Document gXj8aa9dgVk8GvMaLRG35p3q

Mary Ann Chance (conoco) j0 Distribution Date Nov. 10, 1980 Attached is a November 10, 1980, Federal Register Notice in which EPA issued a Regulation Interpretation Memorandum (RIM) providing interpretation of one of the signatory provisions of the consolidated permit and hazardous waste management regulations. Also attached is a November 3, 1980, FR "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices." mt l-lno: FR 11-10-80 FR 11-03-80, pgs. 72709 - 72713 0000A0810 OCR Page 2 Distribution: Conoco Environmental Council Members CED: Hob Askey - I'onra City Chemicals: Joe Ledvina - Houston Jim Hibson - Halt lino re Veldon Messick - Aberdeen Jack Neeld - Lake Charles Ed Taylor - Hammond Bill Hove 11 - Newark Ken E'reshour - Oklahoma City Paul Warner - Oklahoma City Greg lloenes - Lake Charles Cary Foshee - Lake Charles K. M. Resh - Baltimore Philip Ward - Lake Charles Concarb: E. P. MU ler - Houston CPL: Dave Koenig - Houston Environmental Conservation: Randy Buttram - Ponca City Bill Broddle - Ponca City Insurance : J. A. Begley - Ponca City Legal: Don Linker - Houston Jim Doyl.e - Houston MKT): Bob llarl - I'onc.i Cily Cecil Saviors Ponca City NOP: Don Derby - Houston PED: Ron Cantz - Ponca City Lew CresswelL - Ponca City Bob Schlessinan - Ponca Anne Daubney - Ponca City Tom Heller - Ponca Production: R. M. Robinson - Houston John Queen - Houston Rex Alford - Houston Public Relations: Larry Springer - Ponca City Refining: R. S. Hodgson - Paramount John Gauen - Billings Eldon Carpenter - Denver Dennis Creamer - Denver Jim Heaton - Paramount John Nash - Lake Charles Richard Thorstenberg - Ponca City J. W. Daliman - Wrenshall Research Services: Dick Tillman - Ponca City Harold Eby - Ponca City Steve Szabo - Ponca City Bob Huddleston - Ponca City Technical Services: Steve Jones - Ponca City Mike Alden - Ponca City Transportation: Richard Fitzgerald - Houston CCR 000040811 `VY) 'ftiAiJ*,*0 Uatted State; Sivwtmoestal loftapdatka fi 7W &ivifuuowtel {Wicttofl Act(EPA) tot--Ming today , OHM) mbkfc provide* ofiUaal tw^jniirttnw nf -- of rtwi` pnrMow TItolfer I* hMffdnW WOTl c of tte Solid Wwfce Dtajaaal Ad, add Eeeonry Act ptCRA). Qwrtcaa iter - HIOM(Ab.MoUn>tnk4a0*<Ci FoRpIntittKenb)otfhat hr Hevanber m MOO. Robot Brook. Office of Water BnfawmtPt (WMttil.UA favlMOottil IWo lloo Apflty, Wuy^bm. dc moa on# rsum Is d* natter of rim m4o>t i Clatflcatkm ef A* FodUy OmBart OlyuUOTandCertficaticecaflnltOlA AnbAppHoatloo I 1224(b). fiadlGO1224(b) of tbr OBMOfidatad peitril regulation require# both the omatraaalto operator of ehnafdooa moate anaptnant bdtttjtto atp aod certify ft* application far a RCRA permit. HPA baa ttcafvcd cvlxr of requeet* from the regulated corncob? fM3B| uVnDuuuv OH UUIIVQwBIBli y ae to what pMdM on rownan"of fadUtfcafor ^jkdtbatto'aaBy oaaaa titk feea f**toj*U betpto hxtemckm tJkj^ "^tvyJL ` (XsnJL CLs+-&_ tziJLt fatJULt-**' * waete facility etgn and omrtfv u permit application. It it not u L...--n of tbo Apepcjr that tboao bokbog bar* tajd dde eotaiy for tba jomoee of eeUbiikdng aemtftty far a fineurtat awa^punawt beraqaired to otgn aod cartfy to tba paratl oppbotdoo. Iteration, eokty for tba purpaaa rf tbit regulation. 00 CFR UX4(b). tba Agency mill Interpret tba term "owaar" ao m to exefada uaaa rbo both boM bare lagel title far tba pupoaa of prorKKag aeoarity for a flaaodng agreement. and do not exardea any of tba rtaedra taddaafe of owanddpor f^tibbtMk it to aot dM tatwtM ofHPA to attar dm complex Add of poopartjr rrirtooaUpa art pttaad|*m a now rda deBobm woo la or la not hddtqg dde bayeodbem kpl ttDa, ftatbar, tateaatod partoa ihoold axnio* rakvanietata aod federal km. fo tba a*aot that a ttdateUcr aball be OMrtdared by referent atatocefedmol kwa, tub oa jpropartyi pertonaftlpi aoourttiae or tax kw*. to bald equitable tUla or kddeoteof < pmpuaee of40 CFR 1224(b). It kdn iotaatton of dm Apacy to aamrty conatrae tide btaRmtatieo and w&em Ron ta dortri tdMWidtr wfB ba bank boUtnc a dead to treat ,___te aacatre iwartpega Onawritip wtl) not be oooefdaeed on omnar ttodar 40 CFR 1224(b). Tba nodet-kmor bi a aale Warn back arrangement mayor too/ oat bo an *cw#or' depending ao tba tense of tba mk-keaebedt Moil lama. Thie intqprttatfen ahafl ba totted to 40 CFR 1224(b) and abad not affect --1-- raapoiabflltwa owt Uabilitiee ndW km or regakdoo. Par pktberequli amenta of40 CFR. 2K.im placeman of a notice t* tba to the oraartr. onat atfil ba __ _ 1 tO.ilraVcauttra cf tba etatea of tba tttlebofdar moo OMstooaspt)rwtiti> an iay aa* ivafWM oayood tba rvapamdhOtir to all cgttfr totbapiartt wMortoi MiTtuMu---i--------- *-! f\ C*-*UL t+ d i* -* j^-lJbs*nr\ /IOyw^S o tH f* a ton si tn < CCR 000040812 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No, 214 / Monday. November 3, 1980 / Proposed Rules 72709 40 CFR Part 257 ISW-FRL 16SO-3] Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices agency: Environmental Protection Agency, action; Proposed rule. summary: Thu Environmental Protection Agency is proposing modifications to and clarifying its interpretation of its Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices. The proposed modifications and clarifications concern the criteria for ground water, surface water and air protection. The modifications also clarify the exclusion for mining overburden returned to the mine site. EPA is proposing this rule as part of a settlement agreement reached with industrial groups which have challenged the criteria in Federal court. DATES: EPA will accept public comments on the proponed modifications until December 3,1080. