Coal Mining Effluent Guidelines - Final Rule - April 26, 1977€¦ · 26/04/1977 · The...

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 40-Protection of EnvironmentCHAPTER I-EN-VIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCYSUBCHAPTER N-EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND

STANDARDS

ITEL 716-41]PART 434-COAL MINING POINT SOURCE

CATEGORYEffluent Limitations Guidelines for Existing

SourcesAGENCY: Envlronmehtal ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Final rule.SUMMARY: On May 13, 1976, the En-vironmental Protection Agency promul-gated effluent limitations guidelines andproposed additional effluent limitationsguidelines and new source performancestandards for the coal mining pointsource category. The rule promulgatedtoday establishes final effluent limitationsguidelines for the coal mining pointsource category and includes a numberof major changes and clarification tothe earlier rule making which reflectcomments received on the earlier rulemaking as part of public participationIn EPA's rule making procedures. Theseeffluent limitation guidelines will be In-corporated In National Pollutant Dis-charge Elimination System permits Is-sued by the Federal EPA or by Statswith approved programs.EFFECTIVE DATE: April 26, 1977. tobe fully complied with by July 1, 1977.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-TACT:

Robert B. Schaffer, Director, EffluentGuidelines Division '(WH-552), En-vironmental Protection Agency, Wash-ington, D.C. 20460. (202/426-2576.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:SUMMARY OF PROCEDuRAL BACKGROUND

The Environmental Protection Agencytoday promulgates final effluent limita-tions guidelines for the coal miningpoint source category. On October 17,1975, the Agency published interim finaland proposed regulations for this pointsource category. (40 FR 48830.) TheInterim final regulations announced inthat publication controlled only the pHof the effluent. The standards proposedat that time were with respect only topretreatment for existing sources andpresented only general requirements.

On May 13, 1976, the Agency publishedadditional interim final effluent limita-tions guidelines, and proposed additionalnew sources performance standards forthis point source category. 41 FR 19832and 41 FR 19841. These interim finalregulations expanded the list of pol-lutants which dischargers must control.The regulations published in interimfinal form included, for all four subpartsof Part 434, limitations based upon theuse of best practicable control technologycurrently available.

The proposed new source performancestandards covered Subpart A (coal prep-aration plant subcategory) and Subpart

B (coal storage, refuse storage, and coalpreparation, plant ancillary subcate-gory). 41 FR 19841. Effluent limitationsguidelines based upon the use of bestavailable technology economicallyachievable were proposed for all foursubparts. Finally, pretreatment stand-ards for new sources were proposed forsubparts A and B. As noted above, theregulations promulgated today addressonly the use of best practicable controltechnology currently available-thattechnology and those regulations whichmust be implemented by July 1, 1977,pursuant to section 301 of the FederalWater Pollution Control Act Amend-ments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1311.

The Agency is not promulgating pre-treatment standards for this pointsource category at this time nor does itintend to promulgate such standards Inthe future, because there are no knownsituations in which such standards wouldbe applicable. Should Information be-come available which indicates thatthere is a need for such standards, theywill be issued. The regulations basedupon best available technology economi-cally achievable also are not being pro-mulgated today because the Agency hasembarked on a major effort to publishthese regulations (which must be imple-mented by 1983) with requirements forcontrol of a large number of prioritywater pollutants. Since the Agency In-tends to restudy this industry extensivelywith respect to priority water pollutantsand the 1983 level of technology andsince the permits which would incor-porate this technology will not be writtenin the near future, it was deemed morereasonable to promulgate the revisedBAT limitations at one time rather thanpublish effluent limitations guidelinesnow which must be revised within one ortwo years. These regulations do not in-clude final new source performancestandards; these standards will be an-nounced in the near future In the FE-ERAL REGiSTER. At-that time the Agencywill also propose new source performancestandards for those subcategories forwhich new source standards have notbeen proposed.

SUIMMARY OF RULE AND OUTLINEOF MAJOR CHANGES

The regulations promulgated todayincorporate several revisions to the In-terim final effluent limitations guidelinespublished on May 13, 1976. For the mostpart, these changes were brought aboutby consideration of the substantial num-ber of comments received from industrialand environmental groups. These com-ments are summarized In detail in theAppendix to this preamble. However,several major points were raised whichwill be addressed in this preamble. Al-though the agency did not receive crit-icismn with respect to the organization ofthe regulations, the Agency's own reviewindicated that a reorganization of thesubparts was necessary to eliminate cer-tain of the ambiguities which existedin the May 13 publication. Also, there ap-peared to be substantial confusion oversome of the definitions and these have

been reorganized and to some extent, arerevised. These are the major changesbrought about by or considered for to-day's announcement:

1. Reorganization of the subparts. Theinterim final effluent limitations guide-lines published on May 13, 1976 con-tained four subparts. The first subpartaddressed preparation plant discharges;the second subpart addressed dischargesfrom coal storage, refuse storage andcoal preparation plant ancillary areas.And the third and fourth subparts ad-dressed discharges from active miningoperations. Each subpart contained asection setting forth specialized deflni-tions for that subpart. Many of the spe-cialized definitions were the spmo forseveral of the subparts and thus it wasdecided that it would be more readableto convert subpart A into a presentationof definitions which apply throughoutPart 434. The previous subpart A coveredcoal preparation plants, and, as notedbelow, the Agency has decided to com-bine Subparts A and B into the SubpartB presented today.

In addition, Subpart B, as presentedtoday, s further subdivided, in' orderto provide a distinction between acid andalkaline water and to be consistent withregulations pertaining to mine drainage.

2. General definitions. The term "ac-tive mining area" has been defined toclearly state with respect to surfacemines, that these effluent limitationsguidelines (and new source performancestandards to be promulgated soon) donot apply once grading has been com-pleted to return the earth .to the desiredcontour and once reclamation work hasbegun. The previous definition was con-fusing in that It spoke of reclamationwork being "commenced" or "com-pleted". There is a new definition, forcoal preparation plant associated areas.This term is defined to mean the areaaround the coal preparation plant whichwas previously included in the ancillaryareas subject to previous Subpart B.Thus, the new Subpart B Includes theareas previously subjected to both sub-parts A and B.

3. Discharges from coal preparationVlants. Perhaps the strongest criticismof the interim final regulations pub-lished on May 13, was with respect to therequirement of no discharge from Coalpreparation plants. Many coal miningcompanies submitted comments to theAgency. They strongly suggested thatthere was a misconception as to the factsof operation of coal preparation plants,and that when the Agency and its con-tractor concluded that a coal prepara-tion plant had a closed cycle system theywere mistaken in most instances. Theindustry contentions were that evenwhen a coal preparation plant is designedto recycle water, there are points in thesystem and occasions when dischargesare necessary. Close examination of thisproblem revealed that there was VerYlittle disagreement as to the fundamentalfacts of operation of a coal preparationplant and that by simply combining Sub-parts A and B and imposing the restric-tions thatwerepreviously applied to Sub-part B, to the new subpart, the problem

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 80-TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1977

21380

HeinOnline -- 42 Fed. Reg. 21380 1977


could be resolved with no increase in en-vironmental degradation. Simply stated,it was found by the Agency after carefulinspection that there are virtually no-coal preparation plants which are notsurrounded by areas subject to the pre-vious sabpart B effluent limitations guide-lines, and that with the provision in theprevious § 434.12(c), allowing for a dis-charge of waste water from a coal pre-paration plant when that waste water iscombined for treatment with the dis-charges from facilities covered underother subparts of Part 434, owners andoperators of coal preparations plantswould not in practice be subject to a "nodischarge" standard, but rather wouldbe subject to the limitations applied toprevious Subpart B. This is because thecommon form of operation of- a coalpreparation plant and associated areasis to have a common pond or series ofponds and treatment facilities for all thedischarges and runoffs from those facil-ities. It was found that consideration ofa coal preparation plant without thesurrounding associated or ancillary areasis an unrealistic approach. With thequalifications noted below in the discus-sion of manganese, the limitations whichare applied to coal preparation plantsand associated areas under the new§ 434.22 are the same effluent limitationsthat governed discharges from coalstorage, refuse storage,- and coal prep-aration plant ancillary areas in theprevious regulations and which, as ex-plained above were in fact the limita-tions which vould have governed dis-charges from coal preparation plantspreviously subject to subpart A.

Note should be made that regulationsfor preparation plants and associatedareas have been divided into two groups,one for acidic and one for alkalinewastes. EPA's Office of Enforcement ispreparing guidance for dischargers whohave questions as to which group theybelong.

4. Exemption for discharges resultingfrom extraordinary volumes due to pre-cipitation events. Another area in whichthere was substantial comment was withrespect to the exemption for dischargesfrom coal mining facilities which resultfrom unusual precipitation events. Theeffluent limitations guidelines providethat any untreated overflow, increasein volume of a point source discharge ofdischarge from a by-pass system fromfacilities designed, constructed andmaintained to contain or treat the dis-charges from the facilities and areascovered by the various subparts, whichdischarges would result from a 10-year,24-hour precipitation event, shall not besubject to the limitations set forth inthose subparts, to the extent of the over-flow. See, eg., § 434.22(c). This does notmean that only after a rainfall equallingor exceeding the 10-year, 24-hour precip-itation event may untreated effluent bedischarged. It means that after a precip-itation event or other cause (snowmelt,for example) which forces an overflow,by-pass, or increase in the volume ofpoint source discharge from a facilitydesigned, constructed and maintained tocontain or treat the amount of water

which will result from the 10-year, 24-hour, precipitation event, the overflow,by-pass or increase in volume of thepoint source discharge shall be permlt-ted. The 10-year, 24-hdur, precipitationevent, a figure which for each geographi-cal area of the country, can be found inthe text noted in § 434.11(h).

