[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 152 (Friday, August 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42534-42548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21025]
[[Page 42533]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water
Multi-Sector General Permit Modification for Industrial Activities;
Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 /
Notices
[[Page 42534]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[WH-FRL-6135-8]
Modification of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial
Activities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final modification of NPDES general permits; notice of
interpretation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's action clarifies an interpretation of the technology-
based effluent limitations applicable to point sources of ``mine
drainage'' at active ore mining and dressing operations, which was
contained in a recently-issued NPDES general permit for storm water
associated with industrial activity. With this notice, EPA provides a
more definitive interpretation of the applicability of those recently-
issued general permits, specifically, as they apply to certain storm
water discharges at active ore mining and dressing operations. To
incorporate today's interpretation, EPA modifies the NPDES general
permits issued by EPA Regions 1, 6, 9 and 10 because the Agency is the
permit issuance authority in States in those Regions. EPA intends,
however, that the interpretation apply nationwide in all EPA Regions.
DATES: These permit modifications shall be effective on September 8,
1998.
ADDRESSES: The complete administrative record for today's permit
modification is available for public review the Water Docket MC-4101,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC,
20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Bryan
Rittenhouse, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water at (202)
260-0592 or the appropriate EPA Regional Office. For EPA Region 1,
covering discharges in the State of Maine and Federal Indian
reservations in Maine, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Federal
Indian reservations in Massachusetts, in the State of New Hampshire and
Federal Indian reservations in New Hampshire, as well as Federal Indian
reservations in the States of Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island,
and Federal facilities in Vermont, contact Thelma Hamilton at (617)
565-3569. For EPA Region 6, covering discharges in the State of Texas
and Federal Indian reservations in Texas, in the State of New Mexico
and Federal Indian reservations in New Mexico (except Navajo
Reservation lands, which are covered by EPA Region 9 and Ute
Reservation lands, which are covered by EPA Region 8 and were not
covered by the Multi-Sector General Permit), as well as Federal Indian
reservations in Oklahoma and Louisiana, contact Brian Burgess at (214)
665-7534. For EPA Region 9, covering the State of Arizona and Federal
Indian reservations in Arizona, and Federal Indian reservations in
California (except the Hoopa Valley Tribe) and Nevada, as well as the
Duck Valley, Fort McDermitt, Goshute Reservations and Navajo
Reservations, each of which cross State boundaries, contact Eugene
Bromley at (415) 744-1906. For EPA Region 10, covering the State of
Alaska and Federal Indian reservations in Alaska, the State of Idaho
and Federal Indian reservations in Idaho (except the Duck Valley
Reservation, which is covered by EPA Region 9), Federal Indian
reservations in Washington and Oregon (except the Fort McDermitt
Reservation, which is covered by EPA Region 9), as well as Federal
facilities in Washington, contact Joe Wallace at (206) 553-6645.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority: EPA issues NPDES permits under the authority of CWA
section 402, 33 U.S.C. section 1342. Today's modification is based
on an interpretation of rules published under the authority of CWA
sections 301, 304, 308, 402, and 501(a), 33 U.S.C. sections 1311,
1314, 1318, 1342, and 1361(a). Today's action modifies a table that
was initially published in conjunction with NPDES permits for storm
water associated with industrial activity issued pursuant to CWA
section 402, 33 U.S.C. section 1342.
In today's notice, EPA announces its interpretation of the
technology-based effluent limitations applicable to point sources of
``mine drainage'' at ore mining and dressing operations under the Clean
Water Act (``CWA''). 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq. This interpretation
updates and replaces an earlier interpretation published in the fact
sheet for the final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(``NPDES'') Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial
Activities at 60 FR 50804 (Sept. 29, 1995)(``Multi-Sector Permit'').
The interpretation in today's notice replaces EPA's interpretation in
Table G-4 of the Multi-Sector Permit regarding the applicability of the
``mine drainage'' provisions of regulations found at 40 CFR Part 440.
60 FR at 50897. Today's notice also supersedes and clarifies the
interpretation that the Agency proposed at 62 FR 54950 (Oct. 22, 1997).
EPA reviewed the administrative record supporting the Part 440
regulations, as well as Agency statements made during the course of
litigation over those regulations, and revises Table G-4 accordingly.
In litigation challenging the Multi-Sector Permit, National Mining
Association v. EPA, No. 95-3519 (8th Cir.), the National Mining
Association (NMA) argued that the regulatory interpretation contained
in Table G-4 was overly expansive and not supported by appropriate
economic and technological evaluation. To support its argument, NMA
cited Agency statements made during the course of litigation
approximately twenty years earlier. These statements were not raised
and presented to the Agency during the public comment period of the
permit. In response to NMA's arguments in the current litigation, EPA
has re-evaluated the underlying record supporting the Part 440
regulations and is supplementing its interpretation of the ``mine
drainage'' provisions contained in Table G-4. Today's action supersedes
the Agency interpretation contained in the Fact Sheet to the Multi-
Sector Permit, as originally issued.
Upon review of those documents, the Agency believes the documents
(including judicial case law) speak for themselves. Therefore, the
Agency is proposing to withdraw portions of the Table that discuss
applicability of the Part 440 regulations; i.e., those portions of the
Table that do not specify applicability of the Multi-Sector permit. By
today's action, EPA also expands the applicability of the Multi-Sector
permit consistent with the interpretation in today's notice.
I. Effluent Guidelines for Ore Dressing and Mining Point Source
Category
A. Background
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act to establish a comprehensive
program to ``restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters' through the reduction, and eventual
elimination, of the discharge of pollutants into those waters. CWA
Sec. 101(a); 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(a). To achieve its objective, the CWA
provides for a permit program to control ``point source'' pollution.
The CWA point source permitting program is known as the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES''), under which EPA or
authorized States issue permits for point source discharges. Except in
accordance with an NPDES permit, a point source discharge of a
pollutant is unlawful. CWA Sec. 301(a); 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1311(a). All
NPDES permits must, at a minimum, contain technology-based effluent
limitations established in effluent guidelines or standards or, if no
such
[[Page 42535]]
guidelines have been established, limitations derived on the basis of
best professional judgment.
Individual NPDES permits contain substantive restrictions, called
``effluent limitations,'' which are aimed at controlling the level of
pollutants in point source discharges. CWA Sec. 402(a); 33 U.S.C.
Sec. 1342(a). Effluent limitations may be ``technology-based'' or
``water quality-based.''1 For some industrial point source
categories, EPA has published technology-based effluent limitations
that apply on a nationwide basis, pursuant to CWA Secs. 304(b) and
306(b)(1)(B); 33 U.S.C. Secs. 1314(b) and 1316(b)(1)(B).2
These limitations are called national effluent limitations guidelines
or standards. EPA has published best practicable control technology
currently available (``BPT''), best conventional pollutant control
technology (``BCT''), best available technology economically achievable
(``BAT'') effluent guidelines, and new source performance standards
(``NSPS'') for point sources in over fifty different industrial
categories. Among the effluent guidelines and standards which EPA has
established are those applicable to the ore mining and dressing
industry. These guidelines are known as the ``Effluent Guidelines for
the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category'' (hereinafter
referred to as the ``Guidelines''). The Guidelines are published at 40
CFR Part 440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Water quality based effluent limitations are included in
permits when necessary to assure compliance with water quality
standards.
\2\ If no such guidelines have been established, technology-
based limits are developed on a case-by-case basis based on the best
professional judgment of the permit writer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA first published the Guidelines on an interim final basis on
November 6, 1975. 40 FR 51722. On July 11, 1978, after substantially
expanding the data base supporting the Guidelines, and after
considering comments submitted since initial promulgation, EPA
republished the Guidelines in modified form. 43 FR 29771 (July 11,
1978). Both the initial and republished Guidelines established BPT
effluent limitations for discharges for ore mining and dressing
operations.
B. Storm Water Regulation Under the Guidelines 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The definitions of and discussion of these terms in this
notice are within the use of these terms under the NPDES program and
the Clean Water Act. These definitions are not specifically
applicable to the use of these terms under other federal
environmental laws, including under the Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 6901, et seq. (RCRA) and its
implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Guidelines establish industry-wide effluent limitations for two
types of mine discharges: (1) mill discharges and (2) mine drainage.
``Mine drainage'' means ``any water drained, pumped, or siphoned from a
mine.'' 40 CFR 440.132(h). A ``mine,'' in turn, is defined as:
An active mining area, including all land and property placed
under, or above the surface of such land, used in or resulting from the
work of extracting metal ore or minerals from their natural deposits by
any means or method, including secondary recovery of metal ore from
refuse or other storage piles, wastes, or rock dumps and mine tailings
derived from the mining, cleaning, or concentration of metal ores. 40
CFR 440.132(g)(emphasis added). An ``active mining area,'' in turn, is
defined as: A place where work or other activity related to the
extraction, removal, or recovery of metal ore is being conducted,
except, with respect to surface mines, any area of land on or in which
grading has been completed to return the earth to desired contour and
reclamation work has begun. 40 CFR 440.132(a).
1. Petition for Reconsideration
After EPA promulgated the Guidelines on July 11, 1978, a number of
mining companies filed petitions for judicial review challenging the
Guidelines. [The judicial challenges are discussed below.] During the
pendency of its judicial challenge, one of those companies, Kennecott
Copper Corporation (``Kennecott'') filed an administrative petition
with EPA (dated September 26, 1978) requesting that the Agency
reconsider and clarify the Guidelines. Kennecott amended its petition
on November 9, 1978. Kennecott identified five areas of alleged
deficiencies and concerns with the Guidelines. One of these issues
related to the storm water runoff provisions of the Guidelines.
Kennecott objected to the storm water runoff provisions, which it
argued were overly vague and capable of being interpreted in a manner
that would violate applicable law. Among other things, Kennecott was
particularly concerned about applicability of the Guidelines to what it
referred to as ``non-process'' areas at mining operations. Kennecott
further argued that the Guidelines, if applied in the manner suggested
by Kennecott, would entail exorbitant costs not considered during the
rule making. Kennecott presented EPA with cost estimates that Kennecott
believed it would have to incur to comply with the Guidelines.
