[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 11, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19440-19474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8533]



[[Page 19439]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 434



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



Coal Mining Point Source Category; Amendments to Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 11, 2000 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 19440]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 434

[FRL-6571-9]
RIN 2040-AD24


Coal Mining Point Source Category; Amendments to Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to amend the current regulations for the Coal 
Mining Point Source Category by adding two new subcategories to the 
existing regulation. First, EPA proposes to establish a new subcategory 
that will address pre-existing discharges at coal remining operations. 
EPA also proposes to establish a second new subcategory that will 
address drainage from coal mining reclamation areas in the arid and 
semiarid western United States. This proposal would not otherwise 
change the existing regulations.
    The establishment of new subcategories has the potential to create 
significant environmental benefits at little or no additional cost to 
the industry. Establishing the Coal Remining Subcategory will encourage 
remining activities and will reduce hazards associated with abandoned 
mine lands. The new subcategory has the potential to significantly 
improve water quality by reducing the discharge of acidity, iron, 
manganese, and sulfate from abandoned mine lands. EPA projects total 
monetized annual benefits of $0.70 million to $1.2 million. 
Additionally, EPA expects that this regulation will result in 
significant ecological and public safety benefits that could not be 
quantified and/or monetized. EPA projects that the annual compliance 
cost for this new subcategory will be $0.33 million to $0.76 million.
    EPA estimates that the proposed Western Alkaline Coal Mining 
Subcategory will result in a net cost savings to affected surface mine 
operators. The monetized and non-monetized benefits for this 
subcategory are a result of adopting alternative sediment control 
technologies for reclamation areas in the arid west. These technologies 
are projected to increase the volume of storm water drainage to arid 
watersheds and avoid the disturbance of 26,000 acres, thus reducing 
severe erosion, sedimentation, hydrologic imbalance, and water loss. 
EPA projects that the proposed subcategory will result in annualized 
monetized benefits of $43,000 to $769,000.

DATES: Comments on the proposed regulation must be received on or 
before July 10, 2000. Public meetings will be held during the comment 
period. Further details of the public meetings, including dates and 
specific locations, will be published in the Federal Register at a 
later date.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on the proposed rule to Mr. Joseph 
Vitalis (4303); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave, NW; Washington, DC 20460. Comments delivered by hand should be 
brought to Room 641, West Tower; 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC. 
Please submit any references cited in your comments. Submit an original 
and three copies of your written comments and enclosures. No facsimiles 
(faxes) will be accepted. For information on how to submit electronic 
comments see ``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, How to Submit Comments.''
    A copy of the supporting documents cited in this proposal is 
available for review at EPA's Water Docket; Room EB57, 401 M Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20460. A copy of the record supporting proposal of a 
Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory is also available for review 
at the Office of Surface Mining Library, 1999 Broadway, 34th Floor, 
Denver, CO. The public record for this rulemaking has been established 
under docket number W-99-13, and includes supporting documentation, but 
does not include any information claimed as Confidential Business 
Information (CBI). For access to docket materials, please call (202) 
260-3027 between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding Federal holidays, to schedule an appointment. For access to 
docket materials at the Office of Surface Mining Library, please call 
(303) 844-1436 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to schedule an 
appointment.
    See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for locations of the 
public meetings regarding this proposal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information 
contact John Tinger at (202) 260-4992 or ``[email protected]''; or 
Joseph Vitalis at (202) 260-7172. For additional economic information 
contact Kristen Strellec at (202) 260-6036 or 
``[email protected]''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities: Entities potentially regulated by this action 
include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         NAICS
               Category                           Examples of regulated entities            SIC codes    codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..............................  Operations engaged in the remining of abandoned          1221     212111
                                         surface and underground coal mines and coal             1222     212112
                                         refuse piles for remaining coal reserves in areas       1231     212113
                                         containing discharges defined as ``pre-existing'.
                                         Operations engaged in coal mine reclamation
                                         activities in the arid and semiarid western coal
                                         region.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preceding table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated 
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now 
aware potentially could be regulated by this action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine 
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 434.70 and 434.80 of today's 
rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action 
to a particular entity, consult the person listed for technical 
information in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Locations of Public Meetings

    Public meetings regarding proposal of the Western Alkaline Coal 
Mining Subcategory will likely be held in Gillette, WY; Flagstaff, AZ; 
and Denver, CO during the public comment period. Public meetings 
regarding proposal of the Remining Subcategory also will likely be held 
near Charleston, WV; Lexington, KY; and Zanesville, OH during the 
public comment period. Further details of the public meetings, 
including dates and specific locations, will be published in the 
Federal Register at a later date. If you wish to present formal 
comments at the public meetings, you should have a written copy for 
submittal. No meeting materials will be distributed in advance

[[Page 19441]]

of the public meetings; all materials will be distributed at the 
meetings.

How to Submit Comments

    Comments also may be submitted electronically to 
[email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as a Word 
Perfect 5/6/7/8 or ASCII file. Please avoid using special characters, 
form and encryption. Electronic comments must be identified with the 
docket number (W-99-13). EPA also will accept comments and data on 
disks in WP 5/6/7/8 or ASCII file format. Electronic comments on this 
document may be filed online at some Federal Depository Libraries. No 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be sent via e-mail.

Supporting Documentation

    The proposed regulations are supported by several key documents:
    1. ``Coal Remining Best Management Practices Guidance Manual'' (EPA 
821-R-00-007). This document describes abandoned mine land conditions 
and the performance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that have been 
implemented at remining operations for over ten years. The BMP Guidance 
Manual is a technical reference document that presents research and 
data concerning the prediction and prevention of acid mine drainage to 
the waters of the United States.
    2. ``Coal Remining Statistical Support Document'' (EPA 821-R-00-
001). This document establishes the statistical methodology for 
establishing baseline conditions and setting discharge limits at 
remining sites.
    3. ``Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Western Alkaline Coal Mining 
Subcategory'' (EPA 821-R-00-008): This document presents EPA's 
technical conclusions concerning the Western Alkaline Mining 
Subcategory proposal.
    4. ``Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment of Proposed 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Coal Mining 
Industry: Remining and Western Alkaline Subcategories'' (EPA-821-B-00-
002): This document presents the methodology employed to assess 
economic and environmental impacts of the proposed rule and the results 
of the analysis.
    Major supporting documents are available from the National Service 
Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), 11029 Kenwood Road, 
Cincinnati, OH 45242, (800) 490-9198, http://www.epa.gov/ncepi. You can 
obtain copies of this preamble and rule at http://www.epa.gov/OST/guide.

Table of Contents

I. Legal Authority
II. Background
    A. Statutory Authorities
    B. Current Requirements for the Coal Mining Point Source 
Category
III. Scope of Proposal
    A. Coal Remining Subcategory
    B. Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory
IV. Industry Profile
    A. Coal Mining Industry
    B. Coal Remining Subcategory
    C. Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory
V. Summary of Data Collection Activities
    A. Expedited Guidelines Approach
    B. Coal Remining Data Collection Activities
    C. Western Alkaline Coal Mining Data Collection Activities
VI. Development of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines
    A. Coal Remining Subcategory
    B. Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory
VII. Statistical and Monitoring Procedures for the Coal Remining 
Subcategory
    A. Statistical Procedures for the Coal Remining Subcategory
    B. Monitoring to Establish Baseline Conditions and to 
Demonstrate Compliance for the Coal Remining Subcategory
    C. Additional Pollutant Parameters in Pre-existing Discharges
VIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of Proposed 
Regulations
IX. Environmental Benefits Analysis
    A. Coal Remining Subcategory
    B. Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory
X. Economic Analysis
    A. Introduction, Overview, and Source of Data
    B. Method for Estimating Compliance Costs
    C. Costs and Cost Savings of the Regulatory Options
    D. Economic Impacts of Proposed Options
    E. Additional Impacts
    F. Cost-effectiveness Analysis
    G. Cost Benefit Analysis
XI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    I. Plain Language Directive
XII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
    A. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
    B. General Solicitation

Appendix A to the Preamble:

    Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This Document.

I. Legal Authority

    These regulations are proposed under the authority of sections 301, 
304, 306, 308, 402, 501, and 502 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 
1311, 1314, 1316, 1318, 1342, 1361, and 1363.

II. Background

A. Statutory Authorities

1. Clean Water Act
    Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and 
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 
Nation's waters' (section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To achieve this 
goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable 
waters except in compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act 
confronts the problem of water pollution on a number of different 
fronts. Its primary reliance, however, is in establishing restrictions 
on the types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various 
industrial, commercial and public sources of wastewater.
    Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits; 
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These 
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories 
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that 
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.
    a. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--
Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA. Effluent limitations guidelines based on 
BPT apply to discharges of conventional, toxic, and non-conventional 
pollutants from existing sources. BPT guidelines are generally based on 
the average of the best existing performance in terms of pollution 
control by plants in a particular industrial category or subcategory. 
In establishing BPT, EPA considers the cost of achieving pollution 
reductions in relation to the pollution reduction benefits, the age of 
equipment and facilities, the processes employed, process changes 
required, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water 
quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and 
other factors the Administrator deems appropriate. CWA Section 
304(b)(1)(B). Where the pollution control performance of existing 
sources for a category or subcategory is uniformly inadequate, EPA may 
set BPT by

[[Page 19442]]

transferring technology used in a different subcategory or category.
    b. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section 
304(b)(2) of the CWA. In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines 
are based on the degree of pollution control achievable by applying the 
best available technology economically achievable for facilities in the 
industrial subcategory or category. The CWA requires BAT for 
controlling the direct discharge of toxic and non-conventional 
pollutants. The factors considered in determining BAT for a category or 
subcategory include the age of the equipment and facilities involved, 
the process employed, potential process changes, engineering aspects of 
the control technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts 
(including energy requirements), and other factors the Administrator 
deems appropriate. EPA retains considerable discretion in assigning the 
weight to be accorded these factors. Generally, economic achievability 
is determined on the basis of total costs to the industrial subcategory 
and their effect on the overall industry's (or subcategory's) financial 
health. As with BPT, where existing performance is uniformly 
inadequate, BAT may be transferred from a different subcategory or 
category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls, 
such as product substitution, even when these technologies are not 
common industry practice. The CWA does not require cost-benefit 
comparison in establishing BAT.
    c. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section 
304(b)(4) of the CWA.
    The 1977 amendments to the CWA established BCT as an additional 
level of control for discharges of conventional pollutants from point 
sources other than publicly owned treatment works. In addition to other 
factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that BCT 
limitations be established in light of a two part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA published a methodology for the development 
of BCT limitations which became effective August 22, 1986 (51 FR 24974, 
July 9, 1986).
    Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional 
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demanding pollutants (measured as 
BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and 
any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. 
The Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional 
conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).
    d. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the CWA. 
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the best 
available demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the 
opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes 
and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should 
represent the most stringent controls attainable through the 
application of the best available control technology for all pollutants 
(i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In 
establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost 
of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality 
environmental impacts and energy requirements.
    e. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Section 
307(b) of the CWA--and Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--
section 307(b) of the CWA. Pretreatment standards are designed to 
prevent the discharge of pollutants to a publicly-owned treatment works 
(POTW) which pass through, interfere, or are otherwise incompatible 
with the operation of the POTW. Since none of the facilities to which 
this rule applies discharge to a POTW, pretreatment standards are not 
being considered as part of this rulemaking.
    f. CWA Section 304(m) Requirements. Section 304(m) of the CWA, 
added by the Water Quality Act of 1987, requires EPA to establish 
schedules for (1) reviewing and revising existing effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards and (2) promulgating new effluent guidelines. 
On January 2, 1990 (55 FR 80), EPA published an Effluent Guidelines 
Plan, which established schedules for developing new and revised 
effluent guidelines for several industry categories. The Natural 
Resources Defense Council, Inc., challenged the Effluent Guidelines 
Plan in a suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia (NRDC v. Browner, Civ. No. 89-2980). On January 31, 1992, the 
Court entered a consent decree (the ``304(m) Decree''), which 
established schedules for EPA's proposal and promulgation of effluent 
guidelines for a number of point source categories. The most recent 
Effluent Guidelines Plan was published in the Federal Register on 
September 4, 1998 (63 FR 47285). This plan required, among other 
things, that EPA propose the Coal Mining Guidelines by December 1999 
and promulgate the Guidelines by December 2001. On November 19, 1999, 
the court modified the decree revising the deadline for proposal to 
March 31, 2000. The deadline of December 2001 for promulgation of these 
guidelines was not modified.
2. Pollution Prevention Act
    The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101 et 
seq., Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) ``declares it to be the 
national policy of the United States that pollution should be prevented 
or reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented should 
be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, whenever feasible; 
pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an 
environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and disposal or release 
into the environment should be employed only as a last resort * * *'' 
(Sec. 6602; 42 U.S.C. 13101(b)). In short, preventing pollution before 
it is created is preferable to trying to manage, treat or dispose of it 
after it is created.
    The PPA directs EPA to, among other things, ``review regulations of 
the EPA prior and subsequent to their proposal to determine their 
effect on source reduction'' (Sec. 6604; 42 U.S.C. 13103(b)(2)). Source 
reduction reduces the generation and release of hazardous substances, 
pollutants, wastes, contaminants, or residuals at the source, usually 
within a process. The term source reduction ``includes equipment or 
technology modifications, process or procedure modifications, 
reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, 
and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training or inventory 
control. * * * The term ``source reduction'' does not include any 
practice which alters the physical, chemical, or biological 
characteristics or the volume of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or 
contaminant through a process or activity which itself is not integral 
to or necessary for the production of a product or the providing of a 
service'' (42 U.S.C. 13102(5)). In effect, source reduction means 
reducing the amount of a pollutant that enters a waste stream or that 
is otherwise released into the environment prior to out-of-process 
recycling, treatment, or disposal.
    In this proposed rule, EPA encourages pollution prevention by 
requiring the use of site-specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) 
that are integral to remining operations in abandoned mine lands and to 
reclamation activities in the arid and semiarid western coal regions. 
These BMPs, under each subcategory, are designed and implemented to 
improve existing conditions and to reduce pollutant discharges at the 
source, thereby reducing the need for treatment.

[[Page 19443]]

B. Current Requirements for the Coal Mining Point Source Category

1. EPA Regulations at 40 CFR Part 434
    On October 9, 1985 (50 FR 41296), EPA promulgated effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards that are in effect today under 40 
CFR part 434. Currently, there are four subcategories: Coal Preparation 
Plants and Coal Preparation Plant Associated Areas; Acid or Ferruginous 
Mine Drainage; Alkaline Mine Drainage; and Post-Mining Areas. 
Additionally, there is a subpart for Miscellaneous Provisions. The 
subcategories include BPT, BAT, and NSPS limitations for TSS, pH, iron, 
manganese, and/or settleable solids (SS).
2. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
    In 1977, Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq., to address the 
environmental problems associated with coal mining on a nationwide 
basis. SMCRA created the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
Enforcement (OSM) within the Department of Interior, which is 
responsible for preparing regulations and assisting the States 
financially and technically to carry out regulatory activities.
    Title V of the statute gives OSM broad authority to regulate 
specific management practices before, during, and after mining 
operations. OSM has promulgated comprehensive regulations to control 
both surface coal mining and the surface effects of underground coal 
mining (30 CFR parts 700 et seq). Implementation of these requirements 
has significantly improved mining practices, control of water 
pollution, and protection of other resources. Title IV of SMCRA 
addresses the problem of presently abandoned coal mines by authorizing 
and funding abandoned mine reclamation projects.
    All mining operations subject to today's proposal must also comply 
with SMCRA requirements. EPA has worked extensively with OSM in the 
preparation of this proposal in order to ensure that the requirements 
proposed today are consistent with OSM requirements.
3. Rahall Amendment
    As part of 1987 amendments to the CWA, Congress added section 
301(p), often called the Rahall Amendment, to provide incentives for 
remining abandoned mine lands that pre-date the passage of SMCRA in 
1977. Section 301(p) provides an exemption for remining operations from 
the BAT effluent limits for iron, manganese, and pH for pre-existing 
discharges from abandoned mine lands. Instead, a permit writer may set 
site-specific, numerical BAT limits for pre-existing discharges 
determined based on Best Professional Judgement (BPJ). The permit 
effluent limits may not allow discharges to exceed pre-existing 
``baseline'' levels of iron, manganese, and pH. In addition, the permit 
applicant must demonstrate that the remining operation ``will result in 
the potential for improved water quality from the remining operation.'' 
The Rahall Amendment defines remining as ``a coal mining operation 
which began after February 4, 1987 at a site on which coal mining was 
conducted before August 3, 1977,'' which was the effective date of the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Thus, the Rahall Amendment 
attempted to encourage remining by allowing operators not to treat 
degraded pre-existing discharges to the levels set in EPA's current 
effluent limitations guidelines for coal mining.
    Despite the statutory authority provided by the Rahall Amendment, 
coal mining companies and most States remain hesitant to pursue 
remining without formal EPA approval and guidelines. Today's Document 
proposes to establish requirements for determining baseline pollutant 
loadings in pre-existing discharges. It also proposes to specify how to 
determine site-specific BAT requirements for remining operations and 
how to demonstrate the potential for environmental improvement from a 
remining operation.
4. Clean Water Action Plan
    On October 18, 1997, the 25th anniversary of the enactment of the 
Clean Water Act, Vice President Gore called for a renewed effort to 
restore and protect water quality. EPA and other Federal agencies were 
directed to develop a Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) that would 
continue to provide clean water successes and would address three major 
goals: (1) Enhanced protection from public health threats caused by 
water pollution; (2) more effective control of polluted runoff; and (3) 
promotion of water quality protection on a watershed basis.
    Based on the efforts of interagency work groups and comments from 
the public, EPA and other Federal agencies developed the final CWAP on 
February 14, 1998. One of several Key Actions specifically identified 
to implement the goals of the CWAP was EPA's project to re-examine 40 
CFR part 434 to ``better address coal mining in arid western areas'' 
and ``to address coal remining operations.''

III. Scope of Proposal

    Today, EPA is proposing effluent limitations and performance 
standards for the Coal Remining Subcategory and for the Western 
Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory. The new subcategories will be added 
to the existing regulations for the Coal Mining Point Source Category 
found in 40 CFR part 434. The new subcategories will create a set of 
standards and requirements for the specific waste streams defined in 
today's proposal.
    The existing provisions will continue to apply to discharges 
produced or generated in active mining areas, which include the active 
mining areas of remining operations. Section 434.11(b) defines active 
mining area as ``the area, on and beneath land, used or disturbed in 
activity related to the extraction, removal, or recovery of coal from 
its natural deposits. This term excludes coal preparation plants, coal 
preparation plant associated areas and post-mining areas.'' Wastewater 
discharges produced or generated by active coal mining operations will 
not be affected by this proposed regulation and will remain subject to 
the effluent limitations already established in part 434.
    Additionally, in accordance with section 434.61, any waste stream 
subject to this proposed rule that is commingled with a waste stream 
subject to another subpart of part 434 will be required to meet the 
most stringent limitations applicable to any component of the combined 
waste stream. EPA's proposed regulatory text simply maintains the 
current regulatory approach on this issue.

A. Coal Remining Subcategory

    The effluent limitations and standards proposed for the Coal 
Remining Subcategory apply to pre-existing discharges that are located 
within areas of a coal remining operation and that are not commingled 
with waste streams from active mining areas. Coal remining is the 
mining of surface mine lands, underground mine lands, and coal refuse 
piles that were abandoned prior to August 3, 1977.
    EPA's rationale for the proposed Remining Subcategory is discussed 
in Section VI.

B. Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory

    The effluent limitations and performance standards for the Western 
Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory apply to alkaline mine drainage from

[[Page 19444]]

reclamation areas associated with western coal mining operations.
    ``Alkaline mine drainage'' is defined in the existing regulations 
as ``mine drainage which, before any treatment, has a pH equal to or 
greater than 6.0 and total iron concentration of less than 10 mg/L.'' 
40 CFR 434.11(c). ``Reclamation area'' is defined in the existing 
regulations as ``the surface area of a coal mine which has been 
returned to required contour and on which revegetation (specifically, 
seeding or planting) work has commenced.'' 40 CFR 434.11(l). EPA is not 
proposing to make any changes to these existing definitions.
    EPA is proposing to define a ``western coal mining operation'' in 
arid or semiarid areas as a surface or underground coal mining 
operation located in the interior western United States, west of the 
100th meridian west longitude, in an arid or semiarid environment with 
an average annual precipitation of 26.0 inches or less. This definition 
is consistent with the way OSM currently identifies and addresses 
western coal mining operations (see 30 CFR 701.5 and 30 CFR 816.116) 
and with SMCRA's provisions with respect to arid and semiarid lands 
(i.e., extended liability time frames for areas with less than 26 
inches of annual precipitation, protection of the alluvial valley 
floors found in the western environments, and recognition of 
geological, hydrological and ecological differences found in arid and 
semiarid environments).
    EPA discusses the rationale for the proposed Western Alkaline Coal 
Mining Subcategory in Section VI.

IV. Industry Profile

A. Coal Mining Industry

    The United States is divided into three major coal producing 
regions termed the Appalachian, Interior, and Western regions. The 
States included in each are as follows:
     Western Coal Region--Alaska, Arizona, California, 
Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, Washington, and 
Wyoming;
     Appalachian Coal Region--Alabama, Georgia, Eastern 
Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West 
Virginia; and
     Interior Coal Region--Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, 
Western Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas.
    Historically, the Appalachian Region has been the Nation's most 
important source of coal, accounting for about three-fourths of the 
total annual production as recently as 1970. In 1970, most of the coal 
produced domestically was mined east of the Mississippi River (567.8 
million tons east of the Mississippi River, compared to 44.9 million 
tons west of the Mississippi River). Appalachian coals are 
predominantly bituminous, with a high Btu content and a wide range of 
sulfur content. Coal in this Region generally occurs in beds that tend 
to be less than 15 feet thick.
    There are two distinct coal-producing areas in the Interior Region. 
The Illinois Basin, which includes most of Illinois, parts of Indiana 
and western Kentucky, produces high Btu bituminous coal with medium to 
high sulfur content. The second major coal producing area in this 
Region consists of the lignite fields within the Coastal Plain along 
the Gulf of Mexico.
    The Western Coal Region contains extensive deposits of sub-
bituminous, low sulfur-content coal. This coal occurs in thick coal 
seams and shallow overburden conditions that enable the extraction of 
large volumes at relatively low cost. Consequently, these coal 
resources represent a highly competitive fuel in the power generation 
market based on chemical qualities and cost per kilowatt-hour.
    Production from U.S. surface coal mines has increased by more than 
90 percent since 1970, and there have been dramatic changes in the 
domestic production of coal due to environmental concerns and market 
demands. Environmental laws have increased government regulation of the 
industry. In addition, the Clean Air Act emission requirements to 
reduce acid rain have shifted market demand to lower sulfur content 
fuel sources. With this change in the coal market, coal production in 
the west has increased, and is now nearly equal to that in the 
Appalachian region (Energy Information Administration, Coal Industry 
Annual, 1997). In 1970, the Appalachian Region produced a total of 
427.6 million tons. The Interior Region total production was 149.9 
million tons. By comparison, in 1970, the Western Region produced only 
35.1 million tons. By 1993, the market share of production from eastern 
coal mines had dropped to 55 percent (516.2 million tons), while 
western mine output had increased to 45 percent (429.2 million tons).
    In 1997 the United States produced 1.09 billion short tons of coal, 
with the Appalachian Region producing approximately 468 million short 
tons, the Interior Region producing approximately 172 million short 
tons and the Western Region producing approximately 451 million short 
tons. While domestic coal production has increased since 1970, fewer 
operating mines exist today. In 1991, the number of mines producing 
coal was less than half the number in 1976 (e.g., 6,553 mines in 1976 
compared to 3,022 mines in 1991). Coal-fired electric power generating 
plants are the largest single source of domestically produced primary 
energy.

