40 C.F.R. § 434.22

Effluent limitation guidelines representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT)

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, 40 CFR 401.17, and §§ 434.61, 434.62 and 434.63 of this part, the following limitations establish the concentration or quality of pollutants which may be discharged by any existing coal preparation plant and coal preparation plant associated areas subject to the provisions of this subpart after application of the best practicable control technology currently available if discharges from such point sources normally exhibit a pH of less than 6.0 prior to treatment:

BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or pollutant property	Maximum for any 1 day	Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days
	Concentration in mg/l
Iron, total	7.0	3.5
Manganese, total	4.0	2.0
TSS	70	35
pH	¹	¹
¹ Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, 40 CFR 401.17 and §§ 434.61 and 434.63 of this part, the following limitations establish the concentration or quality of pollutants which may be discharged by any existing coal preparation plant and coal preparation plant associated areas subject to the provisions of this subpart after application of the best practicable control technology currently available if discharges from such point sources normally exhibit a pH equal to or greater than 6.0 prior to treatment:

BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or pollutant property	Maximum for any 1 day	Average of daily values for 30 consecutive days
	Concentration in mg/l
Iron, total	7.0	3.5
TSS	70	35
pH	¹	¹
¹ Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1978–1987 · leading case: Consolidation Coal Co. v. Douglas M. Costle, as Adm'r, Env't Prot. Agency, 604 F.2d 239 (4th Cir. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Consolidation Coal Co. v. Douglas M. Costle, as Adm'r, Env't Prot. Agency, 604 F.2d 239 (4th Cir. 1979). · cites it 4× “Variance — Environmental Benefits The industrial petitioners also insist that the regulations dealing with variances *must be disapproved because they fail to require the agency to consider the environmental benefits of applying the effluent limitations to a particular source of…”

Env't Prot. Agency v. Nat'l Crushed Stone Ass'n, 449 U.S. 64 (1980). “” See 40 CFR §434.22 (1980) (coal preparation plants); §434.”

In Re Surface Mining Reg. Litig., 456 F. Supp. 1301 (D.D.C. 1978). · cites it 2× “See 40 C.F.R. §§ 434.22 , 434.32, 434.42 (1977).”

In Re Surface Mining Reg. Litig., 452 F. Supp. 327 (D.D.C. 1978). · cites it 2× “Amherst claims that the regulations promulgated under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act improperly supersede, amend, modify and repeal: (1) the variance procedure contained in EPA’s effluent limitation regulations for the coal mining point source category, 40 C.F.R.…”

In re Surface Mining Reg. Litig., 627 F.2d 1346 (D.C. Cir. 1980). · cites it 3× “” 40 C.F.R. §§ 434.22 , .32, and .42 (1978).”

Nat'l Coal Ass'n v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 810 F.2d 431 (4th Cir. 1987). “21,380 (1977) (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 434.22 ) set the effluent limitations based upon BPT conditions, and 44 Fed.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.