23552 RULES AND REGULATIONS I - US EPA

23552

Title 40-Protection of the EnvironmentCHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCYSUBCHAPTER N-EFFLUENT GUIDELNES

AND STANDARDS

[FBL 557-1]PART 436-MINERAL MINING AND

PROCESSING POINT SOURCE CATEGORYInterim Final Rule Making

Notice is hereby given that effluent lim-itations and guidelines for existingsources to be achieved by the applica-tion of best' practicable control tech-nology currently available as set forth ininterim final form below are promul-gated by the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). The regulation set forthbelow amends Part 436-mineral mining

'and processing point source categoryand will be applicable to existing sourcesfor the crushed stone subcategory' (sub-part B), the construction sand andgravel subcategory (Subpart C), the in-dustrial sand subcategory (Subpart D),and the phosphate rock subcategory(Subpart R) of the mineral mining andprocessing point source category pursu-ant to sections 301, and 304(b)' and (c),of the Federal Water Pollution ControlAct, as ainended (33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311and 1314(b) and (c), 86 Stat. 816 etseq.; Pub. L. 92-500) (the Act). Simul-

, taneously, the Agency Is publishing inproposed form effluent limitations and

-guidelines for existingl~sources to beachieved by the application of best avail-able' technology economically achiev-able, standards of performance for newpoint sources and pretreatment stand-ards for new sources. These latter lim-itations and guidelines are published forthe above four subcategories (SubpartsB, C, D and R) and also for those sub-categories for which effluent limitationsand guidelines representing the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable were promulgated on October6, 1975. At that time the best availabletechnology economically achievable,standards of performance for new pointsources and pretreatment standards fornew sources were not specified. A de-scription and, discussion of this legal au-thority Is contained in Appendix A tothis preamble.

The mineral mining and processingpoint sourcQ categofy was first studiedto determine whether separate limita-tions are appropriate for different seg-ments within the category. This analysisIncluded a determination of whether dif-ferences in raw material used, productproduced, manufacturing process em-ployed, age, size, waste water constitu-ents and other factors require develop-ment of separate limitations for differ-ent segments of the point source cate-gory. The raw waste characteristics foreach such segment were then identified.The control and treatment technologiesexisting within each segment Were iden-tlfled in terms of the amount of constitu-ents and the chemical, physical, andbiological characteristics of pollutants,the effluent level resulting from the ap-

RULES AND REGULATIONSI

plication of each of the technologies.This information was then evaluated inorder to determine what levels of tech-nology constitute the "best practicablecontrol technology currently available."The data upon which the above analysiswas performed included EPA permit ap-plications, EPA sampling and inspec-tons, consultant reports, and industrysubmissions. A -substantial summary ofthe method of study, the several factorsconsidered in subcategorization and theconclusions reached are set forth as Ap-'pendix B to this preamble.

The report entitled "Development Doc-ument for Interim Final Effludht Limita-tions Guidelines and New Source Per-formance Standards for the Minerallining and Processing Point SourceCategory" details the analysis under-taken in support of the interim final reg-ulation set forth herein and is availablefor inspection at the EPA Public Infor-mation Reference Unit, Room 2922 (EPALibrary), Waterside Mall, 401 M St. S.W.,Washington, D.C., at all EPA regionaloffices, and at State water pollution con-trol offces. A supplementary analysisprepared for EPA of the possible eco-nomic effects of the regulation is alsoavailable for inspectibn at these loca-tions. Copies of both of these documentsare being sent to persons or institutionsaffected by the proposed regulation orwho have placed themselves on a mailinglist for this purpose (see EPA's AdvanceNotice of Public Review Procedures, 38FR 21202, August 6, 1973). An additionallimited number of copies of both reportsare available. Persons wishing to obtain acopy may write the Environmental Pro-tection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Divi-sion, Washington, D.C. 20460, Attention:Distribution Officer, WH-552.

When this regulation is promulgated infinal rather than interim form, revisedcopies of the Development Document willbe available from the Superintendent ofDocuments, Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C. 20402. Copies of theeconomic analysis document will beavailable through the National Tech-nical Information Service, Springfield,VA 22151.

Prior to this publication, many agen-cies and groups were consulted and giventhe opportunity to participate in the de-velopment of these limitations, guidelinesand standards. -All participating agen-cies have been informed of project de-velopments. Initial drafts of the Devel-opment Documents were sent to all par-ticipants and comments were solicitedon those ,reports. A summary of thesecomments and the agencies' response andconsideration of these is contained inAppendix C to thispreamble.

The Agency has made a study of thecosts and economic and inflationary im-pacts of this regulation. It is estimatedthat the capital cost of compiying withthe limitations based on the best prac-ticable control technology currentlyavailable will be $23.9 million. There willbe no significant additional costs of com-plying with regulations based on the bestavailable control technology economi-

cally achievable. There will be no cost ofcomplying with pretreatmont standardsfor new sources. The total annual oper-ating costs for these requirements Is esti-mated to be $10.1 million. The proposednew source performance standards areidentical to the limitations reprcsent-Ing the best available technology eco-nomically achievable. Hence, the costsper ton of product will be the same. Thesecosts and the resultant economic and In-flationary impact are briefly discussedin Appendix B to this preamble and aresubstantially detailed in the economicanalysis document. It Is hereby certifiedthat the economic and inflationary ef-fects of this proposal have been carefullyevaluated In accordance with ExecutiveOrder No. 11821.

The Agency is subject to an order ofthe United States District Court for theDistrict of Columbia entered in NaturalResources Defense Council v. Train ot al.(Cv. No. 1609-73) which requires thepromulgation of regulations for this in-dustry category no later than June 1,1976. This order also requires that suchregulations become effective Iimmedi-ately upon publication. In addition, it isnecessary to promulgate regulationsestablishing limitations on the dischargeof pollutants from point sources In thiscategory so that the process of Issuingpermits to individual dischargers undersection 402 of the Act is not delayed.

It has not been practicable to developand publish regulations for this categoryin proosed form, to provide a 60 daycomment period, and to make-any nec-essary revisions in light of the commentsreceived within the-time constraints Im-posed by the court order referred toabove. Accordingly, the Agency has de-termined pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)that notice and comment on the interimfina regulations would be Impracticableand contrary to the public interest. Goodcause is also found for these regulationsto become effective Immediately uponpublication.

Interested persons are encouraged tosubmit written comments. Commentsshould be submitted in triplicate to theEnvironmental Protection Agency, 401M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,Attention: Distribution Officer, WH-552. Comments on all aspects of the regu-lation are solicited. In the event com-ments are in the nature of criticisms asto the adequacy of data which are avail-able, or which may be relied upon by tleAgency, comments should Identify and,if possible, provide any additional datawhich may be available and should In-dicate why such data are essential to theamendment or modification of the reg-ulation. In the event comments addressthe approach taken by the Agency Inestablishing an effluent limitation orguideline EPA solicits suggestions a towhat alternative approach should betaken and'why and how this alternativebetter satisfies the detailed requirementsof sections 301 and 304(b) of the Act.

A copy of all public comments will beavailable for inspection and copying atthe EPA Public Information Reference

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 113-THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1976

HeinOnline -- 41 Fed. Reg. 23552 1976

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Unit, Room 2922 (EPA Library), Water-side Wall, 401 M Street, S.W_ Washing-ton, D.C. A copy of the preiminarydraft contractor reports, the Develop-ment Document and economic study re-ferred to above, and certain supplemen-tary materials supporting the study ofthe industry concerned will also be-maintained at this location for publicreview and copying. The EPA informa-tion regulation, 40 CFRpart 2,,providesthat a reasonable fee may be charged forcopying.

All comments received on or beforeAugust 9, 1976, will be considered. Stepspreviously taken- by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency to facilitate publicresponse within this time period are out-lined in the advance notice concerningpublic review procedures published onAugust 6, 1973 (38 FR 21202). In theevent that the final regulation differssubstantially from the interim finalregulation set forth herein the Agencywill consider petitions for reconsidera-tion of any permits issued in accordancewith these interim final regulations.

In consideration of the foregoing, 40CPR Part 436 is hereby amended as setforth below.(Se s. 301, 304 (b) and (c). 306(b) and307(c), Federal Water Pollution Control Act,as amended (the Act): (33 US.C. 1251, 1311,1314 (b) and (c). 1316(b) and 1317(c)); 86stat. 816 et seq.; Pub. L. 92-500)

Dated: Mlay28,1976.

JOmr QUARLES,Acting Administrator.

Apprsrxx ALEGAL AUTHO5R5Y

(1) Existing point sources.Section 301(b) of the Act requires the

achievement by not later than July 1, 1977,of effuent limitations for point sources, otherthan publicly owned treatment works, whichrequire -the application of the best prac-tic able' control technology currently avail-able as defined by the Administrator pur-suant to section 204(b) of the Act. Section301(b) also requires the achievement by notlater than July 1, 1983, of effluent limitationsfor point sources, other than publicly ownedtreatment works, which require the applica-tion of best 'available technology economi-cally achievable which will resut in reason-able further progress toward the nationalgoal of eliminating the discharge of all pol-lutants,-s determined in accordance withregulations issued by the Administrator pur-suant to section 304(b) of the Act.

