Final NPDES General Permit for Placer Mining in Alaska

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-4887-5]

Final NPDES General Permit for Placer Mining in Alaska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10.

ACTION: Notice of a Final NPDES General Permit.

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

SUMMARY: The Director, Water Division, of Region 10 is today issuing a

final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general

permit under the Clean Water Act which will authorize discharges from

placer mining facilities in the state of Alaska.

Notice of the draft general permit was published January 14, 1994,

at 59 FR 2504. This permit is intended to regulate placer mining

activities in the state of Alaska. EPA, Region 10 has issued almost

identical individual permits to these facilities in the past and

intends to relieve some of the administrative burden of issuing

individual permits by issuing this general permit.

The final general permit establishes effluent limitations,

standards, prohibitions and other conditions on discharges from the

covered facilities. These conditions are based on existing national

effluent guidelines and material contained in the administrative

record, including Alaska Water Quality Standards and the National

Toxics Rule. A description of the basis for any changes in conditions

and requirements from the proposed general permit to the final general

permit is given in the Response to Comments published below.

DATES: Request for Coverage: Written request for coverage under the

general permit shall be provided to EPA, Region 10, as described in

Part I.E. of the final permit. Coverage under the general permit

requires written notification from EPA that coverage has been granted

and that a specific permit number has been assigned to the operation.

Administrative Record: The administrative record for the final

permit is available for public review at EPA, Region 10, at the address

listed below.

ADDRESSES: Requests for coverage should be sent to Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, WD-134, Seattle, WA

98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindi Godsey at 1200 Sixth Avenue, WD-

134, Seattle, Washington 98101 or by telephone at (206) 553-1755.

Copies of the final general permit, response to comments and today's

notice may be obtained by writing to the above address or by calling

Jeanette Carriveau at (206) 553-1214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from

the review requirements of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to section 6

of that order.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

After review of the facts presented in the notice printed above, I

hereby certify pursuant to the provision of 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this

general NPDES permit will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Moreover, the permit reduces a

significant administrative burden on regulated sources.

Dated: May 13, 1994.

Charles E. Findley,

Director, Water Division.

Response to Comments

On January 14, 1994, EPA, Region 10, issued a notice for a proposed

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit

(GP) for Alaskan placer miners (59 FR 2504, Friday, January 14, 1994).

During the public notice period, comments were received from National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Trustees for Alaska, Northern Alaska

Environmental Center, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Department of

Interior (DOI), Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Alaska

Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Utility Water Act

Group, American Rivers, Alaska Miners Association, Livengood/Tolovana

Mining District, Karl Hanneman, Steve J. McGroarty, Roger C. Burggraf,

Glenn Bouton, Paul Manuel, Steve Masterman, Paul Sayer, Fred Heflinger,

Guy L. Wiggs, and Denise Herzog. Public Hearings were held in

Anchorage, Alaska on February 7, 1994, and in Fairbanks, Alaska on

February 8 and 9, 1994. This document directly responds to the

significant comments pertaining to the GP, made in writing and at the

Public Hearings, and the Finding of Significant Impact (FNSI) for the

Environmental Assessment (EA).

1. Comment: Two commentors object to the use of a general permit

due to the variations among mine sites. One commentor recommends

issuing individual permits for all suction dredges larger than 4

inches. In addition, another commentor objects to regulating discharges

from operations utilizing the hydraulic removal of overburden through

this GP stating these operations should be considered in individual

permits.

Response: EPA's NPDES regulations [40 CFR 122.28(a)] outline the

conditions under which the Director may issue a general permit. More

specifically, 40 CFR 122.28(a)(2)(ii) lists conditions the sources must

meet to be considered for a general permit:

a. The facilities involve the same or substantially similar types

of operations.

b. The facilities discharge the same type of wastes.

c. Require the same effluent limitations and operating conditions.

d. Require the same or similar monitoring.

EPA has covered three different classifications of facilities in

this GP but feels that each operation is similar to the others in that

class. The development of the effluent guidelines for placer mining

showed that with treatment, the pollutants of concern were the same for

all facilities. In addition, the Alaska Water Quality Standards (WQS)

have been taken into account for two parameters as being necessary for

additional controls. In EPA's best professional judgement, the second

condition applies to facilities utilizing the hydraulic removal of

overburden as long as the settleable solids are kept at 0.2 ml/L or

below. Also, suction dredges discharging to waters of the United States

that operate in the active stream channel would have substantially the

same types of discharged waste. EPA believes that each category can be

regulated using the same effluent limitations and operating conditions

and facilities in each category can be regulated using similar

monitoring.

2. Comment: Several commentors believe that bucket dredges should

be regulated under individual permits. In addition, one commentor feels

that small bucket dredges should be regulated under individual permits.

Response: The Development Document for Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Ore Mining and

Dressing Point Source Category - Gold Placer Mine Subcategory includes

those larger bucket dredges as mechanical operations. Since effluent

guidelines and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) apply to these

facilities, the facilities are involved in operations similar to other

mechanical operations and thus can be regulated by this GP. Since EPA

did not include smaller bucket dredge operations as authorized by this

GP, any application for this type of operation would need to be

addressed in an individual permit.

3. Comment: Two commentors claim that the approach used to comply

with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) if a new source is

determined to have a significant impact violates the NEPA process.

Response: The commentors are correct but this was not the intent of

Permit Part I.A.3. This part is rewritten to read, ``If there will be a

significant impact, the facility will require an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS).'' EPA would prepare the EIS as funds became available

or the new source could enter a three party agreement with EPA and an

agreed upon third party contractor where the new source would pay the

contractor but EPA would oversee the work.

4. Comment: Two commentors suggest that the GP define ``expanding

facilities'' to distinguish between an expansion and a new source.

Response: The GP has defined ``expanding facility'' in Permit Part

VIII.D. as: ``any facility increasing in size such as to affect the

discharge but operating within the permit area covered by its GP.''

5. Comment: Several commentors object to regulating discharges from

operations utilizing the hydraulic removal of overburden due to the

environmental impacts this method has on the surface.

Response: The NPDES program regulates pollutant discharges to

surface waters of the United States as mandated by the Clean Water Act

(CWA). EPA does not have authority under the CWA to regulate land use.

That authority rests with the appropriate land management agency.

6. Comment: Two commentors suggest that EPA clarify Permit Part

I.E.1. because they believe that saying: `* * * EPA ``may'' require

individual permits* * *' gives EPA too much discretion.

Response: The language in the GP comes directly out of 40 CFR

122.28(a)(3)(i). The regulations intended EPA to have some discretion

in making this determination.

7. Comment: Two commentors suggest the addition of the need for a

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) as a reason for requiring an individual

permit.

Response: EPA agrees and it has been incorporated in Permit Part

I.E.1.g.

8. Comment: Two commentors claim Permit Part I.E.2. would allow an

applicant who falls into a category that may require an individual

permit to gain coverage under the GP until a decision is made on the

individual permit application.

Response: Permit Part I.E.2. states: ``The Regional Administrator

will notify the operator in writing that a permit application is

required. If an operator fails to submit in a timely manner an

individual NPDES permit application as required, then the applicability

of this general permit to the individual NPDES permittee is

automatically terminated at the end of the day specified for

application submittal.'' The Regional Administrator has the opportunity

not only to require an individual permit application from a new

applicant, but from an existing facility covered by the GP whose

situation is not as indicated on the Notice of Intent (NOI). The GP is

applicable to a new applicant only if they are in a category authorized

by the GP. Coverage is not granted until the applicant has been

notified according to Permit Part I.F.4.

9. Comment: Two commentors claim there is a discrepancy between

Permit Part I.F.4. and I.E.1. as to when coverage is effective because

I.E.1. implies that a facility that may require an individual permit is

covered by the GP until notified.

Response: Permit Part I.E.1. states: ``The Regional Administrator

may require any person authorized by this permit to apply for and

obtain an individual NPDES permit when:''; then lists the situations

when an individual permit may be required. There is nothing in this

part that indicates an operation would be covered by the GP if it

requires an individual permit (see previous comment). The GP indicates

in both I.F.1. and I.F.4. that the applicant will be notified in

writing that coverage is granted.

10. Comment: Two commentors claim that Permit Part I.E.5. gives a

permittee automatic coverage under the GP if they are denied an

individual permit.

Response: Permit Part I.E.5. states that if a facility, already

covered by the GP, applies for and is denied an individual permit that

coverage will automatically be reinstated under the GP. This is only

the case for permittees already covered, not just authorized, by the GP

otherwise coverage could not be reinstated as is specified.

11. Comment: Two commentors suggest that a limitation for total

suspended solids (TSS) be required in the placer mining NPDES permits

because the settleable solids effluent guideline value of 0.2 ml/L does

not provide reasonable assurance that the state water quality standards

for sediments is met or in the alternative that TSS should be

technology-based limited on the permit writer's Best Professional

Judgement (BPJ).

Response: Effluent guidelines do not contain TSS limits but Section

301 (b)(1)(c) of the CWA requires permits to contain conditions

necessary to comply with state water quality standards. The Alaska WQS

contain no specific criteria for TSS. Therefore, limits on TSS would be

required only when such limits are needed to assure compliance with

regulations or Alaska water quality standards such as sediment or

turbidity.

Because settleable solids is a more direct measure of sediment

impacts than TSS, it would not be appropriate to establish a TSS limit

for purposes of compliance with sediment criteria. EPA evaluated the

possibility of using a TSS limit in lieu of the turbidity limit to

assure compliance with state turbidity criteria. A review of the data

showed there was no direct correlation between TSS concentrations and

turbidity values. Therefore, no TSS limit could be established which

would assure compliance with the state turbidity criteria. The effluent

limitations for settleable solids and turbidity adequately address

compliance with WQS that may be impacted by TSS in placer mining

discharges. Therefore, EPA determined that it is not necessary to

establish limits for TSS. However, if the state of Alaska were to

include a limitation for TSS in their Section 401 Certification, EPA

would include it in the GP. But the Section 401 Certification has been

waived by the State according to the time specified in 40 CFR 124.53 so

no limitation for TSS is included.

12. Comment: Two commentors object to EPA granting turbidity

modifications to permittees under the GP because it does not provide

the public with formal notice and opportunity to comment as did the

individual permits.

Response: Turbidity modifications were not available for public

comment for the individual placer mining permits issued in the past.

The additional information to calculate the modifications was always

called for and supplied during the public comment period. The GP has

allowed public comment on the method of determining the turbidity

modifications just as did the individual permits.

13. Comment: Two commentors object to the turbidity limitation

based on the following issues:

a. It contradicts the basic principle of pollution control,

b. EPA has granted a mixing zone without going through the

procedures required by the Alaska water quality standards,

c. EPA has failed to account for the effects of multiple sources of

turbidity on the same receiving water, and

d. The State of Alaska has historically taken the approach that

mass balance equations are inappropriate basis for determining effluent

limitations.

