Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices 3403

409 food additive regulation for captain

in or on raisins (59 FR 33941). That

proposal was based on a determination

that captan induces cancer in animals,

and thus, the regulation violates the

Delaney clause in section 409 of the

FFDCA. However, the Agency could

finalize revocation of the captan raisin

regulation on the grounds requested in

the petition announced in this notice.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 177.125 and

177.130, EPA may issue an order ruling

on the petition or may issue a proposal

in response to the petition and seek

further comment. If EPA issues an order

in response to the petition, any person

adversely affected by the order may file

written objections and a request for a

hearing on those objections with EPA on

or before the 30th day after date of the

publication of the order, (40 CFR

178.20).

A record has been established for this

document under docket number [PF–

643] (including comments and data

submitted electronically as described

below). A public version of this record,

including printed, paper versions of

electronic comments, which does not

include any information claimed as CBI,

is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The public

record is located in Room 1132 of the

Public Response and Program Resources

Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA.

Elecrtronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-Docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption.

The official record for this document,

as well as the public version, as

described above will be kept in paper

form. Accordingly, EPA will transfer all

comments received electronically into

printed, paper form as they are received

and will place the paper copies in the

official record which will also include

all comments submitted directly in

writing. The official record is the paper

record maintained at the address in

ADDRESSES at the beginning of this

document.

Dated: January 25, 1996.

Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp,

Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 96–1904 Filed 1–26–96; 2:55 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

[OPPTS–44620; FRL–4993–7]

TSCA Chemical Testing; Receipt of

Test Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

receipt of test data on Nmethylpyrrolidone (NMP) (CAS No.

872–50–4), and glycidyl methacrylate

(GMA) (CAS No. 106–91–2), submitted

pursuant to testing consent orders under

the Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA). Publication of this notice is in

compliance with section 4(d) of TSCA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan B. Hazen, Director,

Environmental Assistance Division

(7408), Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics, Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. E–543B, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 554–1404,

TDD (202) 554–0551.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 40

CFR 790.60, all TSCA section 4 consent

orders must contain a statement that the

results of testing conducted pursuant to

these testing consent orders will be

announced to the public in accordance

with section 4(d).

I. Test Data Submissions

Test data for N-methylpyrrolidone

(NMP) were submitted by the NMP

Producers Group pursuant to a testing

consent order at 40 CFR 799.5000. They

were received by EPA on November 22,

1995. The submission includes three

final reports entitled ‘‘NMethylpyrrolidone - Subchronic Oral

Toxicity Study in B6C3F1 Mice,

Administration in the Diet for 3

Months’’; ‘‘Subchronic Oral Toxicity:

90–Day Feeding and Neurotoxicity

Study in Rats with N-Methylpyrrolidone

(NMP)’’; and ‘‘Oral, Dermal, and

Inhalation Pharmacokinetics and

Disposition of [2–14C] NMP in the Rat’’.

This chemical is an inert, stable, polar

solvent that is used in a wide variety of

processes. Its commercial uses result

from its strong and frequently selective

solvent power. One of the major uses of

NMP is the extraction of aromatics from

lubricating oils. It is also used as a

medium for polymerization and as a

solvent for finished polymers. It is the

preferred solvent in a variety of

chemical reactions and the manufacture

of numerous chemical intermediates

and in products such as plastics, surface

coatings, and pesticides. An important

new use of this chemical is as a

substitute for methylene chloride in

paint strippers. NMP is also used in the

recovery and purification of acetylenes,

olefins, and diolefins, in the removal of

sulfur compounds from natural and

refinery gases, and in the dehydration of

natural gas.

Test data for glycidyl methacrylate

were submitted by the GMA Industry

Group pursuant to a testing consent

order at 40 CFR 799.5000. They were

received by EPA on December 4, 1995.

The submission includes two final

reports entitled ‘‘Evaluation of Glycidyl

Methacrylate (GMA) in the Chinese

Hamster Ovary Cell/HypoxanthineGuanine-Phosphoribosyl Transferase

(CHO/HGPRT) Forward Mutation

Assay’’; and ‘‘Evaluation of Glycidyl

Methacrylate (GMA) in the Mouse Bone

Marrow Micronucleus Test’’. GMA, a

glycidol derivative, is an epoxy resin

additive used in paint coating

formulations and adhesive applications.

EPA has initiated its review and

evaluation process for these data

submissions. At this time, the Agency is

unable to provide any determination as

to the completeness of the submissions.

II. Public Record

EPA has established a public record

for this TSCA section 4(d) receipt of

data notice (docket number OPPTS–

44620). This record includes copies of

all studies reported in this notice. The

record is available for inspection from

12 noon to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except legal holidays, in the

TSCA Public Docket Office, Rm. B–607

Northeast Mall, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Test data.

Dated: January 26, 1996.

Charles M. Auer,

Director, Chemical Control Division, Office

of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

[FR Doc. 96–1963 Filed 1–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[FRL–5404–6]

Proposed General NPDES Permit for

Placer Mining in Alaska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 10.

ACTION: Notice of a proposed general

permit.

SUMMARY: This is a proposal to modify

general permit regulating placer mining

activities in the State of Alaska. On May

31, 1994, EPA Region 10 published a

general permit for discharges of

wastewater from placer mines in Alaska.

59 FR 28079, May 31, 1994. If issued,

the proposed modified permit would

modify effluent limitations, standards,
3404 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices

prohibitions and other conditions on

wastewater discharges set forth in the

Alaska placer miner general permit.

These conditions are based on existing

national effluent guidelines, state water

quality standards and material

contained in the administrative record.

A description of the basis for the

conditions and requirements of the

proposed modified general permit, and

especially of the basis for the proposed

modifications, is given in the fact sheet.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12866:The Office of

Management and Budget has exempted

this action from the review

requirements of Executive Order 12866.

UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT:Under

section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘Unfunded

Mandates Act’’), EPA must prepare a

written statement to accompany any

rules with Federal mandates that may

result in estimated costs to State, local,

or tribal governments in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. When such a

statement is required, EPA must identify

and consider alternatives that achieve

the objective of such a rule. EPA must

select the alternative that is the least

costly, most cost-effective or least

budensome, unless the Administrator

explains in the final rule why it was not

selected or it is inconsistent with law.

Because the proposed modification will

not impose costs in excess of $100

million, it imposes no unfunded

mandate within the meaning of the

Unfunded Mandates Act.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:Interested

persons may submit comments on the

proposed modified general permit to

EPA, Region 10 at the address below.

Comments must be received in the

regional office by March 18, 1996.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:A public hearing will

be held in Fairbanks, Alaska, on March

5, 1996 from 6:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m

at the offices of the State of Alaska

Department of Natural Resources,

Division of Mining and Water

Management, 3700 Airport Way.

REQUEST FOR COVERAGE:Written request

for coverage and authorization to

discharge under the general permit shall

be provided to EPA, Region 10, as

described in Part I.E. of the draft

modified permit. Authorization to

discharge requires written notification

from EPA that coverage has been

granted and that a specific permit

number has been assigned to the

operation.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

general permit should be sent to Tim

Hamlin; U.S. EPA, Region 10; 1200

Sixth Avenue SO–155; Seattle,

Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Hamlin at the Seattle address above or

by telephone at (206) 553–8311.

Dated: January 11, 1996.

Phil Millam,

Acting Director, Office of Water.

Fact Sheet

United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200

Sixth Avenue, WD–134, Seattle,

Washington 98101, (206) 553–1214.

General Permit for Placer Miners No.:

AKG–37–0000.

Proposed Modification of a General

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) Permit To

Discharge Pollutants Pursuant to the

Provisions of the Clean Water Act

(CWA) for Alaska Placer Miners

(except those identified in Part III of this

Fact Sheet)

This fact sheet includes (a) the

tentative determination of the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

to modify the NPDES general permit

issued on May 13, 1994 and published

at 59 FR 28079 (May 31, 1994), (b)

information on public comment, public

hearings and appeal, (c) the description

of the industry and proposed

discharges, (d) other conditions and

requirements.

Persons wishing to comment on the

tentative determinations contained in

the proposed modification to the general

permit may do so before the expiration

date of the Public Notice. All written

comments should be submitted to EPA

as described in the Public Comments

Section of the attached Public Notice.

After the expiration date of the Public

Notice, the Director, Office of Water,

will make a final determination with

respect to issuance of the permit. The

modifications to the general permit will

become effective 30 days after the final

determination is made.

The proposed modifications to the

NPDES general permit and other related

documents are on file and may be

inspected and copies made at the above

address any time between 8:30 a.m. and

4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Copies and other information may be

requested by writing to EPA at the above

address to the attention of the Water

Permits Section, or by calling (206) 553–

8332. This material is also available

from the EPA Alaska Operations Office,

Room 537, Federal Building, 222 West

7th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99513–

7588 or Alaska Operations Office, 410

Willoughby Avenue, Suite 100, Juneau,

Alaska 99801 or the Alaska Department

of Environmental Conservation,

Northern Regional Office, 610

University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska

99709.

Table of Contents

I. Background Information

A. History

B. Permit Coverage

1. General Permit

2. Types of Placer Mine Operations

Covered by the Permit

3. Limitations on Coverage

4. Individual Permits

C. Description of the Industry

1. Overburden Removal

2. Mining Methods

3. Processing Methods

II. Effluent Characteristics

III. Basis for Effluent Limitations on

Mechanical Operations

A. Background

B. Technology-Based Limitations

C. Water Quality Based Limitation

1. Introduction

2. Alaska Water Quality Standards

a. Turbidity

b. Sediment

c. Metals

3. Limitations

a. Flow and Turbidity

b. Settleable Solids

c. Arsenic

IV. Best Management Practices (BMPs)

V. Basis for Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements

A. Monitoring

1. Daily Monitoring

a. Mechanical Operations

b. Suction Dredging

2. Seasonal Monitoring—Turbility and

Arsenic

B. Reporting

VI. Other Requirements

A. Spill Prevention Control and

Containment (SPCC)

B. Endangered Species

VII. Storm Exemption

VIII.New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS)

IX. State Certification

X. References

Technical Information

I. Background Information

A. History

Regulation of discharges from gold

placer mining operations in Alaska has

been a matter of extreme controversy

since enactment of the Clean Water Act.

Starting in 1976 and 1977, EPA issued

approximately 170 individual NPDES

permits to Alaskan gold placer miners.

Those permits were challenged

administratively. Some parties argued

that the permits were not stringent

enough, others argued that the permits

were too stringent. EPA issued an

additional 269 individual NPDES

permits for gold placer mining in 1983.

All of those permits were challenged

judicially in Trustees for Alaska v. EPA,

749 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1984).

EPA issued a new round of individual

permits (446 in total) in 1984 to replace
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices 3405

expiring permits and to incorporate new

promulgated regulations. In 1985, EPA

modified the 1984 permits, based on the

Trustee for Alaska decision, and issued

93 additional permits. In 1987, EPA

issued an additional 368 new permits.

The 1987 permits were the subject of

litigation based on allegations that EPA

and the State unreasonably delayed

acting on requests for hearings on those

permits in Stein v. Kelso, Case No. F89–

21 Civil (D.Alaska) (litigation against

EPA). The case against EPA was

eventually dismissed as moot on April

12, 1990.

The permits that EPA did issue in

1985 and 1987 were challenged

administratively and, ultimately,

judicially in Ackels v. EPA, 7 F.3d 862

(9th Cir. 1993). A decision by the State

of Alaska to certify the 1985 permits

was ultimately resolved by the Alaska

Supreme Court in Miners Advocacy

Council, Inc. v. State Dep’t of Envtl.

Conservation, 778 P.2d 1126 (Alaska

1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1077

(1990). The State’s certification of the

1987 permits was also challenged in

Stein v. Kelso, 846 P.2d 123 (Alaska

1993).

During the pendency of the permit

proceedings described above, EPA also

was sued in the United States District

Court for the District of Alaska in 1986.

That case raised a variety of statutory

and constitutional issues, which were

ultimately dismissed or resolved in the

federal courts. One of the concerns

raised in the 1986 litigation, whether

EPA had a duty to promulgate national

effluent limitations guidelines for the

gold placer mining point source

category, was eventually resolved when

EPA published such guidelines in 1988.

See 40 CFR Part 440 Subpart M. Those

guidelines also were the subject of

litigation in Rybachek v. EPA, 904 F.2d

1276 (9th Cir. 1990).

On June 30, 1992, EPA received a

notice of citizen suit which alleged that

EPA failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty to regulate suction

dredge gold placer mining operations.

At that time, EPA decided it would

issue individual permits for mechanical

placer mining operations (for the 1993

mining season) and that it would

propose a general permit for suction

dredge operations. On January 14, 1994,

EPA did propose such a general permit,

although permit coverage was proposed

for mechanical, as well as suction

dredge operations. 59 FR 2504 (Jan. 14,

1994). After responding to public

comment, EPA issued the final general

permit on May 13, 1994. 59 FR 28079

(May 31, 1994). On September 28, 1994,

two environmental groups filed a

petition for review of the general permit

in the Ninth Circuit. Without any

admission or denial of any of the

Petitioners’ allegations, EPA is

proposing to modify the general permit

today.

B. Permit Coverage

1. General Permit

a. Section 301(a) of the CWA provides

that the discharge of pollutants is

unlawful except in accordance with a

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

Although individual permits have been

issued to individual dischargers on a

case-by-case basis, EPA’s regulations

also authorize the issuance of ‘‘general

permits’’ to categories of discharges [40

CFR 122.28] when a number of point

sources are:

(1) Located within the same

geographic area and warrant similar

pollution control measures;

(2) Involve the same or substantially

similar types of operations;

(3) Discharge the same types of

wastes;

(4) Require the same effluent

limitations or operating conditions;

(5) Require the same or similar

monitoring requirements; and

(6) In the opinion of the Director, are

more appropriately controlled under a

general permit than under individual

permits.

EPA finds that the placer mining

discharges to be permitted under the

modified general permit proposed for

modification today meet these criteria.

To the extent that any given placer

mining operation warrants different

effluent limitations because of sitespecific factors pertaining to turbidity,

such would be accounted for under

Section II.A.1.c. of the permit.

b. Like individual permits, a violation

of a condition contained in a general

permit constitutes a violation of the Act

and subjects the owner or operator of

the permitted facility to the penalties

specified in Section 309 of the Act.

c. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to be

covered under this modified General

Permit would be required [40 CFR

122.28(b)(2)(i)], including new NOIs

from permittees already covered under

the May 31, 1994 general permit (i.e.,

dischargers covered under the permit

prior to today’s proposed modification).

The NOI requirements are outlined in

Part I.F. of the permit. A State of Alaska

Annual Placer Mining Application, or

other document, would be acceptable if

it contains all the items specified in the

permit.

d. This modification would not affect

the duration of the May 31, 1994 general

permit. The modified permit would

expire five (5) years from the date of

issuance of the original permit,

specifically, on June 30, 1999.

Permittees covered under this modified

general permit may continue to

discharge according to its terms after

expiration of the permit provided those

permittees submit a timely and

complete application for renewal—i.e., a

new NOI—prior to expiration. Only

those facilities authorized to discharge

under the modified permit prior to its

expiration who submit a NOI 90 days

prior to the expiration may continue to

claim coverage under the

administratively continued permit.