Section 304(b) of the Act requires the Ad-ministrator to publish regulations providinggudelines for effluent limitations cettingforth the degree of effluent reduction attain-able through the application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable and the degree of effluent reduc-tion attainable through the application ofthe best control measures and practicesachievable including treatment -techniques,process and procedural Innovations, operat-ing methods and other alternatives. Theregulation herein sets forth eflluent limita-tions and guidelines, pursuant to sections301(b) (1) and 304(b) of the Act, for thecrushed stone subcategory (Subpart B). theconstruction Send and gravel subcategory(Subpart-C). the industrial sand subcate-gory (Subpart D) and the phosphate rock

- subcategory (Subpart R) of the mineral

. mining and procesing point source category.* Tho regulation herein also cots forth e~lu-

ent limitations and guldelines. purcunt tosections 301(b) (2) and 304(b) of the Act.,for the cruchcd stone subcategory (SubpartB), the construction rand and gravel cub-category (Subpart C), the industrial andsubcategory (Subpart D). the gypsum Lub-category (Subpart E). the a:,phaltic mlnmlssubcategory (Subpart F), the abestos andwollastonite cubcategory (Subpart 0), thebarite subcategory (Subpart J). the fluor-spar subcategory (Subpart X), the rAlineofrom brine lk subcategory (Subpart L),the borax subcategory (Subpart M), thepotash subcategory (Subpart 11), the codiumsulfate subcategory (Subpart 0). the phos-phato rock cubcatcgory (Subpart R). theFrasch sulfur subcategory (Subpart 8). thebentonito subcategory (Subpart V). the ma.-nesito subcategory (Subpart W), the diato-mito subca"tory (Subpart X), the jado cub-category (Subpart T), the novecullto sub-category (Subpart Z), the tripoli subcateory(Subpart AP). and the Craphlto cubcate-gory (Subpart AL) of the mineral miningand processing point sourco category.

Section 304(c) of the Act requires the Ad--ninistrator to issue to the States and ap-propriate Water pollution control agenciesinformation on the processs, procedures oroperating methods which result In the elm-'nation or reduction of the discharge of pol-lutants to Implement standards of perform-ance under section 300 of the Act. The re-port entitled "Development Document forInterim Finl Eluent Limitations Guide-lines and New Source Performance Stand-ards for the Llneral Liming and ProcessingPoint Source Category" provides, pursuantto section 304(c) of the Act, information onsuch processes, procedures or operatingmethods.

(2) New rourceSection 300 of the Act requires the

achievement by now rource3 of a Federalstandard of performanco providing for thecontrol of the dischargo of poUutants whichreflects the greatest degree of effluent re-ductlon which the Administrator determinesto be achievable through application of thebest available demonstrated control technol-ogy, process operating methods, or otheralternativcs Including, where practicablo. astandard permitting no diccharo of pollu-tants.

Section 300 alzo requires the Administratorto propose regulations cstablthing Federalstandards of performance for categorLs ofnew sources Included In a list publiLhed pur-suant to section 300 of the Act. The regula-tion piropozed herein cots forth the standardsof performance applicable to new sources forthe crushed stone subcategory (Subpart B).the construction sand and gravel subcatcgory(Subpart C). the Industrial sand subcatcoory(Subpart D), the gypsum subcategory (Sub-part E), the asphaltic minerals cubategory(Sufpart F). the asbastos and rwo0latonitesubcategory (Subpart G), the barite subcats-gory (Subpart J). the fluor-par subcategory(Subpart X), the sallnca from brine lkessubcategory (Subpart L), the borax ubeate-gory (Subpart 11). the potash subcatcgory(Subpart N), the sodium sulfate subcetegry(Subpart 0), the phosphate reck subcate-gory (Subpart R), the Frasch culfur subcate-gory (Subpart 8), the bentonite subcateZor7(Subpart V). the magnsita subcatc-ory(Subpart W), the dlatomite cubcatcery(Subpart X). the jade subcategory (SubpartY), the novaculito subcategory (Subpart Z),the tripoli subcategory (Subpart AF), andthe graphite subcategory (Subpart AL) ofthe mineral mining and proce=ing pointsource category.

(3) Pretreatment for new sources.Sectlon 307(c) of the Act requires the

AdminL-trtor to promul3ate pretreatmentstandads for now sources at the sain-timethat standards of p=for=mce for newsources; e promulgated pursuant to sectionr,0. In another tion of the F=AL Eo-zs= regulatlons arm proposed in fulflle ntof these requirements which may not befulfilled by this Interim 11nal regulatlon

vauzcsr-. A nSa-12&Ys sMEArs roa

This Appendlx summariz3 the ba of in-term final euent limltations and guidelinesfor existing sources, proposed eMuent Imita-t~ons and guidelines for existing sources tobe achevLd by the appllcation of the bestavallablo technology economically achiev-able, propoed standards of performance fornow sources. and proposd pretreatmentstandards for both new and existing sources.

(1) Generalmethodology.Th effuent Itmltations and guidellnes set

forth herein .er developed in the followingmanner. The point source category=was first

studied for the prpoe, of determinin.-whoth r reparato limitations are appropriatefor different segments within the category.This analysis included a determination ofwhether dIfferences in raw material used.product produced, manufacturing processemployed. age, v1ze, wasto water constituentsand other factors require development ofs-eparato limitations for different segmentsof the point cource category. The raw wastacharacteristim for each such segment werthen Identled. This included a analysis ofthe source, flo-w and volume of water used inthe pro:ess employed, the sources of wasteand va sto vmters in the operation and theconstituents of all wastevater. The con-Stituents of the waste aters which shouldba subject to effluent limitations were Iden-tifled.

The control and treatment technologiesexisting Within each sement wore identified.This Included an identificatlon of each dLs-tinct control a4d treatment technology, in-cluding both'In-plant and end-of-proceastechnologies, Which is existent or capable ofbeing designed for ech segment. It rso in-eluded an identiflcation of, in terms of theamount of consltusnts and the chemical,physical, and biloical chara-cterie ti ofpollutants., the ef luont level resulting fromthe application of each of the tehol g es.The problems, limitations and reliability ofech tre tment and control technology wereasao ldentlflcJ_ In addition. the nonwaterquality environmantal Impact, such s theeffects of the application of such teahnologlsupon other piollution problems, including air.solid wanste, noL- and radiation w~ere iden-tified. Mw energy requir3eents of each con-trol and tretment technology weredetermined as Well as; the cost of the oppli-cation of such trnolo1e-.

The informnaton. as outlined ohve, ws.,then evluatcd in ordor to determine, whatlevels of technolc,-y constitute the "bestractlcablo control tcchnology currantlyavailable." In Identifying such technologies,various factor. wer considered. The- in-eluded the total cost of application of techl-nolooy in relation to the effuent reductionbcmits to ba achieved from such applisa-tion. the ego of equipment and facilities in-volved, the proes3 employed, the engineer-ing aspccts of the application of varoustypes of control techniquez, process changes,nontvatsr quality environmental impact (in-eluding energy requirements) and otherfactorm.

The data upon which the above analysis-was performed included EPA permit appli-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 113-THUSDAY, JUNE 10, 1976

23


23554

cations, EPA sampling and Inspections, con-sultant reports, and Industry submissions.

(2) Summary of conclusions with respectto the crushed stone subategory (SubpartB), the construction sand and gravel sub-category (Subpart C), the industrial sandsubcategory (Subpart D) and the phosphaterock subcategory (Subpart R) of the mineralminin and processing point source category.

A summary of conclusions for the gypsumsubcategory (Subpart E), the asphalticminerals subcategory (Subpart F), the asbes-tos and wollastonite subcategory (SubpartG), the barite subcategory (Subpart J), thefluorspar subcategory (Subpart K), thesalines from brine lakes subeategory (Sub-part L), the borax subcategory (Subpart M),the potash subcategory (Subpart N),-thesodium sulfate subeategory (Subpart 0), theFrasch sulfur subcategory (Subpart S), thebentonite subcategory (Subpart V), the mag-nesite subcategory (Subpart W), the diats-mite subcategory (Subpart X), the jade sub-category (Subpart Y), the novaculite sub-category (Subpart Z), the tripoli subcategory(Subpart AF), and the graphite subcategory(Cubpart AL) was given in the FtnMALRcIsm on October 16, 1975 (40 FR 46652).That discussion also applies to the proposedlimitations and standards.

(1) Categorization.For the purpose of studying waste treat-

ment and establishing effluent limitationsguidelines and standards of performance,the mineral mining and prosessing categorywas divided into 38 discrete subcategories.These subcategories consist of specific min-eral types or classes of minerals. In addi-tion, within each subcategory a determina-tion was made whether subparts requireddifferent effluent limitations based on typeof ore, method of ore transport, type ofprocessing, use of wet air emissions controldevices, type of product, and ground waterseepage and runoff into the mine and processwaste water impoundments. -For the fourcommodities, crushed stone, constructionrand and gravel, industrial sand and phos-phate rock, the processing techniques weresufficiently different to form four separatesubcategories. In addition, within each sub-category there were different processes usedand separate consideration was given to eachas given in the following list.

