96-1707. Proposed General NPDES Permit for Placer Mining in Alaska

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 21 (Wednesday, January 31, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3403-3423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1707]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[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, 

[[Page 3404]]
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 [phone].

    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, [phone].
    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 [phone]. 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 

[[Page 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 non-discretionary 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 site-specific 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 

[[Page 3406]]
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 

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 

[[Page 3408]]
    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 technology-based 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 site-specific turbidity 
limits--would be included in the permit as a limit. This 

[[Page 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, ten-year 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 site-specific 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 chemical-specific 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 g/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 g/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 

[[Page 3410]]
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 water-quality 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 


[[Page 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 

[[Page 3412]]
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.

    \1\ Quantification 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 g/l) is below the MDL of 1 g/l 
using EPA Method 206.2, EPA has derived an interim minimum level of 3 
g/l (3.18 x 1 g/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 g/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 
technology-based 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 

[[Page 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. Sec. 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
    
[[Page 3414]]

    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. 
Sec. 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. Sec. 6.403(a) and Sec. 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. Secs. 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; 

[[Page 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 anti-degradation 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 

[[Page 3416]]

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 cross-sectional 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   Grab.                    
                                                                of discharge.                                   
Turbidity (NTU).....................  effluent...............  3 times per season *..  Grab.                    
                                      background.............  3 times per season *..  Grab.                    
Arsenic (g/l)..............  effluent...............  3 times per season *..  .........................

[[Page 3417]]
                                                                                                                
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 g/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 g/l) is 
below the MDL (1 g/l) using EPA Method 206.2, EPA has derived 
an interim minimum level of 3 g/l (3.18  x  1 g/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 g/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. 

[[Page 3418]]


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. 

[[Page 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 on-site, copies of DMRs, and a copy of 
this NPDES permit must be maintained on-site 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, [phone].
    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. 

[[Page 3420]]


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 g/l);
    b. Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 g/l) for acrolein 
and acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter (500 g/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 g/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 

[[Page 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 

[[Page 3422]]
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\

    \1\ Samples that are not acidified promptly must be sent to a 
laboratory within 48 hours of sample collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 

[[Page 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 {time}  {time}  {time}  {time}  {time} 
Weather {time}  {time}  {time}  {time}  {time} 
Is There a Discharge Today (including seepage)? {time}  {time}  
{time}  {time}  {time} 
What is the Volume of Discharge (gallons per minute)? {time}  
{time}  {time}  {time}  {time} 
How Much Make-up Water Did You Allow Into Your Mine Site, if Any? 
{time}  {time}  {time}  {time}  {time} 
What is the Volume of Settleable Solids in the Effluent? (ML/L) 
{time}  {time}  {time}  {time}  {time} 
Are ANy of Your Ponds, Dikes and Berms Leaking or Eroding? 
(describe) {time}  {time}  {time}  {time}  {time} 
How Far Below Your Discharge Can You Observe a Discharge Plume, If 
Any? {time}  {time}  {time}  {time}  {time} 

    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