After expiration, no ‘‘new dischargers’’

may claim general permit coverage until

it is reissued.

2. Types of Placer Mine Operations

Covered by the Permit

EPA is proposing to modify the

NPDES general permit for Alaska placer

mining operations issued on May 31,

1994. The modified general permit

would apply to certain facilities that

mine and process gold placer ores using

gravity separation methods to recover

the gold metal contained in the ore.

Specifically, the modified general

permit would not apply to certain types

of mining operations currently

authorized under the May 31, 1994

permit. Discharges from some suction

dredge operations, discharges from

operations using hydraulic removal of

overburden, and discharges from

operations into special use waters

would no longer be eligible for coverage

under the general permit as modified.

Discharges from operations using

certain beneficiation methods would

continue to be ineligible for coverage

under the general permit as modified.

The modified permit would apply to all

open-cut and mechanical dredge gold

placer mines except those open-cut

mines that mine less than 1,500 cubic

yards of placer ore per mining season

and mechanical dredges that remove

less than 50,000 cubic yards of placer

ore per mining season. These operations

are covered by the effluent guidelines

and described in 40 CFR 440.140(b).

EPA previously completed a literature

research project considering the

environmental effects of suction dredge

operation and potential controls that

could be placed on them. (North, 1993.)

This project considered effects of

suction dredge operations and

recommended that additional study be

undertaken on the effects of suction

dredging with intake hoses larger than

eight inches in size. EPA has not had

the opportunity to study the effects of

larger operations. Thus, the modified

general permit would only authorize
3406 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices

discharges by suction dredge operations

with intake hoses of eight inches or less;

it would not authorize discharges by

suction dredge operations with intake

hoses larger than eight inches. Any such

discharges would require coverage

under an individual permit. All suction

dredge operations with intake hoses of

eight inches and less would be eligible

for coverage under the proposed

modified general permit.

Discharges resulting from hydraulic

removal of overburden would not be

covered by this modified permit.

Discharges from ponds containing both

‘‘sluice water’’ and wastewater from

hydraulicking would not be authorized

by the modified general permit.

(Hydraulicking refers both to the

hydraulic removal of overburden and

the use of hydraulic power to move raw

rock to the point of processing, i.e. to

the gate of the sluice or other processing

equipment).

Individual NPDES permits issued

previously did not cover discharges

associated with hydraulic removal of

overburden. These permits were

challenged administratively. The EPA

Environmental Appeals Board in its

September 3, 1992 Remand Order of

NPDES Appeal No. 91–23 sanctioned

EPA’s position that a site-specific

factual analysis is necessary to

determine the precise terms of any

permit that authorizes discharges from

hydraulic removal of overburden. It also

required EPA to consider an applicant’s

entire process when the applicant so

requests.

Because of the site-specific analysis

necessary for discharges associated with

hydraulicking, EPA proposes not to

authorize such discharges under the

today’s modified general permit. Thus,

such discharges would also require

coverage under an individual permit.

Finally, this permit would not

authorize discharges resulting from

beneficiation methods utilizing

cyanidation, froth flotation, heap or vat

leaching and mercury amalgamation.

Such discharges were not authorized

under the May 31, 1994 permit.

3. Limitations on Coverage

Certain streams and stream reaches in

Alaska have been designated as Wild &

Scenic Rivers or are located in State

Parks, National Parks and Preserves,

National Monuments, National

Conservation Areas, National Wildlife

Refuges and National Wildlife Areas.

Under the proposed modification, this

permit would not apply to facilities

discharging to these special use waters.

For mining wastewaters discharged to

these special use waters, the Agency has

determined that it lacks sufficient

information to assure that compliance

with this modified general permit

would also assure compliance with

applicable legal requirements. Such

discharges may be authorized under a

future general permit or under an

individual permit.

Like the May 31 1994 permit, this

modified permit would not relieve a

permittee of the requirements of other

applicable federal, state or local laws;

permittees should contact the

appropriate state or federal agencies to

inquire about additional permits that

may be required.

Additional requirements may be

imposed by the Alaska Department of

Fish and Game in resident and

anadromous fish streams. Also, ‘‘The

Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important

for Spawning, Rearing or Migration of

Anadromous Fish’’ lists the streams in

the State which require a Habitat permit

from the Alaska Department of Fish and

Game.

4. Individual Permits

Owners or operators authorized by a

general permit may be excepted from

coverage by a general permit by

applying to the Director of the NPDES

program for an individual permit. This

request may be made by submitting an

NPDES permit application, together

with supporting documentation for the

request no later than 90 days after

publication by EPA of the final general

permit in the Federal Register, or 180

days prior to the commencement of

operation of a new source or new

discharger. EPA also intends to give

appropriate priority to those dischargers

who would no longer be covered under

the general permit as a result of the

proposed changes. Specifically,

permittees discharging to special use

waters, including the Forty-Mile River,

suction dredge permittees with intake

hoses greater than 8 inches, and

hydraulickers would be given

appropriate priority in the individual

permit process provided they make

prompt application for such coverage.

Finally, EPA intends to give

appropriate priority to those dischargers

who wish to receive a site-specific

turbidity limit based on a different

approach than that proposed in the

modified general permit. These

dischargers must provide sufficient

information to EPA to establish either

that (1) their effluent does not exceed

water quality criteria for metals other

than arsenic or (2) the natural

background level of turbidity of the

receiving water is greater than zero.

Sufficient information means analytical

monitoring data that reflects at least

three samples taken over the period of

not less than three weeks. (A detailed

explanation of the proposed modified

general permit’s approach to turbidity

including its relationship to metals may

be found at part III. C. of this fact sheet.)

The Director may require any person

authorized by the modified general

permit to apply for and obtain an

individual permit, or any interested

person may petition the Director to take

this action. The Director may consider

the issuance of individual permits

when:

a. The single discharge or the

cumulative number of discharges is/are

a significant contributor of pollution;

b. The discharger is not in compliance

with the terms and conditions of the

general permit;

c. A change has occurred in the

availability of demonstrated technology

or practices for the control or abatement

of pollutants applicable to the point

source;

d. Effluent limitations guidelines are

subsequently promulgated for the point

sources covered by the general permit;

e. A Water Quality Management plan

containing requirements applicable to

such point sources is approved; or

f. The requirements listed in the

previous paragraphs are not met.

C. Description of the Industry

Placer mining involves the mining

and extraction of gold or other heavy

metals and minerals primarily from

alluvial deposits. These deposits may be

in existing stream beds or ancient, often

buried, stream deposits, i.e. paleo or

fossil placers. Many Alaskan placer

deposits consist of unconsolidated clay,

sand, gravel, cobble and boulders that

contain very small amounts of native

gold or other precious metals. Most are

stream deposits and occur along present

stream valleys or on benches or terraces

above existing streams. Beach placer

deposits have been and continue to be

important producers in Alaska. These

deposits, most notable near Nome,

include both submerged and elevated

beach placer deposits.

Essential components of placer

mining include overburden removal,

mining of the gold placer gravels, and

processing (gold recovery).

1. Overburden Removal

Various types of overburden include

barren alluvial gravels, broken slide

rock, or glacial deposits. In some parts

of Alaska the pay gravels are overlaid by

silty, organic-rich deposits of barren,

frozen material generally comprised of

wind-blown particles (loess).

Particularly high ice content is common.

Most facilities utilize mechanical

methods for removal of overburden
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices 3407

because they generally use the same

excavating equipment for mining.

Overburden can also be removed by

hydraulicking. Hydraulicking consists

of the loosening of material by water

delivered under pressure through a

hydraulic giant (monitor). This general

permit does not authorize discharges

from operations that use hydraulicking

to remove overburden. Such discharges

would be considered through the

individual permit process.

2. Mining Methods

Placer mining methods include both

dredging systems and open-cut mining.

Dredging systems are classified as

hydraulic or mechanical (including

bucket dredging), depending on the

methods of digging. Suction dredges,

the most common hydraulic dredging

system, are quite popular in Alaska with

the small or recreational gold placer

miner. Like all floating dredges, suction

dredges consist of a supporting hull

with a mining control system,

excavating and lifting mechanism, gold

recovery circuits, and waste disposal

system. All floating dredges are

designed to work as a unit to dig,

classify, beneficiate ores and dispose of

waste. Because suction dredges work

the stream bed rather than stream banks,

the discharge from suction dredges

consists totally of stream water and bed

material.

Open-cut methods commonly used in

Alaska involve the use of bulldozers to

remove overburden, push pay dirt to

sluiceboxes, stack tailing and construct

ditches ponds and roads. At some sites,

loaders are used to move material.

3. Processing Methods

A large percentage of the present gold

placer mining operations use some type

of sluice box to perform the primary

processing function, beneficiation. An

increasing number of jig plants are also

being used at open-cut mines. Many

operations make use of feed size

classification which involves the

physical separation of large rocks and

boulders from smaller materials such as

gravel and sand. The object of

classification is to prevent the

processing of large-sized material which

is unlikely to contain gold values.

Commonly used classification

equipment includes: grizzlies, trommels

and static or vibrating screens. The most

common gold recovery method is

sluicing. A sluice is a long, sloped

trough into which water is directed to

effectuate separation of gold from ore. A

slurry of water and ore flows down the

sluice and the gold, due to its relatively

high density, is trapped in riffles along

the sluice.

II. Effluent Characteristics

Discharges from placer mining

operations consist of water and the

naturally occurring materials found in

the alluvial deposits (e.g. sand, silt, clay,

trace minerals and metals, etc.). Some of

the elements measured in placer mine

effluent are derived principally from

sulfide, oxide, carbonate, and silicate

mineral species, and may include

antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper,

iron, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and

zinc. Most of these parameters have

been found in trace amounts in

discharges from some mines.

Based on review of available scientific

literature, sampling data collected by

EPA and the Alaska Water Quality

Standards (WQS), EPA has concluded

that the pollutants of primary concern

are settleable solids, turbidity, and

arsenic. Arsenic is the primary metal of

concern due to its potential toxicity and

its naturally occurring abundance in

most Alaskan soils, which may be

discharged to Alaskan waters along with

other mining wastes.

III. Basis for Effluent Limitations on

Mechanical Operations

A. Background

The Clean Water Act requires that

NPDES permits establish effluent

limitations to assure compliance with

technology-based control standards and

with State water quality standards.

Technology-based limitations represent

the degree of pollutant reduction that

can be economically achieved by using

various levels of pollution control

technology. In accordance with Section

301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA, NPDES

permits must also assure compliance

with any more stringent limitations,

particularly those necessary to meet

State water quality standards. The

NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)

requires NPDES permits to include

conditions to ‘‘(a)chieve water quality

standards established under § 303 of the

Clean Water Act.’’

B. Technology-Based Limitations

Effluent limits required in this permit

for the control of pollutants are

published in 40 CFR Part 440 Subpart

M (Gold Placer Mine Subcategory),

which was published at 53 FR 18764

(May 24, 1988). These limits apply only

to a certain category of mechanical

placer mining operations. Additional

information regarding the basis for

establishing the effluent limits is

summarized in the EPA publication

titled ‘‘Development Document for

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

New Source Performance Standards for

the Ore Mining and Dressing Point

Source Category—Gold Placer Mine

Subcategory’’ (May 1988)

(‘‘Development Document’’).

The Subpart M regulations establish

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards based on the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT), the best available technology

economically achievable (BAT), and

new source performance standards

(NSPS) based on the best available

demonstrated technology. The BAT

limitations and NSPS represent the level

of treatment required for all placer

mining operations covered under 40

CFR Part 440 Subpart M. Subpart M also

mandates specific best management

practices (BMPs).

The limitations and standards

established under Subpart M were

derived based on the use of settling

ponds and total recirculation of process

wastewater. Subpart M allows a mine to

discharge incidental water that enters

the mine site through infiltration,

drainage and mine drainage (including

waters entering the mine through

precipitation, snow melt, drainage

water, ground water infiltration and the

melting of permafrost) provided that

three conditions are met: (1) the

incidental waters have commingled

with process waters, (2) the volume of

the discharge is no greater than the

volume of infiltration, drainage and

mine drainage waters that is in excess

of the make-up water required for

operation of the beneficiation process,

and (3) the concentration of settleable

solids in the discharged water does not

exceed the effluent limitations specified

below.

For the purpose of this permit,

discharged wastewater consists of

incidental waters commingled with

process waters used to move the ore to

and through the beneficiation process,

water used to aid in classification, and

water used in gravity separation.

Subpart M imposes the following

effluent limitations:

a. The concentration of settleable

solids in wastewater discharged from an

open-cut mine plant or a dredge plant

site must not exceed an instantaneous

maximum of 0.2 ml/l.

b. The volume of wastewater which

may be discharged from an open-cut

mine plant or dredge plant site must not

exceed the volume of infiltration,

drainage and mine drainage waters

which is in excess of the make-up water

required for operation of the

beneficiation process.

These technology-based requirements

are specified in Parts II.A.1.a. and b. of

the proposed permit.

Part II.A.2. of the proposed permit

prohibits the discharge of any
3408 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices

wastewater during periods when new

water is allowed to enter the plant site.

It is required to assure compliance with

the technology-based requirements

established in Part II.A.1.a. of the

proposed permit.

C. Water Quality Based Limitations

1. Introduction

In addition to the technology-based

effluent limitations, the permit includes

effluent limitations which are required

to ensure compliance with WQS (Title

18, Chapter 70 of the Alaska

Administrative Code).

These standards vary with the

beneficial use they are established to

protect. In water bodies with more than

one designated beneficial use, the more

restrictive criteria apply. The WQS

protect most fresh water sources for use

in drinking, agriculture, aquaculture

and industrial water supply, contact and

secondary recreation, and the growth

and propagation of fish, shellfish, and

other aquatic life (18 AAC 70.050). This

permit will protect all the above uses.

The WQS also authorize the State to

approve mixing zones. 18 AAC

70.032(a) states in part that ‘‘(i)n

applying the water quality criteria set

out in this chapter, the department will,

upon application and in its discretion,

prescribe in a permit or certification a

mixing zone.’’ A mixing zone is the

volume of water, adjacent to a

discharge, in which wastes discharged

mix with the receiving water, and

within which the water quality criteria

set forth in 18 AAC 70.020 may be

exceeded. 18 AAC 70.032 sets forth the

method for determining whether a

mixing zone is appropriate and, if so,

the appropriate size of a mixing zone.

Where a mixing zone is authorized,

WQS must be achieved at the edge on

the mixing zone, known also as the zone

of initial dilution (‘‘ZID’’).