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Albert A. Peter, Jr,, Director, Land Disposal Division, Office of solid Waste fWH-564], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20400. Communications should identify the regulatory docket number "Section 4004." The public docket for this proposed rulemaking is located in room 2711, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street. S.W.. Washington, D.C. 20460 and is available for viewing from 9:00 a.m, to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth A. Shuster, Office of Solid Waste (WH-584), U.S, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S,W,, Washington, D.C. 20460, (202] 755-912,'i. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 13,1979, EPA published u final rule establishing Criteria for the Classification of Solid Wasto Dlsposo) Facilities nod Practices. 44 FR 53430, These Criteria were ismicd pursuant to Sections 100U(aj(3) and 4004(a) ol tlm .Solid Waste Disposal Ad (tlm Ad), ns amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Ad of 1970 (RCRA), 42 tl.S.C. g$ 6907(a)(3), 6944(a), and Section 405(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1345(d). These Criteria serve two purposes CCR 000040813 72710 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 214 / Monday, November 3, 1980 / Proposed Rules under RCRA. First, under Section 4004(a) they provide criteria for classifying disposal facilities as "sanitary landfills" ond "open dumps." As part of their solid waste management planning programs funded under Subtitle D of RCRA, the Sidles will use these Criteria to classify existing disposal facilities. Under 4005(b) of RCRA, EPA will publish an inventory of facilities classified as open dumps. As part of its plan, the state must provide for the closing or upgrading of existing open dumps, the state will use the inventory in setting priorities for its state planning activities. Second, under Section 1000(a)(3) the Criteria define those solid waste disposal practices that constitute "open dumping." Section 4005 of RCRA prohibits open dumping. Under Section 7002 citizens may bring suit in Federal district court to enjoin acts that constitute open dumping. For both purposes the Criteria establish the level of protection necessary to assure that there will be "no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment." A number of trade associations petitioned for review of the Criteria. Their concerns focused on the ground water, surface water and air portions of the Criteria as well as the applicability of the Criteria to mining wastes. After discussing these issues with the petitioners, EPA has decided to reconsider certain portions of the Criteria and clarify other portions. While EPA anticipates that the finalization of these proposed modifications will provide a basis for settlement of the litigation affecting these regulations, EPA will consider carefully all public comments on this proposal before making its final decision. EPA recognizes that the 30-day comment period for this proposed rule is somewhat shorter than that which is provided for in other Agency proposals. I-TA believes, however, Ibel two factors lioitify Ihe shorler lime period. First the Issues involved should not rtMpiii'e loioiiliv analysis by public romniRntn*. I lie proposed modillciitioiis Involve a limited number of primarily procedural changes. Since the proposal does not raise major technical questions requiring the development and presentation of scientific data, commenters should be able to address the issues adequately in the 30-day period. Second, there is a need to clarify these issues quickly because they are related to the ongoing Subtitle D planning program. In particular the States will need a prompt clarification of the extent of their discretion in implmenting the ground water portion of the Criteria as they conduct the open dump inventory. I. Ground Water ( 257.3-4) Tho existing ground water standard requires that Ihe facility or practice "not contaminate an underground drinking water source beyond the solid waste boundary or beyond an alternative boundary" specified by the State. An "underground drinking water source" Is an aquifer that supplies drinking water for human consumption or that contains less than 10.000 mg/liter of total dissolved solids. The "solid waste boundary" is defined as "the outermost perimeter of the solid waste (projected in the horizontal plane) as it would exist at completion of the disposal activity." "Contamination" as used in the standard refers to increases in the level of certain specified