[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 31, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-13099]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 31, 1994]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-4887-5]

 

Final NPDES General Permit for Placer Mining in Alaska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10.

ACTION: Notice of a Final NPDES General Permit.

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

SUMMARY: The Director, Water Division, of Region 10 is today issuing a 
final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general 
permit under the Clean Water Act which will authorize discharges from 
placer mining facilities in the state of Alaska.
    Notice of the draft general permit was published January 14, 1994, 
at 59 FR 2504. This permit is intended to regulate placer mining 
activities in the state of Alaska. EPA, Region 10 has issued almost 
identical individual permits to these facilities in the past and 
intends to relieve some of the administrative burden of issuing 
individual permits by issuing this general permit.
    The final general permit establishes effluent limitations, 
standards, prohibitions and other conditions on discharges from the 
covered facilities. These conditions are based on existing national 
effluent guidelines and material contained in the administrative 
record, including Alaska Water Quality Standards and the National 
Toxics Rule. A description of the basis for any changes in conditions 
and requirements from the proposed general permit to the final general 
permit is given in the Response to Comments published below.
DATES: Request for Coverage: Written request for coverage under the 
general permit shall be provided to EPA, Region 10, as described in 
Part I.E. of the final permit. Coverage under the general permit 
requires written notification from EPA that coverage has been granted 
and that a specific permit number has been assigned to the operation.
    Administrative Record: The administrative record for the final 
permit is available for public review at EPA, Region 10, at the address 
listed below.

ADDRESSES: Requests for coverage should be sent to Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, WD-134, Seattle, WA 
98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindi Godsey at 1200 Sixth Avenue, WD-
134, Seattle, Washington 98101 or by telephone at (206) 553-1755. 
Copies of the final general permit, response to comments and today's 
notice may be obtained by writing to the above address or by calling 
Jeanette Carriveau at (206) 553-1214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from 
the review requirements of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to section 6 
of that order.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    After review of the facts presented in the notice printed above, I 
hereby certify pursuant to the provision of 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 
general NPDES permit will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Moreover, the permit reduces a 
significant administrative burden on regulated sources.

    Dated: May 13, 1994.
Charles E. Findley,
Director, Water Division.

