environmental protection existing effluent limitations ... · evaluation (wh-586), environmental...

Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 114 / Monday, June 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 440[WH FRL 1979-S1

Ore Mining and Dressing Point SourceCategory; Effluent LimitationsGuidelines and New SourcePerformance Standards

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Proposed regulation.

SUMMARY, EPA proposes a regulation tolimit effluent discharges to waters of theUnited States and introduction ofpollutants from facilities engaged inmining and processing of metal ores.The purpose of this proposedrulemaking is to provide effluentlimitations guidelines for "best availabletechnology," (BAT) and to establish newsource performance standards (NSPS)under the Clean Water Act.DATE: Comments on this proposal mustbe submitted on or before August 13,1982.ADDRESS: Send comments to: Mr.William Telliard, Effluent GuidelinesDivision (WH-552), EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20460. Attention: EGDDocket Clerk, Proposed Rulemaking-Ore Mining and Dressing Industry. Thesupporting information and allcomments on this proposal will beavailable for inspection and copying atthe EPA Public Information ReferenceUnit, Room 2922 (EPA Library), at theEPA address given above. The EPAinformation regulation (40 CFR Part 2)provides that a reasonable fee may becharged for copying.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.Technical information may be obtainedfrom Mr. B. Matthew Jarrett, at theaddress listed above, or by calling (202)426-4618. Copies of technical documentsmay be obtained from the DistributionOfficer at the above address or bycalling (202) 426-2724. The economicinformation may be obtained from Mr.John Ataman, Office of Analysis andEvaluation (WH-586), EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20460, or by calling(202) 755-2484.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Organization of This NoticeI. Legal AuthorityII. Background

A. The Clean Water ActB. Prior EPA RegulationsC. Industry Overview

III. Scope of this Rulemaking and Summary ofMethodology

IV. Data Gathering ProgramA. Sampling and Analytical MethodsB. Data Gathering Efforts

V. Industry SubcategorlzationVI. Available Wastewater Control and

Treatment TechnologyA. Status of In-Place TechnologyB. Control Technologies Considered for

Use in the Ore Mining and DressingIndustry

1. Toxic Metals and TSS Removal2. Cyanide RemovalC. Cost Development

VII. Substantive Changes From PriorRegulations

A. Storm ProvisionVIII, Pollutant Parameter Selection

A. Pollutants Not RegulatedB. Regulated Pollutants1. BAT and NSPS2. BCT3. Indicator PollutantC. Indicator Pollutants

IX. Best Available Technology (BAT) EffluentLimitations

A. BAT Options for Toxic Metal PollutantReduction

1. Secondary Settling2. Coagulation/Flocculation3. Granular-Medla Filtration4. No Discharge/Complete Recycle5. BAT Equals BPTB. BAT Options for Cyanide Reduction6. In-Process Control7. Use of Reagents Other Than Cyanide8. End-of-Pipe Control by Wastewater

Treatment Technologies Specific toCyanide

C. BAT Selection and Decision CriteriaX. Best Conventional Control Technology

(BCT) Effluent LimitationsXI. New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS)A. NSPS OptionsB. NSPS Selection and Decision Criteria

XII. Best Management PracticesXIII. Variances and ModificationsXIV. Upset and Bypass ProvisionsXV. Nonwater Quality Aspects of Pollution

ControlXVI. Costs and Economic ImpactXVII. Relationship to NPDES PermitsXVIII. Summary of Public ParticipationXIX. Solicitation of CommentsXX. Small Business Administration Financial

AssistanceXXI. Executive Order 12291AppendicesA. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and UnitsB. Toxic Organic Compounds Not Detected

During SamplingC. Toxic Organic Compounds Detected at

Least One Facility But Always 10 jIg/1 orLess

D. Toxics Detected at Levels Too Small To BeEffectively Reduced by TechnologiesKnown to the Administrator

E. Toxic Organic Compounds Detected Froma Small Number of Sources and UniquelyRelated to These Sources

F. Pollutants Effectively Controlled by theTechnology Upon Which Other EffluentLimitations and Guidelines Are Based

G. Subcategories and Subparts Where Equalor More Stringent Protection Is Already

Provided by Existing Effluent Limitations(BAT=BPT)

H. Pollutants Excluded by Subcategory andSubpart

I. Subpart Where Pollutants Are DetectedFrom a Small Number of Sources Withinthe Subpart and the Pollutants AreUniquely Related to These Sources

J. Proposed BAT=BPT Where the SmallAmounts Remaining in the BPT EffluentDo Not Justify National Regulation

L Legal Authority

The regulations described in thisnotice are proposed under authority ofsections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501of the Clean Water Act (the FederalWater Pollution Control ActAmendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 etseq., as amended by the Clean WaterAct of 1977, Pub. L 95-217) (the "Act").These regulations are also proposed inresponse to the Settlement Agreement inNatural Resources Defense Council,Inc., v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),modified, 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979).

II. Background

A. The Clean Water Act

The Federal Water Pollution ControlAct Amendments of 1972 established acomprehensive program to "restore andmaintain the chemical, physical, andbiological integrity of the Nation'swaters." Section 101(a). By July 1, 1977,existing industrial discharges wererequired to achieve "effluent limitationsrequiring the application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable" (BPT), Section 301(b)(1)(A).By July 1, 1983, these dischargers wererequired to achieve "effluent limitationsrequiring the application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable* * * which will result inreasonable further progress toward thenational goal of eliminating thedischarge of all pollutants" (BAT),Section 301(b)(2)(A). New industrialdirect dischargers were required tocomply with section 306 new sourceperformance standards (NSPS), basedon best available demonstratedtechnology. The requirements for directdischargers were to be incorporated intoNational Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) permitsissued under section 402 of the Act.

Although section 402(a)(1) of the 1972Act authorized the setting ofrequirements for direct dischargers on acase-by-case basis, Congress intendedthat for the most part, controlrequirements would be based onregulations promulgated by theAdministrator of EPA. Section 304(b) ofthe Act required the Administrator topromulgate regulations providingguidelines for effluent limitations setting

25682


forth the degree of effluent reductionattainable through the application ofBPT and BAT. Moreover, sections 304(c)and 306 of the Act requiredpromulgation of regulations for NSPS. Inaddition to these regulations fordesignated industry categories, section307(a) of the Act required theAdministrator to promulgate effluentstandards applicable to all dischargersof toxic pollutants. Finally, section501(a) of the Act authorized theAdministrator to prescribe anyadditional regulations "necessary tocarry out his functions" under the Act

EPA was unable to promulgate manyof these regulations by the datescontained in the Act. In 1976, EPA wassued by several environmental groups,and in settlement of this lawsuit EPAand the plaintiffs executed a SettlementAgreement which was approved by theCourt. This Agreement required EPA todevelop a program and adhere to aschedule for promulgating BAT effluentlimitations guidelines, and new sourceperformance standards covering 65classes of toxic pollutants (subsequentlydefined by the Agency as 129 specific"priority pollutants") for 21 majorindustries. See Natural ResourcesDefense Council, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modifed, 12 ERC1833 (D.D.C. 1979).

On December 27,1977, the Presidentsigned into law the Clean Water Act of1977 ("the Act"). Although this lawmakes several important changes in theFederal Water Pollution ControlProgram, its most significant feature isits incorporation of several basicelements of the Settlement Agreementprogram for toxic pollution control.Sectons 301(b}(2)(A) and 301(b)(2)(C) ofthe Act now require the achievement, byJuly 1, 1984. of the effluent limitationsrequiring application of BAT for toxicpollutants, including the 65 prioritypollutants and classes of pollutants thatCongress declared toxic under section307(a) of the Act. Likewise, EPA'sprograms for new source performancestandards are now aimed principally attoxic pollutant controls. Moreover, tostrengthen the toxics control program,section 304(e) of the Act authorizes theAdministrator to prescribe "bestmanagement practices" (BMPs) tocontrol the release of toxic andhazardous pollutants from plant siterunoff; spillage or leaks; sludge or wastedisposal; and drainage from rawmaterial storage associated with, orancillary to, the manufacturing ortreatment process.

In keeping with its emphasis on toxicpollutants, the Act also revises thecontrol program for nontoxic pollutants.

Instead of BAT for "conventional"pollutants identified under section304(a)(4) (including biochemical oxygendemand (BOD), total suspended solids(TSS), fecal coliform, oil and grease, andpH), the new Section 301(b)(2)(E)requires achievement, by July 1, 1984, of"effluent limitations requiring theapplication of the best conventionalpollutant control technology" ("BCT"').The factors considered in assessing BCTfor an industry include an analysis ofcost-effectiveness and the costs andbenefits of reducing pollutants at a pointsource compared with the costs andbenefits of reducing pollutants atPOTWs (section 304(b)(4)(B)}. Fornontoxic, nonconventional pollutants,sections 301(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(F)require achievement of BAT effluentlimitations within three years after theirestablishment or by July 1, 1984,whichever is later, but not later thanJuly 1, 1987.

The purpose of the proposedregulations is to provide effluentlimitations guidelines for BAT and toestablish NSPS on the basis of theauthority granted in sections 301, 304,306, 307, and 501 of the Clean WaterAct. Pretreatment Standards (PSES andPSNS) are not proposed for the oremining and dressing category since noknown indirect dischargers exist nor areany known to be in the planning stage.In general, ore mines and mills arelocated in rural areas, far from a POTW.EPA expects that the cost of pumpingmine drainage and mill process water toa POTW would be prohibitive, andonsite treatment is more cost effective invirtually every instance.

B. Prior EPA Regulations

On November 6, 1975, EPA publishedinterim final regulations establishingBPT requirements for existing sources inthe ore mining and dressing industry(see 40 FR 51722). These regulationsbecame effective upon publication.However, concurrent with theirpublication, EPA solicited publiccomments with a view to possiblerevisions. On the same date, EPA alsopublished proposed BAT, NSPS, andpretreatment standards for this industry(see 40 FR 51738). Comments were alsosolicited on these proposals.

On May 24, 1976, as a result of thepublic comments received, EPAsuspended certain portions of theinterim final BPT regulations andsolicited additional comments (see 41FR 21191). EPA promulgated revised,final BPT regulations for the ore miningand dressing industry on July 11, 1978,(see 43 FR 29711, 40 CFR Part 440). OnFebruary 8, 1979, EPA published aclarification of the regulati6ns as they

apply to storm runoff (see 44 FR 7953).On March 1, 1979, the Agency amendedthe final regulations by deleting therequirements for cyanide applicable tofroth flotation mills in the base andprecious metals subcategory (see 44 FR11546).

On December 10, 1979, the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the TenthCircuit upheld the BPT regulations,rejecting challenges brought by fiveindustrial petitioners. Kennecott CopperCorp. v. EPA 612 F.2d 1232 (10th Cir.1979). These regulations are in effectand EPA is not proposing any changesto them.

The Agency withdrew the proposedBAT, NSPS, and pretreatment standardson March 19, 1981 (see 46 FR 17567).

C. Industry Overview

The ore mining and dressing industryis both large and diverse. It includes theores of 23 separate metals and issegregated by the U.S. Bureau of theCensus Standard IndustrialClassification (SIC) into nine majorcodes; SIC 1011, Iron Ore; SIC 1021,Copper Ores; SIC 1031, Lead and ZincOres; SIC 1041, Gold Ores, SIC 1044,Silver Ores; SIC 1051, Aluminum Ore;SIC 1061, Ferroalloy Ores includingTungsten, Nickel, and Molybdenum; SIC1092 Mercury Ores; SIC 1094 Uranium,Radium, and Vanadium Ores; and SIC1099 Metal Ores, Not ElsewhereClassified including Titanium andAntimony.

Over 500 active mining and over 150milling operations are located in theUnited States and many are in remoteareas.

The industry includes facilities thatmine ores to produce metallic productsand all ore dressing and beneficiatingoperations at mills operated either inconjunction with a mine operation or ata separate location.

Mining is defined as the extraction ofmetal ores from natural deposits. It alsomeans recovery of metal ores fromrefuse and storage piles derived fromactual mining or concentration of metalores.

The mining of metals ores is usuallydivided into four principal methods:underground or deep-mining, open-cut,in situ or solution mining, and placer ordredge mining.

Underground mining methods includeopen stopes, timbered stopes, filledstopes, caving method, andcombinations of these methods. In openstope mining, an underground chamberis created in which the walls aresupported by pillars of ore left in place.The finished stope is an open cavity. Intimbered stope mining the chamber is

25683


supported by wood and steel timber.The wood and steel are used where thewalls require support during mining andcan also serve as a working platform forworkers and equipment. A filled stope isan underground chamber where wasterock, tailings, or other fill material is anintegral part of the support of the wallsand sometimes the back of the ore body.Also fill material usually serves as aworking platform for workers andequipment to work the next adjacentportion of the ore body. Caving methodsuse the weight of the ore, the overlyingrock, or a combination of the two tobreak the ore down. The ore is firstundercut and then worked by sublevelcaving, block-caving, or top-slicing, withmany modifications to these methods.

Three different open-cut or surfacemining methods are used to mine metalores: open pit, area stripping, andcontour mining. In open-pit mining, theamount of overburden that must beremoved to mine the ore is small inrelation to the amount of ore mined. Bythis method, a large quantity of ore canbe removed from a comparatively smallsurface area because of the thickness ofthe orebody. The mining follows the orebody. In area strip mining, larger areasare excavated to mine the ore body,which is generally in a seam or zone,and the amount of. overburden can belarge in comparison with the oreremoved. Area strip mining is generallylimited to fairly flat topography. Incontour mining, excavation follows thecontour of the land until the orerecovery is prohibited by the amount ofoverburden. Contour mining is used inhilly or mountainous terrain and haslimited application in ore mining.

In situ or solution mining methods aregenerally restricted to the recovery ofcopper and uranium from surface orunderground deposits. In in situ mining,a leaching solution (often acid or water)is brought into contact with the orezone, either in place or after it has beenbroken in the mine, and the barrensolution is allowed to seep through theore to a lower level where the pregnantleach solution is collected for transfer toa metal recovery or precipitationfacility. In situ mining also includes thesecondary recovery of metal values byleaching mined ore, waste rock, lowgrade ore, or tailings.

Placer mining is the mining of alluvialdeposits (generally loose gravel, sand,soil, or mud that has been deposited bywater or ice) of minerals derived fromerosion or weathering of bedrock. Placermining consists of excavatingwaterborne or glacial deposits, e.g.,gold-bearing gravel and sands, whichcan then be separated by physical or

gravity means. Methods that are usedtoday include various dredgingtechniques (clam shell, continuousbucket, or dragline) and the use ofbulldozers and front-end loaders. Wherewater availability and physicalcharacteristics permit, dredging orhydraulic methods are often favoredbecause they are economical. At somelocations, hydraulic excavation (watercannons) is used both for overburdenremoval and for sluicing ores.

Water is little and seldom used in themining process. Of the principal miningmethods used, only in situ or solutionmining and placer mining actually usewater as part of the mining method. Inunderground and open-cut mining asmall amount of water is used (e.g., formachine cooling, dust suppression,drilling fluids, etc.). Approximately ninedeep mines use water in hydraulicbackfilling of stopes. This water isbrought back to the surface combinedwith mine water.

An even larger quantity of water mayenter the mine by percolation,interception of an aquifer, and runoff.This water, though usually unwanted,must also be managed by the mineoperator and discharged as mineprocess wastewater of mine drainage.The management of mine drainage is anintegral part of most mining systems.Mine water flows are extemely variable,ranging from nonexistent to flowsoccasionally as high as 227,000 m3 (60million gallons) per day or more. Minedrainage flow rates are related togeologic conditions, climate, andtopography and are generally beyondthe control of the mine operator.

Five main ore dressing processes usewater: gravity concentration, magneticseparation, electrostatic separation,froth flotation, and leaching. Most of theprocesses follow communition (sizereduction).

In froth flotation, chemicals are addedto make particles of a mineral or groupof minerals adhere preferentially to airbubbles (froth). When air is forcedthrough a slurry (water plus finelygr.ound ore) of mixed minerals, the risingbubbles carry the particles of themineral(s) to be separated from thematrix. If a foaming agent is added,which prevents the bubbles frombursting when they reach the surface, amineral-layer of foam is built up at thesurface of the flotation cell that may beremoved to recover the mineral. Detailsof the process and reagents employedvary from ore to ore and with time at agiven mill, but because the process isadaptable to fine particle sizes, it oftenallows a high rate of recovery even fromlow-grade ores.

Gravity concentration processes usedifferences in specific gravity toseparate the valuable ore minerals fromgangue (unwanted minerals. Theydepend upon viscosity forces to suspendand transport gangue away from theheavier, valuable mineral. Severaltechniques are employed including jigs,tables, spirals, and sink/floatseparation. Each technique employswater as the medium through which theseparation takes place and provides ameans of removing the unwantedminerals.

The magnetic separation process,based on differences in magneticpermeability, involves the transport ofore through a region of high magneticfield gradient. The most magneticallypermeable minerals are attracted to amoving surface behind which is the poleof a large electromagnet, and are carriedby it out of the ore stream. Although dryseparators are used for roughseparations, the process is often run weton slurries produced by grinding mills.

Electrostatic separation is used toseparate minerals on the basis of theirconductivity. This process is inherentlydry and uses very high voltages. The oreis typically charged to 20,000 to 40,000volts, and the charged particles aredropped onto a conductive rotatingdrum. The conductive particlesdischarge very rapidly and are thrownoff and collected, while thenonconductive particles keep theircharge and adhere by electrostaticattraction.

The leaching process dissolves awayeither gangue or metal values in aqueousacids or bases, liquid metals, or otherspecific solutions. Amalgamation andcyanidation are two variations ofleaching. The cynanidation process isused to extract gold and sliver by usingpotassium or sodium cyanide in dilutedweak alkaline solutions. Amalgamationuses mercury to form an amalgam, acombination of mercury and anothermetal. Amalgamation, once usedextensively to extract gold and silverfrom pulverized ore, has largely beenreplaced by cyanidation because ofenvironmental concerns about the useand control of mercury.

Leach solutions of acids or bases areused to extract copper, uranium,vanadium and tungsten. The solutionsdissolve certain metals present as wellas constitutents of the gangue. Heat,agitation, and pressure are often used tospeed the action of the leach. Ores canbe exposed to leach in a variety ofways, including in situ (in the ore body),vats, and heap or dump. The pregnantleach solution containing metal values is

25684


further processed to remove the metalsfrom solutions.

General Wastewater CharacteristicsMine Water. The wastewater

situation in the mining segment differsfrom that encountered in most otherindustries. Usually, most industries(such as the miling segment) use waterin the specific processes they employ.This water frequentlybecomescontaminated during the process andmust be treated before it is discharged.In the ore mining segment, processwater is not normally used in the actualmining of ores except in the in situleaching process or placer miningoperations and in dust control, or fordrilling fluids. Water is a natural featurethat interferes with mining activities. Itenters surface mines by directprecipitation, runoff and infiltration andunderground mines by infiltration. Thequantity of water from an ore mine isthus unrelated (or only indirectlyrelated) to production quantities.Generally, raw mine water has highconcentrations of dissovled metalsbecause ground water or surface waterhas come into contact with minerals inthe ore, host rock, and overburden.Generally, infiltration water is relativelylow in suspended solids (as comparedwith mill process water) although waterused for dust control may containelevated solids levels. At a fewfacilities, trace quantities of processreagents may be present because of thebackfilling of stopes with coarsefractions of miill tailings.

Mill Water. Process water is primarilyused in wet screening or classification,gravity separation processed, heavy-media separation, flotation processes,leaching solutions, and for transportingore between various process steps.Process water is often obtained fromwells, domestic sources, and minewater. It is often recycled and reused inareas where water is scarce or wherewater balance in an integrated systemallows it. Recycling often requires agreat deal of planning and carefulengineering, but results in reduction ofthe costs associated with purchase ofwater, exploration, and drilling of newwells and reduction of pollutantsdischarged to the environment.

Mill process wastewater ischaracterized by very high suspendedsolids levels (often in the percent rangerather than milligrams per liter), highmetals levels, and process reagents suchas cyanide.

The diversity of the ore mining andmilling industry makes it difficult togeneralize about process metallurgy,water use patterns, or wastewatertreatment practices for the industry. As

a result, the mining and processing ofeach ore is described separately.

Iron

The United States has approximately50 iron ore mines which produce about270 million metric tons of ore annually.Forty-four iron ore milling operationsannually produce 69 million metric tonsof pellets and 16.2 million metric tons offines, coarse, and sinter. The vastmajority of production (over Y) is in theGreat Lakes states, especially theMesabi and Marquette Ranges.Beneficiation processes generallyemployed include direct shipping,gravity separation, magnetic separation,and flotation.

On the basis of production figures,about 54 percent of iron millingoperations achieve no discharge, 31percent discharge to surface waters, and15 percent have unknown discharges.The trend in recent years for newerfacilities has been no discharge,primarily for pelleting operations in theMesabi Range in Minnesota. This trendreflects a concern for treatment costs,discharge of pollutants into the /

environment, and increased use ofrecycle to ensure adequate wateravailability.

The primary wastewater treatmenttechnology used in iron ore mining andmilling operations is removal ofsuspended solids by settling.

In reviewing BAT for the iron oresubcategory, EPA found the followingpollutants for control: iron and TSS. (SeeSection VIII of this notice for adiscussion of pollutant parameterselection.)

Copper, Lead, Zinc, Gold, Silver,Molybdenum

In reviewing BAT for the copper, lead,zinc, gold, silver, and molybdenum oressubcategory, EPA found the followingpollutants for control: copper, lead, zinc,mercury, cadmium, nickel, arsenic,cyanide, and TSS. (See section VIII ofthis notice for a discussion of pollutantparameter selection.)

Copper

The United States has 59 coppermines, which produce 258 million metrictons of ore annually. Of these, 22 aresmall operations employing 10 people orless. The majority of these mines (31)are in Arizona and produce 67 percentof the total amount of copper mined inthe United States annually. The U.S.Bureau of Mines estimates that 90percent of all copper ore produced in theUnited States comes from open-pitmines. Twenty-six copper mills in theUnited States produce over 7.1 millionmetric tons of copper concentrate

primarily using the froth flotationmethod. Byproducts of these millsinclude molybdenum and silverconcentrate.

Many copper mills use mine water formill process water. Some mine water isalso directly discharged to surfacewaters. In arid areas, many millspractice total recycle and achieve zerodischarge. In addition, mines and millswhich leach the ore to recover coppercollect leaching water, strip it of themetal values, and recycle/reuse orevaporate it, resulting in zero discharge.

Mine drainage and wastewater fromfroth flotation mills are often treated incombined treatment systems which uselime precipitation or pH adjustment andsettling.

Lead and Zinc

Since lead and zinc are most oftenfound in the same ore, they are generallymined and milled together. The UnitedStates has 49 individual mines whichagnually produce over 16 million metrictons of ore. Lead and zinc ores areproduced almost exclusively fromunderground mines. Many of thesemines and mills also produce silver andcopper concentrates from the lead/zincore. Thirty-three milling operationsproduce over 0.9 million metric tons oflead concentrates, over 408,000 metrictons of zinc concentrates, and 25,000metric tons of copper concentratesannually.

Missouri produces 83 percent of thelead, with the remaining portion comingprimarily from Idaho, Colorado, andUtah. New York produces 19 percent ofthe zinc, followed by Missouri (18percent), Tennessee (17 percent), andColorado (10 percent).

Most mine and mill wastewaters aretreated in combined treatment systems,which use lime precipitation for pHadjustment and setting predominatly.

Gold

Four leading producers accounted for73 percent of total annual goldproduction in the United States in 1975.Ninety-five percent of all productioncame from 25 mines or mine/milloperations, 10 of which operateprimarily for the recovery of gold.Thirty-six percent of the total goldproduced in the United States is abyproduct of coppbr, lead, or zincproduction; the rest is the result ofprimary recovery from gold lode andplacer operations. Placer deposits arealluvial or glacial deposits containing avaluable mineral, primarily gold. Theseoperations are concentrated in Alaska.