Crushed stone: dry processing, wet process-ing, flotation processing, mine dewatering,area runoff.

Construction sand and gravel: dry processing,wet processing, dredging with land proc-essing, dredging water, other process water,mine dewatering, area runoff.

Industrial sand: dry processing, wet process-ing, acid and alkali flotation, HIP flotation,mine dewatering, area runoff.

Phosphate rock: flotation processing, otherprocessing, mine dewatering, area runoff.

Upon completion of the technical andeconomic analysis several processes within agiven commodity were combined because ofthe -easibility of achieving a common efflu-ent limitation. Hence, the dry, wet and flota-tion processing of crushed stone were com-bined. Dry and wet processing of construc-tion sand and graver were combined. Dry,wet and acid and alkali flotation processingof industrial sand were combined. Dredgewater discharge from land based 'construc-tion sand and gravel plants is not regulatedat this time pending further study. Dredgingand on-beard processing in navigable watersare regulated by the Corps of Engineers pur-suant to section 404 of the Act. Area runoffis likewise not regulated at this time unlessthe runoff enters process or mine dewateringwaste water impoundments.


(i) Waste characteristics.The known* significant pollutants and

properties resulting from the four subcate-gorles covered include pH and total sus-pended solids.Fluoride Is present in the proc-ess waste waters of the HF flotation, indus-trial- sand subcategory. Although fluoride,phosphate and radium 226 exist in the wastewaters from the phosphate rock subcategory,control of total suspended solids to thepromulgated limits will also control thesepollutants.

(ii) Origin of Waste water pollutants.The sources of waste water pollutants at

t1e mine include surface runoff of rain wa-ter into the mine and mine water treatmentsystems, ground water seepage and Infiltra-tion into the mine, and process water usedto transport the ore to the processing plant.The quantity of mine water is either unrelat-ed or only indirectly related to the mine pro-duction rate. Therefore, effluent limitationsare expressed in terms of concentrationrather than units of production.

Mine dewatering is defined as any waterthat is pumped, drained or otherwise re-moved from the mine through the directaction of the mine operator. Pit pumpage ofground water, seepage and precipitation orsurface runoff entering the active mine work-ings .Is an example of mine dewatering. linedewatering discharges are regulated. Runoffthat s not classified as mine dewateting ordoes not commingle with process generatedWaste water is not regulated at this time.Preliminary Information indicates that a sig-nificant economic impact could result Ifstringent limitations were promulgated.Therefore, regulations covering plant andmine runoff will not be promulgated untiladditional information is assessed.

The sources of waste wAter pollutant* atthe process facility include transport water,ore and product wash water, dust suppres-sion water, classification water, heavy mediaseparation water, flotation water, solutionwater, air emissions control equipment waterand equipment and floor Wash down water.Where production could be related to processwater flow, the effluent limitations are tiedto the units of production. In cases whereuncontrolled volumes of water, such as minedewatering, are normally mixed with processwater or in cases where process water flowcannot be related to the rate of production,the effluent limitations for prdcess waste wa-ter are expressed in terms of concentration

(iv) Treatment and control technology.Waste water treatment and control tech-

nologies have been studied for each sub-category of the industry to determine whatIs the best practicable control technologycurrently available. The following discus-sion of treatment technology provides thebasis for the effluent limitations guidelines.This discussion does not preclude the selec-tion of other wastewater treatment alter-natives which provide equivalent or betterlevels of treatment.

In the following discussion normal weath-er conditions are assumed. In the event ofan extreme precipitation event an allowancefor unregulated discharge is made. The bestpracticable control technology -urrentlyavailable is that treatment systems be de-signed, constructed and maintained to treatwaste water to the applicable effluent qualitylevel during the 10-year 24 hour precipita-tion event. Successive storm events that Intotal exceed the 10-year 24 hour event willthus qualify for this exemption if the treat-ment systems are properly maintained.

The Agency has no data to show that anaccumulation of dissolved solids occurs inthe recirculation systems for subcategories inwhich no discharge of process generatedwaste water pollutants is required or that

such an accumulation would prevent totalrecycle. However, the Agency has not In-spected all of the approximately 10,000 ag-gregate operations. Therefore, a varlancofrom the requirements of no discharge ofprocess generated waste water pollutantsmay be warranted If the accumulated dLi-solved solids content of the water necessitatesa blowdown discharge. This may also be thecase If a change to the dry proesm, becausoof no discharge limitations, would adverselyaffect required product purity.

(1) Treatment for the crushed atone vub-category. Dry processing plants will havo nodischarge. Water at wet processing plants isused to wash the stone and control dust. Thewaste water Is clarified In a settling pondand Is usually of sufficient quality that It isrecirculated directly to the process. If pre-cautions are taken to preclude storm run-off and mine water from the treatment sys-tem, there will be no cause for a dicharge.At facilities that use flotation, such as toobtain calcite, the waste flotation water canbe used to wash the stone. Mecss wasto watercan also be used for dust suppression.-Due to the nature of the hard rock incrushed stone quarries, water that collectson the quarry floor is quite clear. Thlu watercan originate from direct rainfall or groundwater seepage into the quarry. It Is poorpractice to allow surface runoff to enter thequarry, and diversion ditches or berms canprevent this. Quarry water Is collected In alow spot or sump, which Is rarely designcdto efficiently remove suspended solidS. Fromthis sump quarry water Is pumped to thesurface' and discharged. Fortunately, despite

'such common poor practices as positioningthe pump near the sump nfluent and allow-ing mine vehicles to drive through floodedareas, this water Is typically of excellent pur-ity. Data from several quarries demonstratethat a total suspended colids concentra-tion of 30 mag/1 need not be exceeded, InInstances where the mine water quality maynot meet this limitation, better water hand-ling practices can be instituted. The sumpcan be enlarged to provide adequate settlingtime. The sump pump can be positioned op-posite the sump Influent. Pumping may betemporarily stopped to alloyw the water toclear. In extreme cases a settling pond atground level may be built to provide addl-tlonal settling time. The Intermittent usoof flocculants is a-possiblo but unexpectedalternative. In general mine dowatering forall subcategories Is limited on a daily mai-mum basis only, since mine dowaterlnZ mayoccur on an intermittent basis,

(2) Treatment for the construction randand gravel subcategory. Processing plantsthat do not use water have no process Cen-crated waste water discharge. Water at wetprocessing plants Is used for ore washing, dutsuppression, heavy media separation and clm-sification. As s the case for crushed stone,process waste water can be completely re-cycled after clarification in settling ponds. Aseries of ponds is recommended In order toimprove the settling efficiency and allow fordredging of the primary pond without havibgto discontinue recycle. The use of flocculantsIn the secondary ponds is sometimes prac-ticed. After adequate clarification water,which may exceed water quality limits fortotal suspended solids, Is good enough to re-cycle. For land-bsed processors, partlcularlysmall plants; treatment other than singlesettling ponds followed by recycle may be theonly economically viable technology (LevelC In the Developnont Document). Thelimitations, therefore, are based on thintechnology. In dredged ponds that are notnavigable waters, process waste water Is al-most always returned to the ponds untreated

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL- 41, NO. 113-THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1976



to maintain the water level. 'This is accept-able practice. Discharges from these pondsto navigable 'waters do not normally occur.Discharges from these ponds due to subsur--face ground water intrusion are consideredto be mine dewatering. -

For dredging operations in navigablewaters, slurry water pumped ushore is stillunder investigation. Few facilities operatein this mode. land based processing facilitiesthat do not slurry transport-from the dredgeca recycle process waste water as do otherland based non-dredge operations.-If mine dewatering Is practiced a total

suspended solids concentration of 30 mg/lcan be met by the use of well designed andoperated settling ponds. Intermittent use offlocculants as practiced for process wastewater treatment will aid in extreme cases.For sand and gravel plants, mine water isoften treated in process waste water ponds.This practice is allowed, provided processwaste water is recycled.

(3) Treatment for the industrial sandsubategory. This subategory resembles theconstruction sand and gravel subcategoryexcept that additional beneficlation is done.The -best facilities recycle all process wastewater afer settling In ponds. Certain opera-tions require fresh water make-up, but thisexcess is balanced by water lost throughevaporation, product drying and sludge dis-posal. Clariflers are used at some locationsto increase sett"in efficiency and to minimizethe treatment area. However, this lattertechnology is not economically feasible forall plants. Therefore the limitations are based

-on the technology of settling and recycle(Level B in the Development Document).Sludge disposal-can present problems If awatershed is dammed and an excess of runoffenters the sludge pond. This runoff can bediverted around the Impoundment and thesupernatant -pond water returned to theprocess water system.

There is one plant that uses hydrofluorioadid in the flotation circuit. At the present

-time this facility is able to recycle about90% of the process waste water. TotalrecycleIs claimed to hinder the UF flotation of feld-spar. The daily maximum for total suspendedsolids was based on plant data.

Industrial sand mines are Identical to sandand gravel mines and the same reasoning forthe mine dewatering linitation applies.