Response to Comments

    On January 14, 1994, EPA, Region 10, issued a notice for a proposed 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit 
(GP) for Alaskan placer miners (59 FR 2504, Friday, January 14, 1994). 
During the public notice period, comments were received from National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Trustees for Alaska, Northern Alaska 
Environmental Center, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Department of 
Interior (DOI), Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Alaska 
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Utility Water Act 
Group, American Rivers, Alaska Miners Association, Livengood/Tolovana 
Mining District, Karl Hanneman, Steve J. McGroarty, Roger C. Burggraf, 
Glenn Bouton, Paul Manuel, Steve Masterman, Paul Sayer, Fred Heflinger, 
Guy L. Wiggs, and Denise Herzog. Public Hearings were held in 
Anchorage, Alaska on February 7, 1994, and in Fairbanks, Alaska on 
February 8 and 9, 1994. This document directly responds to the 
significant comments pertaining to the GP, made in writing and at the 
Public Hearings, and the Finding of Significant Impact (FNSI) for the 
Environmental Assessment (EA).
    1. Comment: Two commentors object to the use of a general permit 
due to the variations among mine sites. One commentor recommends 
issuing individual permits for all suction dredges larger than 4 
inches. In addition, another commentor objects to regulating discharges 
from operations utilizing the hydraulic removal of overburden through 
this GP stating these operations should be considered in individual 
permits.
    Response: EPA's NPDES regulations [40 CFR 122.28(a)] outline the 
conditions under which the Director may issue a general permit. More 
specifically, 40 CFR 122.28(a)(2)(ii) lists conditions the sources must 
meet to be considered for a general permit:
    a. The facilities involve the same or substantially similar types 
of operations.
    b. The facilities discharge the same type of wastes.
    c. Require the same effluent limitations and operating conditions.
    d. Require the same or similar monitoring.
    EPA has covered three different classifications of facilities in 
this GP but feels that each operation is similar to the others in that 
class. The development of the effluent guidelines for placer mining 
showed that with treatment, the pollutants of concern were the same for 
all facilities. In addition, the Alaska Water Quality Standards (WQS) 
have been taken into account for two parameters as being necessary for 
additional controls. In EPA's best professional judgement, the second 
condition applies to facilities utilizing the hydraulic removal of 
overburden as long as the settleable solids are kept at 0.2 ml/L or 
below. Also, suction dredges discharging to waters of the United States 
that operate in the active stream channel would have substantially the 
same types of discharged waste. EPA believes that each category can be 
regulated using the same effluent limitations and operating conditions 
and facilities in each category can be regulated using similar 
monitoring.
    2. Comment: Several commentors believe that bucket dredges should 
be regulated under individual permits. In addition, one commentor feels 
that small bucket dredges should be regulated under individual permits.
    Response: The Development Document for Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Ore Mining and 
Dressing Point Source Category - Gold Placer Mine Subcategory includes 
those larger bucket dredges as mechanical operations. Since effluent 
guidelines and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) apply to these 
facilities, the facilities are involved in operations similar to other 
mechanical operations and thus can be regulated by this GP. Since EPA 
did not include smaller bucket dredge operations as authorized by this 
GP, any application for this type of operation would need to be 
addressed in an individual permit.
    3. Comment: Two commentors claim that the approach used to comply 
with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) if a new source is 
determined to have a significant impact violates the NEPA process.
    Response: The commentors are correct but this was not the intent of 
Permit Part I.A.3. This part is rewritten to read, ``If there will be a 
significant impact, the facility will require an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS).'' EPA would prepare the EIS as funds became available 
or the new source could enter a three party agreement with EPA and an 
agreed upon third party contractor where the new source would pay the 
contractor but EPA would oversee the work.
    4. Comment: Two commentors suggest that the GP define ``expanding 
facilities'' to distinguish between an expansion and a new source.
    Response: The GP has defined ``expanding facility'' in Permit Part 
VIII.D. as: ``any facility increasing in size such as to affect the 
discharge but operating within the permit area covered by its GP.''
    5. Comment: Several commentors object to regulating discharges from 
operations utilizing the hydraulic removal of overburden due to the 
environmental impacts this method has on the surface.
    Response: The NPDES program regulates pollutant discharges to 
surface waters of the United States as mandated by the Clean Water Act 
(CWA). EPA does not have authority under the CWA to regulate land use. 
That authority rests with the appropriate land management agency.
    6. Comment: Two commentors suggest that EPA clarify Permit Part 
I.E.1. because they believe that saying: `* * * EPA ``may'' require 
individual permits* * *' gives EPA too much discretion.
    Response: The language in the GP comes directly out of 40 CFR 
122.28(a)(3)(i). The regulations intended EPA to have some discretion 
in making this determination.
    7. Comment: Two commentors suggest the addition of the need for a 
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) as a reason for requiring an individual 
permit.
    Response: EPA agrees and it has been incorporated in Permit Part 
I.E.1.g.
    8. Comment: Two commentors claim Permit Part I.E.2. would allow an 
applicant who falls into a category that may require an individual 
permit to gain coverage under the GP until a decision is made on the 
individual permit application.
    Response: Permit Part I.E.2. states: ``The Regional Administrator 
will notify the operator in writing that a permit application is 
required. If an operator fails to submit in a timely manner an 
individual NPDES permit application as required, then the applicability 
of this general permit to the individual NPDES permittee is 
automatically terminated at the end of the day specified for 
application submittal.'' The Regional Administrator has the opportunity 
not only to require an individual permit application from a new 
applicant, but from an existing facility covered by the GP whose 
situation is not as indicated on the Notice of Intent (NOI). The GP is 
applicable to a new applicant only if they are in a category authorized 
by the GP. Coverage is not granted until the applicant has been 
notified according to Permit Part I.F.4.
    9. Comment: Two commentors claim there is a discrepancy between 
Permit Part I.F.4. and I.E.1. as to when coverage is effective because 
I.E.1. implies that a facility that may require an individual permit is 
covered by the GP until notified.
    Response: Permit Part I.E.1. states: ``The Regional Administrator 
may require any person authorized by this permit to apply for and 
obtain an individual NPDES permit when:''; then lists the situations 
when an individual permit may be required. There is nothing in this 
part that indicates an operation would be covered by the GP if it 
requires an individual permit (see previous comment). The GP indicates 
in both I.F.1. and I.F.4. that the applicant will be notified in 
writing that coverage is granted.
    10. Comment: Two commentors claim that Permit Part I.E.5. gives a 
permittee automatic coverage under the GP if they are denied an 
individual permit.
    Response: Permit Part I.E.5. states that if a facility, already 
covered by the GP, applies for and is denied an individual permit that 
coverage will automatically be reinstated under the GP. This is only 
the case for permittees already covered, not just authorized, by the GP 
otherwise coverage could not be reinstated as is specified.
    11. Comment: Two commentors suggest that a limitation for total 
suspended solids (TSS) be required in the placer mining NPDES permits 
because the settleable solids effluent guideline value of 0.2 ml/L does 
not provide reasonable assurance that the state water quality standards 
for sediments is met or in the alternative that TSS should be 
technology-based limited on the permit writer's Best Professional 
Judgement (BPJ).
    Response: Effluent guidelines do not contain TSS limits but Section 
301 (b)(1)(c) of the CWA requires permits to contain conditions 
necessary to comply with state water quality standards. The Alaska WQS 
contain no specific criteria for TSS. Therefore, limits on TSS would be 
required only when such limits are needed to assure compliance with 
regulations or Alaska water quality standards such as sediment or 
turbidity.
    Because settleable solids is a more direct measure of sediment 
impacts than TSS, it would not be appropriate to establish a TSS limit 
for purposes of compliance with sediment criteria. EPA evaluated the 
possibility of using a TSS limit in lieu of the turbidity limit to 
assure compliance with state turbidity criteria. A review of the data 
showed there was no direct correlation between TSS concentrations and 
turbidity values. Therefore, no TSS limit could be established which 
would assure compliance with the state turbidity criteria. The effluent 
limitations for settleable solids and turbidity adequately address 
compliance with WQS that may be impacted by TSS in placer mining 
discharges. Therefore, EPA determined that it is not necessary to 
establish limits for TSS. However, if the state of Alaska were to 
include a limitation for TSS in their Section 401 Certification, EPA 
would include it in the GP. But the Section 401 Certification has been 
waived by the State according to the time specified in 40 CFR 124.53 so 
no limitation for TSS is included.
    12. Comment: Two commentors object to EPA granting turbidity 
modifications to permittees under the GP because it does not provide 
the public with formal notice and opportunity to comment as did the 
individual permits.
    Response: Turbidity modifications were not available for public 
comment for the individual placer mining permits issued in the past. 
The additional information to calculate the modifications was always 
called for and supplied during the public comment period. The GP has 
allowed public comment on the method of determining the turbidity 
modifications just as did the individual permits.
    13. Comment: Two commentors object to the turbidity limitation 
based on the following issues:
    a. It contradicts the basic principle of pollution control,
    b. EPA has granted a mixing zone without going through the 
procedures required by the Alaska water quality standards,
    c. EPA has failed to account for the effects of multiple sources of 
turbidity on the same receiving water, and
    d. The State of Alaska has historically taken the approach that 
mass balance equations are inappropriate basis for determining effluent 
limitations.
    Response: The WQS at 18 AAC 70.032(a) states: ``In applying the 
water quality criteria set out in this chapter, the department will, 
upon application and in its discretion, prescribe in its permits or 
certifications a volume of dilution for an effluent or substance within 
a receiving water * * *''. The state water quality standards describe 
dilution as an allowable method of pollution control. The proposed 
permit does take into account other man-made sources of turbidity on 
the receiving water. Permit Part II.D.1.c. states that the ``natural'' 
background shall be measured for turbidity, where ``natural'' 
background is defined as the level upstream from all mining and other 
man-made disturbances. The state has taken the position that a mass 
balance equation is not appropriate for volume based limitations. 
Turbidity is not a volume based limitation. The values used in the mass 
balance equation for turbidity assume the worst case scenario. The 
summer low flow for the stream (3Q2) is the upstream flow and the 
highest estimated effluent flow is used. This should account for slight 
variations in operation.
    14. Comment: Two commentors indicate that the arsenic limitations 
in the placer permits will not have sufficient public participation to 
determine if they are protective.
    Response: This option is an EPA interpretation of the WQS and 
discharges up to ``natural'' background will be included in the permit 
as an option to determine the arsenic limitation. If the state of 
Alaska disagrees with this interpretation in their Section 401 
Certification, then this option would not be included in the GP. The 
Section 401 Certification has been waived according to the timeframe 
specified in 40 CFR 124.53.
    15. Comment: Several commentors indicate that the effluent 
limitations in the permit will not prevent placer miners from violating 
the water quality standard for metals other than arsenic and 
limitations should be included in the permit based on site specific 
information. One commentor indicates that there are two studies by 
Hamilton and Buhl dated 1990 which should be considered.
    Response: The combination of the recirculation of process water and 
the removal of settleable solids in any waters discharged from the 
mines will adequately control all pollutants found in effluents in this 
subcategory. These pollutants include metals which are reduced with a 
reduction in the solids. The decision by EPA to rely on the settleable 
solids limitation as an indicator was specifically upheld by the Ninth 
Circuit in Rybachek v. EPA. It was also upheld by the Superior Court 
for the State of Alaska in Stein v. State because Trustees did not 
produce post-1989 National Effluent Guideline evidence that toxic 
metals, other than arsenic, discharged from placer mines violate WQS. 
Although the publication dates on the studies cited are post-1989, the 
actual studies were conducted prior to guideline development.
    16. Comment: Two commentors claim that EPA must apply technology-
based limitations from the National Effluent Guidelines to suction 
dredges.
    Response: In the development of the Effluent Guidelines for placer 
mining, the only type of dredge specified as being covered by the 
guidelines were bucket dredges so effluent guidelines do not apply 
directly to suction dredges. Suction Dredges are regulated by BPJ 
according to 40 CFR 125.3. Based on BPJ, the effluent guidelines for 
mechanical operations do not apply to suction dredges and the 
requirements included in the GP do apply to this category of 
discharger.
    17. Comment: Several commentors suggest that Permit Part IV.A. be 
changed to reflect that the turbidity measurement should be made at 
natural background.
    Response: EPA agrees and has modified this part of the GP.
    18. Comment: Two commentors claim that the GP lacks an effective 
reporting requirement for the technology-based limits in Permit Parts 
II.A.1.a. and II.B.1.a. They suggest specifying an exact procedure to 
determine compliance with these requirements.
    Response: This is accomplished in two parts of the GP. The first is 
in Permit Part III.A.4. which states that the amount of new water 
allowed to enter the plant site for use in ore processing shall be 
limited to the minimum amount required as makeup water for processing 
operations. The second is in Permit Part II.A.2. and II.B.2. which 
state that effluent discharges are prohibited during periods when new 
water is allowed to enter the plant site. Additionally, there shall be 
no discharge as a result of the intake of new water. The combination of 
these two provisions prevents the discharge volume from being any more 
than the volume of groundwater infiltration, drainage and mine drainage 
at the site. Reporting of non-compliance is required in Permit Part 
IV.G.2.c.
    19. Comment: Two commentors claim that EPA's proposed reliance on 
self- monitoring is an abdication of EPA's regulatory responsibility.
    Response: The Clean Water Act prescribes self-monitoring in Section 
308(a)(4)(A)(iv) which says that the Administrator shall require the 
owner or operator of any point source to sample such effluents in 
accordance with such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe. Self-
monitoring is a cornerstone of the NPDES program and shall remain 
incorporated into this GP.
    20. Comment: Two commentors claim that recreational suction 
dredgers utilize dredges with 4 to 6 inch intake hoses and recommends 
that EPA change the size of the dredges regulated by this permit to 
greater than 6 inch intake hoses.
    Response: EPA has completed a literature research project 
considering the environmental effects of all suction dredge operations 
and potential controls that could be placed on them. Based on this 
research, EPA has concluded that suction dredges with intake hoses of 
greater than 4 inches may cause environmental impacts and will be 
covered by this GP. EPA has observed commercial miners using dredges 
with intake hoses less than 6 inches. It does not matter if a suction 
dredge is recreational. Larger recreational suction dredges may cause 
environmental impacts similar to small commercial operations.
    21. Comment: Two commentors suggest that new facilities should be 
allowed to submit an NOI and have a permit within thirty days of the 
submission. Also, another commentor claims that the GP notification 
requirements are too restrictive because the average summer tourist 
bringing a five or six inch dredge to Alaska for vacation cannot dredge 
because their application should have been received by January 1.
    Response: EPA cannot guarantee a permit within a specified 
timeframe because there may be instances where information needs to be 
clarified or the facility may require an individual permit and it would 
not be feasible to issue a permit in 30 days. The language in Permit 
Part I.F. has been changed to require NOIs by January 1 only for those 
new facilities subject to NSPS. Other new facilities will only be 
required to submit an NOI 90 days prior to discharge. This allows time 
to review the NOI and for the applicant to receive a permit.
    22. Comment: Several commentors suggest that the methodology for 
determining a turbidity modification be included in the permit as well 
as the Fact Sheet.
    Response: EPA agrees and has modified Part II.A.1.b. and II.B.1.b. 
to include the methodology for turbidity modifications.
    23. Comment: Two commentors recommend inserting ``where 
applicable'' after the term ``recycle system'' in Permit Part II.D.1.b. 
concerning the visual inspection of a facility because all facilities 
do not utilize recycle systems.
    Response: The addition of the phrase ``where applicable'' may be 
confusing to the permittee because the permittee may decide that 
recycle is not applicable to a certain site and that discharging is the 
applicable way to operate. EPA does not require the records to show a 
daily inspection of the recycle system if it is determined that recycle 
is not necessary.
    24. Comment: Several commentors suggest that the phrase ``dredging 
in the waters of the United States is permitted only within the active 
stream channel'' be modified to make it possible to operate dredges 
that do not discharge to waters of the United States or do so only 
after treatment.
    Response: Permit Part III.B.1. is quoted above and it applies only 
to those suction dredges operating in waters of the United States. This 
requirement does not apply to those suction dredges operating and 
discharging outside waters of the United States. Those facilities with 
treatment would be expected to meet the limitations for mining 
operations utilizing similar treatment.
    25. Comment: One commentor recommends that the GP specifically not 
prevent the removal of settleable solids from settling ponds for use in 
reclamation activities.
    Response: Permit Part V.F. does not prevent solids from being 
removed from the pond for reclamation activities. However, care should 
be taken during reclamation that solids do not enter waters of the 
United States. Totally reclaimed areas, released from bond, are subject 
to no water discharge permits.
    26. Comment: Two commentors recommend that the GP require 
notification for planned alterations when the affected pollutant that 
is discharged is subject to the effluent limitations in the permit.
    Response: EPA agrees and this provision has been added to Permit 
Part VI.B. of the proposed GP. This will make it possible to re-issue a 
GP to a facility to reflect changes made that may affect effluent 
limitations, especially turbidity.
    27. Comment: Two commentors recommend that if modifications are 
made to the proposed GP that corresponding modifications be made to the 
Fact Sheet.
    Response: The Fact Sheet is the document that supports the draft 
general permit and is in its final form when it goes to public notice. 
Any changes to the general permit from proposed to final will be 
supported through this Response to Comments and the State's Section 401 
Certification, if any.
    28. Comment: One commentor would like Permit Part I.E.2. to specify 
that EPA will notify the permittee by certified mail due to the fact 
that they may leave the state for several months and not receive their 
mail until they return.
    Response: This change has been made to the GP although it is EPA's 
experience that after a short period of time, even unclaimed certified 
mail is returned to the sender.
    29. Comment: One commentor suggests that Permit Part I.F.1.a. be 
changed to remove the phrase ``no later than 90 days after the 
effective date of the permit'' due to circumstances that may make the 
deadline impossible to meet.
    Response: Permit Part I.F.1.a. is applicable to existing facilities 
whose permits are expiring or those needing permits. Provisions have 
been made for new facilities not subject to New Source Performance 
Standards (NSPS) in Permit Part I.F.1.c. and for existing facilities in 
Permit Part I.F.1.e.
    30. Comment: One commentor suggests the issue of a GP being 
automatically terminated upon issuance of an individual permit be 
addressed in the conditions of the individual permit in case the 
facility needs the individual permit as well as the GP.
    Response: If EPA were to issue an individual permit to a facility, 
it would incorporate the necessary requirements of the GP into the 
individual permit to lessen the paperwork the permittee would need to 
keep track of (i.e., one discharge monitoring report, one 
reapplication, etc.). Thus, the GP would no longer apply and would 
automatically terminate upon the issuance of an individual permit.
    31. Comment: Two commentors suggest modifying Permit Part I.F. to 
allow the use of the ADNR's Annual Placer Mining Application (APMA) to 
serve as the NOI for the GP.
    Response: EPA will accept, but cannot require, an APMA as an NOI 
for this GP as long as the APMA contains all the information on the 
information sheet in Appendix A of the GP.
    32. Comment: One commentor objects to the requirement to monitor 
settleable solids once per day of discharge suggesting that this is a 
new definition and recommends that the monitoring frequency be returned 
to the previous requirement of once per day of operation.
    Response: Previously issued permits did not contain a requirement 
that settleable solids be monitored ``once per day of operation.'' In 
Ackels v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (9th Cir. 
1993), the issue of monitoring settleable solids was decided on the 
1985 and 1987 permits for placer mining which states: ``The CWA [Clean 
Water Act] regulates, and NPDES permits place conditions on, 
`discharges' of pollutants. To monitor for compliance with an NPDES 
permit, therefore, a placer miner must monitor discharges of pollutants 
caused by his or her placer miner activities whenever such discharges 
occur, not just on days when sluicing occurs.'' 7 F3d 862.
    33. Comment: One commentor objects to the monitoring frequency for 
flow and suggests once per week while operating instead of once per 
day. In addition, others request that the flow monitoring requirement 
of the permit be decreased from once per day to once per month because:
    a. Effluent flow is static unless there is a storm event;
    b. In a storm event, the volume of the receiving stream will 
increase much more in proportion to the effluent; and
    c. During a storm event Alaskan streams naturally exceed any limits 
in the permit.
    Response: Since the 9th Circuit Court upheld the requirement of 
monitoring settleable solids once per day of discharge, the flow 
monitoring frequency is not an onerous additional burden to the 
settleable solids monitoring. See the previous comment for further 
details.
    34. Comment: Several commentors are opposed to any requirement for 
written reports other than the annual Discharge Monitoring Report 
(DMR). The objection is to Permit Part IV.G.2.c. which says that any 
violation of the effluent limitations in Permit Parts II.A. and II.B. 
should be reported in writing to EPA within the shortest reasonable 
period of time.
    Response: In the past, placer mining permits have not contained 
reporting requirements which other NPDES permits contain including 
notice of violations by phone within 24 hours and a written report 
submitted within 5 days of becoming aware of the violation. This is due 
to the unreasonableness of the imposed timeframe. EPA does not believe 
that requiring a report in writing in the shortest reasonable period of 
time is unreasonable. The commentors themselves have indicated in other 
comments that there would be times when the miner would need to leave 
the mine site to get supplies. It does not seem unreasonable that, at 
this time, the miner could send a report to EPA if it is necessary.
    35. Comment: One commentor indicates that turbidity modifications 
should be done for the body of water that the receiving stream flows 
into and not for the receiving stream directly because the discharge 
does not affect the receiving stream. The commentor objects because 
another permittee on a nearby stream has a much higher turbidity 
modification than does his permit.
    Response: The WQS serve to protect the water which is first and 
most severely impacted by the discharge. The WQS used not only protect 
aquatic life but also protect the receiving water for use as a water 
supply and contact recreation. The application of a turbidity 
modification considers several things including the size of the 
receiving water's drainage area and the effluent flow from the 
facility. These are the factors which can cause one permittee's 
turbidity modification to be different than another.
    36. Comment: Several commentors indicate that the arsenic standard 
should be changed in the GP because it is too low. Several other 
commentors express concern over the arsenic limit being lower than the 
detection limit.
    Response: In establishing the arsenic limit, the ``Amendments to 
the Water Quality Standards Regulation; Compliance with CWA Section 
303(c)(2)(B); Final Rule'' (57 FR 6084, Tuesday, December 22, 1992) are 
used. This rulemaking promulgated the chemical-specific numeric 
criteria for priority toxic pollutants necessary to bring all States 
into compliance with the requirements of the CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B). 
The primary focus of the rule is the inclusion of the federal water 
quality criteria for pollutant(s) in State standards as necessary to 
support water quality-based control programs (e.g. NPDES permits). The 
federal human health standard of 0.18 g/L total recoverable 
arsenic is applicable to Alaska and this number has been used to derive 
the end-of-pipe limitation for the GP.
    37. Comment: Two commentors mention that there should be a mixing 
zone for arsenic. Additionally, several other commentors believe this 
GP does not prohibit a mixing zone and suggest that the permit specify 
that a mixing zone is available if ADEC approves.
    Response: Mixing zones are allowed under the Alaska standards for 
some pollutant discharges. However, 18 AAC 70.032(a) states, ``In 
applying the water quality criteria set out in this chapter, the 
department will, upon application and in its discretion, prescribe in 
its permits or certifications a volume of dilution for an effluent or 
substance within a receiving water unless pollutants discharged could 
bioaccumulate; concentrate or persist in the environment; cause 
carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects; or otherwise present a 
risk to human health * * *'' Arsenic is a carcinogen. In a letter, 
dated March 24, 1992, from the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation Commissioner, John Sandor, to EPA Water Division Director, 
Charles Findley, the State has interpreted this to mean that ``* * * a 
mixing zone may be prescribed where there is no reasonable expectation 
of an adverse effect on human health or aquatic life, based on site-
specific, chemical, physical and biological characteristics.'' EPA did 
not propose a mixing zone for arsenic but would include a method for 
determining a mixing zone in the permit if ADEC determines, in their 
Sec. 401 Certification, that such a mixing zone is appropriate and is 
in compliance with its WQS. The Section 401 Certification has been 
waived by the State according to the time specified in 40 CFR 124.53 so 