Domestic gold production has steadilydeclined in recent years. This decline is

25685

Federal Register / Vol. 47' No. 114 / Monday, June 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules

due to increased costs, mining of lowergrade ores, diminished copperproduction, and depletion of easilymined ore. Increased exploration anddevelopment is stimulated by priceincreases, which may reverse this trendas the price of gold fluctuates.

Most of the nine active gold millingoperations i n the United States use thecyanidation process to recover gold, butsome flotation,- concentration, andamalgamation processes are also used.For the most part, spent leach solutionsused to beneficiate ore are recycled,resulting in zero discharge of millwastewater.

Many placer mines do not treatwastewater, although several largedredge operations recycle process waterfrom the dredge pond and settle solidsin the pond itself before discharging theexcess wastewater. Several facilitiesuse settling ponds for water treatmentand to conserve process water for useduring periods of water scarcity.

SilverEight major mines produce over 1,090

metric tons (35 million troy ounces) ofsilver in the United States each year.Seventy percent of this silver is a'byproduct of lead/zinc and coppermining.

All five major milling operationsrecover silver metal concentrates. Inmost cases, froth flotation is thebeneficiation method used.

Wastewater treatment at major mine/mill operations consist of a tailings pondto settle bulk flotation ci cult tailingsbefore final discharge. In some cases,however, process wastewater isrecycled for reuse within the mill.Molybdenum

The United States has three activemolybdenum mines, with tlhree moreunder exploration. Two existing minesdischarge to surface waters and thethird has zero discharge because there islittle or no infiltration of ground waters.Th-e mines produce over 1C. millionmetric tons or ore, while the millsproduce over 50,000 metric tons ofconcntrate.

All three mines are aa;:c.,a-ated withfroth flotation mills. To treatwastewaters, the mills typically ue limeprecipitation for pi1 ad,- rtment,followed by primary anJ 3econda -ysettling. One wastewater ti eatmeitsystem uses granular media filters. Twofacilities have wactewater treatmenttechnology for the reduction of cyanide:one by alkaline chlorination and thesecond by hydrogen peroxide (describedin Section VI of this notice). The thirdfacility recycles process water and h'isne discharge.

AluminumTwo open-pit mining operations in

Arkansas produce bauxite ore formetallurgical production of aluminum.For the past 10 years, the annualproduction rate of bauxite ore has beenapproximately 1.8 million metric tons.Each bauxite ore mine discharges about15 million gallons of water a day. Noprocess water is used to crush or grindore, and no beneficiation processes areused that would require water. Bothoperations use lime precipitation for pHadjustment and settling to treatwastewaters.

In reviewing BAT for the aluminumore subcategory, EPA found thefollowing pollutants for control: iron,aluminum, and TSS. (See section VIII ofthis notice for a discussion of pollutantparameter selection.)

Tungsten

The United States, has five largemines, each producing over 5,000 metrictons of tungsten ore per year, and ever30 small mines, each producing less than5,000 metric tons of tungsten ore peryear. Most small tungsten mining andmilling operations are intermittent.Annual production in the United Statesis about 740,203 metric tons. All minesare underground and are located inCalifornia, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, andNevada. These facilities typically do notdischarge mine water. Of the 14 tungstenmills, 7 produce more than 5,000 metrictons of ore per year each. They.generally use gravity separation and/orfroth flotation to beneficiate the ore.

The tungsten industry is expected toincrease production in the coming years.At least two new large operations are inthe planning, exploration, ordevelopment stages in Nevads.

Mill wastewater treatment muthodsvary but include impoundmert ofwastewater in a tailings pond [suttlIng]and recycle and/or evaporation. Most ofthe actire mills recyLle mill procen swater, since they are located in nidregions.

In ruvhwing BAT for the twigasten oresubcategory, EPA found the followingpollutaaits for control: arscn:, cadmium,copper, zinc and TSS. (See Suction VIIIof lh~s notice for a discussion cfpIllutuat parameter seleutlon.)

The relatively small amount of riakelprodL.:ed domestically is ubiainerl fromone op.i-pit mine in O-gon. The mine

r.. : -;,elter, but nc milling orbcneficlation is practiced.

Wt.t benpficialion processes are notpracticed at this nickel mine/smelter.Most of the plant water is used in the

smelting operation for ore belt washing,cooling and slag granulation. Theprocess water is treated in two settlingponds and them recycled for use in thesmelter. An average yearly runoff of120,000 gallonsof water per day comesfrom the mine itself. Most of this runoffoccurs during the winter rainy seasonwhen daily flows can be as high as580,000 gallons per day. The mine waterrunoff is treated at the settling pondsand used at the smelter. Excess water isdischarged after treatment.

In reviewing BAT, EPA established aseparate subcategory for nickel oresubcategory reserving effluentlimitations until the Agency gathersadditional data on the wastewaterdischarge of the single existing facility.

Vanadium

Vanadium, radium, and uranium areusually found in the same ore.Vanadium itself is almost exclusivelyobtained as a byproduct of uraniummining/milling. However, the UnitedStates has one open-pit vanadium mine/mill that extracts vanadium fromnonradioactive ore using a leachingprocess. After the ore is extracted, themill uses complex hydrometallurgicalprocesses such as roasting, leaching,solvent extraction, and precipitation.(These processes are explained in thedevelopment document). At present, thismill is inactive because of the decreaseddemand for vanadium.

Nearly 70 percent of the effluentstream and all of the pollutants itcontains come fromn leaching andsolvent extraction. wet scrubbers orroasters, and ore dryers.

In reviewing BAT, EPA established aseparate subcategory for vanadium ores(mined along and not as a byproduct)reserving effluent limitations until theAgency gathers additional data on thewastewater discharges of the singleexisting fanility.

UraniumOf the approximately 213 underground

and open-pjt uranium mrir.s in theUnited States, about 44 percent nowhave fewer than five employees. As aresult, the actual number of active minesat any given timb will vary, dependingon market conditions and cc-,znystatus. The larpn number of small minesmeans that earh of 18 anlive urariummills may service as many as 40different mines.

While uranium mines produceapproximately 0.1 million metric tons ofore annually (0.15 percent Uses), themills produce only 28,000 metric tons ofprocessed U20.. Uranium mills use acidleach, alkaline leach, and combined

25686


acid/alkaline leach processes tobeneficiate the ore.

Uranium Milling Processes. Uraniumores tend to vary in consistency andgrade and may come from mines ownedby different companies. Because uniformgrade and consistency must beachieved, ore blending is requiredbefore further processing. Ore high invanadium is often roasted with sodiumchloride to facilitate its removal byother processes. Roasting to carbonizeand oxidize organics may be necessaryto prevent interference withhydrometallurgical processes. Ore isground to the proper size for either acid,alkaline, or combined acid/alkalineleach processes.

The acid leach process is used forores with less than 12 percent calciumcarbonate. Sulfuric acid, which extractsvalues quickly (usually 4 to 24 hours) isused. Tetravalent uranium must beoxidized to the uranyl form (VI) byadding an oxidizing agent (typicallysodium chlorate or manganese dioxide).Uranyl sulfate forms a complexcompound in the leach, with the anionssubsequently extracted for value.

The alkaline leach process employs asolution of sodium carbonate in anoxidizing environment. In this process,uranium and vanadium values areextracted from their ores selectively andsubsequently precipitated from the leachby raising the pH through the addition ofsodium hydroxide.

Uranium in the pregnant leach liquorcan be concentrated through ionexchange or solvent extraction. Thevalues are then stripped or extractedand precipitated.

Approximately 80 percent of the totalamount of uranium ore produced in theUnited States is recovered from minesthat generate mine water. Watertreatment practices in those minesinclude: (1) impoundment and solarevaporation, (2) ion exchange foruranium recovery, (3) flocculation andsettling for heavy metals and suspendedsolids removal, (4) barium chloride(BaCI 2) coprecipitation of radium 226,and (5) radium 226 removal by ionexchange. Mine drainage is usuallydischarged to surface waters.

Only one of the 18 uranium millsdischarges mill process water to surfacewaters. It treats the 580,000 gallon perday waste stream by settling,flocculation, and barium chloridecoprecipitation for radium 226 removal.The remaining mills achieve zerodischarge largely by impoundment andevaporation.

In reviewing BAT for the uranium oressubcategory, EPA found the followingpollutants for control: arsenic, nickel,zinc, radium 226, uranium, COD, and

TSS. (See Section VIII of this notice fora discussion of pollutant parameterselection.)

AntimonyAntimony is recovered both from ore

and as a byproduct of silver and leadconcentrates. Antimony is located inores in Idaho and Montana. However,only one operating mine/mill nowproduces antimony as a primaryproduct. The ore is mined undergroundand concentrated using the frothflotation process. The mine has noknown discharge because it is above thewater table. The mill wastewater flowsto an impoundment and is then retained.

Other mine/mills and smeltersrecover byproduct antimony. Thirty tofifty percent of domestic production ofantimony (724 metric tons in 1977) inrecent years has been recovered as abyproduct of lead smelting.

In reviewing BAT, EPA established aseparate subcategory for antimony ores,reserving effluent limitations reserveduntil the Agency gathers additional dataon the waste water discharges of thissingle existing facility.

Titanium

Four facilities in the United Statesproduce titanium concentrates. Oneoperation extracts titanium from lodeore desposits. Three operations dredgesands to recover titanium minerals(ilmenite). The lode ore operation Is inNew York, one sand dredging operationis in New Jersey and the remainingfacilities are in Florida. In 1979, severeprice competition from Australiantitanium-producing operations forcedthree other sand dredging operations toclose.

The titanium sand dredging mines arenow processing over 27 million metrictons' of ore per year. From this ore, themills produce approximately 500,000metric tons per year of mineralconcentrate.

The mine that extracts ilmenite fromlode ore treats wastewater by settling.The mill associated with this mine usesp1i adjustment, settling, and recycle totreat wastewaters, with seasonaldischarge to a river. Usually thedischarge period lasts approximatelythree weeks per year. At the sanddredging facilities, multiple settlingponds are used before discharge. Dredgepond water is recycled for reuse, withexcess water entering the multiplesettling pond system Wastewatertreatment removes suspended solidsprimarily.

In reviewing BAT for the titanium oresubcategory, EPA found the followingpollutants for control: nickel zinc, iron,and TSS. (See Section VIII of this

preamble for a discussion of pollutantparameter selection.)

III. Scope of This Rulemaking andSummary of Methodology

The proposed regulation is anexpansion of water pollution controlrequirements for the ore mining anddressing industry. From 1973 through1976, EPA emphasized the achievementof limitations based on application ofbest practicable technology (BPT) byJuly 1, 1977. In general, this technologylevel represented the average of the bestexisting performances of well-knowntechnologies for control of familiar (i.e.,"classical") pollutants. In this industry,many metal pollutants that Congresssubsequently designated as toxic werealso regulated under BPT.

In this rulemaking, EPA has sought toensure the achievement, by July 1, 1984,of limitations based on application ofthe best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT). Ingeneral, this technology level representsthe best economically achievableperformance in any industry category orsubcategory. Moreover, as a result of theClean Water Act of 1977, the emphasisof EPA's program has shifted fromcontrol of "classical" pollutants to thecontrol of toxic substances.

In the 1977 legislation, Congressrecognized that it was dealing withareas of scientific uncertainty when itdeclared the 65 "priority" pollutants andclasses of pollutants "toxic" undersection 307(a) of the Act. The "priority"pollutants have been relativelyunknown outside the scientificcommunity, and those engaged inwastewater sampling and control havehad little experience dealing with thesepollutants. Additionally, thesepollutants can often appear and canhave toxic effects at concentrations thatseverely tax current analyticaltechniques. Even though Congress wasaware of the state-of-the-art difficultiesand expense of toxics control anddetection, it directed EPA to act quicklyand decisively to detect, measure, andregulate these substances.

EPA's implementation of the Act isdescribed in this section and succeedingsections of this notice. Initially, becausein many cases no public or privateagency had done so, EPA, itslaboratories, and consultants had todevelop analytical methods for toxicpollutant detection and measurement(see section IV of this notice). EPA thengathered technical and economic dataabout the industry, which are alsosummarized in Section IV. A number ofsteps were involved in arriving at theproposed limitations.

25687


First, EPA studied the ore mining anddressing industry to determine whetherdifferences in raw materials; finalproducts; manufacturing processes:equipment, age, and size of plants, waterusage; wastewater constituents; or otherfactors required the development ofseparate effluent limitations andstandards for different subcategoriesand segments of the industry. This studyincluded identifying raw waste andtreated effluent characteristics,including: the sources and volume ofwater used, the processes employed, thesources of pollutants and wastewater inthe plant and the constituents ofwastewater, including toxic pollutants.EPA then identified the constituents ofwastewaters that should be consideredfor effluent limitations guidelines andstandards of performance.

Next, EPA identified several distinctcontrol and treatment technologies,including both in-plant and end-of-process technologies, that are in use orcapable of being used in the ore miningand dressing industry. The Agencycompiled and analyzed historical andnewly generated data on the effluentquality resulting from the application ofthese technologies. The long-termperformance, operations, limitations,and reliability of each treatment andcontrol technology were also identified.In addition, EPA considered the non-water quality environmental impacts ofthese technologies, including impacts onair quality, solid waste generation,water availability, and energyrequirements.

The Agency then estimated the costsof each control and treatmenttechnology from unit cost curvesdeveloped by standard engineeringanalyses as applied to ore mining anddressing wastewater characteristics.EPA derived unit process costs fromrepresentative plant characteristics(production and flow) applied to eachtreatment process (i.e., secondarysettling, pH adjustment and settling,granular-media filtration, etc.). Theseunit process costs were added to yieldtotal cost at each treatment level. Afterconfirming the reasonableness of thismethodology by comparing EPA costestimates with treatment systemssupplied by the industry, the Agencyevaluated the economic impacts of thesecosts. (Costs and economic impacts arediscussed in detail under the varioustechnology options and in section XVIIof this preamble.)

After considering these factors, EPAidentified various control and treatmenttechnologies as BAT and BADT (BestAvailable Demonstrated Technology).

The proposed regulation, however, doesnot require the installation of anyparticular technology or limit thechoices of technologies that may beused in specific situations. Rather, itrequires achievement of effluentlimitations that represent the properdesign, construction, and operation ofthese or equivalent technologies.

The effluent limitations for ore miningand dressing BAT, BCT, and NSPS areexpressed in concentrations (e.g.,milligrams of pollutant per liter ofwastewater) rather than loading perunit(s) of production (e.g., kg of pollutantper metric ton of product) becausecorrelating units of production andwastewater discharged by mines anilmills was not possible for this category.The reasons are:

(1) The quantity of mine waterdischarged varies considerably frommine to mine and is influenced bytopography, climate, geology (affectinginfiltration rates) and the continuousnature of water infiltration regardless ofproduction rates. Mine water may begenerated and required to be treatedand discharged even if production isreduced or terminated.

(2) Consistent water use and lossrelationships for ore mills could not bederived from facility to facility within asubcategory because of wide variationsin application of specific processes. Thesubtle differences in ore mineralogy andprocess development may require theuse of differing amounts of water andprocess reagents but do not necessarilyrequire different wastewater treatmenttechnology(ies).

The Agency is not proposingpretreatment standards because it doesnot know of any existing facilities thatdischarge to POTWs or any that areplanned.

IV. Data-Gathering Program

(A) Sampling and Analytical Methods

As Congress recognized in enactingthe Clean Water Act of 1977, the state-of-the-art ability to monitor and detecttoxic pollutants is limited. Most toxicpollutants were relatively unknown untilonly a few years ago, and only on rareoccasions has EPA regulated or hasindustry monitored or even developedmethods to monitor these pollutants.Section 304(h) of the Act, however,requires the Administrator topromulgate guidelines to establish testprocedures for the analysis of toxicpollutants. As a result, EPA scientists,including staff of the EnvironmentalResearch Laboratory in Athens, Georgia,and staff of the Environmental

Monitoring and Support Laboratory inCincinnati, Ohio, conducted a literaturesearch and initiated a laboratoryprogram to develop analytical protocols.The analytical techniques used in thisrulemaking were developedconcurrently with the development ofgeneral sampling and analyticalprotocols and were incorporated intothe protocols ultimately adopted for thestudy of other industrial categories. SeeSampling and Analysis Procedures forScreening of Industrial Effluents forPriority Pollutants, revised April 1977.

Because section 304(h) methods wereavailable for most toxic metals,pesticides, cyanide and phenolics(4AAP), the analytical effort focused ondeveloping methods for sampling andanalyses of organic toxic pollutants. Thethree basic analytical approachesconsidered by EPA are infraredspectroscopy (IS), gas chromatography(GC) with multiple detectors, and gaschromatography/mass spectrometry(GC/MS). Evaluation of thesealternatives led the Agency to proposeanalytical techniques for 113 toxicorganic pollutants (see 44 FR 69464,December 3, 1979, amended 44 FR 75028,December 18, 1979) based on: (1) GCwith selected detectors, or high-performance liquid chromatography(HPLC), depending on the particularpollutant and (2) GC/MS. In selectingamong these alternatives, EPAconsidered their sensitivity, laboratoryavailability, costs, applicability todiverse waste streams from numerousindustries, and capability forimplementation within the statutory andcourt-ordered time constraints of EPA'sprogram. The rationale for selecting theproposed analytical protocols may befound in 44 FR 69464 (December 3, 1979).

In EPA's judgment, the test proceduresused in this rulemaking. represent thebest itate-of-the-art methods for toxicpollutant analyses available when thisstudy was begun, As state-of-the-arttechnology progresses, futurerulemaking will be initiated to evaluate,and if necessary, incorporate thesechanges.

Before analyzing ore mining anddressing wastewater, EPA definedspecific toxic pollutants for theanalyses. The list of 65 pollutants andclasses of pollutants potentially includesthousands of specific pollutants, and theexpendure of resources in governmentand private laboratories would beoverwhelming if analyses wereattempted for all these pollutants.Therefore, to make the task moremanageable, EPA selected 129 specifictoxic pollutants for study in this

25688


rulemaking and other industryrulemakings.

In general, EPA collected four types ofsamples from each sampling point: (1) a9.6 liter, 24-hour composite sample usedto analyze metals, pesticides, PCBs,asbestos, organic compounds, and theclassical parameters; (2] a 1-liter, 24-hour composite sample used to analyzetotal cyanide; (3] a 0.47-liter, 24-hourcomposite sample to analyze totalphenolics (4AAP); and (4) two 125-mlgrab samples to analyze volatile organiccompounds by the "purge and trap"method.

EPA analyzed for toxic pollutantsaccording to groups of chemicals andassociated analytical schemes. Organictoxic pollutants included volatile(purgeable), base-neutral and acid(extractable) pollutants, and pesticides.Inorganic toxic pollutants included toxicmetals, cyanide, and asbestos(chrysotile and total asbestiform fibers).

The primary method used in screeningand verification of the volatile, base-neutral, and acid organics was gaschromatography with confirmation andquantification on all samples by massspectrometry (GC/MS). Phenolics (total)were analyzed by the 4-aminoantipyrine(4AAP) method. GC was employed foranalysis of pesticides with limited MSconfirmation. The Agency analyzed thetoxic metals by atomic adsorptionspectrometry (AAS), with flame orgraphite furnace atomization followingappropriate digestion of the sample.Samples were analyzed for total cyanideby a colorimetric method, with sulfidepreviously removed by distillation.Asbestos was analyzed by transmissionelectron microscopy and fiber presencereported as chrysotile and total fibercounts. EPA analysed for seven otherparameters including: pH, temperature,TSS, VSS, COD, TOC, iron, aluminum,and radium 226 (total and dissolved).

The high costs, time-consuming natureof analysis, and limited laboratorycapability for toxic pollutant analysesposed considerable difficulties to EPA.The cost of each wastewater analysisfor organic toxic pollutants rangesbetween $650 and $1,700, excludingsampling costs (based on quotationsrecently obtained from a number ofanalytical laboratories). Even withunlimited resources, however, time andlaboratory capability would have posedadditional constraints. Efficiency isimproving, but when this study wasinitiated, a well-trained technician usingthe most sophisticated equipment couldperform only one complete organicanalysis in an eight-hour workday.Moreover, when this rulemaking studybegan only about 15 commerciallaboratories in the United States could

perform these analyses. Today, EPAknows of over 50 commerciallaboratories that can perform theseanalyses, and the number is increasingas the demand increases.

In planning data generation for thisrulemaking, EPA considered requiringdischargers to monitor and analyzetoxic pollutants under section 308 of theAct. The Agency did not use thisauthority, however, because it wasreluctant to increase the cost to theindustry and because it desired to keepdirect control over sample analyses inview of the developmental nature of themethodology and the need for closequality control. In addition, EPAbelieved that the slow pace and limitedlaboratory capability for toxic pollutantanalysis would have hamperedmandatory sampling and analysis.Although EPA believes that availabledata support these regulations, it wouldhave preferred a larger data base forsome of the toxic pollutants and willcontinue to seek additional data. EPAwill periodically review theseregulations, as required by the Act, andmake any revisions supported by newdata.

(B) Data Gathering Efforts

Data gathering for the ore mining anddressing industry included an extensivecollection of information:

(1) Screening and verificationsampling and analysis programs

(2] Engineering cost site visits(3] Supporting data from EPA regidnal

offices(4) Treatability studies(5] Industry self-monitoring sampling(6) BPT data base(7] Placer study(8) Titanium sand dredges study(9) Uranium studyEPA began an extensive data

collection effort during 1974 and 1975 todevelop BPT effluent standards. Thesedata included results from samplingprograms conducted by the Agency atmines and mills and an assimilation ofhistorical data supplied by the industry,the Bureau of Mines, and other sources.This information characterizedwastewaters from ore mining andmilling operations according to whatwere then considered key parameters-total suspended solids, pH, lead, zinc,copper, and other metals. However, littleinformation on other environmentalparameters, such as other toxic metalsand organics, was available fromindustry or government sources. Toestablish the levels of these pollutants,the Agency instituted a second samplingand analysis program to specificallyaddress these toxic substances,including 129 specific toxic pollutants

for which regulation was mandated bythe Clean Water Act.

EPA began the second sampling andanalysis program (screening andverification sampling) in 1977 toestablish the quantities of toxic,conventional, and nonconventionalpollutants in ore mine drainage and millprocessing effluents. EPA visited 20 and14 facilities respectively for screeningand verification sampling.

EPA selected at least one facility ineach major BPT subcategory. The sitesselected were representative of theoperations and wastewatercharacteristics present in particularsubcategories. To determine these sites,the Agency reviewd the BPT data baseand industry as a whole, withconsideration to:

(1) Those using reagents or reagentsconstituents on the toxic pollutants list;

(2) Those using effective treatment forBPT regulated pollutants;

(3] Those for which historical datawere available as a means of verifyingresults obtained during screening;

(4) Those suspected of producingwastewater streams that containpollutants not traditionally monitored.These facilities were visited from Aprilthrough November 1977.

After reviewing screen samplinganalytical results, EPA selected 14 sitesfor verification sampling visits. Becausemost of the organic toxic pollutantswere either not detected or detectedonly at low concentrations in the screensamples, the Agency emphasizedverification sampling for total phenolics(4AAP), total cyanide asbestos(chrysotile), and toxic metals.

EPA revisited six of the facilities tocollect additional data onconcentrations of total phenolics (4AAPtotal cyanide, asbestos (chrysotile), andto confirm earlier measurements ofthese parameters.

After completing verificationsampling, EPA conducted sampling oftwo additional sites. At onemolybdenum mill operation, a completescreen sampling effort was performed todetermine the presence of toxicpollutants and to collect data on theperformance of a newly installedtreatment system. The second facility, auranium mine/mill, was sampled tocollect data on a facility removingradium 226 by ion exchange. Samplescollected at this facility were notanalyzed for organic toxic pollutants.