Response: The WQS at 18 AAC 70.032(a) states: ``In applying the

water quality criteria set out in this chapter, the department will,

upon application and in its discretion, prescribe in its permits or

certifications a volume of dilution for an effluent or substance within

a receiving water * * *''. The state water quality standards describe

dilution as an allowable method of pollution control. The proposed

permit does take into account other man-made sources of turbidity on

the receiving water. Permit Part II.D.1.c. states that the ``natural''

background shall be measured for turbidity, where ``natural''

background is defined as the level upstream from all mining and other

man-made disturbances. The state has taken the position that a mass

balance equation is not appropriate for volume based limitations.

Turbidity is not a volume based limitation. The values used in the mass

balance equation for turbidity assume the worst case scenario. The

summer low flow for the stream (3Q2) is the upstream flow and the

highest estimated effluent flow is used. This should account for slight

variations in operation.

14. Comment: Two commentors indicate that the arsenic limitations

in the placer permits will not have sufficient public participation to

determine if they are protective.

Response: This option is an EPA interpretation of the WQS and

discharges up to ``natural'' background will be included in the permit

as an option to determine the arsenic limitation. If the state of

Alaska disagrees with this interpretation in their Section 401

Certification, then this option would not be included in the GP. The

Section 401 Certification has been waived according to the timeframe

specified in 40 CFR 124.53.

15. Comment: Several commentors indicate that the effluent

limitations in the permit will not prevent placer miners from violating

the water quality standard for metals other than arsenic and

limitations should be included in the permit based on site specific

information. One commentor indicates that there are two studies by

Hamilton and Buhl dated 1990 which should be considered.

Response: The combination of the recirculation of process water and

the removal of settleable solids in any waters discharged from the

mines will adequately control all pollutants found in effluents in this

subcategory. These pollutants include metals which are reduced with a

reduction in the solids. The decision by EPA to rely on the settleable

solids limitation as an indicator was specifically upheld by the Ninth

Circuit in Rybachek v. EPA. It was also upheld by the Superior Court

for the State of Alaska in Stein v. State because Trustees did not

produce post-1989 National Effluent Guideline evidence that toxic

metals, other than arsenic, discharged from placer mines violate WQS.

Although the publication dates on the studies cited are post-1989, the

actual studies were conducted prior to guideline development.

16. Comment: Two commentors claim that EPA must apply technology-

based limitations from the National Effluent Guidelines to suction

dredges.

Response: In the development of the Effluent Guidelines for placer

mining, the only type of dredge specified as being covered by the

guidelines were bucket dredges so effluent guidelines do not apply

directly to suction dredges. Suction Dredges are regulated by BPJ

according to 40 CFR 125.3. Based on BPJ, the effluent guidelines for

mechanical operations do not apply to suction dredges and the

requirements included in the GP do apply to this category of

discharger.

17. Comment: Several commentors suggest that Permit Part IV.A. be

changed to reflect that the turbidity measurement should be made at

natural background.

Response: EPA agrees and has modified this part of the GP.

18. Comment: Two commentors claim that the GP lacks an effective

reporting requirement for the technology-based limits in Permit Parts

II.A.1.a. and II.B.1.a. They suggest specifying an exact procedure to

determine compliance with these requirements.

Response: This is accomplished in two parts of the GP. The first is

in Permit Part III.A.4. which states that the amount of new water

allowed to enter the plant site for use in ore processing shall be

limited to the minimum amount required as makeup water for processing

operations. The second is in Permit Part II.A.2. and II.B.2. which

state that effluent discharges are prohibited during periods when new

water is allowed to enter the plant site. Additionally, there shall be

no discharge as a result of the intake of new water. The combination of

these two provisions prevents the discharge volume from being any more

than the volume of groundwater infiltration, drainage and mine drainage

at the site. Reporting of non-compliance is required in Permit Part

IV.G.2.c.

19. Comment: Two commentors claim that EPA's proposed reliance on

self- monitoring is an abdication of EPA's regulatory responsibility.

Response: The Clean Water Act prescribes self-monitoring in Section

308(a)(4)(A)(iv) which says that the Administrator shall require the

owner or operator of any point source to sample such effluents in

accordance with such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe. Self-

monitoring is a cornerstone of the NPDES program and shall remain

incorporated into this GP.

20. Comment: Two commentors claim that recreational suction

dredgers utilize dredges with 4 to 6 inch intake hoses and recommends

that EPA change the size of the dredges regulated by this permit to

greater than 6 inch intake hoses.

Response: EPA has completed a literature research project

considering the environmental effects of all suction dredge operations

and potential controls that could be placed on them. Based on this

research, EPA has concluded that suction dredges with intake hoses of

greater than 4 inches may cause environmental impacts and will be

covered by this GP. EPA has observed commercial miners using dredges

with intake hoses less than 6 inches. It does not matter if a suction

dredge is recreational. Larger recreational suction dredges may cause

environmental impacts similar to small commercial operations.

21. Comment: Two commentors suggest that new facilities should be

allowed to submit an NOI and have a permit within thirty days of the

submission. Also, another commentor claims that the GP notification

requirements are too restrictive because the average summer tourist

bringing a five or six inch dredge to Alaska for vacation cannot dredge

because their application should have been received by January 1.

Response: EPA cannot guarantee a permit within a specified

timeframe because there may be instances where information needs to be

clarified or the facility may require an individual permit and it would

not be feasible to issue a permit in 30 days. The language in Permit

Part I.F. has been changed to require NOIs by January 1 only for those

new facilities subject to NSPS. Other new facilities will only be

required to submit an NOI 90 days prior to discharge. This allows time

to review the NOI and for the applicant to receive a permit.

22. Comment: Several commentors suggest that the methodology for

determining a turbidity modification be included in the permit as well

as the Fact Sheet.

Response: EPA agrees and has modified Part II.A.1.b. and II.B.1.b.

to include the methodology for turbidity modifications.

23. Comment: Two commentors recommend inserting ``where

applicable'' after the term ``recycle system'' in Permit Part II.D.1.b.

concerning the visual inspection of a facility because all facilities

do not utilize recycle systems.

Response: The addition of the phrase ``where applicable'' may be

confusing to the permittee because the permittee may decide that

recycle is not applicable to a certain site and that discharging is the

applicable way to operate. EPA does not require the records to show a

daily inspection of the recycle system if it is determined that recycle

is not necessary.

24. Comment: Several commentors suggest that the phrase ``dredging

in the waters of the United States is permitted only within the active

stream channel'' be modified to make it possible to operate dredges

that do not discharge to waters of the United States or do so only

after treatment.

Response: Permit Part III.B.1. is quoted above and it applies only

to those suction dredges operating in waters of the United States. This

requirement does not apply to those suction dredges operating and

discharging outside waters of the United States. Those facilities with

treatment would be expected to meet the limitations for mining

operations utilizing similar treatment.

25. Comment: One commentor recommends that the GP specifically not

prevent the removal of settleable solids from settling ponds for use in

reclamation activities.

Response: Permit Part V.F. does not prevent solids from being

removed from the pond for reclamation activities. However, care should

be taken during reclamation that solids do not enter waters of the

United States. Totally reclaimed areas, released from bond, are subject

to no water discharge permits.

26. Comment: Two commentors recommend that the GP require

notification for planned alterations when the affected pollutant that

is discharged is subject to the effluent limitations in the permit.

Response: EPA agrees and this provision has been added to Permit

Part VI.B. of the proposed GP. This will make it possible to re-issue a

GP to a facility to reflect changes made that may affect effluent

limitations, especially turbidity.

27. Comment: Two commentors recommend that if modifications are

made to the proposed GP that corresponding modifications be made to the

Fact Sheet.

Response: The Fact Sheet is the document that supports the draft

general permit and is in its final form when it goes to public notice.

Any changes to the general permit from proposed to final will be

supported through this Response to Comments and the State's Section 401

Certification, if any.

28. Comment: One commentor would like Permit Part I.E.2. to specify

that EPA will notify the permittee by certified mail due to the fact

that they may leave the state for several months and not receive their

mail until they return.

Response: This change has been made to the GP although it is EPA's

experience that after a short period of time, even unclaimed certified

mail is returned to the sender.

29. Comment: One commentor suggests that Permit Part I.F.1.a. be

changed to remove the phrase ``no later than 90 days after the

effective date of the permit'' due to circumstances that may make the

deadline impossible to meet.

Response: Permit Part I.F.1.a. is applicable to existing facilities

whose permits are expiring or those needing permits. Provisions have

been made for new facilities not subject to New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS) in Permit Part I.F.1.c. and for existing facilities in

Permit Part I.F.1.e.

30. Comment: One commentor suggests the issue of a GP being

automatically terminated upon issuance of an individual permit be

addressed in the conditions of the individual permit in case the

facility needs the individual permit as well as the GP.

Response: If EPA were to issue an individual permit to a facility,

it would incorporate the necessary requirements of the GP into the

individual permit to lessen the paperwork the permittee would need to

keep track of (i.e., one discharge monitoring report, one

reapplication, etc.). Thus, the GP would no longer apply and would

automatically terminate upon the issuance of an individual permit.

31. Comment: Two commentors suggest modifying Permit Part I.F. to

allow the use of the ADNR's Annual Placer Mining Application (APMA) to

serve as the NOI for the GP.

Response: EPA will accept, but cannot require, an APMA as an NOI

for this GP as long as the APMA contains all the information on the

information sheet in Appendix A of the GP.

32. Comment: One commentor objects to the requirement to monitor

settleable solids once per day of discharge suggesting that this is a

new definition and recommends that the monitoring frequency be returned

to the previous requirement of once per day of operation.

Response: Previously issued permits did not contain a requirement

that settleable solids be monitored ``once per day of operation.'' In

Ackels v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (9th Cir.

1993), the issue of monitoring settleable solids was decided on the

1985 and 1987 permits for placer mining which states: ``The CWA [Clean

Water Act] regulates, and NPDES permits place conditions on,

`discharges' of pollutants. To monitor for compliance with an NPDES

permit, therefore, a placer miner must monitor discharges of pollutants

caused by his or her placer miner activities whenever such discharges

occur, not just on days when sluicing occurs.'' 7 F3d 862.

33. Comment: One commentor objects to the monitoring frequency for

flow and suggests once per week while operating instead of once per

day. In addition, others request that the flow monitoring requirement

of the permit be decreased from once per day to once per month because:

a. Effluent flow is static unless there is a storm event;

b. In a storm event, the volume of the receiving stream will

increase much more in proportion to the effluent; and

c. During a storm event Alaskan streams naturally exceed any limits

in the permit.

Response: Since the 9th Circuit Court upheld the requirement of

monitoring settleable solids once per day of discharge, the flow

monitoring frequency is not an onerous additional burden to the

settleable solids monitoring. See the previous comment for further

details.

34. Comment: Several commentors are opposed to any requirement for

written reports other than the annual Discharge Monitoring Report

(DMR). The objection is to Permit Part IV.G.2.c. which says that any

violation of the effluent limitations in Permit Parts II.A. and II.B.

should be reported in writing to EPA within the shortest reasonable

period of time.

Response: In the past, placer mining permits have not contained

reporting requirements which other NPDES permits contain including

notice of violations by phone within 24 hours and a written report

submitted within 5 days of becoming aware of the violation. This is due

to the unreasonableness of the imposed timeframe. EPA does not believe

that requiring a report in writing in the shortest reasonable period of

time is unreasonable. The commentors themselves have indicated in other

comments that there would be times when the miner would need to leave

the mine site to get supplies. It does not seem unreasonable that, at

this time, the miner could send a report to EPA if it is necessary.