no mixing zone is included.
    38. Comment: One commentor suggests EPA use Method 3005A for sample 
preparation in advance of 206.2 so the detection level would be below 
the permit limitation.
    Response: This sample preparation method is for Resource 
Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) sampling only and not appropriate for 
NPDES permits.
    39. Comment: One commentor recommends changing the permit 
limitation to the minimum level specified in the GP as 4 g/L. 
This commentor claims that this level would be protective of aquatic 
life.
    Response: The WQS protect most fresh water sources for use in 
drinking, agriculture, aquaculture and industrial water supply, contact 
and secondary recreation and the growth and propagation of fish, shell 
fish, and other aquatic life [18 AAC 70.050]. The criteria for growth 
and propagation of fish, shellfish, aquatic life and wildlife and also 
for harvesting for consumption of raw mollusks or other raw aquatic 
life are as stringent as any requirement except perhaps industrial 
water supply and secondary recreation. EPA cannot arbitrarily choose a 
number to be used as an effluent limitation in an NPDES permit. There 
are regulations that must be adhered to in setting any limitation. To 
use the arbitrary effluent limitation of 4 g/L would violate 
40 CFR 122.44(d) which states that: ``any requirements in addition to 
or more stringent than promulgated effluent limitations guidelines or 
standards under sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 318 and 405 of CWA 
necessary to achieve water quality standards established under section 
303 of the CWA.'' ``Amendments to the Water Quality Standards 
Regulation; Compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B); Final Rule'' (57 
FR 6084, Tuesday, December 22, 1992) were used to determine the arsenic 
limitation. This rulemaking promulgated the chemical-specific numeric 
criteria for priority toxic pollutants necessary to bring all States 
into compliance with the requirements of the CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B). 
Since 40 CFR 122.4(a) states: ``No permit may be issued when the 
conditions of the permit do not provide for compliance with the 
applicable requirements of the CWA, or regulations promulgated under 
CWA,'' an arbitrary number cannot be used. The Fact Sheet (page 13) 
states that: ``This reporting threshold does not authorize the 
discharge of this parameter in excess of the effluent limitation.''
    40. Comment: One commentor points out that the 16th Edition of 
Standard Methods (1985) is referenced in the permit and that there have 
been two editions since then and they suggest EPA update this 
reference.
    Response: EPA has updated this to the 17th Edition of Standard 
Methods (1989) since this is referenced in 40 CFR 136, revised July 1, 
1993.
    41. Comment: Several commentors pointed out that Permit Part 
II.D.4. referenced on pages 8 and 9 of the proposed GP does not exist 
in this permit.
    Response: The reference has been corrected to read Permit Part 
II.D.1.d.
    42. Comment: Several commentors point out that Permit Part 
II.D.1.c. contains a reference to a definition in Permit Part V.I. 
which does not exist in the GP.
    Response: The reference has been corrected to read Permit Part 
VIII.K.
    43. Comment: One commentor requests a definition of new facility 
and active stream channel.
    Response: The GP has defined ``new facility'' as one that has not 
operated in the area specified prior to the submission of the NOI. The 
``active stream channel'' is defined as that part of the channel that 
is below the level of the water. These definitions appear in Part VIII. 
of the GP.
    44. Comment: One commentor recommends that the wording be changed 
in Permit Part I.F.1. from ``owners or operators of facilities 
authorized by'' to ``owners or operators of facilities to be authorized 
by.''
    Response: The facilities authorized by this GP are specified in 
Permit Part I.B. whose title has been changed to reflect this. The 
facilities to be covered by the GP may be a smaller universe, 
specifically those filing NOIs and being granted coverage in writing.
    45. Comment: One commentor recommends EPA initiate coordination 
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act due to the presence of 
critical habitat for sea lions in the coastal areas.
    Response: EPA received a species list including the NMFS species of 
concern. Comments received from NMFS indicated that the concern was the 
critical habitat of the species. Since this water discharge GP is 
written to protect aquatic life or human health (whichever is more 
stringent), no alterations of habitat due to water discharges 
authorized by this GP should occur. Consequently, formal consultation 
for Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not necessary.
    46. Comment: One commentor states that this GP requires 100% 
recycle and this is unnecessarily restrictive because some miners can 
operate without recycling or discharging.
    Response: The GP requires no discharge of process water. It does 
not specify that 100% recycle is the only way to accomplish this.
    47. Comment: One commentor objects to the use of 5 Nephelometric 
Turbidity Units (NTUs) above background for the turbidity limitation 
because this is the limit for waters classified for contact recreation. 
He recommends changing this to 25 NTUs above background because this 
level is the threshold at which impact on aquatic vertebrates occurs.
    Response: The WQS protect most fresh water sources for use in 
drinking, agriculture, aquaculture and industrial water supply, contact 
and secondary recreation and the growth and propagation of fish, shell 
fish, and other aquatic life [18 AAC 70.050]. The turbidity limitation 
must protect all of these and to ensure compliance with the WQS, EPA 
assumed worst case conditions and used 5 NTUs above natural background 
as a limit.
    48. Comment: Two commentors object to using ``total recoverable'' 
as the way to measure arsenic because it does not take into account the 
toxicity of the various valence states of arsenic and the compounds it 
can form.
    Response: In establishing the arsenic limit, the ``Amendments to 
the Water Quality Standards Regulation; Compliance with CWA Section 
303(c)(2)(B); Final Rule'' (57 FR 6084, Tuesday, December 22, 1992) are 
used. This specifies that the metals are expressed in terms of total 
recoverable [40 CFR 131.36(c)(4)(iii)] and 40 CFR 122.45(c) states that 
``All permit effluent limitations, standards, and prohibitions for a 
metal shall be expressed in terms of 'total recoverable metal' as 
defined in 40 CFR part 136.''
    49. Comment: One commentor claims that the measurement of 
background for arsenic is different from that of turbidity.
    Response: The tables in Permit Parts II.A.1.b. and II.B.1.b. 
express the measurement of background as the ``natural background'' for 
both turbidity and arsenic. The commentor may be referring to Permit 
Part II.D.1.c. which stated that the background be monitored with no 
reference to natural background. This part has been changed to 
correspond to the rest of the GP.
    50. Comment: One commentor indicates that the Management Practices 
in Permit Parts III.B.1. and 2. of the proposed GP contradict each 
other because one says dredging should take place in the active channel 
and the other says to do it in quiet pools.
    Response: Permit Part III.B.1. does say that dredging should take 
place in the active stream channel, whereas Permit Part III.B.2. states 
that discharges from dredging operations, wherever practicable, shall 
be set into a quiet pool. It is possible for the discharge to be guided 
away from the actual dredging site and discharged to any area where it 
will settle out faster.
    51. Comment: Several commentors suggest that Permit Part I.C. be 
clarified. Response: To clarify the meaning of this part, the title has 
been changed to ``Additional Requirements.''
    52. Comment: Several commentors believe that the expiration date of 
the permit is unclear and suggest this permit expire 5 years from the 
date of issuance for each facility.
    Response: The language in Permit Part I.G. has been clarified. This 
GP will expire 5 years from its effective date as determined by 40 CFR 
124.20.
    53. Comment: Several commentors object to the definition of 
``natural background'' and suggest that the definition of ``natural 
conditions'' from the WQS [18 AAC 70.110(29)] be used in its place 
because it says that the natural condition is the condition of the 
water at the site prior to impacts from the facility.
    Response: The WQS at 18 AAC 70.110(29) states ``natural condition 
means the sum of the physical, chemical, biological, or radiological 
conditions that exist in a water body before any human-caused discharge 
to, or addition of material to the water.'' The Alaska Department of 
Environmental Conservation does not interpret this definition to mean 
that this is the condition of the water before a facility discharges to 
it with no regard as to what is upstream of the site. On the contrary, 
ADEC considers natural condition to be the condition of the water prior 
to any man-made disturbances in the watershed and suggest that if this 
cannot be determined in the watershed that a similar undisturbed 
watershed should be used to determine the natural condition.
    54. Comment: Several commentors have concerns about the once per 
day visual inspection and suggest that the GP require the inspection 
only when the operator is on-site.
    Response: The commentors concerns are valid. The GP has been 
changed to require a visual inspection daily during the mining season 
when the operator is on-site.
    55. Comment: Several commentors wished EPA to clarify Permit Part 
II.D.b. relating to what the records should include.
    Response: To clarify this part, it has been changed from ``These 
records shall include, but are not limited to, an evaluation of the 
condition of all water control devices such as diversion structures and 
berms and all solid retention structures such as berms, dikes * * *'' 
to ``These records shall include an evaluation of the condition of all 
water control devices such as diversion structures and berms and all 
solid retention structures including, but not limited to, berms, dikes 
* * *''
    56. Comment: Several commentors express concern over the method of 
measuring flow for the GP and request guidance on how to measure flow 
from a facility that has no discharge from a pipe or constructed pond 
overflow.
    Response: To provide the requested guidance, the sentence, ``If 
measurement is impractical, the operator must make a good faith effort 
to estimate seepage discharging to waters of the United States each day 
that seepage occurs,'' has been added to Permit Part II.D.1.f.
    57. Comment: Several commentors request that reasonableness be 
taken into account in Permit Part III.A.5. and suggest that the 
Management Practice read ``* * * berms, dikes, pond structures, and 
dams shall be reasonably maintained to continue their effectiveness * * 
*''
    Response: EPA does not view the addition of the word ``reasonably'' 
to this management practice as changing the intent of it; consequently, 
this change has been made to the GP.
    58. Comment: Several commentors would like the term ``mining 
season'' defined.
    Response: EPA has never contended that there was a set timeframe 
for a mining season. Recognizing that there are various levels of 
mining intensity, however, EPA has defined mining season for a 
particular facility in Permit Part VIII.I. as ``the time between the 
start of mining in a calendar year and when mining has ceased for that 
same calendar year.''
    59. Comment: Several commentors recommend that Permit Part 
III.B.6.:
    a. Distinguish between requirements for reclaimed and unreclaimed 
areas and which need to be addressed at the end of the mining season:
    b. Change the words ``after the mining season'' to ``when mining 
has ceased for a particular season;'' and
    c. Claim the word ``additional'' is superfluous.
    Response: The commentors are correct that a distinction should be 
made between unreclaimed and reclaimed lands. Runoff from lands that 
are fully reclaimed and have been released from bond are not subject to 
any water discharge permits. The permit has been changed to reflect 
this distinction. The term ``mining season'' has been defined in Permit 
Part VIII.I. (see previous comment) so the language in the GP will 
remain. Because it is redundant to have a sentence containing the word 
``additional'' and the phrase ``over those resulting from natural 
causes,'' the word ``additional'' has been deleted from the GP.
    60. Comment: Several commentors recommend that EPA clarify Permit 
Part V.G. so that bypasses of water around a site for the essential 
maintenance and efficient operation of the mine are not included as 
effluent. The commentors recommend that Permit Parts V.G.2. and 3. be 
deleted.
    Response: Bypass, as referred to in Permit Part V.G., is defined in 
Permit Part VIII.B. as ``the intentional diversion of waste streams 
around any portion of a treatment facility'' (emphasis added). Since 
water that has no contact with the mine site is not considered a waste 
stream, the bypasses that the commentors refer to are diversions not 
bypasses as defined in the GP. The GP contains this condition based on 
40 CFR 122.41(m).
    61. Comment: Several commentors request that the Fact Sheet be 
included with the proposed GP along with other supporting material be 
maintained as part of the GP.
    Response: The Fact Sheet and other supporting material will be 
maintained as part of the Administrative Record for the final GP.
    62. Comment: One commentor recommends that more guidance be given 
to the operator in taking samples for turbidity, both effluent and 
natural background. One commentor suggests specifying a time frame of 
15 minutes rather than a ``reasonable time.''
    Response: While EPA would like to give more guidance to the 
operator in taking samples, a timeframe of 15 minutes between effluent 
and natural background would be unworkable in some cases. The natural 
background is defined as being upstream from any man-made disturbance 
and while this may be right upstream from the first mine on a stream, 
it could be many miles for an operator close to the end of the stream. 
Specifying a ``reasonable time'' is appropriate under these 
circumstances.
    63. Comment: One commentor urges implementation of additional Best 
Management Practices (BMPs) to protect stream banks and riparian 
habitat; restore pool, riffle, and stream habitat for fish; and remove 
fish barriers.
    Response: EPA does not believe these practices are reasonably 
necessary to achieve effluent limitations or standards under 40 CFR 
122.44(k).
    64. Comment: One commentor objects to turbidity modifications and a 
visual turbidity location for suction dredges stating that these are 
federally sanctioned mixing zones and have not gotten full treatment 
under NEPA.
    Response: Mixing zone designations or implementation of WQS are 
not, per Section 511(c) of the CWA, defined as a ``major federal 
action'' subject to NEPA.
    65. Comment: One commentor requests information on the standard of 
proof EPA will hold ADEC to if a mixing zone is proposed for arsenic.
    Response: ADEC would have to show that there would be no reasonable 
expectation of an adverse effect on human health or aquatic life from 
the mixing zone.
    66. Comment: One commentor recommends including guidelines, 
objectives, or criteria to prevent mines being left at the end of the 
season in such a way that flushing, erosion and degradation will not 
occur.
    Response: The Management Practice in Permit Part III.A.6. addresses 
this issue.
    67. Comment: One commentor recommends that the Standard Conditions 
of Alaska Department of Fish and Game's (ADFG) placer permits be 
adopted as part of the proposed GP.
    Response: EPA has incorporated several of these Standard Conditions 
into the proposed GP as deemed appropriate. The other conditions in 
ADFG's permits contain issues that the NPDES program has no authority 
over and as such, cannot be regulated in the GP.
    68. Comment: One commentor requests the scientific basis for 
requesting suction dredges to discharge into ``quiet pools'' where fish 
routinely hold.
    Response: EPA does not require discharges into ``quiet pools'' at 
all, much less ``quiet pools where fish routinely hold''. The purpose 
of discharging to a quiet pool is to increase the opportunity for 
discharge material to settle more without going downstream.
    69. Comment: One commentor objects to the storm exemption stating 
that reasonably predictable flooding is more along the lines of a 
fifteen or twenty year flood event of 12-16 hours rather than the 5 
year, 6 hour storm event as stated in the proposed GP.
    Response: The storm exemption is designed to provide an affirmative 
defense to an enforcement action. EPA recognizes that mines should not 
be required to construct treatment for the maximum precipitation event 
or series of precipitation events that could occur with the resulting 
effects on wastewater and mine drainage discharge flows. EPA has 
established, through the development of Effluent Guidelines, the 
criteria for designing, constructing, and maintaining the wastewater 
treatment facilities. The facilities must be able to contain and treat 
the maximum volume of wastewater resulting from processing ore during a 
4 hour period plus the volume that would be discharged from a 5-year, 
6-hour precipitation event. The storm exemption is contained in 40 CFR 
440.141(b) but can only be used as an affirmative defense if all 
requirements of the regulation are met [i.e., compliance with the BMPs 
in 40 CFR 440.148 and related provisions of its NPDES permit, and 
compliance with the notification requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(m) and 
(n)].
    70. Comment: One commentor objects to the use of the GP to cover 
mine sites that are located over known minable deposits of heavy metals 
other than gold and if the mine site has been historically mined using 
mercury.
    Response: In the development of the Effluent Guidelines for Placer 
Mining, EPA conducted sampling and analysis at facilities which 
represented a wide range of locations, operating conditions, processes, 
water use rates, topography, production rates, and treatment 
technologies. From the sampling, EPA selected settleable solids as the 
only pollutant of concern to be regulated by the effluent guidelines 
and the sampling indicated no high levels of any metals. The quantities 
and treatability of pollutants in these treated wastewaters form the 
basis for selection of pollutant parameters for regulation. The 
Administrator is required by the CWA to consider the regulation of all 
toxic pollutants and categories of pollutants listed under Section 307 
but is not specifically required to regulate any of them.
    71. Comment: Two commentors object to the ``mixing zone'' given to 
suction dredges.
    Response: The WQS at 18 AAC 70.032(a) states that ``In applying the 
water quality criteria set out in this chapter, the department will, 
upon application and in its discretion, prescribe in its permits or 
certifications a volume of dilution for an effluent or substance within 
a receiving water . . .'' The state water quality standards describe 
dilution as an allowable method of pollution control. EPA proposed the 
mixing zone in the proposed GP and if the State disagrees in its 
Section 401 Certification with this mixing zone determination, EPA 
would insert the State's determination of the mixing zone into the GP. 
The Section 401 Certification has been waived according to the 
timeframe specified in 40 CFR 124.53.
    72. Comment: Several commentors object to the monitoring frequency 
for turbidity and arsenic. One commentor objects to the monitoring 
frequency for arsenic because one sampling per season of effluent and 
natural background is not statistically valid.
    Response: Monitoring for these pollutants has been established at 
less frequent intervals because sampling and analysis for these 
parameters are more difficult and costly due in part from requiring 
natural background samples. Samples for monitoring purposes must be 
taken during discharge at a time when the operation has reached 
equilibrium. EPA believes that the required monitoring frequencies will 
be sufficient to determine compliance with permit limitations.
    73. Comment: Two commentors suggest EPA clarify the procedure for 
suction dredgers conducting visual inspections.
    Response: The procedures are outlined in Permit Part II.C. The 
visual inspection of the stream should be done 500 feet downstream from 
the operating dredge. If there is any visual increase in the cloudiness 
or muddiness of the water, it would be considered a violation. If this 
does occur, the operator must slow down or stop operations until there 
is no longer a violation.
    74. Comment: Two commentors request a discussion of the 
applicability of the GP to marine operations and coastal areas.
    Response: This GP does not apply to marine operations. Permit Part 
I.B.1.b. should have included the exception of dredges operating in 
open waters as specified in 40 CFR 440.140(b). This part has been 
changed to reflect this comment. Operations that are authorized by this 
GP and are in coastal areas may apply for coverage under this GP. The 
Alaska Department of Governmental Coordination (ADGC) has not given EPA 
a consistency determination on the GP under the Alaska Coastal Zone 
Management Act. EPA would like to expedite the issuance of this GP and 
has made provisions in Permit Part I.A.5. so that facilities in the 
coastal zone seeking coverage under the GP would be able to obtain 
coverage after ADGC has made a determination, either for the facility 
individually or on the GP. ADGC's determination on the GP could come in 
the form of a formal determination or as a waiver due to the six month 
review timeframe which will elapse on July 24, 1994.
    75. Comment: One commentor objects to the use of a visual 
inspection for turbidity for suction dredge operations.
    Response: The visual monitoring for suction dredging has been 
included in the GP pursuant to 40 CFR 122.43 which says that conditions 
not specifically required in the regulations can be placed in permits 
to provide for and assure compliance with all applicable requirements 
of the CWA. EPA has used best professional judgement in determining 
this requirement.
    76. Comment: Several commentors state that the permit only covers 
gold placer mines and that other placer mines (i.e., platinum and tin) 
should be included since the mining techniques are for all practical 
purposes identical to those covered for gold placer operations.
    Response: EPA will consider these operations in the next issuance 
of the GP. EPA would consider it inappropriate to include these 
operations without an opportunity for public comment or inclusion in 
the EA.
    77. Comment: Several commentors object to EPA not including small 
mechanical operations not authorized by the effluent guidelines in this 
general permit. Further, two other commentors object to EPA not 
authorizing small suction dredges in this GP.
    Response: See comment 76.
    78. Comment: Several commentors object to the use of the GP to 
regulate placer mines in wild and scenic rivers and conservation system 
units.
    Response: EPA has included in possible requirements for an 
individual permit, facilities where other federal or State legislation, 
rules or regulations directly or indirectly related to water quality 
may apply to that facility. This provision is found in Permit Part 
I.E.1.i.
    79. Comment: One commentor would like Permit Part I.C. clarified so 
it is understood that the GP applies in wild and scenic rivers, 
conservation system units and in anadromous streams.
    Response: The GP would apply in these areas except where it has 
been determined according to Permit Part I.E.1.i. that an individual 
permit is required.
    80. Comment: Several commentors object to natural background being 
defined as above all man-made disturbances on the stream for 
measurement of arsenic and turbidity. One commentor suggests that EPA 
designate the natural background point.
    Response: According to EPA's experience, the number of miners who 
report discharging has dropped significantly in the past few years. EPA 
expects this trend to continue. For those few miners that do discharge, 
EPA will determine, upon request, the point at which the natural 
background sample will be taken. In determining the sample point, EPA 
will consider, with the input of the permittee and/or the Alaska 
Division of Mining, geologic factors, drainage patterns, access, and 
the location of active and historic manmade disturbances. This has been 
incorporated into Permit Part II.D.1.c. for turbidity and Permit Part 
II.D.1.d. for arsenic.
    81. Comment: Two commentors suggest that Permit Part III.B.4. is 
too all-inclusive and should be changed to say that other permits and 
restrictions may apply if there is a possibility of fisheries being 
affected by suction dredging. Two other commentors claim that Permit 
Part III.B.4. is loosely worded and unenforceable. Two commentors 
recommend that the reference to harassment of fish should be defined or 
deleted from Permit Part III.B.4.
    Response: EPA believes that Permit Part III.B.4. is a duplication 
of Permit Part I.C. and has deleted the former from the GP.
    82. Comment: One commentor claims EPA should distinguish between 
the critical parameters of both intake size and engine power.
    Response: EPA did not consider engine power along with size of 
intake hoses because the requirements of the GP should suffice to 
minimize impacts. The daily inspections for downstream impacts with the 
requirement to decrease or cease operations if impacts occur are 
applicable to all authorized suction dredges regardless of engine size.
    83. Comment: One commentor objects to EPA not considering river 
bottom variability in permitting suction dredges and suggest that EPA 
issue basin specific general permits to account for this.
    Response: EPA recognizes the variability of sediment sizes 
throughout a fluvial system. It is this recognition that prompts the 
restriction confining the activity to the active stream channel. At 
least in this area, the percentage of fines is typically at a minimum 
with respect to the entire fluvial system and impacts will be 
minimized.
    84. Comment: Two commentors claim that EPA has never enforced its 
own or the state of Alaska's antidegradation policy.
    Response: EPA does not have an antidegradation policy but does 
mandate antidegradation as part of a state's water quality standards 
[40 CFR 131.6 and 131.12]. To date, the state of Alaska has not 
implemented their anti- degradation policy. The pending standards 
revision address antidegradation. The State plans to begin their 
implementation soon and EPA intends to work with the State in the 
implementation of their policy. If a placer mine is shown to be 
affected by the policy, it may be required to apply for an individual 
permit. This condition has been added to the proposed GP as Permit Part 
I.E.1.h.
    85. Comment: Two commentors suggest revising Permit Part III.A.6. 
to include detailed reclamation procedures to ensure that seasonally or 
permanently abandoned mines do not pollute the receiving waters.
    Response: Permit Part III.A.6. was included in the GP pursuant to 
40 CFR 122.44(k)(3). This regulation requires NPDES permits to contain 
BMPs that serve to control or abate the discharge pollutants when the 
practices are reasonably necessary to achieve effluent limitations and 
standards or to carry out the purposes and intent of the CWA. EPA does 
not believe that detailed reclamation procedures are reasonably 
necessary. The requirement of the GP does carry out the purposes and 
intent of the CWA.
    86. Comment: Several commentors object to the reporting 
requirements for arsenic that require any measurement less than the 
detection level to be reported as zero, anything between the detection 
level and the minimum level (4) to be reported as \1/2\ the minimum 
level or 2 and anything over the minimum level to be reported as the 
actual number.
    Response: This reporting requirement was based on draft policy that 
has changed since the proposed GP was public noticed. The GP now 
reflects the latest draft policy from EPA Headquarters which states 
that a minimum level (ML) can be calculated from a method detection 
level (MDL). For arsenic in this GP, the MDL of 1 g/L is 
multiplied by 3.18. The product is rounded to 3 and this becomes the 
ML. Samples measuring less than the ML are to be reported as 0 
g/L while analysis greater than the ML should be reported as 
the actual measure. The Fact Sheet (page 13) and the GP in Permit Part 
II.D.1.d. state: ``This reporting threshold does not authorize the 
discharge of this parameter in excess of the effluent limitation.''
    87. Comment: One commentor suggests that EPA give some 
consideration to the 1989 Alaska Supreme Court Decision regarding the 
lowest measurement practical for settleable solids.
    Response: EPA believes that settleable solids can be measured with 
an Imhoff cone accurately to 0.2 ml/l. However, Permittees are asked to 
estimate readings below this level even though they are less accurate. 
If ADEC does not agree that this is protective of WQS and specifies it 
in their Section 401 Certification, EPA would make the required changes 
to the GP. The Section 401 Certification has been waived according to 
the timeframe specified in 40 CFR 124.53.