The Agency conducted a separatesampling effort to evaluate treatmenttechnologies at Alaskan placer goldmines. This study was undertakenbecause gold placer mining wasreserved under BPT rulemaking and

25689


because little data were previouslyavailable on the performance of existingtreatment systems.

Industrial self-sampling wasconducted at three facilities visitedduring screen sampling to supplementand expand the data for these facilities.The programs lasted from two to twelveweeks. EPA selected two operationsbecause they had been identified duringthe BPT study as two of the besttreatment facilities; the third becauseadditional data on long-term variationsin waste stream characteristics at thesesites were needed to supplement thehistorical discharge monitoring data, toreflect any recent changes orimprovements in the treatmenttechnology used, and to confirm thatvariations in raw wastewater levels didnot affect concentrations in treatedeffluents.

The Agency's regional survellianceand analysis groups performedadditional sampling at fourteenfacilities: nine in Colorado, Idaho,Wyoming, and Montana; one inArkansas; and four in Missouri.

Discharge monitoring reports werecollected from EPA regional offices formany of the ore producing facilities withtreatment systems. These data wereused in evaluating the variations in flowand wastewater characteristicsassociated with mine drainage and millwastewater.

The Agency took samples during thecost-site visits, although the primaryreason for the visits was to collect datathat would assist the Agency indeveloping unit process cost curves andthat would verify the cost assumptionsmade. However, since many of the siteshad been sampled previously, the newsampling data obtained served asadditional verification of wastecharacterization data.

EPA conducted thirteen treatabilitystudies to characterize performance ofalternative treatment technologies onore mine and mill wastewaters.Secondary settling, flocculation,granular media filtration, ozonation,alkaline chlorination and hydrogenperoxide treatment (described in detailin section VI) were all examined inbench- and pilot-scale studies. The dataobtained from these studies werecompared with data obtained on theperformance of these systems in actualoperation on pilot and full scale. Inaddition, the data were used todetermine the range of variability thatmight be expected for thesetechnologies, especially during periodsof steady running.

EPA obtained the data for itseconomic analysis primarily from asurvey conducted under section 308 of

the Clean Water Act. The Agency sentquestionnaires to 138 companiesengaged in mining and milling of metalores. The data collected includedproduction levels, employment, revenue,operatng costs, working capital, oregrade, and other relevant information.The economic survey data weresupplemented by data from governmentpublications, trade journals, and visitsto several mine/mills.V. Industry Subcategorization

All industries vary among facilitieswith respect to raw materials and otherfactors which can affect wastewatercharacteristics and treatmenttechnology. These factors in the oremining and dressing industry areextraordinarily diverse. Therefore, EPAhad to decide on a subcategorizationwhich would, adequately account forimportant differences among differenttypes of mines and mills. On the otherhand, many differences are simply notrelevant to the issue underlyingsubcategorization-whether the effluentlimitations for plants in one groupshould differ from those in anothergroup.

The BPT subcategorization schemewas based on several factors that theAgency deemed important insubcategorizing the industry for BAT.Ore mineralogy was a useful method forinitially subcategorizing the industry.Generally, the type of ore is one factorin determining the types of pollutantsfound in wastewater, and hence thetreatment technology required. Forexample, wastewater associated withuranium ore contains radium 226 anduranium, which require treatmenttechnologies not needed for iron orewastewater. On the other hand,wastewater from lead, zinc, or copperfacilities contains a variety of toxicmetals not associated with uraniumores.

However, in some cases, wastewatercharacteristics, treatment technology,and achievable effluent limitations areindependent of ore type. This isparticularly true for copper, lead, zinc,gold, and silver ores which areprocessed by froth flotation. Moreover,these metals are frequently foundtogether in the same ore.

Thus, the BPT regulationssubcategorized the industry first bybasic ore type: iron ore, base andprecious metals (including copper, lead,zinc, gold, platinum and silver),aluminum, ferroalloy, uranium, radiumand vanadium, mercury, and titanium.

EPA subdivided each subcategory onthe basis of whether the discharger is amine or a mill, since the flow ofminewater may vary considerably and

untreated mine water generally containslower concentrations of most pollutantsthan untreated mill process water.

EPA further subdivided somesubcategories according to the type ofbeneficiation process employed.Flotation processes, for example,significantly change the character of milleffluent because of pH control, which isneeded to maximize metals recovery,and addition of chemical reagentsduring the mill process. Consequently,flotation processes create differentkinds of wastewater than otherbeneficiation processes. Moreover, EPAdetermined that for some beneficiationprocesses, zero discharge of processwastewater was a proper BPTrequirement.

In Kennecott Copper Corp. v. EPA,supra, the court upheld the Agency'sBPT subcategorization scheme againstindustry challenge (with one minorexception not pertinent here).Consequently, the Agency has retainedthe BPT subcategorization scheme, witha few minor adjustments.

Subpart D of the BPT regulationscreated a subcategory consisting offerroalloy ores, which includechromium, cobalt, columbium, tantalum,manganese, molybdenum, nickel,tungsten, and vanadium (recoveredalone, not as a byproduct of uraniummining or milling). EPA made a furthersubdivision that was based on whethermore or less than 5,000 tons per year isprocessed. However, more recent datashow that wastewater frommolybdenum mines and mills is like thedischarges from facilities in the BPTbase and precious metals subcategory-that is, mines and mills extractingcopper, lead, zinc, gold, or silver (see 40CFR Subpart B). Consequently, thisproposed regulation move molybdenummines and mills into the Copper, Lead,Zinc, Gold, Silver, Platinum, andMolybdenum Subcategory (see 40 CFR440.120). (There are three knownmolybdenum mines and three mills, allof which process more than 5,000 tonsper year.)

In the BPT ferroalloy subcategory, onenickel mine remains and one vanadiummine and mill. Except for tungsten, allother ores are recovered as byproductsof ores directly regulated under othersubcategories. The Agency hascommissioned studies to consider moreclosely the nickel and vanadiumfacilities. After reviewing these data,EPA will take appropriate action.Accordingly, this rulemaking createssubcategories for nickel and vanadium,with limitations reserved. (See 40 CFR440.90, 440.100).

I

I I

25690


Tungsten mines and mills, however,would be regulated under thisrulemaking (see 40 CFR 440.80). Unlikethe BPT requirements, this rulemakingmakes no distinctions about facility size.Seven tungsten mines and two mills areknown which process more than 5,000tons per year. Mines and mills withsmaller production are generallyintermittent operations, which open andclose frequently. In addition, EPAbelieves that many of these facilities aredry and do not discharge. Because oftheir intermittent nature, these facilitiesare difficult to locate and thus, theAgency lacks extensive data on them.However, EPA has no information atthis time indicating that a separatesubcategory should be created, for BATlimitations, for tungsten mines based onsize. Tungsten facilities processing lessthan 5,000 tons per year are encouragedto submit all pertinent informationduring the comment period on theseproposed regulations.'

These effluent limitations areapplicable to facilities discharging waterfrom ore mining and milling operations.However, some operations, known ascomplex facilities, combine wastestreams from other processes such asrefining and smelting with their oremining and milling wastes, and thiscombined waste stream is then treatedfor discharge. BPT effluent limitationsare not directly applicable to thesecomplex facilities, but provide a basisfor facility-specific limitations (see 43FR 29771). During the BAT study, EPAgathered additional data on 3 facilitiesthat are known to be complex facilities:White Pine Copper Division, CopperRange Co., White Pine Michigan;Kennecott Copper Corp., Utah CopperDivision (Treatment plant effluent only),Salt Lake City, Utah, and Bunker HillCo., Kellogg, Idaho. EPA consideredcreating a separate subc-ttegory for allthe complex facilities or a separatesubcategory for each of the comiplexfacilities.

We have, however, decided not topropose such regulation and insteadhave prepared a separate reprrt on eachof the 3 facilities to be used as guidancedocuments by the permitting authority inissuing NPDES plermits..In effect, eachfacility will be given effluent limitationsthat will ake into account BAT mineand mill guidelines, treatabilty of wastestreams, and smelter and refini:ngguidelines.

BAT effluent limitations for s neltorsand refineries Nonferrous MetalsManufacturing, were promulgatedFebruary 27, 1975 (40 FR 8527), but, as aresult of the 1977 amendments to the Actaddressing the control of toxics, is being

reviewed. The Agency will be proposingrevised BAT limits for smelters andrefineries

VI. Available Wastewater Control andTreatment Technology

(A) Status of In-Place TechnologyBPT regulations for the ore mining and

dressing industry have been in effectsince 1978. The treatment technologiesrequired to meet these limitations varysomewhat from subcategory tosubcategory. In general, mines and millsuse wastewater treatment that includeschemical precipitation (usually withlime) of metals by elevation of pH,followed by settling to remove solids.Use of flocculation aids, such as alum orpolyelectrolytes, was identified as a BPTtechnology for treatment of minedrainage and mill process water in theiron ore subcategory (except for theMesabi Range mills, where zerodischarge was specified). Secondarysettling and flocculation chemicals wereidentified as BPT treatment technologiesfor mine drainage in the ferroalloy ore(tungsten ore) subcategory. In theuranium ore subcategory, for minedrainage and mill process water, BPTtreatment included chemicalprecipitation of metals, settling, ionexchange (for uranium), and secondarysettling. Throughout the industry, EPAfound facilities that employed thesetechnologies to various degrees to suittheir specific situation(s). In fact, severalfacilities used settling alone to achieveBPT limitations.

(B) Control Technologies Considered forUse in the Industry

Current industry practices and otheravailable wastewater treatmenttechnologies considered for control ofthe pollutants discharged by the oremining and dressing industry inclidesecondary settling, floccu!ant addition,additional pH adjustment, grnularmedia filtration, use of mechanicalclarifiers, activated carbon adsorption,sulfide precipitation, ion exchange,ozonation, alkaline chlorination,hydrogen peroxide oxidaion, andpartial or total recycle. All thesetechnologies are considered to be "add-on" technologies to the basic B3PTtreatment schemes, which EPA assuniesare already in place. The "add-on"element is taken into account both in theevaluation of achievable effluentpollutant levels and in the costestimates prepared for each facility.

A number of facilities may be able tomeet BAT limitations more stringentthan BPT limitations by optimizing theirpresent treatment system. In addition,many facilities may employ additional

process controls rather than additionaltreatment technologies to achieve morestringent limitations. Specific facilitiesmay be able to meet more stringentlimitations without installation of thetechnologies identified above. Forexample, inital raw wastewaterpollutant concentrations may be low- orparticle size distributions may beamenable to rapid settling and thuseffect removal of suspended solids andcontained metals, in primary settlingponds. Regardless, for each technologystudied, the limitation can be achievedprovided the technologies are operatedoptimally.

Wastewater treatment technologieswbre evaluated for applicability to thepollutant parameters of concern,appropriateness for the wastewatervolume and pollutant concentrationsfound in this industry, and economicachievability. The technologies thatfulfilled these criteria are describedbelow.

Pollutant levels or concentrationsachievable by these technologies weredetermined using data from samplingand analysis at existing facilities,together with data from 13 treatabilitystudies and data provided by theindustry.

(1) Toxic Metals and TSS Removal.Secondary Settling

Settling ponds are frequently used in amultiple arrangement, in which one ormore settling po-ids are added in serieswith primary settling ponds. Thepurpose of this scheme is to furtherreduce suspended solid loading in thesequential ponds. It may also be used toallow the use of chemical precipitation,pH control, or coagulants orflocculations before discharge orrecycle. Unaided secondary settling ismost effective v% hen existing conditionsare not ideal in the primary settlingponds. It providus additional residencetime in the treatment system and affordsadditional removal of suspended solidsand associated heavy metals. At least 17facilities practice secondary or mutliplepond treatment.

Coagulation/Flocculation

In coagulation and flocclation,chemical corutlEnts act to devtabilizecolloidal solids, causing them to gnthertogether in a floe and sett!e. The pimarypurpose of chemical coagulation orflocculant additioa to wastewater is toincrease the size of settling particles byforming floes of individual particles thutact as a single large particle, whichsettles faster than individual particles.These chemicals typically are addedupstream of sedimentation pdnds,

25691


clarifiers, or filter units. This practicehas demonstrated improved metalsremoval due to the formation of flocs,which appear to be effective inadsorbing and absorbing fine metalhydroxide precipitates (particles)formed either naturally or by pHadjustment using lime.

Over ten facilities in the industry nowpractice this type of treatment.

pHAdjustment and SettlingAdjustment of pH, usually with lime,

changes the solubility of many dissolvedmetals, causing them to precipitate as asolid. These precipitated metals are thenremoved with other solids throughsettling. This technology is commonlyused in the industry and is the basis forBPT in most subcategories. It isconsidered again because the processcan be applied or optimized with thepotential for significantly improvedmetals removal in some subcategories.For example, a treatment systemoperated at a pH of 7 can often improvedissolved metals removal by increasingthe pH to 9 while maintaining the samesettling time.

Granular Media FiltrationFiltration is accomplished by passing

water through a physically restrictivemedium (such as sand), therebyentrapping suspended particulatematter. Filtration systems are usuallylocated downstream of primary settlingponds and work best when applied towaste streams having TSS loads of 50mg/l or less. Filtration can be used toremove a wide range of suspendedparticle sizes. Next to gravitysedimentation (unaided settling),granular-media filtration is the mostwidely used process for the separationof solids from wastewater. Ultimateclarification of the filtered water is afunction of particle size, filter mediumporosity, filter loading rate, frequency ofbackwash, and other variables. Thistechnology has been demonstrated inboth industrial and municipalapplications and is cost-effective inrelation to other technologies whenreductions to 10 mg/l TSS are requiredDuring periods of steady operation ofproperly sized and designed units,granular media filters have consistentlydemonstrated the ability to achieveproposed limitations for TSS and metals.Reduction of metals is a function of themetals contained in the solids (particlesof ores, waste rock, tailings, and solidsformed during lime precipitation ofdissolved metals].

ClarifiersClarifiers are large tanks that have

systems to direct and segregate solids.

The design of these devices provides forconcentration and removal of suspendedand settleable solids in one effluentstream and a clarified liquid in theother. Clarified waters with extremelylow solids contents may be producedthrough proper design and application.Settled solids from clarifiers areremoved periodically or continuously foreither disposal or recovery of containedvalues. The use of clarifiers improvestreatment efficiency, reduces the areaneeded for tailing ponds, and facilitiesthe reuse or recycle of water in themilling operation. The use of flocculantsto enhance the performance of clarifiersis common practice. In this industry,clarifiers have their greatest use whenthe additional space for more settlingponds is not available or topographyprecludes construction of ponds.

Complete RecycleRaw wastewater discharged from a

typical ore mill is usually routed to asettling pond for suspended solids andmetals removal. In complete recycle, alltreated water is routed back to the millfor reuse in the beneficiating process.Facilities that use recycle are often inarid regions because of the scarcity ofavailable water. Many facilities both inarid and humid regions recycle at least aportion of their process wastewater.

Complete recycle of mine drainage isgenerally not a viable option. Except forsmall amounts of water used in dustcontrol, cooling, drilling fluids, andtransport fluids for sluicing tailings backto the mine, water is not widely used inmines. In some cases, mine drainage isused by the mill as process water inbeneficiation. However, the volume ofmine drainage may exceed the mill'srequirement for process water, makingcomplete reuse unachievable.

(2) Cyanide Removal,Three technologies, alkaline

chlorination, ozonation, and hydrogenperoxide oxidation were considered toconvert cyanide into the nontoxic gasescarbon dioxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2 ).These technologies do not remove toxicmetals. Cyanide appears in wastewateras the result of two processes used inthe ore mining and dressing industry: (1)the cyanidation leach process usedprimarily for gold recovery and (2) thefroth flotation process in which cyanidecomponds are used as selectivereagents. Under BPT, wastewater fromthe cyanide leach process for gold wassubject to no discharge. The cyanidelimits for the froth flotation mills underthe base and precious metals ores werelater withdrawn because of aninadequate data base. Raw wastewaterfrom froth flotation mills typicallycontains some total cyanide, but the

highest treated effluent level measuredwas less than 0.4 mg/l. A few mines inthe industry practice hydraulicbackfilling of mines with tailings fromfroth flotation process, and in thesecases, cyanide is found in the minedrainage in concentrations less thanthose found in the mill discharge.

Specific technology for destruction ofcyanide is not used at most domesticmine/mill operations that use cyanide.Such technology is generally notnecessary because in-process controlsand retention of wastewater in tailingponds have reduced cyanideconcentrations to less than detectable.The mechanism of cyanidedecomposition within a tailing pond isthrought to involve photo-decompositionby ultraviolet light, aeration, andbiological oxidation.

Some domestic and foreign mine/milloperations have investigated andimplemented specific technologies forcyanide oxidation. The technologiesmost applicable to mine/millwastewater are discussed below.

Alkaline Chlorination

In alkaline chlorination, free cyanide(CN) is oxidized to cyanate (CNO-), thento carbon dioxide (CO.) and freenitrogen (N2 ). One facility in the industrynow has an alkaline chlorination systemin operation as a standby treatment if anemergency discharge should occur (milltreatment systemjs no discharge]. Amajor mill has installed a full-scalesystem (2000 gpm). Several otherfacilities are performing treatabilitystudies to determine the applicabilityand economics of operation of thistechnology.

The process uses free chlorine orsodium hypochlorite at a pH above 10.Reagent dosage, contact time, and thenumber of stages must be suited to thewastewater in question. Optimization ofthis process is best done using pilot-scale testing. Advantages to the use ofalkaline chlorination include relativelylow reagent costs, applicability ofautomatic process control, andexperience with its use in otherindustries (e.g., electroplating).

Ozonation

In the ozonation process, the highlyreactive ozone (03) molecules readilyliberate oxygen atoms, which then reactwith cyanide to form cyanate veryrapidly. Complete oxidation to CO 2 andN2 occurs over a longer period of time(perhaps 30 minutes) with a higherconcentration of ozone. Cyanideoxidation to cyanate is very rapid (10 to15 minutes) at pH 9 to 12 and is

25692


practically instantaneous if copper ispresent.

Ozone also oxidizes other organiccompounds if sufficient ozone andretention time are provided. However,the concentrations of compounds, suchas phenol are already very low and maybe below the levels at which thistreatment may be applied economically.

Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation

This process uses hydrogen peroxideto oxidize cyanide. In practice, a 30percent solution is usually used at analkaline pH with a copper catalyst. Apatented process is also commerciallyavailable, which is capable of oxidizingcyanide to cyanate. This process hasbeen successfully employed at onemolybdenum mining and milling facilityto treat relatively low concentra4ions ofcyanide and reduce effluent levels to,near detection limit.

In-Process Control of Cyanide

As noted, sodium cyanide is used as areagent in the froth flotation process.Control of sodium cyanide dosages isimportant for optimal recovery andpurity of the ore concentrate, for controlof reagent costs, and for quality of thefacility wastewater effluent. Aninsufficient amount of reagent mayseriously reduce recovery but an excessamount seldom affects recovery exceptin extreme dosages. As a result, millsmay tend to overshoot the necessarydosage. Therefore, improvements incontrol and reduction of cyanide dosageto the absolutely necessary level willresult in lowered effluent cyanide levels.Seven mills in the industry haveinstalled on-line X-ray analysis systemsof ore feed. Other mills have replacedvalve operated reagent feeders withmetered feeders, such as the Clarkson orGeary feeder, which maintain constantflow. Use of these technologies toinfluence the amount of cyanide fed tothe process insures that the properamount of reagent required is added andreduces the possibility of "overshooting"the correct dosage.

Reagent Substitution

Research sponsored by EPA showsthat, in some cases, sodium sulfite orsodium monosulfide can replace sodiumcyanide as reagents in froth flotation. Infact, one mill in the ore industry usessodium sulfide and another uses sodiumbisulfide in its froth flotation process.However, the successful use of cyanidealternatives would generally requirereadjustment (for maximum recovery) ofthe process and adjustment of otherreagent concentrations at the flotationmill. The degree of effectiveness of anygiven reagent varies, depending on the

properties of the ore at a particularlocation. The Agency has not been ableto determine whether reagentsubstitution is feasible on an industry-wide basis.

(c) Cost Development.EPA determined the costs of applying

these technologies by obtaining costdata from equipment manufacturers andby applying standard engineering dataand cost estimation techniques (seesection IX of the developmentdocument). The Agency then assessedthe impact of these costs on individualcompanies, the subcategories within theindustry, and the Industry as a whole.

None of the in-plant control or end-of-pipe treatment technologies studied inthe development of these regulations isconsidered innovative within section301(k) of the Clean Water Act. All thein-plant controls and processmodifications described in this notice,and in greater detail in the developmentdocument, have either been used orinvestigated for use in this industry anddo not represent major process changesin cyanide control. The end-of-pipetreatmenttechnologies have also beenapplied in this and other industries.

VII. Substantive Change From PriorRegulations

This proposed rulemaking requires nomore stringent effluent limitations inmost instances than do the BPTregulations applicable to this industry.However, today's proposal vould differfrom the BPT requirements in thefollowing respect.

Storm Provision

The BPT regulation states that:Any excess water, resulting from rainfall or

snowmelt, discharged from facilitiesdesigned, constructed, and maintained tocontain or treat the volume of water whichwould result from a 10-year, 24-hourprecipitation event, shall not be subject to thelimitations set forth in 40 CFR 440.40 CFR 440.81(c) (1980).

This provision was further clarified byEPA on February 8, 1979 (see 44 FR7954]. As explained in that notice, thestorm provision modifies therequirements for both mill process waterand mine.

The (BPT) regulations are intended torequire that, if a holding facility * * * isdesigned, constructed, and maintained tohold a volume of water equal to (1) allprocess water applied by the operator to theactive leach area plus (2) a volume of stormwater which, during a 10-year, 24-hour stormevent, falls on the area which drains intosuch holding facility, then any excess waterdischarged * * * may be discharged.(44 FR 7954 (February 8, 1979))

The storm provision modified theeffluent requirements for mine drainagein similar fashion. Id.

The storm provision proposed in thisrulemaking would differ slightlydepending on whether or not a facilitymust achieve no discharge. Under theBPT provision, the storm exemption inall cases is predicated on a designvolume criterion-that the facility beconstructed and operated to provideproper treatment or containment of (1)process water and (2) a volume of waterequal to the volume that would resultfrom a 10-year, 24-hour storm. If thefacility met that volume criterion, thestorm provision could apply during astorm of any magnitude. In short, thestorm exemption was tied to a designvolume, not to a design storm event.

However, this proposed rulemakingties the storm exemption to the 10-year,24-hour storm event for new sourcessubject to no discharge requirements.For example, wastewater from a copperdump leach operation, which is subjectto no discharge (40 CFR 440.124), mustbe contained, including all storm runoffdraining into the holding pond. Processwastewater may be discharged onlywhen a 10-year, 24-hour or largerprecipitation event occurs. For facilitiesnot subject to no discharge (e.g., existingfroth flotation mills and existing andnew source mine drainage), the stormprovision remains tied to a designvolume criterion. The Agency recognizesthat these facilities, which frequentlyhave a continuous discharge, may not beable to meet the prescribed effluentlimitations during storms smaller than a10-year event.

VIII. Pollutant Parameter Selection

(A) Pollutants Not Regulated

The Revised Settlement Agreementdiscussed in Sections I and II authorizesthe exclusion from regulation, in certaininstances, of pollutants and industrysubcategories. Data collected by EPAand individual companies within theindustry were used in deciding whichspecific toxic pollutants would beexcluded.

Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the RevisedSettlement Agreement allows theAdministrator to exclude fromregulation toxic pollutants notdetectable by section 304(h) analyticalmethods or other state-of-the-artmethods. This provision includespollutants below EPA's nominaldetection limit. In addition, Paragraph8(a)(iii) allows the exclusion ofpollutants that were detected inamounts too small to be effectivelyreduced by technologies known to the

25693

Federal Register / Vol.'47, No. 114 / Monday, June 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules

Administrator. Pollutants excludedunder these provisions are listed inAppendices B, C and D. One hundredand thirteen toxic organics, cyanide andsix toxic metals are excluded fromregulation under these provisions.