35. Comment: One commentor indicates that turbidity modifications

should be done for the body of water that the receiving stream flows

into and not for the receiving stream directly because the discharge

does not affect the receiving stream. The commentor objects because

another permittee on a nearby stream has a much higher turbidity

modification than does his permit.

Response: The WQS serve to protect the water which is first and

most severely impacted by the discharge. The WQS used not only protect

aquatic life but also protect the receiving water for use as a water

supply and contact recreation. The application of a turbidity

modification considers several things including the size of the

receiving water's drainage area and the effluent flow from the

facility. These are the factors which can cause one permittee's

turbidity modification to be different than another.

36. Comment: Several commentors indicate that the arsenic standard

should be changed in the GP because it is too low. Several other

commentors express concern over the arsenic limit being lower than the

detection limit.

Response: In establishing the arsenic limit, the ``Amendments to

the Water Quality Standards Regulation; Compliance with CWA Section

303(c)(2)(B); Final Rule'' (57 FR 6084, Tuesday, December 22, 1992) are

used. This rulemaking promulgated the chemical-specific numeric

criteria for priority toxic pollutants necessary to bring all States

into compliance with the requirements of the CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B).

The primary focus of the rule is the inclusion of the federal water

quality criteria for pollutant(s) in State standards as necessary to

support water quality-based control programs (e.g. NPDES permits). The

federal human health standard of 0.18 g/L total recoverable

arsenic is applicable to Alaska and this number has been used to derive

the end-of-pipe limitation for the GP.

37. Comment: Two commentors mention that there should be a mixing

zone for arsenic. Additionally, several other commentors believe this

GP does not prohibit a mixing zone and suggest that the permit specify

that a mixing zone is available if ADEC approves.

Response: Mixing zones are allowed under the Alaska standards for

some pollutant discharges. However, 18 AAC 70.032(a) states, ``In

applying the water quality criteria set out in this chapter, the

department will, upon application and in its discretion, prescribe in

its permits or certifications a volume of dilution for an effluent or

substance within a receiving water unless pollutants discharged could

bioaccumulate; concentrate or persist in the environment; cause

carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects; or otherwise present a

risk to human health * * *'' Arsenic is a carcinogen. In a letter,

dated March 24, 1992, from the Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation Commissioner, John Sandor, to EPA Water Division Director,

Charles Findley, the State has interpreted this to mean that ``* * * a

mixing zone may be prescribed where there is no reasonable expectation

of an adverse effect on human health or aquatic life, based on site-

specific, chemical, physical and biological characteristics.'' EPA did

not propose a mixing zone for arsenic but would include a method for

determining a mixing zone in the permit if ADEC determines, in their

Sec. 401 Certification, that such a mixing zone is appropriate and is

in compliance with its WQS. The Section 401 Certification has been

waived by the State according to the time specified in 40 CFR 124.53 so

no mixing zone is included.

38. Comment: One commentor suggests EPA use Method 3005A for sample

preparation in advance of 206.2 so the detection level would be below

the permit limitation.

Response: This sample preparation method is for Resource

Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) sampling only and not appropriate for

NPDES permits.

39. Comment: One commentor recommends changing the permit

limitation to the minimum level specified in the GP as 4 g/L.

This commentor claims that this level would be protective of aquatic

life.

Response: The WQS protect most fresh water sources for use in

drinking, agriculture, aquaculture and industrial water supply, contact

and secondary recreation and the growth and propagation of fish, shell

fish, and other aquatic life [18 AAC 70.050]. The criteria for growth

and propagation of fish, shellfish, aquatic life and wildlife and also

for harvesting for consumption of raw mollusks or other raw aquatic

life are as stringent as any requirement except perhaps industrial

water supply and secondary recreation. EPA cannot arbitrarily choose a

number to be used as an effluent limitation in an NPDES permit. There

are regulations that must be adhered to in setting any limitation. To

use the arbitrary effluent limitation of 4 g/L would violate

40 CFR 122.44(d) which states that: ``any requirements in addition to

or more stringent than promulgated effluent limitations guidelines or

standards under sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 318 and 405 of CWA

necessary to achieve water quality standards established under section

303 of the CWA.'' ``Amendments to the Water Quality Standards

Regulation; Compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B); Final Rule'' (57

FR 6084, Tuesday, December 22, 1992) were used to determine the arsenic

limitation. This rulemaking promulgated the chemical-specific numeric

criteria for priority toxic pollutants necessary to bring all States

into compliance with the requirements of the CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B).

Since 40 CFR 122.4(a) states: ``No permit may be issued when the

conditions of the permit do not provide for compliance with the

applicable requirements of the CWA, or regulations promulgated under

CWA,'' an arbitrary number cannot be used. The Fact Sheet (page 13)

states that: ``This reporting threshold does not authorize the

discharge of this parameter in excess of the effluent limitation.''

40. Comment: One commentor points out that the 16th Edition of

Standard Methods (1985) is referenced in the permit and that there have

been two editions since then and they suggest EPA update this

reference.

Response: EPA has updated this to the 17th Edition of Standard

Methods (1989) since this is referenced in 40 CFR 136, revised July 1,

1993.

41. Comment: Several commentors pointed out that Permit Part

II.D.4. referenced on pages 8 and 9 of the proposed GP does not exist

in this permit.

Response: The reference has been corrected to read Permit Part

II.D.1.d.

42. Comment: Several commentors point out that Permit Part

II.D.1.c. contains a reference to a definition in Permit Part V.I.

which does not exist in the GP.

Response: The reference has been corrected to read Permit Part

VIII.K.

43. Comment: One commentor requests a definition of new facility

and active stream channel.

Response: The GP has defined ``new facility'' as one that has not

operated in the area specified prior to the submission of the NOI. The

``active stream channel'' is defined as that part of the channel that

is below the level of the water. These definitions appear in Part VIII.

of the GP.

44. Comment: One commentor recommends that the wording be changed

in Permit Part I.F.1. from ``owners or operators of facilities

authorized by'' to ``owners or operators of facilities to be authorized

by.''

Response: The facilities authorized by this GP are specified in

Permit Part I.B. whose title has been changed to reflect this. The

facilities to be covered by the GP may be a smaller universe,

specifically those filing NOIs and being granted coverage in writing.

45. Comment: One commentor recommends EPA initiate coordination

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act due to the presence of

critical habitat for sea lions in the coastal areas.

Response: EPA received a species list including the NMFS species of

concern. Comments received from NMFS indicated that the concern was the

critical habitat of the species. Since this water discharge GP is

written to protect aquatic life or human health (whichever is more

stringent), no alterations of habitat due to water discharges

authorized by this GP should occur. Consequently, formal consultation

for Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not necessary.

46. Comment: One commentor states that this GP requires 100%

recycle and this is unnecessarily restrictive because some miners can

operate without recycling or discharging.

Response: The GP requires no discharge of process water. It does

not specify that 100% recycle is the only way to accomplish this.

47. Comment: One commentor objects to the use of 5 Nephelometric

Turbidity Units (NTUs) above background for the turbidity limitation

because this is the limit for waters classified for contact recreation.

He recommends changing this to 25 NTUs above background because this

level is the threshold at which impact on aquatic vertebrates occurs.

Response: The WQS protect most fresh water sources for use in

drinking, agriculture, aquaculture and industrial water supply, contact

and secondary recreation and the growth and propagation of fish, shell

fish, and other aquatic life [18 AAC 70.050]. The turbidity limitation

must protect all of these and to ensure compliance with the WQS, EPA

assumed worst case conditions and used 5 NTUs above natural background

as a limit.

48. Comment: Two commentors object to using ``total recoverable''

as the way to measure arsenic because it does not take into account the

toxicity of the various valence states of arsenic and the compounds it

can form.

Response: In establishing the arsenic limit, the ``Amendments to

the Water Quality Standards Regulation; Compliance with CWA Section

303(c)(2)(B); Final Rule'' (57 FR 6084, Tuesday, December 22, 1992) are

used. This specifies that the metals are expressed in terms of total

recoverable [40 CFR 131.36(c)(4)(iii)] and 40 CFR 122.45(c) states that

``All permit effluent limitations, standards, and prohibitions for a

metal shall be expressed in terms of 'total recoverable metal' as

defined in 40 CFR part 136.''

49. Comment: One commentor claims that the measurement of

background for arsenic is different from that of turbidity.

Response: The tables in Permit Parts II.A.1.b. and II.B.1.b.

express the measurement of background as the ``natural background'' for

both turbidity and arsenic. The commentor may be referring to Permit

Part II.D.1.c. which stated that the background be monitored with no

reference to natural background. This part has been changed to

correspond to the rest of the GP.

50. Comment: One commentor indicates that the Management Practices

in Permit Parts III.B.1. and 2. of the proposed GP contradict each

other because one says dredging should take place in the active channel

and the other says to do it in quiet pools.

Response: Permit Part III.B.1. does say that dredging should take

place in the active stream channel, whereas Permit Part III.B.2. states

that discharges from dredging operations, wherever practicable, shall

be set into a quiet pool. It is possible for the discharge to be guided

away from the actual dredging site and discharged to any area where it

will settle out faster.

51. Comment: Several commentors suggest that Permit Part I.C. be

clarified. Response: To clarify the meaning of this part, the title has

been changed to ``Additional Requirements.''

52. Comment: Several commentors believe that the expiration date of

the permit is unclear and suggest this permit expire 5 years from the

date of issuance for each facility.

Response: The language in Permit Part I.G. has been clarified. This

GP will expire 5 years from its effective date as determined by 40 CFR

124.20.

53. Comment: Several commentors object to the definition of

``natural background'' and suggest that the definition of ``natural

conditions'' from the WQS [18 AAC 70.110(29)] be used in its place

because it says that the natural condition is the condition of the

water at the site prior to impacts from the facility.

Response: The WQS at 18 AAC 70.110(29) states ``natural condition

means the sum of the physical, chemical, biological, or radiological

conditions that exist in a water body before any human-caused discharge

to, or addition of material to the water.'' The Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation does not interpret this definition to mean

that this is the condition of the water before a facility discharges to

it with no regard as to what is upstream of the site. On the contrary,

ADEC considers natural condition to be the condition of the water prior

to any man-made disturbances in the watershed and suggest that if this

cannot be determined in the watershed that a similar undisturbed

watershed should be used to determine the natural condition.

54. Comment: Several commentors have concerns about the once per

day visual inspection and suggest that the GP require the inspection

only when the operator is on-site.

Response: The commentors concerns are valid. The GP has been

changed to require a visual inspection daily during the mining season

when the operator is on-site.

55. Comment: Several commentors wished EPA to clarify Permit Part

II.D.b. relating to what the records should include.

Response: To clarify this part, it has been changed from ``These

records shall include, but are not limited to, an evaluation of the

condition of all water control devices such as diversion structures and

berms and all solid retention structures such as berms, dikes * * *''

to ``These records shall include an evaluation of the condition of all

water control devices such as diversion structures and berms and all

solid retention structures including, but not limited to, berms, dikes

* * *''

56. Comment: Several commentors express concern over the method of

measuring flow for the GP and request guidance on how to measure flow

from a facility that has no discharge from a pipe or constructed pond

overflow.