pollutants that exceed maximum contaminant limits (MCL's) specified for each pollutant. These MCL's, contained in Appendix 1 of ihe existing regulation, are based on standards established by EPA in tho National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, us amended, 42 U.S.C, 300f et seq. EPA also has proposed (44 FR 53465) adding the MCL's established under the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations to Appendix 1. While EPA decided that the solid waste boundary was the appropriate point of application of the standard as a general rule, it recongized that in particular situations it may not actually be possible or probable that ground water downgradient from a facility would be needed or used as a drinking water source. EPA, therefore, believed that it was appropriate to allow the State to modify the point of application of the standard (establish an alternative boundary) for particular facilites. In order to establish such an alternative boundary, the State has to make a finding that "such a change would not resell In enntuminutum of ground water which muy be needed or used for human consumption." This finding has to be b.iseii on the consideration of seven specified factors. In addition, only a Stale with a solid waste management plan approved by Ihe Administrator pursuant to section 4007 can move the boundary. The petitioners have argued that the alternative boundary mechanism under the regulation is too inflexible for at least two reasons. First, it does not allow ihe State to fix alternative boundaries unless the Slate has an approved State plan. The petitioners contend that the plan development and approval process may be time consuming. They argue that a State which wishes to make alternative boundary determinations will be forced to wait until the plan is approved. In the Interim such a State would bo basing its decisions on complluncu at the solid `wuste boundary, even though it believed that an alternative boundary was more appropriate for that facility. Second, the petitioners contend that defendants in open dumping suits should be allowed to argue for the appropriateness of an alternative boundary designation in assessing their compliance with the Criteria. The petitioners contend that the right to demonstrate that an alternative boundary is appropriate is particularly necessary in an open dumping suit, where legal sanctions attach to violations of the Criteria. After examining these contentions EPA has decided to propose modifications to the regulations which respond to those two concerns. First, EPA proposes to drop the requirement that Ihe Slate have an approvnd pluti before it muy establish alternative boundaries. Many States aru currently conducting the inventory. EPA has not yet received many draft State plans and, therefore, anticipates that plans will not be approved for several months in many States. EPA acknowledges that this situation limits the flexibility of a State which believes that alternative boundaries are appropriate for particular facilities. While EPA believes that the alternative boundary decision is best made in the context of a comprehensive solid waste mangement plan as contemplated by Subtitle D of RCRA, EPA also recognizes that existing State planning programs for solid waste management and ground water protection may provide an adequate framework for making such decisions, In addition the elimination of the "approved-State plan" limit on the alternative boundary decision does not alter the substantive finding which the Slate must make in older to establish nn alternative boundary. Under this proposal the State still could establish such boundary only after considering the seven factors set forth in 5 257.3-4(b) and concluding that the change "would not result in contamination of ground water which may be needed or used for human consumption." Second, EPA proposes to allow defendants in open dumping suits to argue that an alternative boundary is appropriate in determining its compliance with the Criteria. The court hearing the open dumping claim would then be allowed to set such an alternative boundary if it determined, based on evidence presented by the CCR 000040814 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 214 / Monday, November 3, 1980 / Proposed Rules 72711 defendant, that the change "would not result in contamination of ground water which may be needed or used for human consumption," after a consideration of the seven factors in $ 257.3--4(b). In making this modification EPA must draw a distinction in the Criteria between the two purposes of the regulation under RCRA. Under Section 1008(a)(3) the Criteria define open dumping, practices which are prohibited under Section 4005(c). The question of whether acts of open dumping have occurred is one for the courts to resolve, after reviewing the evidence presented in citizen suits. Therefore, fpr purposes of the open dumping prohibition, EPA believes that the court, rather than the State, is the appropriate public decisionmaker to determine whether an alternative boundary is appropriate