The following comments were received on the EA from National Marine 
Fisheries Service, Alaska Department of Natural Resources and Alaska 
Miners Association. These comments have not been addressed in the above 
responses.
    88. Comment: One commentor suggests that the Purpose and Need for 
Action section of the EA covering cumulative impacts does not do so 
properly.
    Response: Cumulative effects will be more specifically addressed in 
the EAs which will continue to be prepared for the individual new 
source NPDES permit actions (i.e., in the context of site-specific 
conditions and those cumulative effects associated with a proposed 
project). Where the potential for significant cumulative impact exists, 
an environmental impact statement will be required. The proposed 
general permit action evaluated in the EA will not alter the 
methodology by which cumulative effects are assessed under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to the permit decisions.
    89. Comment: One commentor suggests that DOI, Mineral Management 
Service be included in the section on Placer Mining Regulatory Programs 
since it administers leases and permits mining activities within 
Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf.
    Response: This additional information will be incorporated into the 
EAs prepared for new source projects. It should be noted that the final 
GP does not cover those offshore operations (see Comment #74).
    90. Comment: One commentor suggests that discussion of the Army 
Corps of Engineers regulatory program for placer mining be expanded 
especially regarding general permits and specific activities which fall 
under their jurisdiction.
    Response: See response 89.
    91. Comment: One commentor suggests that no additional discharges 
into water quality limited segments be authorized until TMDL 
determinations are completed.
    Response: EPA will continue to assess potential for exceedances of 
water quality standards for all new source projects subject to NEPA 
review (regardless of their location) prior to the decisions whether or 
not to authorize the discharges. Permit limitations would also reflect 
TMDLs for any stream segment for which a TMDL is prepared.
    92. Comment: One commentor requests clarification of how mitigative 
measures would be handled under the GP.
    Response: Additional mitigation measures which EPA may impose as 
permit conditions, as a result of the NEPA (EA or EIS) review, are 
limited to those authorized by the NPDES program, and therefore must be 
reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of the CWA. 
CWA-related conditions other than those already in the general permit 
which are determined in an EA or EIS to be necessary in order to avoid 
the potential for significant impact to water quality can be 
incorporated into an individual NPDES permit. The general permit 
includes a provision allowing for the drafting of an individual permit 
as necessary. EPA may issue or deny an NPDES permit taking into 
consideration all impacts (discharge related or other) disclosed in the 
NEPA review, and the extent to which potentially significant adverse 
impacts can be mitigated. Mitigation may also be developed by the 
applicant or be required by the land management agency or other agency 
regulatory program with jurisdiction over the project.
    93. Comment: One commentor claims there is a typographical error in 
the section ``Description of Proposed Action, Permit Coverage,'' that 
the phrase intake nozzles less than 4 inches should be intake nozzles 
greater than 4 inches.
    Response: The phrase is included in the list of facilities not 
authorized by this GP. The GP only authorizes suction dredges with 
intakes greater than 4 inches so the phrase in the EA is correct.
    94. Comment: One commentor suggests that there will be significant 
impacts because the permit will likely force some operators out of 
business or force them to risk being charged with non-compliance, fined 
and charged as a criminal due to the arsenic limitation in the proposed 
GP.
    Response: The GP limitation for arsenic is the same as it is in the 
individual permits that have been issued since the ``Amendments to the 
Water Quality Standards Regulation; Compliance with CWA Section 
303(c)(2)(B); Final Rule'' (57 FR 6084, Tuesday, December 22, 1992) 
went into effect. Therefore, there is no change in impact.

AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE 
ELIMINATION SYSTEM FOR ALASKAN PLACER MINERS

[General Permit No.: AK-G-37-0000]
    In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, 
Public Law 100-4, the ``Act'',
    Owners and operators of facilities engaged in the processing of 
placer gold are authorized to discharge to waters of the United States, 
in accordance with effluent limitation, monitoring requirements, and 
other conditions set forth herein.
    A Copy of This General Permit Must be Kept at the Site Where 
Discharges Occur.
    This permit shall become effective June 30, 1994. This permit and 
the authorization to discharge shall expire 5 years from the effective 
date of the permit.
Charles E. Findley,
Director, Water Division, Region 10, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency.

Table of Contents

Cover Page

I. Coverage Under This Permit

A. Coverage and Eligibility
B. Authorized Placer Mining Operations
C. Additional Requirements
D. Prohibitions
E. Requiring an Individual Permit
F. Notification Requirements
G. Permit Expiration

II. Effluent Limitations

A. Mechanical Operation (Traditional Sluicing)
B. Hydraulic Removal of Overburden
C. Suction Dredging
D. Monitoring Requirements

III. Management Practices

A. Mechanical Operations and Hydraulic Removal of Overburden
B. Suction Dredges
C. Other Requirements
D. Storm Exemption

IV. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

A. Representative Sampling
B. Reporting of Monitoring Results
C. Monitoring Procedures
D. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
E. Records Contents
F. Retention of Records
G. Notice of Noncompliance Reporting
H. Other Noncompliance Reporting
I. Inspection and Entry

V. Compliance Responsibilities

A. Duty to Comply
B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense
D. Duty to Mitigate
E. Proper Operation and Maintenance
F. Removed Substances
G. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
H. Upset Conditions
I. Toxic Pollutants

VI. General Requirements

A. Changes in Discharge of Toxic Substances
B. Planned Changes
C. Anticipated Noncompliance
D. Permit Actions
E. Duty to Reapply
F. Duty to Provide Information
G. Other Information
H. Signatory Requirements
I. Availability of Reports
J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
K. Property Rights
L. Severability
M. State Laws

VII. Reopener Clause

VIII. Definitions

IX. Special Conditions--Effluent Limits Below Detection Levels

A. Reporting Levels
B. Reporting Details
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Appendix A

I. Coverage Under This Permit

A. Coverage and Eligibility

    1. Existing Facilities: Existing facilities (those facilities 
having individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
[NPDES] permits) are authorized under the terms and conditions of this 
permit. Upon the submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to gain coverage 
under this permit, coverage will be granted according to Permit Part 
F.4.
    2. Pending Applications: Upon submittal of an NOI, all facilities 
which have submitted applications in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(a) 
are authorized under the terms and conditions of this permit. Coverage 
will be granted according to Permit Part F.4.
    3. New Facilities: New facilities that are determined to be new 
sources under the CWA will be required to have an Environmental 
Assessment (EA) completed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA). A finding of no significant impact (FNSI) by EPA is 
necessary prior to receiving coverage under this permit. If there will 
be a significant impact, the facility will require an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS). Facilities determined to be new dischargers 
will be covered by the terms and conditions of this permit if they meet 
all the necessary requirements of coverage.
    4. Expanding Facilities: Facilities that contemplate expanding 
shall submit a new NOI that describes the new discharge. The current 
permit will be terminated and a new permit, reflecting the changes, 
issued in its place if the facility meets all the necessary 
requirements of coverage.
    5. Coastal Zone Facilities: Facilities located in the coastal zone 
as determinedby the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act shall submit, 
with their Notice of Intent (NOI), an individual consistency 
determination from Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination (ADGC) 
unless ADGC makes an overall determination on this General Permit after 
its issuance.