Kennecott estimated costs to control storm water drainage flows from
what Kennecott referred to as the ``process'' and ``non-process'' areas
at two Kennecott mining operations, the Ray Mine and the Chino Mine. As
discussed more fully below, the Agency's decision on Kennecott's
petition is at the core of the NMA litigation over the Multi-Sector
Permit.
In partial response to the Kennecott petition, EPA published a
notice in the Federal Register that clarified the scope of the
Guidelines' applicability to storm water runoff. 44 FR 7953-54 (Feb. 8,
1979). That Notice of Clarification explained that the Guidelines
applied only to point sources in the active mining area. The Notice
clarified EPA's interpretation that the ``mine drainage'' provisions
applied to ``water which contacts an active mining area and flows into
a point source.'' Id. EPA further explained that mining operations are
not required to ``collect and contain diffuse storm [water] runoff
which would not otherwise be collected in or does not otherwise drain
into a point source.'' Id. at 7954. In other words, diffuse storm water
(from an active mining area) that was collected or contained in, or
that naturally flowed into, a point source was subject to the
Guidelines. Other storm water drainage flows were not subject to the
Guidelines.
EPA denied Kennecott's petition on February 21, 1979. In doing so,
EPA relied in part on the Notice of Clarification. The decision on the
reconsideration petition discussed the applicability of the Guidelines
to Kennecott's Ray Mine. For storm water drainage flows from what
Kennecott called ``non-process'' areas at the Ray Mine, EPA concluded
that Kennecott would incur no additional costs. Kennecott had, for the
purposes of its petition, defined ``non-process'' area to mean
``overburden dumps, material too low in mineral content even to leach,
and exposed benches at the mine.'' Citing to the Notice of
Clarification, EPA concluded that the definition of ``mine drainage''
did not include diffuse storm water runoff from overburden dumps and
material too low in mineral content to leach. As that Notice of
Clarification explained, ``[a]ll water which contacts an `active mining
area * * *' and either does not flow, or is not channeled by the
operator, to a point source, is considered runoff, and it is not the
regulations' intent to require the mine operator to collect and treat
such runoff.'' 44 FR at 7954. On the matter of storm water contacting
the exposed benches, EPA could not determine whether such discharges
would constitute point source discharges and thus, concluded that the
issue would best be addressed by the permitting
[[Page 42536]]
authority in the context of a permit proceeding.
2. Judicial Challenge
The Guidelines rule was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Kennecott Copper Corp. v. EPA, 612 F.2d
1232 (10th Cir. 1979). In affirming the Guidelines, the Tenth Circuit
relied on the language of the Notice of Clarification and considered
moot the Petitioner's challenges to storm water runoff provisions,
which were based on the argument that the Guidelines were overly board
and included ``nonpoint'' as well as ``point sources.'' Kennecott
Copper Corp., 612 F.2d at 1242. The court further found that ``* * *
EPA is entirely within its authority in regulating [discharges of]
storm runoff that falls within [the definition of] a `point source.' ''
Id. at 1243. Additionally, the court reasoned that the determination of
whether a particular discharge constitutes a point source is best made
in the context of permit proceedings, guided by the broad definition of
``point source'' provided in the CWA.4 The Court recognized
that it is ``unrealistic, if not altogether impossible'' to provide an
``absolute and unequivocal'' definition of ``point source'' and rule of
applicability, further supporting case-by-case or site-specific
determinations on applicability of the Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Point source'' is defined at Clean Water Act Sec. 502(14)
to mean ``any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance,
including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel,
conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock,
concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating
craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged. See also 40
CFR 122.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has purposefully phrased this definition broadly. This is
as it should be given its contemplated applicability to literally
thousands of pollution sources. To cast such definitions in absolute,
unequivocal terms would be unrealistic, if not altogether impossible.
As we observed in American Petroleum Institute, 540 F.2d at 1032: ``On
the road to attainment of the no discharge objective some flexibility
is needed.'' 612 F.2d at 1243.
The court did not say anything further in response to Kennecott's
arguments complaining that the Guidelines would improperly regulate
nonpoint source discharges at mine sites. The court did not rely on or
cite to any other references in the administrative record before it. In
response to any remaining arguments before it, the court simply noted
that ``careful examination of petitioner's remaining arguments has
persuaded us that they are without merit.'' Id. at 1243. Thus, the
court either summarily rejected Kennecott's arguments that the
Guidelines were vague and overly board, or affirmatively upheld the
regulations against Kennecott's challenges based on reasons explained
in the decision.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In litigation over the Multi-Sector Permit, NMA now suggests
that the 10th Circuit relied on the Agency statements concerning the
status of storm water drainage flows at the Ray Mine to uphold the
Guidelines and that the Agency cannot now conclude that the court
independently found the storm water runoff provisions of the
Guidelines acceptable. EPA disagrees. The court's decision never
cites or discusses any of these statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While, over the course of the intervening years, the federal courts
have refined their interpretations of ``point source,'' EPA's
conclusions about point sources at mining operations has remained
constant. In upholding the Guidelines in Kennecott Copper Corp., the
Tenth Circuit specifically cited to one of the seminal cases upon which
courts rely for the proposition that the term ``point source'' should
be interpreted broadly, United States v. Earth Sciences, Inc., 599 F.2d
368 (10th Cir. 1979). 612 F.2d at 1241, 1243.
3. Subsequent Agency Action
Apart from the Agency statements made during the course of the
Kennecott Copper Corp. litigation, EPA staff has not been able to
locate evidence of subsequent Agency action referring to those
statements. Since that time, EPA and authorized NPDES States have
issued permits to a significant number of ore mining and dressing
operations. Until the instant litigation, no party identified or
presented any of the Agency litigation statements from the Kennecott
Copper Corp. case to Agency personnel working with NPDES permits.
A subsequent judicial case, which EPA cited in the 1990 storm water
regulations, further clarifies that storm water associated with
industrial activity at mining sites may result in point source
discharges. See Sierra Club v. Abston Construction Co., Inc., 620 F.2d
41 (5th Cir. 1980); 55 FR at 47997. In that case, the court determined
that whether a point source discharge was present due to rainfall
causing sediment basin overflow and erosion of piles of discarded
material, even without direct action by coal miners, was a question of
fact. 620 F.2d at 45. The ultimate question was whether the discharge
is from a ``discernible, confined, discrete conveyance,'' whether by
gravitational or non-gravitational means. Id. It was irrelevant that
operators did not construct the conveyances, so long as those
conveyances were reasonably likely to be the means by which pollutants
were ultimately deposited into a navigable body of water. Id.
Conveyances of pollution formed either as a result of natural erosion
or by material means may fit the statutory definition of point source.
Id.
II. NPDES Storm Water General Multi-Sector Permit for Industrial
Activities
A. Background
In 1987, Congress amended the CWA by adding, among other things,
several provisions concerning the control of point source discharges
composed entirely of storm water. In the 1987 amendments, Congress
directed EPA to publish permit application regulations for ``discharges
of storm water associated with industrial activity.'' CWA
Sec. 402(p)(4)(A), 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1342(p)(4)(A). On November 16, 1990,
EPA published those regulations. In doing so, EPA defined ``storm
water'' as storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and
drainage. It also defined ``[s]torm water discharge associated with
industrial activity'' to mean the discharge of pollutants from any
conveyance which is used for collecting and conveying storm water and
which is directly related to manufacturing, processing, or raw
materials storage areas at an industrial plant. See 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14). Included among these discharges were discharges from
conveyances at mining facilities, including from active and inactive
mining operations that discharge storm water contaminated by contact
with or that has come into contact with overburden. 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14)(iii). In the course of that rule making, in order to
reconcile those application regulations with a statutory exemption from
CWA section 402(l)(2), EPA noted that ``a permit application will be
required when discharges of storm water runoff from mining operations
come into contact with any overburden. * * * '' 55 FR 47990, 48032.
Today's interpretation and permit modification implements those
provisions.
Upon challenge, this part of the regulations was upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. American Mining Congress v.
EPA, 965 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1992) (regulations upheld against industry
challenge that the rules, among other things, imposed retroactive
liability for storm water discharges from existing mine sites). The
issues in that case are related to, but different from, the issues
addressed in today's action. That case involved inactive mines; today's
action involves active mining operations.
[[Page 42537]]
The NPDES regulations for storm water describe three mechanisms by
which dischargers of storm water associated with industrial activity
could apply for permits. 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1). First, dischargers can
apply for ``individual permits.'' Second, (prior to 1992) dischargers
could apply for permits through a ``group application.'' Third,
dischargers can apply for coverage under an ``EPA promulgated storm
water general permit.'' Dischargers from numerous industries applied
for permits through the group application process. Among them were
dischargers from the ore mining and dressing industry.
On March 10, 1993, EPA accepted group applications from ore mining
and dressing industry applicants and began processing those group
applications. On November 19, 1993, EPA proposed to issue a single
``general'' permit (for each State where EPA issues permits) based on
all of the group applications accepted and received from group
applicants in various covered industries. 58 FR 61146, 61236-61251
(November 19, 1993). EPA issued that set of general permits on
September 29, 1995, and took subsequent action concerning these general
permits on February 9, 1996, February 20, 1996 and September 24, 1996.
These general permits are entitled the NPDES Storm Water Multi-Sector
General Permits for Industrial Activities (hereinafter referred to in
the singular as the ``Multi-Sector Permit''). The Multi-Sector Permit
applies in most States, Territories, and Indian Country where EPA
administers the NPDES permitting program.
The Multi-Sector Permit contains requirements that are specifically
tailored to the types of industrial activity occurring at facilities
represented by various industry groups applicants. Unlike much of the
Ore Mining and Dressing Guidelines, the Multi-Sector Permit
incorporates narrative effluent limitations for storm water discharges.
These narrative effluent limitations are referred to as ``best
management practices'' (``BMPs''). BMPs are designed to represent the
pollution reductions achievable through application of BAT and BCT.
Permits include BMPs to control or abate the discharge of pollutants
when, for example, numeric effluent limitations are infeasible. 40 CFR
122.44(k).