Cyanide, as measured by the EPA-approved method for total cyanide, issubject to 100-percent error whenapplied to the concentrations found inthe discharges from the ore mining anddressing point source category.Problems were frequently encounteredwith quality control and analysis ofcyanide in mining wastewater samplesusing the EPA-approved BelackDistillation method. A study of theanalysis of cyanide in ore mining andprocessing wastewater was conductedin cooperation with industry, EPA'sEMSL laboratory in Cincinnati, andprivate chemical laboratories. (SectionV of the development documentpresents a discussion of this study).

This study indicates that anylimitation for cyanide from this industrymust allow an analytical measurementof up to 0.4 mg/i for total cyanide,where the sample is collected as a grabsample. Because of inprocess controlson the use of cyanide which have beenimplemented by the industry and thenatural aeration that occurs in the BPTsystems designed essentially for theremoval of metals and TSS, all of theeffluent data on total cyanide and manyexisting permit conditions showconcentrations below 0.4 mg/1.Therefore, further reduction of cyanideis unnecessary and beyond thetechnologies known to theAdministrator.

Paragraph 8(a)(iii) also allows theAdministrator to exclude fromregulation pollutants detected in theeffluent of only a small number ofsources within the category anduniquely related to those sources. Thetoxic organic pollutant, 2,4-dimethylphenol, was detected in theeffluent at only one facility (9202) duringthe screen samplingprogram. AerofloatTM, used as a flotation agent in orebeneficiation at this facility, is aprecursor of 2,4-dimethylphenol. Thus,2,4-dimethylphenol is excluded underthis provision.

Paragraph 8(a)(iii) also allows theAdministrator to exclude fromregulation pollutants that are effectivelycontrolled by the technology upon whichother effluent limitations and guidelinesare based. The Agency believes that thetechnology upon which BPT and BCTeffluent limitations for TSS are basedwill effectively control the toxicpollutant asbestos (chrysotile). Asdiscussed in Section X of this notice,

BCT limitations for TSS are establishedequal to BPT limitations.

Furthermore, the Agency believes thatarsenic and nickel found in dischargesfrom ore mining and dressing areadequately controlled by the incidentalremoval associated with the control andremoval of other metals found in thedischarges from this industry, e.g.,copper, lead, mercury, and zinc. Whereany of these metals are limited, they arealso found in the raw discharge and ifcontrolled to the limitations specified,any arsenic and nickel in the rawdischarge would be reduced to levelsthat would be proposed if arsenic andnickel were controlled directly (seesection X of the developmentdocument).

Paragraph 8(a)(i) allows the exclusionof specific pollutants or subcategoriesfor which equal or more stringentprotection is already provided by aneffluent standard, new sourceperformance standard, or pretreatmentstandard. EPA proposes to excludeparticular subcategorins and subparts aslisted in Appendix G where BPTprovides protection equal to thoseoptions considered for BAT.

In addition to the toxic pollutantsexcluded for all subcategories, EPA isproposing to exclude certain toxicpollutants from particular subcategoriesand subparts. These pollutants wereeither not detected or detected inparticular subcategories and subpartsand then excluded because thepollutants were present in amounts toosmall to be effectively reduced bytechnologies known to theAdministrator. See Appendix H forpollutants excluded by subcategory andsubpart.

In addition to the toxic pollutantsexcluded for subcategories andsubparts, EPA is proposing to excludefrom BAT the uranium mill subpart ofthe uranium ore subcategory. Asubcategory or subpart may be excludedfor a specific pollutant if the pullutant isdetectable in the effluent from only asmall number of sources within thesubcategory or subpart and the pollutantis uniquely related to these sources.Currently eighteen of iineteen existinguranium mills achieve zero discharge ofprocess wastewater. In addition, theAgency knows of no uranium mill thatcommingles its process wastewater withmine drainage and it is anticipated thatnone of these zero discharge mills wouldelect to treat and discharge at the BPTlimitations because of the expense toinstall BPT, i.e., ion exchange, ammoniastripping, lime precipitation, bariumchloride coprecipitation, and settling.Therefore, the pollutants detected in the

uranium mill subpart are uniquelyrelated to one point source, the singledischarging mill, and the uranium millsubpart is excluded from BAT under theprovision. However, as discussed insection XI of this preamble, NSPS isproposed at zero discharge.

The limitations in this regulation havebeen developed to apply to the generalcase for this industry category. Inspecific cases, the NPDES permittingauthority may have to establish permitlimits on toxic pollutants that are notsubject to limitations in this regulation(see Section XVII of this preamble).

(B) Regulated Pollutants

The basis on which the controlledpollutants were selected is set out inSection VII of the developmentdocument.

(1) BAT and NSPS. Five toxicpollutants found in the ore mining anddressing wastewaters are controlled,except when excluded by criteriadescribed in subsection (A) above. BATlimitations and NSPS are beingestablished for cadmium, copper, lead,mercury, and zinc in particularsubcategories and subparts.

In addition to the control of toxics,nonconventional pollutants which wereregulated under BPT are beingcontrolled in BAT. Effluent limitationsare being established for: radium 226(total and dissolved), uranium,aluminum, and iron (total and dissolved)in the same subcategories and subpartswhere these pollutants were regulated inBPT.

Pollutants are subject to limitationsexpressed in milligrams per liter ormilliliters per liter for settleable solids.The rationale for the development ofconcentration-based limitations insteadof those based on mass loadings ispresented in Section III.

Pollutants that were regulated underBPT and have the same requirementsunder BAT include the toxic metals andthe nonconventional pollutants: radium226 (total and dissolved), uraniumaluminum, and iron.(total anddissolved).

(2) BCT. Specific effluent limitationsbased on BPT are being established forTSS and pH. TSS is also used to controlthe toxic pollutant asbestos (chrysotile)."Asbestiform fibers" are evident indischarges from ore mining and millingfacilities, and chrysotile asbestos wasdetected in wastewaters in allsubcategories and subparts. Thedifficulty and high cost of analyses forasbestos (chrysotile) found in ore miningand dressing wastewaters has promptedEPA to propose an alternative method ofregulation. The BPT and proposed BCT

25694


effluent limitations on TSS, discussed inSection X of this notice, will also controlasbestos. The data available to EPAshow that the reduction of TSS results ina concomitant reduction in asbestos(chrysotile) to levels that the Agencybelieves are approximately equal tonatural background levels. The Agencybelieves the limitations on TSS willreduce the difficulty, high cost, anddelays of pollutant monitoring andanalyses that result if compliancemonitoring is based on specific effluentlimitations on asbestos (chrysotile). EPAestimates that the indirect regulation byTSS rather than direct regulation ofasbestos will save each facility between$3,000 and $11,000 annually inmonitoring and analysis costs.

In the initial review of the drafttechnical documents supporting theregulation (see Section XVIII of thispreamble), EPA received comments onwhether chrysotile asbestos wasactually present in some facilitiesdischarges from this industry. If afacility wants to determine whether it isdischarging asbestos, the mine or milloperator may monitor for chrysotileasbestos with the limitation of a dailymaximum not to exceed 1 x 108 fibers/liter to confirm the absence of asbestosabove natural background levels.

IX. BAT Effluent Limitations

The factors considered in assessingBAT include the age of equipment andfacilities involved, the processemployed, process changes, non-waterquality environmental impacts(including energy requirements), and thecosts of applying such technology.(Section 304(b)(2)(]) In general, theBAT level represents the besteconomically achievable performance ofplants of various ages, sizes, processes,or other shared characteristics. Whereexisting performance is uniformlyinadequate in a particular subcategory,BAT may be transferred from a differentsubcategory or category. BAT mayinclude process changes or internalcontrols, even when not commonindustry practice.

The statutory assessment of BATconsiders costs but does not require abalancing of costs against effluentreduction benefits. See Weyerhaeuser v.Castle, 590 F. 2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).Nevertheless, in developing the -proposed BAT effluent limitations EPAhas given substantial weight to thereasonableness of costs. The Agencyhas considered the volume and nature ofdischarges, the volume and nature ofdischarges expected after application ofBAT, the general environmental effectsof the pollutants, the technicalfeasibility of implementing the

technology, and the costs and economicimpacts of the required pollution controllevels.

(A) BAT Options for Reduction of ToxicMetal Pollutants

The options considered for BAT areessentially all "add-on" treatmenttechnologies and would be used aftertreating wastewater in BPT systems (seeSection VI (a)).

A study was performed to evaluatethe relation of toxic metals to TSSreduction when candidate BATtechnologies were applied to ore miningand dressing wastewater (see SectionVII of the development document). EPAdetermined that removing the toxicmetals to be regulated is directlycorrelated to the removal of TSS.Therefore, suspended solids removaltechnologies can also be used to removethe toxic metals in this industry. Thesetechnologies are discussed as optionsfor all subcategories and subparts. (Fora discussion of the individual treatmenttechnologies, see Section VI of thispreamble.)

Option 1: Secondary Settling. Anothersettling pond is added in series with anyexisting ponds required for BPT. EPAestimates that no mines/mills wouldclose as a result of adopting Option 1.

Option 2: Coagulation/Flocculation.Chemical coagulating/flocculating aidsare added followed by mixing andsettling. EPA estimates that no mines/mills would close as a result of adoptingOption 2.

Option 3: Grandular Media Filtration.Granular media, such as sand andanthracite coal, are used to filter out thesuspended solids and associated toxicmetals. EPA estimates that no mines/mills will close as a result of adoptingOption 3.

Option 4. Zero Discharge/CompleteRecycle. Mill process water iscompletely recycled and reused (notonce-through mine water used as millprocess water). This option wasanalyzed only for the uraniumsubcategory. EPA recognizes that sometreatment of process water may berequired before reuse in the process.EPA estimates that one mine/millemploying 160 persons might close as aresult of adopting Option 4. This optionwas considered for froth-flotation mills,but was rejected for technical reasonsbecause of the potential changes insome of the existing metallurgicalprocesses. Therefore, no economicanalysis was conducted for existingfroth-flotation mills required to go tozero discharge.

Option 5: BA T Equals BPT. In-placeBPT is used. This option is viable if (1)the candidate BAT treatment

technologies do not appreciably reducethe levels of toxics below levels in BPT,(2) the levels measured were at or belowdetection levels, (3) the amount andtoxicity of the pollutant does not requirefurther control, or (4) BPT specified nodischarge.

(b) BAT Selection and DecisionCriteria Subcategories and SubpartsUnder Option 5. Option 5 BAT equalsBPT, has been selected for iron ore millsin the Mesabi Range; copper, lead, zinc,silver, gold, platinum and molybdenum,mines and mills that use leach torecover copper, mills that use thecyanidation process to recover gold; andmercury mills, since BPT specified zerodischarge of process wastewater.Therefore, no additional reduction oftoxic pollutants is possible under BATfor these subparts.

Since the application of candidateBAT did not reduce the levels of thetoxic pollutants, this option has alsobeen selected for iron ore mine drainageand mill process water (not in theMesabi Range), aluminum ore minedrainage (there are no mills), titaniumore mine drainage, mills, and dredges,and mercury ore mine drainage. Theconcentration levels of toxic metalsfound in effluents from thesesubcategories and subparts are at ornear detection levels or are found atconcentrations below the practicallimits of additional technology.Consequently, further reduction of theseparameters is not technically oreconomically justified.

However, BPT controlled certainnonconventional pollutants in thesesubcategories and subparts, includingiron and aluminum. BAT for thesesubcategories and subparts will controlthese nonconventional pollutants at BPTlevels.

Subcategories and Subparts UnderOption 4. Option 4, no discharge, wasconsidered for process wastewateremanating from uranium mills. Of the 19operating mills, 18 now achieve zerodischarge of process wastewater. TheAgency believes that uranium millsshould be excluded from BAT regulationunder paragraph 8 of the ConsentDecree (as discussed in Section VIII ofthis notice).

Subcategories and Subparts UnderOption 1, Option 1, secondary settlingwas considered for copper, lead, zinc,gold, silver, platinum, and molybdenummine drainage and mill wastewater fromfroth flotation process, titanium oremills, and tungsten mine drainage andmill wastewater, but was not chosen.

The effluent limitations consideredunder this option were derived by thefollowing method: eighteen facilities

25695


throughout the ore mining and dressingindustry were identified as usingmultiple settling ponds; fourteenfacilities using coagulation andflocculation; and one facility usinggranular media filtration. The entireBAT and BPT data base was searchedand screened to obtain 17 facilities withdata. Of these 17 facilities, 7 wereeliminated because the Agency believedthat they were not operated properly(e.g., observed short circuiting in thesettling ponds) or no raw wastewaterdata was available to compare withtreated effluent.

The facility mean values were rankedfor each pollutant from largest tosmallest. Since each facility used onlyone of the candidate BAT treatmenttechnologies, the facility mean alsorepresents a treatment technology meanvalue. When examining the rankedmean values, EPA observed that meanvalues for secondary settling were bothsmaller and larger than those forflocculation and granular mediafiltration. This variation indicates thatthe differences between facilities aregreater than the differences betweentreatment technologies. Possibly,differences exist between the trueperformance capabilities of thetreatment technology; however, on thebasis of available data, the Agency isunable to discern such differences.

The 10 facilities were then furtherreduced to six by eliminating facilitieswhose raw waste contained lowpollutant concentrations. Data for aparticular pollutant was excluded if themedian raw wastewater concentrationwas less than the average facilityeffluent concentration of any otherfacility. Of the six facilities, 5 usesecondary settling and one usesgranular media filtration. Since theAgency was unable to discern any truedifference in the levels achievable bythe three technologies (based onavailable data), it selected the leastcostly alternative for establishingeffluent limitations, secondary settling.

Effluent limitations were derived byusing the average of the facilityaverages for each pollutant to representthe average discharge. The statisticalanalysis used data from the fivefacilities using secondary settling (twocopper, two lead/zinc, and one silver)that remained following the screeningprocedures described above. Most of thedata were supplied by the industry.

The method used to derive thelimitations assumed that within planteffluent concentrations are log normallydistributed. The 30-day averagemaximum and daily maximum effluentlimits were determined on the basis of99-percent percentile estimates. The 30-

day limits were determined on thecentral limit theorem. (Furtherexplanation is provided in Section X ofthe development document). Thelimitations derived from the dataanalysis for some metals in thesubcategories were more stringent thanthe BPT limitations.

However, because 95 percent of therelevant pollutants are removed by BPTand because of the unique nature of theore mining industry effluent and otherfactors, the Agency has determined thatnationally applicable regulations basedon secondary settling are not warranted.(See section X of the developmentdocument.)

Where site specific considerations,including the pH of the receiving stream,so indicate, individual permit writersmay impose more stringent limitations.

Control of Asbestos (Chrysotile).Direct regulation and indirect

regulation through control of TSS wereconsidered for asbestos. The analyticalmethod used to determine theconcentration of asbestos is not anapproved EPA method and though themethod is the most viable one available,there are serious concerns as to itsprecision and accuracy.

Asbestos (chrysotile) is controlled inBAT by the BPT and BCT effluentlimitations on TSS. Individual mines ormills may monitor for asbestos(chrysotile) using the anayltical methodas defined in Supplement B of thetechnical development document shouldthey wish to establish that their effluentasbestos (chrysotile) level is less than 1x 108 fibers per liter.

Regulation of Gold Placer Mines.Gold placer mines were not regulatedunder BPT because of insufficient data.The data gathering effort for thisrulemaking included two separatestudies of existing gold placer mines inAlaska. These studies support effluentlimitations on settleable solids as theappropriate and most viable control ofpollutants in the wastewater dischargesfrom gold placer mines. However, theactual effluent quality data from existingsettling ponds associated with goldplacer mines is limited because manymines do not operate settling ponds andmany of the remaining mines settlingponds are undersized, filled withsediment, or short circuited. The datafrom well constructed, operated, andmaintained settling ponds is limited todemonstration projects and a fewexisting settling ponds which may notbe truly representative of gold placermining operations.

Moreover, no economic analysis wasperformed for the gold placer miningsubpart because no data are available,

although several requests for data havebeen made to that industry.

In the absence of more informationregarding the environmental benefitsand economic impact of regulating goldplacer mines, the placer mining subpartof the copper, lead, zinc, silver, gold,platinum and molybdenum subcategoryis reserved in this rulemaking while theAgency solicits additional informationon which to base a decision.

X. BCT Effluent Limitations

The 1977 Amendments added Section304(b)(4) to the Act, establishing BCT fordischarges of conventional pollutantsfrom existing industrial point sources.Conventional pollutants are thosedefined in Section 304(b)(4)-BOD, TSS,fecal coliform, and pH-and anyadditional pollutants defined by theAdminsitrator as "conventional." OnJuly 30, 1978, EPA designated oil andgrease as conventional pollutants (see44 FR 44501).

On July 28, 1981, the Fourth CircuitCourt of Appeals remanded theregulations establishing the "bestconventional technology" (BCT)methodology and directed EPA toconduct an additional cost-effectivenesstest and to correct data errors.American Paper Institute v. EPA, No.79-1511. While EPA Has not yetpromulgated a new BCT methodology,EPA is proposing BCT Limitations forthe ore mining and dressing industry.These limits are identical to those forBPT. Since BPT is the minimal level ofcontrol required by law, no possiblereassessment of BCT pursuant to theCourt's remand could result in BCTlimitations lower than those proposedtoday. Accordingly, there is no reason towait until EPA revises the BCTmethodology before proposing theseBCT limitations.

XI. New Source Performance Standards(NRSPS)

The basis for new source performancestandards (NSPS) under Section 306 ofthe Act is the application of the bestavailable demonstrated technology(BADT). New facilities have theopportunity to implement the best andmost efficient ore mining and millingprocesses and wastewater technologies.Accordingly, Congress directed EPA toconsider the best demonstrated processchanges and end-of-pipe treatmenttechnologies capable of reducingpollution to the maximum extentfeasible through a standard ofperformance which includes, "wherepracticable, a standard permitting nodischarge of pollutants."

25696


(A) NSPS Options

(1) Option 1: Require achievement ofperformance standards in eachsubcategory that are based on the sametechnology proposed for BAT.

(2) Option 2: Require standards thatare based on a complete water recyclesystem (no discharge of pollutants).

(B) NSPS Selection and DecisionCriteria Subcategories and SubpartsUnder Option 1

This proposed rulemaking requiresthat all facilities in the ore mining anddressing industry achieve performancestandards based on the same technologyproposed for BAT, except those facilitiesusing froth flotation in the copper, lead,zinc, gold, silver, platinum, andmolybdenum subcategory and mills inthe uranium subcategory. Option I hasbeen selected for iron ore mills in theMesabi range; copper, lead, zinc, silver,gold, platinum, and molybdenum millsthat use leaching to recover copper andthe cyanidation process for the recoveryof gold; and mercury mills since BATspecifies zero discharge. Option 1 hasalso been selected for iron ore minedrainage, iron ore mills, aluminum minedrainage, copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver,platinum, and molybdenum minedrainage, titanium mine drainage,dredges and mills, and mercury minedrainage. The concentration levels oftoxic metals found in new sources inthese subcategories and subparts areexpected to be similar to existingsources. Since concentrations of sometoxic metals were found at or neardetection levels or at concentrationsbelow the practical limits of additionaltechnology, further reduction of theseparameters would not be technically oreconomically justified.Subcategories and Subparts UnderOption 2

The Agency proposes that new sourcecopper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, platinum,and molybdenum mills that use frothflotation achieve zero discharge ofprocess wastewater.

For this subpart, EPA considered zerodischarge based on recycle for BAT, butrejected it because of the extensiveretrofit required at some existingfacilities, the cost of retrofitting, and thepossible changes required in theprocess. This concern does not apply tonew sources. Recycle, if required toachieve zero discharge, is ademonstrated technology and meets thedefinition of standard of performancepermitting zero discharge of pollutants.New sources have the option to recyclebecause the metallurgical processes canbe adjusted and designed to recycle

process wastewater before the actualconstruction of the new source. Whilereagent buildup has been mentioned byindustry as a potential problem inextractive metallurgy, no evidence hasbeen submitted to validate thisassertion. The Agency will entertain anyspecific comments containing actualdata which may validate the assertion.

The Agency proposes that new sourceuranium mills achieve zero discharge ofprocess wastewater. For this subpart,EPA considered zero discharge for BATbased on total impoundment andevaporation or recycle and reuse of themill process water or a combination ofthese technologies. Because thepollutants detected in the currentdischarge from this subpart are uniquelyrelated to one point source, the singlemill discharging, the uranium millsubpart is excluded from BAT (seesection VIII of this preamble).

However, the Agency believes that fornew sources a standard of performancemust be proposed. Otherwise additionaldischarges (new sources) could occurthat obviously would not be unique toone source. New source mills areanticipated by the Agency and thesemills can achieve zero discharge asindicated by the fact that 18 of 19 millscurrently achieve no discharge.

EPA estimates that the cost toimplement zero discharge for newsources would approximate the cost toimplement the technology identified asBPT for the two subparts, therefore, thezero discharge requirement should notimpede construction of new facilities.(See section IX of the developmentdocument).

XII. Best Management Practices

As described in sections I and I,section 304(e) of the Act authorizes theAdministrator to publish regulations tocontrol discharges of significantamounts of toxic pollutants undersection 307 or hazardous substancesunder section 311 to avoid activities thatthe Administrator determines areassociated with or ancillary to industrialmanufacturing or treatment process.

Section 402(a)(1) of the Act allows theAdministrator to prescribe conditions ina permit determined necessary to carryout the provisions of the Act. BMPs areone such condition. The discharges to becontrolled by BMPs are plant site runoff,spillage or leaks, sludge or wastedisposal and drainage from raw materialstorage.

EPA intends to develop BMPs that are(1] applicable to all industrial sites (2)applicable to a designated industrialcategory, or (3) capable of guidingpermit authorities in establishing BMPs

required by unique circumstances of agiven plant.

The ore mining and dressing industryhas numerous problem areas, includingstorm water runoff, groundwaterinfiltration, and seepage. Section XIII ofthe development document addressespossible BMP approaches and can guidethe permitting agency'in developingcase-by-case BMP requirements forNPDES permits. The followingparagraphs contain a brief description ofsome possible BMP approaches.

Minimizing the volume of watercontaminated in a mine is desirablebecause the mass of pollutants to betreated is less. Diversion of wateraround a mine site to prevent its contactwith possible pollution-formingmaterials is an effective and widelyapplied control technique. For example,settling ponds should be designed withadequate drainage and storm waterdiversion around the pond.

Regrading or recontouring of sometypes of surface mines, and surfacewaste piles can be used to modifysurface runoff, decrease erosion, andprevent infiltration of water into themine area.

Mine-sealing techniques are morefrequently applied to inactive orabandoned mines. Internal sealing byplacing barriers within an undergroundmine can be used in an active mine.However, this practice must be appliedwith caution. The barriers must becarefully designed so as to preventinundation of the working areas.

Most of the metal-ore mines examinedin this report practice some measure ofmine drainage control, includingregulated pumping of mine drainagesand the use of mine drainage as intakemill process water. Use of mine water asmakeup water in mill circuits is adesirable management practice and iswidely implemented in this industry.

In some situations, operators mustprevent or control seepage of toxicsubstances into groundwater supplies.Prevention of seepage fromimpoundment systems can be achievedby the use of liners. Pond liners fall intotwo general categories: natural (clay ortreated clay) and synthetic (commonlypolyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene(PE), chlorinated polyethylene (CPE), orHypalon). Other materials that can beused as pond liners are compactedearth, waste tailings, concrete,shotcrete, rock or brick. See section VIIIof the Development Document.