B. Authorized Placer Mining Operations

    1. Facilities that mine and process gold placer ores using gravity 
separationmethods to recover the gold metal contained in the ore.
    a. Open-cut gold placer mines except those open-cut mines that mine 
less than 1,500 cubic yards of placer ore per mining season.
    b. Mechanical dredge gold placer mines (not suction dredges) except 
those dredges that remove less than 50,000 cubic yards of placer ore 
per mining season or dredge in open waters.
    2. Suction dredges with intake hoses of greater than 4 inches.
    3. Operations utilizing hydraulic removal of overburden.

C. Additional Requirements

    1. Many streams and stream reaches in Alaska have been designated 
as part of the federal wild and scenic rivers system or as Conservation 
System Units (CSUs) by the federal government. Permittees should 
contact the district offices of the federal agencies that administer 
the designated area for additional restrictions that may apply to 
operating within the area.
    2. Many streams in Alaska where placer mining occurs have been 
designatedby the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) as 
anadromous fish streams. Placer mining activities in these streams 
require an ADF&G Fish Habitat Permit which may include additional 
restrictions. The ``Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important for the 
Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fish'' lists the streams 
in the State which require prior ADF&G authorization. In addition, 
placer mining activities in resident fish streams require an ADF&G Fish 
Habitat Permit if the proposed activity will block or impede the 
efficient passage of fish. Permittees operating in anadromous or 
resident fish streams should contact the ADF&G to determine permitting 
requirements and additional restrictions that may apply.

D. Prohibitions

    Discharges from the following beneficiation processes are not 
authorized under this permit: Mercury amalgamation, cyanidation, froth 
floatation, heap and vat leaching.

E. Requiring an Individual Permit

    1. The Regional Administrator may require any person authorized by 
this permit to apply for and obtain an individual NPDES permit when:
    a. The single discharge or the cumulative number of discharges is/
are a significant contributor of pollution;
    b. The discharger is not in compliance with the terms and 
conditions of the general permit;
    c. A change has occurred in the availability of demonstrated 
technology or practices for the control or abatement of pollutants 
applicable to the point source;
    d. Effluent limitations guidelines are subsequently promulgated for 
the point sources covered by the general permit;
    e. A Water Quality Management plan containing requirements 
applicable to such point sources is approved; or
    f. An Individual Control Strategy (ICS) is required under Section 
304(L) of the Act, or
    g. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and corresponding wasteload 
allocation has been completed for a waterbody or a segment of a 
waterbody, or
    h. A review of the facility shows that it is subject to the State 
of Alaska's anti-degradation policy.
    i. There are other federal or State legislation, rules or 
regulations pertaining to a site directly or indirectly related to 
water quality.
    2. The Regional Administrator will notify the operator in writing 
by certified mailthat a permit application is required. If an operator 
fails to submit, in a timely manner, an individual NPDES permit 
application as required, then any applicability of this general permit 
to the individual NPDES permittee is automatically terminated at the 
end of the day specified for application submittal.
    3. Any owner or operator authorized by this permit may request to 
be excluded from the coverage of this permit by applying for an 
individual permit. The owner or operator shall submit an individual 
application (Form 1 and Form 2C or 2D) with reasons supporting the 
request to the Regional Administrator no later than 90 days after the 
effective date of the permit.
    4. When an individual NPDES permit is issued to an owner or 
operator otherwise covered by this permit, the applicability of this 
permit to the facility is automatically terminated on the effective 
date of the individual permit.
    5. When an individual NPDES permit is denied to an owner or 
operator otherwise covered by this permit, the permittee is 
automatically reinstated under this permit on the date of such denial, 
unless otherwise specified by the Regional Administrator. A new 
facility can receive coverage under this general permit by submitting 
an NOI. See Permit Part I.A.3. for details.
    6. A source excluded from a general permit solely because it 
already has an individual permit may request that the individual permit 
be revoked and that it be covered by the general permit. Upon 
revocation of the individual permit, the general permit shall apply to 
the source.

F. Notification Requirements

    1. Owners or operators of facilities authorized by this permit 
shall submit an NOI to be covered by this permit. The information 
required for a complete NOI is in Appendix A of this permit. 
Notification must be made:
    a. Within 90 days of issuance of this permit; or
    b. By January 1 of the year of discharge from a new facility or a 
facility established since 1988 subject to New Source Performance 
Standards (NSPS) that has not previously been covered by a permit; or
    c. 90 days prior to discharge from a new facility not subject to 
NSPS; or
    d. 90 days prior to the expiration of an existing individual 
permit, or
    e. 90 days prior to discharge for any other facilities. 
Authorization to discharge requires written notification from EPA that 
coverage has been granted and that a specific permit number has been 
assigned to the operation.
    2. The NOI shall be signed by the owner or other signatory 
authority in accordance with Permit Part VI.H. (Signatory 
Requirements), and a copy shall be retained on site in accordance with 
Permit Part IV.F. (Retention of Records). The address for NOI 
submission to EPA is: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, WD-134, Seattle, Washington 98101.
    3. A copy of the NOI must also be sent to the regional office of 
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) that has 
jurisdiction over the mine. The addresses are:

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 410 Willoughby, Suite 
105, Juneau, Alaska 99801
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Northern Regional 
Office, 610 University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Southcentral Regional 
Office, 3601 ``C'' Street, Suite 1350, Anchorage, Alaska 99503.

    4. A copy of the general permit will be sent to the permittee when 
it is determined that the facility can be granted coverage under this 
general permit. If it is determined that coverage cannot be granted 
under this permit, the applicant will be informed of this in writing.

G. Permit Expiration

    This permit will expire five (5) years from the effective date. For 
facilities submitting a new NOI 90 days prior to expiration of this 
general permit, the conditions of the expired permit continue in force 
until the effective date of a new permit.

II. Effluent Limitations

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

    During the term of this permit, no wastewater discharges are 
authorized except as specified below.
    1. Effluent Limitations
    a. The volume of wastewater which may be discharged shall not 
exceed the volume of infiltration, drainage and mine drainage waters 
which is in excess of the make-up water required for operation of the 
beneficiation process.
    b. The wastewater discharged shall not exceed the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Effluent characteristic               Instantaneous maximum       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Settleable Solids..................  0.2 ml/L                           
Turbidity..........................  5 NTUs above natural background\1\ 
Arsenic, Total Recoverable.........  (1) 0.18g/L               
                                     (2) natural background\2\          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Subject to Turbidity Modification outlined in Permit Part VIII.T.    
\2\See Permit Part II.D.1.d. for details.                               


    2. Effluent discharges are prohibited during periods when new water 
is allowed to enter the plant site. Additionally, there shall be no 
discharge as a result of the intake of new water.

B. Hydraulic Removal of Overburden

    During the term of this permit, no wastewater discharges are 
authorized except as specified below.
1. Effluent Limitations
    a. The volume of wastewater which may be discharged shall not 
exceed the volume of infiltration, drainage and mine drainage waters 
which is in excess of the make-up water required for operation of the 
hydraulicking process.
    b. The wastewater discharged shall not exceed the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Effluent characteristic               Instantaneous maximum       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Settleable Solids..................  0.2 ml/L                           
Turbidity..........................  *5 NTUs above natural background   
Arsenic, Total Recoverable.........  (1) 0.18 g/L              
                                     **(2) natural background           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Subject to Turbidity Modification outlined in Permit Part VIII.T.     
** See Permit Part II.D.1.d. for details.                               


    2.Effluent discharges are prohibited during periods when new water 
is allowed to enter the plant site. Additionally, there shall be no 
discharge as a result of the intake of new water.

C. Suction Dredging

    1. At any point in the receiving stream 500 feet downstream of the 
dredge's discharge point, the maximum allowable increase in turbidity 
over the natural receiving stream turbidity while operating is 5 NTUs.
    2. A visual increase in turbidity (any cloudiness or muddiness) 500 
feet downstream of the suction dredge during operations would be 
considered a violation of the 5 NTU limit.
    3. If noticeable turbidity does occur 500 feet downstream of the 
work site, operation of the suction dredge must decrease or cease so 
that a violation as defined above does not exist.

D. Monitoring Requirements

    1. Mechanical Operations and Hydraulic Removal of Overburden
    a. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit 
and lasting until the expiration date, the following monitoring shall 
be conducted: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Effluent          Monitoring        Monitoring                     
 characteristic        location          frequency        Sample type   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Settleable Solids  Effluent.........  Once per day      Grab.           
 (ml/L).                               each day of                      
                                       discharge.                       
Turbidity (NTU)..  Effluent natural   Once per season.  Grab            
                    background.                                         
Arsenic (g/L) total       natural                                             
 recoverable.       background.                                         
Flow (gpm).......  Effluent.........  (\3\)...........  Instantaneous   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Only when choosing Option (2).                                       
\2\Analyzed by EPA Method 206.2 with a detection limit of 1 g/ 
  L.                                                                    
\3\See Part II.D.1.f. for details.                                      

b. Visual Inspection
    The Permittee shall institute a comprehensive visual inspection 
program to facilitate proper operation and maintenance of the recycle 
system and the wastewater treatment system. The Permittee shall conduct 
an inspection of the site once per day, while on site, during the 
mining season. The Permittee shall maintain records of all information 
resulting from any visual inspections. These records shall include an 
evaluation of the condition of all water control devices such as 
diversion structures and berms and all solids retention structures 
including, but not limited to, berms, dikes, pond structures, and dams. 
The records shall also include an assessment of the presence of 
sediment buildup within the settling ponds. The Permittee shall examine 
all ponds for the occurrence of short circuiting.
c. Turbidity Monitoring
    The Permittee shall monitor the turbidity values of the effluent 
stream and the natural background turbidity values of the receiving 
stream then compare the two samples. The sample results shall be 
reported on the annual Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). The Permittee 
shall take one sample at a point that is representative of the 
discharge prior to entering the receiving stream. The Permittee shall 
take another sample above the discharge point at a location that is 
considered to be the ``natural'' background of the receiving stream as 
defined in Permit Part VIII.K. EPA has recognized the complex nature of 
determining the point above ``natural'' background and upon request 
will determine this point for the miner. In determining the sample 
point, EPA will consider, with the input of the permittee and/or the 
Alaska Division of Mining, geologic factors, drainage patterns, access, 
and the location of active and historic manmade disturbances. Both 
samples shall be taken within a reasonable time frame. Monitoring shall 
be conducted in accordance with accepted analytical procedures. See 
attachment 1 for sampling protocol.
d. Arsenic Monitoring
    Arsenic samples shall be representative of the discharge and shall 
be taken at a point prior to entering the receiving stream. Arsenic 
samples taken to determine ``natural'' background shall be 
representative of the receiving water upstream from any man-made 
disturbances as determined above for turbidity. Monitoring shall be 
conducted in accordance with accepted analytical procedures. The 
Permittee shall report the sample results on the DMR. See attachment 2 
for sampling protocol.
    The effluent limitation for total recoverable arsenic is not 
quantifiable using the EPA approved analytical method, EPA method 
206.2. Thus, EPA has set forth reporting thresholds to measure the 
highest acceptable quantification level for this parameter. This 
reporting threshold does not authorize the discharge of this parameter 
in excess of the effluent limitation. For more information, see special 
conditions in Permit Part IX.
e. Settleable Solids Monitoring
    Settleable solids samples shall be representative of the discharge 
and shall be taken at a point prior to entering the receiving stream. 
Monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with accepted analytical 
procedures (Standard Methods, 17th Edition, 1989). The Permittee shall 
report the sample results on the Annual DMR. See attachment 3 for 
sampling and analysis protocol.
f. Flow Monitoring
    Effluent flow shall be measured at the discharge prior to entering 
the receiving water. Effluent flow shall be measured at least once per 
day, for continuous discharges, or once during each discharge event if 
discharges are intermittent. If measurement is impractical, the 
operator must make a good faith effort to estimate seepage discharging 
to waters of the United States each day that seepage occurs. The flow 
shall be measured in gallons per minute (gpm). The flow measurements, 
the number of discharge events, and the duration of each discharge 
event shall be reported in the Annual DMR for each day of the mining 
season.
2. Suction Dredges
    a. Suction Dredge operations shall visually monitor for turbidity 
as described in Permit Part II.C. once per day of operation. The 
Permittee shall maintain records of all information resulting from any 
visual inspections.
    b. The Permittee will report the period of suction dredging on the 
DMR. Visual violation occurrences will also be reported on the DMR 
along with the measures taken to comply with the provisions of Permit 
Part II.C.3.