(4) Treatment for the phosphate rock sub-category. There are two types of processingoperations that effect the process waste waterin different ways. Facilities that practice fio-t tation with amines, fatty acds and otherreagents sxperjence interference when ex-cessive concentrations of impurities build-upin a total recirculation system. A dischargemay then be necessary. There is some leewayfor partial recirculation, and these facilitiesare urged to recycle as much as possible. Be-cause large amounts of mine water, runoffand rainfall can enter the treatment sys-tem, the limitations are expressed in termsof concentration. Although radium 226, phos-phate-und fluoride are present in the waste"water, the existing treatment systems are notdesigned to specifically remove these pollut-ants. Furthermore, additional -treatment ofthese pollutants to concentrations belowpresent levels is not judged to be practicable.Effective control of total suspended solidsshould adequately control these pollutants.Facilities that do mot float process the oreand non-flotation unit operations within flo-tation plants are able to use iecycled wastewaters.

Process waste water management is com-plicated by Inclusion of mine drainage or ofsurface runoff if watersheds are dammed.Thli practce is acceptable in that largeamounts of make-up water are needed, andthe use of runoff minimizes the depletion ofground water. It is estimated that over 50

billion gallons annually are bound in thewaste phosphate limes. Thus., nonflotationplants are permitted to discharge to thespclfied limits If the detmming of waterzhedsresults in perlodio overflow. These plants,however, must ue this slime pond water anmake-up water. Other rourc=e of make-upwater can be used only If no discharge willresult. This mme principle applies to flota-tion plants, Recycled water can be atisfac-torily used as vash water, transport water,pumpseal water, and air scrubber water.Since a discharge will occur, becauze of theuse of fresh water make-up for the flotationcircults and the ncluslonof mine water andrunoff into the proces water system, theabove listed nonflotation proces water usmust not add to the discharge volume andthe pollutant quantities by taking unneces-sary fresh water into the process. Althoughtotal recycle of non-flotation proces watercan be achieved by use of ceparato wastewater treatment systems for flotation andnon-flotation wasto waters, this Is judged tobe overly severe If universally applied.

A statistical analysis of the long term ef-fluent data from several facilities shows thata total suspended solids concentration of somg/i can be met as a maximum monthlyaverage and CO mg/I as a daily maximum. Aonoted in theDevelopment Document severalplants are meeting theso limitations 103 per-cent of the time, Those plants that do notachieve the standards all of the time canupgrade their treatment system by variousmethods. Some plants are continuing to usetheir ponds beyond their useful life, thusdischarging some of the sludge that hassettled. One plant was ob:,-ved to be ferti-lizing the inner pond walls and excessivoaquatic growth apparently resulted whichincreased the total suspended collds levelMarthen" ditches are frequently used to con-vey the pond overflow to the discharge pointExcessive flow rates through these ditcheswere observed to result In croslon to theVals. Larger channels with well compactedwalls or concrbte or pipe conveyances wouldminimize this problem. The use of woodenboards in overflow towers can result in sig-nificant leaks betwen the boards of sub-surface levels of water In the Impoundmentswhich have higher levels of suspended solids.

(5) Solid wastes. Solid waste control mustbe considered. Most of the solid rastes forthis category are inert solids. However. "altconcentrates are ponded for the salinae frombrine lakes, borax, potash, and sodium nul-fate subcategorles. Be;t practicable controltechnology as known today. requires disposalof the pollutants removed from waste waters

n this industry In the form or colld vatesand liquid concentrates. In most -'-- theseare nonhazardous substance3 requiring only

In'mal custodial care. However, come con-stituents may be hazardous and may requirespecial consIderatlon. In order to insurolong-term protection of the environmentfrom these ha-ardous or harmful consttu-eats, special considert on of disposal ratesmust be made. All landfill sites where suchhazardous-wastes are dispo:ed should be s.-lecthd so as to prevent horizontal and vertl-cal migration of these contaminants toground or surface waters. In cacs wheregeologic conditions -may not reasonably en-sure this,. adequate legal and mechanicalprecautions (e.g. Impervious liners) shouldbe taken to ensure long term protectln tothe environment from hazardous materials.'Where appropriate, the location of solid hazardous materials disposal sites should bapermanently recorded in the appropriate of-flo of legal jurisdiction.

(v) Cost estimates for control of wastewater pollutants.

The costs e.timaed to result from thepromulgated regulations are listed below.

flntbssssnd5J

Sub=L-rgy Capital AnnaCW: costs

ce t.ed .... 1,420 $, 4CCnztf!sa rscd, 5=4

gravel. 7,450 2,233

Totwl--- 2,15 120 =

(vi) Energy requirements and nonwaterquality environmental impacts.

The additional energy requirementa aeestimated as follows:

Mineral: hvr per y"rCrushed Gtone_.___-_ _ 140Construction sand and gravel----- 27Industrial sand 8Phosphate ro........ 42.3

Total 213

Thes figtues are consetrva In that thesavings in not pumping as much freshwater as ma-lm'up were not subtracted.

The regulations wm increase the amountof solld wastes. As-uming that only a fewplants are discharging untreated rawwastes, however, the Increased amount ofsolid wastes resulting from recirculation sys-tems is mall when compared to the sludgecurrently deposited In an adequately main-talned settling pond prior to acceptable di-charge of the clarified water.

(vii) Economle Impact; analysis.The impact of these regulations on phos-

phate mining and procc--Ang are not ex-pected to be significant. Prices may increaseabout $0.11 pcr ton, or le a than I percentover mid-l071 loves of 012.10 per ton. NToplants are expected to close, and the effectson the balance of trade will be minimal

Overall production of the crushed stonendus-try wil not be affected by the guide-

lines, Seeral hundred plants which pres-ently bave no treatment and which are un-able to pass control cost" on are likely to shiftfrom production of both dry processed andwet pro_.-==d stone to entirely dry proces-iug, Depending; on the local market char=-teriltica, the price for ru--ed stone couldremain stable or Increase up to 8 percent270 clO== Will occur.

The economlc analysis of the sand andgravel Industry indicated that the only tech-'nolo-y which 13 economically viable is a set-tung pond with recycle. more extensive treat-meat which Involves additional ponds orfloaculatlon may ba feasible for some plantsbut I, consIdered to ba, economically imprac-ticle in general. In paticulr, plants whichhave no treatment at presant and are in alarge metropolltau =mret wM be unable toinstall treatment pas-t settling and recycle.Therefore, the EPT limitations are based ona tchnmology or settling and recycle. Theprlco of sand and gravel may increase frombetween C.04 to C0.20 per ton In smal citiesor rural areas. Up to 20 plants in major met-ropolitau areas which ave to absorb con-trol co-ts may cloe. These plants representa total of 0.3 parcent of the present natinalproduction and are a very smal proportlon ofthe 5,15GO opcrations in the industry. 'Thclosures could result in the loss of work forup to CS parsons but are not expected to af-feetlocal economies;.

The price of Industrial sand, will ncreaseI than I percent over present levels ofabout $5 to 67 per ton. Beause plants requir-Ing mechanical th1c-'ening which bare notreatment at presant could be seriously Im-pacted. it has been determined that this op-tion 1 economlcally infeasible. Settling withrecycle Is the technolo-y on which the best


23555


23556

practicable technology guidelines are based.Therefore, no closures are predicted, and lo-cal economies, - unemployment, industrygrowth and the balance of trade will not besignificantly affected.

APFzxmx C

SUMLLARY Or PuLIC PART7CIPATION

Prior to this publication, the agencies andgroups listed below were consulted and givenan opportunity to participate in the.develop-ment of effluent limitations, guidelines andstandards proposed for the mineral miningand processing category. All participatingagencies have been informed of project devel-opments. An initial draft of the DevelopmentDocument was sent to all participants andcomments were solicited on that report, Thefollowing are the principal agencies andgroups consulted: (1) Effluent-Standards andWater Quality Information Advisory Com-:mittie (established under section 515 of theAct), (2) all State and U.S. Territory Pol-lution Control Agencies; (3) the Ohio RiverValley Sanitation Commission;' (4) the Dela-ware River Basin Commission; (5) the NewEngland Interstate Water Pollution Control.Commission; (6) U.S. Department of Com-merce; (7) U.S. Department of the Interior;(8) U.S. Department of Defense; (9) U.S.Department of Agriculture; (10) U.S. Depart-ment of Transportation; (11) U.S. Depart-ment of Health, Education and Welfare; (12)U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De-velopment; (13) U.S. Department of Treas-ury; (14) Tennessee Valley Authority; (15)Council of Environmental Quality; (16) Na-tional Commission on Water Quality; (17)Federal Power Commission; (18) Federal En-ergy Administration; (19) Office of Manage-ment and Budget; (20). Internal RevenueService; (21) Nuclear Regulatory Cormis-ion; (22) The American Society of Mechan-

ical Engineers; (23) The Conservation Foun-dation; (24) Businessmen for the Public In-terest; (25) Environmental Defense Fund,Inc.; (26) Natural Resources Defense Coun-cil, Inc.; (27) .The American Society of CivilEngineers; (28) Water Pollution Control Fed-eration; (29) National Wildlife Federation;(30), Gypsum Association; -(31) IndianaLimestone Institute of Amerlca4 (32) MarbleInstitute of America; (33) National CrushedStone Association; (34) National IndustrialSand Association; (35) National LimestoneInstitute; (36) National Sand and Gravel As-sociation; (37) American Mining Congress;(38), Asbestos Information Association ofNorth America; (39) Barre Granite Associa-tion; (40) -Brick Institute of America; (41)Building Stone Institute; (42) The FertilizerInstitute; (43) Florida Llmerock Institute;(44) Florida Phosphate Council; (45) NorthCarolina Minerals Association; (46) NorthCarolina Sand, Gravel and Crushed StoneAssociation; (47) Portland Cement Assoca-tion; (48) The Refractories Institute; (49)Balt Institute; (50) Sorptive Minerals Insti-tute; (51) National Clay Pipe Institute; (52)National Lime Association; (53) EnvIron-:mental Protection Service, Canada; (54)Manufacturing Chemists Association; and(55) Georgia Association of Mineral Produc-ing Industries.