In addition to the narrative BMPs, the Multi-Sector Permit includes
eligibility restrictions. Multi-Sector Permit Part I.B.3.(a)-(h), 60 FR
at 51112. Discharges that do not comply with the eligibility
restrictions are not authorized by the permit. For example, storm water
discharges that the Agency has determined to be or may reasonably be
expected to be contributing to a violation of a water quality standard
are not authorized by the Multi-Sector Permit. Multi-Sector Permit Part
I.B.3.f.
B. Multi-Sector Permit Coverage of Mining Activity
By its terms, the Multi-Sector Permit provides authorization for
some storm water discharges from ore (metal) mining and dressing
facilities. Authorization initially was limited, however, to storm
water discharges from or off of: topsoil piles; offsite haul/access
roads outside the active mining area; onsite haul roads if not
constructed of waste rock or spent ore (except if mine drainage is used
for dust control); runoff from tailings dams/dikes when not constructed
of waste rock/tailings and no process fluids are present; concentration
buildings, if no contact with material piles; mill sites, if no contact
with material piles; chemical storage areas; docking facilities, if no
excessive contact with waste product; explosive storage areas;
reclaimed areas released from reclamation bonds prior to December 17,
1990; and partially/inadequately reclaimed areas or areas not released
from reclamation bonds.
The Multi-Sector Permit covers discharges composed of entirely
storm water flows, as well as certain allowable non-storm water
discharges. 60 FR at 51114; Part III.A. The Multi-Sector Permit does
not authorize point source dry weather discharges, such as from mine
adits, tunnels, or contaminated springs or seeps, which are not storm
water. Id.; Part III.A.2.a.; 60 FR at 51155. Note that such dry weather
discharges are not affected by today's clarification.
Under the Multi-Sector Permit at Part I.B.3.g., permit coverage is
available for storm water discharges covered by some, but not all, of
the various effluent guidelines that address storm water, including,
for example, some of the storm water discharges under the Mineral
Mining and Processing Guidelines at 40 CFR Part 436. 60 FR at 51112.
The Multi-Sector Permit does not, however, cover storm water discharges
from point sources that are subject to the Ore Mining and Dressing
Guidelines. 60 FR at 51155; Part XI.G.1.a.
Table G-4 of the Multi-Sector Permit, entitled ``Applicability of
40 CFR Part 440 Effluent Limitations Guidelines to Storm Water,''
identified various discharge sources associated with ore mining and
dressing operations. The Table indicated EPA's view at that time
concerning standards of regulatory control for those discharges. The
different standards of regulatory control include: ``mine drainage''
effluent limitations guidelines, found in the Guidelines; ``mill
discharge process water'' effluent limitations guidelines, also found
in the Guidelines; ``storm water,'' which could, for example, be found
in the Multi-Sector Permit; and ``unclassified,'' indicating discharges
not regulated under the Guidelines or the Multi-Sector Permit.
As EPA said in adopting the Multi-Sector Permit: ``Table G-4
clarifies the applicability of the Effluent Limitations Guidelines
found in 40 CFR Part 440. This Table does not expand or redefine these
Effluent Limitations Guidelines.'' 60 FR at 50897 (emphasis added).
EPA's intent in publishing Table G-4, therefore, was merely to
reiterate the interpretation that EPA issued when it promulgated the
Guidelines.
III. Legal Challenge Concerning Table G-4
On October 10, 1995, the National Mining Association (hereinafter
referred to as ``NMA'' or the ``Petitioners'') petitioned the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for judicial review of the
Multi-Sector Permit. Specifically, Petitioners challenged EPA's
determination that storm water runoff from a number of ancillary mine
sources identified in Table G-4 of the Multi-Sector Permit would
constitute sources of ``mine drainage'' under the Guidelines. The
particular mining activities of concern include overburden piles, haul
roads made of overburden and other ancillary mine areas. As noted
above, EPA excluded storm water runoff from these sources from coverage
under the Multi-Sector Permit. The Petitioners contended that this
determination reflects a new, more expansive interpretation of the
Guidelines.
NMA presented documents from the prior Kennecott litigation,
namely: EPA's 1979 decision responding to Kennecott's petition for
reconsideration of the Guidelines; a letter of EPA counsel which was
attached to a decision responding to the Kennecott petition for
reconsideration of the Guidelines; and a brief that EPA filed before
the Tenth Circuit. NMA cited these documents to support its argument
that EPA's interpretation prior to publishing the Multi-Sector Permit
was that ``overburden'' (``waste rock/overburden piles'') and ancillary
areas at mining operations would be outside the scope of the
Guidelines. NMA asserted that certain entries in Table G-4 were
incorrect to the extent that the table categorically identified
discharges from such sources as covered by the Guidelines. NMA argued
that, based on
[[Page 42538]]
EPA statements made during the course of the Kennecott litigation, no
overburden-related areas are covered by the Guidelines.
EPA has reviewed the Agency statements made during the 1979
litigation challenging the Guidelines rule making. While disagreeing
with NMA's categorical conclusion that no overburden-related areas are
covered by the Guidelines, EPA believes the earlier Agency statements
reflect an EPA interpretation that a storm water discharge from a waste
rock or overburden piles would not be subject to the Guidelines unless:
(1) it naturally drains (or is intentionally diverted) to a point
source; and (2) combines with ``mine drainage'' that is otherwise
regulated under the Part 440 regulations. Such a discharge would be
subject to the Part 440 regulations if, however, it combined with
either process waters (i.e., mill drainage) or other mine drainage.
This clarification was not obvious from the face of Table G-4 as
presented in the Multi-Sector Permit.
NMA's challenge to the Multi-Sector Permit is currently under the
advisement of the Eighth Circuit. Both parties have submitted briefs. A
coalition of citizens' interest groups, the Western Mining Action
Project and Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, also filed an amicus curiae
brief with the Court. On March 10, 1997, the Eighth Circuit heard oral
argument in National Mining Association v. EPA, No. 95-3519. At that
time, counsel for EPA represented to the court that EPA intended to
prepare a clarification of the Agency's interpretation of the
technology-based effluent limitations applicable to point source
discharges from various areas at ore mining and dressing operations.
Today's notice provides that clarification and would revise the Table
so that it reflects only sources to which the Permit would apply.
IV. Interpretation
Upon fuller review of the underlying record, EPA now believes that,
in 1978-79, the Agency did not consider certain point source discharges
of storm water associated with ``waste rock and overburden'' to be
subject to the Ore Mining and Dressing Guidelines. Specifically, EPA
did not conduct a complete economic and technological assessment of
diverting drainage flows from ``waste rock or overburden'' outside the
active mining area into the active mining area. Therefore, the Agency
did not consider such discharges to be sources of mine drainage. First,
discharges from waste rock and/or overburden piles would be outside the
scope of the Guidelines if they consist ``entirely of diffuse runoff
which contacts overburden piles, which did not either normally flow to,
or by design drain to a point source.'' Such diffuse runoff would not
even be subject to the NPDES permit program if it was not added to
waters of the United States through a discrete, confined, discernable
conveyance. See 44 FR 7953 (Feb. 8, 1979). Second, such discharges
would be outside the scope of the Guidelines if storm water runoff from
waste rock and/or overburden-related sources does not combine with mine
drainage otherwise subject to the Part 440 regulations. In light of the
above, EPA believes that, to the extent that a reader could
misinterpret the Table as categorically including all ``waste rock/
overburden'' sources to be within the ``active mining area,'' Table G-4
did not accurately reflect the scope of the applicability of the
Guidelines.
Today's action does not change in any way EPA's interpretation of
the coverage of the Guidelines set forth in the 1979 Notice of
Clarification, which provides that the Guidelines ``are not intended to
require the operator to collect and contain diffuse storm water runoff
which would not otherwise be collected in or does not otherwise drain
into a point source.'' Today's notice articulates the 1979
interpretation to the fact situation contained in Table G-4 of the
Multi-Sector Permit.
Discharges from overburden-related sources that do not combine with
``mine drainage'' otherwise subject to the Part 440 regulations are not
covered by the Guidelines. Like all ``point source'' discharges,
however, these discharges require NPDES permit authorization to be in
compliance with the CWA. If these discharges are entirely composed of
storm water (and are not covered by the Guidelines), then they may be
authorized under an EPA general permit for storm water (if it otherwise
meets the eligibility provisions), or an individual permit with BPJ-
based controls, which may include either numeric limitations and/or
narrative limitations (in the form of BMPs).
Discharges from haul roads constructed of waste rock or spent ore
are subject to the Guidelines only if the discharge combines with
``mine drainage'' otherwise subject to the Part 440 regulations and the
resulting storm water flows drain into a point source. Point source
discharges consisting entirely of storm water from haul road-related
sources would be addressed in the same manner as ``waste rock and
overburden'' (see above). As noted above, such discharges would be
outside the scope of the NPDES program if they consist entirely of
diffuse runoff which does not flow to a point source.
EPA notes that NPDES permit coverage is still required when runoff
from waste rock and overburden piles is channeled or drains to a point
source. Under today's clarification, determinations about whether
numeric effluent limitations similar to those in the Ore Mining and
Dressing Guidelines should apply to discharges from overburden piles
and haul roads are ones to be made on a site-by-site basis based on the
``best professional judgment'' of the permit writer (according to
regulations at 40 CFR 125.3(d)). Such permits might include effluent
limitations similar to the effluent limitations for ``mine drainage''
under the Guidelines. If determined feasible, EPA acknowledges that
compliance with such limits may necessitate diversion of flows from
such sources for treatment purposes. EPA provides additional guidance
below.
V. Guidance To Permit Applicants and Permit Writers
Based on the foregoing discussion, EPA is revising Table G-4 today.
In its earlier form, Table G-4 could have been misinterpreted.
Consistent with earlier EPA statements made in the preamble to the
Guidelines, the Notice of Clarification and other documents discussed
above, the Table G-4 references to discharges from ``waste rock/
overburden'' and ``onsite haul roads constructed of waste rock or spent
ore'' at active ore mining and dressing sites are hereby modified. The
Agency does not consider those discharges to be subject to the
Guidelines unless they combine with ``mine drainage'' otherwise subject
to the Part 440 regulations and the resulting storm water flows drain
into a point source. Although not compelled by the Guidelines, numeric
effluent limitations may be appropriate for these discharges if the
permit writer so determines on a BPJ basis or if the discharge would
cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.