III. Management Practices

A. Mechanical Operations and Hydraulic Removal of Overburden

    1. The flow of surface waters (i.e., creek, river, or stream) into 
the plant site shall be interrupted and these waters diverted around 
and away to prevent incursion into the plant site.
    2. Berms, including any pond walls, dikes, low dams, and similar 
water retention structures shall be constructed in a manner such that 
they are reasonably expected to reject the passage of water.
    3. Measures shall be taken to assure that pollutant materials 
removed from the process water and wastewater streams will be retained 
in storage areas and not discharged or released to the waters of the 
United States.
    4. The amount of new water allowed to enter the plant site for use 
in material processing shall be limited to the minimum amount required 
as makeup water for processing operations.
    5. All water control devices such as diversion structures and berms 
and all solids retention structures such as berms, dikes, pond 
structures, and dams shall be reasonably maintained to continue their 
effectiveness and to protect from failure.
    6. The operator shall take whatever reasonable steps are 
appropriate to assure that, after the mining season, all unreclaimed 
mine areas, including ponds, are in a condition which will not cause 
degradation to the receiving waters over those resulting from natural 
causes.

B. Suction Dredges

    1. Dredging in waters of the United States is permitted only within 
the active stream channel.
    2. Wherever practicable, the dredge shall be set to discharge into 
a quiet pool, where settling of dredge spoils can occur more rapidly.
    3. Care shall be taken by the operator during refueling of the 
dredge to prevent spillage into public waters or to groundwater.

C. Other Requirements

Mechanical Operations and Hydraulic Removal of Overburden

    The operator shall maintain fuel handling and storage facilities in 
a manner which will prevent the discharge of fuel oil into the 
receiving waters or on the adjoining shoreline. A Spill Prevention 
Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC Plan) shall be prepared and 
updated as necessary in accordance with provisions of 40 CFR Part 112 
for facilities storing 660 gallons in a single container above ground, 
1320 gallons in the aggregate above ground, or 42,000 gallons below 
ground.
    The permittee shall indicate on the DMR if an SPCC Plan is 
necessary and in place at the site and if changes were made to the Plan 
over the previous year.

D. Storm Exemption

    The permittee may qualify for a storm exemption from the 
technology-based effluent limitations in Permit Part II.A.1.b. and 
II.B.1.b. of this NPDES general permit if the following conditions are 
met:
    1. The treatment system is designed, constructed and maintained to 
contain the maximum volume of untreated process wastewater which would 
be discharged, stored, contained and used or recycled by the 
beneficiation process into the treatment system during a 4-hour 
operating period without an increase in volume from precipitation or 
infiltration, plus the maximum volume of water runoff (drainage waters) 
resulting from a 5-year, 6-hour precipitation event. In computing the 
maximum volume of water which would result from a 5-year, 6-hour 
precipitation event, the operator must include the volume which should 
result from the plant site contributing runoff to the individual 
treatment facility.
    2. The operator takes all reasonable steps to maintain treatment of 
the wastewater and minimize the amount of overflow.
    3. The source is in compliance with the Management Practices in 
Permit Part III.A.
    4. The operator complies with the notification requirements of 
Permit Parts IV.G. and IV.H.

IV. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

A. Representative Sampling

    All samples for monitoring purposes shall be representative of the 
monitored activity, 40 CFR 122.41 (j). To determine compliance with 
permit effluent limitations, ``grab'' samples shall be taken as 
established under Permit Part II.D. Specifically, effluent samples for 
settleable solids, turbidity, and arsenic shall be collected from the 
settling pond outlet or other treatment systems' outlet prior to 
discharge to the receiving stream. Additionally, turbidity and arsenic 
(for Option 2) samples shall also be taken above the discharge point at 
a location that is representative of the receiving stream's natural 
background. Samples for arsenic and turbidity monitoring must be taken 
during sluicing at a time when the operation has reached equilibrium. 
For example, samples should be taken when sluice paydirt loading and 
effluent discharge are constant.

B. Reporting of Monitoring Results

    Monitoring results shall be summarized each month and reported on 
EPA Form 3320-1 (DMR). The DMR shall be submitted to the Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Enforcement Section 
WD-135, Seattle, Washington 98101-3188, no later than November 30 each 
year.
    If there is no mining activity during the year or no wastewater 
discharge to a receiving stream, the permittee shall notify EPA of 
these facts no later than November 30 of each year.
    The DMR shall also be sent to the regional office of ADEC that has 
jurisdiction over the mine. The addresses can be found in permit part 
I.F.3.

C. Monitoring Procedures

    Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved 
under 40 CFR part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified 
in this permit.

D. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee

    If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than 
required by this permit, using test procedures approved under 40 CFR 
part 136 or as specified in this permit, the results of this monitoring 
shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data 
submitted in the DMR. Such increased frequency shall also be indicated.

E. Records Contents

    Records of monitoring information shall include:
    1. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
    2. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
    3. The date(s) analyses were performed;
    4. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
    5. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
    6. The results of such analyses.

F. Retention of Records

    The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, 
including all calibration and maintenance records and all original 
strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, 
copies of all reports required by this permit, and records of all data 
used to complete the application for this permit, for a period of at 
least three years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or 
application. This period may be extended by request of the Director or 
ADEC at any time. Data collected on-site, copies of DMRs, and a copy of 
this NPDES permit must be maintained on-site during the duration of 
activity at the permitted location.

G. Notice of Noncompliance Reporting

    1. Any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment 
shall be reported as soon as the permittee becomes aware of the 
circumstance. A written submission shall also be provided in the 
shortest reasonable period of time after the permittee becomes aware of 
the occurrence.
    2. The following occurrences of noncompliance shall also be 
reported in writing in the shortest reasonable period of time after the 
permittee becomes aware of the circumstances:
    a. Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation 
in the permit (See Permit Part V.G., Bypass of Treatment Facilities.); 
or
    b. Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit 
(See Permit Part V.H., Upset Conditions.).
    c. Any violation of the effluent limitations in Permit Parts II.A. 
and II.B.
    3. The written submission shall contain:
    a. A description of the noncompliance and its cause;
    b. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times;
    c. The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it 
has not been corrected; and
    d. Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent 
reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
    4. The Director may waive the written report on a case-by-case 
basis if an oral report has been received within 24 hours by the 
Enforcement Section in Seattle, Washington, by phone, (206) 553-1213.
    5. Reports shall be submitted to the addresses in Permit Part 
IV.B., Reporting of Monitoring Results.

H. Other Noncompliance Reporting

    Instances of noncompliance not required to be reported in Permit 
Part IV.G. above shall be reported at the time that monitoring reports 
for Permit Part IV.B. are submitted. The reports shall contain the 
information listed in Permit Part IV.G.3.

I. Inspection and Entry

    The permittee shall allow the Director, ADEC, or an authorized 
representative (including an authorized contractor acting as a 
representative of the Administrator), upon the presentation of 
credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to:
    1. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility 
or activity is located or conducted, or where records must be kept 
under the conditions of this permit;
    2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that 
must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
    3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including 
monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated 
or required under this permit; and
    4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of 
assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Act, any 
substances or parameters at any location.

V. Compliance Responsibilities

A. Duty to Comply

    The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any 
permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act and is grounds 
for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and 
reissuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit renewal 
application. The permittee shall give advance notice to the Director 
and ADEC of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity 
which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.

B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions

    1. Administrative Penalty. The Act provides that any person who 
violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 
308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be subject to an administrative 
penalty, not to exceed $10,000 per day for each violation.
    2. Civil Penalty. The Act provides that any person who violates a 
permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 
405 of the Act shall be subject to a civil penalty, not to exceed 
$25,000 per day for each violation.
    3. Criminal Penalties:
    a. Negligent Violations. The Act provides that any person who 
negligently violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 
306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be punished by a fine of 
not less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day of violation, or by 
imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or by both.
    b. Knowing Violations. The Act provides that any person who 
knowingly violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 
306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be punished by a fine of 
not less than $5,000 nor more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by 
imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or by both.
    c. Knowing Endangerment. The Act provides that any person who 
knowingly violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 
306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, and who knows at that time that 
he thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or serious 
bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more 
than $250,000 or imprisonment of not more than 15 years, or both. A 
person which is an organization shall, upon conviction of violating 
this subparagraph, be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000.
    d. False Statements. The Act provides that any person who knowingly 
makes any false material statement, representation, or certification in 
any application, record, report, plan, or other document filed or 
required to be maintained under this Act or who knowingly falsifies, 
tampers with, or renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method 
required to be maintained under this Act, shall upon conviction, be 
punished by a fine of not more that $10,000, or by imprisonment for not 
more than 2 years, or by both.
    Except as provided in permit conditions in Permit Part V.G., Bypass 
of Treatment Facilities and Permit Part V.H., Upset Conditions, nothing 
in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee of the civil 
or criminal penalties for noncompliance.

C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense

    It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action 
that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted 
activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this 
permit.

D. Duty to Mitigate

    The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or 
prevent any discharge in violation of this permit which has a 
reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the 
environment.

E. Proper Operation and Maintenance

    The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all 
facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related 
appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve 
compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and 
maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate 
quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of 
back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are installed 
by a permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve 
compliance with the conditions of the permit.

F. Removed Substances

    Solids, sludges, or other pollutants removed in the course of 
treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in a manner so 
as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering waters of 
the United States.

G. Bypass of Treatment Facilities

    1. Bypass not exceeding limitations. The permittee may allow any 
bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be 
exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure 
efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions 
of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this section.
    2. Notice:
    a. Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the 
need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice, if possible at least 
10 days before the date of the bypass.
    b. Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of an 
unanticipated bypass as required under Permit Part IV.G., Notice of 
Noncompliance Reporting.
    3. Prohibition of bypass.
    a. Bypass is prohibited and the Director or ADEC may take 
enforcement action against a permittee for a bypass, unless:
    (1) The bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal 
injury, or severe property damage;
    (2) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the 
use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, 
or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This 
condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have 
been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to 
prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment 
downtime or preventive maintenance; and
    (3) The permittee submitted notices as required under paragraph 2 
of this section.
    b. The Director and ADEC may approve an anticipated bypass, after 
considering its adverse effects, if the Director and ADEC determine 
that it will meet the three conditions listed above in paragraph 3.a. 
of this section.

H. Upset Conditions

    1. Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense 
to an action brought for noncompliance with such technology based 
permit effluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph 2 of this 
section are met. An administrative review of a claim that noncompliance 
was caused by an upset does not represent final administrative action 
for any specific event. A determination is not final until formal 
administrative action is taken for the specific violation(s).
    2. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset. A permittee 
who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall 
demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, 
or other relevant evidence that:
    a. An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the 
cause(s) of the upset;
    b. The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated;
    c. The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required under 
Permit Part IV.G., Notice of Noncompliance Reporting; and
    d. The permittee complied with any remedial measures required under 
Permit Part V.D., Duty to Mitigate.
    3. Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding, the permittee 
seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of 
proof.