Several representatives of coal miningcompanies objected to this exemptionprovision as implying that, especiallywith respect to surface mining opera-tions, the operators would be requiredto maintain an unnecessarily large re-tention structure. However, none of thecoal mining companies submitted Infor-mation which demonstrated that theconstruction or maintenance of thesestructures is unreasonable. To the con-trary, the investigation by the Agencyinto the reasonableness of this require-ment revealed that a retention structuresufficient to contain a 10-year, 24-hourstorm event Is relatively small, that the10-year, 24-hour storm event is a widelyused engineering design criteria whichhas been adopted for other purposes inthis and other industries for many years.The United States Department of In-terior, in comments on the interim finaleffluent limitations guidelines, suggestedthat certain changes be made in thoseregulations, but did not criticize the useof the 10-year, 24-hour precipitationevent as a design criteria for an over-flow exemption.

In light of the many comments withrespect to the 10-year, 24-hour rainfallevent exclusion. EPA consulted with theOffice of Coal Mline Health and Safety,Mining Enforcement and Safety Admin-istration of the Department of Interior.Representatives of that office stated thatthe 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event invirtually all situations is a lesser rainfallthan would occur during the rainfallevent utilized by that office as the mini-mum design criteria for impoundmentfacilities. The lowest design criteria is a6-hour maximum precipitation event,the highest is a "maximum precipitationevent." For the Pittsburgh area, a 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event Is about4 inches, a 6-hour event is slightlygreater than 4 inches, and a maximumprecipitation event is about 26 inches.

Under 30 CFR Part 77, which presentsthe Mandatory Safety Standards, Sur-face Coal Mines and Surface Work Areasof Underground Coal Mines, plans forthe design, construction and mainte-nance of structures which impoundwater, sediment or slurry (above a cer-tain size) are required to contain manydetails of the structure. The actual sizewill depend on several factors, includingarea to be served and downstream risk,Among the specific requirements of 30CFR 77.216-2(a) are the following:

(10) A statement of the runoff attributa-ble to the probable maximum precipitationof 6-hour duration and the calculations usedin determining such runoff.

(17) A certification by a registered engi-neer that the design of the impoundingstructure Is In accordance with current, pru-dent engineering practices for the maximumvolume of water. sediment, or slurry whichcan be impounded therein and for the par.-

21381

sage of runoff which would result from thedesignated precipitation event; or, in lieuof the certification, a report Indicating whatadditlonal investigatlons, analyses, or im-provement work are necessary before such acertification can be made, Including whatprovisions have been made to carry out suchwork In addition to a schedule for comple-tion of such work.From a review of the relevant regula-tions and design guidelines and from dis-cusslons with representatives of the ap-propriate Federal regulatory agencies,EPA Is confident that the impoundmentfacilities needed to comply with the reg-ulations promulgated today are reason-able, and that there is no additionaldanger caused by implementation ofthese regulations. Should any evidencebe submitted to the Agency to indicatethat the Impoundment facilities neededto meet these regulations would necessi-tate construction of a structure whichwould violate safety standards set out bya State or Federal Agency, EPA will con-sider the granting of a variance on anexpedited basis. Under no circumstanceswill an owner or operator be required toviolate applicable safety standards inorder to meet these regulations. If dif-ficulty arises In more than isolated in-stances, consideration will be given toamendment of these regulations. It mustbe emphasized, however, that the Stateand Federal authorities with whom EPAhas consulted on this matter uniformlyconcluded that no safety issues are raisedby the use of a 10-year, 24-hour stormevent as a design criteria.

It must be emphasized that the regu-lations for the coal mining point sourcecategory-do not require -any specifictreatment technique, construction activ-ity, or other process for the reduction ofpollution. The efuent limitations guide-lines merely state a final limitation onthe amount of pollutants which may bedischarged from this industry, and al-lows for an excursion from the normalrequirements when there is a dischargefrom a facility properly designed to con-tain a large precipitation event.

While there has been criticism of the10-Year, 24-hour formula used by theAgency, the few alternatives suggested bythe environmental groups and industryare substantially less satisfactory. Forexample, the suggestion that dischargesfrom containment facilities be allowedregardless of effluent limitations, whenthe rainfall in inches is equal to orgreater thanthe d3tlcn of the cte-m in mnutcs +0 2

is Impractical The duration of a stormhas no close relationship to the quantityof water which falls during the storm orto the ability of a containment facilityto gradually treat and discharge thewater (these facilities are designed to al-low relatively clean water to escape). Itis also unclear as to what would be con-sidered a storm. Also, it is difficult toconceive of a workable enforcementscheme which relies on measurement of astorm, when the exact time of the initia-tion of the storm or rainfall event may beunclear. It would require an owner or op-

FEDERAL REGISTER,. VOL 42, NO. 80-TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1977


erator to carefully note the time whenany rainfall begins. It is also apparentthat under the formula proposed by sev-eral of the coal mining companies, dis-charges without limitation on pollutantswould be allowed quite often during theyear, and for rainfall events which canhardly be termed unusual. Indeed, theuse of the formula above may well con-tinue the problem of periodic environ-"mental degradation to receiving streamswhich results from the flushing of pollut-ants in coal mining areas into thosestreams.

Another formula which was suggestedby several coal mining companies wouldallow for uncontrolled discharges fromfacilities which are designed to maintaina volume of water equal to or exceedingthe volume resulting from the inches ofrainfall equivalent tothe time of the rainfall event eti r-msed in houms

Because this formula also places relianceon the duration of time of the stormrather than on the containment facilityand the volume of water which must becontained, it is inappropriate for use inthese water pollution regulations. More-over, this formula, like the alternativeformula suggested above, would allowdischarges in situations where the rain-fall Is substantially less than would beconsidered an unusual precipitationevent. The effect of the alternative for-mula suggested by the coal mining com-panies would be to convert the 10-year,24-hour provision presently in the regu-lations into a fairly routine allowance ondischarges without restrictions on thequantities of pollutants, rather than anexcursion provision, as presently exists.Also, neither suggestion by the industrywould allow for discharges catised bysudden snowmelts, since these would notbe considered precipitation events underthe suggested formulae.

Use of a provision such as § 434.22(b),which allows for the release of wastewater when there is an unusual precipi-tation event, is not restricted solely tothe mining extraction industries; suchan allowance, excursion, or exemptionhas been used in several other industriesin which the major source of pollutionresults from rainfall runoff. For example,when attempting to control the dis-charges of highly polluting wastes fromfeedlot operations, the regulatory au-thority must necessarily consider thefeasibility of containing large quantitiesof rainfall runoff. These considerationswere raised during the consideration ofthe Federal Water Pollution Control ActAmendments of 1972 ('WPCA") andthere is prominent mention of the 10-year, 24-hour storm event as a realisticmethod of addressing the problem. Indebate on the predecessor bill to theFWPCA, Senator Dole noted to SenatorMuskie some of the practices which areused in the State of Kansas to containpollutants from feedlots; the followingdialogue ensued:

(Mir. Dole) Retention basins and other de-vices can be employed to accommodate anynormal runoff from feedlots, but as a prac-


tical matter it is impossible to constructretention structures to handle the runofffrom extreme rainfall conditions which couldstatistically be expected to occur. For In-stance, in Kansas the maximum probableprecipitation resulting from a storm occur-ring in a24-hour period within a 10-squaremile area is 24 to 28 inches. Such a torren-tial downpour has never occurred, but thestatistical probability of its happening showsthat it Is entirely impractical and uffcasi-ble to expect a feedlot operator to contain allthe runoff associated with it. But the billwould seem to set such a requirement.

The question which I pose Is: To what ex-tent does the zero discharge requirement ofthe pending bill impose on feedlot operatorsa requirement for providing for containmentof runoff resulting from the maximum prob-able 24 -hour storm?

Mr. Ifuskie. As we understand the appli-cation of the zero discharge requirement asIt relates to runoff from feedlots, contain-ment facilities must be provided for feed-lots which would provide complete controlfor the runoff resulting from the 24-hourstorm to be experienced once in a 10-yearperiod.-This would involve 3 Inches of runoff

water oter the area -concerned.

'"A Legislative History of the WaterPollution Control Act Amendments of1972,: 'Library of Congress ResearchService, (93rd Cong., 1st Sess.) at 1298.

5. Limitations on dissolved iron. Sev-"eral coal mining companies objected tothe requirements of previous § 434.32that limited the discharges of both totaliron and dissolved iron. Commenters,particularly the Peabody Coal Companyand the National Coal Association,pointed out that there is little value Inmonitoring total iron and dissolved ironin that the former test will incorporatethe pollutants measured In the latteranalysis. The Agency has carefully con-sidered the benefits to be derived fromrequiring an analysis of dissolved iron aswell as total iron and has concludedthat while there may be some small in-cremental protection provided by moni-toring for both, in the vast majority ofcases the total iron analyses will ade-quately demonstrate the potential forenvironmental degradation which re-sults from the presence of the iron in theeffluent. Accordingly, the Agency hasdeleted the requirement that dissolvediron be monitored in discharges frompoint sources within the acid or fer-ruginous mine drainage subcategory-

6. Limitation on discharge of manga-nese. Several coal mining companies ob-jected to the effluent limitations con-tained In the May 13 interim final regu-lations with respect to manganese. Theobjections essentially contended the re-tuirement of maintaining a pH of 6-9was inconsistent with the requirement ofobtaining a manganese level as set forthin those limitations because manganesecan only be.reduced when the pH is at 9or slightly above 9. To a lesser extent,the companies contended that there isno need for a manganese standard at all.The Agency has reviewed all the dataavailable on the question and has con-cluded that an operator or owner canindeed obtain the mandated manganeselevels while at the same time meeting the6-9 pH requirements, but the Agency

concedes that the manganese Is only re-moved at the high end of the allowedpH range. Accordingly, included in thereregulations is a provision which allowsthe State or Federal NPDES writer toadjust the required pH level when theapplication of neutralization and sedi-mentation treatment technology con-tinues to result in inability to complywith the manganese limitations set forthin these effluent limitations guidelines.See e.g., § 434.22(d). Of course, the ad-justment of pH can be made only to theextent that it is necessary to allow forcompliance with the manganese Ilinita-tion.