B. Coal Remining Subcategory

    Coal mining in the eastern United States has been an important 
industry for several centuries. The lack of adequate environmental 
controls, until recently, has produced hundreds of thousands of acres 
of abandoned mine land. Prior to passage of SMCRA in 1977, reclamation 
of coal mining sites was not a Federal requirement, and drainage from 
these abandoned mine lands has become the number one water quality 
problem in Appalachia.
    Based on information supplied by the Interstate Mining Compact 
Commission (IMCC) and OSM's Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System 
(AMLIS), EPA estimates there currently are over 1.1 million acres of 
abandoned coal mine lands in the United States. These have produced 
over 9,709 miles of streams polluted by acid mine drainage. In 
addition, there are over 18,000 miles of abandoned highwalls, 16,326 
acres of dangerous piles and embankments, and 874 dangerous 
impoundments. Of the land disturbed by coal mining between 1930 and 
1971, only 30 percent has been reclaimed to acceptable levels. Several 
States have indicated that acid mine drainage from abandoned coal mine 
land is their most serious water pollution problem.
    Streams that are impacted by acid mine drainage characteristically 
have low pH levels (less than 6.0 standard units) and contain high 
concentrations of sulfate, acidity, dissolved iron and other metals. 
These conditions commonly will not support fish or other aquatic life. 
The flows from abandoned mine lands can range from unmeasurable to huge 
torrents of thousands of gallons per minute. Ninety percent of acid 
mine drainage comes from coal mines (mostly underground mines) that 
were abandoned prior to the enactment of SMCRA. Many of the streams 
impacted by acid mine drainage could be resources for drinking water 
and the propagation and maintenance of aquatic life, and could support 
water-based recreation if they were remediated. Their restoration also 
would contribute to the enhancement of regional economies in areas that 
have been socio-economically disadvantaged for decades.

[[Page 19445]]

    Development of modern surface-mining techniques has allowed for 
more efficient removal of coal deposits and more effective 
implementation of BMPs that provide pollution abatement and 
remediation. Consequently, mining is now feasible in areas where mining 
was previously uneconomical.
    More than ten years of remining under the requirements of the 
Rahall Amendment have demonstrated success in improving abandoned mine 
land and acid mine drainage. IMCC member States have estimated that 
there are currently 150 mining companies in ten States involved in 
remining operations (under either Rahall-type permits or current 40 CFR 
part 434 limitations) or in operations affecting abandoned mine lands. 
These companies are producing at least 25 million tons of coal 
annually, and are employing approximately 3,000 people. To date, 
approximately 1,072 permits that include coal remining operations have 
been issued. Of these 1,072 permits, 330 (31 percent) are Rahall-type 
permits where the operator is required to meet a determined baseline 
limit for pre-existing discharges. Approximately 300 of these Rahall-
type permits are in Pennsylvania alone. Of the 1,072 remining permits, 
742 (69 percent) are non-Rahall permits where all discharges must meet 
current effluent limitations. These permits have tended to be issued at 
sites where the effects of acid mine drainage are not as significant. 
Remining operations are affecting approximately 270 abandoned coal 
refuse piles; 1,600 abandoned surface mines; and 1,100 abandoned 
underground mines. Information provided by IMCC indicates that there 
are approximately 2,100 coal refuse piles; 2,000 abandoned surface 
mines (plus 228,000 acres); and over 8,000 abandoned underground mines 
that have the potential for remining. Information provided by IMCC is 
discussed in the Coal Remining BMP Guidance Manual and is included in 
Section 7.0 of the Rulemaking Record.
    Many States have not been able to establish the guidelines and 
procedures required to issue Rahall permits. However, IMCC member 
States have indicated that they would be able to establish formal 
remining programs under guidelines set forth under an EPA effluent 
limitation Coal Remining subcategory. With the establishment of State 
remining programs, mine operators would be more inclined to enter into 
remining projects as discussed in Section VI.

C. Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory

    EPA is proposing to address western alkaline mines which would be 
defined as mines that are (1) west of the 100th meridian, (2) have 
annual precipitation of 26 inches or less, (3) are in an arid or 
semiarid environment, and (4) produce alkaline mine drainage. Western 
coal producing States qualifying are: Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Montana, 
New Mexico, Wyoming, and all coal fields in North Dakota located west 
of the 100th meridian.
    Coal mining operations in arid and semiarid western regions operate 
under environmental conditions that are significantly different from 
those in other regions of the United States. Western arid and semiarid 
areas are naturally unstable with highly eroded landscapes that are 
created by flash flood runoff transporting large volumes of sediment. 
Water resources are severely limited and highly valuable. Specific 
differences include:
     Precipitation--Annual precipitation averages 26 inches or 
less, with about one-half occurring as snowfall and one-half as 
rainfall. The average annual precipitation received by relevant western 
coal-producing States are: Arizona--13 inches; Colorado--16 inches; 
Montana--15 inches; New Mexico--13 inches; and Wyoming--13 inches. 
Rainfall is commonly received during localized, high-intensity, short-
duration thunderstorms.
     Temperature--Temperatures fluctuate over wide daily ranges 
of 30 deg. to 50 deg.F and extreme seasonal ranges (-40 deg. to 
115 deg.F). These temperature fluctuations contribute to the physical 
weathering of surface materials.
     Solar intensity--Solar energy is high and humidity is 
characteristically very low. As a result, evapotranspiration normally 
exceeds precipitation. Water infiltration and retention in soil is 
limited, which results in severe soil moisture deficits, extremely 
limited surface water resources, and poor vegetative growth.
     Erosion--Natural soils tend to be erosion prone and soil-
forming materials frequently erode faster than they are formed. Soil 
that does form can be poorly developed with low organic matter and 
limited plant nutrient content. Soil moisture content is low and 
precipitation easily mobilizes sediment.
     Hydrology--Drainage systems are composed primarily of dry 
washes and arroyos. These drainage features provide an unlimited source 
of sediment that may be mobilized by flash flooding. For approximately 
eleven months per year, the washes and arroyos are dry, flowing only in 
response to precipitation runoff. Runoff is frequently characterized by 
high volume, high velocity, sediment laden, turbulent flows with 
tremendous kinetic energy. Flows can be expected to contain sediment 
concentrations ranging upwards to 500,000 mg/L during flash flood 
runoff events.
     Vegetation--Areas are characterized by discontinuous and 
sparsely distributed grasses, shrubs and trees. The major vegetation 
types are desert grass and brush, and open forests with pinyon-juniper 
and ponderosa pine.
    EPA has identified 46 surface coal mines in the western region that 
potentially will be affected by this proposed rule (two percent of the 
total number of coal mines in the United States). These mines produce 
approximately one-third of the total annual U.S. coal production.

V. Summary of Data Collection Activities

A. Expedited Guidelines Approach

    EPA is developing this regulation using an expedited rulemaking 
process. This process relies on stakeholder support to develop the 
initial technology and regulatory options. At various stages of 
information gathering, OSM, States, Tribes, industry, EPA and other 
stakeholders have presented and discussed their preferred options and 
identified differences in opinion. EPA developed this proposal more 
quickly than a typical effluent guidelines proposal, and the proposal 
contains less information than EPA usually provides for effluent 
guidelines. EPA expects to identify any gaps and gather additional 
information through the public comment process.
    EPA encourages full public participation in developing the final 
Coal Remining and Western Alkaline Coal Mining Guidelines. This 
expedited rulemaking process relies more on open communication between 
EPA, the regulated community, and other stakeholders, and less on 
formal data and information gathering mechanisms. The expedited 
guidelines approach is suitable when EPA, States, industry, and other 
stakeholders have a common goal in regards to the purpose of the 
effluent guidelines. EPA believes this is the case with the Coal 
Remining and Western Alkaline Coal Mining rulemaking. EPA is proposing 
to allow site-specific effluent limits for pre-existing discharges at 
remining operations and alternative sediment control technologies at 
western alkaline mine reclamation operations. EPA believes that this 
rule will provide

[[Page 19446]]

better environmental results than the current requirements. EPA 
welcomes comment on all options and issues and encourages commenters to 
submit additional data during the comment period. EPA also is willing 
to meet with interested parties during the comment period to ensure 
that EPA considers the views of all stakeholders and the best possible 
data upon which to base a decision for the final regulation.
    As part of the expedited approach to this rulemaking, EPA has 
chosen not to gather data using the time consuming approach of a Clean 
Water Act Section 308 questionnaire. Rather, EPA is using data 
voluntarily submitted by industry, permitting authorities, vendors, 
academia, and others, along with data EPA can develop in a limited 
period of time. Because all of the facilities affected by this proposal 
are direct dischargers, EPA did not conduct an outreach survey to 
POTWs.
    Throughout regulatory development, EPA has worked with 
representatives from the U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 
Enforcement, the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, State regulatory 
authorities, the Western Interstate Energy Board (WIEB), the National 
Mining Association (NMA), the coal mining industry, and research 
organizations to submit data and develop effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards that represent the appropriate level of 
technology (e.g., BAT, BCT, BPT, and NSPS).
    EPA plans to continue its data gathering efforts for support of the 
final rule. EPA may publish a subsequent document of data availability 
for data either generated by EPA or submitted after this proposal and 
used by EPA to develop the final rule.
    Databases and reports containing the information and data provided 
and used by EPA in support of this rule proposal are available in the 
Rulemaking Record. The following summarizes the data EPA has collected 
in support of this proposal.

B. Coal Remining Data Collection Activities

    Following promulgation of the final effluent limitation guidelines 
for the Coal Mining industry in 1985, EPA began working with the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (now the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection or ``PADEP''), the 
Office of Surface Mining (now the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 
and Enforcement or ``OSM'') and various stakeholders to address the 
remining issue.
    In 1988, EPA, PADEP, Pennsylvania State University, and Kohlmann 
Ruggiero Engineers developed a computer software package (Coal Remining 
Best Professional Judgement Analysis, Record Section 3.2.6) to enable 
best professional judgement (BPJ) analyses for remining operations. The 
software includes a Surface Mine Materials Handling and Cost Module, a 
Baseline Pollution Load Statistics Module, and a Water Treatment Cost 
Calculation Module. It has been used by the Commonwealths of 
Pennsylvania and Virginia to prepare NPDES Coal Remining Permits. The 
software is designed to:
     Input and revise pre-existing pollution discharge data;
     Calculate baseline pollution loads and perform additional 
statistical analyses on pre- and post-mining discharge data;
     Calculate capital and annual wastewater treatment cost;
     Input and revise mining plans;
     Simulate mining operations for a production rate and the 
associated mining costs;
     Compare mining plans and costs with and without abatement 
plans and evaluate abatement procedures; and
     Calculate relative mining costs with and without 
wastewater treatment costs added.
    Pennsylvania DEP provided EPA with 41 remining permit application 
modules submitted by Pennsylvania remining operations. These modules 
are included in the Record at Section 3.2.4, and are titled Module 26: 
Remining of Areas with Pre-existing Pollutional Discharges. The modules 
follow the BPJ analyses provided in the EPA and PADEP Coal Remining--
Best Professional Judgement Analysis (``REMINE'') User's Manual and 
Software Package. Eleven of these modules were submitted to EPA as part 
of data packages demonstrating BMP implementation at remining sites. 
The remaining 30 modules (ten modules from each of three Bureau Mining 
Offices) were submitted to EPA as representative of approximately 10 
percent of Pennsylvania's Rahall permit operations to date. The modules 
include the following information:
     Abandoned mine land and mine drainage quantities and 
descriptions;
     Baseline pollution load summaries;
     Detailed descriptions of BMP abatement plans and 
descriptions of how they are expected to reduce baseline pollution 
loadings and improve environmental conditions;
     Detailed calculations including materials costs and 
handling costs for each step of the abatement plan;
     Detailed calculations of construction, operation, and 
maintenance costs for treatment of pre-existing discharges to current 
effluent limits; and
     Anticipated pollution reduction benefit resulting from 
implementation of the abatement plan, including impacts on discharge 
quality and quantity.
    EPA reviewed information provided in these permit modules that 
compared the cost of treating pre-existing discharges to existing 
effluent limitations verses the implementation of site-specific BMP 
plans with the potential to improve baseline pollution loading. This 
cost comparison portion of Module 26 was completed in 40 of 41 
respondents. In all 40 cases, remining was considered not economically 
feasible if treatment of pre-existing discharges to current effluent 
limits was required. In the same 40 cases, remining was economically 
feasible if the abatement plan was implemented as proposed.
    In 1996, IMCC, EPA, and OSM formed a Remining Task Force and 
expanded investigations of opportunities to encourage remining of 
abandoned coal mines consistent with the requirements of SMCRA and the 
CWA. In February 1998, IMCC, EPA and OSM released a discussion paper 
entitled ``Water Quality Issues Related to Coal Remining'' that is 
included in the Rulemaking Record at Section 8.1. The paper provided an 
overview of current discussions between State and Federal agencies 
regarding water quality issues and concerns pertaining to coal remining 
operations. The paper focused on opportunities to encourage remining 
through adjustments to the current regulatory regime while assuring 
adequate protection of surface and ground water quality. The paper also 
presented several approaches for providing remining incentives, 
including the use of effluent limits set at baseline discharge levels 
for pre-existing discharges. IMCC collected written comments from 
environmental groups, industry, Federal agencies, and State agencies. 
The comments generally supported and recognized the value of remining, 
although commenters expressed some differences of opinion regarding 
regulatory approaches.
    As discussed in Section VI, the discussion paper also presented an 
alternative BMP-based remining permit approach in which the permit 
focuses on implementation of BMPs, and does not include numerical 
limits for pre-existing discharges. Some commenters were concerned that 
reliance on the implementation of BMPs in lieu of numeric limitations 
could result in backsliding from existing requirements.

[[Page 19447]]

The Remining Task Force believes that BMPs can result in improved water 
quality and, in certain cases, can qualify as BAT for achieving 
standards required by the Clean Water Act.
    To support this rulemaking, the IMCC submitted data and information 
specific to abandoned mine lands on pre-existing discharge water 
quality, BMP implementation, and remining activities in the eastern 
coal regions. IMCC member States and State regulatory authorities 
provided sixty-one data packages from Alabama, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, 
Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia that include the following data 
and information:
     Remining permit applications and approved remining 
permits;
     Abandoned mine land reclamation project plans and results;
     Descriptions of abandoned mine conditions and extent of 
abandoned mine land;
     BMP implementation plans targeting pre-existing discharges 
and abandoned mine land;
     Site geology and overburden analysis data;
     Water quality data (surface water, ground water, and pre-
existing discharges);
     Best professional judgement analysis of treatment and BMP 
implementation plans;
     Topographic maps indicating permit areas, active mining 
areas, pre-existing conditions, and water quality monitoring points;
     Mining operation plans; and
     Unit costs of best management practices.
    EPA assessed portions of these data to determine the types and 
effectiveness of remining operations, abandoned mine land reclamation 
projects, and BMP implementation procedures that have occurred 
throughout the affected coal regions. EPA evaluated data packages from 
closed remining operations as case studies of the effectiveness of BMPs 
and of remining in terms of improving pre-existing water quality and 
non-water quality environmental conditions. Detailed case studies are 
provided in each section of the Coal Remining Best Management Practices 
Guidance Manual. Information and data provided in these data packages 
were compiled into a Coal Remining Database that is included in the 
Rulemaking Record at Section 3.5.1.
    On September 3, 1998, IMCC distributed a Solicitation Sheet to 
States to collect information regarding the extent of existing 
abandoned mine land, characteristics of current remining operations, 
type and extent of BMP implementation, remining industry production and 
employment statistics, and potential for remining operations. Twenty 
States responded and IMCC submitted the responses to EPA. EPA used this 
information to develop a profile of the remining industry, estimate the 
potential for remining activity, and provide an indication of the types 
and efficiencies of BMPs currently being implemented during remining 
operations. State responses are included in the Rulemaking Record at 
Section 3.2.2. A detailed summary of these responses is provided in the 
Coal Remining BMP Guidance Manual, Appendix C.
    In support of BMP implementation evaluation, PADEP provided EPA 
with a database containing summary pre- and post-mining water quality 
data and the associated BMPs for 112 closed remining sites throughout 
the bituminous coal regions of Pennsylvania (Record Section 3.2.3). EPA 
believes these are the most extensive data currently available for 
assessment of the water quality impacts of BMP implementation at 
remining operations. Data from 231 pre-existing discharges affected by 
BMPs at these closed sites were used to assess the efficiencies of 
remining BMPs in terms of water quality improvement. The data often 
demonstrate improvement in, or elimination of, the pollution loadings 
of acidity, iron, manganese, sulfate, and aluminum, and are presented 
in Appendix B of the Coal Remining BMP Guidance Manual. Detailed 
results of this assessment are presented in Section 6 of the Coal 
Remining BMP Guidance Manual.

C. Western Alkaline Coal Mining Data Collection Activities

    In developing the portion of this proposal related to western 
mines, EPA has worked with a Western Coal Mining Work Group composed of 
representatives from OSM, the Western Interstate Energy Board (WIEB), 
State regulatory authorities, the National Mining Association (NMA), 
and other industry stakeholders to identify, compile and analyze 
existing information and data.
    This work group has supplied EPA with data and information to 
support the development of new sediment control requirements relying on 
BMPs for surface reclamation activities in Western Alkaline coal mines. 
NMA supplied EPA with a number of reports supporting the need for, and 
feasibility of, establishing a separate Western Alkaline Coal Mining 
Subcategory. The reports include the following information and 
supporting data:
     Performance evaluation studies to determine the 
effectiveness of sediment control BMPs implemented at sites with 
environmental conditions similar to those of the arid and semiarid 
western coal region;
     In-stream monitoring programs evaluating background 
sediment;
     Site-specific sediment control plans targeting arid and 
semiarid western watersheds;
     Cost evaluations of BMP implementation and treatment 
requirements; and
     Case studies of mine sites in Arizona, New Mexico, and 
Wyoming.
    The work group also supplied EPA with a mine modeling study 
sponsored by the National Mining Association and reviewed by OSM. The 
study compared the predicted performance, costs and benefits of current 
40 CFR part 434 Guidelines to the requirements proposed for this 
rulemaking for a representative model mine in the arid western coal 
region. Characterization of background water quality, soil loss rates, 
and sediment yield were predicted using computer models for both pre-
mining (undisturbed) and post-mining (reclamation) conditions. The 
study estimated that the cost of compliance with the proposed 
subcategory requirements for a typical western surface coal mine will 
be less than the cost of meeting the existing 40 CFR part 434 
guidelines. Details of this study are included in Section 3.3 of the 
Rulemaking Record and are summarized in the Development Document for 
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Western 
Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory.
    EPA identified, compiled, and analyzed additional sources of 
existing information and data during the development of this proposed 
rule including:
     Final NPDES Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit for 
Industrial Activities, 60 FR 50804, September 29, 1995. This document 
includes a section on storm water discharges from inactive coal mines 
and selected areas within active coal mines, and presents an overview 
and descriptions of applicable BMPs;
     Sediment control guidelines from State regulatory programs 
(Wyoming DEQ, Land Quality Division, Guideline No. 15; New Mexico's 19 
NMAC 8.2 Subpart 20, Section 2009);
     Performance evaluations demonstrating effectiveness of 
BMPs (Water Engineering & Technology Studies); and
     Computer-based, predictive soil loss models developed by 
government,

[[Page 19448]]

academia, and industry to model and assess erosion, soil loss, and 
sediment yields from disturbed lands; capable of determining 
effectiveness of BMPs on erosion control and sediment production prior 
to field use (SEDCAD 4.0; Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE); 
Erosion and Sediment Impacts (EASI) Model).
    This information is included in Section 4.3 of the rulemaking 
record, and is discussed in the Development Document for Proposed 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Western Alkaline 
Coal Mining Subcategory.