The following responded with comments:Effluent Standards and Water Quality In-formation Advisory Committee; Southwest-erm Graphite Co.; Indiana Limestone Insti-tute of America; Delaware Department ofNatural Resources and Environmental Con-trol; Gypsum Association; Illinois State Geo-logical Survey; Swift Chemical Co.; IllinoisAssociation of Aggregate Producers; Ameri-can Aggregates Corp.; Texas Water QualityBoard; North Carolina Industrial MineralAssociation; Brick Institute of America; In-ternational Minerals and Chemicals Corp.;Asbestos InfornatIOn"Associationi: 'American


Mining Congress; The Feldspar Corp.; Sobin.Chemicals,. Inc.; Harris Mining Co,; WaterResources Commisson, Michigan; WinterBrothers Material Co.; Illinois Environmen-tal Protection Agency; Waverly MineralProducts Co.; Department of Natural Re-sources, Georgia; U.S. Water ResourcesCouncil; Colorado Department of Health;

.Ohio Environmental Protection Agency;State of Florida Department of PollutionControl; Department of Health, Education,and-Welfare; Delta Materials, Inc.; Harry T.Campbell 'Sons' Co.; Bethlehem Steel Corp.;Ingram Materials, Inc.; National Lime Asso-ciation; Cape Girardeau Sand Co.; BeckerSand and Gravel Co.; New York State De-partment of Environmental Conservation;Unsil Corp.; U.S. Department of Agriculture;National Sand and Gravel Association; Na-tional Industrial Sand Association; U.S. De-partment of Transportation; Freeport Min-erals Co.; Erie Sand and Gravel Co.; TheGeorgia Kaolin Co.; Americanr LimestoneCo.; The Refractories Institute; State ofIndiana Department of Natural' Resources;Atlantic Richfield Co.; Ottawa Silica Co.:American Sand and Gravel Co.; Globe Re-fractories; CF Industries; Mr. David Branf-man; Duval Corp.; Milchem-lineralDiVision; Great Salt Lake Minerals andChemicals Co.; Morton Salt C6.; Dresser In-dustries; Environmental Protective Service,Canada; J. R.' Simplot 'Co.; U.S. Borax;

-Englehard Minerals and Chemicals Corp.; TheFertilizer Institute; North Carolina Depart-ment of Natural and Economic Resources;Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Departmentof Environmental Resources; Freeport SulfurCo.; American Industrial Clay Co.; NationalLimestone Institute; Thiele Kaolin Co.;Cyprus Minerals Co.; Anglo-American ClayCorp.; Gardinier, Inc.; Assistafit Secretary oiDefense; Jefferson Lake Sulfur Co.; NationalClay Pipe Institute; Kerr-McGee Corp.; In-ternational Minerals and Chemical Corp.;J. M. Huber Corp.; Freeport Kaolin Co.; Lithlum Corporation of America; Foote MineralCo.; New Riverside Ochre Co.; TexasGulfInc.; Agrico; Basic Inc.; Brewster Phosphates,USS Agri-Chemicals; W. R. Grace and Co.;Kaiser Refractories; Morton Salt Co.; MartinMarietta; Ozark-Mahoning Co.; FloridaPhosphate Council; Salt Institute; SorptiveMinerals Institute; Manufacturing ChemistsAssociation; Kaiser Cement and GypsumCorp.; U.S. Department of the Interior; LoneStar Industries, Inc.; Monsanto; The Fertil-Izer Institute; General Refractories Co.;Allied Chemical; Pfizer, Minerals, Pigmentsand Metals Division; North American Re-fractorles Co.; GAP Corp.; National WildlifeFederation; Kaiser Cement and GypsumAssociation; Ideal Basic Industries; MartinMarietta Cement;, Huron Cement; South-western Portland Cement Co.; Lehigh Port-land Cement Co.; General Portland, Inc.;Medusa Cement Co.; Portland Cement As-sociation; Flintkote Co., Calaveras CementDivision; A. P. Green Refractories Co.;Evansville Materials, Inc.; Conrock Co.;Mulzer Crushed Stone Co.; Martin Mari-etta Cement; Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corp.;Cooley Gravel Co.; and National CrushedStone Association.

A large, number of comments were re-ceived long after the period of comment hadexpired. These comments were assessed astime was available. With few exceptionsthese late comments express the sani inter-ests as described below. The more significantissues raised in the development of the in-terim final effluent limitations and guide-lines and the treatment of these issues here-in are as follows:

(1) There was considerable comment ontlie requirement of treating mine nd plantarea runoff until reclamation Is successfullycompleted and of diverting storni runoff

away from mines and process w1ate waterimpoundments.

Only two areas involving runoff will beregulated at this time, mine dewatering andrunoff into waste water treatment syston.Mine dowatering is defined as'any water thatis, pumped, drained or otherwise removedfrom the mine through the direct action ofthe mine operator, Pit pumpago of ground-water, seepage and precipitation or surfaeorunoff entering the active mine workigs ioan example of mine dewatering. Mine opera-tors are encouraged to divert surface runoffaway from the active mine workings. Surfacerunoff that enters a waste water treatmentsystem becomes waste water and must meetthe appropriate effluent limitation. In thecase of limitations specifying no discharge ofprocess waste water pollutants, diversion ofstorm waters around the Impoundments maybe necessary.

(2) Many of the commonters suggestedthat the pH range 6-9 should be ex:paunddbecause some natural waters have a pH lcs-than 6.

In the case of a discharge into receiving,waters for which the pH, if unaltered byman's activities, Is or would bo, les than (,0and water quality criteria In water qualitystandards approved under the Act author-ize such lower pH, the pH limitation for suchdischarge may be adjusted downward to thepH water quality criterion for the receivingwaters. In no case shall a pH limitation out-side the range 5.0 to 9.0 be permitted, Thisproblem was noted by plants In the crushedstone, construction sand and gravel, and in.dustrial sand subcategories. In particular forthe phosphate subcategory this situation hnnot been commented on by the industry, andallowing a lower pH could have the advorneeffect of dissolving radium 220 In the sludge,

(3) Some commentera recommended thatthe effluent limitations should be applied oa net basis, especially where no discharge ofpollutants Is required.

The Agency has promulgated regulations(40 CF Part 125) concerning the net orgross application of effluent standards, Priorto the time of permit Issuance an affectedplant can petition for a net limit If the ap-plicant demonstrates that speclfled pol-lutants which are present in the applicant'sintake water will not be removed by wastewater treatment systems designed to reduceprocess wiste water pollutants and otheradded pollutants to the levels required bythe applicable limitations or standards. Theeffluent limitations promulgated are based onthe gross discharge of pollutants.

(4) Three commenters insisted that proc-ess waste water should be delined to omitthat water which contacts the ore before ItIs mined,

Process waste water does not Include minerunoff contacting the ore unless this waterenters the process waste water treatment sys=tom. The term process generated waste waterIs used to clarify this.

(5) There were objections to the omissionof total dissolved solids (TDS) and of Certainconstituents of TDS such as calcium, mag-neslum, and nitrates from the limitation.In addition one company wanted to be ableto exceed the water quality standards forTDS.

