft permits, the State will have specific data to determine if the
receiving water body is able to maintain a BIP. EPA will review the data and verify that the
thermal variances are protective of a balanced and indigenous population.
3. Verify that permit fact sheets and public notices comply with federal regulations.
EPA Response: We concur. In accordance with the MO A, EPA may review draft permits, or
in the limited circumstances described in Section IV.B.6., proposed permits. In the future,
EPA will review draft permits with CWA 316(a) variances to ensure that the permit fact
sheets and public notices contain the necessary elements and language to adequately inform
the public of thermal discharges in relationship demonstrating the maintenance of a BIP.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft report. Please contact Jim
Giattina, Director of the Water Protection Division at Giattina.Jim@epa.gov or at
(404) 562-9345, if you have any questions about our response.
11-P-0221 11
-------
Appendix C
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Regional Administrator, Region 4
Assistant Administrator for Water
Agency Followup Official (the CFO)
Agency Followup Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education
Director, Office of Regional Operations
Audit Followup Coordinator, Region 4
Director, Water Protection Division, Region 4
11-P-0221 12
------- |