VI. Development of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines

A. Coal Remining Subcategory

    The effluent limitations and standards proposed for the Coal 
Remining Subcategory would apply to pre-existing discharges located in 
areas of a coal remining operation that are not commingled with waste 
streams from active mining areas.
    As noted previously in Section III, coal remining is the mining of 
surface mine lands, underground mine lands, and coal refuse piles that 
were abandoned prior to the enactment of the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act on August 3, 1977. Acid mine drainage from abandoned 
coal mines is damaging a significant number of waterways in the 
Appalachian and mid-continent Coal Regions of the Eastern United 
States. Information gathered from the Interstate Mining Compact 
Commission (IMCC) and OSM's Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System 
(AMLIS) indicates there are over 1.1 million acres of abandoned coal 
mine lands and over 9,709 miles of streams polluted by acid mine 
drainage in Appalachia alone.
    Acid mine drainage can result from abandoned surface and 
underground coal mines and coal refuse piles. If acid-forming minerals 
are present in significant quantities, exposure to air and water can 
result in the formation of acid mine drainage. At abandoned underground 
mines, large reservoirs of acid mine drainage can continue to be 
replenished by ground water movement through the mineral-bearing rocks, 
creating more acid mine drainage. Water from these ``mine pools'' seeps 
through the hillsides or flows freely from abandoned mine entries, 
enters streams, and deposits metal-rich precipitates downstream.
    In 1977, Congress included a provision in SMCRA to establish a fund 
(the Abandoned Mine Land Program) to address abandoned mine lands, with 
the highest priority given to cleaning up sites that pose a threat to 
the health, safety, and general welfare of people. Of the $3.6 billion 
of high priority (Priority 1 and 2) coal related abandoned mine land 
(AML) problems in the AML Program inventory, $2.5 billion, or 69 
percent, have yet to be funded and reclaimed. Current estimates 
indicate that ninety percent of the $1.9 billion coal related 
environmental (Priority 3) problems in the AML inventory have not been 
funded and reclaimed (OSM Abandoned Mine Land Program, 1999). Although 
progress has been made in cleaning up abandoned sites, the funds 
released have not been sufficient to correct the majority of the 
environmental and safety problems associated with the large numbers of 
abandoned mine land sites.
    EPA recognizes that one of the most successful means for 
improvement of abandoned mine land is for coal mining companies to 
remine abandoned areas and extract the coal reserves that remain. EPA 
also recognizes that if abandoned mine lands are ignored during coal 
mining of adjacent areas, a time-critical opportunity for reclaiming 
the abandoned mine land is lost. Once coal mining operations have 
ceased on the adjacent areas, there is little incentive for operators 
to return.
    During remining operations, acid-forming materials are removed with 
the extraction of the coal, pollution abatement BMPs are implemented 
under applicable regulatory requirements, and the abandoned mine land 
is reclaimed. During remining, many of the problems associated with 
abandoned mine land, such as dangerous highwalls, vertical openings, 
and abandoned coal refuse piles can be corrected at no cost to OSM's 
Abandoned Mine Land Program. Furthermore, implementation of appropriate 
BMPs during remining operations can be effective at improving the water 
quality of pre-existing discharges. For example, implementation of 
appropriate BMPs during 112 remining operations in Pennsylvania was 
effective in improving or eliminating acidity loading in 45 percent of 
the pre-existing discharges, total iron loading in 44 percent of the 
discharges, and total manganese in 42 percent of the discharges. This 
improvement resulted in reduced annual pollutant loadings of up to 5.8 
million pounds of acidity, 189,000 pounds of iron, 11,400 pounds of 
manganese, and 4.8 million pounds of sulfate. The environmental 
benefits associated with reclamation of abandoned mine lands are 
discussed further in Section IX of this document.
    The current regulations at 40 CFR part 434 create a disincentive 
for remining because of their high compliance costs. Moreover, the 
potential of the statutory exemption contained in the Rahall Amendment 
to overcome this disincentive and derive the maximum environmental 
benefits from remining operations has not been fully realized in the 
absence of implementing regulations. If mining companies face 
substantial potential liability or economic loss from remining, they 
will continue to focus on mining virgin areas and ignore abandoned mine 
lands that may contain significant coal resources. Based on information 
collected in support of this proposal, EPA believes that remining 
operations are environmentally preferable to ignoring the coal 
resources in abandoned mine lands. EPA is soliciting comment on this 
conclusion, and on potential options that may be environmentally 
preferable to the new subcategory being proposed today.
    As described in Section II of this document, Congress attempted to 
address the problems associated with acid mine drainage at abandoned 
mine lands by passing the Rahall Amendment to provide incentives to 
encourage coal remining. The Rahall Amendment (section 301(p)) allows 
permit writers to issue NPDES permits for remining sites with 
requirements less stringent than those in the existing regulations for 
some pollutant limits. Specifically, section 301(p) allows permit 
writers to use best professional judgement (BPJ) to set site-specific 
BAT limits determined for pre-existing discharges. These limits may not 
exceed baseline levels of iron, manganese, and pH. The operator must 
also demonstrate that the remining operation will result in the 
potential for improved water quality. The statute does not specify how 
to determine site-specific BAT, baseline pollutant discharge levels, or 
the potential for improved water quality and has left these up to each 
permitting authority to determine.
    The statute does not allow site-specific limits for TSS. EPA also 
is not proposing alternative limitations for total suspended solids 
(TSS) or settleable solids (SS) in pre-existing discharges. EPA 
believes the current level of sediment control is necessary during 
surface disturbance operations to avoid sedimentation and erosion that 
can clog streams, increase the risk of flooding, impair land stability, 
and destroy aquatic habitats. Except for the alternate SS effluent 
limitations for 10-year, 24-hour precipitation events provided in 40 
CFR 434.63, existing effluent limits for TSS and SS will

[[Page 19449]]

continue to apply to pre-existing discharges.
    Since passage of the Rahall Amendment, seven States have 
established formal remining programs that have issued approximately 330 
Rahall permits with numerical limits for pre-existing discharges that 
are less stringent than those in the existing regulations. Of these 330 
Rahall Remining permits, approximately 300 were issued by the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Of the remaining thirty Rahall permits, 
ten were issued by Alabama, eight by West Virginia, four by Kentucky, 
three by Virginia, three by Ohio, and two by Maryland. Under these 
Rahall permits, remining operations must meet the alternate numeric 
limits specified in the permits and must implement site-specific BMPs. 
These BMPs include special handling of acid-producing materials, 
daylighting of abandoned underground mines, control of surface water 
and ground water, control of sediment, addition of alkaline material, 
and passive treatment. Remining operations currently underway have 
proven to be a viable means of remediating the environmental conditions 
associated with these abandoned mine lands without imposing a 
significant cost burden on industry (Skousen, Water Quality Changes and 
Costs of Remining in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, 1997).
    A discussion paper released by IMCC, EPA and OSM in February 1998 
(Discussion Paper on Water Quality Issues Related to Remining) and 
discussed further in Section V of this document, presented an 
alternative BMP-based remining permit approach where implementation of 
BMPs is the central focus of permitting. This alternative would not 
impose any numerical limits for pre-existing discharges, but only would 
require implementation of selected BMPs. The IMCC Remining Task Force 
believes that BMPs can result in improved water quality and, in certain 
cases, can qualify as BAT for achieving standards required by the Clean 
Water Act. EPA is considering conditions under which remining permits 
based solely on BMP implementation in lieu of numerical effluent limits 
may be appropriate. In addition, EPA recently accepted a Coal Remining 
and Reclamation Project XL proposal from the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection. Once finalized, this pilot project is 
expected to provide a substantial amount of data about the feasibility 
of using the BMP-based remining permit approach in eight different 
watersheds throughout Pennsylvania. EPA does not currently have 
sufficient information on the environmental effectiveness and potential 
regulatory structure for such an approach, and is not including permits 
based solely on BMPs in today's proposal. EPA is soliciting additional 
comments and data supporting BMP-based remining permits and situations 
for which they may be appropriate.
    Despite the statutory authority provided by the Rahall Amendment, 
coal mining companies and most States remain hesitant to pursue 
remining without formal EPA approval and guidelines. The Rahall 
Amendment requires application of the best available technology 
economically achievable on a case-by-case basis, using best 
professional judgment to set specific numerical effluent limitations in 
each permit. However, it does not provide guidelines for how to 
determine baseline pollutant loadings in pre-existing discharges. It 
also does not provide guidance on how to determine site-specific BAT 
requirements for a remining operation, or how to demonstrate the 
potential for environmental improvement from a remining operation. 
Without standardized procedures for developing effluent limits for pre-
existing discharges, many States with extensive abandoned mine lands 
have not initiated formal remining programs.
    EPA is today proposing a new remining subcategory with effluent 
limitation guidelines based on a combination of numeric limits and non-
numeric BMP requirements. EPA is proposing a standardized procedure for 
determining pollutant loadings for baseline and compliance monitoring. 
This procedure is described in Appendix B of this proposed regulation. 
Example calculations using these procedures and further discussion of 
EPA's determination of these procedures are provied in the Coal 
Remining Statistical Support Document. EPA intends these proposed 
regulations to control pre-existing discharges at remining operations 
in a manner consistent with requirements under the Rahall Amendment. In 
effect, these proposed requirements are effluent limitation guidelines 
authorized under section 304(b) of the CWA, but are also implementing 
regulations for section 301(p), providing EPA's interpretation of 
unspecified aspects of that provision. Section 301(p) requires the 
permit to establish BAT on a case-by-case basis, using best 
professional judgment to set specific numerical effluent limitations 
for pH, iron, and manganese in each permit. The operator must 
demonstrate that the coal remining operation will result in the 
potential for improved water quality, and in no event may pH, iron, or 
manganese discharges exceed the levels discharged prior to the remining 
operation. No discharge from, or affected by, the remining operation 
may exceed State water quality standards. EPA solicits comments on the 
consistency of the proposal with the Rahall Amendment and existing 
State remining programs.
    Under the proposed regulations, the permit would contain specific 
numeric and non-numeric requirements, constituting BPT and BAT. The 
numeric requirements would be established on a case-by-case basis in 
compliance with standardized requirements for statistical procedures 
and monitoring to establish baseline. The numeric effluent limitations 
set at baseline levels would ensure that in no event will the pollutant 
discharges exceed the discharges prior to remining, as required by 
section 301(p)(2). The stringency of the non-numeric permit provisions 
would be established using best professional judgement to evaluate the 
adequacy of the selected BMPs contained in a pollution abatement plan. 
The pollution abatement plan would demonstrate that the remining 
operation will result in the potential for improved water quality, as 
also required by section 301(p)(2). Together, the numeric and non-
numeric requirements would constitute BPT and BAT.
    EPA is proposing to require operators to use BMPs by proposing that 
remining operators must develop and implement a site-specific pollution 
abatement plan for each remining site. EPA is proposing that the 
pollution abatement plan must identify the characteristics of the 
remining area and the pre-existing discharges at the site; identify 
design specifications for selected best management practices; and 
include periodic inspection and maintenance schedules. The pollution 
abatement plan must demonstrate that there is a potential for water 
quality improvement, as required by the Rahall Amendment.
    EPA is also proposing that this pollution abatement plan must be 
developed for the entire ``pollution abatement area.'' By applying the 
pollution abatement plan to the entire pollution abatement area, the 
proposed Remining Subcategory effluent limitations would cover all pre-
existing discharges that are hydrologically connected to the active 
mining area, but that are not commingled with active mining discharges. 
EPA is proposing to define the ``pollution abatement area'' as the part 
of the permit area that is causing or contributing to the baseline 
pollution load, including areas that

[[Page 19450]]

would need to be affected to reduce the pollution load. This is similar 
to the definition used by Pennsylvania's remining program in 
Pennsylvania's Chapter 87, Subchapter F Surface Mining Regulations 
(Record Section 1.3). The success of the abatement plan is premised on 
a hydrological connection between the pollution abatement area and the 
baseline pollutant load. If there is no hydrologic connection between 
the pre-existing discharge and the operator's remining and reclamation 
efforts, there can be no water quality improvement. For further 
information on this rationale see The Preliminary Engineering Cost 
Manual for Development of BPJ Analysis, 1986, Kohlmann Ruggiero for PA 
DER and EPA. EPA is providing a supporting document, the Coal Remining 
Best Management Practices Guidance Manual to assist industry and permit 
writers in the development and implementation of the pollution 
abatement plan.
    EPA is soliciting comment on the definition of pollution abatement 
area. EPA is also soliciting comment on any additional requirements for 
the pollution abatement plan that would ensure the proper use, design 
and implementation of BMPs.
    In many cases, EPA believes that the requirements for the pollution 
abatement plan will be satisfied by an approved SMCRA plan. However, 
EPA or the State NPDES permitting authority will review the plan and 
will retain the authority to recommend additional or incremental BMPs 
as necessary to ensure that implementation of the identified BMPs is 
consistent with Clean Water Act requirements.
    EPA is proposing regulatory text to make it clear that the 
requirements of this subcategory apply only to pre-existing discharges 
that are not commingled with waste streams from active mining areas. 
This will ensure that all mine drainage produced by the active mining 
operation is treated to meet existing part 434 guidelines. Any 
wastewater that is commingled with active mining wastewater would be 
subject to the most stringent limitations applicable to any component 
of the wastestream. This maintains the current regulatory approach 
expressed in section 434.61, that in cases where wastestreams subject 
to two different effluent limits are commingled, the combined discharge 
is subject to the more stringent limitation.
    During remining, it may be necessary or even preferable for an 
operator to intercept and/or commingle a pre-existing discharge with 
active mining wastewater. This wastewater would then be required to 
meet the more stringent applicable limitations for active coal mining 
operations and would not be covered by the conditions of the proposed 
Coal Remining Subcategory. However, that pre-existing discharge may not 
be eliminated by the remining activity and may remain after remining in 
the area has been completed. In this instance the pre-existing 
discharge would no longer be commingled with active mining wastewater. 
EPA is proposing that a discharge that is no longer being commingled 
would become subject to the Coal Remining Subcategory requirements 
which bar an increase in pollutant loadings from baseline conditions.
    EPA does not believe that a pre-existing discharge that has been 
intercepted or commingled should have to continue to meet the more 
stringent effluent limitations applicable to active mining operations 
after this activity has been completed. If EPA were to require that 
pre-existing discharges that are commingled with wastewater remain 
subject to effluent limitations designed for active mining operations 
once interception or commingling has ceased, EPA believes it would 
create a significant disincentive for remining activities. Based on 
anecdotal and historical evidence of current mining activities, mining 
companies may try to avoid intercepting pre-existing discharges because 
they do not want to assume the liability for future treatment of 
discharges that were not the result of their mining operations. This 
can result in a ``donut hole'' in the permitted area, to which BMPs are 
not applied and from which pre-existing acid mine drainage continues to 
be discharged. In many cases, EPA believes that the most 
environmentally beneficial approach would be for the coal operation to 
physically intercept this pre-existing discharge, treat the discharge 
to current standards during active mining and reclamation, implement 
BMPs, and then allow the pre-existing discharge to continue discharging 
at or below baseline pollutant levels. This approach is consistent with 
the way Pennsylvania has been implementing the Rahall provisions. 
Another option for a remining operator would be to divert the discharge 
stream away from the active mining area. In this case, the pre-existing 
discharge that has been diverted would be subject to the proposed 
subcategory effluent limitations, and the mine operator would have to 
implement BMPs and demonstrate that the pollutant loadings of the 
diverted discharge stream have not been increased.
    These proposed limitations and standards would apply to coal 
remining operators under new remining permits. EPA is considering 
coverage of existing remining operations with Rahall-type permits and 
established BPJ limitations. EPA is also considering situations where 
coal remining operations seek reissuance of an existing remining 
permit. In both cases, EPA believes that it may not be feasible for a 
remining operator to re-establish baseline pollutant levels during 
active remining. Therefore, EPA is considering an alternative where 
pre-existing discharges at these operations would remain subject to 
baseline pollutant levels established during the original permit 
application. EPA is soliciting comment on the applicability of the 
proposed Coal Remining Subcategory in regard to both cases.
    EPA expects this new subcategory to provide further incentives for 
industry to remine abandoned mine lands, which will result in 
reclamation of abandoned mine lands that would otherwise remain 
unreclaimed and hazardous. EPA solicits comment on the potential for 
improving hazardous conditions and improving acid mine drainage based 
on implementation of this subcategory. EPA also solicits comment on the 
proposed applicability of the remining subcategory as it relates to 
intercepted pre-existing discharges.
1. BPT for the Coal Remining Subcategory
    EPA today proposes BPT effluent limitations for the Coal Remining 
Subcategory to control identified conventional, toxic, and non-
conventional pollutants. For further information on the basis for the 
limitations and technologies selected, see the Coal Remining BMP 
Guidance Manual.
    As previously described in Section II, section 304(b)(1)(A) of the 
CWA requires EPA to identify effluent reductions attainable through the 
application of ``best practicable control technology currently 
available for classes and categories of point sources.'' Generally, EPA 
determines BPT effluent levels based upon the average of the best 
existing performance by facilities of various sizes, ages, and unit 
processes within each industrial category or subcategory. In 
establishing BPT, EPA considers the cost of achieving pollution 
reductions in relation to the pollution reduction benefits, the age of 
equipment and facilities, the processes employed, process changes 
required, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-

[[Page 19451]]

water quality environmental impacts, and other factors the 
Administrator deems appropriate.
    EPA is proposing that BPT for the Coal Remining Subcategory be 
defined through a combination of numeric and non-numeric standards. 
Specifically, EPA is proposing that the best practicable control 
technology currently available for remining operations is 
implementation of a pollution abatement plan that incorporates BMPs 
designed to improve pH and reduce pollutant loadings of iron and 
manganese, and a requirement that such pollutant levels are not 
increased over baseline conditions. This is essentially the level of 
treatment currently required under permits issued in accordance with 
the Rahall Amendment, which has been demonstrated to be currently 
available by remining facilities included in EPA's Coal Remining 
database (Record Section 3.5.1) and in Pennsylvania's study of 112 
closed remining sites (Record Section 3.5.3).
    In order to evaluate available technologies to determine BPT, EPA 
relied on data from 41 remining operations in Pennsylvania. This data 
is contained in Section 3.2.4 of the regulatory record. All of these 
facilities used various combinations of BMPs as their pollutant control 
technology. EPA reviewed the expected performance, cost, and design of 
the BMPs used by these remining operations. EPA determined that the 
facilities were able to show potential for significant removals of 
loading as compared to pre-existing discharge conditions. EPA also 
determined that design and implementation of a BMP plan should, in most 
cases, achieve reductions below baseline discharge levels.
    This same data from Pennsylvania supports a conclusion that the 
proposed pollution abatement plan requiring use of BMPs also represents 
the best available technology economically achievable (BAT) levels of 
control. Section 301(p) allows permit writers to use best professional 
judgement (BPJ) to set site-specific BAT limits determined for pre-
existing discharges. Pennsylvania completed this BAT determination for 
40 of 41 respondents. Pennsylvania's remining permit modules indicated 
that the only more stringent technology available included chemical 
addition, precipitation, and settling. In all 40 cases, remining was 
considered not economically feasible if treatment of pre-existing 
discharges to current effluent limits was required. In the same 40 
cases, remining was economically feasible if the abatement plan was 
implemented as proposed. Thus, the Pennsylvania remining permits issued 
under Rahall were issued as BAT permits. This conclusion is supported 
by the adoption of the Rahall Amendment by Congress in 1987. At that 
time, Congress recognized that remining was not being conducted on 
abandoned mine lands because of the cost and liability of requiring 
treatment to meet existing regulations and authorized less stringent 
requirements for remining operations.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing that the implementation of a pollution 
abatement plan represents BAT level of control. Furthermore, EPA is 
aware that permits containing these BMPs are in place and are being 
implemented by a large number of operators. Thus, EPA is proposing that 
pollution abatement plans also represent the average of the best 
technology currently available.
    The problem with setting numeric effluent limitations representing 
the reductions achieved through implementation of a pollution abatement 
plan is that it is difficult to project the results, in terms of 
measured improvements in pollutant discharges, that will be produced 
through the application of any given BMP or group of BMPs at a 
particular site. EPA believes that the Coal Remining BMP Guidance 
Manual compiles the best information available on appropriate 
application and projected performance of all currently identified BMPs 
applicable to coal remining operations. However, the Coal Remining BMP 
Guidance Manual provides only reasonable estimates of ranges of 
projected performance and efficiency. There are numerous variables 
associated with the design and application of a particular BMP at a 
particular site, let alone multiple BMPs at a site. Additionally, all 
of these estimates are subject to substantial uncertainties. In some 
cases, despite appropriate design and implementation of a BMP plan, 
there may be little or no improvement over baseline discharges. Thus, 
it is simply not practicable to project the expected numeric 
improvements that will occur for a specific pre-existing discharge 
through application of a particular BMP plan. As a consequence, EPA is 
proposing to establish a non-numeric requirement to implement a 
pollution abatement plan incorporating implementation of BMPs designed 
to reduce the pollutant levels of pH, iron and manganese in pre-
existing discharges.
    EPA interprets the CWA as authorizing the Agency to establish non-
numeric effluent limitations where it is infeasible to establish 
numeric effluent limitations. Section 502 of the Act defines ``effluent 
limitation'' as ``any restriction established by a State or the 
Administrator on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, 
physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged from 
point sources.'' (Emphasis added.) This language does not restrict the 
form of effluent limitations to only numeric limits. The courts have 
held, in the context of permits, that the CWA does not require EPA to 
set numeric limits where such limits are infeasible. ``When numerical 
effluent limitations are infeasible, EPA may issue permits with 
conditions designed to reduce the level of effluent discharges to 
acceptable levels. This may well mean opting for a gross reduction in 
pollutant discharge rather than the fine-tuning suggested by numerical 
limitations. But this ambitious statute is not hospitable to the 
concept that the appropriate response to a difficult pollution problem 
is not to try at all.'' Natural Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 
568 F.2d 1369, 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1977). EPA's NPDES permit regulations 
reflect this longstanding interpretation in 40 CFR 122.44(k), which 
provides that permits may include BMPs to supplement, or in lieu of, 
numeric effluent limitations when ``numeric effluent limitations are 
infeasible'' or ``the practices are reasonably necessary to achieve 
effluent limitations and standards or to carry out the purposes and 
intent of [the] CWA.'' Sections 402(a)(2) and 501 further authorize EPA 
to prescribe as wide a range of permit conditions as the Agency deems 
appropriate to assure compliance with applicable effluent limits. EPA 
believes that the same considerations underlying the court's statutory 
interpretation with respect to non-numeric effluent limitations in 
permits also support an interpretation that the Agency may establish 
non-numeric effluent limitation regulations where numeric limitations 
are infeasible. Because it is infeasible here to express the expected 
performance of the identified best practicable control technology in 
numeric terms, EPA believes that establishment of non-numeric effluent 
limitations is authorized under, and is necessary to carry out, the 
purposes and intent of the CWA.
    Although it is not feasible to establish numeric limits predicting 
pollutant reductions, it is possible to calculate baseline pollutant 
levels in pre-existing discharges. Moreover, the record indicates that 
application of appropriately designed BMPs should be able to prevent 
any increase in pollutant loadings for pre-existing discharges. 
Accordingly, it is feasible to set a

[[Page 19452]]

minimum numeric requirement based on baseline pollutant levels. 
Therefore, EPA is today proposing to establish numeric effluent 
limitations that require that the pollutant levels for pH, iron and 
manganese do not increase over baseline levels. EPA is proposing a 
uniform methodology to use for this calculation. Baseline level 
determination and monitoring procedures are presented in the Coal 
Remining Statistical Support Document.
    EPA requests comment on how to describe and structure the 
requirement to design and implement a pollution abatement plan to 
reduce pollutant loadings from pre-existing discharges. EPA has 
proposed a fairly general qualitative description of the requirement, 
which leaves it up to the permit writer to determine whether in a 
particular case BPT or BAT would require additional or more intensive 
BMPs than identified in an applicant's proposed plan. The proposed 
regulation would require that an operator identify the characteristics 
of the remining area and the pre-existing discharges at the site, 
identify design specifications for selected BMPs, and include periodic 
inspection and maintenance schedules. These requirements are intended 
to help the permit writer evaluate the likely cost and efficacy of the 
proposed plan in relation to the conditions existing at the site. EPA 
requests comment on whether there are additional criteria that EPA 
could establish to provide applicants and permit writers further 
guidance in determining whether a particular BMP plan meets the 
regulatory criteria. For example, the requirement to develop and 
implement a pollution abatement plan to maintain or reduce pollution in 
pre-existing discharges is a fairly general directive for what the plan 
should achieve. EPA requests comment on how the regulations could 
better define the type of plan that would constitute BPT and BAT.
    The primary alternative control technology that EPA could determine 
to be BPT would be to require remining operations to treat pre-existing 
discharges to meet the effluent guideline limitations for active mining 
discharges. As discussed above, EPA does not believe that this is a 
practical option for remining operations, given cost and liability 
concerns. EPA is requesting comment and data for any other treatment 
technologies that would be economically feasible and available for 
control of pre-existing discharges to meet more stringent limitations.
    EPA projects that the annual compliance cost for this new 
subcategory will be approximately $330,000 to $759,000.
2. BCT for the Coal Remining Subcategory
    In July 1986, EPA promulgated a methodology for establishing BCT 
effluent limitations. EPA evaluates the reasonableness of BCT candidate 
technologies--those that are technologically feasible--by applying a 
two-part cost test: (1) a POTW test; and (2) an industry cost-
effectiveness test.
    EPA first calculates the cost per pound of conventional pollutant 
removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a BCT 
candidate technology and then compares this cost to the cost per pound 
of conventional pollutants removed in upgrading POTWs from secondary 
treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the POTW 
benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars).
    In the industry cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the 
incremental BPT to BCT cost divided by the BCT cost for the industry 
must be less than 1.29 (i.e., the cost increase must be less than 29 
percent).
    In today's proposal, EPA is proposing to establish BCT effluent 
limitations guidelines equivalent to the BPT guidelines for the Coal 
Remining Subcategory. In developing BCT limits, EPA considered whether 
there are technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional 
pollutants than proposed for BPT, and whether those technologies are 
cost-reasonable according to the BCT Cost Test. EPA identified no 
technologies that can achieve greater removals of conventional 
pollutants than proposed for BPT that are also cost-reasonable under 
the BCT Cost Test, and accordingly EPA proposes BCT effluent 
limitations equal to the proposed BPT effluent limitations guidelines.
3. BAT for the Coal Remining Subcategory
    As discussed above, EPA concluded that the requirement to design 
and implement a pollution abatement plan represents BAT and that there 
are no more stringent technologies that are economically achievable. 
The pollution abatement plan is required to be designed to control 
conventional, toxic and non-conventional pollutants, and the plan must 
reflect levels of control consistent with BAT for toxic and non-
conventional pollutants. Of course, EPA expects that a facility will 
have a single plan to control all pollutants. In addition, EPA would 
expect that the permit writer would determine the adequacy of the plan 
based on the Coal Remining BMP Guidance Manual. As discussed above, EPA 
concluded that it is infeasible to express BAT as a numeric limit. EPA 
is proposing to set a combination of site-specific numeric and non-
numeric effluent limitation guidelines for BAT identical to those for 
BPT for iron and manganese.
4. NSPS for the Coal Remining Subcategory
    In today's proposal, EPA did not consider any regulatory options 
for new sources for the Coal Remining Subcategory. By definition, pre-
existing discharges at abandoned mine lands covered by this proposal 
were in existence prior to passage of SMCRA in 1977. Therefore, EPA is 
designating pre-existing discharges existing sources. EPA is proposing 
that pre-existing discharges are subject to requirements proposed for 
BPT, BCT, and BAT. NSPS effluent limitations are not applicable to this 
subcategory. A new discharge from remining operations that is not 
designated as a pre-existing discharge must meet applicable effluent 
limitations at sections 434.35, 434.45, or 434.55, as appropriate.

B. Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory

    The effluent limitations and performance standards for the Western 
Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory apply to alkaline mine drainage from 
reclamation areas associated with western coal mining operations.
    Alkaline mine drainage is defined in the existing regulations as 
``mine drainage which, before any treatment, has a pH equal to or 
greater than 6.0 and total iron concentration of less than 10 mg/L.'' 
Reclamation area is defined in the existing regulation as ``the surface 
area of a coal mine which has been returned to required contour and on 
which revegetation (specifically, seeding or planting) work has been 
commenced.'' EPA is not proposing to make any changes to these existing 
definitions.
    EPA is proposing to define a western coal mining operation in arid 
or semiarid areas as a surface or underground coal mining operation 
located in the interior western United States, west of the 100th 
meridian west longitude, in an arid or semiarid environment with an 
average annual precipitation of 26.0 inches or less. This definition is 
consistent with the definition for western coal mining currently used 
by OSM (30 CFR 701.5 and 30 CFR 816.116).
    The existing effluent guidelines for reclamation areas establish 
BPT, BAT, and NSPS numeric effluent limits based on the use of 
sedimentation pond technology. The discharge from

[[Page 19453]]

reclamation areas must meet effluent limitations for settleable solids 
and pH. The existing guidelines apply to all reclamation areas 
throughout the United States, regardless of climate, topography, or 
type of drainage (i.e., acid or alkaline). The existing guidelines do 
not take into consideration the dramatic differences in naturally 
occurring sedimentation that can result from the different 
environmental conditions in the arid and semiarid coal regions compared 
to the eastern United States.
    The existing guidelines establish relatively stringent controls on 
the amount of sediment that can be discharged into waterways from post-
mined areas. In the arid west, data have shown that the use of 
sedimentation ponds becomes necessary for compliance. Although 
sedimentation ponds are proven to be effective at reducing sediment 
discharge, EPA believes that there are numerous non-water quality 
impacts that may harm the environment when sedimentation ponds are 
necessary to meet discharge requirements for reclamation areas in the 
arid and semiarid west. Sedimentation ponds in reclamation areas are 
designed to capture and store water from a precipitation event and then 
slowly release the water in a continuous, low-velocity discharge. EPA 
believes that the slow release of water containing low amounts of 
sediment has caused negative environmental impacts in arid regions. The 
negative impacts caused by the predominant use of sedimentation ponds 
include disruption of the natural hydrologic and sediment balance, 
stream channel instability, and water loss due to evaporation.
    EPA is proposing a new subcategory for reclamation areas of western 
alkaline coal mines primarily because of negative impacts caused by the 
predominant use of sedimentation ponds in arid regions as is necessary 
to meet the current guidelines.
    In arid and semiarid western coal mine regions, climate, 
topography, soils, vegetation, and hydrologic components all combine to 
form a hydrologic balance that is naturally sediment rich. Sediment is 
defined as all undissolved organic and inorganic material transported 
or deposited by water. In arid regions, the natural vegetative cover is 
sparse and rainfall is commonly received during localized, high-
intensity, short-duration thunderstorms. These conditions contribute to 
flash-floods and turbulent flows that readily transport large amounts 
of sediment. Runoff from natural, undisturbed arid lands may contain up 
to several hundred thousand milligrams per liter TSS.
    Fluvial areas and receiving channels in the arid west have 
developed according to the natural conditions present in arid regions. 
The receiving channels are primarily ephemeral arroyos that transport 
large volumes of flow and sediment. The natural conditions of these 
channels may be affected by the alteration of sediment concentration 
and flow volume as a result of constructed sedimentation ponds. 
Discharge of sediment-free water from a sedimentation pond may actually 
accelerate channel erosion because the sediment-free water will entrain 
sediment from the channel immediately below the pond. Later, when the 
sedimentation pond is removed, drainage from the reclaimed area will 
flow uninterrupted into the downstream watershed. This return to 
natural flow volumes and sediment concentrations essentially ``shocks'' 
the drainage channel and may be extremely disruptive to the fluvial and 
hydrologic balance that has developed based on the sedimentation pond 
discharge. Severe channel reconfiguration can occur at this stage, 
making the area more susceptible to instability and erosion than the 
pre-mining undisturbed conditions. EPA is soliciting comment on the 
environmental impacts and benefits associated with the predominant use 
of sedimentation ponds in the arid west for control of sediment from 
post-mining areas.
    For arid and semiarid western coal mines, EPA believes that the 
most environmentally responsible goal is to reclaim the land such that 
the natural sediment loadings and hydrologic balance of undisturbed 
conditions is maintained at post-mined lands. EPA solicits comment on 
this conclusion, and on the problems that are associated with 
disturbing the hydrologic balance in arid regions.
    Following the 1985 promulgation of the current regulations, new and 
more accurate sediment control modeling, designs and plans have been 
developed and evaluated for use with drainage from reclamation areas at 
coal mines in the western United States. The States of Wyoming and New 
Mexico have developed regulations to allow the use of sediment control 
BMPs to prevent environmental problems associated with predominant use 
of sedimentation ponds. These State program BMP applications are 
considered to meet the sediment control provisions of SMCRA and are 
sanctioned by the delegated Clean Water Act regulatory authority in 
each State. These regulations include specific provisions to allow the 
use of BMPs and avoid the unique environmental problems that are 
associated with the predominant use of sedimentation ponds on coal mine 
reclamation areas. Provisions under SMCRA related to sediment control 
require coal mining operations to be conducted so as to prevent, to the 
extent possible, using the best technology currently available, 
additional contributions of suspended solids to streamflow, or run-off 
outside the permit area. Corresponding regulations are found at 30 CFR 
816.45 which include the above language and also require the permittee 
to minimize erosion and meet the more stringent of applicable State and 
Federal effluent standards. The standards contained in this Western 
Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory will be the framework for designing, 
installing, and maintaining sediment control measures that are expected 
to function as designed in a manner to meet the statutory and 
regulatory provisions for sediment control and modeling predictions.
    Under Wyoming's Coal Rules and Regulations, Chapter IV, alternative 
sediment control measures may be used when it can be demonstrated that 
drainage will either meet effluent limitation standards or will not 
degrade receiving waters. Wyoming's regulations and accompanying 
guidance (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality 
Division, Guideline No. 15, Alternative Sediment Control Measures) 
state that appropriate sediment control measures shall be designed, 
constructed, and maintained using best technology currently available 
to prevent additional contributions of sediment to streams or to runoff 
outside the affected area.
    Under New Mexico's ``ASC Windows Program'' (19 NMAC 8.2 Subpart 20, 
Section 2009), SMCRA requirements to pass all disturbed area runoff 
through sedimentation ponds can be waived if the operator demonstrates 
that erosion is sufficiently controlled and that the quality of area 
runoff is as good as, or better than, that of water entering the permit 
area. The operator's plan for alternative sediment control must 
demonstrate that there will be no increase in the sediment load to 
receiving streams. Several mine operations in New Mexico have applied 
for and received reclamation liability bond releases for lands where 
sediment control BMP plans were implemented. These sites demonstrated 
that there was no additional annual contribution of suspended solids to 
the hydrologic regime of the area and that runoff from regraded areas 
had characteristics

[[Page 19454]]

similar to runoff from undisturbed areas.
    In order to maintain natural conditions on reclamation areas, EPA 
is proposing that non-numeric effluent limits be based on the design, 
implementation, and maintenance of BMPs. Sediment control BMP 
technologies for the coal mining industry are well known and 
established. Common BMPs used at post-mining coal areas include 
regrading, revegetation, mulching, check dams, vegetated channels, and 
contour terracing as well as sedimentation ponds. The range and 
implementation of available BMPs are summarized in the Development 
Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for 
the Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory. All of these BMPs are 
designed to stabilize the soil and control the amount of sediment 
released into the environment.
    Erosion and sediment control plans and technology application have 
evolved since the passage of SMCRA and the promulgation of the current 
40 CFR part 434 effluent limitations guidelines. Extensive monitoring 
and case studies have been performed on arid and semiarid lands to 
characterize the nature and extent of erosion occurring within these 
areas. Computer sediment modeling of arid and semiarid fluvial systems 
has advanced significantly, evolving into site-specific models that are 
able to account for local environmental factors found within the 
region. Under this proposed subcategory, prediction models will be used 
to design site-specific BMP plans that are effective in the arid and 
semiarid western coal regions. Sedimentation ponds may be used in 
conjunction with other BMPs to prevent additional contributions of 
sediment to streamflow or to runoff outside reclamation areas.
    Specifically, EPA is proposing a requirement to develop and 
implement site-specific sediment control plans that would apply in lieu 
of numeric limits for pH and settleable solids applicable under current 
guidelines for reclamation areas. EPA is proposing that a mine operator 
must develop a site-specific sediment control plan for surface 
reclamation areas. The sediment control plan must identify BMPs and 
present design, construction, and maintenance specifications for the 
BMPs, and their expected effectiveness. The goal of the site-specific 
sediment control plan would be to specify BMPs sufficient to control 
sediment discharges from the reclamation area so that they do not 
exceed natural background levels. The proposed regulations would 
require the operator to demonstrate, using watershed models accepted by 
the regulatory authority, that implementation of the selected BMPs 
would meet this goal. The permit would then incorporate the site-
specific sediment control plan and would require the operator to 
implement the plan.
    EPA is proposing to establish requirements for site-specific 
sediment control plans based on computer modeling in lieu of nationally 
applicable numerical effluent limitations. As discussed above in 
Section VI.A.1, such requirements are authorized as non-numeric 
effluent limitations where it is infeasible to establish numeric 
effluent limitations.
    EPA believes that determining compliance based on numerical 
standards for runoff from BMPs is infeasible due to the environmental 
conditions present in Western coal mine reclamation areas. As mentioned 
previously, precipitation events are often localized, high-intensity, 
short-duration thunderstorms. Rain may fall in one area of a watershed 
while other areas remain dry. This makes it extremely difficult to 
evaluate overall performance of the BMPs. Additionally, watersheds and 
reclaimed mine lands often cover vast and isolated areas. These factors 
combine to make it burdensome for a CWA permit authority to extract 
periodic, meaningful samples on a timely basis to determine if a 
facility is meeting effluent limitations for settleable solids. The 
difficulty of sample collection is described in the Phase I Report: 
Technical Information Package provided by the Western Coal Mining Work 
Group (Record Section 3.3.1).
    Requirements based on BMP plans would ease the implementation 
burden of the rule and allow a permit authority to determine compliance 
on a regular basis. A permit authority would be able to visit the site 
and determine if BMPs have been implemented according to the site's 
sediment control plan. The permit authority would not have to wait for 
a significant precipitation event to determine compliance, and the 
facility would have the opportunity to improve BMP implementation prior 
to a precipitation event. EPA believes a key factor in using BMPs is 
the opportunity for continual inspection and maintenance by coal mine 
personnel to ensure that sediment control measures will continue to 
function as designed. Under SMCRA, inspections of the coal mining 
operations are conducted monthly. EPA is soliciting comments on the 
appropriateness of BMP inspection to determine compliance with the 
requirements of this subcategory and on recommended procedures for, and 
frequency of, such inspections. Because it is infeasible here to 
determine compliance and performance of the BMPs in numeric terms, EPA 
believes that establishment of non-numeric effluent limitations for 
this subcategory is authorized under and is necessary to carry out the 
purposes and intent of the CWA.
    In addition, EPA believes that there are several advantages to 
establishing requirements for site-specific sediment control plans 
based on computer modeling in lieu of nationally applicable numerical 
effluent limitations. First, according to the applicability of the 
proposed subcategory, the discharge associated with this subcategory is 
alkaline, not acidic. Therefore, EPA does not believe that pH 
monitoring is necessary for reclamation areas associated with alkaline 
coal mines.
    Also, existing regulations (40 CFR part 434.63) allow for 
alternative limitations during precipitation events of the specified 
magnitudes, which may generate a significant amount of sediment, 
especially in the arid West. Under the proposed subcategory, the BMP 
plan requirement would not allow for alternative (i.e., less stringent) 
limits because computer models are able to account for precipitation 
events that typically occur in the arid west. The BMP plan requirement 
would be based on a demonstration that the average yearly sediment 
yield will not increase over undisturbed conditions, and would consider 
precipitation events. NMA's model mine study Draft Western Alkaline 
Mining Subcategory--Mine Modeling and Performance Cost-Benefit Analysis 
(Record Section 3.3.6) conducted in support of this proposal predicted 
sediment yield and BMP effectiveness based on a 24-hour, 10-year storm 
event. Under the proposed requirements, the coal mine operator would 
have to design and construct sediment controls that are adequate for 
high precipitation events rather than meeting the existing alternative 
limitations during these events. Sediment control measures under BMP 
plans would be designed to control annual sediment yield, not only the 
10-year, 24-hour storm. This would result in retaining more soil on the 
slopes, rather than collecting it in a sedimentation pond. At the same 
time, sediment control measures under BMP plans would no longer allow 
the exemptions provided during high intensity flows exceeding a 10-
year, 24-hour storm event in which only pH

[[Page 19455]]

limits apply under the current regulations (434.63(a)(2)).
    The Western Coal Mining Work Group has suggested that EPA consider 
applying the new subcategory to all non-process water. Non-process 
water would include runoff from pre-stripping areas (i.e., development 
areas where brushing, topsoil salvage, and other types of general 
construction earthwork are being conducted). EPA has considered 
including non-process water from other areas, but does not believe 
there is sufficient data to expand the applicability of the proposed 
Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory at this time. EPA solicits 
comment on the appropriateness of expanding the applicability of this 
proposed subcategory to include the control of non-process water from 
other coal mining related areas.
    EPA expects that, in general, the sediment control plan will 
largely consist of materials generated as part of the SMCRA permit 
application. The SMCRA permit application process requires a coal 
mining operator to submit an extensive reclamation plan, documentation, 
and analysis to OSM or the permitting authority for approval. The 
requirements of the reclamation plan are specified in 30 CFR 780.18 
Reclamation plan: General requirements.
    In brief summary, some of the OSM requirements that also directly 
relate to this proposal include requirements for coal mining operators 
to provide: A description of coal mining operations; a plan for 
regrading mined lands; a plan for revegetating mined lands; a 
description of baseline ground water and surface water characteristics; 
and an analysis of the hydrologic and geologic impacts caused by the 
reclamation activity.
    Specifically, the plan requires a ``probable hydrologic 
consequences (PHC) determination.'' 30 CFR 780.21 (f) (3) states:

    The PHC determination shall include findings on: (i) Whether 
adverse impacts may occur to the hydrologic balance; (ii) Whether 
acid-forming or toxic-forming materials are present that could 
result in the contamination of surface or ground water supplies; 
(iii) Whether the proposed operation may proximately result in 
contamination, diminution or interruption of an underground or 
surface source of water within the proposed permit or adjacent areas 
which is used for domestic, agricultural, industrial or other 
legitimate purpose; and (iv) What impact the proposed operation will 
have on: (A) Sediment yields from the disturbed area; (B) acidity, 
total suspended and dissolved solids, and other important water 
quality parameters of local impact; (C) flooding or streamflow 
alteration; (D) ground water and surface water availability; and (E) 
other characteristics as required by the regulatory authority.

    Additional OSM requirements relevant to the proposed sediment 
control plan are given in Section 780.2 (h) ``Hydrologic reclamation 
plan.''

    The application shall include a plan, with maps and 
descriptions, indicating how the relevant requirements of part 816, 
including Secs. 816.41 to 816.43, will be met. The plan shall be 
specific to the local hydrologic conditions. It shall contain the 
steps to be taken during mining and reclamation through bond release 
to minimize disturbances to the hydrologic balance within the permit 
and adjacent areas; to prevent material damage outside the permit 
area; to meet applicable Federal and State water quality laws and 
regulations; and to protect the rights of present water users. The 
plan shall include the measures to be taken to: Avoid acid or toxic 
drainage; prevent, to the extent possible using the best technology 
currently available, additional contributions of suspended solids to 
streamflow; provide water-treatment facilities when needed; control 
drainage; restore approximate premining recharge capacity and 
protect or replace rights of present water users. The plan shall 
specifically address any potential adverse hydrologic consequences 
identified in the PHC determination prepared under paragraph (f) of 
this section and shall include preventive and remedial measures.

    Based on these requirements, EPA believes that plans developed to 
comply with SMCRA requirements will usually fulfill the requirements 
proposed by EPA for sediment control plans. The requirement to use 
modeling techniques also is consistent with OSM reclamation plans, and 
mining facilities already submit a watershed model as part of their 
SMCRA reclamation plan. EPA believes modeling is particularly valuable 
in arid and semiarid areas where the infrequency of precipitation makes 
it difficult to gather data. While EPA is not proposing to require that 
operators use a specific model, the operator would have to use the same 
model as was, or will be, used to acquire the SMCRA permit. This would 
ensure that the model used will be consistent with OSM requirements and 
reclamation plans. While EPA is proposing that an appropriate sediment 
control plan will depend on the sediment yield calculation, these 
models also typically calculate additional parameters for undisturbed 
areas and reclamation areas for expected storm events including: total 
runoff volume, peak sediment yield, peak sediment concentration, 
average annual sediment yield and average annual peak water discharge. 
A guidance manual entitled ``Guidelines for the Use of the Revised 
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) Version 1.06 on Mined Lands, 
Construction Sites, and Reclaimed Lands'' published in August, 1998 
describes the use of RUSLE for watershed modeling. Additionally, 
SEDCAD\TM\ 4.0 is a widely accepted model for predicting BMP 
performance and is currently being used by many mine sites. NMA 
describes use of RUSLE 1.06 and SEDCAD 4.0 models in the Mine Modeling 
and Performance Cost-Benefit Analysis (Record Section 3.3.6) to 
determine the costs and loadings for a representative model mine 
associated with this proposed subcategory.
    EPA is proposing to define the term ``sediment yield'' to mean the 
sum of the soil losses from a surface minus deposition in macro-
topographic depressions, at the toe of the hillslope, along field 
boundaries, or in terraces and channels sculpted into the hillslope. 
This definition is consistent with the definition established for the 
RUSLE modeling program. EPA solicits comment on this definition of 
sediment yield and on the appropriateness of using this parameter as 
the basis for determining sediment loadings.
    EPA is soliciting comment on establishing non-numeric effluent 
limits in the form of a requirement to develop and implement a BMP-
based sediment control plan rather than setting numeric effluent 
limitations.
1. BPT for the Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory
    EPA today proposes BPT effluent limitations for the Western 
Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory to control sediment discharge from 
reclamation areas. For further information on the basis for the 
limitations and technologies selected see the Development Document for 
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Western 
Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory.
    As previously described in Section II, section 304(b)(1)(A) of the 
CWA requires EPA to identify effluent reductions attainable through the 
application of ``best practicable control technology currently 
available for classes and categories of point sources.'' Generally, EPA 
determines BPT effluent levels based upon the average of the best 
existing performance by facilities of various sizes, ages, and unit 
processes within each industrial category or subcategory. In 
establishing BPT, EPA considers the cost of achieving pollution 
reductions in relation to the pollution reduction benefits, the age of 
equipment and facilities, the processes employed, process changes 
required, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water 
quality environmental impacts,