in a given case. (The State is not necessarily a party to open dumping suits.) Thus this proposal would make clear that for purposes of Section 1008(a)(3) the court could establish alternative boundaries based on evidence presented by the parties in a citizen suit. EPA believes that a de novo determination that a party has engaged in open dumping should be made only after that party has had an opportunity to demonstrate that an alternative boundary should be established for the facility. Because a finding of "open dumping," unlike listing a facility on the inventory, is an adjudication that a particular party is in violation of the law, EPA believes that careful consideration should be given to the appropriateness of establishing an alternative boundary. If the court determines that a particular alternative boundary should be set, and that the ground-water criterion is satisfied at that alternative boundary, then (under today's proposal) it could not find that the owner had engaged in the practice of "open dumping." Under Section 4004(a), the Criteria provide a benchmark for the State to use in classifying facilities for purposes of its solid waste management planning program. As part of that planning program the States will be developing a State-wide strategy for protecting ground water from the adverse effects of solid waste disposal. In such a situation it is appropriate for the State to make the decision about alternative boundaries in consideration of the ground-water needs of its communities. EPA believes that alternative boundaries will be appropriate in particular circumstances. It also believes, however, that the decision about setting such boundaries for purposes of solid waste planning must be a State option. Therefore, for purposes of section 4004(a), this proposal would retain the State's role in establishing alternative boundaries. The petitioners challenging the Criteria have raised another issue that should be noted. The existing language of section 257.3-4 does not include provisions, as contained in the proposed regulation of February 6.1978 (43 FR 4954), authorizing States to designate "Case II" aquifers which would not be protected for use as drinking water supplies. The petitioners are concerned that States may interpret the final EPA regulations as discouraging long-range ground-water planning efforts that identify those aquifers whioh may or may not have importance as potential 'drinking water sources. EPA is currently reviewing its overall approach to ground-water protection under Subtitles C and D of RCRA. The comprehensive ground-water policy which it is developing may incorporate the concept that aquifers may be designated for different uses. Thus State designation of particular aquifers as not for drinking water use may eventually become part of the Subtitle D program. EPA is not prepared at this time to provide specific guidance to the States regarding criteria to be used in designating aquifers that would not need to be protected for use as drinking water supplies. However, the Agency definitely does not intend to discourage the development and continuation of ground-water planning efforts by the States. See 40 CFR 256.11(c) (1979). Nor does EPA intend that State groundwater planning decisions presently cannot be considered in implementing the Subtitle D program. In particular, ' where a State has determined that a certain aquifer need not be protected for drinking water use, such a determination may be used in establishing an alternative boundary under section 257.3-4(b), providing that the State has considered the factors and, made the finding required in the Criteria. Finally EPA wishes to clarify its intent regarding the inclusion of the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulation MCL's in Appendix I. While EPA is considering using those standards as part of its overall ground-water strategy, it has no immediate plans to incorporate them into Appendix I. II. Surface Water (S 257.8-3) Section 257.3-3 states that a facility or practice shall not cause (1) a discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States in violation of NPDES requirements under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), (2) a discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States in violation of requirements under Section 404 of the CWA, or (3) non-point source pollution of waters of the United States that violates legal requirements implementing an approved water quality management plan under Section 208 of the CWA. The petitioners have expressed concern that the Criteria make a violation of the CWA also a violation of RCRA. They argue that this raises the possibility that parties will simultaneously be subject to penalties under the CWA and citizen suits to enjoin open dumping under RCRA. EPA does not believe that a solid waste disposal facility or practice which violates the CWA is environmentally acceptable. At the same time EPA believes that the CWA provides adequate sanctions to deter violations of that Act. It is not necessary to make violations of the CWA