Total dissolved solids are limited wherethe effluent limitation specifies no dischargoof process waste water pollutants. In thiscase the limitation can be met by total re-cycle or impoundment with no discharge. Forthose subcategories with limitation3 otherthan no discharge of pollutants It is not eco-nomically practicable to treat for total diu-solved solids or certain constituents of TDSsuch as calcium, magnesium and nitrates.This does not relieve the discharger frommeeting applicable water quality standard,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 1 13-THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1976



- (6) it was suggested that for- the phos- (11) One aggregate processing company b.a c ettling pond treatment. Section 436.32phate subcategory the subcategorlzatlon not claimed that it will discharge water from Its for sand and Gravel specifles the maenr for

be based on Eastern versus Western opera. - treatment pond system as It tries to match seeking rollet In unusual situations.tions because new operations in the West the -water lost by ovaporatlon and percola- In the Cse where commenters claim thatthat may slurry transport the ore will not tion with fresh water Intpho. total recycle will result In an unmanageable

be able to achieve no discharge of pollutants. Adequate control of the Intake water vol- amount of additional sludge, the EPA be-

Another commenter suggested that Ten- ume will prevent treatment pond overflow Iave3 this i- overstated. The additional

nessee operations be subeategorized sep- in this CZ . sludge resulting- from settling the solids forarately from Florlda and North Carolina (12) One commenter claimed that not on existing discharge, were it to be recycled

operations. -- enough sand, gravel and crushed cotno and hence the suspended solic ultimatelyEastern operations, especially those In plants were visited. settled, are minor compared to the several

Florida and North Carolina cannot now Approximately 57 sand and gravel and 37 thousand millgra ;. er liter of sspendel

echieve a permanent no discharge condition crushed stone plants were visited by the EPA collds that need be rattled from the rawbecause of excessive mine water and the need contractor. It would be impos-AbletQ Vist a ste bore a dlc would ha ever

to principally use fresh make-up water In the 10,000 plants and it Is questionable whether acceptable.

jotation circuit. The subcategorlzation has much additional treatment technology in- (18) One plant operator claimed that when.

been redefined -to distinguish between flota- formation would be gained by doing co. a new7 quarry face is opened the quarry

tion processes and other processing and mine Plant inspection selection was decided after Gump wil not Too able to achieve the pro-

dewatering. It is not universally practicable consultation with national and state trade posedlimIts forT53.

to separate all mine water, rainfall and run- associations. These plants are of various Proper location of the quarry sump or tho

off- and process waste water for this sub- sizes and property dispositions. The plants use of an additional settling pond will pre-.

category. Thus the limitations allow a dis- visited are therefore considered to be a Good vent this problem

charge for flotation process water, mine de- sample of the industry. The comment period (19) Some commenters observed that no

waterng and excess rainfall and runoff into to the draft reports allowed companies not dishare of proceca waste water is not possi-

procss waste water impoundments. Slurry inspectod to-describo their particular clt-us ble from a dredged pit if ground water In-

water is recycled at all existing plants and. tions. .rusion Into tho pit igthis practice is incorporated into the criteria (13) The land cost was claimed to _O E water tdhlrged from teep piti due,

used to determine the new source per- low for the treatment of process wasto to direct raWl and ground water seepage,formanc standards. Hence all new plants, waters. i3 clasified as mine dewatering and 13 regu-,astkrn or Western, will have to recycle this The land cost factor was an average value, lated under tho combined discharges claus.

water. The economic analysis indicate3 that oven (20) Qno person complained that dry proc-(a) Several phosphate mining companies if the total treatment co3ts were slgni lcantly eing plants which have wet scrubbers must

suggested that fluoride and phosphorus not higher the results would be the same. dischargo and cannot achieve the no dis-

be regulated since the present treatment sys- (14) One commenter complained that the charge standards.toen are not designed to specifically remove cost of recycling water will increa as new Dry prosessing- plants that use scrubbersthese parameters. In addition it was con- ponds are located farther from the proces am totally recycling this proces waste water

tested their presence is due to the suspended equipment. after adcquato ottllng.solids which are regulated. The newer plants have usually taken thls (21) A few crushed stone companies corn-

Upon review of the contractor's data, addi- into acount when the plant was constructed. plained of the severity of the mine dewater-

tional plant inspections by EPA personnel Common practice for older plants include in. limitation.

and data submitted by this industry it was moving the plant to a more favorable loee- The mine dewatering limitation i- basedfound that only pH and TSS need be reg- tion, pumping farther distance3 to new on existing plant data. Ciushd stone quar-ulated by efluent lmitations guldelines at treatment ponds or dredging the existing rlc, bcaum they are hard rock operations

t time. The phosphate and fluoride con- ponds to prolong their life. The taullin Instead of strip miningr operations involving

ceintrations appeared to be affected both by from dredging may be dispo ed of in In- much topcoli, ra able to discharge minethe quality of the well water intake and to active sections of the mine. water that is much cleaner than ED m/1 oftleir presence in suspended solids which arWe (15) Another commenter sugestcd that T'S. DizbargeLs In exce-s of this are either

treated. Specific treatment for these pollut- portable aggregate procecsing plants should due to inadequate sump or pond size or poorans was Judged to be prohibitively expen- be a separato subcategory. quaTy praCtica cuch as allowing surface run-sive - Portable crushed atone plants were tud-- olf to enter the quarry.

(8) It was suggested that the limits for led by the contractor and there Ia no reason (22) Soveral commente suggested thatthe phosphate subcategory be In units of why they cannot recycle process wrste water the 10- and 23-year 24 hour precipitationmg/. instead of kg/kkg since mine water, as do permanent procesing facilitles. At a ovent crltcrla be replcd by the 1-year 21r 'unoff and process water are one and the min um a treatment pond chould alrcady hour event. This rw clalmed to be more costbbme, and this combined flow cannot be re- exist at portable plant location:, and this beneflcial becauz3 of the Infrequency of thelatd to production. A TSS limit of 30 mg/1 system can be modified to recycle tho wasto 10- and 23-year events.as an average and 150 mg/I as a daily maxi- water. Purther eubentegorintion is there- There is somo misunderstanding that themur-was suggested. fore not necess . regulation language in the caso of limitations

ecause nlne water, runoff and process (16) Instead of no discharge of pollutants specifying no dischargo of proce-s wastewast water cannot be economically segre- for process water, a natlonal trade -. ocla- water polutants would allow a discharge

gated. the units of the limits are more tion recommended that both mine water only once In 10 years when the respecive

appropriate as concentrations. A statistical and process water for sand and gravel bo event occurs. Constructing and operatinganalysis of data from several plants nd- limited to 100 mgA TSS. impoundment to contain the 10-year eventcates that a well designed and operated Many sand and gravel plants in different and oven less frequent eventa is standard en-

slime pond can achieve 30 mg/1 TS3 as a parts of the United States were found to gineering practlce. However, If closely spacedmaximum monthly average and 60 mg/I as achieve no discharge of procs wasto water. storm3 or a prolonged storm equals the 10-

a daily maximum. - The limitations for best practicable control year event a 4

'schargo will occur for a pond-(9) There was considerable comment on technology currently avanlablo or bascd on so dcsgned. Thus on allowable discharge or

the contractor's recommendations concern- the average performance of the best exlt- poUutats my occur more frequently de-

ing dredging for sand, gravel and shell ing treatment rather than on what most pending upon the occurrence of major stormDischarges from dredges mining mineral plants currently achlovo. The technologies ovonta. This Gtorn ovent i3 defined by the

deposits in navigable waters are regulated cited In the development document aro 0p- National Climatic Center of the Environ-

under section 404' of the "Permits for plicable to those that prezently do not re- mental Dta Service, National Oceanic and

Dredged or Fill Material" Discharges oril- cycle procest waste water. -1 Atmospherlo Administration, U.S. Depart-nating from hydraulic dredges that pump to (17) Some sand and gravel commentera mont of Commerce. It 13 determined by de-sahore for processing are not regulated by pointed out that there can be land avail- tailed &.atIstlcal analysL It L3 quite pon-these effluent limitatons pending additional ability problems in building treatment blo that more than one 24 hour rainfal in

investigation. Other discharges from shore ponds and In disposing zludge, the last 10 years haa exceeded the defined- based plants are regulated. Alternative treatmnts can be employed 10-year 2- hour event. Therefore, the agency

(10) One commenter questioned whether f e land is unavailable to construc cited abovo hould be consulted rather thanthe return flew of process waste to dredged le settling ponds. These technologies In- company records alone.

omeet no discharge of c elude flocculants, cyclones, clarliers, or The draft recommendations suggestingpits need to meetnts thickeners used In conjunction with maller tre tment up to the 25-year 24 hour stormwaste water pollutants.,

The limits are only to be applied to point settling ponds. However, the cYonomic analy- ovent for the 1983 limitations and the newsource dischargesto navigable waters. Hence sis indicated that should treatments other source performance standards were replaced

than simple settling and recycle be neces- by the 10-year 21 hour storm event as r-

the standards only apply to the discharge sary. operations could suffer severe eco- quired by the 1077 limitations It is judged

of the pit to navigable waters if the pit Itself nomlo impacts and pbcslbly cloce. There- that for the pollutants present for this in-

is a non-navigable water. * , fore, the limitations are only bsed on tn dustry, printipally -suspended sollds, lIttle

FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 113-THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1976

2355T


23558

added environmental benefit Is gained by theadded expenditures to heighten the im-poundment walls or divert storm waters.

(23) It was contested that no discharge ofprocess waste water pollutants for the In-duztrlal sand subcategory Is too costly. Allmtof 100 mg/I TSS was suggested.

The economic analysis evaluated severaltreatment options for achieving no dischargeof process water. Because it was determinedthat plants requiring mechanical thickeningcould-suffer a severe economic impact, theguidelines are only based on a technologyof settling ponds and recycle. Based on thistechnology, the economic analysis indicatedthat thb industrial sand industry would notbe seriously impacted.