2. Alaska Water Quality Standards

EPA has evaluated the following WQS

in determining appropriate permit

limits:

a. Turbidity. According to the WQS,

the most protective turbidity criteria

applies to fresh water sources classified

for use as drinking water and contact

recreation uses. These criteria, which

are set forth in 18 AAC 70.020(b), state

that turbidity ‘‘(m)ay not exceed 5

nephelometric turbidity units (NTU)

above natural conditions when the

natural turbidity is 50 NTU or less; and

more than 10% increase in turbidity

when the natural condition is more than

50 NTU, not to exceed a maximum

increase of 25 NTU.’’

b. Sediment. The most protective

sediment criterion applies to fresh water

sources classified for use as drinking

water. This criterion is a narrative

standard requires ‘‘(n)o measurable

increase in concentration of settleable

solids above natural conditions, as

measured by the volumetric Imhoff cone

method.’’ The lowest measurable value

of settleable solids using an Imhoff cone

is 0.2 ml/l.

c. Metals. Under Alaska WQS, metals

constitute ‘‘Toxic and Other Deleterious

Organic and Inorganic Substances.’’ The

most restrictive metals criterion is that

which applies to fresh water used for

the growth and propagation of fish,

shellfish, and other aquatic life and

wildlife. See 18 AAC 70.020 (1995).

That criterion prohibits individual

substances from exceeding the EPA

Quality Criteria for Water or, if those

criteria do not exist, the Primary

Maximum Contaminant Levels of the

Alaska Drinking Water Standards.

Under this criterion, even more

stringent limits may be imposed where

ADEC finds that the limits are not

appropriate for sensitive resident Alaska

species.

(1) Metals Other Than Arsenic. Under

the proposed modifications, metals

other than arsenic are regulated through

permit limitations on settleable solids

and turbidity. EPA has determined that

any metals present in raw placer mining

wastewater are associated with the

solids in that wastewater. Development

Document at 98. By meeting the

settleable solids limitation of 0.2 ml/l, a

miner will have removed almost all of

the metals that might otherwise be

present in placer mining effluent.

However, the concentration of

remaining metals still might exceed the

metals criteria. Because the remaining

metals are associated with solids, the

permit’s limitations on turbidity—

which EPA believes in placer mining

effluent is almost wholly composed of

solids that have not settled—will

control any remaining metals that might

be in the effluent.

(2) Arsenic. EPA has concluded,

based on available sampling data, that

arsenic is commonly associated with

placer mining wastes. Development

Document at 118, 131. Locally, it is the

most abundant toxic metal present.

Additionally, although several studies

by EPA have indicated a reduction in

levels of arsenic in placer mining

effluent as a result of reducing settleable

solids to 0.2 ml/l, EPA has concluded

that these reduced levels of arsenic are

not consistently adequate to achieve

WQS. Development Document at 118,

131.

3. Limitations

Based on review of the WQS and

available data, EPA proposes that the

modified general permit would contain

limitations on flow, turbidity, settleable

solids and arsenic in order to meet the

WQS of concern.

a. Flow and Turbidity. Because metals

other than arsenic are strongly

associated with solids, the technologybased limits on settleable solids and on

the volume of wastewater discharged—

which effectively require the use of

settling ponds—greatly reduce metals.

EPA believes additional WQS-based

limits on turbidity assure compliance

with the metals criteria. Placer mining

effluent turbidity is almost entirely

caused by those solids that have not

settled. Thus, turbidity is an indicator of

solids, and therefore it is an indicator of

metals too. The turbidity limit thus is

not only necessary to achieve the WQS

for turbidity but also to achieve the

WQS for metals other than arsenic.

For purposes of the general permit,

the maximum turbidity limit of the

effluent is that which would result in a

level of turbidity, after mixing, that does

not exceed 5 NTU above background.

The State of Alaska has agreed, as part

of its certification of individual NOIs, to

consider modifying the turbidity

limitation to account for the dilution

effects of the receiving stream. The

applicant would provide with the NOI

sufficient information demonstrating

that the dilution effect of the receiving

water justifies a less stringent limit and

disclosing effluent flow. The necessary

dilution information may be provided,

as it has in past years, by the permittee

or by the Alaska Department of Natural

Resources (ADNR). Where the applicant

does not provide the site-specific

information sufficient to justify a less

stringent turbidity limit, coverage under

the modified general permit would be

granted with a turbidity limit of 5 NTU

above natural background.

The proposed modification would

make three changes that better ensure

that site-specific turbidity limits achieve

WQS for metals other than arsenic.

First, the modified general permit

condition would be based on the

assumption that the naturally occurring

turbidity level is 0 NTU. This

assumption is based on the fact that

most Alaska waters upon which placer

mining is conducted have either no or

very low levels of naturally occurring

turbidity.

Second, the flow estimate that the

permittee traditionally has provided—

and which is used to calculate sitespecific turbidity limits—would be

included in the permit as a limit. This
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices 3409

would foster accurate assessment of

flows and thereby ensure appropriate

turbidity limits because applicants who

might otherwise tend to underestimate

flows, and thereby get a higher turbidity

limit, will now have a strong incentive

to estimate flows accurately. On the

other hand, those who inadvertently

underestimate flows can, by

undertaking additional turbidity

monitoring, negate the presumption that

a flow exceedance was resulted in a

permit violation. So long as a miner

takes a turbidity sample that

demonstrates compliance with the

turbidity limit, any flow exceedance

will not be considered a permit

violation.

Third, the turbidity limit would be

based on a more conservative low-flow

projection based on the thirty day, tenyear low flow (30Q10). This low-flow

projection is more conservative than

would be required were turbidity not

being used as part of the permit’s regime

to comply with WQS for metals other

than arsenic. That is, 30Q10 is proposed

in recognition of the potential for placer

mining effluent to include toxic metals.

Under the Alaska WQS, if the turbidity

limitation were not a means for

implementing WQS for toxics, the less

stringent three-day, ten-year low flow

(3Q2) would be the proposed low flow.

(On the other hand, a more stringent

assumed low flow based on seven-day,

ten-year low flow (7Q10) would be

utilized in accordance with the Alaska

WQS if placer mining effluent were

known to contain toxic pollutants.

(A miner who seeks higher turbidity

limits than would result under

application of the formula would have

to apply for an individual permit and

would have to include information that

demonstrates that the above

considerations do not be apply to his or

her location. For example, a miner may

obtain a higher turbidity limit if he or

she could demonstrate in an individual

permit application that turbidity natural

background is above zero or that metals

are not present in the mining effluent.)

The procedures that the State has

indicated it would use to calculate a

turbidity limit under the general permit

are substantially the same as those used

in the individual placer mining permits

issued since 1986. The proposed

turbidity limit is based on utilizing a

mass balance equation which relates

receiving water flow and turbidity to

effluent flow and turbidity. The basic

form of this equation is:

Q1C1=Q2C2,

where

C1=effluent turbidity ;

C2=receiving water downstream

turbidity after mixing where the

allowable increase is 5 NTU above

background (i.e. 5 NTU);

Q1=effluent flow and,

Q2=total receiving water flow

downstream from discharge after

complete mixing (i.e. 30Q10).

This formula differs from that used

previously in two respects. First, as

discussed above, it assumes a

background turbidity of zero. The

formula used in the May 31, 1994

permit was:

Q1C1+Q2C2=Q3C3

where Q1 represented receiving water

flow upstream of the discharge and C1

represented the receiving water

turbidity upstream of the discharge.

Because the modified general permit

would assume that the upstream

turbidity is zero, Q1C1 in the previous

formula falls out of this equation, and

thus, the two equations are the same.

Authorization under the proposed

modified general permit would only be

available based on the zero background

turbidity assumption. Second, under

this formula no default effluent flow

will be utilized. A miner who submits

an NOI for zero discharge will not be

eligible to receive a site-specific

turbidity limit.

The necessary information to

determine the appropriate turbidity

limit for the facility is the effluent and

receiving water flow values. Receiving

water flow values can be obtained from

the ADNR, Division of Mining, upon

request by the permittee. ADNR

methodology for determining upstream

flow uses equations developed by

Ashton and Carlson (1984). The

maximum effluent discharge flow must

be estimated by the permittee and must

account for the effects of all excess

incidental waters.

Discharges requesting turbidity limits

that account for effluent and receiving

water flow rates would need to submit

the necessary information to EPA with

the NOI. This would apply to all

dischargers, including those who have

submitted this type of information in

the past, in order to assure that all sitespecific information is up-to-date. EPA

would forward this information to the

Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation.

b. Settleable Solids. The settleable

solids limitation would serve both as a

technology-based limitation and as a

WQS-based limitation. The most

conservative WQS standard for

sediment is defined in terms of

settleable solids as measured using an

Imhoff Cone. The Imhoff Cone does not

reliably quantify settleable solids at

levels below 0.2 ml/l which is also the

technology-based limit for placer mines.

Thus, the permit’s technology-based

limit also would implement the WQS

for sediment.

As mentioned above, compliance with

the settleable solids limitation, also

would greatly assist, if it would not

alone ensure, compliance with WQS for

metals. The vast majority of whatever

metals are present in placer miner

wastewater would be removed where

the discharge meets the settleable solids

limitation. Development Document at

98.

c. Arsenic. In establishing the arsenic

limit, EPA proposes to rely on the

‘‘Amendments to the Water Quality

Standards Regulation; Compliance with

CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B)

(‘‘Amendments’’) (57 FR 6084). This

rulemaking promulgated the chemicalspecific numeric criteria for priority

toxic pollutants necessary to bring all

States into compliance with the

requirements of the CWA Section

303(c)(2)(B). The primary focus of the

rule is the inclusion of the federal water

quality criteria for pollutant(s) in State

standards as necessary to support water

quality-based control programs (e.g.

NPDES permits). Thus, the existing

federal standard of 0.18 μg/l total

recoverable arsenic is applicable to

Alaska and this number has been used

to determine the end-of-pipe limitation

for the draft permit.

The arsenic criterion in the

Amendments is currently under

consideration for revision. If the current

arsenic criterion has been stayed by EPA

prior to final issuance of the modified

general permit and no new or interim

criterion has been promulgated, EPA

intends, consistent with the Alaska

Water Quality Standards, to include in

the final permit an arsenic limit of 50

μg/l total arsenic which is the Alaska

Drinking Water Standard for arsenic. If

the current criterion is stayed and EPA

issues a new or interim criterion that is

less stringent than the State standard,

EPA likewise will include the State

standard. Alternatively, if the new or

interim EPA-issued criterion were more

stringent than the State standard, it

would be included.

While Mixing zones are allowed

under the Alaska standards for some

pollutant discharges, under 18 AAC

70.032(a)(1) the State will not authorize

a mixing zone if ‘‘pollutants discharged

could be expected to cause

carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic

effects on biota or human health’’ and

result in a significant human health risk.

EPA is not proposing a mixing zone

for arsenic but would include a method

for determining a mixing zone in the
3410 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices

permit if the Department determines

that such a mixing zone is appropriate

and is in compliance with WQS.

The proposed general permit does not

address circumstances where natural

background exceeds criteria. Miners

seeking to discharge arsenic at levels up

to natural background must apply for

individual permits. They must also

obtain from ADEC a limit based on

natural background in accordance with

the provisions of 18 AAC 70.025.

IV. Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Section 402(a)(2) authorizes EPA to

include miscellaneous requirements in

permits on a case-by-case basis which

are deemed necessary to carry out the

provisions of the Act. BMPs are

practices designed to control or abate

the discharge of pollutants.

A. BMP conditions in Permit Parts

III.A.1. to III.A.5. of the proposed permit

were developed pursuant to Section

304(e) of the CWA. These BMPs are

established in 40 CFR 440.148 and are

necessary for control and treatment of

the drainage and infiltration water at

gold placer mines and to prevent solids

and toxic metals from being released to

the receiving streams.

1. The intent of Permit Part III.A.1. is

to avoid contamination of nonprocess

water, reduce the volume of water

requiring treatment and maximize the

retention time and the settling capacity

of the settling ponds. The diversion

would be required to totally circumvent

any gold recovery units, treatment

facilities, etc. Any mine drainage

sources that pass through the actual

mining area and are subject to

transporting pollutants would be

required to be treated prior to discharge.

2. Permit Part III.A.2. is intended to

assure that water retention devices are

constructed appropriately. This may be

achieved by utilizing on-site material in

a manner that the fine sealing material

(such as clays) are mixed in the berms

with coarser materials. Berms should be

toed into the underlying earth,

constructed in layers or lifts and each

layer thoroughly compacted to ensure

mechanical and watertight integrity of

the berms. Other impermeable material

such as plastic sheets or membranes

may be used inside the berms when

sealing fines are unavailable or in short

supply. The side slope of berms should

not be greater than the natural angle of

repose of the materials used in the

berms or a slope of 2:1, whichever is

flatter.

3. The intent of Permit Part III.A.3 is

to ensure that the investment in

pollution control results in the

maximum benefit in terms of reduced

pollutant volumes reaching water of the

United States. These measures may

include location of the storage ponds

and storage areas to assure that they will

not be washed out by reasonably

predictable flooding or by the return of

a relocated stream to it original stream

bed. Materials removed from settling

ponds should be placed in bermed areas

where liquids from the materials cannot

flow overland to waters of the United

States. It may be necessary, in some

cases, to collect such liquids and pump

or divert them back to the settling pond

for treatment. This requirement applies

both during the active mining season

and at all other times until reclamation

is completed.

4. Permit Part III.A.4. is intended to

assure that the amount of wastewater

that is discharged is kept to a minimum.

5. The provisions of Permit Part

III.A.5. would ensure that water control

devices are adequately maintained. This

specifies that structures should be

inspected on a regular basis for any

signs of structural weakness or incipient

failure. Whenever such weakness or

incipient failure becomes evident, repair

or augmentation of the structure to

reasonably ensure against catastrophic

failure shall be made immediately.

B. Pursuant to CWA Section 402(a)(2)

(40 CFR 122.44(k)(3), additional BMPs

are being proposed; these practices are

reasonably necessary either to achieve

effluent limitations or to carry out the

Clean Water Act’s goals of eliminating

the discharge of pollutants as much as

practicable and to maintain water

quality which provides for the

protection and propagation of fish

among other uses.

In addition, the BMPs in Permit Part

III.B. would apply to all suction dredges

covered by the modified permit. Suction

dredges’ unique method of intake and

displacement present unusual

permitting issues. They operate on the

surface of flowing streams and rivers,

only remove material from stream

bottoms, and process and quickly return

mined material to the stream bottom.

For these reasons EPA has determined

that numeric effluent limitations are not

necessary. Instead, the BMPs in part

III.B. of the permit have been developed.

These BMPs, which are supplemented

by required turbidity monitoring

designed to ensure that the BMPs are

being implemented properly, are, in this

unique circumstance, sufficient to

implement the requirements of the

CWA. That is, these practices would

ensure that the beneficial uses

designated by the state, chiefly the

growth and propagation of fish and

other aquatic life, are adequately

protected and justify the absence of

more stringent technology and waterquality based effluent limitations.

1. Permit Part III.A.6. would require

reasonable steps be taken to ensure that

pollutants are not discharged after close

of the mining season. Any discharge of

pollutants from the mine area to waters

of the United States, even when it is not

being operated, in excess of permit

limits would constitute a violation of

the Clean Water Act.

2. Permit Part III.A.7. would require

that a minimum separation distance be

maintained between mine discharge

points. Separation is intended to

prevent the creation of extended

overlapping discharge plumes and

thereby ensure unimpaired fish habitat

zones exist between discharge points.

