ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

25, 1987

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE

35,

)

R84-29

SUBTITLE

D:

MINE RELATED S~ATER

POLLUTION, CHAPTER I, PARTS

)

402 AI~D406

)

ADOPTED RULE.

FINAL ORDER,

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by R.C.

Fiemal):

This matter comes before the Board upon a May 31,

1984,

proposal

filed

by the Illinois Coal Association (ICA”),

as

revised on February

25,

1985.

The ICA requests that the Board

amend

35

Iii. Adm.

Code 406.106

by deleting the current provision

relating to mine discharges during rainfall events, and

substituting

it with standards patterned after

the federal

regulations governing such discharges.

Under the provisions of

the ICA proposal, mine discharges would

be exempted from the

requirements of Section 406.106(b)

(except pH) during rainfall

events, but a 0.5 mi/i settleable solids (“SS~)limitation would

be imposed on any discharge or

increase

in the volume of a

discharge caused by precipitation within any 24—hour period less

than or equal

to the 10—year, 24—hour precipitation event

(or

snowmelt of equivalent vçlume).

The 0.5 mi/i SS standard

is the

current federal standard~. The impetus for the ICA proposal,

inter alia,

is that

it would provide uniformity of state

and

federal regulations and would allow mine operators in Illinois to

utilize more economically—designed and constructed sediment

ponds.

Merit hearings on the proposal were held

in Urbana,

Illinois,

on November

30,

1984, and

in Springfield, Illinois,

on

December

21,

1984.

1 The current effluent limitations guidelines

for the coal mining

point source category were promulgated on October

9, 1985 and are

found at 50

Fed.

Reg. 41,296

(1985)

(codified at 40 C.F.R.

Part

434).

The Board wishes

to express its gratitude

to Mr. Richard DiMambro

of the Board’s Scientific and Technical Section for his

assistance

in reviewing the technical matters associated with

this proposed rule.

7$423

---

—2—

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”)

submitted

an alternative regulatory proposal

in this docket on

March 15,

1985.

The Agency subsequently amended its proposal on

March 20,

and 21,

1986.

The Agency proposal would eliminate the

total

suspended solids monitoring requirement

for mine discharges

and instead provide two design criteria alternatives for

treatment of alkaline surface drainage.

The alternatives are:

design and construction of

24—hour detention ponds for runoff

from the 10—year,

24—hour storm event (known

as Alternative “A”);

or design and construction of sediment ponds capable of removing

80

of the sediment from the

10—year, 24—hour storm event (known

as Alternative

“B”).

On Nay 28,

1985,

the ICA filed

a motion

for emergency

rulemaking,

requesting that its proposal be adopted by

the Board

as an emergency rule due

to what it perceived as

a threat

to the

public interest resulting from the passage of time occurring

during

the pendency of the proceeding.

The Board denied the ICA

motion by Order of June 13, 1985,

finding that no threat

to the

public interest existed and furthermore

that, even if such relief

were to be granted,

it would

be effective for only 150 days and

thus would lapse prior

to the expected completion date

of R84—29.

The economic impact analysis

(“EcIS”) prepared for this

proceeding,

“Economic Impact Analysis of R84—29: Mine—Related

hater

Pollution Regulations”, was received by the Board on

February

3,

1986.

Hearings on the EelS were conducted in DeKaib,

Illinois, on March 10, 1986,

and in Springfield, Illinois,

on

March 18,

1986.

The EelS fully considered and discussed the

economic impact of the ICA proposal.

However, the document did

not thoroughly address the economic impact of the Agency

proposal, as it omitted analysis of Alternative “B”, one of the

two alternative regulatory approaches put forth

by the Agency in

its proposal.

As a consequence of this oversight, on April 4,

1986,

the Agency filed

a motion to the Board

to request the

Department of Energy and Natural Resources (“Department”)

to

revise

the portion of the EelS analyzing

the Agency proposal.

The Board denied this motion by Order of April 24,

1986, holding

that this shortcoming of the EcIS was remedied at hearing by

extensive questioning on what the economic ramifications of

Alternative

“B” would

be.

Additionally, the Board noted that it

is unaware of any statutory authority empowering it to order the

Department

to revise or supplement an EcIS.

Notwithstanding the Board’s April

24,

1986, Order,

the

Department submitted additional comments for the record on May

29,

1986.

The Department

indicated that these comments were

intended

to clarify the position of

the Department’s contractor

in regard to several issues raised during the economic impact

hearings held

in this proceeding.

71.524

---

The ICA and Agency submitted comments

for the record on June

5, 1986,

and the Agency did likewise on June

10,

1986, and June

13,

1986.

FIRST NOTICE HISTORY

On July 11,

1986,

the Board proposed for first notice

publication amendments to certain portions of

35 Ill.

Adm. Code

402 and 406.

The proposed amendments were published at

10

Iii.

Reg.

12827, August

1,

1986, and largely paralleled the substance

of the proposal put forth in this matter by the

ICA.

Two

comments were received during the first notice period:

one from

the ICA on September 12, 1986, and the other

from the Agency on

September

15, 1986.