I. Toxic Pollutants

    The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions 
established under Section 307(a) of the Act for toxic pollutants within 
the time provided in the regulations that establish those standards or 
prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to 
incorporate the requirement.

VI. General Requirements

A. Changes in Discharge of Toxic Substances

    Notification shall be provided to the Director and ADEC as soon as 
the permittee knows of, or has reason to believe:
    1. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result 
in the discharge, on a routine or frequent basis, of any toxic 
pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will 
exceed the highest of the following ``notification levels'':
    a. One hundred micrograms per liter (100 g/l);
    b. Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 g/l) for acrolein 
and acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter (500 g/l) 
for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4, 6-dinitrophenol; and one 
milligram per liter (1 mg/l) for antimony;
    c. Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for that 
pollutant in the permit application in accordance with 40 CFR 
122.21(g)(7); or
    d. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40 CFR 
122.44(f).
    2. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result 
in any discharge, on a non-routine or infrequent basis, of a toxic 
pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will 
exceed the highest of the following ``notification levels'':
    a. Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 g/l);
    b. One milligram per liter (1 mg/l) for antimony;
    c. Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value reported for that 
pollutant in the permit application in accordance with 40 CFR 
122.21(g)(7); or
    d. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40 CFR 
122.44(f).

B. Planned Changes

    The permittee shall give notice to the Director and ADEC as soon as 
possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the 
permitted facility. Notice is required only when:
    1. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one 
of the criteria for determining whether a facility is a new source as 
determined in 40 CFR 122.29(b); or
    2. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature 
or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. This notification 
applies to pollutants which are subject neither to effluent limitations 
in the permit, nor to notification requirements under Permit Part 
VI.A.1.
    3. The alteration or addition will significantly change the 
location, nature or volume of discharge or the quantity of pollutants, 
subject to the effluent limitations, discharged.

C. Anticipated Noncompliance

    The permittee shall also give advance notice to the Director and 
ADEC of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which 
may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.

D. Permit Actions

    This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated 
for cause. The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit 
modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a 
notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not 
stay any permit condition.

E. Duty to Reapply

    If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this 
permit after the expiration date of this permit, the permittee must 
apply for and obtain a new permit. The NOI should be submitted at least 
90 days before the expiration date of this permit.

F. Duty To Provide Information

    The permittee shall furnish to the Director and ADEC, within a 
reasonable time, any information which the Director or ADEC may request 
to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and 
reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with 
this permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Director or ADEC, 
upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.

G. Other Information

    When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any 
relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect 
information in a permit application or any report to the Director or 
ADEC, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.

H. Signatory Requirements

    All applications, reports or information submitted to the Director 
and ADEC shall be signed and certified.
    1. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
    a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer.
    b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner 
or the proprietor, respectively.
    c. For a municipality, state, federal, or other public agency: by 
either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official.
    2. All reports required by the permit and other information 
requested by the Director or ADEC shall be signed by a person described 
above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person 
is a duly authorized representative only if:
    a. The authorization is made in writing by a person described above 
and submitted to the Director and ADEC, and
    b. The authorization specified either an individual or a position 
having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated 
facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operator 
of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalent 
responsibility, or an individual or position having overall 
responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly 
authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any 
individual occupying a named position.)
    3. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under paragraph 
IV.H.2. is no longer accurate because a different individual or 
position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, 
a new authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph VI.H.2. 
must be submitted to the Director and ADEC prior to or together with 
any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized 
representative.
    4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section 
shall make the following certification:
    ``I certify under penalty of law that this document and all 
attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in 
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel 
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my 
inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those 
persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the 
information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, 
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties 
for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and 
imprisonment for knowing violations.''

I. Availability of Reports

    Except for data determined to be confidential under 40 CFR Part 2, 
all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall 
be available for public inspection at the offices of the Director and 
ADEC. As required by the Act, permit applications, permits and effluent 
data shall not be considered confidential.

J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability

    Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the 
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any 
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is 
or may be subject under Section 311 of the Act.

K. Property Rights

    The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of 
any sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury 
to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any 
infringement of federal, state or local laws or regulations.

L. Severability

    The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision 
of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to 
any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to 
other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be 
affected thereby.

M. State Laws

    Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the 
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any 
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any 
applicable state law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 
510 of the Act.

N. Paperwork Reduction Act

    EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities 
in this final general permit under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements of this 
permit have already been approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget in submission made for the NPDES permit program under the 
provisions of the CWA.

VII. Reopener Clause

    If effluent limitations or requirements are established or modified 
in an approved State Water Quality Management Plan or Waste Load 
Allocation and if they are more stringent that those listed in this 
permit or control a pollutant not listed in this permit, this permit 
may be reopened to include those more stringent limits or requirements.

VIII. Definitions

    A. ``Active Stream Channel'' means that part of the channel that is 
below the level of the water.
    B. ``Bypass'' means the intentional diversion of waste streams 
around any portion of a treatment facility.
    C. ``Drainage Water'' means incidental surface waters from diverse 
sources such as rainfall, snow melt or permafrost melt.
    D. ``Expanding Facility'' means any facility increasing in size 
such as to affect the discharge but operating within the permit area 
covered by its general permit.
    E. A ``Grab'' sample is a single sample or measurement taken at a 
specific time.
    F. ``Infiltration Water'' means that water which permeates through 
the earth into the plant site.
    G. ``Instantaneous Maximum'' means the maximum value measured at 
any time.
    H. ``Mine Drainage'' means any water, not associated with active 
sluice water, that is drained, pumped or siphoned from a mine.
    I. ``Mining Season'' means the time between the start of mining in 
a calendar year and when mining has ceased for that same calendar 
year.''
    J. ``Monitoring Month'' means the period consisting of the calendar 
weeks which begin and end in a given calendar month.
    K. ``''Natural'' Background'' means the level upstream from all 
mining and other man-made disturbances.
    L. ``New Facility'' means a facility that has not operated in the 
area specified in the NOI prior to the submission of the NOI.
    M. ``NTU'' (Nephelometric Turbidity Unit) is an expression of the 
optical property that causes light to be scattered and absorbed rather 
than transmitted in a straight line through the water.
    N. ``Make-up Water'' means that volume of water needed to replace 
process water lost due to evaporation and seepage in order to maintain 
the quantity necessary for the operation of the beneficiation process.
    O. ``New Water'' means water from any discrete source such as a 
river, creek, lake or well which is deliberately allowed or brought 
into the plant site.
    P. ``Plant Site'' means the area occupied by the mine, necessary 
haulage ways from the mine to the beneficiation process, the 
beneficiation area, the area occupied by the wastewater treatment 
storage facilities and the storage areas for waste materials and solids 
removed from the wastewaters during treatment.
    Q. ``Receiving Water'' means waters such as lakes, rivers, streams, 
creeks, or any other surface waters which receive wastewater 
discharges.
    R. ``Severe property damage'' means substantial physical damage to 
property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to 
become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural 
resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a 
bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by 
delays in production.
    S. ``Short circuiting'' means ineffective settling ponds due to 
inadequate or insufficient retention characteristics, excessive 
sediment deposition, embankment infiltration/percolation, lack of 
maintenance, etc.
    T. ``Turbidity Modification'' means the procedures used to 
calculate a higher turbidity limit based on a mass balance equation 
which relates upstream receiving water flow and turbidity to effluent 
flow and turbidity. The basic form of this equation is:

Q1C1+Q2C2=Q3C3,
where C1=upstream turbidity;
C2=effluent turbidity;
C3=downstream turbidity after mixing where the allowable increase 
is 5 NTU above background (C1+5 NTU);
Q1=stream flow downstream from any diversion and upstream from the 
discharge;
Q2=effluent flow*; and,
Q3=total stream flow downstream from discharge after complete 
mixing.
*A default value of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) will be used if the NOI 
states that zero discharge will be achieved.

    U. ``Upset'' means an exceptional incident in which there is 
unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit 
effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control 
of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent 
caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, 
inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or 
careless or improper operation.
    V. ``Wastewater'' means all water used in and resulting from the 
beneficiation process (including but not limited to the water used to 
move the ore to and through the beneficiation process, the water used 
to aid in classification, and the water used in gravity separation), 
mine drainage, and infiltration and drainage waters which commingle 
with mine drainage or waters resulting from the beneficiation process.

IX. Special Conditions--Effluent Limits Below Detection Levels

A. Reporting Levels

    1. For purposes of reporting, the Permittee shall use the reporting 
threshold equivalent to the interim minimum level (IML). The IML is 
defined as the concentration in a sample equivalent to the 
concentration of the lowest calibration standard analyzed in a specific 
analytical procedure, assuming that all the method-specified sample 
weights, volumes and processing steps have been followed. As such, the 
permittee must utilize a standard equivalent to the concentration of 
the IML for arsenic which is 3.18 g/L.
    2. For the purpose of reporting on the DMR, actual analytical 
results should be reported whenever possible. All analytical values at 
or above the IML (rounded to 3 g/L) shall be reported as the 
measured value. When the results cannot be quantified, values below the 
IML shall be reported as zero (0 g/L).

B. Reporting Details:

    In the ``Comment'' section of the DMR, the permittee shall report 
the lowest calibration standard used and the ML achieved.

Attachment 1

Turbidity Sampling Protocol

    1. Grab samples shall be collected.
    2. Samples shall be collected in a sterile one liter polypropylene 
or glass container.
    3. Samples must be cooled to 4 degrees celsius (iced).
    4. Samples must be analyzed within 48 hours of sample collection.

Attachment 2

Arsenic Sampling Protocol

    1. Grab samples shall be collected.
    2. Samples shall be collected in a sterile one liter polypropylene 
or glass container.
    3. Samples must be cooled to 4 degrees celsius (iced).
    4. Samples must be sent to a laboratory for analysis as soon as 
possible.
    5. Samples must be acidified with nitric acid (HNO3), to a pH less 
than 2, upon receipt at the laboratory.
    6. Samples must be acidified for at least 16 hours prior to 
analysis.

Attachment 3

Settleable Solids Sampling Protocol

    1. Grab samples shall be collected.
    2. Samples shall be collected in a sterile one liter polypropylene 
or glass container.
    3. Samples must be cooled to 4 degrees celsius (iced), if analysis 
is not performed immediately.
    4. Samples must be analyzed within 48 hours of sample collection.

Settleable Solids Analysis Protocol

    1. Fill an Imhoff cone to the liter mark with a thoroughly mixed 
sample.
    2. Settle for 45 minutes, then gently stir the sides of the cone 
with a rod or by gently spinning the cone.
    3. Settle 15 minutes longer, then record the volume of settleable 
matter in the cone as milliliters per liter. Do not estimate any 
floating material. The lowest measurable level on the Imhoff cone is 
0.1 ml/l. Any settleable material below the 0.1 ml/l mark shall be 
recorded as trace.

Appendix A--Notice of Intent Information

Permittee Name
    Address & Phone Number (Summer)
    Address & Phone Number (Winter)
Operator Name (if different than Permittee)
    Address & Phone Number (Summer)
    Address & Phone Number (Winter)
Facility Name
Facility Location (Nearest Town)
Mining District
Latitude and Longitude
Township, Section, Range
Previous NPDES permit number
Receiving Water
Maximum Effluent Flow
Summer Lowflow stream flow
Type of Operation (Traditional, Suction Dredge, Hydraulicking)
Amount of Material processed
Signature and Date (certified according to permit part VI.H.4.)
A drawing or sketch of the operation

[FR Doc. 94-13099 Filed 5-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P