The term ``active mining area'' should be interpreted in accordance
with the plain language of the regulations; however, application of the
definition may vary from mine to mine. As the Tenth Circuit recognized
in the Kennecott Corp. case, ``to cast such definitions in absolute,
unequivocal terms would be unrealistic, if not altogether impossible.''
612 F.2d at 1243. The regulations define ``active mining area'' as ``a
place where work or other activity related to the extraction, removal,
or recovery of metal ore is
[[Page 42539]]
being conducted, except, with respect to surface mines, any area of
land on or in which grading has been completed to return the earth to
desired contour and reclamation work has begun.'' 40 CFR 440.132(a).
Today's interpretation and guidance describe a distinct class of
discharges that was not apparent from the face of Table G-4 when the
Agency published the Multi-Sector Permit. Specifically, today's
interpretation identifies some discharges that could have been
interpreted to be ``mine drainage'' under the plain language of the
Guidelines and, therefore, within the applicability of the Guidelines
and ineligible for coverage under the ore mining and dressing portion
of the Multi-Sector General Permit (and under Table G-4) even though
the Agency did not evaluate the technological feasibility and cost
impacts of diverting drainage from those sources into the active mining
area when it developed the Ore Mining and Dressing Guidelines. Based on
today's clarification, such an interpretation would be inaccurate
because EPA did not require diversion of flows from outside the active
mining area into the active mining area for treatment. For this class
of discharges described by today's notice, i.e., those from overburden
and/or waste rock sources that do not combine with mine drainage
otherwise subject to the Part 440 regulations, authorization under a
EPA general permit for storm water may be available subject to the
eligibility restriction against storm water discharges that the Agency
has determined to be or may reasonably be expected to be contributing
to a violation of a water quality standard.
Note that the permit applicant bears the initial responsibility to
determine whether its discharges are eligible for coverage under an
EPA-issued general permit. Discharges of ``mine drainage'' from the
``active mining area'' are not eligible for authorization under either
the NPDES Baseline General permit or the Multi-Sector Permit because
such discharges are subject to the Guidelines. For this reason, EPA
encourages permit applicants to contact the NPDES permit issuance
authority if there is any doubt regarding the nature and scope of the
``active mining area'' at the site of their operations. In many cases,
modifications to individual permits may be more appropriate for longer-
term authorization of the storm discharges in question. Of course, as
indicated in the Table, there may be other such point sources of
drainage from within the active mining area that would not be ``mine
drainage.'' Such discharges may be appropriately regulated under EPA
general permits for storm water.
EPA also recommends that permit applicants contact the relevant
NPDES authority for assistance in determining the appropriate
permitting vehicle to address the class of discharges described in
today's notice. At the time of reissuance, individual permits provide
the best opportunity to evaluate all discharges at a mining operation,
determine appropriate technology-based and water quality-based
limitations, and tailor controls appropriate for the discharge, for
example, through the use of best professional judgment (BPJ) according
to 40 CFR Sec. 125.3(d) or analogous State law, and where necessary to
assure compliance with water quality standards.
NPDES permitting authorities should consider the following
pollutants of concern when determining appropriate permit limitations:
--pH, Acidity, and Alkalinity. The term pH is a measure of relative
acidity or alkalinity of water. Acidity is produced by substances that
yield hydrogen ions upon hydrolysis and alkalinity is produced by
substances that yield hydroxyl ions. The concentration of hydrogen ions
is termed ``pH.'' At a pH of 7, the water is neutral; lower pH values
indicate acidity and higher values indicate alkalinity. Mine waste
water is generally acidic as a result of the oxidation of minerals.
Extremes in pH or rapid pH changes can exert stress conditions on
aquatic biota, even to the point of killing aquatic life. The relative
toxicity to aquatic life of other pollutants often is related to pH.
For example, metalocyanide complexes can increase a thousand-fold in
toxicity with a decline of 1.5 pH units. pH also affects the
availability of nutrients utilized by aquatic life.
--Total Suspended Solids (``TSS''). Suspended solids adversely affect
fisheries by covering the bottoms of streams and lakes, destroying the
bottom dwelling fish and spawning grounds. Solids in suspension
increase water turbidity, reduce light penetration and impair photo
synthetic activity. When solids settle to the bottom, they are often
more damaging to aquatic life. TSS composed of organic matter may
deplete available oxygen supplies necessary for maintaining aquatic
ecosystems. High TSS concentrations are prevalent in discharges from
mining operations as a result of the mining process itself.
--Copper. In relatively low doses, copper can cause systems of
gastroenteritis in humans, with nausea and intestinal irritations.
Copper concentrations of less than one milligram per liter can be toxic
to many kinds of fish and aquatic biota.
--Zinc. Concentrations of zinc ranging from 0.01 to 0.1 milligrams per
liter are lethal to fish. Zinc may be rendered more toxic in the
presence of copper.
If the NPDES permitting authority has data, for example, which
indicate that discharges outside the active mining area only present
pollution concerns associated with solids (e.g., settleable solids or
total suspended solids), the permit requirements for those discharges
may be limited to controlling those solids. However, if discharges
contain heavy metals, the permitting authority, using BPJ, may
establish appropriate technology-based metals effluent limitations.
Further, if the permitting authority has data to indicate a reasonable
potential to cause or contribute to an excursion of water quality
standards for other pollutants, including pH and/or heavy metals, then
the permit must include those more stringent requirements to assure
compliance with water quality standards. EPA recommends ongoing
monitoring for both pH and metals because the complex geochemistry at
many mine sites presents difficulty in predicting the quality of storm
water into the future.
In making BPJ determinations to require, for example, diversion of
contaminated storm water flows for treatment, permitting authorities
need to consider: the age of the equipment and facilities involved;
process employed; the engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques; process changes; the costs of achieving
effluent reduction; and non-water quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements). Such considerations should be
documented in permit fact sheets.
In cases where there is a dry weather discharge outside the scope
of the Guidelines, EPA strongly recommends that the permitting
authority issue an individual NPDES permit using BPJ to establish
appropriate technology-based limits or more stringent limitations
necessary to assure compliance with water quality standards. The
permitting authority should consider the degree of pollutant discharges
(especially, whether the discharge contains heavy metal pollutants) and
must consider the impact on the receiving water when establishing
appropriate water quality-based controls on the discharge.
Finally, the Agency cautions that today's interpretation should not
be
[[Page 42540]]
read as a license for mine operators to convert point source discharges
into ``nonpoint'' sources in order to avoid regulation under the NPDES
permit program. If a mining operation has a discernable, confined,
discrete conveyance, any attempt to avoid regulation by intentional
``diffusion'' of that waste water stream, for example by spraying it
over a hill side or inserting diffusing devices at the ends of drainage
culverts, would still constitute a point source discharge if the waste
water ultimately enters waters of the United States (as opposed to
appropriate land application of such waste waters). While such
diffusion may beneficially reduce the potential for erosion and
instream sedimentation, it would not eliminate the need for treatment
where necessary, for example, where the discharge contains metals
contributing to a violation of State water quality standards.
VI. Monitoring Requirements for Waste Rock and/or Overburden
Sources Eligible for Authorization Under Today's Modification
Subject to the eligibility limitations in the Multi-Sector Permit,
storm water discharges from waste rock and overburden sources are
eligible for general permit authorization according to the terms and
conditions of the permit. For the most part, permittees will control
such discharges in the same manner as other storm water discharges
associated with the operation that were already eligible for permit
coverage. In response to comments that extending Multi-Sector Permit
coverage to this category of discharges is inappropriate, however,
today's permit modifications impose requirements for analytic
monitoring of storm water discharges from these waste rock and/or
overburden sources.
By authorizing storm water discharges from waste rock and/or
overburden sources, today's modifications to the Multi-Sector Permit
will assure identification of and pollutant reduction at waste rock
and/or overburden sources that might otherwise have remained
unregulated until EPA (or State) regulatory personnel conduct
individual, mine-by-mine, source-by-source evaluations. Under the
monitoring requirements in today's modification, permittees (at all
types of mines) will sample and measure at least once for a variety of
mining-related pollutants. In addition, depending on the type of ore
mined, permittees will also sample and measure twice annually for a
list of pollutants specified for specific types of ore mining
categories.
The Multi-Sector Permit, as modified, expires in September 2000.
Thus, the authorization provided by today's permit modification will be
of limited duration. Given the limitations in the data set from which
EPA derived the requirements in the Multi-Sector Permit, the Agency
believes that monitoring over time (until September 2000) is necessary,
both to appropriately control storm water discharges from waste rock
and overburden until September 2000, and to determine the appropriate
control measures upon reissuance of the Multi-Sector Permit. As such,
the monitoring is both ``regulatory,'' in that it will identify sources
of particular concern, as well as ``evaluative,'' in that it will
provide data to describe and evaluate storm water discharges from waste
rock and overburden sources in a comprehensive fashion.
For storm water discharges from waste rock and overburden piles,
permittees will sample and analyze at least once for the following
metals: antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, copper, iron, lead,
manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc. Each of these
metals can be measured using the same analytic test procedure. The
original Multi-Sector Permit also included ``parameter benchmark
values'' for each of these metals. See 60 FR at 50826 (Table 5).
Consistent with the identification of pollutants in the benchmark
values table, permittees will measure for total ``recoverable'' metals.
Though the Agency has expressed a policy preference for measurement of
total dissolved metals in describing ambient water quality, the
monitoring for total metals to characterize effluent discharges under
today's modification is consistent with NPDES regulations, which
specify that, when a permit contains a limitation for a metal, the
limit be expressed in terms of total recoverable metals. See 40 CFR
122.45(c). At the discretion of the permittee, however, the permittee
may also report information about ``dissolved'' metal analysis for the
measured samples because EPA will evaluate all available monitoring
information to determine appropriate terms and conditions for the
Multi-Sector Permit upon reissuance. Permittees will also sample and
analyze for pH, hardness, total settleable solids (TSS) and turbidity
in the storm water discharges from such piles.