[[Page 19456]]

and other factors the Administrator deems appropriate.
    EPA is proposing that BPT for the Western Coal Mining Subcategory 
consist of designing and implementing BMPs to maintain the average 
annual sediment yield equal to or below pre-mined, undisturbed 
conditions. EPA is proposing this new subcategory primarily because of 
the negative non-water quality environmental impacts created by the 
current requirements.
    Current requirements for reclamation areas (40 CFR part 434, 
subpart E) establish BPT, BAT, and NSPS based on the use of 
sedimentation pond technology, and set effluent limitations for 
settleable solids and pH. The existing guidelines apply to all 
reclamation areas throughout the United States, regardless of climate, 
topography, or type of mine drainage (i.e., acid or alkaline).
    Existing effluent limitation guidelines establish relatively 
stringent controls on the amount of settleable solids that can be 
discharged into waterways from reclamation areas. Although 
sedimentation ponds are proven to be effective at reducing sediment 
discharge, EPA believes that there are numerous non-water quality 
impacts that may harm the environment when sedimentation ponds are 
required to meet current effluent limits. The negative non-water 
quality impacts associated with existing regulations include: 
disturbing the natural hydrologic balance of arid western drainage 
areas; accelerating erosion; reducing groundwater recharge; reducing 
water availability; and impacting large areas of land for pond 
construction. A further discussion of these impacts can be found in 
Sections IV and IX of this document.
    EPA believes that the current requirements are not appropriate for 
arid and semiarid western reclamation areas because of the negative 
non-water quality impacts associated with the predominant use of 
sedimentation ponds, as discussed above. The appropriate goal for 
reclamation and discharges from post-mined lands should be to mimic the 
natural conditions of the area that were present prior to mining 
activities. In order to do this, it is necessary to maintain the 
hydrologic balance and sediment loadings of natural, undisturbed 
conditions on post-mined lands. EPA believes that use of BMPs to 
control sediment discharges is the only effective alternative control 
technology to sedimentation ponds. Therefore, EPA is proposing that BPT 
consist of designing and implementing BMPs projected to maintain the 
average annual sediment yield equal to or below pre-mined, undisturbed 
conditions. This would ensure that natural conditions are maintained. 
In order to achieve these results, EPA would require that the coal 
mining operator develop a sediment control plan and run models. 
Requirements are further described in the proposed regulatory text.
    As discussed in Section X of this document, EPA estimates that 
today's proposal will result in a net cost savings to all affected 
surface mine operators, and will be at worst cost-neutral for affected 
underground operators (although EPA believes that most will also incur 
cost savings). Therefore, implementing these standards will result in 
no facility closures or negative economic impact to the industry. EPA 
projects that the proposed subcategory will result in annualized 
monetized benefits of $43,000 to $769,000.
2. BCT for the Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory
    In today's proposal, EPA is not proposing effluent limitations for 
any conventional pollutant and hence need not propose to establish BCT 
limitations for this subcategory at this time.
3. BAT for the Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory
    EPA is proposing that BAT be equivalent to BPT for this subcategory 
to control sediment discharge for reclamation areas. Existing effluent 
limitations guidelines established BAT based upon sedimentation pond 
technology. However, as previously noted, non-water quality impacts can 
occur that may harm the environment when sedimentation ponds are 
required to comply with current effluent limits for settleable solids. 
EPA is proposing that BAT consist of designing and implementing BMPs 
projected to maintain the average annual sediment yield equal to or 
below pre-mined, undisturbed conditions, which is equivalent to 
proposed BPT.
    EPA has not identified any more stringent treatment technology that 
could represent BAT level of control for maintaining discharge levels 
of settleable solids consistent with natural, undisturbed conditions on 
post-mined land in the arid west. EPA is therefore proposing that BAT 
standards be established equivalent to BPT. Further, as discussed in 
Section X of this document, EPA estimates that today's proposal will 
result in a net cost savings to all affected surface mine operators, 
and will be at worst cost-neutral for affected underground operators. 
Therefore, implementing BAT standards will result in no facility 
closures or negative economic impact to the industry.
4. NSPS for the Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory
    As discussed for BAT, EPA has not identified any more stringent 
treatment technology option that it considers to represent NSPS level 
of control for discharges from post-mined land. Further, EPA estimates 
that today's proposal will result in a net cost savings to all affected 
surface mine operators, and will be at worst cost-neutral to affected 
underground operators. Therefore, implementing of NSPS standards will 
result in no barrier to entry based upon the establishment of this 
level of control for new sources. EPA is therefore proposing that NSPS 
standards be established equivalent to BAT.

VII. Statistical and Monitoring Procedures for the Coal Remining 
Subcategory

A. Statistical Procedures for the Coal Remining Subcategory

    EPA's proposed statistical procedures are presented in Appendix B 
of the proposed regulation and described in detail in the Coal Remining 
Statistical Support Document. These procedures apply to the Coal 
Remining Subcategory.
    The objective of these statistical procedures is to provide a 
method for deciding when the pollutant levels of a discharge exceed 
baseline pollutant levels. These procedures are intended to provide a 
good chance of detecting a substantial, continuing state of exceedance, 
while reducing the likelihood of a ``false alarm.'' To do this, it is 
essential to a have an adequate duration and frequency of sample 
collection to determine baseline and to determine compliance.
    In developing these procedures, EPA considered the statistical 
distribution and characteristics of discharge loadings from pre-
existing discharges, the suitability of parametric and non-parametric 
statistical procedures for such data, the number of samples required 
for these procedures to perform adequately and reliably, and the 
balance between false positive and false negative decision error rates. 
EPA also considered the cost involved with sample collection as well as 
delays in permit approval during the establishment of baseline, and is 
concerned that increased sampling could potentially discourage 
remining. In order to sufficiently characterize pollutant levels during 
baseline determination and during each annual

[[Page 19457]]

monitoring period, EPA is requiring that at least one sample result be 
obtained per month for a period of 12 months.
    It is possible that one year of sampling may not accurately 
characterize baseline levels, because discharge flows can vary among 
years in response to inter-year variations in rainfall and ground water 
flow. There is some risk that the particular year chosen to 
characterize baseline flows and loadings will be a year of atypically 
high or low flow or loadings. There may be a need to evaluate 
differences among baseline years in loadings and flows, based on 
further analysis of data. Using such information, EPA may provide 
optional statistical procedures in a final rulemaking and in the final 
version of the Coal Remining Statistical Support Document that could be 
used to account for the uncertainty in characterizing baseline from a 
one-year sample duration, or that could be used to account for the 
unrepresentative character of a baseline sampling year. Such procedures 
could employ modifications of the proposed statistical procedures that 
use estimates of the variance among baseline years in loadings, 
developed from long-term datasets. Such procedures could employ 
adjustments to the baseline sample statistics to account for a baseline 
sampling year that was atypical in rainfall or discharge flow; such an 
adjustment could be a factor (multiplier) or a statistical equation 
estimated by regression.
    The proposed statistical procedures are intended to provide 
environmental protection and to ensure compliance with the effluent 
limitation guidelines for BPT, BAT, and BCT. EPA has not yet evaluated 
quantitatively the error rates of these decision procedures. EPA 
intends to evaluate the decision error rates of each procedure by 
computer simulations. EPA solicits comments on the proposed statistical 
procedures presented in Appendix B of the proposed regulation for 
calculating limits and warning levels using baseline and post-baseline 
data: Baseline Determination and Compliance Monitoring for Pre-existing 
Discharges at Remining Operations. Development of these procedures is 
described in the Coal Remining Statistical Support Document. In 
particular, EPA solicits comments on (1) the details of the proposed 
statistical methodologies, (2) the relative merits of Procedures A and 
B, (3) the merits of other statistical procedures that commenters may 
propose, (4) the advantages and disadvantages of the use of accelerated 
monitoring and decision rules based upon accelerated monitoring, and 
(5) the effectiveness of the proposed statistical procedures in 
correctly indicating when baseline conditions have been exceeded and in 
providing reasonable protection from incorrectly deciding that baseline 
conditions have been exceeded. Depending upon comments and associated 
evidence, and depending upon EPA's further evaluations, EPA may modify 
or reject these procedures, or may change the recommended sample 
amount, to provide suitable decision error rates.

B. Monitoring To Establish Baseline Conditions and To Demonstrate 
Compliance for the Coal Remining Subcategory

    EPA evaluated the duration and frequency of sampling necessary to 
apply the proposed statistical procedures. Those procedures are used to 
compare the levels of baseline loadings to the levels of loadings 
during remining or the period when the discharge is permitted. Without 
an adequate duration and frequency of sampling, the statistical 
procedures would often fail to detect genuine exceedance of baseline 
conditions.
    Based on the considerations described below, EPA is proposing that 
the smallest acceptable number and frequency of samples is 12 monthly 
samples, taken consecutively over the course of one year. EPA believes 
this number represents the absolute minimum.
    EPA considered an adequate number of samples per year to be that 
number that would allow an appropriate statistical procedure to detect 
a difference, between a baseline year and a remining year, in the mean 
or median loading, of one standard deviation (determined for the 
baseline loadings), with a probability (power) of at least 0.75.
    The t-test is an appropriate statistical procedure for a yearly 
comparison because loadings from mine discharges appear to be 
approximately distributed log-normally, and thus logarithms of loadings 
are expected to be approximately distributed normally. The (non-
parametric) Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test is also appropriate for yearly 
comparisons and has a power nearly equal to that of the t-test when 
applied to normally distributed data. EPA determined that annual 
comparisons of baseline to remining years based upon 12 samples in each 
year were expected to have a power 0.75 to detect a difference of one 
standard deviation.
    An increase of one standard deviation can represent a large 
increase in loading, given the large variability of flows and loadings 
observed in mine discharges. The coefficient of variation (CV) is the 
ratio of standard deviation to mean. Sample CVs for iron loadings range 
approximately from 0.25 to 4.00, and commonly exceed 1.00. Sample CVs 
for manganese loadings range approximately from 0.24 to 5.00. When the 
CV equals 1.00, an increase of the average loading by one standard 
deviation above baseline implies a doubling of the loading.
    The duration, frequency, and seasonal distribution of sampling are 
important aspects of a sampling plan, and can affect the precision and 
accuracy of statistical estimates as much as can the number of samples. 
To avoid systematic bias, sampling, during and after baseline 
determination, should systematically cover all periods of the year 
during which substantial discharge flows can be expected.
    Unequal sampling of months could bias the baseline mean or median 
toward high or low loadings by over-sampling of high-flow or low-flow 
months. However, unequal sampling of different time periods can be 
accounted for using statistical estimation procedures appropriate to 
stratified sampling. Stratified seasonal sampling, possibly with 
unequal sampling of different time periods, is a suitable alternative 
to regular monthly sampling, provided that correct statistical 
estimation procedures for stratified sampling are applied to estimate 
the mean, median, variance, interquartile range, and other quantities 
used in the proposed statistical procedures.
    There may be acceptable alternatives to the proposed minimum 
duration and frequency of one sample per month for twelve months. EPA 
has not thoroughly evaluated the merits of alternative sampling plans. 
Alternative plans could be based upon subdivision of the year into 
distinct time periods that might be sampled with different intensities, 
or could be based on other types of stratified sampling plans that 
attempt to account for seasonal variations. Seasonal stratification has 
the potential to provide a basis for more precise estimates of baseline 
characteristics, if the sampling plan is designed and executed 
correctly and if results are calculated using appropriate statistical 
estimators.
    EPA solicits comments on the requirements for the number of samples 
to determine and monitor baseline, the sampling duration and frequency, 
and the plan of sampling over time. In particular, EPA solicits 
comments on (1) the adequacy of a sampling plan consisting of twelve 
monthly observations of concentration and flow

[[Page 19458]]

to calculate a monthly loading, (2) the advantages and disadvantages of 
seasonally-stratified sampling or other plans for sampling over time, 
(3) the adequacy of a baseline characterization based upon one year of 
sampling and the likelihood and consequences of the baseline year being 
atypical of long-term baseline conditions, and (4) the effectiveness of 
the proposed sampling requirements in correctly indicating when 
baseline conditions have been exceeded and in providing reasonable 
protection from incorrectly deciding that baseline conditions have been 
exceeded.

C. Additional Pollutant Parameters in Pre-existing Discharges

    Although EPA is proposing to regulate iron, manganese, and pH, 
which is a subset of the parameters regulated under the current 
guidelines and which are the parameters addressed by the Rahall 
Amendment, EPA is considering establishing limitations or monitoring 
requirements for additional parameters that may also be indicators that 
a discharge is the result of coal mine operations. Acidity has been 
selected in Pennsylvania preferentially to pH because a baseline load 
can be calculated for acidity, whereas pH does not readily lend itself 
to calculation of load. In addition, pH is a measurement of effective 
hydrogen ion concentration and does not measure potential hydrogen ions 
that are generated during neutralization by the hydrolysis of metals 
such as iron, manganese and aluminum. Typically, the (passive) 
treatment systems and chemical addition used for acid mine drainage are 
designed with regards to acidity or net alkalinity (i.e., alkalinity 
minus acidity) and not pH. EPA is soliciting comments and data 
regarding the merits of acidity, net alkalinity, and pH as regulated 
parameters, or as parameters required to be monitored but not 
regulated.
    Many mining operations also routinely monitor sulfate, which, in 
the temperate climate of the Appalachian Basin, is considered the most 
stable and reliable indicator of coal mine drainage (Lovell, 1985, The 
Chemistry of Mine Drainage, and McCurry, 1986, Characterization of 
Ground Water Contamination Associated with Coal Mines in West 
Virginia). Under most conditions associated with mining and mine 
drainage in the Appalachian Region and the Interior Basin, sulfate does 
not easily leave solution and is a direct indicator of pyrite oxidation 
(acid mine drainage production). EPA is soliciting comments and data 
regarding the merits of using sulfate as a parameter for assessment of 
pollution loading from pre-existing discharges as an unregulated 
requirement for monitoring.

VIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of Proposed 
Regulations

    The elimination or reduction of pollution has the potential to 
aggravate other environmental problems. Under sections 304(b) and 306 
of the CWA, EPA is required to consider these non-water quality 
environmental impacts (including energy requirements) in developing 
effluent limitations guidelines and NSPS. In compliance with these 
provisions, EPA has evaluated the effect of this proposed regulation on 
air pollution, solid waste, energy requirements, and safety.
    Today's proposed rule does not require the implementation of 
treatment technologies that result in any increase in air emissions, in 
solid waste generation or in energy consumption over present industry 
activities.
    Non-water quality environmental impacts are a major consideration 
for this rule because the rule is intended to improve or eliminate a 
number of existing non-water quality environmental and safety problems. 
Remining operations have improved or eliminated adverse non-water 
quality environmental conditions such as abandoned and dangerous 
highwalls, dangerous spoil piles and embankments, dangerous 
impoundments, subsidence, mine openings, and clogged streams that pose 
a threat to health, safety, and the general welfare of people. EPA 
expects this proposed rule to improve or eliminate these hazardous 
conditions at abandoned mine sites and believes that remining has the 
potential to eliminate nearly three million feet of dangerous highwall 
in the Appalachian and mid-Continent coal regions.
    EPA also does not expect this proposed rule to have an adverse 
impact on health, safety, and the general welfare of people in the arid 
and semiarid western coal region. The intent of the rule is to allow 
runoff to flow naturally from disturbed and reclaimed areas. EPA 
believes this is preferable to retention in sedimentation ponds that is 
accompanied by periodic releases of runoff containing sediment 
imbalances potentially disruptive to land stability. Alternate sediment 
control technologies in these regions address and alleviate adverse 
non-water quality environmental conditions such as: quickly eroding 
stream banks, water loss through evaporation, soil and slope 
instability, and lack of vegetation.
    Based on this evaluation, EPA prefers the options proposed under 
these new subcategories over existing AML conditions in the eastern 
United States and over the hydrologic imbalances produced by 
application of current regulations in the western arid United States.

IX. Environmental Benefits Analysis

    This section presents EPA's estimates of the environmental benefits 
that would occur under the proposed regulatory options. EPA's complete 
benefits assessment can be found in Benefits Assessment of Proposed 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Coal Mining 
Industry: Remining and Western Alkaline Subcategories (hereafter 
referred to as the ``Benefits Assessment''; Record Section 5.0). A 
detailed summary is also contained in Economic and Environmental Impact 
Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for 
the Coal Mining Industry: Remining and Western Alkaline Subcategories 
(hereafter referred to as the ``EA'').

A. Coal Remining Subcategory

    The water quality improvements associated with the proposed rule 
for remining depend on (1) changes in annual permitting rates for 
remining; (2) characteristics of sites selected for remining; and (3) 
the type and magnitude of the environmental improvements expected from 
remining. The subcategory is designed to standardize and facilitate the 
remining permitting process to increase future permitting rates. 
Remining permits in Pennsylvania increased by an estimated factor of 
three to eight following State implementation of a regulation that is 
similar to today's proposed remining rule. EPA believes that 
implementing today's proposed rule is likely to have a similar effect 
on other States with remineable coal reserves and similar acid mine 
drainage problems. The type and magnitude of site-specific water 
quality improvements under the proposed rule are not expected to be 
dramatically different than those that have occurred under existing 
requirements in Pennsylvania.
    Of approximately 9,500 miles of acid mine drainage impacted streams 
in States where coal mining has previously occurred (Record Section 
3.2.2), EPA estimates that 2,900 to 4,800 miles may be improved by 
remining, with a predicted 1,100 to 2,100 miles improved significantly. 
Based on the range of expected stream mile improvements per 1,000 acres 
of Abandoned Mine Land (AML) reclaimed (one to six) and an average of 
38 acres of AML reclamation per permit, EPA estimates

[[Page 19459]]

approximately 0.04 to 0.2 miles of stream improvement per remining 
project. EPA estimates that AML sites affected by the proposed rule 
have an average of 70 highwall feet per acre. EPA also estimates that 
an additional 216,000 to 307,000 feet of highwall (41 to 58 miles) will 
be targeted for removal each year as a result of the proposed rule. EPA 
solicits comments on additional or alternative sources of data for 
estimating the extent of AML affected by the proposed rule.
    EPA assessed the potential impacts of remining BMPs on water 
quality using pollutant loadings data from pre-existing discharges at 
13 mines included in EPA's Coal Remining Database (Record Section 
3.5.1). Approximately 58 percent of the post-baseline observations 
showed a decrease in mean pollutant loadings. Approximately half of 
these sites (27 percent of the post-baseline observations) showed a 
statistically significant decrease in loadings. The 13 mines examined 
by EPA are active remining operations; decreases in pollutant loads are 
expected to become more significant with time. In comparison, 
Pennsylvania's Remining Site Study of 112 closed remining sites (Record 
Section 3.5.3) found significant decreases or elimination of loadings 
for acidity, total iron and total manganese in 44 percent, 42 percent, 
and 41 percent respectively, of the pre-existing discharges monitored. 
The Pennsylvania Remining Site Study focused on sites reclaimed to at 
least Stage II bond release standards, so that the mitigating impacts 
of BMPs had ample time to take effect. EPA solicits comments on 
alternative or additional data sources for assessing the impacts of 
remining BMPs.
    Remining generates human health benefits by reducing the risk of 
injury at AML sites and reducing discharge of acid mine drainage to 
waterways that are drinking water sources. However, the human health 
benefits associated with consumption of water and organisms are not 
likely to be significant because (1) acid mine drainage constituents 
are not bioaccumulative, and adverse health effects associated with 
fish consumption are therefore not expected; and (2) public drinking 
water sources are treated for most acid mine drainage constituents 
associated with adverse health effects. Eliminating safety hazards by 
closing abandoned mine openings, regrading highwalls, stabilizing 
unstable spoils, and removing hazardous waterbodies potentially 
prevents injuries and saves lives.
    EPA evaluated the potential impacts to human and aquatic life by 
comparing the number of water quality criteria exceedances in receiving 
water bodies in the baseline (pre-remining) and post-baseline sampling 
periods for 11 remining sites in the Coal Remining Database for which 
relevant data exist. Exceedances of the human health criterion for pH 
(water plus organism consumption, field pH) were eliminated at two 
sites while exceedances of chronic aquatic life criteria were 
eliminated for pH (field pH) at two sites and iron at two sites. 
Exceedances of the acute aquatic life criterion for manganese were 
eliminated at two sites. Although surface water quality data examined 
indicate changes in the number of water quality exceedances due to 
remining, nine of the 11 sites consist of active remining operations 
where the full environmental impacts of BMPs have yet to be realized. 
Correlations between pre-existing discharge loads and pollutant 
concentrations in receiving water can be used to determine the extent 
to which remining BMPs are responsible for changes in surface water 
quality. However, the lack of sufficient data on relevant sources of 
acid mine drainage upstream from pre-existing discharges at the 
selected mine sites made it difficult to estimate these correlations.
    Remining and the associated reclamation of AML is expected to 
generate ecological and recreational benefits by (1) improving 
terrestrial wildlife habitat, (2) reducing pollutant concentrations 
below levels that adversely affect aquatic biota, and (3) improving the 
aesthetic quality of land and water resources. EPA was able to quantify 
and monetize some of the benefits expected from increased remining 
using a benefits transfer approach. The benefits transfer approach 
relies on information from existing benefit studies applicable to 
assessing the benefits of improved environmental conditions at remining 
sites. Benefits are estimated by multiplying relevant values from the 
literature by the additional acreage reclaimed under the remining 
subcategory.
    EPA used the following assumptions to estimate annual benefit 
values for ecological improvements: (1) 3,100 to 4,400 acres will be 
permitted for reclamation under the proposed subcategory; (2) 57 
percent of the acres permitted will actually be reclaimed (1,800 to 
2,500 acres) ; (3) 38 percent to 44 percent of acres reclaimed per year 
are expected to be associated with significant decreases in AMD 
pollutant loads to surface water bodies; and (4) annualized benefits 
from remining begin to occur five years after permit issuance and are 
calculated for a five year period. EPA assumed that 57 percent of the 
acres permitted would actually be reclaimed based on a study of 105 
remining permits in Pennsylvania (Hawkins, 1995, Characterization and 
Effectiveness of Remining Abandoned Coal Mines in Pennsylvania). The 
study found that on average, a remining site had 67 AML acres, of which 
38 acres (or 57 percent), were actually reclaimed. The assumption that 
38 to 44 percent of acres reclaimed would be associated with 
significant decreases in AMD pollutant loads was based on the results 
of Pennsylvania's study of 112 closed remining sites, which showed 
significant decreases in loads of acidity (44 percent), manganese (41 
percent), iron (42 percent), and aluminum (38 percent) of the 
associated pre-existing discharges. A detailed explanation of all 
assumptions is provided in the Benefits Assessment document.
    EPA estimated water-related ecological benefits using the benefits 
transfer approach with values taken from a benefit-cost study of 
surface mine reclamation in central Appalachia by Randall et al. (1978, 
Reclaiming Coal Surface Mines in Central Appalachia: A Case Study of 
the Benefits and Costs). EPA's analysis is based on two values from the 
study: (1) Degradation of life-support systems for aquatic and 
terrestrial wildlife and recreation resources, valued at $37 per acre 
per year (1998$); and (2) aesthetic damages, valued at $140 per acre 
per year (1998$). EPA estimated nonuse benefits using a widely accepted 
approach developed by Fisher and Raucher (1984, Intrinsic Benefits of 
Improved Water Quality: Conceptual and Empirical Perspectives), where 
nonuse benefits are estimated as one-half of the estimated water-
related recreational use benefits. The estimated water-related benefits 
range from $0.53 to $0.89 million per year.
    Reclaiming the surface area at AML sites will enhance the sites' 
appearance and improve wildlife habitats, positively affecting 
populations of various wildlife species, including game birds. This is 
likely to have a positive effect on wildlife-oriented recreation, 
including hunting and wildlife viewing. EPA estimated land-related 
ecological benefits using the benefits transfer approach with values 
taken from a study of improved opportunities for hunting and wildlife 
viewing resulting from open space preservation by Feather et al. (1999, 
Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits and the Targeting 
Conservation Programs). EPA's analysis is based on two values from the 
study: (1) The average wildlife viewing value, $21 per acre per year;

[[Page 19460]]

and (2) the improved pheasant hunting value, $7 per acre per year. 
Based on an aggregate value of $28 per acre per year, EPA estimates 
land-related benefits of $0.20 to $0.29 million per year.
    The sum of the estimated monetary values of the different benefit 
categories results in total annual benefits of $0.73 to $1.17 million 
from implementing the proposed remining subcategory. This estimate does 
not include benefit categories that EPA was unable to quantify and/or 
monetize, which include human health and safety impacts. A more 
detailed discussion of the benefits analysis is contained in both the 
EA and the Benefits Assessment.

B. Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory

    Only a small percentage of potentially affected western coal mines 
discharge to permanent or perennial water bodies. Information about 
receiving waters is available for 39 of the existing western surface 
coal mines, and 30 of these discharge to intermittent or ephemeral 
creeks, washes, or arroyos. Only two of the mines list a permanent 
water drainage feature as the primary receiving water. It is therefore 
difficult to describe the benefits of the Western subcategory in terms 
of the use designations referenced in the section 101(a) goals of the 
Clean Water Act.
    The environmental conditions and naturally high sediment yields in 
arid and semiarid coal regions are discussed in Section IV. The 
potential impacts of the predominant use of sedimentation ponds to 
control settleable solids in these regions include reduced sediment 
loads to natural drainage features, reduced downstream flood peaks and 
runoff volumes, and downstream channel bed and bank changes. The 
environmental and water quality effects of these hydrologic impacts 
include: (1) Reducing ground water recharge, (2) shrinking biological 
communities consisting of and reliant upon riparian and hydrophytic 
vegetation, (3) degrading downstream channel beds from ``clean'' water 
releases, and (4) accelerating erosion.
    Site-specific alternative sediment control plans incorporating BMPs 
designed and implemented to control sediment and erosion have the 
potential to provide both land and water-related benefits. Land-related 
benefits include decreased surface area disturbance, increased soil 
conservation, and improved vegetation. Surface disturbance is estimated 
to decrease by approximately 1,700 acres per year across all existing 
potentially affected surface mine sites in the western region. 
Vegetative cover may increase by five percent when BMPs are used.
    EPA was only able to monetize land-related benefits associated with 
decreased surface area disturbance. Hunting benefits from increased 
availability of undisturbed open space were estimated to be between 
$0.37 and $2.46 per acre per year based on Feather et al. (1999) and 
Scott et al. (1998). Annual land-related benefits of the proposed 
subcategory range from $5,500 to $36,500 per year, based on the value 
of enhanced hunting opportunities. However, this estimate does not 
account for a number of benefit categories, including nonuse ecological 
benefits that may account for the major portion of land-related 
benefits in relatively unpopulated areas such as those affected by the 
proposed rule.
    Water-related benefits include improved hydrologic and fluvial 
stability in the watersheds affected by western mining operations. 
These benefits will be site-specific and depend upon the nature of 
environmental quality changes; the current in-stream water uses, if 
any, and; the population expected to benefit from increased water 
quantity. EPA estimated water-related benefits using the estimated mean 
``willingness to pay'' (WTP) values for preservation of perennial 
stream flows adequate to support abundant stream side plants, animals 
and fish from Crandall et al. (1992, Valuing Riparian Areas: A 
Southwestern Case Study). The WTP value is applied to water-based 
recreation consumers residing in counties affected by western mining 
operations discharging to, or affecting, water bodies with perennial 
flow. EPA identified seven perennial streams located in six counties 
that are likely to be affected by the proposed rule. The estimated 
monetary value of recreational water-related benefits for these streams 
ranges from $25,000 to $488,000. As noted above, EPA estimates that 
nonuse benefits are equal to one-half of the water-related recreational 
benefits, or $12,500 to $244,000 per year.
    Total estimated annualized benefits from implementing the proposed 
subcategory range from $43,000 to $768,500. This estimate does not 
include benefit categories that EPA was unable to quantify and/or 
monetize, which include increased vegetative cover and some additional 
recreational and non-use benefits associated with western alkaline coal 
mine reclamation areas. A more detailed discussion of the benefits 
analysis is contained in both the EA and the Benefits Assessment.

X. Economic Analysis

A. Introduction, Overview, and Sources of Data

    This section presents EPA's estimates of the economic impacts that 
would occur under the proposed regulatory options. The economic impacts 
are evaluated for each subcategory for BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS as 
applicable. The description of each proposed option and the rationale 
for selection are given in Section VI of today's document. EPA's 
detailed economic impact assessment can be found in Economic and 
Environmental Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Coal Mining Industry: Remining and 
Western Alkaline Subcategories (referred to as the ``EA''). EPA also 
prepared the Coal Remining and Western Alkaline Mining: Economic and 
Environmental Profile (Record Section 5.0) in support of today's 
proposal.
    This section of today's document describes the segment of the coal 
industry that would be impacted by the rule (i.e., the number of firms 
and number of mines that would incur costs or realize savings under the 
proposed rule), the financial condition of the potentially affected 
firms, the aggregate cost or cost savings to that segment, and economic 
impacts attributed to the proposed rule. The section also discusses 
impacts on small entities and presents a cost-benefit analysis. This 
discussion will form the basis for EPA's findings on regulatory 
flexibility, presented in Section XI.B. All costs are reported in 1998 
dollars unless otherwise noted. As described in Section V of this 
document, EPA developed this proposal using an expedited rulemaking 
procedure. Therefore, EPA's economic analysis relied on industry 
profile information voluntarily provided by stakeholders, on data 
compiled from individual mining permits, and on data from publicly 
available sources. For the Coal Remining Subcategory, EPA obtained 
information on abandoned mine lands from the Abandoned Mine Lands 
Information System (AMLIS) maintained by the Office of Surface Mining 
(Record Section 3.5.2), the National Abandoned Lands Inventory System 
(NALIS) database maintained by the Pennsylvania Department of 
Environmental Protection (Record Section 3.5.5), and a survey of states 
conducted by the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (Record Section 
3.2.2). For Western Alkaline mines, EPA relied on industry profile data 
developed and submitted to EPA by the Western Coal Mining Work Group as

[[Page 19461]]

described in Section V. Specifically, the work group provided data on: 
coal mine operator, mine location, annual production, reclamation 
permit numbers, acres of land reclaimed, and reclamation bond amounts. 
This information is included in Section 3.3 of the Record.
    Data on the coal industry as a whole, including coal production, 
employment, and prices, as well as information on individual western 
alkaline underground mines, were obtained from various Energy 
Information Administration (EIA) sources, including the 1997 Coal 
Industry Annual, the 1998 Annual Energy Outlook, and the 1992 Census of 
Mineral Industries. EPA used the Security and Exchange Commission's 
(SEC's) Edgar database, which provides access to various filings by 
publicly held firms, such as 8Ks and 10Ks, for financial data and 
information on corporate structures. EPA also used a database 
maintained by Dun & Bradstreet, which provides estimates of employment 
and revenue for many privately held firms, and obtained industry 
financial performance data from Leo Troy's Almanac of Business and 
Industrial Financial Ratios.

B. Method for Estimating Compliance Costs

    The costs and savings of today's proposal are associated with 
modeling requirements, BMP implementation, baseline monitoring, and 
performance monitoring. For each option and geographic area, EPA 
estimated economic baseline conditions based on existing State and 
Federal regulations and current industry practices. For remining, EPA 
assumed as economic baseline conditions remining under a Rahall permit, 
pursuant to section 301(p), rather than comparing to compliance with 
current Part 434 regulations. Following this, EPA estimated the 
incremental compliance costs for each option proposed.
1. Coal Remining Subcategory
    EPA projected costs for each remining site by calculating the cost 
of increased monitoring requirements for determining baseline, the cost 
of potential increases in compliance monitoring requirements, and the 
potential costs associated with implementing the required pollution 
abatement plan. To assess the increased monitoring requirements of the 
proposal, EPA evaluated current State requirements for operations 
permitted under the Rahall provision and calculated the proposed 
monitoring costs that exceed the current State requirements. Current 
State sample collection requirements for determining and monitoring 
baseline are included in the Record at Section 3.4.
    Although EPA estimated that the Remining Subcategory would be 
applicable to 64 to 91 remining sites and 3,810 to 5,400 acres 
annually, EPA projects that fewer sites would realize costs or benefits 
from this proposal. As noted throughout this proposal, the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania has an advanced remining program and EPA does not 
believe that the proposal will have a measurable impact on 
Pennsylvania's remining activities. Therefore, EPA did not include 
Pennsylvania's remining sites in the estimation of costs or benefits. 
EPA's cost and benefit analysis were calculated for a total of 43 to 61 
sites representing 3,100 to 4,400 permitted acres each year. EPA 
estimates that approximately 1,800 to 2,500 of these acres would 
actually be reclaimed each year. Table X. B.1 shows the various 
estimates EPA used in the estimation of costs and benefits.

            Table X. B.1.--Annual Estimates of Affected Remining Sites Used in the Economic Analyses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Number  of
         Additional sites permitted               sites           Acres              Used in analysis of:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All types, all states (initial estimate)...       64-91      3,812-5,401     ...................................
All types, excluding PA....................       43-61      3,111-4,407     Monitoring costs for selected
                                                                              states; NPDES permitting authority
                                                                              costs.
10% of surface & under-ground sites only        3.9-5.6      309-438         Costs of additional BMPs.
 (no coal refuse piles), excluding PA.
Additional acres reclaimed: (57% of acres    ..............  1,773-2,512     Benefits from recreational use of
 permitted, all types excluding PA).                                          reclaimed land.
Additional acres reclaimed expected to have  ..............  667-1,115       Benefits from recreational use of
 significant decreases in AMD pollutant                                       improved water bodies; Aesthetic
 loads (37.6-44.4% of additional reclaimed                                    improvements in water bodies; Non-
 acres).                                                                      use benefits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory
    The proposed subcategory will include alkaline drainage from 
reclamation areas at surface and underground coal mines located west of 
the 100th meridian in arid or semiarid environments with average annual 
precipitation of 26 inches or less. EPA's Coal Remining and Western 
Alkaline Mining: Economic and Environmental Profile provides profile 
information on the 47 surface coal mines and 24 underground coal mines 
EPA initially believed to be in the scope of the proposed subcategory. 
However, EPA determined that one of the surface mines profiled was 
already in the final reclamation stage and would not be affected by 
today's proposal; hence only the remaining 46 surface mines were 
included in the analyses of costs and benefits.
    The only incremental cost attributed to the proposed subcategory is 
associated with the watershed modeling requirements discussed in 
Section VI. Information provided by OSM (Record Section 7.2) indicates 
that most coal mine operators already perform modeling (to support 
their SMCRA permit applications) that is sufficient to meet today's 
proposed requirements. The information also indicates that a typical 
underground operator would not incur any additional modeling costs as a 
result of today's proposed rule due to the small acreage and lack of 
complexity associated with surface reclamation areas at underground 
mines.
    Although EPA believes that compliance with the proposed rule would 
result in operational savings for both surface mine operators and many 
underground producers, EPA did not estimate the savings for underground 
producers due to data limitations. The industry profile submitted by 
the Western Coal Mining Work Group did not provide information on 
disturbance acreage, mine life, or bond amounts for the underground 
mines, and the model mine analysis addressed conditions typical of 
surface mines rather than underground mines. It was therefore not 
possible to estimate cost savings associated with the proposed

[[Page 19462]]

subcategory for reclamation of surface areas at underground mines. 
However, any savings are likely to be small given the limited acreage 
and lack of complexity associated with these reclamation areas. Hence, 
EPA assumes that today's proposal would be cost-neutral for underground 
operators. EPA solicits any data or comments regarding these 
assumptions. The remainder of this section considers only the 46 active 
existing surface mines in its discussion.

C. Costs and Cost Savings of the Regulatory Options

1. Coal Remining Subcategory
    Under the proposed rule, EPA is requiring that operators conduct 
one year of monthly sampling to characterize the baseline pollutant 
levels for pH, iron (total), and manganese (total). Although most 
states with remining activities have similar requirements, remining 
sites in Alabama and Kentucky will be required to add six samples 
annually. EPA did not have data for Illinois, Indiana, or Tennessee 
because the remining operations that occur in these States do not 
incorporate Rahall provisions for pre-existing discharges. EPA has 
conservatively assumed monitoring costs for 12 additional samples 
annually for these states. Information representing current State 
sampling requirements is included in the Record at Section 5.
    Although EPA is not requiring a specific monitoring frequency to 
demonstrate compliance, EPA has assumed monthly compliance monitoring 
for costing purposes. Most states already have similar requirements, 
with the exception of Ohio, which currently requires quarterly 
modeling. Again, EPA did not have data for Illinois, Indiana, or 
Tennessee because these states do not incorporate Rahall provisions in 
their remining permits. For these states, EPA has conservatively 
assumed that an additional 12 compliance monitoring samples per year 
would be required for five years.
    Because each remining site will typically have more than one pre-
existing discharge, EPA reviewed Pennsylvania remining sites to 
estimate the average number of pre-existing discharges per site. EPA 
used this calculated average of four pre-existing discharges per site 
for estimating baseline determination and compliance monitoring costs 
(Record Section 3.3.1). Additionally, EPA assumed that remining 
operators would have to purchase and install flow weirs to comply with 
the baseline monitoring requirements in the States that do not 
incorporate Rahall provisions in their remining permits. These 
assumptions result in an upper bound estimate of additional monitoring 
costs for the 43 to 61 potentially affected sites per year.
    EPA estimates the total annual incremental monitoring costs to be 
in the range of $133,500 to $193,500. Of this, between $83,000 and 
$120,000 is associated with incremental baseline monitoring 
requirements and between $50,500 and $73,500 results from incremental 
compliance monitoring during the five year mining period. Detailed 
assumptions and calculations are presented in the EA.
    In addition to monitoring, remining operators must develop and 
implement a site-specific pollution abatement plan for each remining 
site. In many cases, EPA believes that the requirements for the 
pollution abatement plan will be satisfied by an approved SMCRA plan. 
However, EPA recognizes that some operators may be required to 
implement additional or more intensive BMPs under the proposed rule 
beyond what is included in a SMCRA-approved pollution abatement plan.
    EPA developed a general estimate of the potential costs of 
additional BMPs based on review of the existing remining permits 
contained in the Coal Remining Database (Record Section 3.5.1), and on 
information provided in the Coal Remining BMP Guidance Manual. EPA 
determined that the most likely additional BMP that NPDES permit 
writers might require would be a one-time increase in the amount of 
alkaline material used as a soil amendment to prevent the formation of 
acid mine drainage. EPA assumed that an average mine facility requiring 
additional BMPs would need to increase its alkaline addition by a rate 
of 50 to 100 tons per acre to meet the additional NPDES permit review 
requirements. EPA estimated an average cost for alkaline addition of 
$12.90/ton, and assumed that 10 percent of surface and underground 
remining sites would be required to incur these additional BMP costs. 
Because the typical BMP for coal refuse piles is simply removal of the 
pile, no incremental BMP costs would be incurred for these sites. Based 
on EPA's estimate that between 309 and 438 acres could be required to 
implement additional or more intensive BMPs each year, the estimated 
annual cost of additional BMP requirements would range from $199,500 to 
$565,000.
    Based on the above assumptions, the total estimated incremental 
costs associated with the proposed rule range from $333,000 to $758,500 
per year. These costs are based on EPA's estimates of what is likely to 
happen in the future, and they would be incurred by new remining 
operations. Table X. C.1 summarizes the incremental costs associated 
with the proposed subcategory.

                            Table X. C.1.--Annual Costs for the Remining Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring Costs......................  $133,500-$193,500
Additional BMPs.......................  $199,500-565,000
                                       ---------------------------------------
    Total Compliance Costs............  $333,000-758,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory
    The cost impacts of the proposed subcategory will vary, depending 
on site-specific conditions at each eligible coal mine. However, based 
on data and information gathered to date, EPA believes that the costs 
of reclamation under today's proposal will be less than or equal to 
reclamation costs under the existing effluent guidelines for each 
individual operator, and thus to the subcategory as a whole.
    EPA expects that, in general, the sediment control plan will 
largely consist of materials generated as part of the SMCRA permit 
application. The SMCRA permit application process requires that a coal 
mining operator submit an extensive reclamation plan, documentation and 
analysis to OSM or the permitting authority for approval. Based on 
these requirements, EPA believes that plans developed to comply with 
SMCRA requirements will usually fulfill the requirements proposed by 
EPA for sediment control plans.
    EPA believes that the only incremental cost attributed to the 
proposed subcategory is associated with the watershed modeling 
requirements discussed in Section VI of today's document. The 
requirement to use modeling techniques is also consistent with OSM 
reclamation plans. While

[[Page 19463]]

OSM does not specifically require modeling, most coal mine operators 
already perform watershed modeling to support their SMCRA permit 
applications that is sufficient to meet today's proposed requirements. 
However, some incremental costs may occur in cases where the rule 
increases model complexity. Information provided by OSM indicates that 
a typical surface mine operator may incur a one-time additional cost of 
zero to $50,000 to meet the modeling requirements in today's proposal. 
These figures represent the additional modeling effort attributed to 
today's proposed requirements; they do not represent the total cost 
associated with watershed modeling. Although most sites would not incur 
additional modeling costs, EPA conservatively assumes that all 46 
existing surface operators would incur additional modeling costs of 
$50,000. This assumption results in a total cost estimate of $327,500 
on an annualized basis. These costs would be offset by cost savings 
discussed below.
    EPA projects that cost savings for this subcategory would result 
from lower capital and operating costs associated with implementing the 
proposed BMP plans, and from an expected reduction in the reclamation 
bonding period. The cost savings for controls based on BMPs were 
calculated for a representative model mine and were submitted by the 
Western Coal Mining Work Group. The cost model is discussed in detail 
in the Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Western Alkaline Coal Mining 
Subcategory and is included in the Record at Section 3.3.2. The cost 
estimates of the model mine relied on data taken from case study mine 
permit applications, mine records, technical resources and industry 
experience. The study estimated capital costs (design, construction and 
removal of ponds and BMPs) and operating costs (inspection, 
maintenance, and operation) over the anticipated bonding period.
    Cost savings for reclamation at existing surface mines were 
calculated by extrapolating the cost savings from the model mine. The 
present value of savings over a 10-year period for the model mine was 
calculated to be $672,000 (annualized at seven percent) or $1,764 
saving per acre. EPA used the projected disturbance acreage divided by 
the remaining mine life to estimate the annual acres reclaimed at each 
existing mine site. This information was available for 26 mines and 
totaled 9,880 acres per year, or an average of 380 annual acres per 
mine. EPA assumed that the remaining 20 mines with incomplete data 
would each reclaim the average 380 acres per year, resulting in a total 
of 17,480 acres. Based on an average savings of $1,764 per acre, EPA 
projects that the proposed subcategory will result in annual savings of 
$30.8 million. EPA solicits comment on this approach for estimating 
reclamation cost savings.
    EPA has also calculated cost savings that may result from earlier 
Phase II bond release. The OSM hydrology requirements to release 
performance bonds at Phase II at 30 CFR part 800.40(c)(1), requires 
compliance with the existing 0.5 ml/L effluent standard. The Western 
Coal Mining Work Group, in its draft Mine Modeling and Performance Cost 
Report (Record Section 3.3.2) estimates that the typical post-mining 
Phase II bonding period can be ten years or more under the current 
effluent guidelines. Reclamation areas must achieve considerable 
maturity before they are capable of meeting the existing standard. The 
BMP-based approach in today's proposal uses the inspection of BMP 
design, construction, operation and maintenance to demonstrate 
compliance instead of the current sampling and analysis of surface 
water drainage for reclamation success evaluations. The report 
estimates that the BMP-based approach would reduce the time it takes 
reclaimed lands to qualify for Phase II bond release to about five 
years.
    EPA used the following assumptions to estimate cost savings due to 
earlier Phase II bond release: (1) a Post-mining Phase II bonding 
period of ten years under the current effluent guidelines and five 
years under the proposed subcategory; (2) twenty-five percent of the 
reported bond amount would be released at the end of Phase II; and (3) 
surety bonds were used, with annual fees between $3.75 and $5.50 per 
thousand. Twenty-six mines provided information necessary to calculate 
associated bond savings. The total estimated savings for these mines 
range from $197,000 to $289,000 when annualized at seven percent over 
the five year permit period. EPA assumes that the remaining 20 mines 
for which savings could not be calculated would achieve the average 
savings per mine ($7,600 to $11,100) resulting in total annualized 
savings between $349,000 and $511,500. Detailed assumptions and 
calculations are contained in the EA.
    The estimated net savings in compliance costs associated with the 
proposed subcategory, considering additional modeling costs and the 
savings to mining operations in sediment control and bonding costs, is 
estimated to be approximately $31 million, as shown in Table X. C.2.