XIII. Variances and Modifications

After the final regulations arepromulgated, the effluent limitationsmust be incorporated in all new or

25697


renewed NPDES permits issued to directdischargers in this industrial category,and also in those permits that have beenissued with a reopener clause.

The BAT, BPT and BCT effluentlimitations are subject to EPA's"fundamentally different factors"variance. See E. I. du Pont de Nemoursand Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 1112 (1977);EPA v. National Crushed StoneAssociation, 101 S. Ct. 295 (1980)Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Castle, supra. Thisvariance recognizes factors concerning aparticular discharger that arefundamentally different from the factorsconsidered in this rulemaking. Althoughthis variance clause was set forth inEPA's 1973-1976 industry regulations, itwill now be included only by referencein the ore mining and dressing and otherindustry regulations. (See 40 CFR125.30-.32, for the text and explanationof the "fundamentally different factors"variance.)

In addition, BAT limitations fornonconventional pollutants are subjectto modifications under sections 301(c)and 301(g) of the Act. These statutorymodifications do not apply to toxic orconventional pollutants. According tosection 301(j)(1)(B), applications forthese modifications must be filed within270 days after promulgation of finaleffluent limitations guidelines. (See 43FR 40859 September 13, 1978).

NSPS is not subject to modificationthrough EPA's "fundamentally differentfactors" variance or any statutory orregulatory modifications. (See du Pontvs. Train, supra).

After reviewing MSHA and ArmyCorps of Engineers regulations, designguidelines, and holding discussions withrepresentatives of the appropriateFederal regulatory agencies (Departmentof Labor, Department of Interior,Department of Defense), EPA isconfident that the impoundmentfacilities needed to comply with theregulations proposed in this notice arereasonable, and that no additionaldanger will result from theirimplementation. If evidence is submittedto the Agency that indicates thatfacilities would have to construct astructure which would violate safetystandards set out by a State or Federalagency, EPA will consider granting avariance. The Agency does not expectthe construction of impoundmentfacilities would result in violation ofState or Federal safety standards.However, if an operation submits to thepermitting authority evidence to thecontrary, a variance from the nationaleffluent limitations may be consideredthrough the "fundamentally differentfactors" variance. Under nocircumstances will an owner or operator

be required to violate applicable safetystandards to meet these requirements. Ifmore than isolated instances occur, EPAwill consider amending this regulation.However, the State and Federalauthorities with whom EPA hasconsulted on this matter uniformly haveconcluded that safety issues shouldarise infrequently, if at all.

XIV. Upset and Bypass Provisions

An issue of recurrent concern hasbeen whether industry guidelines shouldinclude provisions authorizingnoncompliance With effluent limitationsduring periods of "upset" or "bypass."An upset, sometimes called an''excursion," is unintentionalnoncompliance occurring for reasonsbeyond the reasonable control of thepermittee. Some argue that an upsetprovision in EPA's effluent limitationsguidelines is necessary because suchupsets will inevitably occur because ofthe limitations, even in properlyoperated control equipment. Becausetechnology-based limitations requireonly what technology can achieve, someclaim that liability for such situations isimproper. When confronted with thisissue, courts have disagreed on thequestion of whether an explicit upset orexcursion exemption is necessary, orwhether upset or excursion incidentsmay be handled through EPA's exerciseof enforcement discretion.

While an upset is an unintentionalepisode during which effluent limits areexceeded, a bypass is an act ofintentional noncompliance during whichwaste treatment facilities arecircumvented in emergency situations.Bypass provisions have in the past beenincluded in NPDES permits.

EPA has determined that both explicitupset and bypass provisions should beincluded in NPDES permits and haspromulgated NPDES regulations thatinclude upset and bypass permitprovisions (see 45 FR 33448, 122.60 (g)and (h) (May 19, 1980)). The upsetprovision establishes an upset as anaffirmative defense if an operation isprosecuted for violating a techology-based effluent limitation. The bypassprovision authorizes bypassing toprevent loss of life, personal injury, orsevere property damage.

The Agency has received severalinquiries on the relation between thegeneral upset and bypass provisions setforth in the consolidated permitregulations and the storm exemptioncontained in the BPT regulations for oremining and dressing. The stormexemption discussed in Section VII ofthis preamble supersedes the genericupset and bypass provisions withrespect to precipitation events; that is,

an operator wishing to obtain relief fromBAT limitations and NSPS duringprecipitation events must comply withthe prerequisites of the rainfallexemption provision. However, theupset and bypass provisions areavailable in all other applicablesituations.

XV. Non-Water-Quality Aspects ofPollution Control

The elimination or reduction of oneform of pollution may aggravate otherenvironmental problems. Therefore,section 304(b) and 306 of the Act requireEPA to consider the non-water-qualityenvironmental impacts (including energyrequirements) of certain regulations. Incompliance with these provisions, EPAhas considered the effect of theseregulations on air pollution, solid wastegeneration, land requirements, andenergy consumption. This proposal wascirculated to and reviewed by EPApersonnel responsible for non-water-quality environmental programs. Whilebalancing pollution problems againsteach other and against energy use isdifficult, EPA is proposing a regulationthat it believes best serves competingnational goals.

The following are the non-water-quality environmental impactsassociated with proposed regulation.

Air Pollution

Imposition of BAT and BCTlimitations and NSPS will not create anyadditional air pollution problems.

Solid Waste Generation

Some of the solid waste productionassociated with the ore mining anddressing industry is generated bytreatment systems installed primarily totreat wastewater. For subcategories inwhich the Agency has concluded thatBAT limitations are equal to those underBPT, BAT standards add no additionalsolid waste. In those subparts for whichNSPS is more stringent than BPT, theincrease in solid waste generated shouldnot be greater than one percent.

In addition, section 7 of the SolidWaste Disposal Act Amendments of1980 has exempted under Subtitle C ofthe RCRA solid waste from theextraction, beneficiation, and processingof ores and minerals. This exemptionwill remain in effect until at least sixmonths after the Administrator submitsa study on the adverse environmentaleffects of solid waste from mining. Thestudy is required to be submitted byOctober 21, 1983 (see 42 U.S.C. 6982).

25698


Land Requirements

As a general rule, imposition of BAT,BCT, and NSPS standards is notexpected to create any significantadverse impacts on land requirementsbeyond those associated with BPTstandards.

Energy Consumption

Achievement of BAT and BCTlimitations and NSPS will not result in asignificant net increase in energyrequirements. The main use of energy isfor pumping, mixing, and controlinstrumentation. Wherever feasible,gravity flow is used in treatmentfacilities for mine drainage and millprocess wastewater.

XVI. Costs And Economic Impact

Executive Order 12291 requires thatEPA and other agencies performRegulatory Impact Analyses of majorregulations. The three conditions thatdetermine whether a regulation isclassified as major are:

* An annual effect on the economy of$100 million or more or-

* A major increase in costs or pricesfor consumers, individual industries,federal, state, or local governmentagencies, or geographic regions; or

* Significant adverse effects oncompetition, employment, investmentproductivity, innovation, or on theability of United States basedenterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or exportmarkets.

EPA estimates that compliance withthese regulations (BAT, BCT, NSPS) forall subcategories will impose noadditional cost burden on industry.

EPA believes that this regulation willhave no impact on prices and nosignificant effects on competition,employment, investment, productivity,innovation or the balance of payments.Therefore, EPA believes that this doesnot constitute a major regulation.

Nonetheless EPA conducted adetailed economic impact analysis on allportions of the industry except smalltungsten mines and mills and goldplacer mines. This analysis wasconducted using financial data suppliedby industry on a confidential basis. Theanalysis used discounted cash flowtechniques to estimate a net presentvalue for each facility. Only oneuranium mill was projected to close withthe application of any of thetechnologies under consideration.Because this rule imposes no significantcost and therefore no economic impacton any portion of the industry includedin the economic analysis, and becauseof concerns about the sensitive nature of

the confidential information supplied byindustry, EPA is not publishing thisanalyses.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: Pub.L. 96-354 requires that EPA prepare anInitial Regulatory Flexibility Analysisfor all proposed regulations that have asignificant impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. This analysismust:

* Describe the reasons, objectives,and legal basis for the proposed rule;

* Describe, and where feasible.estimate the number of small entitiesaffected by the proposed rule;

* Describe the reporting,recordkeeping, and other .compliancerequirements; '

e Identify any Federal rules that mayduplicate, overlap, or conflict with theproposed rule;

* Describe any significantalternatives that would accomplish thestated objectives, and summarize anysignificant economic impacts of theproposed rules on small entities.

Many of the provisions of the InitialRegulatory Flexibility Analysis havebeen addressed in detail in othersections of this preamble. Sections I,HA, and III discuss the legal authorityand objectives of the proposed rules.Sections XVIII and XIX discuss thepublic participation procedures. SectionXVII discusses the reportingrequirements. The Agency is not awareof any other Federal rules that mayoverlap or conflict with this proposedrule.

Therefore there can be no significantimpact on a substantial number of smallentities.

RCRA CostsOn May 19, 1980, EPA promulgated

Interim Status Standards (ISS])forhandling and disposal of hazardouswastes under the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)(see 45 FR 33066). As a part of assessingthe economic impact of the BAT andBCT limitations and NSPS on anindustry, EPA includes the cost of wastedisposal based on current practices thatmay not comply with the RCRA-ISS.Solid waste from the extraction,beneficiation, and processing of ores isnow excluded from regulation underSubtitle C of RCRA. Such waste may notbe regulated under Subtitle C until atleast six months after the Administratorsubmits a study on the adverse effectsof solid wastes from mining. The studymust be submitted by October 21, 1983'(see 42 U.S.C. 6982). To predict whatregulations, if any, may be applied to ,theore mining industry under RCRASubtitle C is not possible. Therefore, theAgency has not projected any costs for

RCRA ISS compliance in its economicimpact analysis.

XVU. Relation to NPDES Permits

The BAT and BCT limitations andNSPS in this regulation will be appliedto individual ore mines and millsthrough NPDES permits issued by EPAor approved State agencies, undersection 401 of the Act. Immediately afterpromulgation of final regulations, theeffluent limitations must be incorporatedin all Federal NPDES permits issued toore mining and dressing directdischargers. Permits issued'by Stateswith NPDES authority must havelimitations as stringent as thoseproposed in this regulation. However;State-issued NPDES permits maycontain, as determined by each Statepermit issuing authority, limitations thatare more stringent than those proposedtoday.

If this regulation does not control aparticular pollutant, the permit issuer isnot precluded from limiting such apollutant on a case-by-case basis whennecessary to carry out the purposes ofthe Act. In addition, to the extent thatState water quality standards or otherprovisions of State or Federal lawrequire limitation of pollutants notcovered by this regulation (or requiremore stringent limitations on coveredpollutants), such limitations can beapplied by the permit-issuing authority.

With respect to monitoringrequirements, the Agency intends toestablish a regulation requiringpermittees to conduct additionalmonitoring when they violate permitlimitations. The provisions of suchmonitoring requirements will be specificfor each permittee and may includeanalysis for some or all of the toxicpollutants or the use of biomonitoringtechniques. The additional monitoring isdesigned to determine the cause of theviolation, necessary correctivemeasures, and the identity and quantityof toxic pollutants discharged. Thepermit-issuing authority will evaluateeach violation on a case-by-case basis.(For more discussion of thisrequirement, see 45. FR 33290 (May 19,1980)).

One additional topic that warrantsdistussion is the operation of EPA'sNPDES, enforcement program, manyaspects of which have been consideredin developing this regulation. TheAgency emphasizes that, although theClean Water Act is a strict liabilitystatute, EPA can initiate enforcementproceedings at its discretion. EPA hasexercised and intends to exercise thisdiscretion in a manner that recognizesand promotes good faith compliance

'25699


efforts and conserves enforcementresources for those who fail to makegood faith efforts to comply with theAct.

XVIII. Summary of Public ParticipationBefore publication of this notice, EPA

distributed a contractor's draft technicaldocument to Federal agencies, all Stateand territorial pollution controlagencies, industry trade associations(including the American MiningCongress and American Iron OreAssociation), and conservationorganizations, including the NaturalResources Defense Council. Commentson that report were solicited. The majorcomments and the Agency's responsesare set forth below.

The following groups responded to therequest for written comments containedin the letter of transmittal sent alongwith the contractor's draft technicaldocument: American Mining Congress,Bunker Hill Company, NaturalResources Defense Council, Inc.,Prather, Seeger, Doolittle, and Farmer,St. Joe Minerals Corporation, Trusteesfor Alaska, U.S. Department ofInterior-Bureau of Mines, U.S.Department of Labor, USEPA-Environmental Research Laboratory(Athens, GA), Walter C. McCroneAssociates, Inc., White Pine CopperDivision.

Comment: One commenter expressedconcern that the 1976 costs presented inthe contractors draft were outdated anddid not reflect variability on a regionalbasis. One commenter stated that thecost assumptions and factors used werenot documented properly and further,that the treatment costs could not beevaluated because the parameters and-levels chosen for regulation were notknown. One commenter stated thatmonitoring costs should be furthersupported and another, stated that wastedisposal costs might be too low if thewastes were defined under RCRA as"hazardous."

Response: At the time thecontractor's draft was forwarded forcomment, the Agency was revising coststo reflect a December 1979 data base.Each facility's potential treatment costswere evaluated several options forcontrol and treatment. These updatedand revised costs are summarized in thedevelopment document which outlinesthe technical analysis used to developthis proposed rulemaking. Theseupdated facility-by-facility costs wereused by the economic assessmentcontractor. Actual costs for reagents,energy, land, waste disposal, chemicalanalysis, etc. were solicited from theindustry, and factors were used thatrepresented the reported range of costs

incurred in 1979 dollars. Although theentire cost calculations for each facilitywere not presented in the contractor'sreport, the system definitions, costfactors and assumptions used, andreferences sources were included. In thisway, a comparison of an individualfacility's costs to those stated could bemade. At the time the contractor's draftwas prepared, the Agency had notselected parameters to be regulated oreffluent limitations. However, potentialtechnologies for implementing BAT wereidentified in the contractor's draft.These treatment technologies were sizedand costed on the basis of typical (orrange of) flow rates encountered andinfluent expected from BPT treatmentsystems.

With respect to solid wastes resultingfrom mining activities and associatedtreatment, EPA had not issued anystandards or guidelines against whichsolid waste disposal costs could becompared when the draft was issued. OfImportance now is that at present, solidwaste from the extraction, beneficiation,and processing of ores and minerals isexcluded from regulation under SubtitleC of RCRA (see 42 U.S.C.6921(b)(3){A)(ii); 45 FR 76618 (November19, 1980) and Section XVI of thispreamble).

Comment: A number of commentersexpressed concern about the analyticaland sampling procedures used duringthe screening and verification phases ofthe study. Some commented that grab orshort-term composite samples do notproperly assess the impact of seasonalor annual variations. One commenterstated that the reliability of cyanideanalysis is questionable. Onecommenter stated that no health basisexists for removing asbestiform fibersfrom water, therefore there is no reasonto regulate asbestos, and also, that thedefinition of asbestos is confusing.

Response: The analytical methods andprocedures used during screening andverification-including collection andtransportation of samples-are outlinedin Appendix III of Sampling andAnalysis Procedures for Screening ofIndustrial Effluents for PriorityPollutants (USEPA-EMSL). Theanalytical procedures and samplingmethods used are also outlined in thedevelopment document whichaccompanies this rulemaking and aresummarized in Section IV(a) of thispreamble. In addition, the EffluentGuidelines Division has sponsorednumerous technical seminars during thepast three years to which industryrepresentatives, technical contractors,EPA laboratory personnel, andinterested persons were invited.Problems with analytical procedure,

data variability, suggestions forimprovement, and results obtained werediscussed at each of these meetings.EPA does not rely on one-time samplingas its data base for pollutants that itchooses to regulate. Rather, the dataobtained during screening andverification are supplemented by long-term montoring data, NPDES monitoringreports, company data, pilot scalestudies, and data available from otherstudies.

With respect to cyanide analysis, EPArecognized the variability of resultsbeing obtained by commercial andindustrial laboratories andcommissioned an in-depth review of theanalytical method and results obtainedas discussed in Section IX of thispreamble. The guidelines proposed herereflect the results of that in-depth study.

"Asbestos" was not defined in theEPA-NRDC Consent Decree, andconsequently EPA had to develop aworking definition for this pollutant. TheAgency had to choose a particularmineral form of asbestos from the manyvarieties so that screening could beperformed. The Agency chose chrysotilebecause of: (1) its known toxicity as theresult of respiration of the particles; (2)its industrial prevalence (over 90percent of all commercial asbestos ischrysotile); (3) its distinctive selectedarea diffraction pattern. Asbestos wasincluded in the Agency's review of BATbecause the Act requires the Agency tolimit the discharge of pollutantsidentified as toxic unless the pollutantcan be excluded by the criteriadiscussed in Section VIII of this notice.

Comment: In various places in thedraft technical document, detectionlevels for particular pollutants arereported at different levels.

Response: The data presented reflectthe actual data reported from differentlaboratories or the detection levelsobtained by the laboratories at the timeof analysis. Slight differences may occurwith analytical instrumentation fromday to day or week to week, thusaccounting for these differing valuesreported as "less than."

Comment: One commenter stated thatimprovements in ore processingtechnology were overlooked in thedocument and cited those technologies.The commenter stated that nowastewater samples were obtainedfromArizona copper producers. In addition,the commenter stated thatimprovements in uranium processingtechnology were also overlooked in thedevelopment document.

Response: The "new" processtechnology cited by the commenter isdescribed in the development document

25700


supporting this proposed regulation andis taken into account in selecting BAT.In any event, the subpart in which thefacilities are classified is subject to zerodischarge requirements under the BPTguidelines. No wastewater sampleswere or could be obtained from Arizonacopper operations achieving zerodischarge. Similarly, the uraniumprocessing technology is noted in thedevelopment document. Uranium millswould be subject to zero dischargeunder NSPS.

Comment: One commenter stated thatthe industry data base (Section III of thedraft technical document) should beupdated, since some of the data are from1976.

Response: Much of the data in thecontractor's draft are from 1976; someare also as recent as 1977, 1978, and1979. Much of the data on the industryhad to be gathered from individualcompanies under Section 308 authorityand was not submitted voluntarily. Inaddition, industry-wide statistics hadnot been issued at that time. Forexample, recently the U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office released the 1977Minerals Yearbook. A continuous effortto update the development documentand the industry profile has been madeand, to the degree that Agency resourcespermit, will be made as informationbecomes available to the Agency.

Comment: Two commenters statedthat closer consideration should begiven to recycling mine water ratherthan treatment and discharge. Onecommenter was particularly concernedabout recycling process water at goldplacer mining operations as an option.

Response: There are few uses of waterin underground or open pit mining. Minewater can usually be "reused" in limitedamounts for dust control, drilling fluid,cooling or sluicing of sand backfill. Minewater must be removed from mines sothat-ore extraction may be carried on-and for safety considerations. Therefore,recycle of water back into a mine,except for small volumes, is impractical.At many facilities, mine water is"reused" as mill process water ormakeup water. This regulationencourages such practice. In such cases,the wastewater is subject to milllimitations as discussed in SectionVII(B) of this preamble.

A few placer mines may be able torecycle water for use in sluicingsediments containing minerals to beextracted. However, for gold placerdeposits in rural areas of Alaska,electric power is not available to runrecycle pumps, and the costs and energyrequirements are prohibitive.

Comment: One commenter claimedthat the control of mine wastewater was

not adequately addressed in the draftdocument.

Response: The entire mining portionof the industry is profiled in thedevelopment document supporting thisregulation with data presented on flow,production, status, product, type ofmine, etc. The tables in the developmentdocument summarize the data gatheredas part of the industry data base.Detailed data for cost estimates aresummarized in the cost section of thereport. In addition, at every mine visitedthat had wastewater flow, EPAperformed separate sampling andcharacterization. These data were thenevaluated with historical data on minewater. Mining and milling operations areoften located together, and dischargesare commingled and treated in acommon treatment system. The mostimportant factor considered with respectto mine water is whether anydifferences were noted that wouldsignificantly affect the quality ofwastewater discharged after BATtreatment. The regulation proposed herelists separate limitations for mine andmill wastewater.

Comment: One commenter expressedconcern about disposal of hazardouswaste at uranium facilities.

Response: The standards proposedunder NSPS will result in zero dischargeof process water for new uranium mills.For the mines, no additional totalsuspended solids are removed compared-with the volumes that are removedunder BPT limitations.

Comment: One commenter chargedthat the EPA method of asbestosanalysis was faulty because it requiredextensive dilution of raw wastewatersamples and that no attempts weremade to identify through mineralogywhether serpentine (chrysotile) waspresent. In the commenters opinion,asbestos determinations from sampleswith the high solids concentrationstypical in this industry are notquantitative.

Response: While extensive dilution of"raw" wastewater samples Is oftennecessary, extensive dilution is notnormally required for samples of treatedwastewater that achieve the BPT totalsuspended solids daily limitation of 30mg/l. Since effluent level(s) are ofprimary interest in this BAT rulemaking,the analytical method is consideredadequate to evaluate whethersubstantial discharges of this parameterexist. A detailed determination of thepresence of asbestiform fibers in the oreitself would be time-consuming andexpensive. The Agency undertook thisstudy in the same manner as it screenedother parameters. Many sources otherthan the ore itself which may contribute

small "asbestos" fibers to thewastewater, including cement-asbestospipe, spray-on or other types ofinsulation, seals or gaskets, etc. Thesesources are common in this industry.

Comment: Several commenters statedthat guidelines for operations thatcombine mine, mill, smelter, andrefinery wastewater should bedeveloped on a case-by-case basis.

Response: The Agency considered thisalternative and during the BATinvestigation, EPA gathered additionaldata on three facilities that are knownto have combined wastewater treatmentthat included smelter and/or refinerywastewater in addition to mine and/ormill wastewater. These facilities are:White Pine Copper Division, CoppesRange Co., White Pine, Michigan;Kennecott Copper Corp., Utah CopperDivision (treatment plant effluent only),Salt Lake City, Utah; and Bunker HillCo., Kellogg, Idaho. A separate reporthas been prepared on each facility to beused as guidance documents by theregional permitting authority in issuingNPDES permits. In effect, each facilitywill be given effluent limitations thatwill take into account BAT mine andmill guidelines, smelter and refineryguidelines, treatability of waste streams,and any special circumstances that mayresult from the combining wastestreams.

Comment: One commenter stated thatpH values above 9.0 may be required toinsure adequate removal of certainheavy metals.

Response: A pH above 9.0 may benecessary to achieve desired treatmentlevels for certain toxic metals atselected facilities. Subpart M of theseregulations (General Provisions) allowsa small excursion from an effluent valueof pH from 6 to 9 to meet otherlimitations. In these cases, the pH of thefinal effluent may be under or over therange stipulated if evidence is submittedto the permitting authoritydemonstrating that this provision willnot result in degradation of waterquality in the receiving stream or toxicconditions for its biota.

Comment: One commenter stated thatthe report gave inadequateconsideration to controlling the seepagethat occurs at uranium mill tailingimpoundments and other ore facilities(the commenter defined seepage as apoint source discharge, but urged controlof seepage as a BMP).