subject to sanctions under RCRA. Therefore EPA proposes to eliminate this possibility by deleting the references to NPDES permits and 404 permits in the Criteria for purposes of Section 1008(a)(3). This assures that a violation of Sections 402 or 404 of the CWA is not automatically open dumping, a violation of Section 4005(c) of RCRA. EPA does not propose to change the NPDES and 404 permit requirement for purposes of Section 4004(a). The open dump inventory is a planning tool and does not subject a facility to direct sanctions under RCRA. Therefore the prospect of legal exposure under both acts is not present. Likewise EPA does not propose to change the reference to legal requirements implementing Section 208 water quality management plans. Such requirements are matters of State or local law, and violations are not directly enforceable under the CWA. Therefore the prospect of sanctions under both acts is not present. in. Air (S 257.3-7) Section 257.3-7 states that a facility or practice shall not violate applicable requirements developed under an approved State implementation plan (SIP) under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition that section bans open burning except in certain special situations (e.g. emergency clean-up operations, burning of agricultural wastes in the field.) The petitioners have expressed concern that violations of a SIP may evoke sanctions under both the Clean Air Act and RCRA. Since SIP requirements may be enforced by EPA and by citizens under the CAA such a possibility exists. While EPA does not CCR 000040815 72712 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 214 / Monday. November 3, 1980 / Proposed Rules believe that solid waste management activities which violate a SIP are acceptable, it also believes that such violations can be adequately enforced under the CAA. Therefore EPA is proposing to delete the reference !c SIP's in the air portion of die Criteria for purposes of Section 1008(a)(3). With respect to the "open burning" prohibition set forth in $ 257,3-7(a) of the regulations, petitioners have asked whether EPA intended to subject incinerators to regulation under Subtitle D of RCRA. Subtitle D applies only to disposal facilities. As defined in Section 1004(3), "disposar'-is the "discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaching, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water. . . Accordingly, EPA does not intend that conventional incinerators be covered by Subtitle D since they do not typically involve burning of waste in direct contact with the land. Trench or pit incinerators, which do involve burning of waste in direct contact with the land, are covered by the Criteria. EPA believes that this preamble statement should eliminate any confusion or concern on the application of the open burning prohibition to incinerators. Therefore no actual amendment to the Criteria is necessary. IV. Mining Overburden ( 257.1(c)(2)) Currently the Criteria, at 257.1(c)(2), exclude from regulation "overburden resulting from mining operations intended for return to the mine site." That term is not defined in the existing regulations. Several of the petitioners representing the mining industry have sought clarification of the scope of this exclusion. The exclusion is drawn from the legislative history of RCRA and applies to both solid and hazardous waste. The hazardous waste regulations issued May IS. 1980 [45 FR 33066) include an exclusion for "mining overburden . returned to the mine site" based on the same legislative history. To provide consistency between the two programs EPA will use the term "mining overburden returned to the mine site" when referring to this exclusion under either program. As indicated, this exclusion is based on RCRA's legislative history. In enacting RCRA, the Congress specifically included mining wastes within the Section 1004(27) definition of "solid waste." Therefore unless the statute or legislative history clearly indicate that mining wastes are to be exempt the presumption is that they are to be regulated like any othA solid or hazardous waste. Portions of RCRA's legislative history in both the Senate and House of Representatives suggest, however, that certain kinds of mining overburden are not within the Act's jurisdiction. In discussing RCRA's scope the House Report states: |OJverburden resulting from mining operations and intended for return to the mine site is not considered to be discarded material within the meaning of this legislation. This however does not preclude any finding by the Administrator that specific mine wastes are hazardous within the scope of this legislation. In the Senate this issue was discussed during the floor debate when Senator Domenici asked about the effect the RCRA on mining operations, particularly strip mining. As part of his response Senator Randolph stated: The measure would not affect surface mining activities. Reclamation is not solid waste disposal. Reclamation of surface mines will commonly involve the return to the mine site of waste overburden that has been removed, to gain access