Solids associated with the effluent from

mechanical operations effluent

downstream and settles downstream

among gravel and rocks in the

streambed. Too much silt and sand

make it difficult for the salmon to dig

suitable gravel nests (redds) and can

also smother fish eggs already

deposited. An applicant who would face

difficulty complying with this BMP may

submit an application for an individual

permit.

3. Permit Part III.B.1. would require

that dredging occur only in the active

stream channel except where the mining

the active channel would contribute to

erosion of stream banks. Mining the

active stream channel generally should

result in dredging spoils that are

relatively clean and should cause

minimum turbidity when returned to

the stream. The material that runs

through a suction dredge flows

downstream and settles among gravel

and rocks in the streambed. As

mentioned above, too much silt and

sand make it difficult for the salmon to

dig suitable gravel nests (redds) and can

also smother fish eggs already

deposited.

4. Wherever practicable, Permit Part

III.B.2. requires that dredge be set to

discharge into a quiet pool where

settling of dredge spoils can occur more

rapidly. This should minimize in-stream

turbidity to the general area of the

dredging activity.

5. Permit Part III.B.3. would prohibit

dredging within 500 feet of any location

where the miner knows fish spawn or

have left eggs. This BMP also is

intended to protect the waters for

propagation of fish. The greatest single

effect a suction dredge has on the

environment is the danger it poses to

fish. The dredge pump forces water and

gravel through the nozzle and hose. Fish

eggs taken up with gravel cannot

survive the shock, pressure, and

battering and pounding that comes with
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices 3411

moving through the hose and sluice. If

a fish egg should somehow survive the

hose and sluice, the chances for being

buried in the gravel at the right depth

and in the correct gravel composition

necessary for incubation are

nonexistent.

This BMP also would require miners

to inform themselves of these locations

where fish eggs may exist. In addition

to consulting the regional office of the

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

(ADF&G), miners may consult ‘‘The

Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important

for Spawning, Rearing or Migration of

Anadromous Fish,’’ which lists the

streams in the State which require a

Habitat permit from the ADF&G. This

catalog is quite extensive but is

available for viewing at many agencies

including Alaska Department of Fish

and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, the National Marine Fisheries

Service and the Anchorage Operations

Office of EPA.

6. Likewise Permit Part III.B.4 would

protect conditions in the receiving water

for the benefit of fish. Moving

obstructions may cause turbidity in

excess of WQS. Instream obstructions

also serve important habitat purposes.

7. Permit Part III.B.5. would protect

against an unnecessary and unpermitted

discharge of turbidity.

8. Permit Part III.B.6., like Permit Part

III.A.7., would ensure that turbidity will

not impair fish habitat for long stretches

of water where mining operations are in

close proximity to one another.

9. Permit Part III.B.7. emphasizes the

Permit Part III.B.1. The active stream

channel is characterized by the absence

of clay and silt. Dredging activity in clay

and silt can result in turbidity plumes

greatly in excess of the 500 foot

limitation proposed in the general

permit.

10. The purpose of Permit Part III.B.8.

would be to control the potential

discharge of pollutants, resulting from

fuel spills, from entering receiving

waters.

Basis for Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements

Monitoring

All self-monitoring requirements were

developed in consideration of the

remoteness of the mining operations,

the magnitude of the pollutants

discharged, and the practicability of

maintaining a valid quality assurance

program.

Monitoring provisions for turbidity,

arsenic, settleable solids, and flow (in

Part II.C.) are included in the proposed

modified general permit. These

provisions explain how, when, and

where to collect such samples.

EPA has prepared a daily checklist as

an attachment to the proposed modified

general permit. Permittees would be

required to maintain a record of the

information required by part II.C.1.b of

the permit. The attached checklist may

be utilized to assist permittees in

ensuring compliance with that part. All

compliance records would have to be

maintained for three years in

accordance with part IV. of the permit.

In accordance with Section 308 of the

Clean Water Act, EPA may require that

such records be submitted to the agency.

EPA intends to make information

requests in accordance with Section 308

when reasonably requested by members

of the public.

Daily Monitoring

a. Mechanical Operations. (1) For

mechanical operations, the

measurement of settleable solids is an

indication of overall treatment

efficiency. The modified general permit

would require monitoring for settleable

solids once per day during periods of

discharge. If there is a discharge to

waters of the United States, permittees

would be required to sample for

settleable solids on a daily basis, even

if sluicing does not occur, because the

operator is responsible at all times for

the condition of the wastewater entering

the receiving stream. Also, the results

from settleable solids sampling can give

the operator an immediate indication of

the overall effectiveness of the treatment

system and thus allow advanced

planning for treatment system

maintenance.

(2) Daily effluent flow monitoring also

would be required in the proposed

modified general permit. This

requirement would provide data for

determining compliance with turbidity

limits derived using mixing zones and

would allow EPA to assess the pollutant

loading discharged into the receiving

water. On days when flow exceeds

permit limits, a permittee may take a

turbidity sample. So long as turbidity

remains within permit limits, flow

exceedances will not be considered to

be permit violations.

(3) The daily visual inspection

provision in Part II.D.1. of the proposed

modified general permit would be

required to assure against discharges

resulting from structural failure of

berms, dikes, dams and other water

control structures. A visual inspection is

an effective tool for assuring proper

operation and maintenance.

b. Suction Dredging. The modified

permit would require daily visual

inspection of the area downstream of

the suction dredge during operation. If

turbidity is observed beyond 500 feet

downstream, the permittee would be

required to modify its operations to

meet the permit limitation. If the

operations could not be modified to

meet the limit, the operation would not

be authorized.

This requirement is based on research

published in the scientific literature

(Griffith and Andrews 1981, Hassler et

al. 1986, Harvey 1986, Huber and

Blanchet 1992, Thomas 1985) and on

monitoring done by Alaska Department

of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)

(Ron McAllister, ADEC, personal

communication). In most cases, water

quality recovered rapidly below the

dredge. The daily visual inspection

during operation, combined with the

BMPs in part III.B. of the permit should

assure that the water quality standards

are met.

2. Seasonal Monitoring—Turbidity and

Arsenic

Permittees would be required to

monitor for turbidity and arsenic once

for each calendar month in which there

is a discharge and at least three times

per season. The permittee should space

sampling as evenly throughout the

mining season as possible. If the

permittee has fewer than three

discharges per season, the permittee

would be required to sample each

discharge. If the permittee has fewer

than three discharges per season, the

permittee should take samples of each

discharge.

For permittees who have not obtained

a site-specific turbidity limit under part

II.A.1.c. of the permit, background

samples for turbidity, taken

immediately upstream of the effluent

discharge point, would be required.

Effluent turbidity samples would also be

required. For permittees who did obtain

a site-specific limit, only samples of the

effluent would be required.

Samples for monitoring purposes

would be required to be taken during

sluicing or discharge at a time when the

operation has reached equilibrium. For

example, samples should be taken when

sluice paydirt loading and effluent

discharge are fairly constant.

B. Reporting

The following reporting requirements

apply to all permittees with the

exception of suction dredges with intake

hoses of four inches or less.

1. Reporting of effluent violations

would be required in writing within a

reasonable time period. The information

required by Attachment A must be

included. This is found in Permit Part

IV.G.

2. Reporting of visual violations from

suction dredges would be required in
3412 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices

1Quantification of measurements below the ML

are not acceptable since it requires extrapolation of

calibration data to a level below the range of data

used to make the original calibration. For a detailed

description of these terms, definitions, and interim

measures, please refer to EPA’s Technical Support

Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control,

March 1991, page 111, and the draft ‘‘National

Guidance for the Permitting, Monitoring, and

Enforcement of Water Quality-Based Effluent

Limitations Set Below Analytical Detection/

Quantification levels’’ (March 3, 1994).

writing within a reasonable time period.

This is found in Permit Part IV.G.

3. The results of all monitoring or

notice that no discharge or no mining

would be reported to EPA by November

30 of each year. This is found in Permit

Part IV.B.

4. Reporting of the results of arsenic

monitoring: As a result of the increasing

use of water quality-based effluent

limits (WQBEL) in NPDES permits, a

number of permits now contain limits

that fall below the capability of current

analytical technology to detect and/or

quantify specific parameters. EPA’s

draft ‘‘National Guidance for the

Permitting, Monitoring, and

Enforcement of Water Quality-Based

Effluent Limitations Set Below

Analytical Detection/Quantification

levels’’ (March 1994) outlines objectives

for achieving consistency in establishing

permit pollutant limitations for

pollutants that are set below detection

levels, taking into consideration the

capabilities and uncertainties of

currently available analytical

methodologies.

EPA’s guidance specifies that,

regardless of the ability to measure to

the level of the WQBEL, the value

provided for the maximum and average

effluent limits in the permit should be

expressed as the calculated WQBELs.

The inability to measure to the

necessary level of detection is addressed

by establishing the Minimum Level

(ML1) as the quantification level for use

in laboratory analysis and for reporting

Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)

data for compliance evaluations. In the

absence of promulgated MLs, Interim

MLs should be used. EPA believes that

Interim ML values can be derived most

effectively as a multiple of the existing

Method Detection Limit (MDL) value for

a given analyte. The Interim ML is

approximated by 3.18 times the

published MDL. The Interim ML is then

rounded to the nearest whole number

for the metal analyte and corresponding

specific analytical method approved

under Section 304(h). In some cases,

MDLs for several metals have not been

established. When neither the ML nor

the MDL is available, 3.18 times the best

estimate of the detection level should be

used.

The discharge of arsenic in excess of

the effluent limit is not authorized by

this permit. Because the water quality

based effluent limit for arsenic (.18 μg/

l) is below the MDL of 1 μg/l using EPA

Method 206.2, EPA has derived an

interim minimum level of 3 μg/l (3.18×1

μg/l=3.18 rounded to 3) as the

quantifiable level. EPA intends to

consider using enforcement discretion

with regard to arsenic discharges

reported below the quantifiable level.

For purposes of reporting analytical

results for arsenic in the DMR, results

below the MDL will be reported as ‘‘less

than 1 μg/l’’. Actual analytical results

shall be reported on the DMR when the

results are greater than the MDL. The

permittee must also specify in the

comment column of the DMR that

Method 206.2 was used for analysis.

VI. Other Requirements

A. Spill Prevention Control and

Containment (SPCC) Plan

Part III.C. of the proposed modified

general permit was established in

accordance with Part 40 CFR

122.44(k)(3). The purpose of this

requirement would be to control the

potential discharge of pollutants,

resulting from fuel spills, from entering

receiving waters.

B. Endangered Species

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) previously provided EPA with a

species list for the state of Alaska. The

recommended protection measures for

the species of concern during the

nesting period prohibits alterations of

limited, high quality habitat which

could detrimentally and significantly

reduce prey availability. Because the

proposed modified general permit is

written to protect aquatic life or human

health criteria (whichever is more

stringent), EPA previously determined

that no alterations of habitat due to

water discharges authorized by this

permit should occur. Because of this,

EPA has determined that formal

consultation for Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act is not necessary

for existing facilities. EPA will provide

FWS with copies of the proposed

modified general permit for

concurrence.

Environmental Assessments would be

completed for each new source

discharge as is stated in Part I.A.3. of the

modified general permit. Any

consultation necessary to comply with

the Endangered Species Act would be

performed at the time the

Environmental Assessment is

submitted.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

EPA has reviewed the requirements

imposed on regulated facilities by these

draft general NPDES permits under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information

collection requirements of the proposed

modified general permit have already

been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

submissions made for the NPDES permit

program under the provisions of the

Clean Water Act.

VII. Storm Exemption

Part III.D. of the proposed permit

would establish a storm exemption

provision to authorize exceedances of

technology-based effluent limitations

and standards in the permit so long as

the permittee meets certain design and

operational criteria. This provision

reflects regulations in 40 CFR

440.141(b).

This provision would allow for the

unavoidable exceedance of technologybased effluent limitations during storms

of intensity greater than or equal to a 5-

year, 6-hour storm event. The storm

exemption will be allowed provided

that (1) the settling ponds are designed,

constructed, and maintained to contain

the volume of process water generated

during four hours of normal operation

plus the drainage water resulting from a

5-year, 6-hour storm event, (2) the

operator takes all reasonable steps

possible to maintain treatment of the

wastewater and minimize overflow from

the settling ponds, (3) the permittee

complies with the BMPs in Part III.A.1.–

.5 of the proposed permit, and (4) the

operator complies with all the

notification requirements for bypasses

and upsets as established in Parts III.G.

and H. of the proposed permit. Part

III.D. of the proposed permit establishes

the specific conditions which must be

met in order to be eligible for the storm

exemption.

This exemption is designed to provide

an affirmative defense to an

enforcement action. Therefore, the

operator has the burden of

demonstrating to the appropriate

authority that the above conditions have

been met.

VIII. New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS)

Pursuant to Section 301 of the CWA,

NSPS [40 CFR 440.144] were

promulgated for gold placer mine

facilities. NSPS apply to new mines

determined to be new sources by virtue

of their activities occurring after
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices 3413

promulgation of the rule (May 24, 1988).

The NSPS for gold placer mining

facilities are based on the same

treatment technology as BAT, which

consists of simple settling plus

recirculation of all process water. BAT

is based on the best demonstrated

technology that is available for treating

gold placer mine wastewater, those

mines which are new sources will not

be subject to controls more stringent

than those applicable to existing mines.

In accordance with Section 511(c)(1)

of the CWA, NPDES permits for new

sources are subject to the provisions of

the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA). NEPA requires that, prior to the

issuance of an NPDES permit to a new

source facility, an Environmental

Assessment (EA) must be prepared to

determine the potential for any

significant impacts on the quality of the

human environment resulting from

operation of the new source. Permit part

I.E.1. would require that new facilities

submit a notice of intent by January 1

of the year of discharge. This will allow

adequate time to complete EAs for each

new source prior to the mining season.

If the EA indicates that significant

adverse environmental impacts may

occur, then the applicant would be

required to prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS). However, if the

EA indicates that significant impacts are

not anticipated, a Finding of No

Significant Impact (FNSI) would be

issued and the facility would be covered

by the general permit. The FNSI may be

based, in part, on required permit

conditions or mitigation measures

necessary to make the recommended

alternative environmentally acceptable.

IX. State Certification

Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Act

requires that an NPDES permit contain

conditions which ensure compliance

with applicable State water quality

standards or limitations. The limitations

for turbidity were established based to

implement WQS. Section 401 requires

that States certify that Federally issued

permits are in compliance with State

law. No permits can be issued until the

requirements of Section 401 are

satisfied.

The modified general permit would

apply to operations discharging to

waters of the State of Alaska. EPA is

requesting State officials review and

provide appropriate certification to

these draft permits pursuant to 40 CFR

124.53.

The Coastal Zone Management Act

(CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. and its

implementing regulations [15 CFR Part

930] requires that any federally licensed

activity affecting the coastal zone with

an approved Coastal Zone Management

Program (CZMP) be determined to be

consistent with the CZMP. EPA is

requesting State officials review and

make a determination whether the

proposed modified general permit are

consistent with State policy.

X. References

Ashton, W. and R. Carlson. 1984.

Determinations of Seasonal Frequency

and Durational Aspects of Stream Flow

With Regard to Fish Passage Through

Roadway Drainage Structures.