For any pollutant occurring above a benchmark value, the permittee
will sample and analyze twice annually. In the case of pH monitoring,
two annual samples is required if the measured pH falls outside the
range listed in Table 5. Hardness does not have a benchmark value;
twice annual measurement of hardness would accompany measurement for
any hardness dependent metals (cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, silver,
and zinc) required to be measured twice annually based on this initial
measurement.
The permit includes this monitoring ``screen'' based on the
geologic variability of waste rock and overburden associated with
various ore types. Though a particular site may be mined only for a
particular ore type, other metals may exist in the overburden (though
not high enough in content to be of economic value). This initial
monitoring will identify any such metals of concern. Measurement of
such metals above the identified ``benchmark'' necessitates continuing
attention through twice annual monitoring. Measurement of pH will also
identify mine piles of concern for acidity. Information about hardness
is important in determining bioavailability of measured metals, which
in turn is useful to predict water quality impact. Measurement of total
settleable solids and turbidity provides an indication of the
effectiveness of measures to control erosion and runoff of storm water,
which may impair aquatic life and aquatic habitat at high levels.
As noted above, permittees are also automatically required to
conduct twice annual monitoring for specified pollutants associated
with the specific type of ore mined at the facility. For certain types
of ore mines, the effluent limitations guidelines (the Part 440
regulations) identified specific ``pollutants of concern.'' Given the
potential for changes in geochemistry of waste rock and overburden
piles over time, this categorical monitoring (twice yearly) is required
regardless of the test results from the initial monitoring screen. Note
that two types of ore mining operations, iron mining and uranium/
radium/vanadium mining, are required to measure for dissolved iron and
dissolved radium, respectively.
The permit requires two monitoring events per year (once between
January and June, and once between July and December) in order to
assure that collected samples reliably ``represent'' expected
discharges over the course of the year and to account for the
significant potential difficulty (and potential for resulting error) in
sampling. Given the opportunity for a sampling waiver under certain
temporally-dependent conditions, the twice annual monitoring
requirement will provide a meaningful representation of discharges,
including seasonal variability.
[[Page 42541]]
The analytic monitoring requirements only apply to storm water
discharges from piles of waste rock and overburden piles, not to haul
roads and access roads constructed from waste rock or overburden. While
the Agency is aware of the potential for water quality problems
associated with acid rock drainage from piles of waste rock and/or
overburden, the Agency is not aware of the same threat from drainage
from access roads and haul roads. Given the relative flow per discharge
source compared to piles, visual discharge monitoring and inspection
should be adequate for haul roads and access roads.
Monitoring is required only at representative outfalls. Consistent
with the existing Multi-Sector Permit, permittees are only required to
sample and analyze discharges from the representative outfalls, which
in turn, are to be identified in pollution prevention plans (i.e., in
the topographic maps identifying drainage patterns). The pollution
prevention plan also must explain why the discharges are expected to be
substantially identical, estimate the drainage area and runoff
coefficient. See generally, the explanation in the Multi-Sector Permit
at 60 FR at 51160, col. 3 (``Representative Discharge'').
Similar to the reporting requirements in the Multi-Sector Permit,
permittees need to submit monitoring results in Discharge Monitoring
Reports on an annual basis. Because the Multi-Sector Permit will expire
in September 2000, this requirement will result in essentially two
reports for each mining operation. The first report will provide
important information upon which the Agency can begin the process to
reissue the Multi-Sector Permit; the second report will confirm (or
refute) preliminary decisions with sufficient time for the Agency to
evaluate the information prior to proposing reissuance.
The permit modification (and monitoring requirements) apply to both
``active'' piles, as well as ``inactive'' piles, though only at
``active'' mining and dressing operations. Permittees have discretion
to sample discharges at any convenient point prior to discharge to
waters of the United States, including a sampling point after
application of the best management practice. Consistent with the
analytic monitoring requirements for discharges from active copper
mines (in the existing Multi-Sector Permit), permittees may collect
substitute samples when adverse weather conditions create dangerous
conditions for personnel or otherwise make the collection of a sample
impracticable.
VII. Summary of Responses to Public Comments
EPA has prepared a comprehensive response to public comments
received on the proposal and that document is available in the
administrative record for today's action. Some of those comments and
responses are included below.
Comment. EPA's 1978 and 1982 Development Documents reveal that EPA
has never analyzed the technical and economic feasibility of subjecting
storm water runoff from vast overburden piles, haul roads and similar
ancillary areas to the strict Part 440 effluent limitations. EPA
wrongly still presumes that the ``active mining area'' should be
interpreted broadly. The purported definition of the term ``mine''
[from the 1975 preamble and 1978 Development Document] is inconsistent
with (and far broader than) the subsequently-promulgated regulatory
definition of the term ``mine'' for the purposes of 40 CFR
Sec. 440.132. That definition does not include such things as ``haul
roads'' or ``all lands affected by the construction of new roads or the
improvements or use of existing roads to gain access to the site,'' nor
does it include ``overburden piles'' or ``storage areas'' (except to
the extent that such piles or areas are currently being used for the
``secondary recovery of metal ore''). Thus, the proposed modification
is inconsistent on its face with the existing regulation and should be
eliminated. All references to the scope of the term ``mine'' (or the
``active mining area'') should be limited to the regulatory definitions
which speak for themselves.
Response. The commenter presents forceful arguments supporting
revision of the interpretation of ``the'' definition as proposed, but
some of its assumptions understate and confuse the nature of the
Agency's actions in developing and promulgating the Part 440
regulations. By today's action, EPA explains its interpretation.
The definition of ``mine'' at 40 CFR 440.132(g) includes ``an
active mining area, including all land and property placed under, or
above the surface of such land, used in or resulting from the work of
extracting metal ore or minerals from their natural deposits by any
means or method, including secondary recovery of metal ore from refuse
or other storage piles, wastes, or rock dumps and mill tailings derived
from the mining, cleaning, or concentration of metal ores.'' An
``active mining area'' is ``a place where work or other activity
related to the extraction of, removal, or recovery of metal ore is
being conducted, except, with respect to surface mines, any area of
land on or in which grading has been completed to return the earth to
desired contour and reclamation work has begun.'' 40 CFR
440.132(a)(emphasis added). The plain meaning of the words ``other
activity related to * * *'' could be interpreted to include overburden-
related sources (in that disposal of mining waste is ``related to''
and, in fact integral to, mining) and haul roads (in that access to and
from mining sites is ``related to'' and, in fact, integral to mining).
Under today's interpretation, however, overburden-related sources would
not be categorically subject to the Part 440 regulations unless
otherwise sited in the active mining area. Likewise, waste rock and
overburden-related sources are not categorically excluded from
applicability of the Part 440 regulations because some such sources may
be sited in the active mining area and combine with mine drainage
otherwise regulated under the Part 440 regulations.
The definitions of the term ``mine'' from the 1975 preamble and
1978 Development Document differ from the definition of the term
``mine'' published at 40 CFR Sec. 440.132. Descriptions in the 1975
preamble and 1978 Development Document were developed and used by
Agency personnel gathering information at existing mining operations.
EPA presumes that some of the sources identified in the 1975 preamble
and 1978 Development Document did drain to existing treatment systems
at some facilities. EPA acknowledges, however, that the location of
such sources does not necessarily and categorically define the
geographic scope of active mining area. EPA notes that the definition
of ``mine'' in the 1982 Development Document more closely paraphrases
the regulatory definitions.
To respond to this comment and avoid further confusion, however,
EPA has removed references to the 1975 and 1978 developmental
definitions in the interpretation published today. By today's action, a
discharge associated with the disposal of waste rock or overburden
source would not be subject to regulation under the Part 440
regulations unless it: (1) naturally drains (or is intentionally
diverted) to a point source; and (2) combines with ``mine drainage''
that is otherwise regulated under the Part 440 regulations. As such,
EPA has modified the provisions of the Multi-Sector permit to include
monitoring provisions that should effectively identify any waste rock
and overburden sources of environmental concern.
[[Page 42542]]
Comment. The newly proposed version of Table G-4 omits certain
sources of storm water discharges that were listed in the prior version
and as to which the multi-sector general permit should be applicable,
specifically, crusher areas, ore piles, and spent ore piles. The
commenter believes these areas are outside the active mining area.
Response. The published interpretation no longer attempts to
enumerate various areas at mining operations for the purposes of
indicating those for which the Part 440 regulations apply. By deciding
not to list those areas, EPA specifically does not expand permit
coverage to include those areas. In the group applications from the
mining industry, group applicants did not specifically seek permit
authorization for such areas. EPA therefore lacks sufficient
information to address these areas today.
Comment. Mines are subject to state and federal regulations
pertaining to dust. Nevada encourages the use of pumped groundwater for
dust control in order to conserve water. To subject haul roads to
numeric effluent limitations because they use pumped groundwater to
limit dust in order to comply with other regulations seems
counterproductive and shortsighted. Any statement that would subject
these roads to such limitations should be deleted. In Nevada,
groundwater is typically pumped from an underground aquifer to a
holding tank for dust control usage. Groundwater used for dust control
is not normally applied to roads during storm events, thus, there would
be no commingling of storm water and ground water.
Response. EPA did not intend to identify all waters used for dust
control as sources of mine drainage. EPA recognizes that groundwater is
used for dust control in some areas of the country. EPA does not
necessarily consider groundwater to be mine drainage, especially
uncontaminated groundwater. When mine water, which might otherwise
constitute mine drainage, is used for dust control, however, then such
dust control waters would remain mine drainage.
Comment. The proposed modification should not be limited to EPA
Regions 1, 6, 9, and 10. EPA Region 8 has relied on Table G-4 from the
original Multi-Sector Permit to dictate to States with EPA-approved
NPDES permit programs how 40 CFR Part 440 must be interpreted. EPA has
provided the 1995 Multi-Sector Permit to authorized States as a model.