to4he ore deposit. Since it is assumed that both the Senate and House had similar objectives in passing RCRA, the "returned to the mine site" language in the House Report must be read in light of the Senate's concern that mining wastes used to reclaim surface mines should not be subject to RCRA, EPA believes, therefore, that the most reasonable interpretation of the "returned to the mine site" phrase is one that limits the exemption to mining waste used to reclaim surface mines. In defining "overburden" it is necessary to distinguish that material from the underlying strata of material to which the mining operator seeks to gain access. EPA considered referring to this underlying material as the "economic mineral" or the "mineral being mined for use." While both terms basically convey the same meaning, EPA has decided to use "economic mineral" because it may have a clearer meaning to mining operators. The intent of the term is to identify the material that the mining operator is in the business to extract from the ground. In keeping with the Congressional intent that this exclusion is designed for overburden used to reclaim surface mines, the definition is limited to overburden "overlying" a mineral deposit. The Department of Interior makes a similar distinction in the definition of overburden in its regulations under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. EPA does not intend this definition of overburden to be limited exclusively to the material located directly above a mineral deposit. Some material is removed from the sides of a mining pit to permit safe access to the economic mineral, and such material should be treated as overburden. EPA urges the puhlic to provide suggestions about how the definition may be refined if there appeurs to be any confusion about the meaning of "overlying" in this context. Overburden material must be "returned to the mine site" before it is excluded from regulation under RCRA. As indicated earlier, the purpose of the exemption is to assure that mining wastes used to reclaim surface mines are not subject to regulation as solid or hazardous waste. EPA recognizes that reclamation does not necessarily involve replacement of overburden into the portion of the ground from which it was taken. EPA also recognizes that surface mining reclamation may be subject to State or Federal regulation, making it difficult to provide a national definition of what constitutes reclamation. In particular it is difficult to provide a general definition of "mine site" that will fit with the various State and Federal requirements for reclamation. EPA has decided, therefore, not to define what is meant by reclamation of a surface mine. Several commenters indicated that most reclamation activities are subject to State or Federal regulation. EPA expects that any permits or reclamation plans developed to satisfy such regulatory agencies will specify the reclaimed area, and these actions should provide an acceptable and understandable specification of the "mine site" as that term is used in this definition. EPA contemplated limiting the exemption to reclamation that was approved by State or Federal agencies. While such a requirement is not part of this proposed regulation, EPA is considering whether such a requirement should be part of the final definition. EPA seeks public comment on such a modification and iB particularly interested to discover the extent to which environmentally sound reclamation activity occurs in the absence of Federal and State regulation. This approach addresses two specific concerns. First, it clarifies the time component of the "returned to the mine site" concept because it ties the exemption to reclamation activity. Particularly where the mining operation is subject to State or Federal regulation, it should be reasonably clear what portion of the mine's overburden will be used over what period of time to implement a reclamation plan. Second, as indicated above, it eliminates the CCft 00(K0816 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 214 / Monday, November 3, 1980 / Proposed Rules_______ 72713 need for a specific definition of mine site. Dated. October 20. 1980. Douglas M. Coetle. Administrator, Accordingly it is proposed to amend Title 40 CFR, Part 257 by amending 40 CFR Part 257 as follows: 1. Revise $ 257.1(c)(2) as follows; 257.1 Scope and purpose. **** * fc)* * * (2) The criteria do not apply io mining overburden returned to the mine site. "Mining overburden returned to the mine site" means any materiul overlying an economic mineral deposit which is removed to gain access to that deposit and is then usod for reclamation of a surface mine. 2. Revise 257.3-3 (a) and (b) as follows: 257.3-3 Surface water. (a) For purposes of Section 4004(a). a facility shall not cause a discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States that is in violation of the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, as amended. |Note.