(24) There was confusion between whatIs included in the HF and wet processingdivisions of the industrial sand subcategory.

Only an Industrial sand plant that em-ploys HF flotation is classified In the HPcubcategory.

1. Part 436 is amended by adding thefollowing sections to the table of con-tents.

Subpart B--Crushed Stone Subcategory

Sec.436.20 Applicability; description of the

crushed stone subcategory.430.21 Specialized definitions.430.22 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-

,. plicatlon of the best practicablecontrol technology currentlyavailable.

/ ubpart .-,Constructon Sand and GravelSubcategory

(436.30 Applicability; description of theconstruction sand and gravel sub-category.\

436.31 Specialized definitions.436.32 Effluent limitations. guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable, by the ap-plidatlon of the best practicableI control technology - currentlyavailable.

" Subpart D-lndustrial Sand Subcategoryr 436.40 Applicability;, description of the in-dustrial sand subcategory.

436.41 Specialized definitions.1436.42 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the appil-cation of the best practicable

/ control 'technology currentlyavalable.

Subpart R-Phosphate Rock Subcategoy

436.180 Applicability; description of thephosphate rock subcategory.

430.181 Specialized definitions.430.182 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

L "resenting- the degree of effluentreduction attaintable by the ap-picattou of the best practicablecontrol ' technology currentlyavailable. -

2. Subpart B is amended by adding§ 436.20,436.21 and 436.22 as follows:Subpart B-Crushed Stone Subcategory

§436.20 Applicability; description ofthe crushed stone subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to the mining or quarrying andthe processing of crushed and brokenstone and riprap. This subpart includesall types of rock and stone. Rock andstone that Is crushed or broken prior to


the extraction of a mineral are elsewherecovered. The processing of calcite, how-ever, in conjunction with the processingof crushed and broken limestone or dolo-miteis included in this subpart.§ 436.21 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as provided below, the gen-

eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401shall apply to this subpart."" (b) The term "mine dewatering" shallmean any water thatis pumped, drainedor otherwise removed from the minethrough the direct action of the mineoperator.

(c) The term "10-year 24 hour precip-Itation event" shall mean the maximum24 hour precipitation event with a prob-able re-occurrence interval of once in10 years. This information is available in"Weather Bureau Technical Paper No.40," May 1961 and "NOAA Atlas 2," 1973for the 11 Western States, and may beobtained from- the National ClimaticCenter of the Environmental Data Serv-ice, National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, U.S. Department ofCommerce.

(d) The term "mine" shall mean anarea of land, surface or underground, ac-tively used for or resulting from the ex-traction of a mineral from natural de-posits.

(e) The term "process generated wastewater" shall-mean any waste water re-sulting from the slurry transport of oreor intermediate product, air emissionscontrol, or processing exclusive of min-ing.§ 436.22 Effluent limitations guidelines

rep'esenting- the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica.tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-count all Information it was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,productsproduced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements and costs)which can affect the industry subcate-gorization and effluent levels established.It Is, however, possible that data whichwould affect these limitations have notbeen. available and, as a result, theselimitations shouId'be adjusted for cer-tain plants Injihis industry. An individ-ual discharger or other interested personmay submit evidence to the Regional Ad-ministrator (or to the State if the Statehas the authority to issue NPDES per-mits) that factors relating to the equip-ment or facilities Involved, the processapplied, or other such factors related tosuch discharger are fundamentally dif-ferent from the factors considered in theestablishment of the guidelines. On thebasis of such evidence or other available-information,-the Regional Admihistrator(or the State) will make a written find-ing that such factors are or are notfundamentally different for that facilitycompared to those specified in the Devel-opment Document. If such fundamen-

tally different factors are found to exist,the Regional Administrator or the Stateshall establish for the discharger effluentlimitations In the NPDES permit eithermore or less stringent than the linlta-tions established herein, to the extentdictated by such fundamentally differentfactors. Such limitations must be ap-proved- by the Administrator of the V n-vironmental Protection Agency. The Ad-ministrator may approve or disapprovesuch limitations, specify other limlta-tions, or Initiate proceedings to revisethese regulations.

(a) Subject to the provisions of para-graphs (b) and (c) of this sectiAon, thefollowing limitations establish the quan-tity or quality of pollutants or pollutantproperties, controlled by this section,which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of the bestpracticable control techmology currentlyavailable:

(1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess generated waste.water pollutantsinto navigable waters.- (2) Mine dewatering discharges shall

not exceed the following limitations:Efluent

Zimitatfon, -Effluent maximuin for

charactristic any I dayTSS ------------------- 30 Mag/l.p .---------------------- Within the

range of 8.0to 0.0.

(b) Any overflow from facilities de-signed, constructed and operated to treatto the applicable limitations the pre-cipitation and runoff resulthig from a10-year 24 hour precipitation event shallnot be subject to the limitations of thissection.

(c) In the case of a discharge into re-ceiving waters for which the pH, if un-altered by man's activities, Is or would beless than 6.0 and water quality criteria Inwater quality standards approved underthe Act authorize such lower pH, the pHlimitations for such discharge may beadjusted downward to tha pH waterquality criterion for the receiving waters.In no case shall a pH limitation outsidethe range 5.0 to 9.0 be permitted.

3. Subpart C Is amended by adding§§ 436.30, 436.31 and 436.32 as follows:

Subpart C-Construction Sand andGravel Subcategory

§436.30 Applicability; description ofthe construction sand and gravel sub.c category.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to the mining and the processingof sand and gravel for construction orfill uses. The dredging of sand and gravelfrom navigable waters is regulated in 33CPR Part 209, "Permits for Activities inNavigable Waters or Ocean Waters." Dls-charges from dredges In navigable watersresulting from the on-beard processingof sand and gravel are also regulated In33 CFR Part 209. Discharges from shorL.based facilities of waste water originatingsolely from the suction dredging of de-posits in navigable waters are not In-'eluded in this subpart.




g 436.31 Specialized edefinitions.For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as provided below, the gen-

eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods.of analysis set forth in 40 CER 401shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "'mine dewatering" shallmean any water that is pumped, drainedor otherwise removed from the nminethrough the direct action of the mineoperator. This shall include wet pit over-flows caused solely by direct rainfall andground water seepage.

(c) The term "10-year 24 hour pre-cipitation event" shall mean the maxi-mum 24 hour precipitation event with aprobable re-occurrence interval of oncein 10 years. This information is avail-able in "Weather Bureau TechnicalPaper No. 40," May 1961 and "NOAAAtlas 2,"1 97S for the 11 Western States,and may be obtained from the NationalClimatic Center of the EnvironmentalData Service, National Oceanic and At-Khospheric Administration, U.S. Depart-ment of Commerce.

(d) The term "mine" shall mean anarea -of land, surface or underground,actively used for or resulting from the

trction of a mineral from naturaldeposits.

(e) The term "process generated wastew a ter" shall mean any waste water re-sulting from the slurry transport of oreor- Intermediate product air emissionscontrol, or processing exclusive of mining.

436.32 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresentngf the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica.tion of the best practicable controltechnology errenldy available.

In establishing the limitations set forthin this section, EPA took' into account-ll information it was able to collect,develop and solicit with respect to fac-tors (such as age and size of plant, rawmaterials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the induitrysubcategorization and effuent levels es-tablished. It is, however, possible thatdata which would affect these limitationshave not been available and, as a result,these limitations should be adjusted forcertain plants in this industry. An In-dividual discharger or other interested

,,-ersn may submit evidence to the Re-.gonal Administrator (or to the State, ifthe State has the authority to issueXIPDES permits) that factors relating tothe equipment or facilities involved, theprocess applied, or other such factorsrelated to such discharger are funda-mentSlly different from the factors con-sidered in the 'establishment of theguidelines. On the basis of such evidenceor other -available information, the Re-gional Administrator (or the State) willmake a written finding that such factorsare 'or are not fundamentally differentfor that facility compared to those spec-Ified n the Development Document I

_ sucir fundamentally different factors arefound to exist, the Regional Administra-tor or the State shall establish for thedischarger effluent limitations in the

NPDFZ permit either more or lezs strin-gent than the limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by suchfundamentally different factors. Suchlimitations must be approved by the Ad-mlntrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations.

(a) Subject to the provisions of para-graphs (b) and (c) of this section, thefollowing limitations establish the quan-tiMy or quality of pollutants or pollutantpropertes, controlled by this section,which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

(1) There shall be no discharge ofprocess generated waste water pollutantsinto navigable waters.

(2) Mine dewaterng discharges shallnot exceed the following limitations:

ELuzent Zimitatoio-Effluent nuncmt M. for any I

crharactestic !dcTSS - - ------ 30mg/LpH ------ Within tho rao of

c.0 to 9.0.

(3) In-the event that waste streamsfrom various sources are combined fortreatment and discharge, the quantityand quality of each pollutant or pol-lutant property in the combined dis-charge shall not exceed the quantity andquality of each pollutant or pollutantproperty allowed had each stream beentreated separately.

-b) Any overflow from facilities de-igned, constructed and operated to treat

to the applicable limitations the precipi-tation and runoff resulting from a 10-year 24 hour precipitation event shall notbe subject to the limitations of thissection.