Because authorized States must have requirements that are at least as
stringent as the federal program, EPA should confirm that any revised
interpretation of 40 CFR Part 440 is applicable to all States with ore
mining and dressing facilities. EPA's interpretation in Table G-4 is
applicable to all States, not just EPA, including for the purposes of
withdrawal of authorized State NPDES programs. EPA has not provided a
reasoned and viable basis for regional distinctions in applicability of
the interpretation in the proposed modification.
Response. EPA agrees that the Agency's interpretation of the Part
440 regulations should apply on a national basis. States authorized to
administer the NPDES permitting program are to include effluent
limitations in permits that are at least as stringent as the
limitations that EPA would include in NPDES permits. Because the
interpretation in today's action is just that--an interpretation--and
because the primary action EPA takes in today's action is to modify
EPA-issued NPDES general permits for storm water associated with
industrial activity (the Multi-Sector Permit), only the EPA Regional
Administrators who issue the Multi-Sector Permit sign today's notice.
EPA does intend, however, that the interpretation associated with the
modification to the Multi-Sector Permit apply on a nationwide basis.
Comment. EPA should address the situation where an overburden pile
is physically separated from and does not naturally drain to an open
pit.
Response. EPA generally acknowledges that some mining operations
and some States authorized to administer the NPDES program have not
historically interpreted the term ``active mining area'' in the same
manner as the Agency would have interpreted that term reflected in the
1995 version of Table G-4. Upon fuller review of the underlying
administrative record to the original Part 440 rule makings, EPA
concludes that the Agency did not conduct a complete economic and
technological assessment of diversion of drainage flows from ``waste
rock or overburden'' outside the active mining area into the active
mining area. As such, the Agency agrees that a waste rock or an
overburden pile that is physically separated from and does not
naturally drain (or has not been intentionally diverted) to treatment
would not be a source of mine drainage. In such a case, however,
evaluation of the resulting discharges would be necessary and
appropriate to determine whether such discharge would cause, have a
reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to a violation of any
water quality standard.
Comment. EPA should clarify that water quality treatment of ``mine
drainage'' necessitated by active mining (e.g., construction of a waste
rock pile) is part of the ``active mining area'' and the ``mine'' and
that such drainage is subject to the effluent limitations guidelines
for the life of the discharge.
Response. EPA generally agrees that mining operation point sources
from active mining that represent water quality concerns remain subject
to CWA control requirements for as long as the discharge causes or
contributes (or has a reasonable potential to contribute) to a
violation of a water quality standard. EPA presumes that treatment to
protect water quality may be necessary, for example, for discharges
from a waste rock pile with mineral content high enough to leach metals
under normal environmental conditions. EPA does not, however, conclude
that all regulation of point sources to protect water quality
necessarily means that such point sources are subject to regulation
under the national effluent limitations guidelines. Any more stringent
water quality based effluent limitations are necessary when technology-
based limitations are insufficient to assure compliance with water
quality standards. The imposition of a water quality based effluent
limitation does not necessarily expand the applicability of technology-
based limitations. Such water quality-based limitations may regulate
different or fewer (or more) pollutants than applicable technology-
based limitations.
Comment. EPA should interpret the Neuman letter to exempt only
releases from ``areas * * * where work or other activity related to the
extraction, removal or recovery of metal ore is not being conducted.''
EPA should clarify that an active waste dump is clearly within an area
where such work is being conducted. The proposed modification correctly
notes the distinction between discharges from active waste rock dumps
and inactive dumps. The former are subject to the effluent limitations
guidelines and the latter are not.
Response. EPA believes that, as a practical matter, it would be
difficult to differentiate discharges from newly placed overburden and
existing overburden, especially when placement of overburden is being
conducted at existing piles. Importantly, the mere placement of such
``new'' overburden to an existing overburden pile does not
automatically make the pile part of the active mining area under the
Part 440 regulations.
Comment. The Administrator's decision of February 21, 1979, did not
exempt active waste rock dumps that do drain to a point source.
[[Page 42543]]
Response. As noted previously, EPA has struggled to provide meaning
to the Administrator's February 21, 1979 decision in light of the
appended letter from Mr. Neuman. EPA agrees that the Administrator's
decision, to the extent it addresses drainage to a point source,
clearly does not provide any basis to presume any exemption from NPDES
permit requirements. The Agency does not, however, endorse the negative
inference that the commenter draws from the Administrator's decision.
Under today's clarification, a discharge associated with the disposal
of waste rock and/or overburden would not be subject to regulation
under the Part 440 regulations unless it: (1) drains naturally (or is
intentionally diverted) to a point source; and (2) combines with ``mine
drainage'' that is otherwise regulated under the Part 440 regulations.
VIII. Regulation Assessment Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Because the Agency takes the position that NPDES general permits
are not ``rules'' or ``regulations'' subject to the rule making
requirements of Administrative Procedure Act section 553, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject
to OMB review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Agency has determined that the permit modification being
published today is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(``RFA''), which generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any significant impact the rule will have on a
substantial number of small entities. By its terms, the RFA only
applies to rules subject to notice-and-comment rule making requirements
under the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') or any other statute.
Today's permit modification is not subject to notice and comment
requirements under the APA or any other statute because the APA defines
``rules'' in a manner that excludes permits. See APA section 551 (4),
(6), and (8).
APA section 553 does not require public notice and opportunity for
comment for interpretative rules or general statements of policy. In
addition to modifying the general permit, today's action repeats an
interpretation of existing regulations promulgated almost twenty years
ago. The action would impose no new or additional requirements.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year.
For reasons explained in the discussion regarding the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the UMRA only applies to rules subject to notice-and-
comment rule making requirements under the APA or any other statute.
Today's permit modification is not subject to notice and comment
requirements under the APA or any other statute because the APA defines
``rules'' in a manner that excludes permits. See APA section 551 (4),
(6), and (8).
Today's permit modification contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. Today's modification merely
announces an Agency interpretation of existing regulations. EPA has
determined that this permit modification does not contain any Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Therefore, today's permit modification is not
subject to the requirements of section 202 of the UMRA.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Because today's modification is based on an interpretation of existing
regulations and because EPA anticipates that extremely few, if any,
small governments operate mining operations, EPA has determined that
this action contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The permit modification contains no requests for information and
consequently is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
Secs. 3501 et seq.
Official Signatures
Accordingly, I hereby find consistent with the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, that these final permit modifications will
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
Dated: July 29, 1998.
Mindy Lubber,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 1.
Dated: July 29, 1998.
Gregg A. Cooke,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Dated: July 18, 1998.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
Dated: July 21, 1998.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
Final Permit Modification
This permit modification shall become effective on September 8,
1998.
[[Page 42544]]
Region 1
Signed and issued this 24th day of July, 1998.
Linda M. Murphy,
Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas of coverage Permit No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Indian Country.............. CTR05*##F
Maine................................... MER05*###
Maine Indian Country.................... MER05*##F
Massachusetts........................... MAR05*###
Massachusetts Indian Country............ MAR05*##F
New Hampshire........................... NHR05*###
Rhode Island Indian Country............. RIR05*##F
Vermont Federal Facilities.............. VTR05*##F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region VI
Signed this 29th of July, 1998.
William B. Hathaway,
Water Quality Protection Division Director.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas of coverage Permit No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Indian country................ LAR05*##F
New Mexico.............................. NMR05*###
Indian country (except Navajo and Ute NMR05*##F
Mountain Reservation lands).
Oklahoma:
Indian country........................ OKR05*##F
Oil and gas exploration and production OKR05*###
related industries and pipeline
industries that are regulated by the
Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
Texas................................... TXR05*###
Indian country........................ TXR05*##F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region IX
Signed this 24th of July, 1998.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Director, Water Division.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas of coverage Permit No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona................................. AZR05*###
Indian country........................ AZR05*##F
Federal Facilities.................... AZR05*##F
California:
Indian country (Not including Hoopa CAR05*##F
Valley Tribe).
Idaho:
Duck Valley Reservation............... NVR05*##F
Nevada Indian country................... NVR05*##F
New Mexico:
Navajo Reservation.................... AZR05*##F
Oregon:
Fort McDermitt Reservation............ NVR05*##F
Utah
Goshute Reservation................... NVR05*##F
Navajo Reservation.................... AZR05*##F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region X
Signed this 21st of July, 1998.
Philip G. Millam,
Director, Office of Water.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas of coverage Permit No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Indian country................... AKR05*##F
Idaho: IDR05*###
Federal Facilities.................... IDR05*##F
Indian country (except Duck Valley IDR05*##F
Reservation lands).
Oregon Indian country (except for Fort ORR05*##F
McDermitt Reservation lands).
Washington Indian country............... WAR05*##F
Washington Federal Facilities........... WAR05*##F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For the reasons set forth in this preamble, the table published
at 60 FR 50897 is modified to read as follows:
Table G-4.--Applicability of the Multi-Sector General Permit to Storm
Water Runoff From Active Ore (Metal) Mining and Dressing Sites
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discharge/source of discharge Note/comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piles:
Waste rock/overburden.............. If composed entirely of storm
water and not combining with
mine drainage. See Note below.
Topsoil.
Roads constructed of waste rock or
spent ore:
Onsite haul roads.................. If composed entirely of storm
water and not combining with
mine drainage. See Note below.
Offsite haul/access roads.
Roads not constructed of waste rock or
spent ore:
Onsite haul roads.................. Except if ``mine drainage'' is
used for dust control.
Offsite haul/access roads.
Milling/concentrating:
Runoff from tailings dams/dikes Except if process fluids are
when constructed of waste rock/ present and only if composed
tailings. entirely of storm water and
not combining with mine
drainage. See Note below.
Runoff from tailings dams/dikes Except if process fluids are
when not constructed of waste rock/ present.
tailings.
Concentration building............. If storm water only and no
contact with piles.
Mill site.......................... If storm water only and no
contact with piles.
Ancillary areas:
Office/administrative building and If mixed with storm water from
housing. the industrial area.
Chemical storage area.
Docking facility................... Except if excessive contact
with waste product that would
otherwise constitute ``mine
drainage''.