A second objection to the interim finalmanganese effluent limitations Is thataccording to connenters, nangancse Isa relatively minor pollutant and there-fore the Agency should not be emphasiz-ing the control of this pollutant. Whilethe effluent limitations guidelines do notattempt to control troublesome waterpollutants on the basis of toxicity or re-ceiving water quality criteria, It is im-portant to note that manganese has beendesignated a pollutant of concern by sev-eral reputable scientific bodies. Ac-cording to -the National Academy ofSciences and National Academy of Eun-gineering, in 'Water Quality Criteria1972" (Wushington, D.C. 1972), "Man-ganese is objectionable in public w[Ltersupplies because of its effect on taste.4.staining of plumbing fixtures, spotting oflaundered clothes, and accumulation ofdeposits in distribution systems." Asnoted in "Quallty Criteria for Water",U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency,(Washington, D.C. 1975) the presence oflow concentrations of iron in addition tothe concentrations of manganese mayintensify the adverse effects of manga-nese. It is well known that manganeseIs often present with Iron concentra-tions in the effluent from coal mining op-eratlons.

7. Monitoring method for metal anal-ysis. Additional objections to man-ganese and iron limitations state thatthe analytical procedure used to developthe data base for the limitationi con-tained in the interim final limitationsguidelines is inconsistent with the meth-ods used for monitoring purposes. Inorder to get results which'correlate withthe regulations promulyated, monitor-ing samples shall be analyzyd in accord-ance with the procedures required by 40CFR Part 136, "Guidelines EstablishingTest Procedures for the Analysis of Pol-lutants," using a soft digestion. There-fore, the same procedures used In thetechnical studies on which the regula-tions are, based will be used to monitorthe effluent.

8. Western Coal Mines. The ffluentGuidelines Division of EPA has receiveda substantial body of information fromEPA Region VIII (located in Denver,Colorado) with respect to the limita-tions on discharges from coal miner Inthe Western United States. Representa-tives of that Region believe morestringent numbers are appropriate inlight of actual experiences with thllomines. These data appear to support ef-fluent limitations guidelines for a nun-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 80-TUEDAY, APRIL 26, 1977



her of parameters significantly morestringent than the limitations an-nounced today. The reasons for the ap-parent ability of Western coal mines todiscparge pollutants In less concentra-tion than is the case of Eastern coalmines are many, and certainly includethe relatively more even topography ofWestern coal mines, the emphasis on re-cycle of relatively scarce water supplies,and the relatively lower concentration ofpollutants In the geologic formations be-ing exploitedl The Agency is undertakinga thorough evaluation of the Informa-tion being supplied from permit-grantingauthorities n the Western United States.It is anticipated that consideration willbe given to proposal of a separate sub-category with respect to all pollutantparameters for those coal mining opera-tions located in the Western UnitedStates which have attributes such thatthey are -able to meet more stringenteffluent llmitatibns.

The Agency has determined not topromulgate national TSS limitations formines in some Western States. Until na-tional limitations guidelines are pub-lished which address Western mines andTSS, NPDES permit writers shall cal-culate TSS restrictions utilizing thesame discretion and with the same def-erence to statutory factors as they haveIn the past. It Is the policy of the En-vironmental Protection Agency that ifany discharger has received a finalNPDME permit which calls for compli-ance with limitations more stringentthan those later published In the Fm-3MA REGISTER, the discharger is still ob-ligated to meet the terms of the finalpermit. Thus, whether a discharger hasa final State or final Federal NPDESpermit calling for more stringent dis-charge controls that operator will notbe permitted to rely on today's promul-gation of effluent limitations guidelinesto obtain modification of that permit.

9. Extend the applicability of effluentlimitations guidelines to all point sourcesat surface coal mines until release ofthe reclamation bond by an appropriatestate agency. By use of the definition"active mining area" effluent limitationsguidelines do -not apply to dischargesfrom areas affected by surface coal min-ing after these areas have been graded.Environmental groups have stated thatthe applicability of effluent limitationsguidelines should be extended to coverdischarges from areas affected by sur-face coal mining up to the time theseareas are released from their reclama-tion.h93d by an appropriate state agency.To -support this position these groupshave submitted reports which show thatthe most critical period for water poilu-tion abatement is during the period ofreclamation and revegetation of areasaffected by surface coal mining.

As noted in Appendix B of this rule-making, Technical Summary and Basisfor Regulations, the Agency recognizesthat there is water quality degradationcaused by discharges from areas affectedby surface coal mining and that dis-charges from areas that have beengraded but have not been reclaimed or

revegetated can cause more severe pol-lutlon than discharges from areas in-eluded under this regulation.

EPA is conducting an Intensive analy-sis of available Information withrespectto the water pollution which originatesIn surface mines undergoing revegetationand reclamation. When the Agency hashad an adequate opportunity to reviewthis Information, It may propose extend-ing coverage of eflibent limitations guide-lines or new source performance stand-ards to cover the period of revegetation.

10. General Envlronmental Benefitsto be Obtained by Regulations of CoalMine Discharges. The effluent limitationsguidelines promulgated today are tech-nology standards and are not designedwith precision to obtain designatedwaterquality levels in the streams and otherreceiving water bodies into which coalmining discharges flow. However, therehas been general criticism of the coalmining regulation voiced by representa-tives of the industry, to the effect thatthe technology-based standards may notbe needed in light of the benefits (orlack of benefits) which will -accrue ifdischargers are forced to coniply withthe limitations. It is impossible In thispreamble to summarize the many worksthat have been written on the environ-mental effects of coal mining and coalmining discharges. However, even byexamining a small portion of those worksand focusing on only one Regional area,one can appreciate that significant en-vironmental benefits will accrue shouldreduction In coal mining pollutant load-ings be achieved.

One of the most respected studies ofthe effects of coal mining discharges ispresented In "Acid Mine Drainage InAppalachia," a Report by the Appa-lachian Regional Commilson (Washing-ton, D.C. 1969). This report was sent tothe President by direction of the Appa-lachian Regional Development Act, asamended, incorporated' the views ofmany respected experts, and Includedthe advice and assistance of members ofthe National Research Council of theNational Academy of Scientists-NationalAcademy of Engineering. The conclu-sions of "Acid Mine Drainage" demon-strate the effect of Just one of the pol-lutant parameters controlled by theseeffluent limitations guidelines upon justone area of the United States, the Appa-lachian region. That study concluded:About 10,500 milUc of rtream, In eight statc,of the Appalachlan Region are affected bymine drainage. These ctreams are poUutedby Increased amounts of acids, edIment,sulfate, Iron and bardne- of which themost sIgnificant pollutant i" acid.

The study documented many of thedirect economic costs resulting fromacid mine pollution but noted that "thegeneral environmental and aestheticdegradation of affected areas, the de-struction of a aquatic life, and the de-terrence to water based recreation causedby acid mine drainage might well ex-ceed these other more readily measuredcosts." Users of water In the AppalachianRegion who are affected by the Intro-duction of acid into the rater supplies

of that region Include operators andowners of Industrial plants, utilitie,barges and tow boats, and municipalwater supplies; and the officials of pub-lie agencies with responsibilities forhighway culverts and bridges. The directannual economic impact on navigationon the portions of the MonongahelaRiver open to navigation was estimatedn the 1969 report to be $1,370,000. Forthe municipal water supplies of Pitts-burgh, it was estimated that there wouldbe an annual savings of approximately$480,000 were the acid mine problem tobe substantially abated.

The effect of acid mine drainage onf1shing, resources is well known. The rec-reational use of water is affected sig-nlflcantly by pH levels of 5 or lower;swimming Is pre-empted by levels of pH4 or lower. The pH of streams must reacha level of 6.0 for there to be mainte-nance and growth of the fishery inwarm water. In a cold water streamthere will be full production of the fish-ery at a pH at 6.0 and maintenance andgrowth at pH 5.5-6C).

As emphasized above, the analysis ofbenefits which result from the controlof acid mine drainage In the Appalach-Ian Region addresses merely one ofthe pollutants controlled by these reg-ulations and with respect to only one ofthe major coal mining areas in theUnited States. The Agency has collectedand studied a large amount of materialrelating to the general environmentalbenefits which would result from theimplementation of these regulations.EPA has concluded that there wll besinnificant benefits, both Indirectly anddirectly to users of the waterways af-fected by coal mining pollution, if com-pliance with these regulations is accom-plished.

Ecoxos-c ANALrsisThe report, "Economic Impact of

Effluent Guidelines Coal Mining," indi-cates that the promulgated rules arenot expected to affect significantlyprices. production or capital availabil-ity. Therefore, little effect is expectedon industry growth, employment, localeconomies or the balance of trade.Copies of this document are availablethrough the National Technical Infor-mation Service, Springfield, Virginia22151.

The economic impact report satisfiesthe requirements for an Economic Im-pact Analysis even though the Environ-mental Protection Agency has deter-mined that this regulation does not con-tain a major proposal requiring prepa-ration of an Economic Impact Analysisunder Executive Orders 11821 and 11949and OMB Circular A-107.

The report entitled "DevelopmentDocument for Effluent Limitations Guide-lines and New Source Performancestandards for the Coal Mining PointSource Category" May 1976, details theanalysis undertaken n support of these,regulations and Is available for inspec-tion in the EPA Public Information Ref-erence Unit, Room 2922 (EPA Lgrary),Waterside Mall, 401 M. St. SW, Wash-ington, D.C. 20460, at all EPA regional

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 80-TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1977

21M8


21384

offices, and at State water pollution con-trol offices. A supplementary analysisprepared for EPA of the possible eco-nomic effects of the regulation is alsoavailable for inspection at these loca-tions. An additional limited number ofcopies of both reports are available. Per-sons wishing to obtain a copy may writethe EPA Effluent Guidelines Division,Washington, D.C. 20460, Attention: Dis-tribution Officer, WH-552.

In addition, Section 8 of the FWPCAauthorizes the Small Business Adminis-tration, through its economic disasterloan program, to make loans to assist anysmall business concerns in effecting addi-tions to or alterations in their equipment,facilities, or methods of operation so asto meet water pollution control require-ments under the WTPCA, if the con-cern is likely to suffer a substantial eco-nomic injury without such assistance.

For further details on this Federal loanprogram, write to EPA, Office of Analysisand Evaluation, WH-586, 401 M St. SW.,Washindton, D.C. 20460.