(c) In the case of a dischargeinto re-ceiving waters for which the pH, if un-altered by man's activities, is or wouldbe less than 6.0 and water quality criteriain water quality standards approved un-der the Act authorize such lower pH, thepH lImitation for such discharge may beadjusted downward to the pH waterquality criterion for the receiving waters.In no case shall a pH limitation outsidethe range 5.0 to 9.0 be permitted.

4. Subpart D is amended by adding§§ 436.40, 436.41 and 430.42 as follows:Subpart D-ndustrial Sand Subcatczory

§ 436.40 Applicability; description ofthe industrial sand subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to the mining and the process-Ing of sand and gravel for uses otherthan construction and fill. These usesinclude, but are not limited to glassm-r-ing, molding, abrasives, filtration, re-fractorles and refractory bonding. -§ 436.41 Specialized definition.


eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "mine dewatering" shallmean auy water that is pumped, drainedor otherwise removed from the miaetbrough the direct action of the min'eoperator. This shall Include wet pit over-flows caused solely by direct rainfall andground water seepag.

(c) The term "10-year 24 hour pre-elpitatlon event" shall man the maxi-mum 24 hour precipitation event'witha probable re-occurrence interval ofonce in 10 years. This information isavailable In "Weather Bureau TechnicalPaper No. 40," May 1961 and "NOAA.Atlas 2," 1973 for the 11 Western States,and may be obtained from the NationalClimatic Center of the EnvironmentalData Service, National Oceanic and At-mospheric Administration, U.S. Depart-ment of Commerce.

(d) The term "mine" shall mean anarea of land actively used for a result-Ing from the extraction of a mineral

.from natural deposits.(e) The term "process generated waste

water" shall mean any waste water re-sulting from the slurry transport of oreor intermediate product, air emissionscontrol, or processing exclus ive ofmining.

§ 436.42 Effluent lHniations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attalin e by the appliea-tion of the best practicable controltecknologT currndly available-

In establishing the limitations setforth In this section, EPA took into ac-count all Information It was 'able tocollect, develop and solicit with respectto factors (such as age and-size of plantraw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, tnergy requirements andcosts) whIch can affect the IndustryCubcategoriation and effluent; levelsestablished. It Is, however, pomslb!e thatdata which would affect thee limitationshave not been available, and, as a result,these limitations should be adjusted forcertain plants in this Industry. An Indi-vidual discharger or other interested per-&on may submit evidence to the Re-gional Administrator (or to the State, ifthe State has the authority to zs-ue1NPDES permits) that factors relating tothe equipment or facilities involved, theprocess applied, or other such factorsrelated to such discharger are funda-mentally different from the factors con-sidered in the establishment of theguidelines. On the basis of such evidenceor other available Information, the Re-gional Adminli tor (or the State) wlmake a written finding that such factorsare or are not fundamentally differentfor that facility compared to those spec-Ified in the Development Document. Ifsuch fundamentally different factorsare found to exist, the Regional Admin-istrator or the State shall eatablish forthe dizclarger efluent limitations in theINPDES permit either more or less strin-gent than the limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by suchfundamentally different factors. Suchlimitations must be approved by the Ad-ministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator may

FEDERAl. REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 113-THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1976

2=.9



approve or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations. "

(a) Subject to tha provisions of para-graphs (b) and (c) of this section, thefollowing limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a Pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology" currentlyavailable:

(1) Except for EF flotation facilities,there shall be no discharge of processgenerated waste water pollutants Intonavigable waters. -

(2) Process generated waste waterfrom facilities employing HF flotationshall not exceed the following linita-tions:

otrlo units kglkkg of total product;E hunits, W/,00O lb of total product)

Efuet limitationsEffluent Average of daily

characteristic Maximum for valuo forany 1 day consecutive dayi

shall notexceed-

TSS .............. P.048........ sTotalliuorfde- 0.006 .. M003pH.."......... Within the

(3) Mine dewateing discharges shallnot exceed the following limitations:

Effluent Effluent limitations-characteristic -imoximum f& any 1 day

TSS ---------. 0 mg/LpH ..--------- Within the

range of 6.0to 9.0.

(4) In the event that waste streamsfrom various sources are combined fortreatment and discharge, the quantityahd quality of each pollutant or polu-tant property in the combined dischargeshall not exceed the quantity and qualityof each pollutant or pollutant propertyallowed had each stream been treatedseparately.

(b) Any overflow from facilities de-signed, constructed and operated to treatto the applicable limitations the pre-cipitation and runoff resulting from a10-year 24 hour precipitation event shallnot be subject to the limitations of thissection.

(c) In the case of a discharge into re-ceiving waters for which the pH, if un-altered by man's activities, is or wouldbe less than 6.0 and water quality cri-teria In water quality standards ap-proved under the Act authorize suchlower pH, the pH liniffion for such dis-charge may be adjusted downward to thepH water quality criterion for the re-ceiving waters. In no case shall a pHlimitation outside the range 5.0 to 9.0 bepermitted.

5; Subpart R is amended by adding§§ 436.180, 436.181 and 436.182 as fol-lows:

Subpart R-Phosphate Rock Subcategory§436.180 Applicability; descAption of

the phosphate rock subcategory.-The provisions of this subpart are ap-

plicable to the mining and the processingof phosphate bearing rock, ore or earthfor the phosphate content.§436.181 Specialized definitions.


eral definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth in-40 CFR401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "mine dewaterIng"shall mean any water that is pumped,drained or otherwise removed from themine through the direct action of themine operator.

(c) The term "10-year 24 hour pre-cipitation event" shall mea' the maxi-mum 24 hour precipitatioh event witha probable re-occurrence interval ofonce in 10 years. This information isavailable in "Weather Bureau TechnicalPaper No. 40.' May 1961 and "NOAAAtlas 2," 1973 for the 11 Western States,and may be obtained from the NationalClimatic Center of the EnvironmentalData Service, lational Oceanic and At-mospherc Administration, U.S. De-partment of Commerce.

(d) .The term "mine" shall mean anarea of land, surface or underground,actively used for or resulting from theextraction of a mineral from natural-de-posits.

(e) The term "process generatedwaste water"' shall mean any wastewater resulting from the slurry trans-port of ore or intermediate product, airemissions control, or processing exclusiveof mining.§ 436.182 Effluent limitations guidelines

rresenting the degree of effluentuction attainable by the applica-

tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

In establishing the limitations setforth In tlhs section, EPA took Into ac-count all information It was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technol-ogy available, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industrysubcategorization and effluent levels es-tablished. It is, however, possible thatdata which would affect these limita-tions have not been available and, as aresult, hese limitations should be ad-justed for certain plants In this indus-try. An individual discharger or otherinterested person may submit evidenceto the Regional Administrator (or tothe State, if the State has the authorityto issue NPDES permits) that factors re-lating to the equipment 6r facilities in-volved, the process applied, or othersuch factors related tosuch dischargerare. fundamentally different from thefactors considered in the establishmentof the" guidelines. On the basis of suchevidence or other available information,the Regional Administrator (or theState) will make a written finding that

such factors are or are not fundamen-tally different for that facility comparedto those specified in the DevelopmentDocument. If such fundamentally dif-ferent factors axe found to exist, theRegional Administrator or the Stateshall establish for the discharger eflu-ent limitations in the NPDES Permiteither more or less stringent than thelimitations established herein, to the ex-tent dictated by such fundamentallydifferent factors. Such limitations mustbe approved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdminitrator may approve or disap-prove such limitations, specify otherlimitations, or initiate proceedings to re-vise these regulations.

(a) Subject to the. provisions of par-agraph (b) of this section, the followinglimitatlons establish the quantity orquality of pollutants or pollutant prop-ertles, controlled by this section, whichmay be discharged by a point sourcesubject to the provisions of this subpartafter application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available:

(1) Process waste water generatedfrom froth flotation operations, minodewatering and surface runoff Intowaste water treatment systems shall notexceed the following limitations:

Efflucat lmltation

Effluent Avenuo of dailycharacteristic Maximum for 1alues for g0

any 1 day cnw.-cutlvo daysshall notexcoeed-

T83, millgraxas to.....|

pil ...............- Withintho ..................range 6.0

(2) For an other process generatedwaste water, such as ore transportwater, pump seal water, air scrubberwater and ore wash water, there shall beno discharge of pollutants into navl-gable waters.

(3) In the event that waste streamn=from various sources are combined fortreatment and discharge, the quantityand quality of each pollutant or pollut-ant property in the combined dischargeshall not exceed the quantity and qual-ity of each pollutant or pollutant prop-erty allowed had each stream beentreated separately.

(b) Any overflow from facilities de-signed, constructed and operated totreat to the applicable limitations theprecipitation and runoff resulting froma 10-year 24 hour precllitatlon eventshall not be subject to the limitationsof this section.

[M Doc.76-16583 Piled 6-'-0;645 am)

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 113--THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1976

23560


23552 RULES AND REGULATIONS I - US EPA

Documents

Transcript of 23552 RULES AND REGULATIONS I - US EPA