Response: To provide the requested guidance, the sentence, ``If

measurement is impractical, the operator must make a good faith effort

to estimate seepage discharging to waters of the United States each day

that seepage occurs,'' has been added to Permit Part II.D.1.f.

57. Comment: Several commentors request that reasonableness be

taken into account in Permit Part III.A.5. and suggest that the

Management Practice read ``* * * berms, dikes, pond structures, and

dams shall be reasonably maintained to continue their effectiveness * *

*''

Response: EPA does not view the addition of the word ``reasonably''

to this management practice as changing the intent of it; consequently,

this change has been made to the GP.

58. Comment: Several commentors would like the term ``mining

season'' defined.

Response: EPA has never contended that there was a set timeframe

for a mining season. Recognizing that there are various levels of

mining intensity, however, EPA has defined mining season for a

particular facility in Permit Part VIII.I. as ``the time between the

start of mining in a calendar year and when mining has ceased for that

same calendar year.''

59. Comment: Several commentors recommend that Permit Part

III.B.6.:

a. Distinguish between requirements for reclaimed and unreclaimed

areas and which need to be addressed at the end of the mining season:

b. Change the words ``after the mining season'' to ``when mining

has ceased for a particular season;'' and

c. Claim the word ``additional'' is superfluous.

Response: The commentors are correct that a distinction should be

made between unreclaimed and reclaimed lands. Runoff from lands that

are fully reclaimed and have been released from bond are not subject to

any water discharge permits. The permit has been changed to reflect

this distinction. The term ``mining season'' has been defined in Permit

Part VIII.I. (see previous comment) so the language in the GP will

remain. Because it is redundant to have a sentence containing the word

``additional'' and the phrase ``over those resulting from natural

causes,'' the word ``additional'' has been deleted from the GP.

60. Comment: Several commentors recommend that EPA clarify Permit

Part V.G. so that bypasses of water around a site for the essential

maintenance and efficient operation of the mine are not included as

effluent. The commentors recommend that Permit Parts V.G.2. and 3. be

deleted.

Response: Bypass, as referred to in Permit Part V.G., is defined in

Permit Part VIII.B. as ``the intentional diversion of waste streams

around any portion of a treatment facility'' (emphasis added). Since

water that has no contact with the mine site is not considered a waste

stream, the bypasses that the commentors refer to are diversions not

bypasses as defined in the GP. The GP contains this condition based on

40 CFR 122.41(m).

61. Comment: Several commentors request that the Fact Sheet be

included with the proposed GP along with other supporting material be

maintained as part of the GP.

Response: The Fact Sheet and other supporting material will be

maintained as part of the Administrative Record for the final GP.

62. Comment: One commentor recommends that more guidance be given

to the operator in taking samples for turbidity, both effluent and

natural background. One commentor suggests specifying a time frame of

15 minutes rather than a ``reasonable time.''

Response: While EPA would like to give more guidance to the

operator in taking samples, a timeframe of 15 minutes between effluent

and natural background would be unworkable in some cases. The natural

background is defined as being upstream from any man-made disturbance

and while this may be right upstream from the first mine on a stream,

it could be many miles for an operator close to the end of the stream.

Specifying a ``reasonable time'' is appropriate under these

circumstances.

63. Comment: One commentor urges implementation of additional Best

Management Practices (BMPs) to protect stream banks and riparian

habitat; restore pool, riffle, and stream habitat for fish; and remove

fish barriers.

Response: EPA does not believe these practices are reasonably

necessary to achieve effluent limitations or standards under 40 CFR

122.44(k).

64. Comment: One commentor objects to turbidity modifications and a

visual turbidity location for suction dredges stating that these are

federally sanctioned mixing zones and have not gotten full treatment

under NEPA.

Response: Mixing zone designations or implementation of WQS are

not, per Section 511(c) of the CWA, defined as a ``major federal

action'' subject to NEPA.

65. Comment: One commentor requests information on the standard of

proof EPA will hold ADEC to if a mixing zone is proposed for arsenic.

Response: ADEC would have to show that there would be no reasonable

expectation of an adverse effect on human health or aquatic life from

the mixing zone.

66. Comment: One commentor recommends including guidelines,

objectives, or criteria to prevent mines being left at the end of the

season in such a way that flushing, erosion and degradation will not

occur.

Response: The Management Practice in Permit Part III.A.6. addresses

this issue.

67. Comment: One commentor recommends that the Standard Conditions

of Alaska Department of Fish and Game's (ADFG) placer permits be

adopted as part of the proposed GP.

Response: EPA has incorporated several of these Standard Conditions

into the proposed GP as deemed appropriate. The other conditions in

ADFG's permits contain issues that the NPDES program has no authority

over and as such, cannot be regulated in the GP.

68. Comment: One commentor requests the scientific basis for

requesting suction dredges to discharge into ``quiet pools'' where fish

routinely hold.

Response: EPA does not require discharges into ``quiet pools'' at

all, much less ``quiet pools where fish routinely hold''. The purpose

of discharging to a quiet pool is to increase the opportunity for

discharge material to settle more without going downstream.

69. Comment: One commentor objects to the storm exemption stating

that reasonably predictable flooding is more along the lines of a

fifteen or twenty year flood event of 12-16 hours rather than the 5

year, 6 hour storm event as stated in the proposed GP.

Response: The storm exemption is designed to provide an affirmative

defense to an enforcement action. EPA recognizes that mines should not

be required to construct treatment for the maximum precipitation event

or series of precipitation events that could occur with the resulting

effects on wastewater and mine drainage discharge flows. EPA has

established, through the development of Effluent Guidelines, the

criteria for designing, constructing, and maintaining the wastewater

treatment facilities. The facilities must be able to contain and treat

the maximum volume of wastewater resulting from processing ore during a

4 hour period plus the volume that would be discharged from a 5-year,

6-hour precipitation event. The storm exemption is contained in 40 CFR

440.141(b) but can only be used as an affirmative defense if all

requirements of the regulation are met [i.e., compliance with the BMPs

in 40 CFR 440.148 and related provisions of its NPDES permit, and

compliance with the notification requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(m) and

(n)].

70. Comment: One commentor objects to the use of the GP to cover

mine sites that are located over known minable deposits of heavy metals

other than gold and if the mine site has been historically mined using

mercury.

Response: In the development of the Effluent Guidelines for Placer

Mining, EPA conducted sampling and analysis at facilities which

represented a wide range of locations, operating conditions, processes,

water use rates, topography, production rates, and treatment

technologies. From the sampling, EPA selected settleable solids as the

only pollutant of concern to be regulated by the effluent guidelines

and the sampling indicated no high levels of any metals. The quantities

and treatability of pollutants in these treated wastewaters form the

basis for selection of pollutant parameters for regulation. The

Administrator is required by the CWA to consider the regulation of all

toxic pollutants and categories of pollutants listed under Section 307

but is not specifically required to regulate any of them.

71. Comment: Two commentors object to the ``mixing zone'' given to

suction dredges.

Response: The WQS at 18 AAC 70.032(a) states that ``In applying the

water quality criteria set out in this chapter, the department will,

upon application and in its discretion, prescribe in its permits or

certifications a volume of dilution for an effluent or substance within

a receiving water . . .'' The state water quality standards describe

dilution as an allowable method of pollution control. EPA proposed the

mixing zone in the proposed GP and if the State disagrees in its

Section 401 Certification with this mixing zone determination, EPA

would insert the State's determination of the mixing zone into the GP.

The Section 401 Certification has been waived according to the

timeframe specified in 40 CFR 124.53.

72. Comment: Several commentors object to the monitoring frequency

for turbidity and arsenic. One commentor objects to the monitoring

frequency for arsenic because one sampling per season of effluent and

natural background is not statistically valid.

Response: Monitoring for these pollutants has been established at

less frequent intervals because sampling and analysis for these

parameters are more difficult and costly due in part from requiring

natural background samples. Samples for monitoring purposes must be

taken during discharge at a time when the operation has reached

equilibrium. EPA believes that the required monitoring frequencies will

be sufficient to determine compliance with permit limitations.

73. Comment: Two commentors suggest EPA clarify the procedure for

suction dredgers conducting visual inspections.

Response: The procedures are outlined in Permit Part II.C. The

visual inspection of the stream should be done 500 feet downstream from

the operating dredge. If there is any visual increase in the cloudiness

or muddiness of the water, it would be considered a violation. If this

does occur, the operator must slow down or stop operations until there

is no longer a violation.

74. Comment: Two commentors request a discussion of the

applicability of the GP to marine operations and coastal areas.

Response: This GP does not apply to marine operations. Permit Part

I.B.1.b. should have included the exception of dredges operating in

open waters as specified in 40 CFR 440.140(b). This part has been

changed to reflect this comment. Operations that are authorized by this

GP and are in coastal areas may apply for coverage under this GP. The

Alaska Department of Governmental Coordination (ADGC) has not given EPA

a consistency determination on the GP under the Alaska Coastal Zone

Management Act. EPA would like to expedite the issuance of this GP and

has made provisions in Permit Part I.A.5. so that facilities in the

coastal zone seeking coverage under the GP would be able to obtain

coverage after ADGC has made a determination, either for the facility

individually or on the GP. ADGC's determination on the GP could come in

the form of a formal determination or as a waiver due to the six month

review timeframe which will elapse on July 24, 1994.

75. Comment: One commentor objects to the use of a visual

inspection for turbidity for suction dredge operations.

Response: The visual monitoring for suction dredging has been

included in the GP pursuant to 40 CFR 122.43 which says that conditions

not specifically required in the regulations can be placed in permits

to provide for and assure compliance with all applicable requirements

of the CWA. EPA has used best professional judgement in determining

this requirement.

76. Comment: Several commentors state that the permit only covers

gold placer mines and that other placer mines (i.e., platinum and tin)

should be included since the mining techniques are for all practical

purposes identical to those covered for gold placer operations.

Response: EPA will consider these operations in the next issuance

of the GP. EPA would consider it inappropriate to include these

operations without an opportunity for public comment or inclusion in

the EA.

77. Comment: Several commentors object to EPA not including small

mechanical operations not authorized by the effluent guidelines in this

general permit. Further, two other commentors object to EPA not

authorizing small suction dredges in this GP.

Response: See comment 76.

78. Comment: Several commentors object to the use of the GP to

regulate placer mines in wild and scenic rivers and conservation system

units.

Response: EPA has included in possible requirements for an

individual permit, facilities where other federal or State legislation,

rules or regulations directly or indirectly related to water quality

may apply to that facility. This provision is found in Permit Part

I.E.1.i.

79. Comment: One commentor would like Permit Part I.C. clarified so

it is understood that the GP applies in wild and scenic rivers,

conservation system units and in anadromous streams.

Response: The GP would apply in these areas except where it has

been determined according to Permit Part I.E.1.i. that an individual

permit is required.

80. Comment: Several commentors object to natural background being

defined as above all man-made disturbances on the stream for

measurement of arsenic and turbidity. One commentor suggests that EPA

designate the natural background point.