Response: EPA is aware that seepage-from uranium tailings impoundmentshas posed serious threats togroundwater and, in some cases, maypossibly affect surface waters. However,the Agency notes that the Uranium Mill

25701

25702 Federal Resister I Vol. 47, No. 114 / Monday, June 14, 1982 I Proposed Rules

Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978,as amended 42 U.S.C. 2021(o), 2022,2113, 21114, 2201(x), 7901-7942("UMTRCA") provides comprehensiveand direct authority to remedy thisproblem. UMTRCA establishes aprogram to (1) regulate mill tailingsduring uranium or thorium oreprocessing at active and inactiveuranium mill operations, (2) stabilizeand control tailings in a safe andenvironmentally sound manner, and (3]minimize or eliminate radiation healthhazards to the public. Title I ofUMTRCA establishes a remedial actionprogram to clean up inactive uraniummill tailings sites, to be carried out bythe Secretary of Energy (42 U.S.C. 7911-7925). Title II expands the authority ofthe Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) to establish standards concerninguranium mill tailings in licenses issuedunder the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.Title 11 also directs the Administrator topromulgate, within one year afterenactment, standards of generalapplication for the protection of publichealth and safety and the environmentfrom radiological and nonradiologicalhazards associated with inactive milltailings sites (42 U.S.C. 2022(a)). Thesegeneral standards would be the basis forthe Secretary of Energy's remedialactions at individual inactive sites. TheAdministrator is also directed, withineighteen months after enactment, toestablish general standards to protectthe public health and safity and theenvironment from radiological andnonradiological hazards associated withthe possession, transfer and disposal of"by-product material" (includinguranium mill tailings) at active uraniummill sites (42 U.S.C. 2022(b)). Thesestandards are to be implemented andenforced by the NRC and the States (42U.S.C. 2022(d)).

EPA expects to propose generalstandards for inactive uranium siteswithin the next several months and foractive sites within several monthsthereafter. These standards will, amongother things, address the problems ofseepage from uranium mill tailingsimpoundments.

Moreover, shortly after promulgationof UMTRCA, the NRC embarked on arulemaking, partly in response to apetition filed by the Natural ResourcesDefense Council (NRDC), to address thepotential environmental impacts ofuranium mill tailings. On rules and adraft generic environmental impactstatement, the NRC promulgated finalregulations. 45 FR 65521 (amending 40CFR Part 40). These regulationsestablish a number of technical criteriathat operators of uranium mill tailings

facilities must meet. The regulationsrequire measures "to reduce seepage oftoxic materials into groundwater to themaximum extent reasonablyachievable" 45 FR at 65534, 40 CFR Part40, Appendix A. In addition,unpreventable seepage may not cause adeterioration of existing groundwatersupplies "from their current or potentialuses." (Id). The regulations state thatseveral technologies should beconsidered in achieving these goals,including the installation of lowpermeability liners, maximum recyle,conservation of process.water,dewatering of tailings and othermeasures. The NRC will ensure thatthese regulations remain compatiblewith the general standards to bepromulgated by EPA under UMTRCA(45 FR 65530). In fact, the staffs of thetwo agencies have coordinated, and willcontinue to coordinate, their efforts inthis area.

In any event, Congress has createdthrough UMTRCA comprehensiveapproach to ameliorating theenvironmental impacts of uranium milltailings disposal and has provided avehicle for participation andcoordination among Federal agencieswith jurisdiction in this area.Accordingly, EPA believes itappropriate to continue to address theproblem of seepage from uranium milltailings impoundments throughUMTRCA, rather than through the CleanWater Act.

Moreover, the Agency does notpropose to regulate seepage fromimpoundments at ore mines and millsother than those extracting uranium. Theextent to which such seepage adverselyaffects navigable waters (as opposed togroundwater) is highly problematic.Frequently, even when seepage reachesnavigable waters, it does not constitutea point source discharge-a"discernible, confined and discreteconveyance"-and is therefore notsubject to effluent limitations. In suchcases, BMP's might be imposed undersection 304(e) of the Act (see Section XIIof this preamble). However, section304(e) of the Act authorizes thepromulgation of BMP's only when theAdministrator finds them necessary toprevent "significant amounts" of toxicpollutants from reaching navigablewaters on a national scale. At this time,the Agency does not possessinformation indicating that seepage fromnon-uranium tailings impoundments orlagoons contributes significant amountsof toxic pollutants to the navigablewaters on a national scale. For thesereasons, the Agency does not propose atthis time to establish national

regulations covering seepage fromsettling ponds and taillingsimpoundments in this industry. Ofcourse, permit writing authorities retainthe authority under section 402(a)(1) ofthe Act to require control ofiseepagewhen necessary on a case-by-casebasis.

Comment: One commenter arguedthat the effluent from a mine and a millproducing and processing ores with"high, and approximately equal,percentages of lead and zinc has a verydifferent content from that of mines andmills processing ores with either a highlead or zinc content but not both." Thiscommenter therefore urged that aseparate subcategory be established formines and mills whose ores have "high,and approximately equal, percentages oflead and zinc."

Response: After the promulgation ofBPT regulations, and concurrent withthe filing of its brief in the BPT litigation,this commenter filed a petition forreconsideration with the Agency, inwhich the commenter argued thatfacilities processing ores with a highratio of zinc to lead should besubcategorized separately. The agencyinvestigated that claim, found it to bewithout merit, and denied the petitiorifor reconsideration. A second petitionwas then filed with EPA, in which thecommenter made the claim (for the firsttime] repeated here-that ores with highconcentrations of both zinc and leadwarrant separate subcategorization.Since the BPT litigation, the Agency'scontractor has revisited this facility,sampled and analyzed its wastewater,and performed treatability studies on itswaste streams. These investigations(discussed in Section VIII of thedevelopment document) reconfirm theAgency's earlier conclusions that thisplant's waste stream is similar to othereffluents in the proposed subcategoryand that, with proper pH control,application of BAT technology willachieve the proposed effluentlimitations at this facility. At a meetingin January 1980, Agency counsel invitedthis commenter to submit newinformation and data to support theclaim. The commenter has not done so.Accordingly, the Agency sees no need orjustification to create a separatesubcategory for mines and millsprocessing ores with high concentrationsof lead and zinc.

Comment: One commenter askedwhether replicate samples were takenduring the screening and verificationsampling program. This commenter alsorequested information on the holdingtimes associated with the samplescollected.

25702 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 114 / Monday, June 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules25702


Response: EPA did not collectreplicate samples, but each facilitywhere sampling was conducted wasinvited to participate in the program byusing split samples. Many facilitiesaccepted this invitation, and these splitsamples are included in the Agency'sdata base. Holding times for the sampleswere kept to a minimum in all cases,allowing for the remote location of manymines and mills in relation tocommercial airports and analyticallaboratories.

Comment: One commenter objected tothe subcategorization scheme, statingthat it was the same as the scheme usedfor BPT and cited the numerousdifferences from facility to facility in oremineralogy and other factors that existin this industry. This commenter did notpropose a subcategorization schemeother than to suggest that effluentlimitations should be established on aplant-by-plant basis.

Response: The commenter hasprovided no information that wouldwarrant altering the basic BPTsubcategorization scheme now used,which was upheld by the Tenth Circuit(see section V of this notice). Plant-by-plant limitations are impracticable andinconsistent with the goal of the CleanWater Act.

Comment: One commenter stated thathe could not comment on theinformation in the draft document untilnumerical effluent limitations areproposed and he knows "to what use thedata will be put."

Response: The purpose of circulatingthe technical document in draft formwas to give the regulated communityand other interested groups anopportunity to review the Agency's database and methodology as early in theregulatory process as feasible so thaterrors could be corrected andimprovements made.

Comment: One commenter submitted -data and a report on the presence ofasbestos in his wastewater discharge.The data showed that the asbestosreported by EPA's technical contractorwas not chrysotile, but was in factdiatoms. The commenter stated the EPAdata were wrong and that in thecommenter's analysis of thewasterwater, no asbestos fibers of anykind, including chrysotile, were found.

Response: First, the samples from theEPA study and the commenter's studywere collected over two years apart andonly one of the commenter's samplingsites corresponds directly with the EPAsampling site. Also, the preparation ofthe sample before analysis wasdifferent. The commenter stated that theentire sample volume was filtered ascompared with the 10 ml sample and 40

ml blank diluent that was filtered by theEPA contractor. For the common EPAand commenter's sampling site,assuming TSS levels are approximatelyequal in the samples taken two yearsapart, the loading on the filter used bythe commenter before his analysiswould be over ten times the maximumloading recommended and over 500times the optimal loading recommendedin the EPA sampling and analysismethod. One explanation for thedifference is that preferential settling ofthe denser particles might have occurredin'the commenter's sample duringfiltering. The less dense debris wouldcover the denser particles on the filter,causing the denser mineral material tobe missed during scanning electronmicroscopy, which looks only at thesurface.

Second, the EPA procedure requiresthe use of Transmission ElectronMicroscope (TEM) analysis and thecommenter's study used the ScanningElectron Microscope (SEM) analysis.EPA does not use the SEM methodbecause of the high probability ofmissing smaller asbestos fibers. Theemphasis of the commenter's report ison larger fibers (fibers greater than 1micron in length). The EPA studyreported asbestos fibers in thecommenter's wastewater discharge of0.3 to 0.4 microns in length. In fact, themajority of fiber sizes reported by EPAare less than 1.0 micron in length andtypically 0.025 to 0.2 microns in width,while the diatoms reported by thecommenter are approximately 5 to 10microns in length and 2 microns inwidth. The EPA data is based on whatthe commenter terms "negligible fibers",possibly because the SEM is not apowerful enough tool to identify them.Also, low fiber counts have beenattributed to letting a a sample sit for aperiod of time before analysis; thecommenter did not mention the age ofthe samples. The size of the particlesreported by EPA and by the commenterindicates that the particles referenced inthe two reports are different and not thesame particles misidentified.

Regardless, the EPA data do show thefibers claimed, i.e. chrysotile. Afterreceiving the report submitted by thecommenter, the Agency had thetechnical contractor do a qualitativeanalysis of a portion of the originalsamples and again found chrysotileasbestos fibers.

Also, additional wastewater sampleswere obtained in July 1981 from themine and mill that questioned whetherasbestos was present in their discharge,and these samples were analyzed by asecond laboratory who confirmed thepresence of chrysotile. This laboratory

not only confirmed the presence ofchrysotile by use of the TEM and theselected area electron diffractionpattern to identify the crystallinestructure of the fiber, but also confirmedthat the fibers are chrysotile byemploying a combined scanning andtransmission electron microscope withan energy despersive X-ray microprobe(EDX) attachment. The chemicalcomposition was determined with themicroprobe which confirmed theelemental composition which isprimarily magnesium and silicon oxides.

XIX. Solicitation Of Comments

The regulations as proposed here aresupported by: Development Documentfor Proposed Effluent LimitationsGuidelines and New SourcePerformance Standards for the OreMining and Dressing Point SourceCategory.

EPA encourages public participationin this rulemaking. The Agency asks thatany deficiencies in the BAT record ofthis proposal be pointed to withspecificity and that suggested revisionsor corrections be supported by data.

EPA is particularly interested inreceiving comments and data on thefollowing issues:

(1) The Agency is reviewing thesampling and analytical methods usedto determine the presence andmagnitude of toxic pollutants andsolicits comments on the data producedby these methods, as well as themethods themselves. Guidelinesestablishing test procedures foranalyzing pollutants were proposed in44 FR 69463 (December 3, 1979),amended, 44 FR 75028 (December 18,1979).

(2) The Preliminary Interim Procedurefor Fibrous Asbestos, EPA 600/4-80-005,PB-80-152879, may be used as themethod for analyzing chrysotileasbestos. The method appears inAppendix B of the developmentdocument. The Agency solicitscomments on the use of this method asthe designated method for asbestosdeterminations.

(3) EPA recognizes the limits ofavailable data and the expense ofmonitoring for certain toxic pollutants.Therefore, EPA proposes to controlthese toxic pollutants through thelimitations on other pollutants. The dataindicate that when concentrations ofcertain traditional pollutants arereduced,. concentrations of toxicpollutants are also reduced. Control ofthe traditional pollutant would insurecontrol of toxics with similar physicaland chemical properties that respond tosimilar treatment mechanisms. This

2570"3


method of toxics regulation couldobviate the difficulties, high costs, anddelays of monitoring and analysis thatcould result from direct limitations ofcertain toxic pollutants. Specifically,EPA is proposing limitations on TSS tocontrol chrysotile asbestos (see sectionVIII of this preamble). TSS limitationswould be based on TSS concentrationsachievable with technologies identifiedas BPT, BCT, and NSPS. Also, EPAbelieves that arsenic and nickel areadequately controlled by the incidentalremoval associated with the control andremoval of copper, lead, mercury, andzinc found in the discharges from thisindustry (see section VIII of thispreamble). EPA requests comments onlimitations of indicator pollutants as analternative to direct limitations on thetoxic pollutants.

(4) EPA has obtained from theindustry a substantial data base for thecontrol and treatment technologies thatform the basis for the proposedregulation. Plants that have notsubmitted data, or that have compiledmore recent data than that alreadysubmitted, are requested-to forwardthese data to EPA. These data should beindividual data points, not averages orother summary data, including flow,production, and all pollutant parametersfor which analyses were run. Pleasesubmit any qualification to the data,such as descriptions of facility design,operating procedures, and upsetproblems during specified periods.

EPA specifically requests anycomments, data, or informationpertaining t6 the technical or economicfeasibility of the following issues as theyapply to existing sources:

(1) Comments are requested on theapproach proposed here for theprecipitation relief. A substantialnumber of proposals and modificationshave been made in this area, and theAgency invites substantive comments.

(2) Industry and other sources areinvited to submit any data from pilot orcommercial studies of flocculantaddition, secondary settling, or granular-media filtration, particularly on theireffectiveness in controlling toxic metals.Although the Agency has conducted avariety of treatability studies to addressthese technologies, EPA invites thesubmission of results from additionalstudies representing the diversecharacteristics of raw wastewaterspresent in the ore mining and dressingindustry.

(3) The Agency has completed anextensive effort to establish realisticcosts for treatment technologies beingconsidered, including verification of costestimates at specific mines and millswhere site-specific data have been

collected. However, the Agency isaware that many approaches to costestimation are available and invitescommenters to present alternative costmethodologies. To perform a meaningfulcomparison between these alternativesand EPA's approach, commenters arerequested to supply detailed informationon salient design and operatingcharacteristics; actual installed costs foreach unit treatment operation or piece ofequipment, the date of installation andthe amount of installation labor -

provided by facility personnel; theactual cost of operation, maintenance,amortization; and other annual costfactors, including energy use, land, rawmaterial, and labor requirements.Commenters should supply thisinformation on an itemized basis withnecessary supporting information topermit a meaningful evaluation of thealternative. The Agency specificallyrequests information from gold placermine operations on these items.

(4) Both BAT and MSPS for goldplacer mines are reserved in thisrulemaking. EPA has been unable toacquire detailed, factual informationthat would enable the Agency toperform a cash flow analysis for goldplacer mine operations and smalltungsten mine operations. The Agencyseeks individual replies. Replies will betreated as confidential, if so requested,at the time they are submitted.

EPA has conducted two separatestudies of gold placer mines as part ofthe review of BAT and has reviewedadditional studies performed by Stateand Federal agencies. This dataindicates that limitations on settleablesolids are the most appropriate andviable control for wastewaterdischarges from gold placer mines.However, the data on discharges fromwell constructed, operated, andmaintained settling ponds associatedwith gold placer mines are limitedbecause many of the mines do notoperate settling ponds or the ponds werefilled with sediment or the flow wasshort circuited through the pond. TheAgency seeks additional data on theeffluent from settling ponds associatedwith gold placer mines to augment thepresent data base and here asks for datafrom individual mines, minersassociations and agencies. Specificallythe Agency would like data ondischarges during the forthcoming 1982mining season in Alaska.

XX. Small Business Administration(SBA) Financial Assistance

Two SBA programs might beimportant sources of financing for theore mining and dressing industry: SBA'sEconomic Injury Loan Program and the

Pollution Control Financing BondGuarantees.

Section 8 of the Clean Water Act of1977 amended Section 7 of the SmallBusiness Act, 5 U.S.C. 636, to authorizethe SBA through its Economic InjuryLoan Program to make loans to assistsmall business concerns in makingadditions to, or alterations in,equipment, facilities, or methods ofoperation to meet water pollutioncontrol requirements under the Act if theconcern is likely to suffer a substantialeconomic injury without suchassistance. This program is open tosmall business firms as defined by theSBA. Loans can be made either directlyby SBA or through a bank using an SBAguarantee. The interest on direct loansdepends on the cost of money to theFederal Government. Loan repaymentperiods, depending on the ability of thefirm to repay the loan may extend up tothirty years but will not exceed theuseful life of the equipment. -

Firms in the ore mining and dressingindustry may be eligible for direct orindirect SBA loans. For further detailson this Federal loan program, write ortelephone any of the followingindividuals at EPA headquarters or atthe ten EPA regional offices:

Headquarters-Ms. Frances Desselle, Officeof Analysis and Evaluation (WH-586),Environmental Protection Agency, 401 MStreet, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460Telephone: (202) 426-7874

Region I-Mr. Ted Landry, EnforcementDivision, Environmental Protection Agency,J. F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, MA02203, Telephone: (617) 223-5061

Region II-Mr. Gerald DeGartano,Enforcement Division, Room 432,Environmental Protection Agency, 26Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10007,Telephone: (212) 264-4711

Region Ill-Mr. Bob Gunter, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Curtis Building, 31R20,6th and Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA19106, Telephone: (215) 597-2564

Region IV-Mr. John Hurlebaus, GrantsAdministrative Support Section,Environmental Protection Agency, 345Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30308,Telephone: (404) 881-4491

Region V-Mr. Arnold Leder, Water andHazardous Material, Enforcement Branch,Environmental Protection Agency, 230South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60605,Telephone: (312) 353-2114

Region VI-Ms. Jan Horn, EnforcementDivision, Environmental Protection Agency,1st International Building, 1201 Elm Street,Dallas, TX 75270, Telephone: (214) 729-2760

Region VII-Mr. Paul Walker, WaterDivision, Environmental Protection Agency,1735 Baltimore Avenue, Kansas City, MO64108, Telephone: (816) 374-2725

Region VIII-Mr. Gerald Burke, Office ofGrants, Water Division, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 1860 Lincoln Street,

25704


Denver, CO 80203, Telephone: (303) 327-4579

Region IX-Ms. Linda Powell, PermitsBranch, Enforcement Division (E-4).Environmental Protection Agency, 215Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,Telephone: (415) 556-3450

Region X-Mr. Danforth Bodien, EnforcementDivision, Environmental Protection Agency,1200 Oth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101,Telephone: (206) 442-1352

Interested persons may also contactthe Assistant Regional Administratorsfor Financial Assistance in the SmallBusiness Administration Regionaloffices for more details on Federal loanassistance programs. For furtherinformation, write or telephone any ofthe following individuals:

Region I-Mr. George H. Allen, AssistantRegional Administrator for FinancialAssistance, Small Business Administration,60 Batterymarch, 10th Floor, Boston, MA02110, Telephone: (617) 223-3891

Region 11-Mr. John Axiotakis, AssistantRegional Administrator for FinancialAssistance, Small Business Administration,26 Federal Plaza, New York NY 10007,Telephone: (212) 264-1452

Region IH-Mr. David Malone, AssistantRegional Administrator for FinancialAssistance, Small Business Administration,231 St. Asaphs Road, West Lobby, Suite646, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Telephone:(215) 596-5908

Region V--Mr. Merritt Scoggins, AssistantRegional Administrator for FinancialAssistance, Small BusinessAdministration,1375 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA30367, Telephone: (404) 881-2009

Region V--Mr. Howard Bondruska, AssistantRegional Administrator for FinancialAssistance, Small Business Administration,219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL60604, Telephone: (312) 353-4534

Region VI-Mr. Till Phillips, AssistantRegional Administrator for FinancialAssistance, Small Business Administration,1720 Regal Row, Suite 230, Dallas, TX75202, Telephone: (214) 767-7873

Region VII--Mr. Richard Whitley, AssistantRegional Administrator for FinancialAssistance, Small Business Administration,911 Walnut Street, 23rd Floor, Kansas City,MO 64016, Telephone: (816) 374-3210

Region VIII-Mr. James Chuculate, AssistantRegional Administrator for FinancialAssistance, Small Business Administration,1405 Curtis Street, Executive TowerBuilding, 22nd Floor, Denver, CO 80202,Telephone: (303) 837-3680

Region IX-Mr. Larry J. Wodarski, DeputyAssistant Regional Administrator forFinancial Assistance, Small BusinessAdministration, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,San Francisco, CA 94102, Telephone: (415)556-7782

Region X-Mr. Jack Welles, RegionalAdministrator, Small BusinessAdministration, 710 2nd Avenue, DextorHorton Bldg., 5th Floor, Seattle, WA 98104,Telephone: (206) 442-1455

In addition to the Economic InjuryLoan Program, the Small Business

Investment Act, as amended by Pub. L94-305, authorizes SBA to guarantee thepayments on qualified contracts enteredinto by eligible small businesses toacquire needed pollution facilities whenthe financing is provided through tax-exempt revenue or pollution controlbonds. This program is open to alleligible small businesses as defined bythe SBA. Bond financing with SBA'sguarantee of payments makes availablelong-term (20-30 years), low-interest (7percent) financing to small businesses.For further details on this program writeto the SBA, Pollution Control FinancingDivision, Office of Special Guarantees,1815 North Lynn Street, Magazine Bldg.,Rosslyn, VA 22209, (703) 235-2900.

XXI. Executive Order 12291

Under Executive Order 12291, EPAmust judge whether a regulation is"Major" and therefore subject to therequirement of a Regulatory ImpactAnalysis. This regulation is not Majorand does not require a RegulatoryImpact Analysis because the annualeffect on the economy is less than $100million, it will not cause a majorincrease in costs, or significant adverseeffects on the industry.

This regulation was submitted to'theOffice of Management and Budget forreview as required by Executive Order12291. Any comments from OMB to EPAand any EPA response to thosecomments are available for publicinspection at the EPA Public InformationReference Unit, Room 2922 (EPALibrary), Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,D.C.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 440

Metal, Mines, Water pollution control,Waste treatment and disposal.May 25, 1982.Anne M. Gorsuch,Administrator.

Appendix A.-Abbreviations, Acronyms andUnits Used in This Notice

Act-The Clean Water Act.Agency-The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.BADT-Best available demonstrated

technology under sections 304(c) and 306.BAT-The best available technology

economically achievable, under section304(b)(2)[B) of the Act.

BCT-The best conventional pollutantcontrol technology, under section 304(b)(4) ofthe Act.

BMP's--Best management practices undersection 304(e) of the AcL

BPT-The best practicable controltechnology currently available, under section304(b)(1) of the Act.

CWA-The Federal Water PollutionControl Act Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C.

1251 et seq.) as amended by the Clean WaterAct of 1977 (Pub. L 95-217).

FWPCA-Federal Water Pollution ControlAct.

MSHA-The Department of Labor, MineSafety and Health Administration.

NPDES Permit-A National PollutantDischarge Elimination System permit issuedunder section 402 of the Act.

NSPS-New Source performance standardsunder section 306 of the Act.

POTW-Publicly owned treatment works.RCRA-Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580) of 1976,Amendments to Solid Waste Disposal Act.

Units

gpd---gallons per day.mgd-million gallons per day.mg/I-milligram(s) per liter..g/l-microgram(s) per liter.

Appendix B.-Toxic Organic Compounds NotDetected During Sampling

1. Acenaphthene.2. Acrolein.3. Acrylonitrite.4. Benzidene.5. Carbon Tetrachloride.6. 1.2,4-Trichlorobenzene.7. Hexachlorobenzene.8. 1,2-Dichloroethane.9. Hexachloroethane.10. 1,1-Dichloroethane.11. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane.12. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane.13. Chloroethane.14. Bis(Chloromethyl) Ether.15. Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether.16. 2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether.17. 2-Chloronaphthalene.18. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.19. Parachlorometa. Cresol.20. 2-Chlorophenol.21. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene.22. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene.23. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene.24. 3,3-Dichlorobenzidene.25. 1,1-Dichloroethylene.26. 2,4-Dichlorophenol.27. 1,2-Dichloropropane.28. 1,3-Dichloropropylene.29. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene.30. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene.31. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine.32. Fluoranthene.33. 4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether.34. 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether.35. Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether.36. Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) Methane.37. Methyl Chloride.38. Methyl Bromide.39. Bromoform.40. Dichlorodifluoromethane.41. Chlorodibromomethane.42. Hexachlorobutadiene.43. Hexachlorocyclopentadien.44. Isophorone.45. Naphthalene.46. Nitrobenzene.47. 2-Nitrophenol.48. 4-Nitrophenol.49. 2,4-Dinitrophenol.50. 4,6-Dinitro-O-Cresol.51. N-Nitrosodimethylamine.