--Solid wuate management practices that violate Section 40Z.are subject to enforcement actions under the Clean Wider Act. | (Id For purposes of soction 4004(a), n facility shall not cause a discharge of dredged material or fill material to waters of the United States that Is in violation of the requirements under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. as amended, (Note.--Solid waste management practices that violate Section 404 are subject to enforcement actions under the Clean Water Act.) 3. Revise 5 257.3-4(b) as follows: 257.3-4 Ground water. t* * ** (b) (1) For purposes of Section 1008(a)(3), a party charged with open dumping may demonstrate that compliance should be determined at an alternative boundary in lieu of the solid waste boundary. The court shall establish sttch an alternative boundary only if it finds (hat such a change would not result in contamination of ground water which may be needed or used for human consumption. This finding shall be based on analysis and consideration of all of the following factors that are relevant: (1) The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and surrounding land, including any natural attenuation and dilution characteristics of the aquifer; (ii) The volume and physical and chemical characteristics of the leachate: (iii) The quantity, quality, and direction of flow of ground water underlying the facility; (iv) The proximity and withdrawal rates of ground water users; (v) The availability of alternative drinking water supplies; (vi) The existing quality of the ground water, including other sources of contamination and their cumulative impacts on the ground water; (vii) Public health, safety, and welfare effects. (2) For purposes of Section 4004(a), the State may establish an alternative! boundary for a facility to be used in lieu of the solid waste boundary only if it finds that such a change would not result in the contamination of ground water which may be needed or used for human consumption. Such a finding shall be based on an analysis and consideration of all of the factors identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section that are relevant. 4. Revise 257.3-7(b) as fpllows: 257.3-7 Air. * * t * * (b) For purposes of Section 4004(a), the facility shall not violate applicable requirements developed under a State implementation plan (SIP) approved or promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as amended. [Note.--Solid waste management practices that violate SIP requiremente are subject to enforcement actions under the Clean Air Act.) JFR Doc. HO-340r.' Filed 10 ill HO; :45 .,ni| BILLINO COOE SSS0-01-M 40 CFR Part 423 [WH-FRL 1652-3] Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Public hearing. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a hearing open to the public to discuss and receive comments on pretreatment regulations proposed in the Federal Register as follows: Proposal Date--October 14,1980 (40 FR 68328) Category--Steam Electric Power Generating. OATES: A public hearing hus been scheduled for the following date and place: December 9,1980--Washington. D.C. ADDRESS: The public hearing will be held at the following address; Hall of States, Skyline Inn, South Capitol and 1 Streets, S.W., Washington, D.C, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold B. Coughlin, Effluent Guidelines Division (WH-552), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20480, (202) 428-2560. Anyone wishing to make an oral statement and submit written testimony nt the hearing should Indicate so in writing to the above address. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATI N: Registration for the Hearing will be held from 9:30 to 10:00 a.m. Oral testimony will be presented as follows: 10:30 to 11:30 a.m.; 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. Following the registration period there will be a brief presentation by an EPA official covering the development of effluent limitations and standards under the Clean Water Act of 1977, Also, opportunity will be given through the day for audience participants to submit written questions to the Presiding Officer. These questions will be addressed during a thirty minute question and answer session which will follow the presentation of oral testimony. A court recorder will be present at the public hearing. Official transcripts will lie available upon request. Dated: October 211. 1080. Eckardt C. Beck, Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Managninont. |FK Dor. t*v:wlu.l till'd uv-dl'-no B it nm| BILLING COOE 6S0-D-M GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Public Buildings Service 41 CFR Part 101-20 Management of Buildings End Grounds; Display of the Cod of Ethics for Government Service AGENCY: Public Buildings Service, GSA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This regulation implements Pub. L. 96-303, an Act to provide for the display of the Code of Ethics for Government Service. The Act requires the Administrator to provide for the publication and distribution of the code; to prescribe regulations by which each agency [Executive agency, the United States Postal Service, and the Postal Rate Commission) shall display the CCR 000040817