Explosive storage
Fuel storage (oil tanks/coal piles)
Vehicle/equipment maintenance area/
building
Parking areas...................... But coverage unnecessary if
only employee and visitor-type
parking.
Power plant.
Truck wash area.................... Except when excessive contact
with waste product that would
otherwise constitute ``mine
drainage''.
Reclamation-related areas:
Any disturbed area (unreclaimed)... Only if not in active mining
area.
[[Page 42545]]
Reclaimed areas released from
reclamation bonds prior to Dec. 17
1990.
Partially/inadequately reclaimed
areas or areas not released from
reclamation bond.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storm water runoff from these sources are subject to the NPDES
program for storm water unless mixed with discharges subject to the 40
CFR Part 440 that are not regulated by another permit prior to mixing.
Non-storm water discharges from these sources are subject to NPDES
permitting and may be subject to the effluent limitation guidelines
under 40 CFR Part 440.
Note: Discharges from overburden/waste rock and overburden/waste
rock-related areas are not subject to 40 CFR Part 440 unless: (1) it
drains naturally (or is intentionally diverted) to a point source;
and (2) combines with ``mine drainage'' that is otherwise regulated
under the Part 440 regulations. For such sources, coverage under
this permit would be available if the discharge is composed entirely
of storm water does not combine with other sources of mine drainage
that are not subject to 40 CFR Part 440, as well as meeting other
eligibility criteria contained in Part I.B. of the permit. Permit
applicants bear the initial responsibility for determining the
applicable technology-based standard for such discharges. EPA
recommends that permit applicants contact the relevant NPDES permit
issuance authority for assistance to determine the nature and scope
of the ``active mining area'' on a mine-by-mine basis, as well as to
determine the appropriate permitting mechanism for authorizing such
discharges.
2. The fourth sentence in the first paragraph in permit eligibility
provision for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial
Activity from Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing), Section XI.G.1.
(introductory language), previously published at 60 FR 51155, is
modified and a fifth and sixth sentence are added to read as follows:
1. Discharges Covered Under This Section
* * * All storm water discharges from inactive metal mining
facilities and storm water discharges from the following areas of
active, and temporarily inactive, metal mining facilities are the only
discharges covered by this permit: waste rock/overburden piles if
composed entirely of storm water and not combining with mine drainage;
topsoil piles; offsite haul/access roads; onsite haul/access roads
constructed of waste rock/overburden if composed entirely of storm
water and not combining with mine drainage; onsite haul/access roads
not constructed of waste rock/overburden/spent ore except if mine
drainage is used for dust control; runoff from tailings dams/dikes when
not constructed of waste rock/tailings and no process fluids are
present; runoff from tailings dams/dikes when constructed of waste
rock/tailings and no process fluids are present if composed entirely of
storm water and not combining with mine drainage; concentration
building if no contact with material piles; mill site if no contact
with material piles; office/administrative building and housing if
mixed with storm water from industrial area; chemical storage area;
docking facility except if excessive contact with waste product that
would otherwise constitute mine drainage; explosive storage; fuel
storage; vehicle/equipment maintenance area/building; parking areas (if
necessary); power plant; truck wash areas except when excessive contact
with waste product that would otherwise constitute mine drainage;
unreclaimed, disturbed areas outside of active mining area; reclaimed
areas released from reclamation bonds prior to December 17, 1990; and
partially/inadequately reclaimed areas or areas not released from
reclamation bond. Note: Discharges from overburden/waste rock and
overburden/waste rock-related areas are not subject to 40 CFR Part 440
unless it: (1) Drains naturally (or is intentionally diverted) to a
point source; and (2) combines with ``mine drainage'' that is otherwise
regulated under the Part 440 regulations. For such sources, coverage
under this permit is available if the discharge is composed entirely of
storm water and does not combine with sources of mine drainage that are
subject to 40 CFR Part 440, as well as meeting other eligibility
criteria contained in Part I.B. of the permit.
3. The permit is amended to include a new section d. and Tables G-2
and G-3, which would have appeared in the third column of 60 FR 51161,
to read as follows:
d. Additional Monitoring Requirements for Storm Water Discharges
from Waste Rock and Overburden Piles.
Beginning July 1, 1998, the operator of an active ore mining and
dressing facility covered by this permit must monitor the storm water
discharges from waste rock and/or overburden piles resulting from
mining activities. The operator must conduct analytic monitoring as
described below at least twice annually (once between July 1 and
December 31, and once between January 1 and June 30) for the duration
of this permit. Samples shall be collected from separate storm events a
minimum of 3 months apart, except as provided in paragraphs 5.a.(3)
(Sampling Waiver), 5.a.(4) (Representative Discharge), and 5.a.(5)
(Alternative Certification). Upon notification by the Director,
permittees may be required to conduct additional monitoring as
necessary to accurately characterize the quality and quantity of
pollutants discharged from the waste rock/overburden pile.
All permittees must conduct analytic monitoring once for the
parameters listed in Table G-2, and twice annually for any parameters
measured above the benchmark value listed in Table G-2. Permittees must
also conduct analytic monitoring twice annually for the parameters
listed Table G-3 for each of the ore mine categories listed in Table G-
3. The initial sampling conducted of Table G-2 pollutant parameters
satisfies the requirement for the first sample for any pollutant
measurement required by Table G-3.
Permittees must report monitoring results in accordance with
paragraph 5.b. (Reporting). In addition to reporting the monitoring
requirements for the parameters listed in Tables G-2 and G-3 below, the
permittee must report the date and duration (in hours) of the storm
event(s) sampled; rainfall measurements or estimates (in inches) of the
storm event that generated the sampled runoff; the duration between the
storm event sampled and the end of the previously measurable (greater
than 0.1 inch) storm event; and an estimate of the total volume (in
gallons) of the sampled discharge.
[[Page 42546]]
Table G-2.--Initial Monitoring Requirements for Storm Water Discharges
From Waste Rock and Overburden Piles Resulting From Mining Activity at
Active Ore Mining or Dressing Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutants of concern Benchmark values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Suspended Solids (TSS).... 100 mg/L.
Turbidity (NTUs)................ 5 NTUs above background.
pH.............................. 6.0-9.0 standard units.
Hardness (as CaCO3)............. no benchmark value.
Antimony, Total................. 0.636 mg/L.
Arsenic, Total.................. 0.16854 mg/L.
Beryllium, Total................ 0.13 mg/L.
Cadmium, Total (hardness 0.0159 mg/L.
dependent).
Copper, Total (hardness 0.0636 mg/L.
dependent).
Iron, Total..................... 1.0 mg/L.
Lead, Total (hardness dependent) 0.0816 mg/L.
Manganese, Total................ 1.0 mg/L.
Mercury, Total.................. 0.0024 mg/L.
Nickel, Total (hardness 1.417 mg/L.
dependent).
Selenium, Total................. 0.2385 mg/L.
Silver, Total (hardness 0.0318 mg/L.
dependent).
Zinc, Total (hardness dependent) 0.117 mg/L.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table G-3.--Additional Monitoring Requirements (Twice Annual) for Storm Water Discharges From Waste Rock and
Overburden Resulting From Mining Activity at Active Mining or Dressing Operations Based on Type of Ore Handled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant/parameter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of ore mined Total
suspended pH Metals, total
solids (TSS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tungsten Ore.................. X X Arsenic, Cadmium (H), Copper (H), Lead (H), Zinc
(H).
Nickel Ore.................... X X Arsenic, Cadmium (H), Copper (H), Lead (H), Zinc
(H).
Aluminum Ore.................. X X Aluminum, Iron.
Mercury Ore................... X X Nickel (H), Mercury.
Iron Ore...................... X X Iron (Dissolved).
Platinum Ore.................. ............ ............ Cadmium (H), Copper (H), Mercury, Lead (H), Zinc
(H).
Titanium Ore.................. X X Iron, Nickel (H), Zinc (H).
Vanadium Ore.................. X X Arsenic, Cadmium (H), Copper (H), Lead, Zinc (H).
Copper, Lead, Zinc, Gold, X X Arsenic, Cadmium (H), Copper (H), Lead (H), Mercury,
Silver, and Molybdenum. Zinc (H).
Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium. X X Chemical Oxygen Demand, Arsenic, Radium (Dissolved
and Total), Uranium, Zinc (H).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: (H) indicates that hardness must also be measured when this pollutant is measured.
4. The permit is amended to include a new section e., which would
have appeared in the third column of 60 FR 51161, to read as follows:
e. Additional Reporting Requirements for Storm Water Discharges
from Waste Rock and Overburden Resulting from Mining Activities.
Permittees with active ore mining and dressing facilities shall
submit monitoring results for each outfall discharging storm water
discharges from waste rock and overburden piles resulting from mining
activities, (or a certification in accordance with Sections (3)(a),
(3)(b), (4), (5) above) obtained during the reporting period beginning
July 1, 1998, and lasting for the duration of the permit. Permittees
must submit such monitoring results on Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR) Form(s) postmarked no later than March 31 following the calendar
year in which the samples were collected.
5. In addition to the conditions contained in Parts I-XI of this
permit, the following requirements are incorporated into Part XII and
are placed on permittees located in the listed States, Indian country
lands (referred to as ``Federal Indian Reservations'' in the original
permit), or Territories to meet applicable Clean Water Act section 401
or Coastal Zone Management Act certification requirements.
Part XII. Coverage Under This Permit
The provisions of this Part provide modifications or additions to
the applicable conditions of Parts I through XI of this permit in order
to reflect specific conditions required as part of a State, Tribal or
Territory Clean Water Act section 401 certification process, or Coastal
Zone Management Act certification process, or as otherwise established
by the permitting authority. The additional revisions and requirements
listed below are set forth in connection with, and only apply to, the
following States, Indian country lands, and Federal facilities.