Department of Transportation and Public

Facilities.

Griffith, J.S. and D.A. Andrews. 1981. Effects

of a small suction dredge on fishes and

aquatic invertebrates in Idaho streams.

North American Journal of Fisheries

Management 1:21–28.*

Hassler, T.J., W.L. Somer and G. R. Stern.

1986. Impacts of suction dredge mining

on anadromous fish, invertebrates and

habitat in Canyon Creek, California.

Calif. Coop. Fish. Res. Unit., Humboldt

State University, Arcata, California,

Coop. Agreement No. 14–16–0009–1547,

Work Order No. 2. 135 pages.*

Harvey, B.C. 1986. Effects of suction gold

dredging on fish and invertebrates in two

California streams. North American

Journal of Fisheries Management 6:401–

409.*

Huber, C. and D. Blanchet. 1992. Water

quality cumulative effects of placer

mining on the Chugach National Forest,

Kenai Peninsula, 1988–1990. U.S. Forest

Service, Chugach National Forest, Alaska

Region. 74 pages.*

McCleneghan, K. and R.E. Johnson. 1983.

Suction dredge gold mining in the

mother lode region of California.

California Department of Fish and Game,

Environmental Services Branch,

Administrative Report 83–1.*

Minshall, G.W., D.A. Andrews and C. Y.

Manual-Faler. 1983. Application of

island biogeographic theory to streams:

macroinvertebrate recolonization of the

Teton River, Idaho. In J.R. Barnes and

G. W. Minshall editors Stream Ecology:

Application and testing of general

ecological theory. Plenum Press, New

York.*

Scannel, P.O. 1988. Effects of elevated

sediment levels from placer mining on

survival and behavior of immature Arctic

grayling. Master’s thesis. University of

Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA. 93

pages.*

Somer, W.L. and T.J. Hassler. 1992. Effects of

suction-dredge gold mining on benthic

invertebrates in a Northern California

Stream. North American Journal of

Fisheries Management 12:244–252.*

Thomas, V.G. 1985. Experimentally

determined impacts of a small, suction

gold dredge on a Montana stream. North

American Journal Fisheries Management

5:480–488.*

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. Water

Quality Study: Arkansas River above

Salida, Colorado. U.S Army Corps of

Engineers, Albuquerque District, P.O.

Box 1580, Albuquerque, New Mexico

87103.*

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991.

Regulatory strategy for controlling small

commercial and recreational placer

mining, draft. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste,

2800 Crystal Drive, Crystal Station,

Crystal City, Virginia 20202. EPA

Contract No. 68–C8–0066, W.A. 30. SAIC

Project No. 1–833–03–630–00. 73 pages.*

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988.

Development Document for Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and New Source

Performance Standards for the Ore

Mining and Dressing Point Source

Category—Gold Placer Mining

Subcategory. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Water

Regulations and Standards, Industrial

Technology Division, Washington, D.C.

20460. EPA 440/1–88–061.

* Literature cited in literature research

project.

Authorization to Discharge Under the

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System For Alaskan Placer

Miners

[General Permit No.: AKG–37–0000]

In compliance with the provisions of

the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C.

§ 1251 et seq., as amended by the Water

Quality Act of 1987, P.L. 100–4, the

‘‘Act’’.

Owners and operators of facilities

engaged in the processing of placer gold

are authorized to discharge to waters of

the United States, in accordance with

effluent limitation, monitoring

requirements, and other conditions set

forth herein.

A Copy of This General Permit Must Be

Kept at the Site Where Discharges

Occur

[Facility Name]

[Receiving Water]

The orginal version of this permit

became effective June 30, 1994. This

permit as modified shall become

effective on [date of publication in the

Federal Register].

This permit and the authorization to

discharge shall expire on June 30, 1999.

Informational Copy Only

Phil Millam, Director, Office of Water,

Region 10, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency

Table of Contents

Cover Page

I. Coverage Under This Permit

A. Coverage and Eligibility

B. Authorized Placer Mining Operations

C. Additional Requirements
3414 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices

D. Prohibitions

E. Requiring an Individual Permit

F. Notification Requirements

G. Permit Expiration

II. Effluent Limitations

A. Mechanical Operation (Traditional

Sluicing)

B. Suction Dredges

C. Monitoring Requirements

III. Management Practices

A. Mechanical Operations

B. Suction Dredges

C. Other Requirements: Mechanical

Operations

D. Storm Exemption

IV. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

A. Representative Sampling

B. Reporting of Monitoring Results

C. Monitoring Procedures

D. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee

E. Records Contents

F. Retention of Records

G. Notice of Noncompliance Reporting

H. Other Noncompliance Reporting

V. Compliance Responsibilities

A. Duty to Comply

B. Penalties for Violations of Permit

Conditions

C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a

Defense

D. Duty to Mitigate

E. Proper Operation and Maintenance

F. Removed Substances

G. Bypass of Treatment Facilities

H. Upset Conditions

I. Toxic Pollutants

VI. General Requirements

A. Changes in Discharge of Toxic

Substances

B. Planned Changes

C. Anticipated Noncompliance

D. Permit Actions

E. Duty to Reapply

F. Duty to Provide Information

G. Other Information

H. Signatory Requirements

I. Availability of Reports

J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability

K. Property Rights

L. Severability

M. State Laws

N. Paperwork Reduction Act

O. Inspection and Entry

VII. Reopener Clause

VIII. Definitions

Attachment 1: Turbidity Sampling Protocol

Attachment 2: Arsenic Sampling Protocol

Attachment 3: Settleable Solids Sampling

Protocol and Analysis Protocol

Attachment 4: Sample Daily Monitoring

Checklist

I. Coverage Under This Permit

A. Coverage and Eligibility

1. Existing Facilities (those facilities

having individual National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System [NPDES]

permits or coverage under the existing

Alaska placer miner general permit):

Upon the submittal of a Notice of Intent

(NOI) to gain coverage under this

permit, existing facilities which meet

the criteria for coverage under Part I of

this permit will be granted coverage

according to Permit Part F.4.

2. Pending Applications: Upon

submittal of an NOI, all facilities which

have submitted applications in

accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(a) and

which meet the criteria for coverage

under this permit will be granted

coverage according to Permit Part F.4.

3. New Facilities: New facilities that

are determined to be new sources under

the CWA will be required to have an

Environmental Assessment (EA)

completed pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A

finding of no significant impact (FNSI)

by EPA is necessary prior to receiving

coverage under this permit. A FNSI will

become effective only after the public

has had notice of, and an opportunity to

comment on, the FNSI including either

the accompanying Environmental

Assessment or a summary of it, and the

EPA has fully considered all public

comments submitted, pursuant to 40

C.F.R. § 6.400(d). If there may be a

significant impact, the facility will

require an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS). An EIS will be issued

only after public notice and an

opportunity for public comments on a

draft EIS pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 6.403(a)

and § 1503.1(a).

4. Expanding Facilities: Facilities that

contemplate expanding shall submit a

new NOI that describes the new

discharge. The current permit will be

terminated and a new permit, reflecting

the changes, issued in its place if the

facility meets all the necessary

requirements of coverage.

5. Coastal Zone Facilities: Facilities

located in the coastal zone as

determined by the Alaska Coastal Zone

Management Act shall submit, with

their Notice of Intent (NOI), an

individual consistency determination

from Alaska Division of Governmental

Coordination (ADGC) unless ADGC

makes an overall determination on this

General Permit after its issuance.

B. Authorized Placer Mining Operations

1. Facilities that mine and process

gold placer ores using gravity separation

methods to recover the gold metal

contained in the ore.

a. Open-cut gold placer mines except

those open-cut mines that mine less

than 1,500 cubic yards of placer ore per

mining season.

b. Mechanical dredge gold placer

mines (not suction dredges) except

those dredges that remove less than

50,000 cubic yards of placer ore per

mining season or dredge in open waters.

2. Suction dredges with intake hoses

of less than or equal to 8 inches.

C. Additional Requirements

1. Many streams and stream reaches

in Alaska have been designated as part

of the federal wild and scenic rivers

system or as Conservation System Units

(CSUs) by the federal government.

Permittees should contact the district

offices of the federal agencies that

administer the designated area for

additional restrictions that may apply to

operating within the area.

2. Many streams in Alaska where

placer mining occurs have been

designated by the Alaska Department of

Fish and Game (ADF&G) as anadromous

fish streams. Placer mining activities in

these streams require an ADF&G Fish

Habitat Permit which may include

additional restrictions. The ‘‘Atlas to the

Catalog of Waters Important for the

Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of

Anadromous Fish’’ lists the streams in

the State which require prior ADF&G

authorization. In addition, placer

mining activities in resident fish

streams require an ADF&G Fish Habitat

Permit if the proposed activity will

block or impede the efficient passage of

fish. Permittees operating in

anadromous or resident fish streams

should contact the ADF&G to determine

permitting requirements and additional

restrictions that may apply.

D. Prohibitions

1. Discharges from the following

beneficiation processes are not

authorized under this permit: Mercury

amalgamation, cyanidation, froth

floatation, heap and vat leaching.

2. This general permit does not apply

to facilities located or proposed to be

located in State Parks, National Parks

and Preserves, National Monuments,

National Conservation Areas, National

Wildlife Refuges, National Wilderness

Areas and waters designated under the

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C.

§§ 1271–1287.

3. Discharges from hydraulicking, as

defined in Part VIII.F, are not authorized

under this permit.

E. Requiring an Individual Permit

1. The Regional Administrator may

require any person authorized by this

permit to apply for and obtain an

individual NPDES permit when:

a. The single discharge or the

cumulative number of discharges is/are

a significant contributor of pollution;

b. The discharger is not in compliance

with the terms and conditions of the

general permit;

c. A change has occurred in the

availability of demonstrated technology

or practices for the control or abatement

of pollutants applicable to the point

source;
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices 3415

d. Effluent limitations guidelines are

subsequently promulgated for the point

sources covered by the general permit;

e. A Water Quality Management plan

containing requirements applicable to

such point sources is approved; or

f. An Individual Control Strategy (ICS)

is required under Section 304(L) of the

Act, or

g. A Total Maximum Daily Load

(TMDL) and corresponding wasteload

allocation has been completed for a

waterbody or a segment of a waterbody,

or

h. A review of the facility shows that

it is subject to the State of Alaska’s antidegradation policy.

i. There are other Federal or State

legislation, rules or regulations

pertaining to a site directly or indirectly

related to water quality.

2. The Regional Administrator will

deny coverage under this permit in the

following circumstances:

(a) a land management agency

submits a request that general permit

coverage be denied to EPA within thirty

(30) days of the agency’s receipt of an

NOI; and,

(b) the land management agency’s

request includes proposed additional or

revised permit terms which the

requesting agency reasonably believes—

based upon evidence attached to or

cited in the request—are necessary to

protect the natural values of the affected

location; and,

(c) the land management agency’s

request concerns a person who either;

i. seeks to discharge into U.S. waters

located in National Recreation Areas,

Sanctuaries, or Critical Habitat Areas, or

in State Refuges, Preserves, Sanctuaries,

Recreation Areas, or Critical Habitat

Areas; or,

ii. is in significant noncompliance

with the terms and conditions of the

most recent applicable NPDES permit;

or,

iii. intends to discharge into waters

designated as impaired or polluted

under the Clean Water Act.

Any person denied coverage under

this part must apply for and obtain

coverage under either (1) an individual

permit, or (2) another applicable

watershed-specific general permit. Upon

receipt of any such application, EPA

will determine whether the permit

terms requested by the land

management agency should be included

in the applicable permit.

3. The Regional Administrator will

notify the operator in writing by

certified mail that a permit application

is required. If an operator fails to

submit, in a timely manner, an

individual NPDES permit application as

required, then any applicability of this

general permit to the individual NPDES

Permittee is automatically terminated at

the end of the day specified for

application submittal.

4. Any owner or operator authorized

by this permit may request to be

excluded from the coverage of this

permit by applying for an individual

permit. The owner or operator shall

submit an individual application (Form

1 and Form 2C or 2D) with reasons

supporting the request to the Regional

Administrator no later than 90 days

after the effective date of the permit.

5. When an individual NPDES permit

is issued to an owner or operator

otherwise covered by this permit, the

applicability of this permit to the

facility is automatically terminated on

the effective date of the individual

permit.

6. When an individual NPDES permit

is denied to an owner or operator

otherwise covered by this permit, the

Permittee is automatically reinstated

under this permit on the date of such

denial, unless otherwise specified by

the Regional Administrator. A new

facility can receive coverage under this

general permit by submitting an NOI.

See Permit Part I.A.3. for details.

7. A source excluded from a general

permit solely because it already has an

individual permit may request that the

individual permit be revoked and that it

be covered by the general permit. Upon

revocation of the individual permit, the

general permit shall apply to the source.

F. Notification Requirements

1. Owners or operators of facilities

authorized by this permit, except

suction dredges with intake hoses of

less than or equal to 4 inches, shall

submit an NOI to be covered by this

permit. The information required for a

complete NOI is in Appendix A of this

permit. Notification must be made:

a. within 90 days of issuance of this

permit; or

b. by January 1 of the year of

discharge from a new facility or a

facility established since 1988 subject to

New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS) that has not previously been

covered by a permit; or

c. 90 days prior to discharge from a

new facility not subject to NSPS; or

d. 90 days prior to the expiration of

an existing individual permit, or

e. 90 days prior to discharge for any

other facilities. Authorization to

discharge requires written notification

from EPA that coverage has been

granted and that a specific permit

number has been assigned to the

operation.

2. The NOI shall be signed by the

owner or other signatory authority in

accordance with Permit Part VI.H.

(Signatory Requirements), and a copy

shall be retained on site in accordance

with Permit Part IV.F. (Retention of

Records). The address for NOI

submission to EPA is: United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, WD–134,

Seattle, Washington 98101

3. A copy of the NOI must also be sent

to:

a. the Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation (ADEC).

The address is: Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation, 610

University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska

99709 and,

b. the Federal, State, or local agency

that manages or owns the land in which

the mine is located or proposed to be

located. The addresses are:

Anchorage Area

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of

Land Management, 222 West 7th

Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513–

7599

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1011 E Tudor

Rd.,Anchorage, AK 99503

U.S. Department of Interior, National

Park Service, 605 West 4th Avenue,

Suite 104, Anchorage, AK 99501

Fairbanks Area

State of Alaska, Department of Fish &

Game, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks,

AK 99701–1599

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of

Land Management, 1150 University

Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99709

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service, 101 12th Avenue,

Box 19, Fairbanks, AK 99701

U.S. Department of Interior, National

Park Service, 250 Cushman, Suite 1A,

Fairbanks, AK 99701

Glennallen Area

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of

Land Management, P.O. Box 147,

Glennallen, AK 99588

U.S. Department of Interior, National

Park Service, Wrangell St. Alias, P.O.