Dated: April 28, 1977.DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,

Administrator.Subpart A--General Definitions

Sec.434.10 Applicability.434.11 General definitions.

Subpart B--Coal Preparation Plants andAssociated Areas

434.20 Applicability.434.21 (Reserved).434.22 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

Subpart C-Acid or Ferruginous Mine DrainageSubcategory

434.30 Applicability; description of the acidor ferrugnous mine drainage sub-category.

434.31 (Reserved),434.32 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best'practicable controltechnology currently available.

Subpart D-Alkaline Mine Drainage Subcategory

434.40 Applicability; description of the alka-line mine drainage subcategory.

434.41 (Reserved).434.42 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

AUTHOnrTy: Sees. 301, 304(b), Federal Wa-ter Pollution Control Act, as amended, (33U.S.C. 1311,.1314(b)).

Subpart A-General Definitions§ 434.10 Applicability.

Except as provided specifically in thissubpart A and in other subparts of thisPart 434, the general definitions, abbre-viations and methods of analysis setforth in Part 401 of this chapter shallapply to this Part 434. The general deft-niltions set forth in this subpart A applyto all subparts of the Part 434.


§ 434.11 General definitions.(a) The term "acid or ferruginous

mine drainage" means mine drainagewhich before any treatment either hasa pH of less than 6.0 or a total iron con-centration of more than 10 mg/l.

(b) The term "active mining area"means a place where work or other ac-tivity related to the extraction, removal,or recovery of coal is being conducted,except, with respect to surface mines,any area of land on or in which gradinghas been completed to return the earthto desired contour and reclamation workhas begun.

(c) The term "alkaline mine drainage"means mine drainage which before anytreatment has a pH of more than 6.0 anda total iron concentration of less than 10mg/L.(d) The term "coal mine" means an

active mining area, including all landand property placed upon, under or abovethe surface of such land, used in or re-sulting from the work of extracting coalfrom its natural deposits by any meansor method, including secondary recov-ery of coal from refuse or other storagepiles derived from the mining, cleaning,or preparation of coal.(e) The term "coal preparation plant"

means a facility where coal is crushed,screened, sized, cleaned, dried, or other-wise prepared and loaded for transit toa consuming facility.

(f) The term "coal preparation plantassociated areas" means the coal prepa-ration plant yards, immediate accessroads, slurry ponds, drainage ponds, coalrefuse piles, and coal storage piles andfacilities.

(g) The term "mine drainage" meansany water drained, pumped or siphonedfrom a coal mine.(h) The term "ten-year 24-hour pre-

cipitation, event" means the maximum24-hour precipitation event with a prob-able re-occurrence interval of once In10 years as defined by the NationalWeather Service and Technical PaperNo. 40, "Rainfali Frequency Atlas of theU.S.," May 1961, and subsequent amend-ments, or equivalent regiomal or rainfallprobability information developed there-from.

Subpart B--Coal Preparation Plants andAssociated Areas

§ 434.20 Applicability.The provisions of this subpart are ap-

plicable to discharges from coal prepara-tion plants and associated areas, includ-ing discharges which are pumped, si-phoned or drained'from coal storage,refuse storage and coal preparation plant

-ancillary areas related to the cleaningor beneficiation of coal of any rank in-cluding but not limited to bituminous,lignite and anthracite.§ 434.21 [Reserved].§ 434.22 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltecimology currently 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 plant,raw materials, manufacturing proc-esses, products produced, treatmenttechnology available, energy require-ments and costs) which can affect theindustry subeategorization and efiluontlevels established. It Is, however, possi-ble that data which would affect the;olimitations have not been available and,as a result, these limitations should beadjusted for certain plants in this In-dustry. 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 factorsrelating to the equipment or facilitiesinvolved, the process applied, or othersuch factors related to such dischargerare fundamentally different from thefactors considered In the establishmentof the guidelines, On the basis of suchevidence o," other available information,the Regional Administrator (or theState) will make a written flinding thatsuch factors are or are not fundament-ally different for that facility comparedto those specified In the DevelopmentDocument. If such fundamentally dif-ferent factors are found to exist, theRegional Administrator or the Stateshall establish for the discharger effluentlimitations in the NPDES permit eithermore or less stringent than the limita-tions established herein, to the extentdictated by such fundamentally differentfactors. Such limitations must be ap-proved by the Administrator of the En-vironmental Protection Agency. The Ad-ministrator may approve or disapprovesuch limitations, specify other limita-tions, or initiate proceedings to revisethese regulations.

(a) The following limitations establishthe concentration of pollutants whichmay be discharged by a point source sub-Ject to the provisions of this subpartafter application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available if -

discharges from that point source nor-mally are acidic prior to treatment.

[In milligrawm per Uter]

Vifluont linltatlonaEffluent Averago of dailly

cbaracterislio Maxianm for valucs for 30any 1 day consecutive days

shall notQxecd-

Iron, total----- -- 7.0 ---------- 0.5Manganese, total. - 4.0 ----------. 0TSS ------------- 70 ---------- 35p- ----------------- Within tho

range 0.0 to0.0.

(b) The following limitations estab-lish the concentration of pollutants, con-trolled by this section, which may bedischarged by a point source subject tothe provisions of this subpart after ap-plication of the best practicable controltechnology currently available If dis-charges from that point source normallyare alkaline prior to treatment.




[In miligrians per trl

Effluent limitations

Effluent - Average of dailycharacteristic - lximum for values for 30

any I day consecutive daysshall notexceed-

Iron, total -...... 7.0 a------------- 3.5T SS. -.--- .-.------ 70.0 ------------- n. 0p ------ ........... Within the -------........

range 6.0 to9.0.

(c) Any untreated overflow, increasein volume of a point source discharge, ordischarge from a by-pass system fromfacilities designed, constructed, andmaintained to contain or treat the dis-charges from the facilities and areascovered by this subpart which would re-sult from a 10-year 24-hour precipitationevent, shall not be subject to the limita-tions set forth in paragraph (a) of thissection.

(d) Where the application of neutrall-zation and sedimentation treatmenttechnology results in inability to complywith the manganese limitations set forthin paragraph (a) of this section, the per-mit issuer may allow the pH level in thefinal effluent to be exceeded to a smallextent in order that the manganese lint-tations in paragraph (a) of this sectionwill be achieved.

(e) Where discharges-from coal prep-aratioan plants and associated areas arecombined for treatment or dischargewith wastewater from sources withinother subcategories in this point sourcecategory, the concentration of pollutantsallowed to be discharged in the combineddischarge shall not exceed the concen-tration of pollutants which would be al-lowed under the respective limitationsapplicable to that subcategory (or sub-categories).Where a parameter (manga-nese or total iron as examples) is subjectto different limitations under differentsubparts, the more stringent limitationapplies.

Subpart C-Acid or Ferruginous. Mine.Drainage Subcategory

§ 434.30 Applicability; description ofthe acid or ferrug-nous mine drain-age subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to acid or ferruginous minedrainage:resulting from the mining ofcoal of any rank including but notlimited to bituminous, lignite, and an-thracite.§ 434.31 [Reserved]§ 434.32 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing 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,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements and

costs) which can affect the industry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lished. It is, however, possible that datawhich would affect these limitations"have not been available and, as a result,these limitations should be adjusted forcertain plants in this industry. An In-dividual discharger or other interestedperson may submit evidence to the Re-gional Administrator (or to the State, ifthe State has the authority to IssueNPDES permits) that factors relating tothe equipment or facilities involved, theprocess applied, or other such factor.related to such discharger are funda-

21385

graph (a) of this section as long as suchdrainage Is not commingled with un-treated mine drainage which Is subjectto the limitations in paragraph (a) ofthis section.

(d) Where the application of neutral-Izition and sedimentation treatmenttechnology results in inability to complywith the manganese limitations set forthin paragraph (a) of this section, the per-mit issuer may allow the pH level in thefinal effluent to be exceeded to a smallextent in order that the manganese in-Itations in paragraph (a) of this section,will be achieved.

mentaly aiferent from the factors con- Subpart D-Alkaline Mine Drainagesidered in the establishment of the Subcategoryguidelines. On the basis of such evidenceor other available information, the Re- § 434.40 Applicability; description ofgional Administrator (or the State) will the alkaline mine drainage subcate-make a written finding that such factors gory.are or are not fundamentally different The provisions of this subpart are ap-for that facility compared to those specl- plicable to alkaline mine drainage re-fled in the Development Document. If sulting from the mining of coal of anysuch fundamentally different factors are rank including but not limited to bitumi-sound to exist, the Regional Administra- nous, lignite, and anthracite.tor or the State shall establish for thedischarger effluent limitations In the § 43441 [Reserved]NPDES permit either more or less strin- § 434.42 Effluent limitations guidelinesgent than the limitations established representing the degree of effluentherein, to the extent dictated by such reduction attainable by the applica-fundamentally different factors. Such tion of the best practicable controllimitations must be approved by the Ad- technology currently available.ministrator of the Environmental Pro- In establishing the limitations settection Agency. The Administrator may forth in this section, EPA took into ac-approve or disapprove such limitations, count all information it was able to col-specify other limitations, or initiate pro- lect, develop and solicit with respect toceedings to revise these regulations, factors (such as age and size of plant.