  Table X. C.2.--Annual Costs and Cost Savings for the Western Alkaline
                               Subcategory
                           [Discounted at 7%]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Modeling Costs......  $327,500
Sediment Control Costs (Savings)  ($30,835,000)
Earlier Phase 2 Bond Release      ($349,000-$511,500)
 (Savings).
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total Compliance Costs        ($30,857,000-$31,019,000)
     (Savings).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Economic Impacts of Proposed Options

1. Economic Impacts of Proposed Coal Remining Subcategory
    As discussed in Section VI, EPA is proposing BPT, BCT, and BAT that 
have an equivalent technical basis and is not proposing NSPS 
limitations for the Remining Subcategory. EPA believes that the 
proposed option will not impact existing remining permits. For new 
permits, remining operators will have the ability to choose among 
potential remining sites, and will only select sites that they believe 
are economically achievable to remine. Furthermore, any additional BMPs 
required by the NPDES authority under the proposed rule will be site-
specific, with economic achievability considered in making a BPJ 
determination. The proposed requirements will not create any barriers 
to entry in coal remining, but instead are specifically designed to 
encourage new remining operations. Hence, the Agency finds no 
significant negative impacts to the industry associated with the 
proposed subcategory.
    The implementation of a pollution abatement plan containing BMPs 
may impose additional costs beyond what is included in a SMCRA-approved

[[Page 19464]]

pollution abatement plan. At the same time, the proposed subcategory 
may increase profits at remining sites by providing an incentive to 
mine coal from abandoned mine land areas that may have been avoided in 
the absence of implementing regulations. The proposed subcategory will 
also affect the relative profitability of remining different types of 
sites, with the potential to encourage remining of the sites with the 
worst environmental impacts. An analysis by the Department of Energy 
(DOE) of potential remining sites estimated an average coal recovery of 
between 2,300 and 3,300 tons per acre of remined land (1993, Coal 
Remining: Overview and Analysis). At these coal recovery rates, the 
estimated steady state annual increase in acres being remined would 
produce between 7.1 and 14.5 million tons of coal per year. This 
represents only 1.5 to 3.1 percent of total 1997 Appalachian coal 
production of 468 million tons. The same DOE report noted that, given 
the general excess capacity in the coal market, it is likely that coal 
produced from new remining sites will simply displace coal produced 
elsewhere, with no net increase in production overall. The proposed 
remining subcategory is therefore not expected to have a significant 
impact on overall coal production or prices.
2. Economic Impacts of Proposed Western Alkaline Coal Mining 
Subcategory
    As discussed in Section VI, EPA is proposing BPT, BAT, and NSPS 
limitations that have an equivalent technical basis for the Western 
Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory. EPA concludes that nearly all 
economic impacts are positive for the proposed option and finds the 
preferred option to be a cost savings to the industry and thus, 
economically achievable. Because reclamation costs under today's 
proposal will be less than or equal to those under the existing 
effluent guidelines for all individual operators, and thus, to the 
subcategory as a whole, no facility closures or direct job losses 
associated with post-compliance closure are expected. However, EPA 
estimated changes in labor requirements attributed to the proposed 
subcategory by extrapolating from the model mine results, which 
calculated changes in labor hours associated with those erosion and 
sediment control structures that were used, or no longer used, under 
either the existing guidelines or the proposed subcategory for the 
model mine. The results indicated that the proposed subcategory would 
reduce annual labor requirements by approximately 0.2 work years for 
the model mine. EPA assumed that each of the 46 western alkaline 
surface mines would experience the same employment impact as predicted 
by the model mine study (Record Section 3.3.6), resulting in the loss 
of 9.2 full-time employees (FTEs) per year. This represents 0.1 percent 
of the total 1997 coal mine employment (6,862 FTEs) in the western 
alkaline region States.
    The cost savings associated with the proposed subcategory are not 
expected to have a substantial impact on the industry average cost of 
mining per ton of coal, and therefore are not expected to have major 
impacts on coal prices. While the savings are substantial in the 
aggregate and for some individual mine operators, on average they 
represent a small portion of the total value of coal produced from the 
affected mines. As described in the EA, the estimated savings from the 
proposed subcategory are equivalent to only 0.6 percent of the value of 
production at 25 mines for which enough information was available to 
make site-specific estimates of savings. As with the Coal Remining 
Subcategory, the proposed Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory is 
not expected to result in significant industry-level changes in coal 
production or prices.
    EPA is proposing NSPS limitations equivalent to the limitations 
that are proposed for BPT and BAT for the Western Alkaline Coal Mining 
Subcategory. In general, EPA believes that new sources will be able to 
comply at costs that are similar to or less than the costs for existing 
sources, because new sources can apply control technologies more 
efficiently than sources that need to retrofit for those technologies. 
Specifically, here, to the extent that existing sources have already 
incurred costs associated with installing sedimentation ponds, new 
sources would be able to avoid such costs. There is nothing about 
today's proposal that would give existing operators a cost advantage 
over new mine operators; therefore, NSPS limitations will not present a 
barrier to entry for new facilities.

E. Additional Impacts

1. Costs to the NPDES Permitting Authority
    Additional costs will be incurred by the NPDES permitting authority 
to review new permit applications and issue revised permits based on 
the proposed rule. Under the proposed rule, NPDES permitting 
authorities will review baseline pollutant levels and proposed 
pollution abatement plans for the Coal Remining Subcategory and 
watershed modeling results and sediment control plans for the Western 
Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory.
    EPA estimates that permit review will require an average of 35 
hours of a permit writer's time per site and that permit writers 
receive an hourly wage of $31.68. Based on these assumptions, total 
annual costs to the NPDES permitting authorities range from $47,500 to 
$67,500 for the 43 to 61 additional sites that can be expected to be 
permitted under the proposed subcategory. An upper bound estimate of 
costs associated with implementing the proposed western subcategory 
assumes that all 46 existing surface mine permits are renewed. The 
total incremental annual cost would be $12,500 per year when annualized 
over the 5-year permit life (using a seven percent discount rate). 
Total additional permit review costs for the proposed rule are 
therefore estimated to be between $60,000 and $80,000 per year. A 
detailed analysis is contained in the EA.
2. Community Impacts
    The proposed rule could have community-level and regional impacts 
if it significantly altered the competitive position of coal produced 
in different regions of the country, or led to growth or reductions in 
employment in different regions and communities. As described in the 
EA, the proposed rule is not likely to have significant impacts on 
relative coal production in the West versus the East. The proposed 
Remining Subcategory is likely to shift the location of production and 
employment toward eligible abandoned mine lands, but not to increase 
national coal production and employment or affect coal prices 
significantly overall.
    EPA projects that impacts of the proposed Western Alkaline Coal 
Mine Subcategory on mine employment will also be minor. As discussed 
above, EPA estimated a reduction in labor requirements of 9.2 FTEs per 
year by extrapolating from the model mine results. This represents 0.1 
percent of the total 1997 coal mine employment in the western alkaline 
region States. Regional multipliers relating total direct and indirect 
employment to coal industry employment range from 2.6 to 3.2 for the 
western alkaline region states (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 
Regional Input-Output Modeling Systems, ``RIMSII''). Therefore, the 
total impact on employment, direct and indirect, that may result from 
the proposed western alkaline subcategory is a reduction of between 24 
and 29 FTEs per year. This reduction in

[[Page 19465]]

employment might be offset if lower costs under the proposed 
subcategory encourage growth in coal mining in the western alkaline 
region.
3. Foreign Trade Impacts
    EPA does not project any foreign trade impacts as a result of the 
proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards. U.S. coal 
exports consist primarily of Appalachian bituminous coal, especially 
from West Virginia, Virginia and Kentucky (U.S. DOE/EIA, Coal Data: A 
Reference; U.S. DOE/EIA Coal Industry Annual 1997). Coal imports to the 
U.S. are insignificant. Impacts are difficult to predict, since coal 
exports are determined by economic conditions in foreign markets and 
changes in the international exchange rate for the U.S. dollar. 
However, no foreign trade impacts are expected given the relatively 
small projected increase in production and projected lack of impact on 
costs of production or prices.

F. Cost-effectiveness Analysis

    Cost-effectiveness calculations are used during the development of 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards to compare the efficiency 
of regulatory options in removing toxic and non-conventional 
pollutants. Cost-effectiveness is calculated as the incremental annual 
cost of a pollution control option per incremental pollutant removal. 
The increments are considered relative to another option or to a 
benchmark, such as existing treatment. In cost-effectiveness analysis, 
pollutant removals are measured in toxicity normalized units called 
``pounds-equivalent.'' The cost-effectiveness value, therefore, 
represents the unit cost of removing an additional pound-equivalent of 
pollutants. In general, the lower the cost-effectiveness value, the 
more cost-efficient the regulation will be in removing pollutants, 
taking into account their toxicity. While not required by the Clean 
Water Act, cost-effectiveness analysis is a useful tool for evaluating 
regulatory options for the removal of toxic pollutants.
    While cost-effectiveness results are usually reported in the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking for effluent guidelines, such results are not 
presented in today's document because of the nature of the two 
subcategories. For the Coal Remining Subcategory, EPA is unable to 
predict pollutant reductions that would be achieved at future remining 
operations. As described in Section VI, it is difficult to project the 
results, in terms of measured improvements in pollutant discharges, 
that will be produced through the application of any given BMP or group 
of BMPs at a particular site. EPA is therefore unable to calculate 
cost-effectiveness. For the Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory, 
cost-effectiveness was not calculated because there are no incremental 
costs attributed to the proposed option.

G. Cost Benefit Analysis

    EPA estimated and compared the costs and benefits for each of the 
proposed subcategories. EPA concludes that both subcategories have the 
potential to create significant environmental benefits at little or no 
additional cost to the industry. The cost and benefit categories that 
the Agency was able to quantify and monetize for the proposed Coal 
Remining Subcategory are shown in Table X. G.1. The monetized annual 
benefit estimates ($734,000 to $1,175,500) substantially outweigh the 
projected annual costs ($380,500 to $825,500).

Table X. G.1.--Annualized Social Costs and Benefits of Proposed Remining
                               Subcategory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Costs (Discounted at 7%):
    Industry Compliance Costs......  $330,000-$758,500
    NPDES Permitting Costs.........  $47,500-$67,500
                                    ------------------------------------
        Total Social Costs.........  $380,500-$865,000
Monetized Social Benefits
 (Discounted at 3%):
                                    ------------------------------------
    Recreational use of improved     $100,500-$168,000
     water bodies.
    Aesthetic improvements to water  $380,000-$635,500
     bodies.
    Non-use (related to improved     $51,500-$86,000
     water bodies).
                                    ------------------------------------
        Total Water-Related          $532,000-$889,500
         Benefits.
    Recreational use of reclaimed    $202,000-$286,000
     land.
                                    ------------------------------------
        Total Monetized Benefits...  $734,000-$1,175,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the monetized benefits shown in Table X. G.1, the 
increase in remining is projected to result in the removal of some 
216,000 to 307,000 feet of highwall each year, with benefits in 
increased public safety. The increased remining also has the potential 
to recover an estimated 7.1 to 14.5 million tons of coal per year that 
might otherwise remain unrecovered, with a value of approximately 
$188.5 to $ 385.0 million (based on an average 1997 value per ton of 
coal in Appalachia of $26.55).
    The proposed Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory is projected 
to result in net cost savings to society while increasing environmental 
benefits to society. The industry compliance costs consist of watershed 
modeling costs and are offset by cost savings associated with the 
proposal, specifically reduced costs for sediment control and earlier 
Phase II bond release. Total annual cost savings to society are 
expected to be approximately $31 million. The proposed subcategory is 
also expected to result in annual environmental benefits valued between 
$43,000 and $768,500--with the majority of benefits resulting from 
recreational use of waters with improved water flow. Table X. G.2 
summarizes the social costs and benefits of the proposed Western 
Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory.

[[Page 19466]]



 Table X. G.2.--Annual Social Costs/Savings and Benefits of the Proposed
                           Western Subcategory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Costs and Cost Savings
 (Discounted at 7%):
    Associated Industry Cost     ($31,183,000-$31,346,000)
     Savings.
    Industry Compliance Costs..  $327,500
    NPDES Permitting Costs.....  $12,500
                                ----------------------------------------
        Total Social Cost        ($30,845,000-$31,007,000)
         Savings.
Monetized Benefits (Discounted
 at 3%):
                                ----------------------------------------
    Avoided surface disturbance  $5,500-$36,500
    Recreational benefits from   $25,000-$488,000
     improved water flow.
    Non-use benefits...........  $12,500-$244,000
                                ----------------------------------------
        Total Monetized          $43,000-$768,500
         Benefits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has 500 
or fewer employees (based on SBA size standards); (2) a small 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district or special district with a population of less than 
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impact of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In 
determining whether a rule has significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 
and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive 
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. EPA 
projects that the proposed subcategory for Western alkaline mines 
results in cost savings for all small surface mine operators. For all 
small underground mine operators, EPA projects no incremental costs, 
and the Agency believes that many are likely to experience some cost 
savings. Section X of this document discusses the likely cost savings 
associated with the subcategory in more detail. As described in Section 
III of this document, the current regulations at 40 CFR part 434 create 
a disincentive for remining by imposing limitations on pre-existing 
discharges for which compliance is cost prohibitive. Despite the 
statutory authority for exemptions from these limitations provided by 
the Rahall Amendment, coal mining companies and States remain hesitant 
to pursue remining without formal EPA guidelines. The proposed remining 
subcategory provides standardized procedures for developing effluent 
limits for pre-existing discharges, thereby eliminating the uncertainty 
involved in interpreting and implementing current Rahall requirements. 
The proposed subcategory for remining is intended to remove barriers to 
the permitting of remining sites with pre-existing discharges, and is 
therefore expected to encourage remining activities by small entities. 
Thus, we have concluded that today's proposed rule will relieve 
regulatory burden for all small entities. We continue to be interested 
in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and 
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-

[[Page 19467]]

effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 
adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the 
final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before 
EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that the proposed rule, if promulgated, would 
not contain a Federal mandate that will result in expenditures of $100 
million or more for State, local and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Although the proposed 
rule will impose some permit review and approval requirements on 
regulatory authorities, EPA has determined that this cost burden will 
be less than $80,000 annually. Accordingly, today's proposal is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. EPA has 
determined that this proposal contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, is not 
subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA. The proposal, 
if promulgated, would not establish requirements that would apply to 
small governments.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No.1944.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail 
at Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, by email at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may 
also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    Today's proposed rule requires an applicant to submit baseline 
monitoring and a pollution abatement plan for coal mining operations 
involved in remediation of abandoned mine lands and the associated acid 
mine drainage during extraction of remaining coal resources. In 
addition, today's proposed rule requires an applicant involved in 
reclamation of coal mining areas in arid regions to submit a sediment 
control plan for sediment control activities. Information collection is 
needed to determine whether these plans will achieve the reclamation 
and environmental protection pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act and the Clean Water Act. Without this information, 
Federal and State regulatory authorities cannot review and approve 
permit application requests. Data collection and reporting requirements 
associated with these activities are substantively covered by the 
``Surface Mining Permit Applications--Minimum Requirements for 
Reclamation and Operation Plan--30 CFR part 780'' ICR, OMB Control 
Number 1029-0036. Data collection and reporting requirements from 
today's proposed rule that may not be included in the 30 CFR part 780 
ICR are: some incremental baseline and annual monitoring and some 
sediment yield modeling.
    The initial burden for coal mining and remining sites under the 
proposed rule is estimated at 74,478 hours and $2,614,538 for baseline 
determination monitoring at remining sites and additional sediment 
yield modeling at Western Alkaline mining sites. The initial burden 
associated with preparation of a site's pollution abatement plan or 
sediment control plan is already covered by an applicable SMCRA ICR. 
For the Western Alkaline Subcategory, EPA estimates that 46 sites per 
year will experience an initial reporting burden of 72,588 hours; or an 
average of 1,578 hours and $50,000 per facility. For the Remining 
Subcategory, EPA estimated that 78 sites per year will experience an 
initial reporting burden of 1,890 hours; or an average of 24 hours and 
$4,033 per facility. The annual burden for coal mining and remining 
sites under the proposed rule is estimated at 3,024 hours and $189,302 
for annual monitoring at coal remining sites. There is no annual burden 
associated with the Western Alkaline Subcategory. For the Remining 
Subcategory, the duration of the ICR is three years. EPA estimated that 
234 sites (78 sites  x  3 years) will each experience an annual burden 
of 13 hours and $809. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial 
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or 
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This 
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, 
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of 
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and 
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; 
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable 
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to 
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review 
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the 
information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; and to 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 
and Budget, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: 
Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. 
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 
and 60 days after April 11, 2000, a comment to OMB is best assured of 
having its full effect if OMB receives it by May 11, 2000. The final 
rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Pub L. No. 104-113 Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, business

[[Page 19468]]

practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), explanations when the Agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    Today's proposed rule requires dischargers to monitor for TSS, 
magnesium, iron, and pH. All of these analytes are required to be 
measured using consensus standards that are specified in the tables at 
40 CFR part 136.3.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 
standards should be used in this regulation.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless 
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process 
of developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule will not impose 
substantial costs on States and localities. The rule establishes 
effluent limitations imposing requirements that apply to coal mining 
facilities when they discharge wastewater. The rule does not apply 
directly to States and localities and will only affect State and local 
governments when they are administering CWA permitting programs. The 
proposed rule, at most, imposes minimal administrative costs on States 
that have an authorized NPDES program. (These States must incorporate 
the new limitations and standards in new and reissued NPDES permits). 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply 
to this rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not 
apply to this rule, EPA did consult extensively with State officials in 
developing this proposal, as discussed in Section V of this document.
    In addition, in the spirit of this Executive Order and consistent 
with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and 
local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed 
rule from State and local officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    The Executive Order ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is 
not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is neither ``economically 
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, nor does it 
concern an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to 
believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. Although EPA has identified 
sites in the western United States with existing coal mining operations 
that are located on Tribal lands, EPA projects that this proposal will 
generate a net cost savings for these mine sites. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.
    Nevertheless, EPA consulted with representatives of tribal 
governments. EPA has identified sites in the western United States with 
existing coal mining operations that are located on Tribal lands. With 
assistance from its American Indian Environmental Office, EPA has 
identified five Tribes as having lands in the western U.S. with, or 
having an interest in, coal mining activities. The Tribes are the 
Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Crow Tribe, the Southern Ute Indian 
Tribe, and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. EPA representatives met with 
Tribal officials from the Navajo Nation during coal mine site visits in 
New Mexico and Arizona in August 1998 to review environmental 
conditions and the applicability of the proposed regulation. In 
December 1999, EPA sent meeting invitations to Tribal Chairmen, 
Directors of Tribal Environmental Departments, and other 
representatives of the five Tribes with existing or potential interest 
in coal mining, and met with Tribal representatives from the Navajo 
Nation and Hopi Tribes in Albuquerque, NM on December 16, 1999 to 
consult on the proposed amendments to the existing effluent limitations 
guidelines, and to discuss plans for involvement at public

[[Page 19469]]

meetings in western locations. As a result of this consultation, EPA 
has agreed to a comment period on this Document of 90 days and has 
agreed to provide a copy of the relevant portions of the Rulemaking 
Record at the western location identified in the ADDRESSES section of 
this document. EPA has also agreed to hold public meetings in three 
locations that are convenient for attendance by Tribal representatives.

I. Plain Language Directive

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. We 
invite your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to 
understand. For example, have we organized the material to suit your 
needs? Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Does the rule 
contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear? Would a 
different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, 
paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? Would more (but 
shorter) sections be better? Could we improve clarity by adding tables, 
lists, or diagrams? What else could we do to make the rule easier to 
understand?

XII. Solicitation of Data and Comments

A. Specific Data and Comment Solicitation

    EPA has solicited comments and data on many individual topics 
throughout this preamble. EPA incorporates each and every such 
solicitation here, and reiterates its interest in receiving data and 
comments on the issues addressed by those solicitations. In addition, 
EPA particularly requests comments and data on the following issues:
1. Regulatory Proposal
    a. EPA solicits comments on the data and methods used to determine 
the benefit and cost impact values supporting this proposed regulation. 
(Refer to Section IX and Section X)
    b. EPA solicits comment on the belief that this proposed rule will 
provide better environmental results than the current requirements. 
(Refer to Section III, Section IV, and Section VI)
    c. EPA is soliciting comments on the potential impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities and on issues related to such impacts. 
(Refer to Section XI.B)
2. Coal Remining Subcategory Proposal
    a. EPA believes that encouraging remining operations through the 
proposed subcategory has the potential for improving hazardous 
conditions and improving acid mine drainage from abandoned mine lands. 
EPA is soliciting comment on this conclusion and on potential options 
that may be environmentally preferable to the proposed Remining 
subcategory. EPA is also soliciting comments and additional data on the 
extent of abandoned mine land that may be affected by the proposed 
rule. (Refer to Section VI.A and Section IX.A)
    b. EPA is soliciting comments on the proposed statistical 
procedures presented in Appendix B of the proposed regulation for 
calculating baseline limits and determining compliance with baseline 
limits and on the requirements for the number of samples, the sampling 
duration and frequency, and the plan of sampling over time. EPA is also 
soliciting comments and data on the feasibility of using acidity, net 
alkalinity, pH, and sulfate as parameters for assessment of pollution 
loading from pre-existing discharges. (Refer to Section VII.B and 
Section VII.C)
    c. EPA is soliciting comments on the consistency of the proposed 
Remining subcategory with the Rahall Amendment and with existing State 
remining programs. (Refer to Section VI.A)
    d. EPA is soliciting comments on the definition for pollution 
abatement area and on any additional requirements of pollution 
abatement plans that would ensure the proper use, design and 
implementation of BMPs for compliance with the proposed regulations. 
EPA also is soliciting comments on how the proposed regulations could 
better define a pollution abatement plan that would constitute BPT and 
on other treatment technologies that would be economically feasible and 
available for control of pre-existing discharges. (Section VI.A)
    e. EPA is soliciting comments on the proposed applicability of the 
coal remining subcategory as it relates to commingling pre-existing 
discharges with active mining wastewater. (Refer to Section VI.A)
    f. EPA is soliciting comments on the legal basis and technical 
support for alternative permits incorporating only BMP-based 
requirements with no numeric limits and for information on conditions 
to determine a site's eligibility. (Refer to Section VI.A)
    g. EPA requests comment on how to describe and structure the 
requirement to design and implement a pollution abatement plan to 
reduce pollutant loadings from pre-existing discharges. (Refer to 
Section VI.A)
    h. EPA requests comment on how the regulations could better define 
the type of plan that would constitute BPT and BAT. (Refer to Section 
VI.A)
    i. EPA is soliciting comment on the applicability of the proposed 
Coal Remining Subcategory in regard to permit reissuance and Rahall-
type permits. (Refer to Section VI.A)
3. Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory Proposal
    a. EPA is soliciting comments and data on the appropriateness of 
expanding the applicability of this proposed subcategory to include the 
control of non-process water drainage from active mining areas in the 
arid and semiarid region. (Refer to Section VI.B)
    b. EPA is soliciting comments on the environmental impacts and 
benefits associated with operating sedimentation ponds in the arid and 
semiarid west and on the problems that are associated with disturbing 
the hydrologic balance in arid regions. (Refer to Section VI.B)
    c. EPA also is soliciting comment on the appropriateness of 
establishing effluent limitations requiring only BMP plans rather than 
setting numeric limitations based on treatment technologies for 
drainage from reclamation areas in these regions. (Refer to Section 
VI.B)
    d. EPA is soliciting comment on the appropriateness of BMP 
inspection to determine compliance with requirements of this 
subcategory. EPA also is soliciting comment on recommended procedures 
for and frequency of such inspections. (Refer to Section VI.B)
    e. As applies to the Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory, EPA 
defines ``sediment yield'' to mean the sum of the soil losses from a 
surface minus deposition in macro-topographic depressions, at the toe 
of the hillslope, along field boundaries, or in terraces and channels 
sculpted into the hillslope. EPA is soliciting comments on the 
definition of sediment yield and on the appropriateness of using this 
parameter as the basis for determining sediment loadings. (Refer to 
Section VI.B)
    f. EPA is soliciting comments on the approach used to estimate 
reclamation cost savings that EPA expects will result from the proposed 
Western Alkaline Subcategory and on EPA's assumption that today's 
proposed subcategory would be cost neutral for underground operators. 
(Refer to Section X)

B. General Solicitation

    EPA encourages public participation in this rulemaking. EPA asks 
that comments address any perceived deficiencies in the record 
supporting this proposal and that suggested revisions or corrections be 
supported by data. In addition, EPA requests

[[Page 19470]]

comments on the various methods of handling supporting data and 
information and on the applicability of these proposed guidelines, as 
they relate to the definitions for coal remining and western alkaline 
coal mining.
    EPA invites all parties to coordinate their data collection 
activities with EPA to facilitate mutually beneficial and cost-
effective data submissions. Please refer to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
section at the beginning of this preamble for technical contacts at 
EPA.
    To ensure that EPA can properly respond to comments, EPA prefers 
that commenters cite, where possible, the paragraph(s) or sections in 
the document or supporting documents to which each comment refers. 
Please submit an original and two copies of your comments and 
enclosures (including references).