Box 439, Copper Center, AK 99573

Juneau Area

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service, 3000 Vintage Blvd.,

Suite 201, Juneau, AK 99801

U.S. Department of Interior, National

Park Service, P.O. Box 21089, Juneau,

AK 99802–1089

Nome Area

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of

Land Management, P.O. Box 925,

Nome, AK 99762
3416 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices

U.S. Department of Interior, National

Park Service, P.O. Box 220, Nome, AK

99762

Tok Area

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of

Land Management, P.O. Box 309, Tok,

AK 99780

c. For suction dredges, a copy of the

NOI must also be sent to the regional

office of the Alaska Department of Fish

& Game (ADFG) nearest the location of

the dredge. The addresses are:

Anchorage Area, 333 Raspberry Road,

Anchorage, AK 99518

Glennallen Area, P.O. Box 47,

Glennallen, AK 99588–0047

Juneau Area, P.O. Box 25526, Juneau,

AK 99802–5526

Nome Area, Pouch 1148, Nome, AK

99762

Tok Area, P.O. Box 779, Tok, AK 99780

4. A copy of the general permit will

be sent to the Permittee, other than

Permittees of suction dredges with

intake hoses less than or equal to 4

inches, when it is determined that the

facility can be granted coverage under

this general permit. If it is determined

that coverage cannot be granted under

this permit, the applicant will be

informed of this in writing.

5. The owner or operator of a suction

dredge with an intake hose less than or

equal to 4 inches and who is authorized

by this permit shall submit to EPA at the

address in Permit Part I.F.2. a letter of

intent to be covered by this permit. The

letter shall include the following:

a. the name, address, and telephone

number of the owner and operator;

b. the locations (e.g. waterbody name

and segment) where, and dates when,

the owner or operator intend to operate

the suction dredge;

c. a brief description of the suction

dredge, including the size of the intake

hose; and,

d. a statement that the owner and

operator have read the provisions of this

permit and intend to comply with the

permit provisions that apply. The letter

of intent shall be submitted to the EPA

no later than three weeks before the

owner or operator intends to begin

operating the suction dredge.

G. Permit Expiration

This permit will expire on June 30,

1999. For facilities submitting a new

NOI 90 days prior to expiration of this

general permit, the conditions of the

expired permit continue in force until

the effective date of a new permit.

II. Effluent Limitations

A. Mechanical Operation (Traditional

Sluicing)

[Not including Suction Dredges]

During the term of this permit, no

wastewater discharges are authorized

except as specified below.

1. Effluent Limitations.

a. The volume of wastewater which

may be discharged shall not exceed the

volume of infiltration, drainage and

mine drainage waters which is in excess

of the make-up water required for

operation of the beneficiation process.

b. The wastewater discharged shall

not exceed the following:

Effluent characteristic Instantaneous

maximum

Settleable Solids ....... 0.2 ml/l

Turbidity .................... 5 NTUs above natural

background*

Arsenic, Total Recoverable.0.18 ug/l

Effluent Flow ............. [Flow reported in

NOI**]

*Subject to Turbidity Mixing Zone outlined in

Permit Part II.A.1.c.

**See Part II.A.1.d. for details.

c. Permittees may request a modified

turbidity limit based upon a mixing

zone approved by the Alaska

Department of Environmental

Conservation (ADEC) pursuant to 18

AAC 70.032. EPA will approve a

modified turbidity limit proposed by

ADEC under this General Permit if the

modified limit and resulting mixing

zone are consistent with the Clean

Water Act, EPA’s regulations, and 18

AAC 70.032, and provided that:

i. the modified turbidity limit does

not exceed 1500 NTU’s;

ii. the modified turbidity limit does

not cause turbidity levels to exceed 100

NTU’s in at least one-half of the crosssectional area of resident and

anadroumous fish migration corridors;

iii. the ‘‘point of complete mixing’’ as

referenced in 18 AAC 0.032(d), shall be

calculated using (1) the 10 year, 30-day

low flow (30Q10) as the chronic criteria

design flow for the protection of aquatic

life; and (2) zero, as the value for

upstream turbidity;

iv. the modified turbidity limit does

not result in a mixing zone in an area

of anadromous fish spawning or

resident fish spawning redds for the fish

species listed in 18 AAC

70.032(d)(3)(D)(ii); and,

v. the public was provided reasonable

notice of, and an opportunity to

comment on, the modified turbidity

limit and associated mixing zone,

including site-specific assessments used

to calculate the limit and zone, prior to

their approval by ADEC.

d. The volume of discharge shall not

exceed the volume reported by the

permittee on the NOI (Appendix A). If

the permittee exceeds that volume, EPA

will not consider the permittee in

violation of the flow limit if:

i. the permittee submits to EPA

turbidity samples taken during the

period of the flow exceedence; and,

ii. those samples show that the

permittee’s discharge did not exceed the

turbidity limit established in Part

II.A.1.b or Part II.A.1.c., whichever is

applicable.

The permittee must report all

exceedences of the flow limit, together

with any turbidity data which the

permittee intends to use to avoid being

considered in violation of the flow limit,

pursuant to the reporting requirements

in Part IV.G.

2. Effluent discharges are prohibited

during periods when new water is

allowed to enter the plant site.

Additionally, there shall be no

discharge as a result of the intake of new

water.

B. Suction Dredging

1. At all points in the receiving stream

500 feet downstream of the dredge’s

discharge point, the maximum

allowable increase in turbidity over the

natural receiving stream turbidity while

operating is 5 NTUs.

2. A visual increase in turbidity (any

cloudiness or muddiness) 500 feet

downstream of the suction dredge

during operations would be considered

a violation of the 5 NTU limit.

3. If noticeable turbidity does occur

500 feet downstream of the work site,

operation of the suction dredge must

decrease or cease so that a violation as

defined above does not exist.

C. Monitoring Requirements

1. Mechanical Operations. a. During

the period beginning on the effective

date of this permit and lasting until the

expiration date, the following

monitoring shall be conducted:

Effluent characteristic Monitoring location Monitoring frequency Sample type

Settleable Solids (ml/l) ............................. effluent .................................................... once per day each day of discharge ...... Grab.

Turbidity (NTU) ........................................ effluent .................................................... 3 times per season * ............................... Grab.

background ............................................. 3 times per season * ............................... Grab.

Arsenic (μg/l) ........................................... effluent .................................................... 3 times per season * ...............................
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices 3417

Effluent characteristic Monitoring location Monitoring frequency Sample type

Grab **

Flow (gpm) ............................................... effluent .................................................... * * * ........................................................ Instantaneous.

*See Part II C.1.c. & d. for details.

**Analyzed by EPA Method 206.2 with a detection limit of 1 μg/l.

***See Part II. C.1.f. for details.

b. Inspection Program. The Permittee

shall institute a comprehensive

inspection program to facilitate proper

operation and maintenance of the

recycle system and the wastewater

treatment system. As a part of the

comprehensivie inspection program, the

permittee shall record the information

requested on Attachment 4 to this

permit on a daily basis. The Permittee

shall conduct a visual inspection of the

site once per day, while on site, during

the mining season. The Permittee shall

maintain records of all information

resulting from any inspections in

accordance with part IV.F. of this

permit. These records shall include an

evaluation of the condition of all water

control devices such as diversion

structures and berms and all solids

retention structures including, but not

limited to, berms, dikes, pond

structures, and dams. The records shall

also include an assessment of the

presence of sediment buildup within

the settling ponds. The Permittee shall

examine all ponds for the occurrence of

short circuiting.

c. Turbidity Monitoring. Permittees

that have obtained a site-specific

turbidity limit under Permit Part

II.A.1.c. shall take at least one turbidity

sample for each calendar month in

which there is a discharge and at least

three turbidity samples for the entire

mining season, even if the Permittee has

a discharge in fewer then three calendar

months. Those Permittees that do not

obtain a site-specific turbidity limit

shall take at least one turbidity sample

set (i.e. the discharge and background

samples referenced in Part IV.A.) for

each calendar month in which there is

a discharge and at least three turbidity

sample sets for the entire mining season,

even if the Permittee has a discharge in

fewer than three calendar months. Both

samples of a sample set shall be taken

within a reasonable time frame.

A Permittee who has had less than

three days of discharge over the course

of the mining season, must submit one

sample or sample set for each day of

discharge.

All samples must be taken and stored

in the manner set forth in Attachment

1. All sample results shall be reported

on the annual Discharge Monitoring

report (DMR). Monitoring shall be

conducted in accordance with accepted

analytical procedures.

d. Arsenic Monitoring. Arsenic

samples shall be representative of the

discharge and shall be taken at a point

prior to entering the receiving stream.

Monitoring shall be conducted in

accordance with accepted analytical

procedures. The Permittee shall report

the sample results on the DMR. See

attachment 2 for sampling protocol.

Because the water quality based effluent

limit for arsenic (.18 μg/l) is below the

MDL (1 μg/l) using EPA Method 206.2,

EPA has derived an interim minimum

level of 3 μg/l (3.18 × 1 μg/l = 3.18

rounded to 3) as the quantifiable level.

For purposes of reporting analytical

results for arsenic in the DMR, results

below the MDL will be reported as ‘‘less

than 1 μg/l’’. Actual analytical results

shall be reported on the DMR when the

results are greater than the MDL. The

permittee must also specify in the

comment column of the DMR that

Method 206.2 was used for analysis.

The Permittee shall take at least one

arsenic sample for each calendar month

in which there is a discharge and at

least three arsenic samples for the entire

mining season, even if the Permittee has

a discharge in fewer than three calendar

months. A Permittee who has had less

then three days of discharge over the

course of the mining season, must

submit one sample for each day of

discharge.

All samples must be taken and stored

in the manner set forth in Attachment

2.

e. Settleable Solids Monitoring.

Settleable solids samples shall be

representative of the discharge and shall

be taken at a point prior to entering the

receiving stream. Monitoring shall be

conducted in accordance with accepted

analytical procedures (Standard

Methods, 17th Edition, 1989). The

Permittee shall report the daily sample

results on the annual DMR. See

attachment 3 for sampling and analysis

protocol. Attachment 4 provides an

example of how monitoring results may

be recorded and reported.

f. Flow Monitoring. Effluent flow

shall be measured at the discharge prior

to entering the receiving water. Effluent

flow shall be measured at least once per

day, for continuous discharges, or once

during each discharge event if

discharges are intermittent. The

operator must also estimate seepage

discharging to waters of the United

States each day that seepage occurs.

Effluent flow and seepage flow shall be

measured in gallons per minute (gpm).

The flow and seepage measurements,

the number of discharge events, and the

duration of each discharge event shall

be reported in the annual DMR for each

day of the mining season. For each day

in which the permittee fails to monitor

effluent flow when required by this

permit, the permittee will not be

considered in violation of this permit if:

i. the permittee submits to EPA

turbidity samples taken during each day

in which flow was not monitored; and,

ii. those turbidity samples show that

the permittee’s discharge did not exceed

the turbidity effluent limit in Part

II.A.1.b.

The permittee must report all failures

to comply with the flow monitoring

requirement, together with any turbidity

data which the permittee intends to use

to avoid being considered in violation of

that requirement, pursuant to the

reporting requirements in Part IV.G.

2. Suction Dredges. a. Suction Dredge

operations shall visually monitor for

turbidity as described in Permit Part

II.B. once per day of operation, in the

following manner: Operators shall mark

the point 500 feet downstream of the

point of discharge from the suction

dredge. With this 500 foot point marked,

individuals who conduct visual

monitoring shall observe the turbidity

plume, where visible, immediately

downstream until they reach either the

point at which the turbidity plume is no

longer visible, or the 500 foot mark,

which ever point comes first. Monitors

shall record daily all turbidity

monitoring results. The Permittee shall

maintain records of all information

resulting from any visual inspections.

b. The Permittee will report the

period of suction dredging on the DMR.

Visual violation occurrences will also be

reported on the DMR along with the

measures taken to comply with the

provisions of Permit Part II.B.3. The

requirements of this paragraph are not

applicable to suction dredges with

intake hoses of less than or equal to 4

inches.
3418 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices

III. Management Practices

A. Mechanical Operations

1. The flow of surface waters (i.e.,

creek, river, or stream) into the plant

site shall be interrupted and these

waters diverted around and away to

prevent incursion into the plant site.

2. Berms, including any pond walls,

dikes, low dams, and similar water

retention structures shall be constructed

in a manner such that they are

reasonably expected to reject the

passage of water.

3. Measures shall be taken to assure

that pollutant materials removed from

the process water and wastewater

streams will be retained in storage areas

and not discharged or released to the

waters of the United States.

4. The amount of new water allowed

to enter the plant site for use in material

processing shall be limited to the

minimum amount required as makeup

water.

5. All water control devices such as

diversion structures and berms and all

solids retention structures such as

berms, dikes, pond structures, and dams

shall be reasonably maintained to

continue their effectiveness and to

protect from failure.

6. The operator shall take whatever

reasonable steps are appropriate to

assure that, after the mining season, all

unreclaimed mine areas, including

ponds, are in a condition which will not

cause degradation to the receiving

waters over those resulting from natural

causes.

7. During each mining season, a

permittee may not discharge into the

receiving stream within five hundred

feet of any upstream or downstream

placer mining discharges which are

occurring or have already occurred that

season. Nor may a permittee discharge

at a point within five hundred feet of

the downstream edge of a mixing zone

granted for any upstream placer mining

discharges.

B. Suction Dredges

1. Dredging is permitted only within

the active stream channel. Dredging

within the active stream channel which

results in undercutting or excavating, or

which otherwise results in erosion of a

stream bank, is prohibited.

2. Except as provided in paragraph 3

below, wherever practicable, the dredge

shall be set to discharge into a quiet

pool, where settling of dredge spoils can

occur more rapidly.

3. Dredging and discharging are

prohibited within 500 feet of locations

where fish are known to spawn or

where fish eggs are known to exist at the

time dredging occurs. Each Permittee

shall consult the regional office of the

Alaska Department of Fish & Game

(ADFG) for the region in which the

Permittee proposes to operate a dredge

in order to obtain the information

necessary to comply with this BMP.

Each Permittee shall report the

information obtained from ADFG, and

the name and title of the official

contacted, to EPA concurrently with the

NOI.

4. Winches or other motorized

equipment shall not be used to move

boulders, logs, or other natural instream

obstructions.

5. No wheeled or tracked equipment

may be used instream.

6. Suction dredges shall not operate

(including discharge) within 1000 feet

of another dredging operation occurring

simultaneously or known to have

occurred within the previous 12

months.

7. Dredging of silt and clay is

prohibited.

8. Care shall be taken by the operator

during refueling of the dredge to prevent

spillage into public waters or to

groundwater.

C. Other Requirements: Mechanical

Operations

The operator shall maintain fuel

handling and storage facilities in a

manner which will prevent the

discharge of fuel oil into the receiving

waters or on the adjoining shoreline. A

Spill Prevention Control and

Countermeasure Plan (SPCC Plan) shall

be prepared and updated as necessary in

accordance with provisions of 40 CFR

Part 112 for facilities storing 660 gallons

in a single container above ground, 1320

gallons in the aggregate above ground,

or 42,000 gallons below ground.

The Permittee shall indicate on the

DMR if an SPCC Plan is necessary and

in place at the site and if changes were

made to the Plan over the previous year.