(a) The following limitations estab- raw materials, manufacturing processes,lish the concentration of pollutants products produced, treatment technol-which may be discharged by a point ogy available, energy requirements andsource subject to the provisions of this costs) which can affect the industry sub-subpart after application of the best categorization and effluent levels estab-practicable control technology currently lished. It is, however, possible that dataavailable: which would affect these limitations have

not been available and, as a result, theze[In 2nilligras r lituz limitations should be adjusted for cer-

tain plants In this industry. An ndivid-EMucntIlmltXnitc ual discharger or other interested per-

Eflluent Avcz To oldany son may submit evidence to the RegionalCharactcdstle Maximum for v anc for C Administrator (or to the State, if the

ny I day ccccimuroday's State has the authority to issue NPDEScI-- permits) that factors relating to the

equipment or facilities involved, theIron, totaL -------- 7.0....... as proces applied, or other such factor,Maaganrez, total.- 4.0 -------....... -0 related to such discharger are funda-Ts -------------- .... 0 ........... o mentally different from the factors con-

e-- 0.0 to -sdered in the establishment of the guide-0.0. lines. On the basis of such evidence or

other available information, the Re-tshea T55 ram nt c lmlt tons en!e Int nap o to glonal Administrator (or the State) willdiarbarges from coal minca t mc. In Usa to c-,

States: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South make a written finding that such factorsDakota, Utah and Wyomng. In tb=. Statez, '1"s are or are not fundamentally diferentlimitations ba to dutamnai on a z-'by-czo I: !, for that facility compared to those spec-

(b) Any untreated overflow, increase ifled in the Development Document. IfIn volume of a point source discharge, or such fundamentally different factors aredischarge from a by-pass system from found to exist, the Regional Administra-facilities designed, constructed, and tor or the State shall establish for themaintained to contain or treat the dis- discharger effluent limitations in thecharges from the facilities and areas 1PDES permit either more or less strin-covered by this subpart which would re- gent than the limitations establishedsult from a 10-year 24-hour precipitation herein, to the extent dictated by suchevent, shall not be subject to the limita- fundamentally different factors. Suchtions set forth in paragraph (o) of this limitations must bg approved by the Ad-section. ministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator may

(c) Drainage which is not from an ac- approve or disapprove such limitations,tive mining area shall not be required - specify other limitations, or initiate pro-to meet the limitations set forth lb para- ceedings to revise these regulations.



21386

(a) The following limitations estab-lish the concentration of pollutantswhich may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions of this'subpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

[In milligrams per liter]

Effluent limitations

Effluent Average of daily,characteristi Miaximum for values for 30

any 1 day consecutive daysshall notexceed-

Iron, total ---------- 7.0 .............. 3.5TSS --..-----.----- 70.0 ---- - 135.0pH ...........----- Within the ------------------

range 6.0to 9.0.

IThese TSS effluent limitations shall not apply todisehangcs from coal mines located In the followingStates: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, SouthIDakota, Utah, and Wyoming. In these States, T.Olimitations shall be determined on a casa-by-case basis

(b) Any untreated overflow, increasein volume of a point source discharge,or discharge from a by-pass system fromfacilities designed, constructed, andmaintained to contain or treat the dis-charges from the facilities and areascovered by this subpart which would re-sult from a 10-year 24-hour precipita-tion event, shall not be subject to thelimitations set forth in paragraph (a)of this section.

(c) Drainage which is not from anactive mining area shall not be requiredto meet the limitations set forth in para-graph (a) of this section as long as suchdrainage is not commingled with un-treated mine drainage which is subjectto the limitations in paragraph (a) ofthis section.

APPENDIX A-LEGAL ATHORr=

(1) EXIS G POLT SOURCES

Section 301(b) of the Act requires theachievement by not later than July 1, 1977,of effluent limitations for point sources, otherthan publicly owned treatment works, whichrequire the application of the best practi-cable control technology currently available

s defined by the Administrator pursuantto section 304(b) of the Act. Section 301(b)also requires the achievement by not laterthan July 1, 1983, of effluent limitations forpoint sources, other than publicly ownedtreatment works, which require the appli-cation of best available technology econom-ically achievable which will result in reason-able further progress toward the nationalgoal of eliminating the discharge of all pol-lutants, as determined in accordance withregulations issued by the Administrator pur-suant to section 304(b) of the Act.

Section 304(b) of the Act requires theAdministrator to publish regulations pro-viding guidelines for effluent limitations set-ting forth the degree of effluent reductionattainable through the application of thebest practicable control technology cur-rently available and the degree of effluentreduction attainable through the applica-tion of the best control measures and prac-tices achievable including treatment tech-niques, process and procedural Innovations,operating methods and other alternatives.The regulation herein sets forth effluentlimitations guidelines, pursuant to sections301 and 304(b) of the Act, for the coal prep-


aration plant and associated areas sub-category (Subpart B), the acid or ferruginousmine drainage subcategory (Subpart C) andthe alkaline mine drainage subcategory(Subpart D) of the coal mining point sourcecategory.

Section 304(c) of the Act requires the Ad-ministrator to Issue to the States and ap-propriate water pollution control agenciesInformation on the processes, procedures oroperating methods which result in the elimi-nation or reduction of the discharge of pol-lutants to implement standards of perform-ance under section 306 of the Act. The re-port entitled "Development Document forEffluent Limitations Guidelines and NewSource Performance Standards for the CoalMining Point Source Category," May 1976,provides, pursuant to section 304(c) of theAct, Information on such processes, proce-dures or operating methods.

APPENDIx B-Tc/mcAL Su-mmAnRy AND BASISFOR IEGULATIONS

This Appendix summarizes the basis offinal effluent limitations guidelines for exist-ing sources to be achieved by the applicationof best practicable control technology cur-rently available.

(2) GENIERAL sIETRODOLOGY

The effluent limitations guidelines setforth herein were developed in the followingmanner. The point source category was firststudied for the purpose of determiningwhether separate limitations are appropriatefor different segments within the category.This analysis included a determination ofwhether differences in raw material used,product produced, manufacturing processemployed, age, size, waste water constituentsand other factors require development ofseparate limitations for different segmentsof the point source category. The raw wastecharacteristics for each such segment werethen, identified. This included an analysis ofthe source, flow and volume of water usedin the process employed, the sources of wasteand waste waters in the operation and theconstituents of all waste water. The con-stituents of the waste waters which shouldbe subject to effluent limitations wereidentified.

The control and treatment technologiesexisting within each segment were identified.This included an identification of each dls-tinct control and treatment technology, in-cluding both in-plant and end-of-processtechnologies, which is existent or capable ofbeing designed for each segment. It also in-cluded an identification of, in terms of theamount of constituents and the chemical,physical, and biological characteristics ofpollutants, the effluent level resulting fromthe application of each of the technologies.The problems, limitations and reliability ofeach treatment and control technology werealso identified. In addition, the nonwaterquality environmental impact, such as theeffects of the application of such tech-nologies upon other pollution problems, in-cluding air, solid waste, noise and radiationwere identified. The energy requirements ofeach control and treatment technology weredetermined as well as the cost of the appli-cation of such technologies.

The Information, as outlined above, wasthen evaluated in order to determine whatlevels of technology constitute the "bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable." In identifying such technologies,various factors were considered. These in-cluded the total cost of application of tech-nology in relation to the effluent reductionbenefits to be achieved from such applica-tion, the age of equipment and facilitiesinvolved, the process employed, the engi-neering aspects of the application of various

types of control techniques, process changes,nonwater quality environmental impact (in-cluding energy requirements) and otherfactors.

The data upon which the, above analysiswas performed included EPA permit appli-cations, EPA sampling and Inspections, con-sultalat reports, and industry submissions,

(2) Summary of cecluslons with respectto the coal preparation plants and associatedareas (Subpart B), and the acid or ferrt-ginous mine drainage subcategory (SubpartC) and the alkaline mine drainage subeate-gory, (Subpart D) of the coal mining pointsource category.

(1) Categorization. For the purpose ofstudying waste treatment and effluent limi-tatons the coal mine point source categorywas initially subcategorizcd by the estab-lished Standard Industrial Classification(SIC) groups applicable to the coal miningindustry. These SIO groups were then furthersubdivided by: geographic location of themine, type of mine (surfaco or deep), andsize of mine (annual tonnage), all based onanticipated variations in raw Wasto water.After statistical analysis of the data obtainedduring the study It was determined thatbased on waste treatment the coal miningpoint source category should be divided intothree discrete pubcategores based on theorigin of the waste water, i.e., waste waterfrom the mining activities and waso waterfrom the coal preparation actlvltleo, ormining services activities. Waste water wasfurther subdivided by the characteristics ofthe effluent (acid or alkaline).

(1) Subpart B-Coal Preparation Plantsand Associated Areas. The provisions of thissubpart arc applicable to discharge3 fromcoal preparation plants and assoclated areas,including discharges which uro pumped,siphoned or drained from coal storage, refusestorage and coal preparation plant ancillaryareas related to the cleaning or boneflelatlonof coal of any rank Including but not limitedto bituminous, lignite and anthracite.

(2) Subpart C-Acid or Ferrginous MineDrainage. The provilions of this Subpart areapplicable to acid or ferruginous mine drain-age resulting from the mining of coal of anyrank, including but not limited to bit-ninous, lignite, and anthracite.

(3) Subpart D-AZkalinc Mine Drainage,The provisions of this subpart are applicableto alkaline mine drainage resllting from themining of coal of any rank including but notlimited to bituminous, lignite, and anthra-cite.

(it) Waste charactcristics. The raw wastocharacteristics of coal preparation plantprocess water (Subpart B) are highly de-pendent upon the particular process or re-covery technique utilized in the operation.Procez techniques generally require analkaline media for efficient and econonicooperation; therefore process water does notdissolve significant quantities of the con-stituents present in the raw coal. The prin-cipal pollutnAt present in coal preparationplant process water is suspended rolids, Inpreparation plants cleaning coal flines,process water contains less suspended solidsthan process water at coal preparationplants which do not clean or recover coalfines.

The raw waste characterlstlcs of the wastewater discharged from the actual coal min-ing activities themselves vary significantly,The chemical characteristics of raw minedrainage are determined by local and region-al geology of the coal, associated overburden,and mine bottom. Raw mine drainage rangesfrom grossly polluted to drinking waterquality. Major differences were observed be-tween the two classes of raw mine drainage(1) acid or ferrugnouis, and (2) akaline

FEDEPAL REGISTEP, VOL. 42, NO. 80-TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1977


which are generally representative of geo-graphic areas.