Response: According to EPA's experience, the number of miners who

report discharging has dropped significantly in the past few years. EPA

expects this trend to continue. For those few miners that do discharge,

EPA will determine, upon request, the point at which the natural

background sample will be taken. In determining the sample point, EPA

will consider, with the input of the permittee and/or the Alaska

Division of Mining, geologic factors, drainage patterns, access, and

the location of active and historic manmade disturbances. This has been

incorporated into Permit Part II.D.1.c. for turbidity and Permit Part

II.D.1.d. for arsenic.

81. Comment: Two commentors suggest that Permit Part III.B.4. is

too all-inclusive and should be changed to say that other permits and

restrictions may apply if there is a possibility of fisheries being

affected by suction dredging. Two other commentors claim that Permit

Part III.B.4. is loosely worded and unenforceable. Two commentors

recommend that the reference to harassment of fish should be defined or

deleted from Permit Part III.B.4.

Response: EPA believes that Permit Part III.B.4. is a duplication

of Permit Part I.C. and has deleted the former from the GP.

82. Comment: One commentor claims EPA should distinguish between

the critical parameters of both intake size and engine power.

Response: EPA did not consider engine power along with size of

intake hoses because the requirements of the GP should suffice to

minimize impacts. The daily inspections for downstream impacts with the

requirement to decrease or cease operations if impacts occur are

applicable to all authorized suction dredges regardless of engine size.

83. Comment: One commentor objects to EPA not considering river

bottom variability in permitting suction dredges and suggest that EPA

issue basin specific general permits to account for this.

Response: EPA recognizes the variability of sediment sizes

throughout a fluvial system. It is this recognition that prompts the

restriction confining the activity to the active stream channel. At

least in this area, the percentage of fines is typically at a minimum

with respect to the entire fluvial system and impacts will be

minimized.

84. Comment: Two commentors claim that EPA has never enforced its

own or the state of Alaska's antidegradation policy.

Response: EPA does not have an antidegradation policy but does

mandate antidegradation as part of a state's water quality standards

[40 CFR 131.6 and 131.12]. To date, the state of Alaska has not

implemented their anti- degradation policy. The pending standards

revision address antidegradation. The State plans to begin their

implementation soon and EPA intends to work with the State in the

implementation of their policy. If a placer mine is shown to be

affected by the policy, it may be required to apply for an individual

permit. This condition has been added to the proposed GP as Permit Part

I.E.1.h.

85. Comment: Two commentors suggest revising Permit Part III.A.6.

to include detailed reclamation procedures to ensure that seasonally or

permanently abandoned mines do not pollute the receiving waters.

Response: Permit Part III.A.6. was included in the GP pursuant to

40 CFR 122.44(k)(3). This regulation requires NPDES permits to contain

BMPs that serve to control or abate the discharge pollutants when the

practices are reasonably necessary to achieve effluent limitations and

standards or to carry out the purposes and intent of the CWA. EPA does

not believe that detailed reclamation procedures are reasonably

necessary. The requirement of the GP does carry out the purposes and

intent of the CWA.

86. Comment: Several commentors object to the reporting

requirements for arsenic that require any measurement less than the

detection level to be reported as zero, anything between the detection

level and the minimum level (4) to be reported as \1/2\ the minimum

level or 2 and anything over the minimum level to be reported as the

actual number.

Response: This reporting requirement was based on draft policy that

has changed since the proposed GP was public noticed. The GP now

reflects the latest draft policy from EPA Headquarters which states

that a minimum level (ML) can be calculated from a method detection

level (MDL). For arsenic in this GP, the MDL of 1 g/L is

multiplied by 3.18. The product is rounded to 3 and this becomes the

ML. Samples measuring less than the ML are to be reported as 0

g/L while analysis greater than the ML should be reported as

the actual measure. The Fact Sheet (page 13) and the GP in Permit Part

II.D.1.d. state: ``This reporting threshold does not authorize the

discharge of this parameter in excess of the effluent limitation.''

87. Comment: One commentor suggests that EPA give some

consideration to the 1989 Alaska Supreme Court Decision regarding the

lowest measurement practical for settleable solids.

Response: EPA believes that settleable solids can be measured with

an Imhoff cone accurately to 0.2 ml/l. However, Permittees are asked to

estimate readings below this level even though they are less accurate.

If ADEC does not agree that this is protective of WQS and specifies it

in their Section 401 Certification, EPA would make the required changes

to the GP. The Section 401 Certification has been waived according to

the timeframe specified in 40 CFR 124.53.

The following comments were received on the EA from National Marine

Fisheries Service, Alaska Department of Natural Resources and Alaska

Miners Association. These comments have not been addressed in the above

responses.

88. Comment: One commentor suggests that the Purpose and Need for

Action section of the EA covering cumulative impacts does not do so

properly.

Response: Cumulative effects will be more specifically addressed in

the EAs which will continue to be prepared for the individual new

source NPDES permit actions (i.e., in the context of site-specific

conditions and those cumulative effects associated with a proposed

project). Where the potential for significant cumulative impact exists,

an environmental impact statement will be required. The proposed

general permit action evaluated in the EA will not alter the

methodology by which cumulative effects are assessed under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to the permit decisions.

89. Comment: One commentor suggests that DOI, Mineral Management

Service be included in the section on Placer Mining Regulatory Programs

since it administers leases and permits mining activities within

Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf.

Response: This additional information will be incorporated into the

EAs prepared for new source projects. It should be noted that the final

GP does not cover those offshore operations (see Comment #74).

90. Comment: One commentor suggests that discussion of the Army

Corps of Engineers regulatory program for placer mining be expanded

especially regarding general permits and specific activities which fall

under their jurisdiction.

Response: See response 89.

91. Comment: One commentor suggests that no additional discharges

into water quality limited segments be authorized until TMDL

determinations are completed.

Response: EPA will continue to assess potential for exceedances of

water quality standards for all new source projects subject to NEPA

review (regardless of their location) prior to the decisions whether or

not to authorize the discharges. Permit limitations would also reflect

TMDLs for any stream segment for which a TMDL is prepared.

92. Comment: One commentor requests clarification of how mitigative

measures would be handled under the GP.

Response: Additional mitigation measures which EPA may impose as

permit conditions, as a result of the NEPA (EA or EIS) review, are

limited to those authorized by the NPDES program, and therefore must be

reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of the CWA.

CWA-related conditions other than those already in the general permit

which are determined in an EA or EIS to be necessary in order to avoid

the potential for significant impact to water quality can be

incorporated into an individual NPDES permit. The general permit

includes a provision allowing for the drafting of an individual permit

as necessary. EPA may issue or deny an NPDES permit taking into

consideration all impacts (discharge related or other) disclosed in the

NEPA review, and the extent to which potentially significant adverse

impacts can be mitigated. Mitigation may also be developed by the

applicant or be required by the land management agency or other agency

regulatory program with jurisdiction over the project.

93. Comment: One commentor claims there is a typographical error in

the section ``Description of Proposed Action, Permit Coverage,'' that

the phrase intake nozzles less than 4 inches should be intake nozzles

greater than 4 inches.

Response: The phrase is included in the list of facilities not

authorized by this GP. The GP only authorizes suction dredges with

intakes greater than 4 inches so the phrase in the EA is correct.

94. Comment: One commentor suggests that there will be significant

impacts because the permit will likely force some operators out of

business or force them to risk being charged with non-compliance, fined

and charged as a criminal due to the arsenic limitation in the proposed

GP.

Response: The GP limitation for arsenic is the same as it is in the

individual permits that have been issued since the ``Amendments to the

Water Quality Standards Regulation; Compliance with CWA Section

303(c)(2)(B); Final Rule'' (57 FR 6084, Tuesday, December 22, 1992)

went into effect. Therefore, there is no change in impact.

AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE

ELIMINATION SYSTEM FOR ALASKAN PLACER MINERS

[General Permit No.: AK-G-37-0000]

In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987,

Public Law 100-4, the ``Act'',

Owners and operators of facilities engaged in the processing of

placer gold are authorized to discharge to waters of the United States,

in accordance with effluent limitation, monitoring requirements, and

other conditions set forth herein.

A Copy of This General Permit Must be Kept at the Site Where

Discharges Occur.

This permit shall become effective June 30, 1994. This permit and

the authorization to discharge shall expire 5 years from the effective

date of the permit.

Charles E. Findley,

Director, Water Division, Region 10, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

Table of Contents

Cover Page

I. Coverage Under This Permit

A. Coverage and Eligibility

B. Authorized Placer Mining Operations

C. Additional Requirements

D. Prohibitions

E. Requiring an Individual Permit

F. Notification Requirements

G. Permit Expiration

II. Effluent Limitations

A. Mechanical Operation (Traditional Sluicing)

B. Hydraulic Removal of Overburden

C. Suction Dredging

D. Monitoring Requirements

III. Management Practices

A. Mechanical Operations and Hydraulic Removal of Overburden

B. Suction Dredges

C. Other Requirements

D. Storm Exemption

IV. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

A. Representative Sampling

B. Reporting of Monitoring Results

C. Monitoring Procedures

D. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee

E. Records Contents

F. Retention of Records

G. Notice of Noncompliance Reporting

H. Other Noncompliance Reporting

I. Inspection and Entry

V. Compliance Responsibilities

A. Duty to Comply

B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions

C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense

D. Duty to Mitigate

E. Proper Operation and Maintenance

F. Removed Substances

G. Bypass of Treatment Facilities

H. Upset Conditions

I. Toxic Pollutants

VI. General Requirements

A. Changes in Discharge of Toxic Substances

B. Planned Changes

C. Anticipated Noncompliance

D. Permit Actions

E. Duty to Reapply

F. Duty to Provide Information

G. Other Information

H. Signatory Requirements

I. Availability of Reports

J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability

K. Property Rights

L. Severability

M. State Laws

VII. Reopener Clause

VIII. Definitions

IX. Special Conditions--Effluent Limits Below Detection Levels

A. Reporting Levels

B. Reporting Details

Attachment 1

Attachment 2

Attachment 3

Appendix A

I. Coverage Under This Permit

A. Coverage and Eligibility

1. Existing Facilities: Existing facilities (those facilities

having individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

[NPDES] permits) are authorized under the terms and conditions of this

permit. Upon the submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to gain coverage

under this permit, coverage will be granted according to Permit Part

F.4.

2. Pending Applications: Upon submittal of an NOI, all facilities

which have submitted applications in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(a)

are authorized under the terms and conditions of this permit. Coverage

will be granted according to Permit Part F.4.

3. New Facilities: New facilities that are determined to be new

sources under the CWA will be required to have an Environmental

Assessment (EA) completed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA). A finding of no significant impact (FNSI) by EPA is

necessary prior to receiving coverage under this permit. If there will

be a significant impact, the facility will require an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS). Facilities determined to be new dischargers

will be covered by the terms and conditions of this permit if they meet

all the necessary requirements of coverage.

4. Expanding Facilities: Facilities that contemplate expanding

shall submit a new NOI that describes the new discharge. The current

permit will be terminated and a new permit, reflecting the changes,

issued in its place if the facility meets all the necessary

requirements of coverage.