25705

Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 114 / Monday, June 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules

52. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine53. N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine.54. Pentachlorophenol.55. Benzo{A]Anthracene.56. Benzo(A)Pyrene.57.3,4-Benzofluoranthene.58. Benzo(K)Fluoranthene.59. Chrysene.60. Acenaphthylene.61. Anthracene.62. Benzo(G,H,I]Perylene.63. Phenathrene.64. Dibenzo(A,H)Anthracene.65. Indeno(1,2,3-CD)Pyrene.66. Pyrene.67. Trichloroethylene.68. Vinyl Chloride.69. Chloradane.70. 4,4-DDT.71.4,4-DDE.72. 4,4-DDD.73. Endosulfan-Alpha.74. Endosulfan-Beta.75. Endosulfan Sulfate.76. Endrin Aldehyde.77. Heptachlor Epoxide.78. yBHC(Lindane)-Gamma:79. PCB-1242 (AROCHLOR 1242).80. PCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254).81. PCB-1221 (AROCHLOR 1221).82. PCB-1232 (AROCHLOR 1232).83. PCB-1248 (AROCHLOR 1248).84. PCB-1260 (AROCHLOR 1260).85. PCB-1016 (AROCHLOR 1016).86. Toxaphene.87. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxi.

Appendix C.-Toxic Organic CompoundsDetected at Least One Facility But Always 10pg/I or less

1. Chlorobenzene.2. Dichlorobromomethane.3. Fluorene.4. Aldrin.5. Dieldrin.6. Endrin.7. Heptachlor.8. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane.9. Chloroform.10. Ethylbenzene.11. Trichlorofluoromethane.12. Diethyl Phthalate.13. Tetrachloroethylene.14. Toluene.15. aBHC-Alpha.16. IIBHC-Beta.17. ABHC-Delta.

Appendix D.-Toxics Detected at Levels TooSmall To Be Effectively Reduced byTechnologies Known to the Administrator

1. Antimony.2. Beryllium.3. Silver.4. Thallium.5. Selenium.6. Chromium.7. Cyanide.8. Benzene.9. 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene.10. Phenol.11. Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate.12. Butyl Benzyl Phthalate.13. Di-N-Butyl Phthalate.14. Di-n-Octyl Phthalate.15. Dimethyl Phthalate.16. Methylene Chloride.

Appendix E.-Toxlc Organic CompoundsDetected From a Small Number of Sourcesand Uniquely Related to These Sources

2,4-dimentylphenol.

Appendix F.-Pollutants EffectivelyControlled by the Technology upon WhichOther Effluent Limitations and Guidelines areBased

1. Asbestos.2. Arsenic.3. Nickel.

Appendix G.-Subcategories and SubpartsWhere Equal or More Stringent Protection isAlready Provided by Existing EffluentLimitations (BAT= BPT)Iron Ore SubcategoryAluminum Ore SubcategoryUranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores

Subcategory, Mine DrainageMercury Ore Subcategory, MillsCopper, Lead, Zinc, Silver, Gold, Platinum,

and Molybdenum Ore SubcategoryMills and mine areas employing leaching

for the recovery of copperMills employing cyanidation process or the

amalgamation process for the recovery ofgold or silver.

Appendix H.-Pollutants Excluded by

Subeategory and Subpart

Uranium Ore Subcategory-Mine DrainageCadmium (not detected)Copper (present in amounts too small to

treat)Lead (present in' amounts too small to treat)Mercury (present in amounts too small to

treat)

Tungsten Ore Subcategory -Mine DrainageCadmium (present in amounts to small to

treat)Lead (not detected)Mercury (present in amounts too small to

treat)

Tungsten Ore Subcategory-Mill ProcessWaterCadmium (present in amounts too small to

treat)Mercury (not detected)

Mercury Ore Subcategory-Mine DrainageMercury (present in amounts too small to

treat)

Appendix I.-Subpart Where Pollutants AreDetected From a Small Number of SourcesWithin the Subpart and the Pollutants AreUniquely Related to These SourcesUranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores

SubcategoryMills using the acid and alkaline leach

process for the extraction of uranium

Appendix 1. Proposed BAT= BPT,Pollutants Where the Small Amounts

Remaining in the BPT Effluent Does NotJustify Additional Regulation

Titanium Ore-Mills, ZincTugsten Ore-Mine Drainage and Mills

CopperZincCadmium

Copper, Lead, Zinc, Silver, Gold. Platinum,and Molybdenum Ore-Mine Drainageand Mills Employing Froth-Flotation

CopperZincLeadMercuryCadmium

For the purpose of clarity, the BPTeffluent limitations guidelines are beingpublished as part of today's document.However, the BPT requirements remainunaffected by today's proposal and arenot being reproposed today. For thereasons discussed above, EPA proposesto revise Part 440 to read as follows:

PART 440-ORE MINING ANDDRESSING POINT SOURCECATEGORY

Subpart A-Iron Ore Subcategory

See.440.10 Applicability: description of the iron

ore subcategory.440.11 [Reserved]440.12 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable byapplying the best practicable controltechnology currently available (BPT).

440.13 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable byapplying the best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT).

440.14 New Source Performance Standards(NSPS) representing the degree ofeffluent reduction attainable by applyingthe best available demonstratedtechnology (BADT).

440.15 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable byapplying the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology (BCT.

Subpart B-Base and Precious MetalsSubcategory440.20 Applicability: description of the base

and precious metals subcategory.440.21 [Reserved]440.22 Effluent limitations representing the


Subpart C-Aluminum Ore Subcategory440.30 Applicability: description of the

aluminum ore subcategory.440.31 [Reserved]440.32 Effluent limitations representing the



440.34 New Source Performance Standards(NSPS) representing the degree ofeffluent reduction attainable by applyingbest available demonstrated technology(BADT).

440.35 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable by

25706


applying the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology (BCT).

Subpart D-Ferroalloy Ores Subcategory440.40 Applicability: description of the

ferroalloy ores subcategory.440.41 [Reserved]440.42 Effluent limitations representing the


Subpart E-Uranium, Radium, andVanadium

Ores Subcategory

440.50 Applicability: description of theuranium, radium, and vanadium oressubcategory.

440.51 [Reserved]440.52 Effluent limitations representing the



440.54 New Source Performance Standards(NSPS] representing the degree ofeffluent reduction attainable by applyingthe best available demonstratedtechnology (BADT)

440.55 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable byapplying the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology (BCT).

Subpart F-Mercury Ores Subcategory440.60 Applicability: description of the

mercury ores subcategory.440.61 [Reserved]440.62 Effluent limitations representing the





Subpart G-Titanium Ore Subcategory440.70 Applicability: description of the

titanium ore subcategory.440.71 [Reserved]440.72 Effluent limitations representing the



440.74 New Source Performance Standards(NSPS) representing the degree offeffluent reduction attainable by applyingthe best available demonstratedtechnology (BADT).

Sec.440.75 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable byapplying the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology (BCT).

Subpart H-Tungsten Ore Subcategory440.80 Applicability: description of the

tungsten ore subcategory.440.81 [Reserved]440.82 Not Applicable440.83 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable byapplying the best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT).

440.84 New Source Performance Standards(NSPS] representing the degree ofeffluent reduction attainable by applyingthe best available demonstratedtechnology (BADT).

440.85 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable byapplying the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology (BCTI.

Subpart I-Nickel Ore Subcategory440.90 Applicability: description of the

nickel ore subcategory.440.91 [Reserved]440.92 Not applicable.440.93 Effluent limitations representing the


440.94 New Source Performance Standards(NSPS) representing the degree ofeffluent reduction attainable by applyingthe best demonstrated technology(BADT).

440.95 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable byapplying the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology (BCr).

Subpart J-Vanadum Ore Subcategory(Mined Alone and Not as a Byproduct)440.100 Applicability: description of the -

vanadium ore subcategory.440.101 [Reserved]440.102 Effluent limitations representing the


440.103 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable byapplying the best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT].


440.105 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable byapplying the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology (BCTJ.

Subpart K-Antimony Ore Subcategory440.110 Applicability: description of the

antimony ore subcategory.440.111 [Reserved]440.112 Effluent limitations representing the


440.113 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable by

Sec.

applying the best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT).



Subpart L-Copper, Lead, Zinc, Gold, Silver,Platinum, and Molybdenum OresSubcategory440.120 Applicability: description of the

copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, platinum,and molybdenum ores subcategory.

440.121 (Reserved]440.122 Not applicable.440.123 Effluent limitations representing the




Subpart M-General Provisions andDefinitions440.130 Applicability.440.131 General provisions.440.132 General definitions.

Authority: Secs. 301, 304(b) and (c), 306,and 501, Clean Water Act [The FederalWater Pollution Control Act Amendments of1972, as amended by the Clean Water Act of1977 (the Act)] as amended 33 U.S.C. 1311,1314(b) and (c), 1316, and 1361; 86 Stat. 816,Pub. L. 92-500; 91 Stat. 1567, Pub. L 95-217.

Subpart A-Iron Ore Subcategory

§440.10 Applicability: Description of theIron ore subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to discharges from:

(a) Mines operated to obtain iron ore,regardless of the type of ore or its modeof occurrence;

(b) Mills beneficiating iron ores byphysical (magnetic and nonmagnetic)and/or chemical separation and

(c) Mills beneficiating iron ores bymagnetic and physical separation(Mesabi Range).

§ 440.11 [Reserved]

§ 440.12 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available(BPT).

Subject to Subpart M-GeneralProvisions and Definitions, the followinglimitations establish the concentrationsof pollutants controlled by this section

2570725707


which may be discharged by a pointsource after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

(a) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from minesoperated to obtain iron ore shall notexceed:

Effluent limitations

Average ofEffluent characteristic Maximum for daily values

ayIdy for 30any,1 day consecutive

days

Milligrams per liter

TSS ........................ 30 20Fe (dissolved) .................... . 2.0 1.0pH .................... ............................. 0 0i "

'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

(b) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged from mills that employphysical (magnetic and nonmagnetic)and/or chemical methods to beneficiateiron ore shall not exceed:



arty......... for 30any 1 day consecutive

days


TSS ............................ 30 20Fe (dissolved) ................... 2.0 1.0pH ......................... (') ()


(c) (1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from mills thatemploy magnetic and physical methodsto beneficiate iron ore (Mesabi Range)except as provided in paragraph (c)[2) ofthis section.,

(2) In the event that the annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility exceeds the annualevaporation, a volume of waterequivalent to the difference betweenannual precipitation falling on thetreatment facility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility and annualevaporation may be discharged subjectto the limitations set forth in paragraph(a) of this section.

§ 440.13 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in Subpart M ofthis regulation and 40 CFR 125.30-125.32,

any existing point source subject to thissubpart must achieve the followingeffluent limitations:




any I dayot for 30any I day consecutive

days


Fe (dissolved) ......... ...... 2.0 1.0



Average ofEffluent characteristic Maximum for daily valuesMax ........ for 30

any I day consecutivedays


Fe (dissolved) .............................. 2.0 1.0

(c)(1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from mills thatemploy magnetic and physical methodsto beneficiate iron ore (Mesabi Range)except as provided below in paragraph(c)[2) of this section.

(2) In the event that the annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility exceeds the annualevaporation, a volume of water equal tothe difference between annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility and annualevaporation may be discharged subjectto the limitations set forth in paragraph(a) of this section.

§ 440.14 New Source PerformanceStandards (NSPS).

Except as provided in Subpart M ofthis regulation, any new source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing NSPS representing the degreeof effluent reduction attainable byapplying the best availabledemonstrated technology (BADT):

(a) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from mines

operated to obtain iron ore shall notexceed:


Average ofEffluent characteristio Maximum for daily values

any 1 day for 30consecutive

days


Fe (dissolved) ............................... 2.0 1.0pH ................................... . ........ .(.) ()TSS ................................... 30.0 20.0



Effluent limitationsEffluent

characteristic Maximum for Average of daily valuesany I day for 30 consecutive days


Fe (dissolved) 2.0 1.0pH . .......... ...... (')I (')TSS ................ 30.0 20.0

'Within the range 6.0. to 9.0

(c) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from mills thatemploy magnetic and physical methodsto beneficiate iron ore (Mesabi Range)except as provided below.

In the event that the annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility exceeds the annualevaporation, a volume of water equal tothe difference between annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility and annualevaporation may be discharged subjectto the limitations set forth in paragraph(a) of this section.

440.15 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby applying the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology (BCT).

Except as provided in Subpart M ofthis regulation and 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing source subject tothis subpart must achieve the followinglimitations:


25708


Effluent imitations

Average ofEffluent characteristic Maximum o daily values

fo1 r 30ay'dy consecu~tive

days


pH ........... . I ............. ..... 0TSS ............................................... .30.0 20.0

Within the range 6.0. to 9.0.



Average ofEffluent characteristic Maximum for daiflyv3alues

any 1 day consecutivedays


pH .................. ............ (') (')TSS ................................................ 30.0 20.0

'Within the range 6.0. to 9.0.

(c)(1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from mills thatemploy magnetic and physical methodsto beneficiate iron ore (Mesabi Range)except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) ofthis section.


Subpart B-Base and Precious MetalOres Subcategory

§ 440.20 Applicability: description of thesubcategory.


(a) Mines operated to obtain copperbearing ores, lead bearing ores, zincbearing ores, gold bearing ores or silverbearing ores, or any combination ofthese ores from open pit or underground.operations other than placer deposits;

(b) Mills which employ the froth-flotation process alone or in conjunctionwith other processes, for the

beneficiation of copper ores, lead ores,zinc ores, gold ores or silver ores, or anycombination of these ores;

(c) Mines and mills which employdump, heap, in-situ leach or vat-leachprocesses for the extraction of copperfrom ores or ore waste materials;

(d) Mills which extract gold or silverby the cyanidation process and

(e) Mines or mines and millsbeneficiating gold ores, silver ores, orplatinum ores by gravity separationmethods, (this includes placer or dredgemining or concentrating operations, andhydraulic mining operations).


§ 440.22 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluentreduction attainableby the application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available(BPT).

Subject to the provisions of SubpartM-General Provisions and Definitions,the following limitations establish theconcentration of pollutants controlledby this section which may be dischargqdby a point source after application of thebest practicable control technologycurrently available:

(a) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from minesoperated to obtain copper bearing ores,lead bearing ores, zinc bearing ores,gold bearing ores, or silver bearing oresor any combination of these ores open-pit or underground operations other thanplacer deposits shall not exceed:


Average ofEffluent characteristic " Maximum for daily values

o,3Oany 1 day consecutive

days


T .............................................. 0 20Cu ........ .................. .30 .15Zn ........... .............. 1.5 .75Pb .......................... .6 .3Hg . ..... .002 .001pH .......................... () (

'With the range 6.0 to 9.0

(b) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged from mills which employ thefroth-flotation process alone or inconjunction with other processes, for thebeneficiation of copper ores, lead ores,zinc ores, gold ores, or silver ores or anycombination of these ores shall notexceed:



any I day or 30any 1 day consecutive

days

Milligrams per literTSS ................................................ 30 20Cu ............................................... I .3 .15Zn .......................................... 1.0 .5Pb .. ............ ................. . .6 .3Hg ............ ............................ .002 .001

Cd ............ .... .10 .05pH .................................................. (1) [ (1)


(c)(1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from mines andmills which employ dump, heap, in situleach or vat-leach processes for theextraction of copper from ores or orewaste materials except as provided inparagraph (c)(2) of this section.


(d)(1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from mills whichextract gold or silver by use of thecyanidation process except as providedin paragraph (d)(2) of this section.


(5) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from minesor discharged from mine and millcomplexes beneficiating gold ores, silverores or platinum ores by gravityseparation methods including mining of

25709

-25 0 Federal Register,' VoL 47, No. 114 I Monday. June 14, 19821 Proposed Rules

placer deposits, dredge mining and'hydraulic mining operations shall:notexced: Defined at a later date]

Subpart C-Aluminum OreSubcategory1440.30 Applicability: description of thealuminum ore subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to discharges from facilities,engaged in the mining of bauxite as analmlaum ore.

5440.31 [Reserved]

1440.32 Effluent imtall.os reproentnth4 degree of effluent reducion attalnabla.by the application of the best p tic "controt technology currently avillable

Subject to ther provisions of Subpat-i. General Provisions and Definitionk,the limitations described In the tfiblebelow establish the concentration ofpollutants controlled by this section;which may berdlecharged by a pointsource after application of the bestpracticable €ootrol technology currentlyavallablMeie concentration of.pollutantsdiched. In minodrainage.fro minesproducing bauxite ores shallnot exceed: -

Efffmt Car~otftAVOMag of

I day nsyuoa.aye,

Uiliirma are

' " ........... o. t.o "1

04 ............... . -! ) ()' Wlitse [email protected] .

* 440.33 Effluent lmltations repreoent Ithe degree of effluent reducton attainableby the applicattm of Me bet availabletechnology economictaly e"Movable (GAV).

Except as provided In Subpart M ofthe, regulation and 40 CFR m30-.Z.any existingpolat source"sub ect to thissubpart must achieve the limitationsdescribed in the able below. Theconcentration of polliqtantgdlschargedin mine drainage from mines producing

'bauxite ores shall not exceed:

Effluent chIwwScIEBI a dal Suanymo tday 00

da"

:MiM pe 1.0

A....-........I ....... :.. ......... :-. . :.2 .0 . . :0

§ 445.24 Nfw Source PerformanceStandards (NS).

Except as provided in Subpart Mofthis regulation, any new source subject,to this subpart must achieve the NSPSdescribed in the table below,representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applicationof the best available demonstratedtechnology (BADT. The concentrationof pollutants discharged in minedrainage from mines producing bauxiteores shall not exceed:

Effluet Aver of,EMet Garactesti for %30

Maximum far mwmOiftIOW Iday da"

. gime pw Itw

Fe {toW ) .................... ................. i. .0 O.sAl........ ... ..... ........................... 2.0 1.0

pH .. --.- () ('ITss... .............. 30.0 20.0

1§ 440.35 Efunlitatlono represent"n-th, degree of effluent reduction attainab.by the application of the best conventionalpoutntontro te wogyt

Except as provided In Subpart M ofthis part and 40 CFR 15125.30-125.32,any existing source subject to thissubpart must achieve the followinglimitations:

Efflent I • Effuent , mtations

cftaraesw maximum for I A-eag Zf~lmWnI day .o3cos 9=days

.. Hama o W lW -

. ... 0 20.0

* WIt~lii. rng. 08 .o

Subpart D-Ferroalloy OresSubcategory§ 440.40 Apsbfiy: derlto theferroelloy ore subcategory.

"the provisions of this subpart areapplicable to discharges from: • -

'(a) Mins producing 5.000 metric tons(5.513 short tons) or more of ferroalloyores peryear•

(b) Mines producing less than S,0emetric tons (5,512 short tons) of -ferroalloy ores per year by methodsother thaa ore leachin;

(c Mills proceseing5,O metric tons(5,512 short tons) or more of ferroalloyores per year by purely physicalmiethods includin or cr-ishiig,washing. jigging, heavy media andgravity separation, and magnetic andelectrostatic sepairatibn; and '....

(d) Mikls processing 5,00 metric tons(5,51 short tons) or more of ferroalloyores per year by froth flotation methods.Ferroallay metals include: molybdenum.nickel. tungsten and vanadium.(recovered alone and not as a byproductof uranium mining and mills).

I 44041 .[Reeervedl

§ 440.42* Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the apWc&tIo of th beWt practicablecontrol telctulleV cursatlelable (IPT).

Subject to the provisions of SubpartM. GenervI Provisions and Definitions,the following limitations establish theconcantration of pollutants controlled,by this section which may be dischargedby & point source after application of thebest practicable conitrol technologycurrently avallable,

(at Thie'concentration of pollutantsdischart* in mine drainage from minesproducing 5,000 metric tons (5,512 shorttons) or mor of ferroalloy bearing oresper year shall not exceed:.

l~ff~ent]Averag ofIL I ~ lfflaxlmtnwi f' ".. co30 :Eft" dieeworisk da ve

,: t . Mfiler . "

rs... ...;' 2.9 " I ' : :

s, ............ .is s.. --. '.... A

S................: ..

PH - - ...... ..... " .. .

(2).The-concentration of pollutantsdischarged In mine drainage frontminesproducing less that 5,000:metric tons ...(5,512 short tons), or discharged. frommills processing less than 5,000 metrictons (5,512 short tons) of ferroalloy oresper year by methods other than oreleaching s not 'ex .. " .

Effk m"cho we"fg 307

Eflu n .fa.a mnsl: . ;,.. . . ;i . ,..

P l

.. .. .. .: : :.'t4r t..

(3) The concnttatioi- of polluants'

discharged fromn mills, processing s,000metric tons (5,512'short tOns) or nmre"Offerroait0y ores pr"year by purely' " "

physical m'ethlitds iclu din 6iecrshtng,"washing;jligi hbav;Ymedia -


separation, and magnetic andelectrostatic separation shall notexceed:

Effluent Average oflmttos daily valueslirnitations dor 30

Effluent characteristic for 30Mxmmfrconsecutive

any 1 day days

Milligrams per lter

Tm ................................... 30 20Cd.................................. .10 M0Cu .................................................. .30 .15Zn .............. ... 1.0 .6As .................................................. 1.0 .5pH .................................................. .. (' I ('


(4) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged from mills processing 5,000metric tons (5,512 short tons) or more offerroalloy ores per year by frothflotation methods shall not exceed:

Effluent Average oflrtins daily values

Effluent cfarctelimctions for30

Maximum for consecutiveany 1 day days


Tss ........................................ 30 20cd ..................................... °.10 .05cu .......... ..... .30 .15Zn ................................................... 1.0 .5As ............................................... 1.0 .5pH ................................................. . .. (')

SWitdn the range 6.0 to 9.0.

Subpart E-Uranium, Radium andVanadium Ores Subcategory

§ 440.50 Applicability: Description of theuranium, radium and vanadium oressubcategory.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to discharges from

(a) Mines, either open-pit orunderground, from which uranium,radium and vanadium ores areproduced; find

(b) Mills using the acid leach, alkalineleach, or combined acid and alkalineleach process for the extraction ofuranium, radium and vanadium.Only vaftadium by-product productionfrom uranium ores is covered under thissubpart.

§ 440.51 (Reserved]


Subject to the provisions of SubpartM, General Provisions and Definitions,the following limitations establish theconcentration of pollutants controlledby this section which may be discharged

by a point source after application of thebest practicable control technologycurrently available:

(a) The concentration of pollitantsdischarged in mine drainage from mines,either open-pit or underground, fromwhich uranium, radium and vanadiumores are produced excluding mines usingin-situ leach methods shall not exceed:


Average ofEffluent characteristic Maximum f daily values

any 1 day consectivedays


TSS ...................... .. ................. 30 20COo . ............ . .. 200 100Zn ............. 1.0 0.5Ra226 ' (dissolved) ............. .10 3Ra226 t (total) ........................... - 30 10U ................................................. .... 4 2pH .................................................. . I( l 1'1

'Values In picocurles per liter (pCi/).'Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

(b) The concentrations of pollutantsdischarged from mills using the acidleach, alkaline leach or combined acidand alkaline leach process for theextraction of uranium, radium andvanadium including mill-mine-facilitiesand mines using in-situ leach methods,shall not exceed:


Average ofEffluent characteristic Maximum for dally values

any 1 day consecutedays


TSS .............................................. 30 20COD ....................................................................... 500As .................................................. 1.0 .6Zn .......... I. 1.0 .5Ra226* (dissolved)... 10 3Ra226' (total) ............................... 30 10NH3 ...................................-..... ...... 100pH .................................................. . .(2) is)

Values in picocuries per liter (pC/I).2Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.