Acid or ferruginous mine drainage (Sub-part C) can be characterized as raw minedrainage, requiring neutralizatlon and sedi-mentation, which is acid with high ironconcentrations and varying concentrationsof other metal ions including aluminum,manganese, nickel, and zinc plus varyingconcentrations of total suspended solids.Alkaline mine drainage (Subpart D) can becharacterized as raw mine drainage of gen-erally acceptable quality, not requiringneutralization, but possibly requiringsedimentation to reduce concentration of"suspended solids.SEffluent limitations guidelines and stand-ards of performance are established "tocontrol pollutant parameters which arechosen primarily on the following criteria:(1) Pollutants are frequently present incoal mine point source discharges inconcentrations deleterious to aquaticorganisms; (2) technology exists for thereduction or removal of the pollutants inquestion; and' (3) research data indicatethat certain concentrations of pollutantsare capable of disrupting an aquaticecosystem. The following were Identified asthe pollutants in coal mine drainage, andpreparation plants and .associated areaswastewter discharges; acidity, iron, manga-nese, aluminum, nickel, zinc, and sus-pended solids.

Several other waste water constituentsWere considered including: total dissolvedsolids,, sulfates, fluorides, strontium, andammonia. Effluent limitatlohs have not beenproposed for ammonia sulfates, fluoride, andstrontium because best practicable controltechnology is not currently available fortheir removal. Total dissolved solids concen-trations In coal mine discharges approachlevels capable of disrupting an aquatic eco-system, but economically feasible technologyfor achieving substantial reductions in dis-solved solids levels does not exist at thistime.

(iII) Origi0n of waste water pollutants.Coal preparation plants fall Into three gen-eral stages, based on degree of cleaning andunit operations. Stage 1 consists of crushingand sizing which are basically dry processesand do not produce a waste water discharge.Stage 2 consists of primary crushing, sizing,gravity separation of coarse coal, dewater-lg of clean coal and refuse, and removal ofcoal and refuse fines from process waters.Stage 8 consists of crushing, sizing, gravityseparation of all sizes, of coal, secondaryseparation of coal fines or froth flotation, de-watering of clean coal and refuse, heavymedia-recovery when required, thermal dry-Ing of clean coal, and removal of coal andrefuse fines from process water. Stages 2 and3 coal preparation plants use water n thebeneficlation processes. Fine coal and mineralparticles are suspended in the.coal prepara-tion plant process waters, and some mineralsassociated with the coal and its impuritiesare dissolved In the coal preparation plant'sprocess water. Additional waste water of anon-contact nature may result from boilerblowdqwns and non-contact cooling waterssuch as bearing cooling water.

The waste water situation evident in themining segment of the coal industry is un-like that encountered in most other Indus-tries. Water enters mines via precipitation.ground water infiltration, and runoff whereit may become polluted by contact withmaterials in the coal, overburden material,or mine bottom. Except for dust control andfire protection, water is not used in theactual mining of coal In the U.S. at thepresent time. Waste Water handling andmanagement is required, and is a part ofmost coal mining methods or systems to In;.sure the continuance of the mining opera-


tion and to improve the efficiency of themining operation. This waste water is dls-charged from the mine as mine drainage.Mine drainage may be polluted and requiretreatment before it can be discharged tonavigable waters. In addition to handlingand treating often massive volumes of wastewater during actual mining operations orcoal loading, coal mine operators are facedwith the came burden during Idle periods.Mine drainage may continue indefinitelyafter all mining operations have ceased ifproper mining methods and control tcch-nology are not employed, or even increase Inintensity after mine closure if proper minedrainage control technology Is not employed.Control of mine drainage after mine closureor abandonment is not Included in this finalregulation although technique3 are d(scrlbedin the Development Document, referencedbelow, which can control or ameliorate minedrainage after mine closure and all activitiesassociated with the mine have ceased.

Water enters preparation plant casociatedareas such as coal storage and refuse storage,via precipitation, wash down, and runoff,where it comes Into contact with coal or coalrefuse. The wastewater dischargc3 from coalpreparation plants and acsociated areas con-tain pollutants similar to the pollutants dis-charged by the mine served by the prepara-tion plant. As with the coal mining segmentof the Industry, waste water handling fromcoal preparation plants assoclatcd areas con-tinues during Idle periods; and may continueIndefinitely from refuso storage after prep-aratlon plant closuro If proper control tech-nology is not employed, although thee con-trol technologies are not required as part ofthese final regulations.

The wastewaters from the actual miningand the coal preparation plants and asoci-ated areas of the coal mining industry areessentially unrelated to production quanti-ties. Therefore, raw waste" loadings are ex-pressed In terms of concentration ratherthan units of production.

(iv) Treatment and control technology.Waste water treatment and control technol-ogles have been studied for each subcategoryof the industry to determine What is the,best practicable control technology cur-rently available. Although It is legally per-milssible to base effluent limitations on In-process changes, the technology used as thebasis for this regulation is end-of-pipe treat-ment only.

Waste water control technology Include3techniques employed before, during and af-ter the actual mining operation to reduce oreliminate adverse environmental effects re-sulting from waste water dkcharge3 fromcoal mine point sources. Control technologyas discussed in the Development Document,referenced below, has been categorized as tocontrol technology related to surface mining,underground mining, and coal preparation.

Surface mine pollution control technologyis divided into two major categorie--miningtechnology (specific minin techniques) andfinal waste water pollution control technol-ogy (reclamation of land ares disturbed bymining). Although these surface mine pol-lution control technologies are addressed inthe development document., referenced be-low, they are not included as part of thisfinal regulation, but may be uscd to reducethe volume and expense of waste watertreatment required during operations andreduce or eliminate adverse environmentaleffects after activities assoclated with themine have ceased.

Underground mine pollution control tech-nology is divided into methods of reducingwater Influx into mine workings, and pro-planned flooding on mine closure. The re-duction of water Influx Into undergroundmines can reduce the volume and expense ofwaste water treatment during operations,

21387

though it is not required by this final regu-latlon. While it has been demonstrated thatpreplanned flooding on deep mine closurecan reduce or control water pollution aftermine closure it is not included as part ofthis final regulation.

Coal preparation pollution control tech-nolo-y is divided Into surface water controland final waste water pollution control tech-nolo-y at preparation plant refuse disposalareas (reclamation). While reclamation ofpreparation plant refuse disposal areas hasbeen demonstrated as control technologywhich ameliorates this aspect of pollutionfrom mning, it Is not required as part ofthis final regulation.

That water quallt-k degradation may becamued by discharges from areas affected bymining during a time period which is notIncluded under this regulation is recognizedby the Agency. In many cases the pollutionfrom these areas is more severe than thatfrom the active area included In this regula-tion. The Agency ki considering possible ap-plication of section 208 of the Act (Best71nagement Practices) which will addressIn detail control lechnologes to be used to-ward the amelioration of these aspects ofcoal mining related pollution and will beproviding guidance to control this facet ofthe pollution problem. As noted In the pre-amble to the regulations promulgated today,EPA also Is conducting an intensive analysisof data which may lead to extension of cov-erago of theso regulations, or of new7 sourceperformance standards.

Wazte water treatment technology is cate-gorized In the Development Document, refer-enced below, as to treatment technology forcoal preparation plant process waste waterand assoclated areas point source dischargesand treatment technoloy for the two claszesof mine drainage. Coal preparation plantprocess waste water treatment consists pri-marily of clarification technique. for sus-pended solids removal including thleners,flocculation, cettling basins, vacuum flitra-tion, and pres--'e fl-tration.

Treatment technology for acid or ferrugi-nous mine drainage includes flow equaliza-tion, acidity neutralization and preciplt--tion of Insoluble metal hydroxides, ferrousIron oxidation, and suspended solids re-moval. Surface holding ponds or undergroundsump3 are employed to equalize the flow ofmine drainage before treatment. Mineralacidity In the raw mine drainage is neutral-ized with an alkali, usually hydrated lime,which removes Iron, rmanganese, and othercoluble metals through the formation of theirin.olublo hydroxidez. When iron Is present inraw mine drainage In the-ferrous form, usualpractice s to provide aeration facilities foroxidation to the ferric state. Suspended solidsare formed as a result of the chemical treat-ment. Both earthen settling basins and me-chanical clariflers are used for removal ofsuspended solids. It was observed that totaliron Is one of the most commonly analyzedconstituents of acld or ferruginous minedrainage, and Iron reduction is generallreprezentative of the overall effectiveness ofthe neutralization process. It has beendemonstrated that, with total iron removedto within 3.5 mg/l, total aluminum, totalnickel, and total zinc are removed to withinthe limits sugge"sed In the preamble to 40CPR Part 434 (40 PR 48830). Therefore, totalaluminum, total nickel, and total zinc are notincluded In the limitations guidelines of thisregulation for acid or ferruginous minedrainage.

Treatment technology for alkaline minedrainage generally consists of solids removalIn settling ponds. Some alkaline mine drain-ages may require no treatment to meet thisregulation. It has been demonstrated thatnatural aeration in settling ponds can reducetotal iron concentrations in alkaline mine

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 80-TUESDAY, AP IL 26, 1977


21388

drainages from over 3 mg/1 to less than 3rag/i. Alkaline mine drainage was observed tohave low concentrations of other metal ions.Therefore, the pollutant parameters includedin the alkaline mine drainage subcategory of40 CFR Part 434 (40 FR 48830) have beenrevised to include only total iron, total sus-pended solids and pH.

Solid waste control must be considered.Best practicable control technology as knowntoday, requires disposal of the pollutants re-moved from waste waters in this industry inthe form of solid wastes and liquid concen-trates. In most cases these are nonhazardoussubstances requiring only minimal custodialcare. However, some constituents may behazardous and may require special considera-tion. In order to insure long-term protectionof the environment from these hazardous orharmful constituents, special considerationof disposal sites must be made. All landfillsites where such hazardous wastes are dis-posed should be selected so as to preventhorizontal and vertical migration of thesecontaminants to ground or surface waters.In cases where geologic conditions may notreasonably ensure this, adequate legal andmechanical precautions (e.g. imperviousliners) should be taken to ensure long termprotection, to the environment from hazard-es materials. Where appropriate, the loca-

tion of solid hazardous materials disposalsites should be permanently recorded in theappropriate office of legal jurisdiction.