5. Coastal Zone Facilities: Facilities located in the coastal zone

as determinedby the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act shall submit,

with their Notice of Intent (NOI), an individual consistency

determination from Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination (ADGC)

unless ADGC makes an overall determination on this General Permit after

its issuance.

B. Authorized Placer Mining Operations

1. Facilities that mine and process gold placer ores using gravity

separationmethods to recover the gold metal contained in the ore.

a. Open-cut gold placer mines except those open-cut mines that mine

less than 1,500 cubic yards of placer ore per mining season.

b. Mechanical dredge gold placer mines (not suction dredges) except

those dredges that remove less than 50,000 cubic yards of placer ore

per mining season or dredge in open waters.

2. Suction dredges with intake hoses of greater than 4 inches.

3. Operations utilizing hydraulic removal of overburden.

C. Additional Requirements

1. Many streams and stream reaches in Alaska have been designated

as part of the federal wild and scenic rivers system or as Conservation

System Units (CSUs) by the federal government. Permittees should

contact the district offices of the federal agencies that administer

the designated area for additional restrictions that may apply to

operating within the area.

2. Many streams in Alaska where placer mining occurs have been

designatedby the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) as

anadromous fish streams. Placer mining activities in these streams

require an ADF&G Fish Habitat Permit which may include additional

restrictions. The ``Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important for the

Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fish'' lists the streams

in the State which require prior ADF&G authorization. In addition,

placer mining activities in resident fish streams require an ADF&G Fish

Habitat Permit if the proposed activity will block or impede the

efficient passage of fish. Permittees operating in anadromous or

resident fish streams should contact the ADF&G to determine permitting

requirements and additional restrictions that may apply.

D. Prohibitions

Discharges from the following beneficiation processes are not

authorized under this permit: Mercury amalgamation, cyanidation, froth

floatation, heap and vat leaching.

E. Requiring an Individual Permit

1. The Regional Administrator may require any person authorized by

this permit to apply for and obtain an individual NPDES permit when:

a. The single discharge or the cumulative number of discharges is/

are a significant contributor of pollution;

b. The discharger is not in compliance with the terms and

conditions of the general permit;

c. A change has occurred in the availability of demonstrated

technology or practices for the control or abatement of pollutants

applicable to the point source;

d. Effluent limitations guidelines are subsequently promulgated for

the point sources covered by the general permit;

e. A Water Quality Management plan containing requirements

applicable to such point sources is approved; or

f. An Individual Control Strategy (ICS) is required under Section

304(L) of the Act, or

g. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and corresponding wasteload

allocation has been completed for a waterbody or a segment of a

waterbody, or

h. A review of the facility shows that it is subject to the State

of Alaska's anti-degradation policy.

i. There are other federal or State legislation, rules or

regulations pertaining to a site directly or indirectly related to

water quality.

2. The Regional Administrator will notify the operator in writing

by certified mailthat a permit application is required. If an operator

fails to submit, in a timely manner, an individual NPDES permit

application as required, then any applicability of this general permit

to the individual NPDES permittee is automatically terminated at the

end of the day specified for application submittal.

3. Any owner or operator authorized by this permit may request to

be excluded from the coverage of this permit by applying for an

individual permit. The owner or operator shall submit an individual

application (Form 1 and Form 2C or 2D) with reasons supporting the

request to the Regional Administrator no later than 90 days after the

effective date of the permit.

4. When an individual NPDES permit is issued to an owner or

operator otherwise covered by this permit, the applicability of this

permit to the facility is automatically terminated on the effective

date of the individual permit.

5. When an individual NPDES permit is denied to an owner or

operator otherwise covered by this permit, the permittee is

automatically reinstated under this permit on the date of such denial,

unless otherwise specified by the Regional Administrator. A new

facility can receive coverage under this general permit by submitting

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

6. A source excluded from a general permit solely because it

already has an individual permit may request that the individual permit

be revoked and that it be covered by the general permit. Upon

revocation of the individual permit, the general permit shall apply to

the source.

F. Notification Requirements

1. Owners or operators of facilities authorized by this permit

shall submit an NOI to be covered by this permit. The information

required for a complete NOI is in Appendix A of this permit.

Notification must be made:

a. Within 90 days of issuance of this permit; or

b. By January 1 of the year of discharge from a new facility or a

facility established since 1988 subject to New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS) that has not previously been covered by a permit; or

c. 90 days prior to discharge from a new facility not subject to

NSPS; or

d. 90 days prior to the expiration of an existing individual

permit, or

e. 90 days prior to discharge for any other facilities.

Authorization to discharge requires written notification from EPA that

coverage has been granted and that a specific permit number has been

assigned to the operation.

2. The NOI shall be signed by the owner or other signatory

authority in accordance with Permit Part VI.H. (Signatory

Requirements), and a copy shall be retained on site in accordance with

Permit Part IV.F. (Retention of Records). The address for NOI

submission to EPA is: United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, WD-134, Seattle, Washington 98101.

3. A copy of the NOI must also be sent to the regional office of

the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) that has

jurisdiction over the mine. The addresses are:

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 410 Willoughby, Suite

105, Juneau, Alaska 99801

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Northern Regional

Office, 610 University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Southcentral Regional

Office, 3601 ``C'' Street, Suite 1350, Anchorage, Alaska 99503.

4. A copy of the general permit will be sent to the permittee when

it is determined that the facility can be granted coverage under this

general permit. If it is determined that coverage cannot be granted

under this permit, the applicant will be informed of this in writing.

G. Permit Expiration

This permit will expire five (5) years from the effective date. For

facilities submitting a new NOI 90 days prior to expiration of this

general permit, the conditions of the expired permit continue in force

until the effective date of a new permit.

II. Effluent Limitations

A. Mechanical Operation (Traditional Sluicing) [Not including Suction

Dredges]

During the term of this permit, no wastewater discharges are

authorized except as specified below.

1. Effluent Limitations

a. The volume of wastewater which may be discharged shall not

exceed the volume of infiltration, drainage and mine drainage waters

which is in excess of the make-up water required for operation of the

beneficiation process.

b. The wastewater discharged shall not exceed the following:

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

Effluent characteristic Instantaneous maximum

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

Settleable Solids.................. 0.2 ml/L

Turbidity.......................... 5 NTUs above natural background\1\

Arsenic, Total Recoverable......... (1) 0.18g/L

(2) natural background\2\

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

\1\Subject to Turbidity Modification outlined in Permit Part VIII.T.

\2\See Permit Part II.D.1.d. for details.

2. Effluent discharges are prohibited during periods when new water

is allowed to enter the plant site. Additionally, there shall be no

discharge as a result of the intake of new water.

B. Hydraulic Removal of Overburden

During the term of this permit, no wastewater discharges are

authorized except as specified below.

1. Effluent Limitations

a. The volume of wastewater which may be discharged shall not

exceed the volume of infiltration, drainage and mine drainage waters

which is in excess of the make-up water required for operation of the

hydraulicking process.

b. The wastewater discharged shall not exceed the following:

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

Effluent characteristic Instantaneous maximum

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

Settleable Solids.................. 0.2 ml/L

Turbidity.......................... *5 NTUs above natural background

Arsenic, Total Recoverable......... (1) 0.18 g/L

**(2) natural background

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

* Subject to Turbidity Modification outlined in Permit Part VIII.T.

** See Permit Part II.D.1.d. for details.

2.Effluent discharges are prohibited during periods when new water

is allowed to enter the plant site. Additionally, there shall be no

discharge as a result of the intake of new water.

C. Suction Dredging

1. At any point in the receiving stream 500 feet downstream of the

dredge's discharge point, the maximum allowable increase in turbidity

over the natural receiving stream turbidity while operating is 5 NTUs.

2. A visual increase in turbidity (any cloudiness or muddiness) 500

feet downstream of the suction dredge during operations would be

considered a violation of the 5 NTU limit.

3. If noticeable turbidity does occur 500 feet downstream of the

work site, operation of the suction dredge must decrease or cease so

that a violation as defined above does not exist.

D. Monitoring Requirements

1. Mechanical Operations and Hydraulic Removal of Overburden

a. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit

and lasting until the expiration date, the following monitoring shall

be conducted:

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

Effluent Monitoring Monitoring

characteristic location frequency Sample type

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

Settleable Solids Effluent......... Once per day Grab.

(ml/L). each day of

discharge.

Turbidity (NTU).. Effluent natural Once per season. Grab

background.

Arsenic (g/L) total natural

recoverable. background.

Flow (gpm)....... Effluent......... (\3\)........... Instantaneous

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

\1\Only when choosing Option (2).

\2\Analyzed by EPA Method 206.2 with a detection limit of 1 g/

L.

\3\See Part II.D.1.f. for details.

b. Visual Inspection

The Permittee shall institute a comprehensive visual inspection

program to facilitate proper operation and maintenance of the recycle

system and the wastewater treatment system. The Permittee shall conduct

an inspection of the site once per day, while on site, during the

mining season. The Permittee shall maintain records of all information

resulting from any visual inspections. These records shall include an

evaluation of the condition of all water control devices such as

diversion structures and berms and all solids retention structures

including, but not limited to, berms, dikes, pond structures, and dams.

The records shall also include an assessment of the presence of

sediment buildup within the settling ponds. The Permittee shall examine

all ponds for the occurrence of short circuiting.

c. Turbidity Monitoring

The Permittee shall monitor the turbidity values of the effluent

stream and the natural background turbidity values of the receiving

stream then compare the two samples. The sample results shall be

reported on the annual Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). The Permittee

shall take one sample at a point that is representative of the

discharge prior to entering the receiving stream. The Permittee shall

take another sample above the discharge point at a location that is

considered to be the ``natural'' background of the receiving stream as

defined in Permit Part VIII.K. EPA has recognized the complex nature of

determining the point above ``natural'' background and upon request

will determine this point for the miner. In determining the sample

point, EPA will consider, with the input of the permittee and/or the

Alaska Division of Mining, geologic factors, drainage patterns, access,

and the location of active and historic manmade disturbances. Both

samples shall be taken within a reasonable time frame. Monitoring shall

be conducted in accordance with accepted analytical procedures. See

attachment 1 for sampling protocol.

d. Arsenic Monitoring

Arsenic samples shall be representative of the discharge and shall

be taken at a point prior to entering the receiving stream. Arsenic

samples taken to determine ``natural'' background shall be

representative of the receiving water upstream from any man-made

disturbances as determined above for turbidity. Monitoring shall be

conducted in accordance with accepted analytical procedures. The

Permittee shall report the sample results on the DMR. See attachment 2

for sampling protocol.

The effluent limitation for total recoverable arsenic is not

quantifiable using the EPA approved analytical method, EPA method

206.2. Thus, EPA has set forth reporting thresholds to measure the

highest acceptable quantification level for this parameter. This

reporting threshold does not authorize the discharge of this parameter

in excess of the effluent limitation. For more information, see special

conditions in Permit Part IX.

e. Settleable Solids Monitoring

Settleable solids samples shall be representative of the discharge

and shall be taken at a point prior to entering the receiving stream.

Monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with accepted analytical

procedures (Standard Methods, 17th Edition, 1989). The Permittee shall

report the sample results on the Annual DMR. See attachment 3 for

sampling and analysis protocol.

f. Flow Monitoring

Effluent flow shall be measured at the discharge prior to entering

the receiving water. Effluent flow shall be measured at least once per

day, for continuous discharges, or once during each discharge event if

discharges are intermittent. If measurement is impractical, the

operator must make a good faith effort to estimate seepage discharging

to waters of the United States each day that seepage occurs. The flow

shall be measured in gallons per minute (gpm). The flow measurements,

the number of discharge events, and the duration of each discharge

event shall be reported in the Annual DMR for each day of the mining

season.

2. Suction Dredges

a. Suction Dredge operations shall visually monitor for turbidity

as described in Permit Part II.C. once per day of operation. The

Permittee shall maintain records of all information resulting from any

visual inspections.

b. The Permittee will report the period of suction dredging on the

DMR. Visual violation occurrences will also be reported on the DMR

along with the measures taken to comply with the provisions of Permit

Part II.C.3.

III. Management Practices

A. Mechanical Operations and Hydraulic Removal of Overburden

1. The flow of surface waters (i.e., creek, river, or stream) into

the plant site shall be interrupted and these waters diverted around

and away to prevent incursion into the plant site.

2. Berms, including any pond walls, dikes, low dams, and similar

water retention structures shall be constructed in a manner such that

they are reasonably expected to reject the passage of water.

3. Measures shall be taken to assure that pollutant materials

removed from the process water and wastewater streams will be retained

in storage areas and not discharged or released to the waters of the

United States.

4. The amount of new water allowed to enter the plant site for use

in material processing shall be limited to the minimum amount required

as makeup water for processing operations.

5. All water control devices such as diversion structures and berms

and all solids retention structures such as berms, dikes, pond

structures, and dams shall be reasonably maintained to continue their

effectiveness and to protect from failure.

6. The operator shall take whatever reasonable steps are

appropriate to assure that, after the mining season, all unreclaimed

mine areas, including ponds, are in a condition which will not cause

degradation to the receiving waters over those resulting from natural

causes.

B. Suction Dredges

1. Dredging in waters of the United States is permitted only within

the active stream channel.

2. Wherever practicable, the dredge shall be set to discharge into

a quiet pool, where settling of dredge spoils can occur more rapidly.

3. Care shall be taken by the operator during refueling of the

dredge to prevent spillage into public waters or to groundwater.

C. Other Requirements

Mechanical Operations and Hydraulic Removal of Overburden

The operator shall maintain fuel handling and storage facilities in

a manner which will prevent the discharge of fuel oil into the

receiving waters or on the adjoining shoreline. A Spill Prevention

Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC Plan) shall be prepared and

updated as necessary in accordance with provisions of 40 CFR Part 112

for facilities storing 660 gallons in a single container above ground,

1320 gallons in the aggregate above ground, or 42,000 gallons below

ground.

The permittee shall indicate on the DMR if an SPCC Plan is

necessary and in place at the site and if changes were made to the Plan

over the previous year.

D. Storm Exemption

The permittee may qualify for a storm exemption from the

technology-based effluent limitations in Permit Part II.A.1.b. and

II.B.1.b. of this NPDES general permit if the following conditions are

met:

1. The treatment system is designed, constructed and maintained to

contain the maximum volume of untreated process wastewater which would

be discharged, stored, contained and used or recycled by the

beneficiation process into the treatment system during a 4-hour

operating period without an increase in volume from precipitation or

infiltration, plus the maximum volume of water runoff (drainage waters)

resulting from a 5-year, 6-hour precipitation event. In computing the

maximum volume of water which would result from a 5-year, 6-hour

precipitation event, the operator must include the volume which should

result from the plant site contributing runoff to the individual

treatment facility.

2. The operator takes all reasonable steps to maintain treatment of

the wastewater and minimize the amount of overflow.

3. The source is in compliance with the Management Practices in

Permit Part III.A.

4. The operator complies with the notification requirements of

Permit Parts IV.G. and IV.H.

IV. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

A. Representative Sampling

All samples for monitoring purposes shall be representative of the

monitored activity, 40 CFR 122.41 (j). To determine compliance with

permit effluent limitations, ``grab'' samples shall be taken as

established under Permit Part II.D. Specifically, effluent samples for

settleable solids, turbidity, and arsenic shall be collected from the

settling pond outlet or other treatment systems' outlet prior to

discharge to the receiving stream. Additionally, turbidity and arsenic

(for Option 2) samples shall also be taken above the discharge point at

a location that is representative of the receiving stream's natural

background. Samples for arsenic and turbidity monitoring must be taken

during sluicing at a time when the operation has reached equilibrium.

For example, samples should be taken when sluice paydirt loading and

effluent discharge are constant.

B. Reporting of Monitoring Results

Monitoring results shall be summarized each month and reported on

EPA Form 3320-1 (DMR). The DMR shall be submitted to the Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Enforcement Section

WD-135, Seattle, Washington 98101-3188, no later than November 30 each

year.

If there is no mining activity during the year or no wastewater

discharge to a receiving stream, the permittee shall notify EPA of

these facts no later than November 30 of each year.

The DMR shall also be sent to the regional office of ADEC that has

jurisdiction over the mine. The addresses can be found in permit part

I.F.3.

C. Monitoring Procedures

Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved

under 40 CFR part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified

in this permit.

D. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee

If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than

required by this permit, using test procedures approved under 40 CFR

part 136 or as specified in this permit, the results of this monitoring

shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data

submitted in the DMR. Such increased frequency shall also be indicated.

E. Records Contents

Records of monitoring information shall include:

1. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;

2. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;

3. The date(s) analyses were performed;

4. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;

5. The analytical techniques or methods used; and

6. The results of such analyses.

F. Retention of Records

The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information,

including all calibration and maintenance records and all original

strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation,

copies of all reports required by this permit, and records of all data

used to complete the application for this permit, for a period of at

least three years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or

application. This period may be extended by request of the Director or

ADEC at any time. Data collected on-site, copies of DMRs, and a copy of

this NPDES permit must be maintained on-site during the duration of

activity at the permitted location.

G. Notice of Noncompliance Reporting

1. Any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment

shall be reported as soon as the permittee becomes aware of the

circumstance. A written submission shall also be provided in the

shortest reasonable period of time after the permittee becomes aware of

the occurrence.

2. The following occurrences of noncompliance shall also be

reported in writing in the shortest reasonable period of time after the

permittee becomes aware of the circumstances:

a. Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation

in the permit (See Permit Part V.G., Bypass of Treatment Facilities.);

or

b. Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit

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

c. Any violation of the effluent limitations in Permit Parts II.A.

and II.B.

3. The written submission shall contain:

a. A description of the noncompliance and its cause;

b. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times;

c. The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it

has not been corrected; and

d. Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent

reoccurrence of the noncompliance.

4. The Director may waive the written report on a case-by-case

basis if an oral report has been received within 24 hours by the

Enforcement Section in Seattle, Washington, by phone, (206) 553-1213.

5. Reports shall be submitted to the addresses in Permit Part

IV.B., Reporting of Monitoring Results.

H. Other Noncompliance Reporting

Instances of noncompliance not required to be reported in Permit

Part IV.G. above shall be reported at the time that monitoring reports

for Permit Part IV.B. are submitted. The reports shall contain the

information listed in Permit Part IV.G.3.

I. Inspection and Entry

The permittee shall allow the Director, ADEC, or an authorized

representative (including an authorized contractor acting as a

representative of the Administrator), upon the presentation of

credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to:

1. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility

or activity is located or conducted, or where records must be kept

under the conditions of this permit;

2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that

must be kept under the conditions of this permit;

3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including

monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated

or required under this permit; and

4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of

assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Act, any

substances or parameters at any location.

V. Compliance Responsibilities

A. Duty to Comply

The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any

permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act and is grounds

for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and

reissuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit renewal

application. The permittee shall give advance notice to the Director

and ADEC of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity

which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.

B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions

1. Administrative Penalty. The Act provides that any person who

violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307,

308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be subject to an administrative

penalty, not to exceed $10,000 per day for each violation.

2. Civil Penalty. The Act provides that any person who violates a

permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or

405 of the Act shall be subject to a civil penalty, not to exceed

$25,000 per day for each violation.

3. Criminal Penalties:

a. Negligent Violations. The Act provides that any person who

negligently violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302,

306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be punished by a fine of

not less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day of violation, or by

imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or by both.

b. Knowing Violations. The Act provides that any person who

knowingly violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302,

306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be punished by a fine of

not less than $5,000 nor more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by

imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or by both.

c. Knowing Endangerment. The Act provides that any person who

knowingly violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302,

306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, and who knows at that time that

he thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or serious

bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more

than $250,000 or imprisonment of not more than 15 years, or both. A

person which is an organization shall, upon conviction of violating

this subparagraph, be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000.

d. False Statements. The Act provides that any person who knowingly

makes any false material statement, representation, or certification in

any application, record, report, plan, or other document filed or

required to be maintained under this Act or who knowingly falsifies,

tampers with, or renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method

required to be maintained under this Act, shall upon conviction, be

punished by a fine of not more that $10,000, or by imprisonment for not

more than 2 years, or by both.

Except as provided in permit conditions in Permit Part V.G., Bypass

of Treatment Facilities and Permit Part V.H., Upset Conditions, nothing

in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee of the civil

or criminal penalties for noncompliance.

C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense

It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action

that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted

activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this

permit.

D. Duty to Mitigate

The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or

prevent any discharge in violation of this permit which has a

reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the

environment.

E. Proper Operation and Maintenance

The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all

facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related

appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve

compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and

maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate

quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of

back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are installed

by a permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve

compliance with the conditions of the permit.

F. Removed Substances

Solids, sludges, or other pollutants removed in the course of

treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in a manner so

as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering waters of

the United States.

G. Bypass of Treatment Facilities

1. Bypass not exceeding limitations. The permittee may allow any

bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be

exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure

efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions

of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this section.

2. Notice:

a. Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the

need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice, if possible at least

10 days before the date of the bypass.

b. Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of an

unanticipated bypass as required under Permit Part IV.G., Notice of

Noncompliance Reporting.

3. Prohibition of bypass.

a. Bypass is prohibited and the Director or ADEC may take

enforcement action against a permittee for a bypass, unless:

(1) The bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal

injury, or severe property damage;

(2) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the

use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes,

or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This

condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have

been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to

prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment

downtime or preventive maintenance; and

(3) The permittee submitted notices as required under paragraph 2

of this section.

b. The Director and ADEC may approve an anticipated bypass, after

considering its adverse effects, if the Director and ADEC determine

that it will meet the three conditions listed above in paragraph 3.a.

of this section.

H. Upset Conditions

1. Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense

to an action brought for noncompliance with such technology based

permit effluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph 2 of this

section are met. An administrative review of a claim that noncompliance

was caused by an upset does not represent final administrative action

for any specific event. A determination is not final until formal

administrative action is taken for the specific violation(s).

2. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset. A permittee

who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall

demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs,

or other relevant evidence that:

a. An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the

cause(s) of the upset;

b. The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated;

c. The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required under

Permit Part IV.G., Notice of Noncompliance Reporting; and

d. The permittee complied with any remedial measures required under

Permit Part V.D., Duty to Mitigate.

3. Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding, the permittee

seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of

proof.

I. Toxic Pollutants

The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions

established under Section 307(a) of the Act for toxic pollutants within

the time provided in the regulations that establish those standards or

prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to

incorporate the requirement.

VI. General Requirements

A. Changes in Discharge of Toxic Substances

Notification shall be provided to the Director and ADEC as soon as

the permittee knows of, or has reason to believe:

1. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result

in the discharge, on a routine or frequent basis, of any toxic

pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will

exceed the highest of the following ``notification levels'':

a. One hundred micrograms per liter (100 g/l);

b. Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 g/l) for acrolein

and acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter (500 g/l)

for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4, 6-dinitrophenol; and one

milligram per liter (1 mg/l) for antimony;

c. Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for that

pollutant in the permit application in accordance with 40 CFR

122.21(g)(7); or

d. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40 CFR

122.44(f).

2. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result

in any discharge, on a non-routine or infrequent basis, of a toxic

pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will

exceed the highest of the following ``notification levels'':

a. Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 g/l);

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

c. Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value reported for that

pollutant in the permit application in accordance with 40 CFR

122.21(g)(7); or

d. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40 CFR

122.44(f).

B. Planned Changes

The permittee shall give notice to the Director and ADEC as soon as

possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the

permitted facility. Notice is required only when:

1. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one

of the criteria for determining whether a facility is a new source as

determined in 40 CFR 122.29(b); or

2. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature

or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. This notification

applies to pollutants which are subject neither to effluent limitations

in the permit, nor to notification requirements under Permit Part

VI.A.1.

3. The alteration or addition will significantly change the

location, nature or volume of discharge or the quantity of pollutants,

subject to the effluent limitations, discharged.

C. Anticipated Noncompliance

The permittee shall also give advance notice to the Director and

ADEC of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which

may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.

D. Permit Actions

This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated

for cause. The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit

modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a

notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not

stay any permit condition.

E. Duty to Reapply

If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this

permit after the expiration date of this permit, the permittee must

apply for and obtain a new permit. The NOI should be submitted at least

90 days before the expiration date of this permit.

F. Duty To Provide Information

The permittee shall furnish to the Director and ADEC, within a

reasonable time, any information which the Director or ADEC may request

to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and

reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with

this permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Director or ADEC,

upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.

G. Other Information

When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any

relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect

information in a permit application or any report to the Director or

ADEC, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.

H. Signatory Requirements

All applications, reports or information submitted to the Director

and ADEC shall be signed and certified.

1. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:

a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer.

b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner

or the proprietor, respectively.

c. For a municipality, state, federal, or other public agency: by

either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official.

2. All reports required by the permit and other information

requested by the Director or ADEC shall be signed by a person described

above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person

is a duly authorized representative only if:

a. The authorization is made in writing by a person described above

and submitted to the Director and ADEC, and

b. The authorization specified either an individual or a position

having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated

facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operator

of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalent

responsibility, or an individual or position having overall

responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly

authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any

individual occupying a named position.)

3. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under paragraph

IV.H.2. is no longer accurate because a different individual or

position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility,

a new authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph VI.H.2.

must be submitted to the Director and ADEC prior to or together with

any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized

representative.

4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section

shall make the following certification:

``I certify under penalty of law that this document and all

attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in

accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel

properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my

inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those

persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the

information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,

accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties

for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and

imprisonment for knowing violations.''

I. Availability of Reports

Except for data determined to be confidential under 40 CFR Part 2,

all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall

be available for public inspection at the offices of the Director and

ADEC. As required by the Act, permit applications, permits and effluent

data shall not be considered confidential.

J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability

Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the

institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any

responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is

or may be subject under Section 311 of the Act.

K. Property Rights

The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of

any sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury

to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any

infringement of federal, state or local laws or regulations.

L. Severability

The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision

of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to

any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to

other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be

affected thereby.

M. State Laws

Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the

institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any

responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any

applicable state law or regulation under authority preserved by Section

510 of the Act.

N. Paperwork Reduction Act

EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities

in this final general permit under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements of this

permit have already been approved by the Office of Management and

Budget in submission made for the NPDES permit program under the

provisions of the CWA.

VII. Reopener Clause

If effluent limitations or requirements are established or modified

in an approved State Water Quality Management Plan or Waste Load

Allocation and if they are more stringent that those listed in this

permit or control a pollutant not listed in this permit, this permit

may be reopened to include those more stringent limits or requirements.

VIII. Definitions

A. ``Active Stream Channel'' means that part of the channel that is

below the level of the water.

B. ``Bypass'' means the intentional diversion of waste streams

around any portion of a treatment facility.

C. ``Drainage Water'' means incidental surface waters from diverse

sources such as rainfall, snow melt or permafrost melt.

D. ``Expanding Facility'' means any facility increasing in size

such as to affect the discharge but operating within the permit area

covered by its general permit.

E. A ``Grab'' sample is a single sample or measurement taken at a

specific time.

F. ``Infiltration Water'' means that water which permeates through

the earth into the plant site.

G. ``Instantaneous Maximum'' means the maximum value measured at

any time.

H. ``Mine Drainage'' means any water, not associated with active

sluice water, that is drained, pumped or siphoned from a mine.

I. ``Mining Season'' means the time between the start of mining in

a calendar year and when mining has ceased for that same calendar

year.''

J. ``Monitoring Month'' means the period consisting of the calendar

weeks which begin and end in a given calendar month.

K. ``''Natural'' Background'' means the level upstream from all

mining and other man-made disturbances.

L. ``New Facility'' means a facility that has not operated in the

area specified in the NOI prior to the submission of the NOI.

M. ``NTU'' (Nephelometric Turbidity Unit) is an expression of the

optical property that causes light to be scattered and absorbed rather

than transmitted in a straight line through the water.

N. ``Make-up Water'' means that volume of water needed to replace

process water lost due to evaporation and seepage in order to maintain

the quantity necessary for the operation of the beneficiation process.

O. ``New Water'' means water from any discrete source such as a

river, creek, lake or well which is deliberately allowed or brought

into the plant site.

P. ``Plant Site'' means the area occupied by the mine, necessary

haulage ways from the mine to the beneficiation process, the

beneficiation area, the area occupied by the wastewater treatment

storage facilities and the storage areas for waste materials and solids

removed from the wastewaters during treatment.

Q. ``Receiving Water'' means waters such as lakes, rivers, streams,

creeks, or any other surface waters which receive wastewater

discharges.

R. ``Severe property damage'' means substantial physical damage to

property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to

become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural

resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a

bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by

delays in production.

S. ``Short circuiting'' means ineffective settling ponds due to

inadequate or insufficient retention characteristics, excessive

sediment deposition, embankment infiltration/percolation, lack of

maintenance, etc.

T. ``Turbidity Modification'' means the procedures used to

calculate a higher turbidity limit based on a mass balance equation

which relates upstream receiving water flow and turbidity to effluent

flow and turbidity. The basic form of this equation is:

Q1C1+Q2C2=Q3C3,

where C1=upstream turbidity;

C2=effluent turbidity;

C3=downstream turbidity after mixing where the allowable increase

is 5 NTU above background (C1+5 NTU);

Q1=stream flow downstream from any diversion and upstream from the

discharge;

Q2=effluent flow*; and,

Q3=total stream flow downstream from discharge after complete

mixing.

*A default value of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) will be used if the NOI

states that zero discharge will be achieved.

U. ``Upset'' means an exceptional incident in which there is

unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit

effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control

of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent

caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities,

inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or

careless or improper operation.

V. ``Wastewater'' means all water used in and resulting from the

beneficiation process (including but not limited to the water used to

move the ore to and through the beneficiation process, the water used

to aid in classification, and the water used in gravity separation),

mine drainage, and infiltration and drainage waters which commingle

with mine drainage or waters resulting from the beneficiation process.

IX. Special Conditions--Effluent Limits Below Detection Levels

A. Reporting Levels

1. For purposes of reporting, the Permittee shall use the reporting

threshold equivalent to the interim minimum level (IML). The IML is

defined as the concentration in a sample equivalent to the

concentration of the lowest calibration standard analyzed in a specific

analytical procedure, assuming that all the method-specified sample

weights, volumes and processing steps have been followed. As such, the

permittee must utilize a standard equivalent to the concentration of

the IML for arsenic which is 3.18 g/L.

2. For the purpose of reporting on the DMR, actual analytical

results should be reported whenever possible. All analytical values at

or above the IML (rounded to 3 g/L) shall be reported as the

measured value. When the results cannot be quantified, values below the

IML shall be reported as zero (0 g/L).

B. Reporting Details:

In the ``Comment'' section of the DMR, the permittee shall report

the lowest calibration standard used and the ML achieved.

Attachment 1

Turbidity Sampling Protocol

1. Grab samples shall be collected.

2. Samples shall be collected in a sterile one liter polypropylene

or glass container.

3. Samples must be cooled to 4 degrees celsius (iced).

4. Samples must be analyzed within 48 hours of sample collection.

Attachment 2

Arsenic Sampling Protocol

1. Grab samples shall be collected.

2. Samples shall be collected in a sterile one liter polypropylene

or glass container.

3. Samples must be cooled to 4 degrees celsius (iced).

4. Samples must be sent to a laboratory for analysis as soon as

possible.

5. Samples must be acidified with nitric acid (HNO3), to a pH less

than 2, upon receipt at the laboratory.

6. Samples must be acidified for at least 16 hours prior to

analysis.

Attachment 3

Settleable Solids Sampling Protocol

1. Grab samples shall be collected.

2. Samples shall be collected in a sterile one liter polypropylene

or glass container.

3. Samples must be cooled to 4 degrees celsius (iced), if analysis

is not performed immediately.

4. Samples must be analyzed within 48 hours of sample collection.

Settleable Solids Analysis Protocol

1. Fill an Imhoff cone to the liter mark with a thoroughly mixed

sample.

2. Settle for 45 minutes, then gently stir the sides of the cone

with a rod or by gently spinning the cone.

3. Settle 15 minutes longer, then record the volume of settleable

matter in the cone as milliliters per liter. Do not estimate any

floating material. The lowest measurable level on the Imhoff cone is

0.1 ml/l. Any settleable material below the 0.1 ml/l mark shall be

recorded as trace.

Appendix A--Notice of Intent Information

Permittee Name

Address & Phone Number (Summer)

Address & Phone Number (Winter)

Operator Name (if different than Permittee)

Address & Phone Number (Summer)

Address & Phone Number (Winter)

Facility Name

Facility Location (Nearest Town)

Mining District

Latitude and Longitude

Township, Section, Range

Previous NPDES permit number

Receiving Water

Maximum Effluent Flow

Summer Lowflow stream flow

Type of Operation (Traditional, Suction Dredge, Hydraulicking)

Amount of Material processed

Signature and Date (certified according to permit part VI.H.4.)

A drawing or sketch of the operation

[FR Doc. 94-13099 Filed 5-27-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P