Except as provided in Subpart M ofthis regulation and 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thelimitations: Described in the talk below.The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from mines.either open-pit or underground, thatproduce uranium ore, including minesusing in-situ leach methods, shall notexceed:


Average ofEffluent characteristic Maximum for daily valuesmo .,u,, lu for 30



coo ............................................ 2o 100Zn .......................... I........................ 1.0 0.5Ra 226' (dissolved) ..................... 10.0 3.0RA 226 (total) ............................ 30.0 10.0U ........... 4.0 2.0

'Values in plcocuries per liter (pCi/).


Except as provided in Subpart M ofthis regulation any new source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing NSPS representing the degreeof effluent reduction attainable by theapplication of the best availabledemonstrated technology (BADT):

(a) The concentration of Pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from mines,either open-pit or underground, thatproduce uranium ore, including minesusing in-situ leach methods, shall notexceed:



any,,,,, I d for 30any 1 day consecutive

days

Milligrams per lter -

coD ...... ............ . 200 100Zn .................................................. 1.0 0.6Ra 226* (dissolved) .................... . 10.0 3.0Ra 220" (total) ............................. 30.0 10.0U ................................................... 4.0 20pH ........................ ) (1)TSS ..........................................." 30.0 20.0

'Values in picocudes per fiter (pCi/1).2Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

(b)(1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from mills using theacid leach, alkaline leach or combinedacid and alkaline leach process for theextraction of uranium or from mines andmills using in-situ leach methods.


25711

2!171 2Federal Reeister I Vol 47. No. 114 I Monday, Tune 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules

§ 440.55 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in Subpart M ofthis part and 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, anyexisting source subject to this subpartmust achieve the following limitations:

(a) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from mines.either open pit or underground, thatproduce uranium ore, including minesusing in-situ leach methods, shall notexceed:



for 30any 1 day consectuive

days

Milligrams per titer

P......... .... 30. 20.Tss .................. .. .. .............. 20o.0'W the range 6.0 to 9.0.

(b) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in wastewater from millsusing the acid leach, alkaline leach orcombined acid and alkaline leachprocess for the extraction of uraniumshall not exceed:

Effluent limitationsJ Average of

Effluent dharactslstl I Maximum daily valuesfor fort 130

day consecutivedays

Milgrams per liter

0 ...................... ......... vt' () (tTms......... --....... 30 20

' ithin the range 6.0 to 9.0.

Subpart F-Mercury Ore Subcategory

§ 440.60 Applicability-: Description of themercury ore subcategory.


(a) Mines, either open-pit orunderground, that produce mecury ores-.and

(b) Mills beneficiating mercury oresby gravity separation methods or byfroth-flotation methods.


§ 440.62 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available(SPT).

Subject to the provisions of Subpart

M-General Provisions and Definitions,the following limitations establish the

concentration of pollutants controlledby this section which may be dischargedby a point source after application of thebest practicable control technologycurrently available:

(a) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from mines,either open-pit or underground, operatedfor the production of mercury ores shallnot exceed the following limitations:


Average ofEffluent characteristic Maxim daily valuesfo for 30

any 1 day consecutivedays


T ........................................- 30 20g .. .................... ................. .002 .001

. 2 .1

Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

(b)(1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from millsbeneflciating mercury ores by gravityseparation methods or by froth-flotationmethods except as provided inparagraph (b)(2) of this section.



Except as provided in Subpart M ofthis regulation and 40 CFR 125.30-125.32,any existing point source subject to thissubpart must achieve the followinglimitations:

(a) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged In mine drainage from mines,either open pit or underground, thatproduce mercury ores shall not exceed:

Effluent limitafas n

Average ofEffluent characteristic Maximum for daey values



H 0.0021 0.001

(b)(1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from millsbeneficiating mercury ores by gravityseparation methods or by froth-flotationmethods.

(2) In the event that the annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility exceeds the annualevaporation, a volume of water equal tothe difference between annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility and annual'evaporation may be discharged subjectto the limitations set forth in paragraph(a) of this section.



(a) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from mines.either open pit or underground, thatproduce mercury ores shall not exceed:


Average ofEffluent characteristic Maximum for daly values

any 1 day or

days

Milligrams per 4ter

Hg. 0.002 0.001pH .............. ............. ' ') (')TSS ............. . .... ........... 30.0 20.0

Within the range 6.0 to 9.0


(2) In the event that the annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to the

25'j 2 Federal Revister / Vol. 47, No. 114 1 Monday, June 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules29712


treatment facility exceeds the annualevaporation, a volume of water equal tothe difference between annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility and annualevaporation may be discharged subjectto the limitations set forth in paragraph(a) of this section.§ 440.65 Effluent limitations representing'the degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in Subpart M ofthis regulation and 40 CFR 125.30-125.32,any existing source subject to thissubpart must achieve the followinglimitations:

(a) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from mines,either open pit or underground, thatproduce mercury ores shall not exceed:



for 30any 1 day consecutive

days

Milligrams per titerpH ............. . ....... .... . ... ......... .. I v() v ()

TSS .... ........ 30 20Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.



Subpart G-Titanium Ore Subcategory§ 440.70 Applicability: description of thetitanium ore subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to discharges from

(a) Mines obtaining titanium ores fromlode deposits;

(b) Mills beneficiating titanium oresby electrostatic methods, magnetic andphysical methods, or flotation methods;and

(c) Mines engaged in the dredgemining of placer deposits of sandscontaining rutile, ilmenite, leucoxene,

monazite, zircon, and other heavymetals, and the milling techniquesemployed in conjunction with the dredgemining activity (milling techniquesemployed include the use of wet gravitymethods in conjunction withelectrostatic or magnetic methods).


§ 440.72 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best practicable control technologycurrently available (BPT).

Subject to the provisions of SubpartM-General Provisions and Definitions,the following limitations establish theconcentration of pollutants controlledby this section which may be dischargedby a point source after application of thebest practicable control technologycurrently available:

(a) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from minesobtaining titanium ores from lodedeposits shall not exceed:

Effluent limitationsSAverage of

Effluent characteristic Maximum for .dailyvaluesan 1 day consecutive

days

Mligrams per titer

Tss................... so 20Fe ................. 2.0 1.0pH --.-.-- ..-.--....- (') ()


(b) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged from mills beneficiatingtitanium ores by electrostatic methods,magnetic and physical methods, orflotation methods shall not exceed:

Effluent limitationsEAverage of

Effluent characteristic Maximum for dafy valuesany 1 day consecutive

days


TSS ............................ 30 20Zn ........... ........ ... ...... 1.,O 0.5Ni ........ ....... .. .. 0.2 0.pH .................. .... .... . " I "

'Within the range 6.0 to 9,0.

(c) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from mines •engaged in the dredge mining of placerdeposits of sands containing rutile,ilmenite, leucoxene, monazite, zircon, orother heavy metals, and the millingtechniques employed in conjunctionwith the dredge mining activity (millingtechniques employed include the use of

wet gravity methods in conjunction withelectrostatic or magnetic methods) shallnot exceed:



any I day cf 30cnsecutive

days


Te ..................... 0 202 1

pH ....... ........... ( ) (')

Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.





characteristic Maximum or QAveragoeof dally valuesI}an day for 30 coscutive days



Effluent I Effluent flimitations

characteristic Maximum for Average of daily valuesany 1 day I for 30 consecutive days

Milligrams per tr

Zn .......... 1.0 0.5

(c) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from minesengaged in the dredge mining of placerdeposits of sands containing rutile,ilmenite, leucoxene, monazite, or zirconand the milling techniques employed inconjunction with the dredge miningactivity (milling techniques employedinclude the use of wet gravity methodsin conjunction with electrostatic ormagnetic methods) shall not exceed:

25713

Federal Register*/ Vol. 47, No. 114 / Monday, .June 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules


characteristic Maximum for Average of daily valuesany 1 day for 30 consecutive days


Fe ............................ 2.0 1.0

§ 440.74 New source performancestandards (NSPS).






Fe....2..0 1.0pH .............. ...

( .

TSS .......................... 30.0 20.0





Effluent limitationsEffluent [

characteristic Maximum for I Average of daily valuesany 1 day for 30 consecutive days

pH........................... : ( .0 0TSS .................... 30.0 20.0



Except as provided in Subpart M ofthis regulation and 40 CFR 125.30-125.32,any existing source subject to thissubpart must achieve the followinglimitations:




pH ........................ (') (

TSS ......................... . 30.0 20.0

'Within the range 6,0 to 9.0.

Subpart H-Tungsten OreSubcategory

§ 440.80 Applicability: description of thetungsten ore subcategory.,

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to discharges from (a) minesthat produce tungsten ore and (b) mills

- that process tungsten ore by either thegravity separation or froth-flotationmethods.

Milligrams per titer

Zn. 1.0 0.5 § 440.81 [Reserved]"p14............... (')

TSS .......................... 30.0 20.0


(c) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from minesengaged in the dredge mining of placerdeposits of sands containing rutile,ilmenite, leucoxene, monazite, zirconand the milling techniques employed inconjunction with the dredge miningactivity (milling techniques employedinclude the use of wet gravity methodsin conjunction with electrostatic ormagnetic methods) shall not exceed:


characteristic Maximum for Average of daily valuesany 1 day I for 30 consecutive days


Fe ............................ I 2.0 1 1.0

§ 440.82 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best practicable control technologycurrently available (BPT).

Tungsten ore is included in the BPTregulation for the Ferroalloy Oressubcategory (40 CFR 440.42).



(a) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage fromtungsten mines shall not exceed:


Average ofEffluent characteristic Maximum daily values

any 1 day consecutiVe

days


Cd ................................... 0.10 0.05Cu .......................................... 0.30 0.15Zn ............................................. 1.0 0.5

(b) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged from mills shall not exceed:


Average ofEffluent characteristic Maxiu for daily values

mm 1a for 30any 1 day consecutivedays


Cd .......................... .0.10 0.05Cu .......... .......... .. 0.3 .15Zn .................................................. 1.0 0.5



(a) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage fromtungsten mines shall not exceed:



any Iday for 30consecutive

days


Cd .................................................. . 0.10 0.05Cu ......................................... 0.30 0.15Zn................................................... 1.0 0.05PH ................................................. (') (')TSS ............ . 30.0 20.0

'Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

(b) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged from mills shall not exceed:

Effluent limitationsAverage ofEffluent characteristic Maxi m for daagVef

any 1 day conscutive

days


Cd... ....................... 0.10 0.05Cu ................. 0.3 0.15Zn ............................. 1.0 0.5

25714


Effluent limitations, Average of

Effluent characteristic Maximum for daily values' : for 30

an a cornsecutlve

_days

pH . ............... .... (') (1)TSS ....................... .............. 1 30.0 20.0

' Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.




Average otdaly values

Effluent characteristic Maximum for cofnr 30eany I day days shall

notIexceed-


PH ............. ............. (1),TSS .................................. 300 20.0


Subpart I-Nickel Ore Subcategory§ 440.90 Applicability: description of thenickel ore subcategory.


(a) Mines that produce nickel ore and(b) Mills that process nickel ore.



Nickel ore is included in the ferroalloyores subcategory (see Subpart D).

§ 440.93 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable (BAT).[Reserved]

§ 440.94 New source performancestandards (NSPS). [Reserved]

§ 440.95 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the bestconventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).[Reserved]

Subpart J-Vanadium OreSubcategory (Mined Alone and Not asa Byproduct)

§440.100 Applicability: description of thevanadkium ore subcategory


(a) Mines that produce vanadium ore(recovered alone and not as a by-product of uranium mining and mills)and

(b) Mills that process vanadium ore(recovered alone, not as a byproduct ofuranium mining and mills).



Vanadium ore (recovered alone andnot as a byproduct of uranium miningand mills) is included in the ferroalloyores subcategory (see Subpart D).


§ 440.104 New source performancestandards (NSPS). [Reserved]

§ 440.105 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application Of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).[Reserved]

Subpart K-Antimony OreSubcategory

§440.110 Applicability: description of theantimony ore subcategory.


(a) Mines that produce antimony oreand

(b) Mills that process antimony ore.


§440.112 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available(BPT). [Reserved]


§ 440.114 New source performancestandards (NSPS).; effluent limitations.[Reserved]

§ 440.115 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).[Reserved]

Subpart L-Copper, Lead, Zinc, Gold,Silver, Platinum, and MolybdenumOres Subcategory

§ 440.120 Applicability.


(a) Mines that produce copper, lead,zinc, gold, silver, platinum, ormolybdenum bearing ores, or anycombination of these ores from open-pitor underground operations other thanplacer deposits;

fb) mills that use the froth-flotationprocess alone or in conjunction Withother processes, for the beneficiation ofcopper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, platinum,or molybdenum ores, or anycombination of these ores;

(c) mines and mills that use dump,heap, in-situ leach or vat-leachprocesses to extract copper from ores orore waste materials;

(d) mills that use the cyanidationprocess to extract gold or silver; and

(e) mines or mines and mills that usegravity separation methods (includingplacer or dredge mining or concentratingoperations, and hydraulic miningoperations) to extract gold ores, silverores, or platinum ores.


.§440.122 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting thedegree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best practicable control technology(OPT).

Copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver andplatinum ores are included in the BPTregulation for the Base and PreciousMetals subcategory (40 CFR 440.22).Molybdenum ore is included in the BPTregulation for the Ferroalloy Oressubcategory (40 CFR 440.42).

25715

Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 114 / Monday, June 14, 1982 1 Proposed Rules

§ 440.123 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable (Bat).

Except as provided in Subpart M ofthis regulation and 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing limitations:

(a)'The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from minesthat produce copper, lead, zinc, gold,silver, platinum, or molydenum bearingores or any combination of these oresfrom open-pit or underground operationsother than placer deposits shall notexceed:

Effluent Average oflimitations daily values

Effluent characteristic -for 30Maximum for consecutiveany 1 day days


C .................................................. 0.30 0.15Zn ................................................ ... 1.5 0.75Pb .................................................. 0.6 0.3Hg ............ 0.002 0.0011Cd .................................................. 0.10 0.05

(b) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged from mills that use the froth-flotation process alone, or inconjunction with other processes, for thebeneficiation of copper, lead, zinc, gold,silver, platinum or molybdenum ores orany combination of these ores shall notexceed:


Effluent characteristic for 30Maximum for consecutiveany 1 day days


Cu . ..... 0.30 0.15Zn ............. .. 1.0 0.5Pb ................................................. . 0.6 0.3Hg ................................................ . 0.002 0.001Cd ................................................... 0.10 0.05

(c)(1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from mine areasand mills processes and areas that usedump, heap, in-situ leach or vat-leachprocesses to extract copper from ores orore waste materials except as providedin paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(2) In the event that the annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility exceeds the annualevaporation, a volume of water equal tothe difference between annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to the

treatment facility and annualevaporation may be discharged subjectto the limitations set forth in paragraph(a) of this section.

(d)(1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from mills that usethe cyanidation process to extract goldor silver except as provided inparagraph (d)(2) of this section.


(e) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage ordischarged from mines and millsbeneficiating gold, silver, or platinumores by gravity separation methodsincluding mining of placer deposits,dredge mining and hydraulic miningoperations shall not exceed: (Reserved)


Except as provided in Subpart M-General Provisions and Definitions, anynew source subject to this subsectionmust achieve the following NSPSrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applicationof the best available demonstratedtechnology (BADT):

(a) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from minesthat produce copper, lead, zinc, gold,silver, platinum or molybdenum bearingores or any combination of these oresfrom open-pit or underground operationsother than place deposits shall notexceed:


Effluent characteristic for 30Maximum for consecutive

any I day days


cu ................................................... 0.30 0.15Zn ................................................... 1.5 0.75Pb .................................... 0.6 0.3Hg .................................................. 0.002 0.001Cd..........................................0.10 0.05pH...............................IITSS... ....................... 30.0 20.0


(b) (1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from mills that usethe froth-flotation process alone, or inconjunction with other processes, for the

beneficiation of copper, lead, zinc, gold,silver, platinum or molybdenum ores orany combination of these ores except asprovided in paragraph (b)(2) of thissection.


(c) (1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from mine areasand mills processes and areas that usedump, heap, in-situ leach or vat-leachprocesses to extract copper from ores orore waste materials except as providedin paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(2) In the event that the annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility exceeds the annualevaporation, a volume of water equal tothe difference between annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility and annual*evaporation may be discharged subjectto the limitations set forth in paragraph(a) of this section.

(d) (1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from mills that usethe cyanidation process to extract goldor silver except as provided inparagraph (d)(2) of this section.

(2) In the event that the annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surfce runoff to thetreatment facility exceeds the annualevaporation, a volume of water equal tothe difference between annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility and annualevaporation may be discharged subjectto the limitations set forth in paragraph(a) of this section.

(e) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged from mines and millsbeneficiating gold, silver, or platinumores by gravity separation methodsincluding mining of placer deposits,dredge mining and hydraulic miningoperations shall not exceed: [Defined ata later date]

25716




(a) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged in mine drainage from minesthat produce copper, lead, zinc, gold,silver, platinum or molybdenum bearingores or any combination of these oresfrom open-pit or undergroundoperations, except gold placer mines,shall not exceed:



any 1 day co se0uiv

days


pH .................................. .. (') ()TSS .................................. 30.0 20.0


(b) The concentration of pollutantsdischarged from mills that use froth-flotation process alone, or inconjunction with other processes, for thebenefication of copper, lead, zinc, gold,silver, platinum, or molybdenum ores, orany combination of these shall notexceed:


Average ofdaily values

Effluent characteristic Maximum for for 30ayIdy consecutive

any 1 day days shallnotexceed-

Milligrams per literpH ............................ ............ :..... ... v< ) 1 v')Tm.............. 30.0 20.0

'Within the range .0 to 9.0.

(c)(1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from mines andmills that extract copper from ores orore waste materials by the dump, heap,in-situ leach or vat-leach processesexcept as provided in paragraph (c)(2) ofthis section.

(2) In the event that the annualprecipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility exceeds the annualevaporation, a volume of water equal tothe difference between annual

precipitation falling on the treatmentfacility and the drainage areacontributing surface runoff to thetreatment facility and annualevaporation may be discharged subjectto the limitations set forth in paragraph(a) of this section.

(d)(1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater from mills that usethe cyanidation process to extract goldor silver except as provided inparagraph (d)(2) of this section.


Subpart .M-General Provisions andDefinitions

§ 440.130 Applicability.Abbreviations and methods of

analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401 shallapply to Part 440 except as provided inthese general provisions and definitions.The general provisions and definitionsin this subpart apply to all subparts ofPart 440.

§ 440.131 General Provisions.(a) Existing sources which as of the

date of this proposal have combined fortreatment waste streams from varioussubparts or segments of subparts in Part440: The quantity and quality of eachpollutant or pollutant property in thecombined discharge that is subject toeffluent limitations shall not exceed thequantity and quality of each pollutant orpollutant property that would have beendischarged had each waste stream beentreated separately. The discharge flowfrom a combined discharge shall notexceed the volume that would havebeen discharged had each waste streambeen treated separately.

(b] New sources that combine fortreatment waste streams from varioussubparts or segments of subparts in Part440: The quantity and quality of eachpollutant or pollutant property in thecombined discharge that is subject toeffluent limitations shall not exceed thequantity and quality of each pollutant orpollutant property that would have beendischarged had each waste stream beentreated separately. The discharge flowfrom a combined discharge shall notexceed the volume that would have

been discharged had each waste streambeen treated separately.

(c) Existing sources and new sourcesthat are permitted to discharge subjectto effluent limitations and that aredesigned, constructed, and maintainedto contain or treat the maximum volumeof process wastewater discharged in a24-hour period, including the volumewhich would result from a 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event, or snowmelt ofequal volume: Any excess wastewaterdischarged shall not be subject to thelimitations set forth in 40 CFR 440.

(d) Existing sources which are notpermitted to discharge and that aredesigned, constructed, and maintainedto contain the maximum volume ofprocess wastewater discharged in a 24-hour period including the volume thatwould result from a 10-year, 24-hourprecipitation event, or snowmelt ofequal volume: Any excess wastewaterdischarged shall not be subject to thelimitations set forth in 40 CFR 440.

(e) Determining the maximum volumeof wastewater which would result froma 10-year 24 hour precipitation event atany facility (in (c) and (d) above): Thevolume must include the volume thatwould result from runoff from all areascontributing runoff to the individualtreatment facility, i.e. all runoff that isnot diverted from the active mining area,run off which is not diverted from themill area, and other runoff that isallowed to commingle with the influentto the treatment system.

(f0 New sources that must achieve nodischarge of process wastewater: Excesswastewater that results from theoccurrence of a 10-year, 24-hourprecipitation event or snowmelt of equalvolume may be discharged and shall notbe subject to the limitations set forth in40 FR 440.

(g) When neutralization andsedimentation treatment technology tocomply with the metal limitations setforth results in inability to meet the pHrange of 6 to 9:

(1) The permit issuer may allow thepH level in the final effluent to slightlyexceed 9.0 so that the metals effluentlimitations in the permit will beachieved.

(2) For a discharge into receivingwaters for which the pH (if unaltered byhuman activities) is or would be lessthan 6.0 and if approved water qualitystandards authorize such lower pH, thepH limitation for the discharge may beadjusted downward to the pH waterquality criterion for the receiving watersif the other effluent limitations for thedischarge are met.

25717

25718 - Federal Register I Vol. 47. No. 114 / Monday, June, 14, 1982 / Proposed Rules

§440.132- Geual definitons.(a) "Active mining area" Is a place

where work or other activity related tothe extraction, removal, or recovery ofmetal ore is being conducted. eXcept,with respect to surface mines, any areaof land on o in which grading has beencompleted to return, the earth to desiredcontour and reclamation work hasbegun.

(b) "Mine" is an active mining area,including all land and property placedunder, or above the surfact of suchland,used In or resulting from the work ofextracting metal ore from its naturaldeposits by any means or method.including secondary recovery of metalore from refuse or other storage piles:

* derived from the mining, cleaning, orconcentration otmetal ores.

1c0 "Mirl" is a preparation facilitywithin which the metalore is cleaned..concentrated, or otherwise processed

* before it is shipped to the customer,refiner, smelter, or manufacturer. A millincludes all ancillary operations andstructures necessary to clean.concentrate. or otherwise process metalore, such as ore and gangue storageareas and loading facilities.

(d) "10-year. 24-hour precipitationevent" is the maximum 24-hourprecipitation event with a. probablerecurrence interval of once in 10 yearsas defined by the National WeatherService and Technical Paper No. 40,"Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the U.S.,"May 1961. and subsequent amendments,or equivalent regional or rainfallprobability information based on thepaper.(e) "Annual precipitation" and

"annual evaporation" are the meanannual precipitation and mean annuallake evaporation, respectively, asdefined in Climatic Atlas of the United

States, U.S. Department of Commerce,Environmental Science Services -Administration. Environmental DataServices. June 1968, or equivalentregional rainfall and'evaporation data.

(QI "U" (Uranium) is measured by theprocedure discussed in HASL ProcedureManual, edited by John H. Harley,HASL 300 Health and SafetyLaboratory, U.S. Atomic EnergyCommission, 1973, pg. EU-03, or anequivalent method.

(g) "Chrysotile asbestos" Is measured- by the procedure discussed in Charles

H. Anderson and J. MacArthur LongPreliminary Interim Procedure forFibrous Asbestos, EPA 600/4-80-005,PB-80-152879. The procedure is alsopresented In Addendum A to thetechnial development document.[FR Doc. $-15831 Sied 0-13-4C 8:45am

OIu.N COoE 6560-60-

environmental protection existing effluent limitations ... · evaluation (wh-586), environmental...

Documents