(v) Cost estimates fr control of wastewater pollutants. The estimated capital In-vestment required for coal mining facilitiesto meet effluent guidelines should be no morethan 132 million dollars and on a per tonbasis may cost up to 42 cents per ton ofdesigned annual capacity for BPT depend-Ing on size, location and type of mine. An-nual operating costs of effluent treatmentfacilities Inclusive of capital charges are es-timated to be less than 90 milion dollars andmay range up to 28 cents per ton for BPT.The estimated investment cost to meet BETfor coal preparation plants is 52.5 milliondollars or approximately 41 cents per ton ofannual design capacity. Annual costs of treat-ment inclusive of capital charges for thepreparation plants and associated areas areestimated to be less than 7 cents per tonof prepared coal. The above estimates arebased on the assumption that no treatmentfacilities are presently in place.

(vi) Energy requirements and nonwaterquality environmental impacts. Energy re-quirements for-compliance with these finaland proposed effluent limitations guidelinesare low. The main use of energy is for pumps,mixers, and control instruments. Whereverfeasible, gravity flow is used in coal prepara-tion plants and mine drainage treatment fa-cilities. ilne dewatering Is considered an in-herent part of the mining method or sys-tem.

Inherent to coal preparation is the majorproblem of solid waste disposal which alsocan be a source of air pollution. The amountof additional waste and resultant air pollu-tion produced as a result of these regulationsis insignificant relative to that already pres-ent consequently, a minimal impact is ex-pected.

(vii) Economic impact analysis. These'guidelines will require a total investment ofno more than 132 million dollars for BPT.Annual costs are estimated-to be less than 90million dollars for BPT. Prices of raw coalare expected to rise between 0 and 28 centsper ton as a result of BPT. Prepared coalprices will increase no more than 7 cents in1977. Prices will not rise immediately to covercompliance costs. In the interim net revenuesare expected to be reduced by no more than2.9 percent for coal mines and 5.7 percent forcoal preparation plants and associated areas.Th ese profitability decreases are not expected

to result in closures of mines or preparationplants. Some closures of marginal establish-ments existing under unique circumstancesmay result from the guidelines.

The imlact of these regulations on em-ployment, local economies, industry growthand the balance of trade is not expectedto be significant.

Executive Orders 11821 (November 27,1974) and 11949 (December 31, 1978) requirethat major proposals for legislation and pro-mulgation of regulations and rules by agen-cles of the executive branch be accompaniedby d statement certifying that the economicimpact of the proposal has been evaluated.

OMB Circular A-107 (January 28, 1975)prescribes guidelines for the identificationand evaluation of majbr proposals requir-Ing preparation of inflationary impact cer-tiflcations. The Administrator has directedthat all regulatory actions which are lil:elyto result in annualized costs in excess of$100 million will require certification.

The economic impact of these regulationshas been considered in accordance with Ex-ecutive Orders 11821 and 11949. Projectedeffects of the regulations on prices and eco-nomies of the industry as summarized abovehave been reviewed by the Agency.

APPENIX C-SUIMARY OF PUDLMjPAnTICnPATIOx

Prior to this publication, factual conclu-sions which support promulgation of thisregulation were set forth in substantial de-tal in the notice of interim final rule mak-ing for the coal mining point source categorypublished October 17, 1975 (40 FR 48830)and interim final rulemaking publishedon May 13, 1976 (41 FR 19832), and In thenotice of public review procedures publishedOctober 6, 1973 (38 FR 21202). In addition,each regulation as promulgated in interimfinal form was subported by two other docu-ments; (1) the document entitled "Develop-ment Document for Interim Final Effluent-imitation Guidelines and New Source Per-

formance Standards for the Coal MiningPoint Source Category" and (2) the docu-ment entitled "Economic Impact of InterimFinal Effuent Guidelines on the U.S. Coal_Mining Industry." These documents weremade available to the public and circulatedto interested persons at approximately thetime of publication of the notice of interimfinal rulemaking.

Prior to the publication of the notiqe ofinterim final rulemaking (40 FR 4830) adevelopment document was distributed tofederal agencies, all state and territorial pol-lution control agencies, industry trade asso-ciations and conservation organizations.Comments on that report were solicited. Themajor comments received and the Agency'sresponse were described in the notice ofinterim final rulema-ing (40 FR 48830).

Interested persons were again invited toparticipate in the rulemaking by submittingwritten comments following the publicationof the promulgated Interim final regulation(41 FR 19832).

sUMsXMnRY Or COT."Trir

The following responded to the request forwritten comments contained in the noticeof interim final rulemaking: Reclamation &Engineering Services, Inc.; Old Ben CoalCompany; Island Creek Coal Company; WestVirginia-Citizen Action Group; PeabodyCoal Company; The Pittston Coal Company;Bethlehem Steel Corporation; lKentucky CoalAssociation, qnc.; Consolidation Coal Com-pany; Save Our Cumberland Mountains; Na-tional Coal Association; The Valley CampCoal Company; American Electric PowerService Corporation; U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region VIII; U.S. Depart-ment of Interior.

Commenters suggested that the effluentlimitations guidelines remain applicable topoint sources in this category until (in thecase of surface mines) release of the recla-mation or revegetation bonds. Also, therewas suggestion that, with respect to bothsurface and deep mines, regardless of thenature of activity on the mining propertyand whether or not performance bonds areInvolved, the effluent limitations guldelinesbe applicable as long as there Is a pointsource pollution problem.

There Is no question that pollution oftencontinues to result from coal mines whichhave ceased active operation. Indeed, in somecases, when a mining area is no longer sub-ject to regular suparvislon, the pollutantain the discharges may Increase. However,EPA does not today extend coverage of theseeffluent limitations guidelines to include in-active areas or thozo areas undergoing re-vegetation or reclamation. This Is not to saythat point sources discharging pollutantsmay not be covered by NPD 3 permits, itmeans only that national effluent limitationsguidelines do not apply. The Agency is con-ducting an intensive analysis of data withrespect to water pollution created during therevegetation stages, and may In the futurepropose extension of coverage. With respectto closed mines and abandoned mining areasthe Agency does not intend to Issue effluentlimitations guidelines because regulation ofsuch point sources is not amenable to pro-duction oriented effluent limitations guide-lines.

Sevbral commenters request the basis andrationale for the following statement fromthe FEDzRL Rmsvn, page 19837, first para-graph: "EMuent limitations have not beorlproposed for ammonia, sulfates, fluoride and.strontium because the levels ob3erved In coalmine wastewater discharges generally do notwarrant concern."

The above statement, quoted from 40 Mit19837, may be misleading. Pollutant param-eters such as ammonia, sulfates, fluoride andstrontium do warrant concern but best prn-ticable control technology Is not currentlyavailable for the removal of these pollutanto.Therefore, there is no way to require treat-ment for removal of these parameters withtoday's BPT regulations. These parametersshall be reconsidered during the BAT tech-nical study.

A commenter states that the character ofdischarge waters and treatment technologiesare affected by geologic, hydrologlo and cli-matic factors so that mines operating in dif-ferent geological areas will have differentdischarge water characteristli. The corn-menter suggests the establishment of limi-tations on a 'geographical basis.

The Agency considered the subcategorlza-tion of the coal mining category as describedin the Development Document. In that study,it was determined that two distinct classesof raw mine drainage existed (Acid or Fer-ruginous and Alkaline). These two classesof wastewater are based on vmstewater treat-ment technology required, but reflect regionaland local geologic conditions. This Industrycategorization consists of two largo rpglons.Region I, states or areas characterized byacid or ferruginous raw mine drainage, iscomprised of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohioand northern West Virginia. Isolated minesor areas in Western Eentucky and along theIllinols-Indiana border also exhibit acidor ferruginous raw mine drainage. Region Itincludes all the remaining coal producingareas which exhibit predominantly alkalineraw mine drainage.

Statistical analysis of all raw mine drain-age obtained during the field program sub-stantlated the categ-orlzation based on thechemical characteristies of the raw minedrainage. Based on this Information, It wn




determined that there was no need for fur-ther industry categorization of the coal min-ing Industry other than by raw mine drainagecharacteristics-.However. as noted in the pre-amble, EPA is reviewing data with respect toWestern coal mines to determine if a sepa-rate subcategory should be established forcoal mines in that area.

Design criteria for treatment facilities(e.g., liners for sdttling basins) was requested-by a commenter In order to avoid contamina-

Stion of surface and ground water.The function of these effluent limitations

guidelines is not to present design criteriafor equipment needed to comply with theregulation, however, background documentsto these regulations and the substantial tech-nical resources of EPA's Regional Offices maybe consulted to obtain Information on theproper constructionof settling basins.

Commenters reooomended promulgationof einuent limitations for known toxic sub-

-stances under the authority of section 307(a)of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(FWPOA).

The Agency has embarked on a major effortto identify toxic water pollutants in effluentsresulting from coal mining operations, and toexamine available pollution control tech-nology which can substantially remove thosepollutants. At the conclusion of those studiesEPA may propose section 307(a) toxic waterpollutant standards or may address the prob-lems in the context of revised effluent limi-tations -guidelines. Until It has data avail-able to support section 307(a) standards, theAgency does not intend to act under thatsection.

A commenter suggests the exemption ofBPT requirements for plants which do nothave the required technology in place intime to meet the July 1, 1977 statutory com-pliance date.

This comment necessarily is limited to coalmining category point sources which do nothave the final NPDES permits, because finalNPDES permits' are not affected by thepromulgation of these effluent limitationsguidelines. The ability of the Administratorto consider the physical difficulties of n-stalling the equipment by July 1, 1977, nec-essary to meet these effluent limitations andguidelines, is limited. The factors set forthIn section 304(b) (1) (B) of the Act do notInclude consideration of the time necessaryfor installation, and the legislative historyof the relevant sections of the Act is like-wise devoid of consideration of this factor.The reasonableness of the technology un-derlying BPT levels is Inherently based onthe possibility of installing the technologyregardless of the proximity to the July 1,1977 date. The contention that the statu-tory deadline should be dispositive In de-riving these effluent limitations guidelinesis particularly Inappropriate In the coal min-lng industry because (1) the technologyneeded to meet the BPT levels is not sophis-ticated and is widely practiced; (2) the BPTlevels and underlying technology were pre-sented to the industry well over two yearsprior to the date of this publication; and(3) even if a facility must initiate imple-mentation of -BPT technology, the timeneeded to bring about full compliance isrelatively short. The Agency has announcedan enforcement policy which applies to dis-chargers who do not have final NPDES per-mits, This policy allows the use of a com-pliance schedule which requires the attain-ment of BPT levels at some point beyondJuly 1, 1977, when there has been good faithefforts to meet the July 1, 1977, date andwhen there have been delays in the Issuanceor resolution of NPDES permits. A morethorough explication of this policy appearsin 'Environment Reporter," Number 6, June11, 1976, "Current Developments" at 241-246.