D. Storm Exemption

The Permittee may qualify for a storm

exemption from the technology-based

effluent limitation in Permit Part

II.A.1.a. of this NPDES general permit if

the following conditions are met:

1. The treatment system is designed,

constructed and maintained to contain

the maximum volume of untreated

process wastewater which would be

discharged, stored, contained and used

or recycled by the beneficiation process

into the treatment system during a 4-

hour operating period without an

increase in volume from precipitation or

infiltration, plus the maximum volume

of water runoff (drainage waters)

resulting from a 5-year, 6-hour

precipitation event. In computing the

maximum volume of water which

would result from a 5-year, 6-hour

precipitation event, the operator must

include the volume which should result

from the plant site contributing runoff to

the individual treatment facility.

2. The operator takes all reasonable

steps to maintain treatment of the

wastewater and minimize the amount of

overflow.

3. The source is in compliance with

the Management Practices in Permit Part

III.A.

4. The operator complies with the

notification requirements of Permit

Parts IV.G. and IV.H.

IV. Monitoring and Reporting

Requirements for Mechanical

Operations and Suction Dredges With

Intake Hoses of Greater Than 4 Inches

A. Representative Sampling

All samples for monitoring purposes

shall be representative of the monitored

activity, 40 CFR 122.41 (j). To determine

compliance with permit effluent

limitations, ‘‘grab’’ samples shall be

taken as established under Permit Part

II.D. Specifically, effluent samples for

settleable solids, turbidity, and arsenic

shall be collected from the settling pond

outlet or other treatment systems’ outlet

prior to discharge to the receiving

stream. Additionally, turbidity

background samples shall be taken at a

point that is representative of the

receiving stream just above the

permittee’s mining operation. Those

who receive a site-specific turbidity

limit, pursuant to Permit Part II.A.1.c.,

are not required to take background

turbidity samples. Samples for arsenic

and turbidity monitoring must be taken

during sluicing at a time when the

operation has reached equilibrium. For

example, samples should be taken when

sluice paydirt loading and effluent

discharge are constant.

B. Reporting of Monitoring Results

Monitoring results shall be

summarized each month and reported

on EPA Form 3320–1 (DMR). The DMR

shall be submitted to the Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200

Sixth Avenue, Enforcement Section

WD–135, Seattle, Washington 98101–

3188, no later than November 30 each

year.

If there is no mining activity during

the year or no wastewater discharge to

a receiving stream, the Permittee shall

notify EPA of these facts no later than

November 30 of each year.

The DMR shall also be sent to the

ADEC office located in Fairbanks. The

address can be found in permit part

I.F.3.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices 3419

C. Monitoring Procedures

Monitoring must be conducted

according to test procedures approved

under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test

procedures have been specified in this

permit.

D. Additional Monitoring by the

Permittee

If the Permittee monitors any

pollutant more frequently than required

by this permit, using test procedures

approved under 40 CFR part 136 or as

specified in this permit, the results of

this monitoring shall be included in the

calculation and reporting of the data

submitted in the DMR. Such increased

frequency shall also be indicated.

E. Records Contents

Records of monitoring information

shall include:

1. The date, exact place, and time of

sampling or measurements;

2. The individual(s) who performed

the sampling or measurements;

3. The date(s) analyses were

performed;

4. The individual(s) who performed

the analyses;

5. The analytical techniques or

methods used; and

6. The results of such analyses.

F. Retention of Records

The Permittee shall retain records of

all monitoring information, including

all calibration and maintenance records

and all original strip chart recordings for

continuous monitoring instrumentation,

copies of all reports required by this

permit, and records of all data used to

complete the application for this permit,

for a period of at least three years from

the date of the sample, measurement,

report or application. This period may

be extended by request of the Director

or ADEC at any time. Data collected onsite, copies of DMRs, and a copy of this

NPDES permit must be maintained onsite during the duration of activity at the

permitted location.

G. Notice of Noncompliance Reporting

1. Any noncompliance which may

endanger health or the environment

shall be reported as soon as the

Permittee becomes aware of the

circumstance. A written submission

shall also be provided in the shortest

reasonable period of time after the

Permittee becomes aware of the

occurrence.

2. The following occurrences of

noncompliance shall also be reported in

writing in the shortest reasonable period

of time after the Permittee becomes

aware of the circumstances:

a. Any unanticipated bypass which

exceeds any effluent limitation in the

permit (See Permit Part V.G., Bypass of

Treatment Facilities.); or

b. Any upset which exceeds any

effluent limitation in the permit (See

Permit Part V.H., Upset Conditions.).

c. Any violation of any of the

requirements of this Permit.

3. The written submission shall

contain:

a. A description of the noncompliance

and its cause;

b. The period of noncompliance,

including exact dates and times;

c. The estimated time noncompliance

is expected to continue if it has not been

corrected;

d. Steps taken or planned to reduce,

eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of

the noncompliance;

e. Any turbidity data submitted

pursuant to Parts II.A.1.d. (Effluent flow

limit) and II.C.f (Flow Monitoring); and

f. Mechanical operations must also

provide the information required by

Attachment 4 for each date of the period

of noncompliance.

4. The Director may waive the written

report on a case-by-case basis if an oral

report has been received within 24

hours by the Enforcement Section in

Seattle, Washington, by phone, (206)

553–1213.

5. Reports shall be submitted to the

addresses in Permit Part IV.B.,

Reporting of Monitoring Results.

H. Other Noncompliance Reporting

Instances of noncompliance not

required to be reported in Permit Part

IV.G. above shall be reported at the time

that monitoring reports for Permit Part

IV.B. are submitted. The reports shall

contain the information listed in Permit

Part IV.G.3.

V. Compliance Responsibilities

A. Duty to Comply

The Permittee must comply with all

conditions of this permit. Any permit

noncompliance constitutes a violation

of the Act and is grounds for

enforcement action; for permit

termination, revocation and reissuance,

or modification; or for denial of a permit

renewal application. The Permittee shall

give advance notice to the Director and

ADEC of any planned changes in the

permitted facility or activity which may

result in noncompliance with permit

requirements.

B. Penalties for Violations of Permit

Conditions

1. Administrative Penalty. The Act

provides that any person who violates a

permit condition implementing Sections

301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of

the Act shall be subject to an

administrative penalty, not to exceed

$10,000 per day for each violation.

2. Civil Penalty. The Act provides that

any person who violates a permit

condition implementing Sections 301,

302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the

Act shall be subject to a civil penalty,

not to exceed $25,000 per day for each

violation.

3. Criminal Penalties:

a. Negligent Violations. The Act

provides that any person who

negligently violates a permit condition

implementing Sections 301, 302, 306,

307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be

punished by a fine of not less than

$2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day

of violation, or by imprisonment for not

more than 1 year, or by both.

b. Knowing Violations. The Act

provides that any person who

knowingly violates a permit condition

implementing Sections 301, 302, 306,

307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be

punished by a fine of not less than

$5,000 nor more than $50,000 per day

of violation, or by imprisonment for not

more than 3 years, or by both.

c. Knowing Endangerment. The Act

provides that any person who

knowingly violates a permit condition

implementing Sections 301, 302, 306,

307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, and

who knows at that time that he thereby

places another person in imminent

danger of death or serious bodily injury,

shall, upon conviction, be subject to a

fine of not more than $250,000 or

imprisonment of not more than 15

years, or both. A person which is an

organization shall, upon conviction of

violating this subparagraph, be subject

to a fine of not more than $1,000,000.

d. False Statements. The Act provides

that any person who knowingly makes

any false material statement,

representation, or certification in any

application, record, report, plan, or

other document filed or required to be

maintained under this Act or who

knowingly falsifies, tampers with, or

renders inaccurate any monitoring

device or method required to be

maintained under this Act, shall upon

conviction, be punished by a fine of not

more that $10,000, or by imprisonment

for not more than 2 years, or by both.

Except as provided in permit conditions

in Permit Part V.G., Bypass of Treatment

Facilities and Permit Part V.H., Upset

Conditions, nothing in this permit shall

be construed to relieve the Permittee of

the civil or criminal penalties for

noncompliance.
3420 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices

C. Need To Halt or Reduce Activity Not

a Defense

It shall not be a defense for a

Permittee in an enforcement action that

it would have been necessary to halt or

reduce the permitted activity in order to

maintain compliance with the

conditions of this permit.

D. Duty To Mitigate

The Permittee shall take all

reasonable steps to minimize or prevent

any discharge in violation of this permit

which has a reasonable likelihood of

adversely affecting human health or the

environment.

E. Proper Operation and Maintenance

The Permittee shall at all times

properly operate and maintain all

facilities and systems of treatment and

control (and related appurtenances)

which are installed or used by the

Permittee to achieve compliance with

the conditions of this permit. Proper

operation and maintenance also

includes adequate laboratory controls

and appropriate quality assurance

procedures. This provision requires the

operation of back-up or auxiliary

facilities or similar systems which are

installed by a Permittee only when the

operation is necessary to achieve

compliance with the conditions of the

permit.

F. Removed Substances

Solids, sludges or other pollutants

removed in the course of treatment or

control of wastewater’s shall be

disposed of in a manner so as to prevent

any pollutant from such materials from

entering waters of the United States.

G. Bypass of Treatment Facilities

1. Bypass not exceeding limitations.

The Permittee may allow any bypass to

occur which does not cause effluent

limitations to be exceeded, but only if

it also is for essential maintenance to

assure efficient operation. These

bypasses are not subject to the

provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this

section.

2. Notice:

a. Anticipated bypass. If the Permittee

knows in advance of the need for a

bypass, it shall submit prior notice, if

possible at least 10 days before the date

of the bypass.

b. Unanticipated bypass. The

Permittee shall submit notice of an

unanticipated bypass as required under

Permit Part IV.G., Notice of

Noncompliance Reporting.

3. Prohibition of bypass.

a. Bypass is prohibited and the

Director or ADEC may take enforcement

action against a Permittee for a bypass,

unless:

(1) The bypass was unavoidable to

prevent loss of life, personal injury, or

severe property damage;

(2) There were no feasible alternatives

to the bypass, such as the use of

auxiliary treatment facilities, retention

of untreated wastes, or maintenance

during normal periods of equipment

downtime. This condition is not

satisfied if adequate back-up equipment

should have been installed in the

exercise of reasonable engineering

judgment to prevent a bypass which

occurred during normal periods of

equipment downtime or preventive

maintenance; and

(3) The Permittee submitted notices as

required under paragraph 2 of this

section.

b. The Director and ADEC may

approve an anticipated bypass, after

considering its adverse effects, if the

Director and ADEC determine that it

will meet the three conditions listed

above in paragraph 3.a. of this section.

H. Upset Conditions

1. Effect of an upset. An upset

constitutes an affirmative defense to an

action brought for noncompliance with

such technology based permit effluent

limitations if the requirements of

paragraph 2 of this section are met. An

administrative review of a claim that

noncompliance was caused by an upset

does not represent final administrative

action for any specific event. A

determination is not final until formal

administrative action is taken for the

specific violation(s).

2. Conditions necessary for a

demonstration of upset. A Permittee

who wishes to establish the affirmative

defense of upset shall demonstrate,

through properly signed,

contemporaneous operating logs, or

other relevant evidence that:

a. An upset occurred and that the

Permittee can identify the cause(s) of

the upset;

b. The permitted facility was at the

time being properly operated;

c. The Permittee submitted notice of

the upset as required under Permit Part

IV.G., Notice of Noncompliance

Reporting; and

d. The Permittee complied with any

remedial measures required under

Permit Part V.D., Duty to Mitigate.

3. Burden of proof. In any

enforcement proceeding, the Permittee

seeking to establish the occurrence of an

upset has the burden of proof.

I. Toxic Pollutants

The Permittee shall comply with

effluent standards or prohibitions

established under Section 307(a) of the

Act for toxic pollutants within the time

provided in the regulations that

establish those standards or

prohibitions, even if the permit has not

yet been modified to incorporate the

requirement.

VI. General Requirements

A. Changes in Discharge of Toxic

Substances

Notification shall be provided to the

Director and ADEC as soon as the

Permittee knows of, or has reason to

believe:

1. That any activity has occurred or

will occur which would result in the

discharge, on a routine or frequent basis,

of any toxic pollutant which is not

limited in the permit, if that discharge

will exceed the highest of the following

‘‘notification levels’’:

a. One hundred micrograms per liter

(100 μg/l);

b. Two hundred micrograms per liter

(200 μg/l) for acrolein and acrylonitrile;

five hundred micrograms per liter (500

μg/l) for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-

methyl-4, 6-dinitrophenol; and one

milligram per liter (1 mg/l) for

antimony;

c. Five (5) times the maximum

concentration value reported for that

pollutant in the permit application in

accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); or

d. The level established by the

Director in accordance with 40 CFR

122.44(f).

2. That any activity has occurred or

will occur which would result in any

discharge, on a non-routine or

infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant

which is not limited in the permit, if

that discharge will exceed the highest of

the following ‘‘notification levels’’:

a. Five hundred micrograms per liter

(500 μg/l);

b. One milligram per liter (1 mg/l) for

antimony;

c. Ten (10) times the maximum

concentration value reported for that

pollutant in the permit application in

accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); or

d. The level established by the

Director in accordance with 40 CFR

122.44(f).

B. Planned Changes.

The Permittee shall give notice to the

Director and ADEC as soon as possible

of any planned physical alterations or

additions to the permitted facility.

Notice is required only when:

1. The alteration or addition to a

permitted facility may meet one of the

criteria for determining whether a

facility is a new source as determined in

40 CFR 122.29(b); or
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices 3421

2. The alteration or addition could

significantly change the nature or

increase the quantity of pollutants

discharged. This notification applies to

pollutants which are subject neither to

effluent limitations in the permit, nor to

notification requirements under Permit

Part VI.A.1.

3. The alteration or addition will

significantly change the location, nature

or volume of discharge or the quantity

of pollutants, subject to the effluent

limitations, discharged.

C. Anticipated Noncompliance

The Permittee shall also give advance

notice to the Director and ADEC of any

planned changes in the permitted

facility or activity which may result in

noncompliance with permit

requirements.

D. Permit Actions

This permit may be modified, revoked

and reissued, or terminated for cause.

The filing of a request by the Permittee

for a permit modification, revocation

and reissuance, or termination, or a

notification of planned changes or

anticipated noncompliance, does not

stay any permit condition.

E. Duty to Reapply

If the Permittee wishes to continue an

activity regulated by this permit after

the expiration date of this permit, the

Permittee must apply for and obtain a

new permit. The NOI should be

submitted at least 90 days before the

expiration date of this permit.

F. Duty to Provide Information

The Permittee shall furnish to the

Director and ADEC, within a reasonable

time, any information which the

Director or ADEC may request to

determine whether cause exists for

modifying, revoking and reissuing, or

terminating this permit, or to determine

compliance with this permit. The

Permittee shall also furnish to the

Director or ADEC, upon request, copies

of records required to be kept by this

permit.

G. Other Information

When the Permittee becomes aware

that it failed to submit any relevant facts

in a permit application, or submitted

incorrect information in a permit

application or any report to the Director

or ADEC, it shall promptly submit such

facts or information.

H. Signatory Requirements

All applications, reports or

information submitted to the Director

and ADEC shall be signed and certified.