[[Page 42547]]
Region I
State of Massachusetts, Except Indian Country Lands (MAR05*###)
The following Massachusetts section 401 certification requirements
revise the permit accordingly:
1. Part II.B.8. is added to the permit as follows:
Special Permit Eligibility Requirements for the State of
Massachusetts. Discharges covered by the Multi-Sector General Permit
must comply with the provisions of 314 CMR 3.00, 314 CMR 4.00, 314 CMR
9.00 and 310 CMR 10.00 and any related policies promulgated under the
authority of the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, M.G.L. c.21, ss.26-53,
and Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. c.131, s. 40. Specifically, new
facilities or the redevelopment of existing facilities subject to this
permit must comply with applicable storm water performance standards
prescribed by State regulation or policy. A permit under 314 CMR 3.04
is not required for existing facilities which meet State storm water
performance standards; an application for a permit under 314 CMR 3.00
is required only when required under 314 CMR 3.04(2)(b) (designation of
a discharge on a case-by-case basis) or is otherwise identified in 314
CMR 3.00 or Department policy as a discharge requiring a permit
application. Department regulations and policies may be obtained
through the State House Bookstore (617-727-2834) or on the Internet at
``www.magnet.state.ma.us/dep''.
2. Part VI.B.3. is added to the permit as follows:
Special Reporting Requirement for the State of Massachusetts. The
results of any quarterly monitoring required by this permit must be
sent to the appropriate regional office of the Department listed below
when the monitoring identifies violations of State Surface Water
Quality Standards, 314 CMR 4.00, for any parameter which requires
monitoring under this permit. Monitoring results must also be submitted
upon request to the Department.
Western Region
436 Dwight Street--Suite 402, Springfield, MA 01103, (413) 784-1100
Central Region
627 Main Street, Worcester, MA 01608, (508) 792-7650
Southeast Region
Lakeville Hospital--Route 105, Lakeville, MA 02347, (508) 946-2700
Northeast Region
10 Commerce Way, Woburn, MA 01801, (781) 932-7677
3. Part IV.B.2.a. is added to the permit as follows:
Special Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Availability
Requirement for the State of Massachusetts. The Department may request
a copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan for any facility
covered by this permit to ensure compliance with State law
requirements, including State water quality standards. The Department
may enforce its certification conditions.
4. Part VII.Q.1. is added to the permit as follows:
Special Inspection Requirements for the State of Massachusetts. The
Department may conduct an inspection of any facility covered by this
permit to ensure compliance with State law requirements, including
State water quality standards. The Department may enforce its
certification conditions.
Region VI
State of New Mexico, except Indian Country Lands (NMR05*###)
The following State of New Mexico section 401 certification
requirement revises the permit accordingly:
(a) Part I.B.8(a) is added to the permit as follows:
Special Water Quality Standard Requirement for the State of New
Mexico. Storm water discharges associated with industrial activity that
the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)/Surface Water Quality
Bureau has determined to be, or may reasonably be expected to be,
contributing to a violation of a water quality standard are not
authorized by this permit. Upon receipt of this determination, the NMED
anticipates that the EPA will notify the general permittee within a
reasonable period of time to apply for and obtain an individual NPDES
permit for these discharges according to 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3).
Federal Indian Country Lands in the State of New Mexico (NMR05*##F)
1. Pueblo of Isleta The following Pueblo of Isleta section 401
certification requirements revise the permit accordingly:
(a) Part II.C.1. is added to the permit as follows:
Special NOI Requirement for the Pueblo of Isleta. Copies of NOIs
shall also be submitted to the Pueblo of Isleta's Environment
Department, Water Quality Program, at the following address
concurrently with NOI submission to EPA: Isleta Environment Department,
Water Quality Program, Pueblo of Isleta, PO Box 1270, Isleta, New
Mexico 87022, Telephone (505) 869-6333 or 3111.
(b) Part IX.B.1. is added to the permit as follows:
Special NOT Requirement for the Pueblo of Isleta. Copies NOTs shall
also be submitted to the Pueblo of Isleta's Environment Department,
Water Quality Program, concurrently with NOT submission to EPA. Copies
are to be sent to the address given in Part II.C.1.
(c) Part IV.F. is added to the permit as follows:
Special Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Requirement for the
Pueblo of Isleta. Storm water pollution prevention plans must be
submitted to the Pueblo of Isleta Environment Department, Water Quality
Program, within 30 days of plan development. SWPPPs are to be sent to
the address given in Part II.C.1.
2. Pueblo of Pojoaque The following Pueblo of Pojoaque section 401
certification requirements revise the permit accordingly:
(a) Part II.C.1. is added to the permit as follows:
Special NOI Requirement for the Pueblo of Pojoaque. Copies of NOIs
shall also be submitted to the Pueblo of Pojoaque Environment
Department at the following address concurrently with NOI submittal to
EPA: Pueblo of Pojoaque, Environment Department, Route 11, P.O. Box
208, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501, Telephone (505) 455-2087, Fax (505)
455-2177.
(b) Part IX.B.1. is added to the permit as follows:
Special NOT Requirement for the Pueblo of Pojoaque. Copies of NOTs
shall also be submitted to the Pueblo of Pojoaque Environment
Department concurrently with NOT submittal to EPA. Copies are to be
sent to the address given in Part II.C.1.
(c) Part IV.F. is added to the permit as follows:
Special Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Requirement for the
Pueblo of Pojoaque. Storm water pollution prevention plans must be
submitted to the Pueblo of Pojoaque Environment Department at least 30
days before a project begins. Case-by-case determinations will be made
by the Department to assure compliance with the Pueblo of Pojaque Water
Quality Standards. SWPPPs are to be sent to the address given in Part
II.C.1.
3. Pueblo of Sandia The following Pueblo of Sandia section 401
certification requirements revise the permit accordingly:
[[Page 42548]]
(a) Part II.C.1. is added to the permit as follows:
Special NOI Requirement for the Pueblo of Sandia. Copies of NOIs
shall also be submitted to the Pueblo of Sandia Environment Department
at the following address concurrently with NOI submittal to EPA: Pueblo
of Sandia, Environment Department, Box 6008, Bernalillo, New Mexico
87004, Telephone (505) 867-4533; Fax (505) 867-9235.
(b) Part IX.B.1. is added to the permit as follows:
Special NOT Requirement for the Pueblo of Sandia. Copies of NOTs
shall also be submitted to the Pueblo of Sandia Environment Department
concurrently with NOT submittal to EPA. Copies are to be sent to the
address given in Part II.C.1.
4. Pueblo of Picuris The following Pueblo of Picuris section 401
certification requirements revise the permit accordingly:
(a) Part II.C.1. is added to the permit as follows:
Special NOI Requirement for the Pueblo of Picuris. Copies NOIs
shall also be submitted to both the Pueblo of Picuris Environment
Department and Picuris Governor Manuel Archuleta at the following
address concurrently with NOI submission to EPA: Pueblo of Picuris,
P.O. Box 127, Penasco, New Mexico 87553, Telephone (505) 587-2519.
(b) Part IX.B.1. is added to the permit as follows:
Special NOT Requirement for the Pueblo of Picuris. Copies NOTs
shall also be submitted to both the Pueblo of Picuris Environment
Department and Picuris Governor Manuel Archuleta at the address given
in Part II.C.1. concurrently with NOT submission to EPA.
(c) Part IV.F. is added to the permit as follows:
Special Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Requirement for the
Pueblo of Picuris. Copies of storm water pollution prevention plans
must be submitted to both the Pueblo of Picuris Environment Department
and Picuris Governor Manuel Archuleta at the address given in Part
II.C.1. concurrently with plan submission to EPA.
Region X
The State of Idaho, except Indian Country Lands (IDR05* ###)
The following State of Idaho section 401 certification requirement
revises the permit accordingly:
1. Part IV.F. is added to the permit as follows:
Special Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Requirement for the
State of Idaho. Storm water pollution prevention plan design and
associated storm water discharge quality shall demonstrate compliance
with applicable Idaho Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment
Requirements (IDAPA 16.01.02) through the selection and use of approved
and/or reasonable Best Management Practices.
Federal Indian Country Lands in the State of Washington (WAR05* ##F)
1. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation. The following
Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation section 401
certification requirements revise the permit accordingly:
(a) Part I.B.8(a) is added to the permit as follows:
Special Water Quality Standard Requirement for the Confederated
Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation. The permittee shall be responsible
for achieving compliance with Confederated Tribes of Chehalis
Reservation's Water Quality Standards.
(b) Part I.B.8(b) is added to the permit as follows:
Special Permit Eligibility Requirement for the Confederated Tribes
of the Chehalis Reservation. Storm water pollution prevention plans
shall be submitted to the Chehalis Tribal Department of Natural
Resources at the following address for review and approval prior to
discharge: Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation, Department of
Natural Resources 420 Howanut Road, Oakville, WA 98568.
2. Puyallup Tribe of Indians. The following Puyallup Tribe of
Indians section 401 certification requirements revise the permit
accordingly:
(a) Part I.B.8(a) is added to the permit as follows:
Special Water Quality Standard Requirement for the Puyallup Tribe
of Indians. The permittee shall be responsible for achieving compliance
with Puyallup Tribe's Water Quality Standards.
(b) Part I.B.8(b) is added to the permit as follows:
Special Permit Eligibility Requirement for the Puyallup Tribe of
Indians. Storm water pollution prevention plans shall be submitted to
the Puyallup Tribe Environmental Department at the following address
for review and approval prior to discharge: Puyallup Tribe
Environmental Department 2002 East 28th Street, Tacoma, WA 98404.
(c) Part II.C.1. is added to the permit as follows:
Special NOI Requirement for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. Copies
of NOIs shall also be submitted to the Puyallup Tribe Environmental
Department at the address listed in Part I.B.8(b) at time of NOI
submittal to EPA:
Federal Facilities in the State of Washington, Except Those Located on
Indian Country Lands (WAR05* ###)
The following State of Washington section 401 certification
requirement revises the permit accordingly:
(a) Part I.B.8(a) is added to the permit as follows:
Special Water Quality Standard Requirement for the State of
Washington. The permittee shall be responsible for achieving compliance
with the State of Washington's Water Quality Standards. These Standards
are found in Chapter 173-201AWAC (Water Quality Standards for Surface
Waters), Chapter 173-204 WAC (Sediment Management Standards), and the
human health standards in the National Toxics Rule (57 FR 60848--
60923).
[FR Doc. 98-21025 Filed 8-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