Appendix A to the Preamble: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations 
Used in This Document

Act--Clean Water Act
Agency--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Alkaline mine drainage--mine drainage which, before any treatment, 
has a pH equal to or greater than 6.0 and total iron concentration 
of less than 10 mg/L
AML--Abandoned mine land
AMLIS--Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System
ASTM--American Society of Testing and Materials
BADCT--The best available demonstrated control technology, for new 
sources under section 306 of the Clean Water Act
Baseline--Pre-existing pollution loading. Baseline will be 
determined according to the protocol set forth by EPA in 
promulgation of this proposed rule
BAT--The best available technology economically achievable, under 
section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act
BCT--Best conventional pollutant control technology under section 
304(b)(4)(B) of the Clean Water Act
BMP--Best management practices
BOD--Biochemical oxygen demand
BPJ--Best professional judgement
BPT--Best practicable control technology currently available, under 
section 304(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act--Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
Conventional pollutants--Constituents of wastewater as determined by 
section 304(a)(4) of the Clean Water Act, including, but not limited 
to, pollutants classified as biochemical oxygen demanding, suspended 
solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH
CV--Coefficient of variation
CWA--Clean Water Act
CWAP--Clean Water Action Plan
Direct discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge 
pollutants to waters of the United States
EPA--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FDF--Fundamentally different factors--Variance
FR--Federal Register
FTE--Full-time employees
ICR--Information Collection Request
IMCC--Interstate Mining Compact Commission
Indirect discharger--A facility that introduces wastewater into a 
publicly owned treatment works
IRFA--Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System
NCA--National Coal Association
NMA--National Mining Association
NPDES--National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRDC--Natural Resources Defense Council, Incorporated
NSPS--New source performance standards under section 306 of the 
Clean Water Act
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
OSM/OSMRE--Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement
PADEP--Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act
PHC--Probable Hydrologic Consequence
Pollution abatement area--The part of the permit area that is 
causing or contributing to the baseline pollution load, including 
areas that must be affected to bring about significant improvement 
of the baseline pollution load, and which may include the immediate 
location of the discharges.
POTW--Publicly-owned treatment works
PPA--Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
Pre-existing discharge--Any discharge resulting from mining 
activities conducted prior to August 3, 1977.
PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources
Reclamation area--the surface area of a coal mine that has been 
returned to required contour and on which revegetation 
(specifically, seeding or planting) work has been commenced.
Remining--Coal remining refers to a coal mining operation that began 
after February 4, 1987 at a site on which coal mining was conducted 
before August 3, 1977.
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RUSLE--Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
SBA--Small Business Administration
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
Sediment--All undissolved organic and inorganic material transported 
or deposited by water.
Sediment Yield--the sum of the soil losses from a surface minus 
deposition in macro-topographic depressions, at the toe of the 
hillslope, along field boundaries, or in terraces and channels 
sculpted into the hillslope.
SIC--Standard Industrial Classifications
SMCRA-- Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
SS--Settleable Solids
TMDL--Total Maximum Daily Loads
Toxic Pollutants--The pollutants designated by EPA as toxic in 40 
CFR 401.15.
TSS--Total Suspended Solids
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C.--United States Code
WIEB--Western Interstate Energy Board
WTP--Willingness to pay

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 434

    Environmental protection, Mines, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Water pollution control.

    Dated: March 30, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 434 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 434--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 434 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311 1314(b), (c), (e), and (g), 1316(b) 
and (c), 1317(b) and (c), and 1361.

    2. Amend Sec. 434.11 by adding paragraphs (u), (v), (w), (x), (y), 
and (z) to read as follows:


Sec. 434.11  General definitions.

    (u) The term ``coal remining operation'' means a coal mining 
operation at a site on which coal mining was conducted prior to August 
3, 1977.
    (v) The term ``pollution abatement area'' means the part of the 
permit area that is causing or contributing to the baseline pollution 
load, including areas that would need to be affected to reduce the 
pollution load.
    (w) The term ``pre-existing discharge'' means any discharge 
resulting from mining activities conducted prior to August 3, 1977.
    (x) The term ``sediment'' shall mean undissolved organic and 
inorganic material transported or deposited by water.
    (y) The term ``sediment yield'' means the sum of the soil losses 
from a surface minus deposition in macro-topographic depressions, at 
the toe of the hillslope, along field boundaries, or in terraces and 
channels sculpted into the hillslope.
    (z) The term ``western coal mining operation'' means a surface or 
underground coal mining operation located in the interior western 
United States, west of the 100th meridian west longitude, in an arid or 
semiarid environment with an average annual precipitation of 26.0 
inches or less.
    3. Revise Sec. 434.50 to read as follows:

[[Page 19471]]

Sec. 434.50  Applicability.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges from 
post-mining areas, except as provided in Sec. 434.80.
    4. Add subpart G, consisting of Secs. 434.70 through 434.74, to 
read as follows:

Subpart G--Coal Remining

Sec.
434.70   Applicability.
434.71   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
434.72   Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
available technology economically achievable (BAT).
434.73   Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
434.74   New source performance standards (NSPS).

Subpart G--Coal Remining


Sec. 434.70  Applicability.

    This subpart applies to pre-existing discharges that are located 
within pollution abatement areas of a coal remining operation and that 
are not commingled with waste streams from active mining areas. Pre-
existing discharges that are commingled with waste streams from active 
mining areas are subject to the provisions of Sec. 434.61. Pre-existing 
dischargers that have been, but are no longer commingled with waste 
streams from active mining areas, are subject to the provisions of this 
part. The effluent limitations in this subpart apply to pre-existing 
discharges until the appropriate SMCRA authority has authorized bond 
release.


Sec. 434.71  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, the 
following effluent limits apply to pre-existing discharges:

                          Effluent Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Pollutant                           Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Iron, total........................  May not exceed baseline
                                          loadings (as defined by
                                          Appendix B).
  (2) Manganese, total.................  May not exceed baseline
                                          loadings (as defined by
                                          Appendix B).
(3) pH:................................  ...............................
    (i) If all baseline observations     Single observations must be in
     are within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.  range of 6.0 to 9.0.
    (ii) If any baseline observation is  Single observations must be  lower limit (as
                                          defined by Appendix B) and  9.0.
    (iii) If any baseline observation    Single observations must be  9.0.                            thn-eq> upper limit (as
                                          defined in Appendix B) and  6.0.
(4) TSS................................  May not exceed 70.0 mg/L for
                                          any 1 day. Average of daily
                                          values for 30 consecutive days
                                          may not exceed 35.0 mg/L.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except as provided in Sec.  434.63

    (b) Additionally, the operator must submit a pollution abatement 
plan for the pollution abatement area to the permit authority, that in 
the Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) of the permit writer, represents 
the Best Available Technology (BAT) currently available. The plan must 
be incorporated into the permit as an effluent limitation, and must be 
designed to reduce the pollution load from pre-existing discharges. The 
plan must identify characteristics of the pollution abatement area and 
the pre-existing discharges, and describe design specifications for 
selected best management practices (BMPs). The plan must include 
periodic inspection and maintenance schedules. The BMPs must be 
implemented as specified in the plan.


Sec. 434.72  Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, pre-existing 
discharges must comply with the effluent limitations listed in 
Sec. 434.71 for iron and manganese. The operator must also submit and 
implement a pollution abatement plan that, in the Best Professional 
Judgement (BPJ) of the permit writer, reflects BAT levels of control.


Sec. 434.73  Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, pre-existing 
discharges must comply with the effluent limitations listed in 
Sec. 434.71 for pH and total suspended solids. The operator must also 
submit and implement a pollution abatement plan as specified in 
Sec. 434.71.


Sec. 434.74  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    NSPS effluent limitations are not applicable to this subcategory. 
Pre-existing discharges that are located in pollution abatement areas 
of a coal remining operation and are not commingled with waste streams 
from active mining areas are considered existing sources and must meet 
BPT, BAT, and BCT effluent limitations at Secs. 434.71 through 434.73.
    5. Add subpart H, consisting of Secs. 434.80 through 434.84, to 
read as follows:

Subpart H--Western Alkaline Coal Mining

Sec.
434.80   Applicability.
434.81   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
434.82   Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
available technology economically achievable (BAT).
434.83   Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). [Reserved]
434.84   New source performance standards (NSPS).

Subpart H--Western Alkaline Coal Mining


Sec. 434.80  Applicability.

    This subpart applies to alkaline mine drainage from reclamation 
areas associated with western coal mining operations. Reclamation areas 
not associated with western coal mining operations or that produce acid 
mine drainage are subject to the provisions established in Subpart E-
Post-Mining Areas. The effluent limitations in this subpart apply until 
the appropriate SMCRA authority has authorized bond release.


Sec. 434.81  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, the following 
effluent

[[Page 19472]]

limitations apply to alkaline mine drainage from reclamation areas of 
western coal mining operations:
    (a) A western coal mining operator must submit a site-specific 
sediment control plan for surface reclamation areas to the permitting 
authority. The sediment control plan must be incorporated into the 
permit as an effluent limitation. The sediment control plan must 
identify best management practices. It also must describe design 
specifications, construction specifications, maintenance schedules, 
criteria for inspection, as well as expected performance and longevity 
of the best management practices.
    (b) A western coal mining operator must run a watershed model and 
submit results demonstrating that implementation of the sediment 
control plan will result in average annual sediment yields that will 
not be greater than background levels from pre-mined, undisturbed 
conditions. The operator must use the same watershed model that was or 
will be used to acquire the SMCRA permit.
    (c) A western coal mining operator must design, implement, and 
maintain sediment control measures in the manner specified in the 
sediment control plan.


Sec. 434.82  Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
western coal mining operation subject to this subpart must meet the 
effluent limitations listed in Sec. 434.81.


Sec. 434.83  Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best 
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). [Reserved]


Sec. 434.84  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source western coal mining operation subject to this 
subpart must meet the effluent limitations listed in Sec. 434.81.
    6. Add appendix B to part 434 to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 434--Baseline Determination and Compliance 
Monitoring for Pre-existing Discharges at Remining Operations

I. Summary

    1. This appendix presents the procedures to be used for 
establishing effluent limitations for pre-existing discharges at coal 
remining operations, in accordance with the requirements set forth in 
this part, Coal Remining Subcategory. The requirements specify that 
pollutant levels of total iron, total manganese, and pH in pre-existing 
discharges shall not exceed baseline pollutant levels. The procedures 
described in this appendix shall be used for determining site-specific, 
baseline pollutant levels, and for determining discharge exceedances 
during coal remining operations. Procedures A and B are alternatives--
either one may be selected by a permitting authority. Because pH data 
examined by EPA do not appear to be well-described by a log-normal 
distribution, EPA recommends the use of Procedure A for determining pH 
limits and exceedances.
    2. Below are the steps for running Procedures A and B for 
determining baseline and compliance with baseline pollution loading. 
Examples of these procedures are provided in Appendix A of EPA's Coal 
Remining Statistical Support Document. In order to sufficiently 
characterize pollutant levels during baseline determination and during 
each annual monitoring period, it is required that at least one sample 
result be obtained per month for a period of 12 months.
    3. In those cases where any baseline observation is above 9.0 
standard pH units, an upper limit or trigger and compliance should be 
determined in the same way limits and compliance are determined for 
pollutant loadings. If the upper limit determined in this manner is 
less than 9.0, the limit may be set at 9.0. In cases where any baseline 
observation for pH is less than 6.0 standard pH units, lower limits or 
triggers and compliance determinations for pH should be determined 
using transformed data (Y = 14--pH). Once the lower limit or trigger is 
determined for Y, it should be transformed back (14--Limit for Y), to 
apply as standard pH units. If the lower limit determined in this 
manner is greater than 6.0, then the limit may be set at 6.0.

II. Procedure A for Comparing Baseline and Monitoring Loading 
Observations

    Procedure A implements a single observation trigger, and a subtle 
trigger used for annual comparisons.

A. Calculation and Application of Single Observation Trigger (L)

    Step 1. Count the number of baseline observations taken for the 
parameter of interest. Label this number n.
    Step 2. Order all baseline loading observations from lowest to 
highest. Let the lowest number (minimum) be x(1), the next 
lowest be x(2), and so forth until the highest number 
(maximum) is x(n).
    Step 3. If less than 17 baseline observations were obtained, then 
the single observation trigger (L) will equal the maximum of the 
baseline observations (x(n)). Go to step 4.
    If at least 17 baseline observations were obtained, calculate the 
median (M) of all baseline observations:
    Instructions for calculation of M:
    If n is odd, then M equals x(n/2 + \1/
2\).
    For example, if there are 17 observations, then M = X(17/2 
+ \1/2\) = x(9), the 9th highest 
observation.
    If n is even, then M equals 0.5* (x(n/2) + x(n/2 
+ 1)).
    For example, if there are 18 observations, then M equals 0.5 
multiplied by the sum of the 9th and 10th highest observations.
    (a) Calculate M1 as the median of the subset of 
observations that range from the calculated M to the maximum x(n)
    (b) Calculate M2 as the median of the subset of 
observations that range from the calculated M1 to 
x(n).
    (c) Calculate M3 as the median of the subset of 
observations that range from the calculated M2 to 
x(n).
    (d) Calculate the single observation trigger (L) as the median of 
the subset of observations that range from the calculated M3 
to x(n).

    Note: When subsetting the data for each of steps 3a-3d, the 
subset should include all observations greater than or equal to the 
median calculated in the previous step. If the median calculated in 
the previous step is not an actual observation, it is not included 
in the new subset of observations. The new median value will then be 
calculated using the median procedure, based on whether the number 
of points in the subset is odd or even.

    Step 4. If a monitoring observation exceeds L, immediately begin 
weekly monitoring for four weeks (four weekly samples).
    Step 5. If any two observations exceed L during weekly monitoring, 
declare exceedance of the baseline pollution loading.

B. Calculation and Application of Subtle Trigger (T)

    Step 1. Calculate M and M1 of the baseline loading data 
as described in step 3 for the Single observation trigger above.
    Step 2. Calculate M-1 as the median of the baseline data 
which are less than or equal to the sample median M.
    Step 3. Calculate R=(M1-M-1).
    Step 4. The subtle trigger (T) is calculated as:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP00.000
    
where n is the number of baseline loading observations.
    Step 5. To compare baseline loading data to observations from the 
annual

[[Page 19473]]

monitoring period, repeat steps 1-3 for the set of monitoring 
observations. Label the results of the calculations M' and R'. Let m be 
the number of monitoring observations.
    Step 6. The subtle trigger (T') of the monitoring data is 
calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP00.001

    Step 7. If T' > T , conclude that the median loading of the 
monitoring observations has exceeded the median loading during the 
baseline period, and declare an exceedance of the baseline pollution 
loading.

III. Procedure B for Comparing Baseline and Monitoring Loading 
Observations

    Procedure B implements a single observation limit and warning 
level, a Cumulative Sum limit and warning level, and the Wilcoxon-Mann-
Whitney test for annual comparisons. The Cumulative Sum test is run 
each time a new observation is acquired during monitoring, to test for 
an increase in the mean of the loading observations.

A. Calculation and Application of Single Observation Limit

    Step 1. Count the number of baseline loading observations taken for 
the parameter of interest. Label this number n.
    Step 2. Take the natural logarithm of all baseline loading 
observations. Label the observations y1, y2, 
y31, ..., yn.
    Step 3. Calculate the average of all the natural logarithms. Label 
the average Ey.
    Step 4. Calculate A using the equation:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP00.002
    
    Step 5. Calculate sy2 using the equation:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP00.003
    
    Step 6. Calculate Ex using the equation:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP00.004
    
    Step 7. Calculate the single observation limit as:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP00.005
    
    If the single observation limit is exceeded by any monitoring 
observation, then declare an exceedance of the baseline pollution 
loading.

B. Single Observation Warning Level

    Step 1. Calculate the warning level as:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11AP00.006
    

where Ey and sy2 are calculated in 
steps 3 and 5 of the single observation limit procedure. If the warning 
level, but not the single-observation limit, is reached, then an 
investigation and further action should be considered.
    Step 2. Keep and report a graph showing the monitoring observations 
plotted against month or successive observation times, and also showing 
the single observation limit, warning level, and Ex.

C. Calculation and Application of Cumulative Sum (Cusum) Limit

    This procedure is used to determine whether there is an increase in 
the mean of monitoring observations, and should be run after each new 
observation has been collected.
    Step 1. Let n be the number of monitoring observations.
    Step 2. Take the natural logarithm of all the monitoring loading 
observations.
    Step 3. Order the log-transformed observations based on collection 
time, and label them so that Y1 is the first observation 
taken, Y2 is the second observation taken, and so forth. 
Yn is the last observation taken.
    Step 4. Calculate K using the equation:
    K = Ey + 0.25* sy,

where Ey is the baseline mean calculated in step 3 of the 
single observation limit procedure, and sy is the square 
root of the baseline variance calculated in step 5 of the single 
observation limit procedure.
    Step 5. Calculate C1 using the equation:
    C1 = Y1-K.
    Step 6. Calculate C2 using the equation:
    C2 = C1 +(Y2-K)
    If C2 is negative, then let C2 = 0.
    Step 7. Calculate C3 using the equation:
    C3 = C2 +(Y3-K)
    If C3 is negative, then let C3 = 0.
    Step 8. Repeat step 7 for each of the remaining times, using the 
general equation (let t be some time between 3 and n):
    Ct = Ct-1 + (Yt-K)
    If Ct is negative, then let Ct = 0.
    Step 9. Calculate H using the equation:
    H = 8.0* sy
    H is the Cusum limit, not to be exceeded by any Ct.
    Step 10. If any Ct reaches or exceeds H, then declare an 
exceedance of the baseline pollution loading.
    Step 11. Keep and report a graph showing Ct versus 
successive observation times and showing the Cusum limit H.

D. Cusum Warning Level

    Step 1. Let W1 be the Cumulative Sum warning level for 
the first observation collected, W2 be the Cumulative Sum 
warning level for the second observation taken, and so forth.
    Step 2. Calculate Kw and Hw using the 
equations:
    Kw = Ey + 0.5* sy,
    Hw = 3.5* sy
    Step 3. Calculate Wt by using steps 5 through 8 of the 
Cusum limit procedure, replacing K with Kw.
    Step 4. If any Wt reaches or exceeds Hw, then 
an investigation and further action should be considered.
    Step 5. Keep and report a chart Wt vs. month or 
successive observation time, and showing the Cusum warning level 
Hw. Consider making an investigation and taking action when 
the warning level is reached.

E. Annual comparisons

    Compare baseline year loadings with current annual loadings using 
the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Instructions for running the test are 
below:
    Step 1. Steps for running Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test:
    (a) Let n be the number of baseline loading observations taken, and 
let m be the number of monitoring loading observations taken.
    (b) Order the combined baseline and monitoring observations from 
smallest to largest (the observations do not need to be log-transformed 
for this test).
    (c) Assign a rank to each observation based on the assigned order: 
the smallest observation will have rank 1, the next smallest will have 
rank 2, and

[[Page 19474]]

so forth, up to the highest observation, which will have rank n + m.
    If two or more observations are tied (have the same value), then 
the average rank for those observations should be used. For example, 
suppose the following four values are being ranked: 3, 4, 6, 4.
    Since 3 is the lowest of the four numbers, it would be assigned a 
rank of 1. The highest of the four numbers is 6, and would be assigned 
a rank of 4. The other two numbers are both 4. Rather than assign one a 
rank of 2 and the other a rank of 3, the average of 2 and 3 (i.e., 2.5) 
is given to both numbers.
    (d) Sum all the assigned ranks of the n baseline observations, and 
let this sum be Sn.
    (e) Obtain the critical value (C) from Table 1. For the case where 
12 monthly samples were collected for both baseline and monitoring 
(i.e., n=12 and m=12), the critical value is 121.
    (f) Compare C to Sn. If Sn is less than C, 
then the monitoring loadings have exceeded the baseline loadings. 
Alternatively, calculate Sm as the sum of ranks for the 
monitoring observations; if Sm exceeds C' = [n(n+m+1)-C], 
then the monitoring loadings have exceeded the baseline loadings.

                                              Step 2.--Example Calculations for Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Data...........................................     8.0     9.0     9.0    10.0    12.0    15.0    17.0    18.0    21.0    23.0    28.0    30.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring Data.........................................     9.0    10.0    11.0    12.0    13.0    14.0    16.0    18.0    20.0    24.0    29.0    31.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Ranks..........................................     1.0     3.0     3.0     5.5     8.5    12.0    14.0    15.5    18.0    19.0    21.0    23.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring Ranks........................................     3.0     5.5     7.0     8.5    10.0    11.0    13.0    15.5    17.0    20.0    22.0   24.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Sum of Ranks for Baseline is Sn = 143.5, critical value is Cn, m = 121.


 Table 1 to Appendix B.--Critical Values (C) of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test (for a One-Sided Test at the 95%
                                                     Level)
 [In order to find the appropriate critical value, match column with correct n (number of baseline observations)
                           to row with correct m (number of monitoring observations)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  n  m          10       11       12       13       14       15       16       17       18       19       20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10...........       83       98      113      129      147      165      185      205      227      249      273
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11...........       87      101      117      134      152      171      191      211      233      256      280
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12...........       90      105      121      139      157      176      197      218      240      263      288
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13...........       93      109      126      143      162      182      202      224      247      271      295
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14...........       97      113      130      148      167      187      208      231      254      278      303
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15...........      100      117      134      153      172      193      214      237      260      285      311
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16...........      104      121      139      157      177      198      220      243      267      292      318
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17...........      107      124      143      162      183      204      226      250      274      300      326
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18...........      111      128      147      167      188      209      232      256      281      307      334
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18...........      114      132      151      172      193      215      238      263      288      314      341
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20...........      118      136      156      176      198      221      244      269      295      321      349
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 00-8533 Filed 4-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P