1. All permit applications shall be

signed as follows:

a. For a corporation: by a responsible

corporate officer.

b. For a partnership or sole

proprietorship: by a general partner or

the proprietor, respectively

c. For a municipality, state, federal, or

other public agency: by either a

principal executive officer or ranking

elected official.

2. All reports required by the permit

and other information requested by the

Director or ADEC shall be signed by a

person described above or by a duly

authorized representative of that person.

A person is a duly authorized

representative only if:

a. The authorization is made in

writing by a person described above and

submitted to the Director and ADEC,

and

b. The authorization specified either

an individual or a position having

responsibility for the overall operation

of the regulated facility or activity, such

as the position of plant manager,

operator of a well or a well field,

superintendent, position of equivalent

responsibility, or an individual or

position having overall responsibility

for environmental matters for the

company. (A duly authorized

representative may thus be either a

named individual or any individual

occupying a named position.)

3. Changes to authorization. If an

authorization under paragraph IV.H.2. is

no longer accurate because a different

individual or position has responsibility

for the overall operation of the facility,

a new authorization satisfying the

requirements of paragraph VI.H.2. must

be submitted to the Director and ADEC

prior to or together with any reports,

information, or applications to be signed

by an authorized representative.

4. Certification. Any person signing a

document under this section shall make

the following certification:

‘‘I certify under penalty of law that this

document and all attachments were prepared

under my direction or supervision in

accordance with a system designed to assure

that qualified personnel properly gather and

evaluate the information submitted. Based on

my inquiry of the person or persons who

manage the system, or those persons directly

responsible for gathering the information, the

information submitted is, to the best of my

knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and

complete. I am aware that there are

significant penalties for submitting false

information, including the possibility of fine

and imprisonment for knowing violations.’’

I. Availability of Reports

Except for data determined to be

confidential under 40 CFR Part 2, all

reports prepared in accordance with the

terms of this permit shall be available

for public inspection at the offices of the

Director and ADEC. As required by the

Act, permit applications, permits and

effluent data shall not be considered

confidential.

J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability

Nothing in this permit shall be

construed to preclude the institution of

any legal action or relieve the Permittee

from any responsibilities, liabilities, or

penalties to which the Permittee is or

may be subject under Section 311 of the

Act.

K. Property Rights

The issuance of this permit does not

convey any property rights of any sort,

or any exclusive privileges, nor does it

authorize any injury to private property

or any invasion of personal rights, nor

any infringement of federal, state or

local laws or regulations.

L. Severability

The provisions of this permit are

severable, and if any provision of this

permit, or the application of any

provision of this permit to any

circumstance, is held invalid, the

application of such provision to other

circumstances, and the remainder of

this permit, shall not be affected

thereby.

M. State Laws

Nothing in this permit shall be

construed to preclude the institution of

any legal action or relieve the Permittee

from any responsibilities, liabilities, or

penalties established pursuant to any

applicable state law or regulation under

authority preserved by Section 510 of

the Act.

N. Paperwork Reduction Act

EPA has reviewed the requirements

imposed on regulated facilities in this

final general permit under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information

collection requirements of this permit

have already been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget in

submission made for the NPDES permit

program under the provisions of the

CWA.

O. Inspection and Entry

The Permittee shall allow the

Director, ADEC, or an authorized

representative (including an authorized

contractor acting as a representative of

the Administrator), upon the

presentation of credentials and other

documents as may be required by law,

to:

1. Enter upon the Permittee’s

premises where a regulated facility or

activity is located or conducted, or
3422 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices

1Samples that are not acidified promptly must be

sent to a laboratory within 48 hours of sample

collection.

where records must be kept under the

conditions of this permit;

2. Have access to and copy, at

reasonable times, any records that must

be kept under the conditions of this

permit;

3. Inspect at reasonable times any

facilities, equipment (including

monitoring and control equipment),

practices, or operations regulated or

required under this permit; and

4. Sample or monitor at reasonable

times, for the purpose of assuring permit

compliance or as otherwise authorized

by the Act, any substances or

parameters at any location.

VII. Reopener Clause

If effluent limitations or requirements

are established or modified in an

approved State Water Quality

Management Plan or Waste Load

Allocation and if they are more stringent

that those listed in this permit or control

a pollutant not listed in this permit, this

permit may be reopened to include

those more stringent limits or

requirements.

VIII. Definitions

A. ‘‘Active Stream Channel’’ means

that part of the channel that is below the

level of the water.

B. ‘‘Bypass’’ means the intentional

diversion of waste streams around any

portion of a treatment facility.

C. ‘‘Drainage Water’’ means incidental

surface waters from diverse sources

such as rainfall, snow melt or

permafrost melt.

D. ‘‘Expanding Facility’’ means any

facility increasing in size such as to

affect the discharge but operating within

the permit area covered by its general

permit.

E. A ‘‘Grab’’ sample is a single sample

or measurement taken at a specific time.

F. ‘‘Hydraulicking’’ means both the

hydraulic removal of overburden and

the use of hydraulic power to move raw

rock to the point of processing (i.e. to

the gate of the sluice or other processing

equipment).

G. ‘‘Infiltration Water’’ means that

water which permeates through the

earth into the plant site.

H. ‘‘Instantaneous Maximum’’ means

the maximum value measured at any

time.

I. ‘‘Mine Drainage’’ means any water,

not associated with active sluice water,

that is drained, pumped or siphoned

from a mine.

J. ‘‘Mining Season’’ means the time

between the start of mining in a

calendar year and when mining has

ceased for that same calendar year.

K. ‘‘Monitoring Month’’ means the

period consisting of the calendar weeks

which begin and end in a given calendar

month.

L. ‘‘New Facility’’ means a facility

that has not operated in the area

specified in the NOI prior to the

submission of the NOI.

M. ‘‘NTU’’ (Nephelometric Turbidity

Unit) is an expression of the optical

property that causes light to be scattered

and absorbed rather than transmitted in

a straight line through the water.

N. ‘‘Make-up Water’’ means that

volume of water needed to replace

process water lost due to evaporation

and seepage in order to maintain the

quantity necessary for the operation of

the beneficiation process.

O. ‘‘New Water’’ means water from

any discrete source such as a river,

creek, lake or well which is deliberately

allowed or brought into the plant site.

P. ‘‘Plant Site’’ means the area

occupied by the mine, necessary

haulage ways from the mine to the

beneficiation process, the beneficiation

area, the area occupied by the

wastewater treatment storage facilities

and the storage areas for waste materials

and solids removed from the

wastewater’s during treatment.

Q. ‘‘Receiving Water’’ means waters

such as lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, or

any other surface waters which receive

wastewater discharges.

R. ‘‘Severe property damage’’ means

substantial physical damage to property,

damage to the treatment facilities which

causes them to become inoperable, or

substantial and permanent loss of

natural resources which can reasonably

be expected to occur in the absence of

a bypass. Severe property damage does

not mean economic loss caused by

delays in production.

S. ‘‘Short circuiting’’ means

ineffective settling ponds due to

inadequate or insufficient retention

characteristics, excessive sediment

deposition, embankment infiltration/

percolation, lack of maintenance, etc.

T. ‘‘Silt and Clay’’ are soil particles

having a diameter of less than 0.002 mm

(2 microns).

U. ‘‘Turbidity Modification’’ means

the procedures used to calculate a

higher turbidity limit based on a mass

balance equation which relates

upstream receiving water flow and

turbidity to effluent flow and turbidity.

The basic form of this equation is:

Q1C1 = Q2C2,

where

C1 = effluent turbidity ;

C2 = receiving water downstream

turbidity after mixing where the

allowable increase is 5 NTU above

background (i.e. 5 NTU);

Q1 = effluent flow and,

Q2 = total receiving water flow

downstream from discharge after

complete mixing (i.e. 30Q10).

V. ‘‘Upset’’ means an exceptional

incident in which there is unintentional

and temporary noncompliance with

technology-based permit effluent

limitations because of factors beyond

the reasonable control of the Permittee.

An upset does not include

noncompliance to the extent caused by

operational error, improperly designed

treatment facilities, inadequate

treatment facilities, lack of preventive

maintenance, or careless or improper

operation.

W. ‘‘Wastewater’’ means all water

used in and resulting from the

beneficiation process (including but not

limited to the water used to move the

ore to and through the beneficiation

process, the water used to aid in

classification, and the water used in

gravity separation), mine drainage, and

infiltration and drainage waters which

commingle with mine drainage or

waters resulting from the beneficiation

process.

Attachment 1

Turbidity Sampling Protocol

1. Grab samples shall be collected.

2. Samples shall be collected in a

sterile one liter polypropylene or glass

container.

3. Samples must be cooled to 4

degrees Celsius (iced).

4. Samples must be analyzed within

48 hours of sample collection.

Attachment 2

Arsenic Sampling Protocol

1. Grab samples shall be collected.

2. Samples shall be collected in a

sterile one liter polypropylene or glass

container.

3. Samples must be cooled to 4

degrees Celsius (iced).

4. Samples must be acidified

promptly with nitric acid (HNO3), to a

pH less than 2.1

5. Samples must be sent to a

laboratory for analysis within 60 days.

6. Samples must be acidified for at

least 16 hours prior to analysis.

Attachment 3

Settleable Solids Sampling Protocol

1. Grab samples shall be collected.

2. Samples shall be collected in a

sterile one liter polypropylene or glass

container.

3. Samples must be cooled to 4

degrees Celsius (iced), if analysis is not

performed immediately.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 1996 / Notices 3423

4. Samples must be analyzed within

48 hours of sample collection.

Settleable Solids Analysis Protocol

1. Fill an Imhoff cone to the liter mark

with a thoroughly mixed sample.

2. Settle for 45 minutes, then gently

stir the sides of the cone with a rod or

by gently spinning the cone.

3. Settle 15 minutes longer, then

record the volume of settleable matter in

the cone as milliliters per liter. Do not

estimate any floating material. The

lowest measurable level on the Imhoff

cone is 0.1 ml/l. Any settleable material

below the 0.1 ml/l mark shall be

recorded as trace.

Attachment 4: Placer Mine Daily Checklist

Date b b b b b

Weather b b b b b

Is There a Discharge Today (including

seepage)? b b b b b

What is the Volume of Discharge (gallons per

minute)? b b b b b

How Much Make-up Water Did You Allow

Into Your Mine Site, if Any? b b b b

b

What is the Volume of Settleable Solids in

the Effluent? (ML/L) b b b b b

Are ANy of Your Ponds, Dikes and Berms

Leaking or Eroding? (describe) b b b b

b

How Far Below Your Discharge Can You

Observe a Discharge Plume, If Any? b b

b b b

Don’t Forget to Take Your Turbidity

and Arsenic Samples.

[FR Doc. 96–1707 Filed 1–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE

UNITED STATES

Environmental Review Procedures

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the

United States.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank (‘‘ExIm Bank’’) is extending the effective

date of its existing Environmental

Procedures and Guidelines (which were

issued on February 1, 1995 for a oneyear trial period expiring on February 1,

1996) to April 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Popi Artavanis, Export-Import Bank of

the United States, Engineering and

Environment Division, 811 Vermont

Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20571, tel:

(202) 565–3570.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

106 of the Export Enhancement Act (12

U.S.C. 635i–5) (‘‘Section 106’’) provides

that Ex-Im Bank shall establish

environmental review procedures

consistent with the Bank’s overall

mandate to maintain U.S. export

competitiveness. Pursuant to this

section, the Ex-Im Bank Board of

Directors approved a set of

Environmental Procedures and

Guidelines on February 1, 1995. The

new procedures and guidelines were

made effective on a one-year trial basis

until February 1, 1996. The Ex-Im Bank

is extending the effective date of these

procedures and guidelines to April 1,

1996.

These procedures and guidelines are

not subject to notice and comment

requirements or to publication in the

Federal Register pursuant to 5 U.S.C

553(a)(2), 553(b)(A), and 553(d)(2).

Copies may be obtained by written

request from Ex-Im Bank’s Engineering

and Environment Division, 811 Vermont

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20571.

Accordingly, under the authority of

Section 106 of the Export Enhancement

Act (12 U.S.C. 635i–5), the

Environmental Procedures and

Guidelines will remain in effect until

April 1, 1996.

Dated: January 25, 1996.

Kenneth W. Hansen,

General Counsel, Export-Import Bank of the

United States.

[FR Doc. 96–1985 Filed 1–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6690–01–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[Report No. 2119]

Petition for Reconsideration of Actions

in Rulemaking Proceedings

January 26, 1996.

Petition for reconsideration have been

filed in the Commission rulemaking

proceedings listed in this Public Notice

and published pursuant to 47 CFR

1.429(e). The full text of these

documents are available for viewing and

copying in Room 239, 1919 M Street,

NW., Washington, DC or may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor ITS, Inc. (202) 857–3800.

Opposition to this petition must be filed

February 15, 1996. See Section 1.4(b)(1)

of the Commission’s rules (47 CFR

1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must

be filed within 10 days after the time for

filing oppositions has expired.

Subject: Amendment of Section

73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM

Broadcast Stations. (Jefferson City,

Cumberland Gap, Elizabethton, TN and

Jonesville, VA) (MM Docket No. 94–116,

RM–8507, RM–8567) Number of

Petition Filed: 1.

Subject: Amendment of Section

73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM

Broadcast Stations. (Columbia, Bourbon,

Leasburg, Gerald, Dixon and Cuba,

Missouri) (MM Docket No. 92–214, RM–

8062, RM–8144, RM–8145, RM–8146,

RM–8147) Number of Petitions Filed: 2.

Subject: Amendment of Section

73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM

Broadcast Stations. (Ava, Branson and

Mountain Grove, Missouri) (MM Docket

No. 91–352, RM–7866) Number of

Petition Filed: 1.

Subject: Amendment of Section

73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM

Broadcast Stations. (Brookline,

Missouri) (MM Docket No. 90–195, RM–

7152) Number of Petition Filed: 1.

Subject: Amendment of Section 73–

202(b), Table of Allotments, FM

Broadcast Stations. (Cloverdale,

Montgomery and Warrior, Alabama)

(MM Docket No. 94–78, RM–8472, RM–

8525) Number of Petition Filed: 1.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–1852 Filed 1–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

[GC Docket No. 95–172; FCC 95–468]

Rainbow Broadcasting Co.

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Hearing Designation Order.

SUMMARY: The Commission is

designating a hearing to determine

whether Rainbow Broadcasting

Company is qualified to be a

Commission licensee. The United States

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia directed the Commission to

conduct such a hearing. The hearing

will resolve all questions regarding

Rainbow Broadcasting Company’s

qualifications.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ava

H. Berland, Office of General Counsel, at

202–418–1720.

SUPPLEMENATARY INFORMATION: 1. This is

a summary of the Memorandum

Opinion and Hearing Designation Order

in GC Docket No. 95–172, adopted

November 20, 1995 and released

November 22, 1995. The full text of this

document is available for inspection

and copying, Monday through Friday, 9

a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the FCC Dockets

Reference Room (room 239), 1919 M St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, and may

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Services, Inc. (ITS), 2100

M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington,

D.C. 20037.

2. The court in Press Broadcasting

Company, Inc. v. FCC, 59 F.3d 1365