Commenters request the inclusion of rai-roads and the area surrounding the mineportal as part of the definition of an activemine area.

The terms "active mining arca", "coalmine" and "coal preparation plant associ-ated areas" are defined In 1434,11 clearly toInclude point source discharges resultingfrom the area near the mine portaL

A Commenter recommended changing theterm quantity to concentraton. iMs 'wouldbe a more accurate representation and avoidconfusion, as limitations are expressed asmilligrams per liter.

The appropriate changes are reflected intoday's publication.

Commenters state that data from theDraft Development Document Indicatessome alkaline mine drainage may containmanganese and dissolved Iron in quantitiesabove those limitations established for aciddrainage. LTmltations for these two param-eters are requested.

Manganese Is not found to be a signn-cant problem In alkaline mine drainage.Manganese removal Is obtained at the higherPH levels found in alkaline drainage, bythe manganese being precipitated out of so-lution. Thus, it was concluded that sepa-rate limitations for manganese are unnec-essary. Limitations for dissolved iron arebeing deleted from these regulations for rea-sons explained In the preamble.I Commenters believed that the cost of com-pliance estimations are Incorrect due to theirbeing based on analytical techniques, usedto develop base line regulatory dta, whlchare improper. A commenter adds that sam-ples analyzed for the EPA regulations, werenot digested by the procedure required bylaw.

The analytical methods used by the con-tractor In analyzing waste water samplesobtained during the study were those asspecified In the FmmmAL R srma, Part 130,dated October 10, 1973. This regulation pro-vides a number of equivalent methods to beused n the analysis of waste water and un-der the parameters for Iron and manganee,there Is the availability of both colorimetrlcas well as instrumental methods for meas-urement. The contractor's choice of methodwas the use of atomic absorption spectralchromatography. Under the prescribed pro-cedure the analyst has a number of choiceswhich he may make according to the nam-ple characteristic and type cholces as to theneed for either hard or soft digestion aswell as the option for the direct aspirationof samples for determination. Therefore, theanalyst has the option based on the ndivid-ual samplo type and character to make theredeterminations during his analytical workup. All measurements made during this con-tract were as those specified in the 'm nALRrmsTzn and are in compliance with theAgency's accepted analytical procedures.

Cornmenters state that they may be un-able to meet effluent limitations guidelinesfor total suspended solids (TES). The claimmade is that lmo neutraLzation for acidmine drainage produces a calcium sulfatoprecipitate, which will increae the TSS dur-ing monitoring. Commentera recommendpostponing. a TES standard until furtherEPA and ERDA ,tudles are completed. An-other position on the isue of TSS limits isthat In certain areas the zugreztcd limit isunattainable since high suspended solidloads already exist In streams.

However, one commenter aserts that theTSS limitations are too lenient, since permitdata from the Regions indlcates prezent com-pliance for several companies under morestringent TSS limits.

Lime neutralization may ncre so theamount of total suspended sollds n acidmine drainage. It is for this purpose that

21389

clariflers are used as part of the treatmenttechnology. Technical studies have demon-strated that the limitations, for TSS can bemet on a routine basis as substantiated bythe data base for this regulation. In suchcases where it can be shown that high sus-pended solid loads already exist in the intakestream of a plant then the permit writermay adjust the limltatlons, for a dischargeto the same stream.

Several commenters stated that SubpartB. Coal Storage Refuse Storate and CoalPreparation Plant Ancillary Area. Is a non-point source discharge and should not besubject to effluent limitations guidelines-

These regulations apply only to pointsource discharges. If a pollution source istruly a non-point discharge, then It is not.subject to thee effluent limitations guide-lines. But EPA's study of this industry Indi-cates that most water pollution from coalstorage, refuse storage and other areasaround coal preparation plants is releasedthrough deffnite point sources.

A commenter asked for the addition ofrJnc limitation to the regulations, becausezi= may not precipitate until pH 7.0 isreached and the regulatina only requireacid drainage to be neutralized to pE 6.0. sothat zinc wi not necessarily be removed.Another commenter suggests monitoring foinickel, zinc and aluminum, since these arenot always reduced to tolerable levels whentotal Iron is reduced to 35 mgYL

Effective removals of aluminum, nickeland zinc were observed at all plants in thetechnical study. There were no observedvalues which exceeded the proposed dailymaximum concentrations for nickel andzinc at any of the 'plants and at only oneplant did aluminum values exceed the dailymaximum limit. Consequently, it is con-cluded that well operated treatment plantshave little problem In removal of theseparameters. For the acid or ferruglnous minedrainage subcategory total aluminum, totalzJnc and total nickel are not listed as pol-lutant parameters because it has been-demonstrated that with total ironremovedto within 3.5 mg/], total alunmum, totalzinc and total nickel are removed to withinthe limits suggested In the preamble to theOctober 17, 1975 publication (40 FR 48830).The technical study being conducted for theBAT review win consider additional para-meters for regulation.

A comnenter recommends that a compre-hensive study to determine stream condi-tlons 'prior td mining be conducted beforefinal standards are published.

Effluent limitations guldelines are basedon treatment technology. Prior conditionshave little effect on technology evaluation.

One commenter questioned whether EPAhLd fulfilled the requirement. of ExecutiveOrder 11821 for Inflationary impact state-ments.

An economic Impact report entitled "Eco-nomic Impact of Interim Final and ProposedEffluent Guidelines, Coal M!ining' was pze-pared In support of the regulations. TheImpact analysis performed examined costsof compliance, both capital and annual cost,the incidence of these costs, price effects,production effects, effects upon industryprofitability, regional impacts, balance ofpayment effects, and employment effects.

The economic Impacts were summarized inthe preface to the regulations and In Appen-dI E-Technlcal Summary and Basis forRegulations under part (VII) EconomicImpact Analysis. The impact analysis per-formed was In accordance with circular A-107 and the inflationary impact of theseregulatons was considered in accordancewith Executive Order 11821.

One commenter questioned whether treat-ment costs per mine and total treatment-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 80-7UESDAY, APRIL 20, 1977



costs may have been understated. Using BPTcapital costs per mine and preparation plantfor the model large deep mine In the north-ern Appalachian region the commentercomputed a compliance cost for this area ofbetween $111 million and $375 million, withthe majority of the broad range reflectingcosts for closing the circuit for preparationplant water networks.

EPA attempted to prepare a worst caseanalysis for assessing the cost and economicimpact of its regulations. EPA's estimatesof the costs were developed by assumingthat no treatment facilities were already inplace even though it is known that most ofthe industry does treat effluents in order tocomply with State and local requirements.Thus it is likely that individual mines willsustain a lower cost than predicted in theanalysis.

EPA's estimates for mining compliancecosts for a region are based upon a modelplant approach. This approach can be illus-trated by using the example of large deepmines in the Northern Appalachian region.The model plant produces approximately 1million tons per year. The compliance costfor this mine (rounded to $400,000) is divid-ed by the output to obtain the cost ($.40) perton. Multiplying this figure by the tonnageproduced by large deep mines in this region(147.9 million in 1973) gives a compliancecost for the region of less than $60 million.

)EPA's estimates of coal preparation plantcosts were similarly computed. Costs per ton

were multiplied by the production of plants In computing compliance cots for surfacerequiring closure of the water circuit to oh- mining operations, EPA used a model planttain compliance costs for the nation ($52.5 approach and assumed that no treatment ismillion). NoT.--Northern Appalachia ac-. already in place. Treatment facilties werecounts for approximately 54 percent of the sized to accommodate drainage from the na-Nation's production of cleaned coal so prep- tive mining area. It Is assumed that minearation plant costs for this region could be operators will quickly return the land to finalexpected to be much less. than $52.5 million. contour for reclamation at which time the

The commenter's approach to -computing area is no longer part of the active miningtotal cost for a region (multiplying the num- area. This prompt return to final grade rep-her of model plants in a region by the cost resents both good mining practice and a wayper model plant) can produce biased results. for the operator to minimize his coots of con-If, for example, one attempts to estimate the plying with the regulation.production for large deep mines in the Nor- EPA assumed that a now treatment pondthem Appalachian region using the corn- for the active mining area would be builtmenter's method, one would multiply 225 by every six months, Lo. that the active miningthe output of the model plant (1 million tons area would be returned to final contour with-per year). This yields an estimated produc- in this period. The active mining area wagtion of 225 million tons, an estimate over computed as the land area needed to extrab50% higher than the actual production of the tonnage for the model plant, and based147.9 million tons in 1973. upon a given seam thickness (e.g. 60 Inches)

Total compliance cost estimate using the and recovery factor (e.g. 90 percent). The slzecommenter's methodology would show biases of active mining area to be drained dotor-similar to those shown in production and mines the size of the treatment facilities forplant statistics. It is because of this possi- the model plant.bility of introducing biases into its analysis Mine operators frequently make use of thethat the Agency did not use the commenter's fact that terrain can affect treatment costs.approach in computing compliance costs but For example natural depresslons in theinstead used its methodology. ground may be used for treatment faollti .

One commenter questioned whether EPA's However, in estimating its costs for the treat-costs for treating surface drainage had un- ment facilities EPA asumed the construe-derestimated the number of ponds and the tion of a four-sided pond so that actual pondarea drained by these ponds. The commenter costs may be less than these estimated.cited terrain and natural drainage as factorswhich car influence the number of ponds. [FR Doc.77-11910 Flied 4-25-77;8:45 am]


21390


Coal Mining Effluent Guidelines - Final Rule - April 26, 1977€¦ · 26/04/1977 · The...

Documents

Transcript of Coal Mining Effluent Guidelines - Final Rule - April 26, 1977€¦ · 26/04/1977 · The...