The two comments raised

several questions concerning

the

proposed amendments,

and reflected the widely divergent

perspectives on this matter which have been espoused by the two

major participants to this rulemaking, the ICA and the Agency.

Probably the most significant of these differences focused on the

annual increase

in sediment loading

to Illinois waterways

projected to

result from adoption of the 0.5 nUll settleable

solids

(“SS”)

standard, and the environmental impact of that

additional

runoff.

Adoption of the

SS standard, which has been

the focus of the ICA proposal throughout this docket, was

proposed by the Board

along with certain other amendments

in

its

July

11, 1986, Opinion and Order.

The Agency has repeatedly

indicated

its belief that the ICA and the EcIS prepared

in this

matter underestimate the adverse environmental impact that would

result from adoption of the

SS standard.

In response to the conflicting nature of the comments

received during

this first notice, the Board determined that an

additional hearing would

be necessary

in order that certain

aspects of the record might be expanded upon.

More specifically,

the Board stated by Interim Order

of October

9,

1986, that this

might be accomplished

if certain matters were addressed

at

hearing,

including:

1.

A presentation of the results derived from the Agency’s

experimentation with the Sediniot

II computer model

(as

described

in praragraph four of the Agency’s first

notice comments).

2.

Receipt of additional comments on 35 Ill. Adm. Code

406.102(i),

as proposed by the Board

in its First Notice

Opinion and Order.

3.

A clarification by the Agency of why it believes the

Board’s proposal

is more stringent,

in some regards,

than the Federal limitations

(the Agency espoused this

position

in paragraph three of its first notice

comments).

71.525

---

—4—

4.

A clarification by the Agency of the assertions made in

paragraph two of its comments.

5.

Additional testimony of Ms.

Linda Huff, President,

Huff

& Huff, Inc.

(the contractor which produced the EcIS for

this proceeding), particularly

in regard to her

perspectives on the Agency’s projections derived through

the use of the Sedimot

II model, and any additional

comment she may have regarding the predicted economic

ramifications of Alternative

“B”

of the Agency’s March

15, 1985, proposal.

6.

Additional testimony addressing

the environmental

effects of settleable solids.

The additional hearing was held on December

10,

1986,

in

Springfield,

Illinois.

Post—hearing comments were filed by the

Department on December

22,

1986,

and the Agency on February 3,

1987.

SECOND NOTICE HISTORY

After consideration of the first notice comments,

the

testimony presented at the December 10, 1986,

hearing, and the

post—hearing comments received, the Board

found

that

it remained

persuaded of the merits of the SS standard.

Consequently, on

April

30,

1987, the Board proposed for second notice, with slight

modification, the amendments to Parts 402 and 406 which had been

published

for

first notice on August

1,

1986.

The modification

consisted of adding definitions for the terms

“coal preparation

plant”,

“coal preparation plant associated areas”, “mountaintop

removal”, “steep slope”, and “base flow”, and amending the

proposed definition of “controlled surface mine drainage”.

Additionally, certain minor alterations were made to the text of

proposed sections 406.110(a) and

(C)

in order

to bring them

in

conformance with the Board’s stated objective of structuring the

new sections and amendments proposed

in this proceeding

so as to

make them consistent with federal regulations.

The second notice period commenced on May 13,

1987.

The

Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

(“JCAR”)

issued

certification of no objection for Parts

402 and 406 on June 3,

1987.

During the second notice period, JCAR raised two

questions, only one of which went to

a substantive issue.

That

question involved the proposed definition of “controlled surface

mine drainage”, and specifically asked why the Board had deleted

from the definition proposed at first notice areas that had been

mined but are

no longer active.

71.526

---

—5—

FINAL NOTICE ACTION

The Board continues to believe that these regulations, as

proposed at second notice, merit adoption.

Therefore,

the Board

today adopts these regulations without change from the form

in

which they appeared at second notice, except that the Board will

make the necessary changes in response to the questions posed

by

JCAR

in this matter.

In response

to JCAR’s question regarding the definition of

“controlled surface mine drainage”,

the Board notes that the

deletion of mined but inactive areas from that definition at

second notice was inadvertent.

The Board therefore now adopts

the definition of “controlled surface mine drainage” that was

proposed at first notice, which did include mined but inactive

areas.

This change

is shown

in the

text of this definition found

in the Order,

below.

JCAR’s other question, which asked

the Board

to provide a

citation

to the applicable federal regulations with which these

rules are consistent, has been answered by the Board.

The

applicable federal regulations are found at 40 CFR 434.

This is

noted

in footnote

1,

and will also be included

in the Board’s

Notice of Adopted rules

for this matter.

For

the reasons discussed below,

the Board today adopts

language largely paralleling

the proposal put forth by the ICA.

CURRENT ILLINOIS LA~

The effluent limitations applicable

to mine discharge

effluents are found at 35

Iii. Adm. Code 406.106, and state

in

full:

SECTION

406.106

EFFLUENT STANDARDS

a)

The effluent limitations contained in 35 Ill. Adm. Code

304 shall not apply to mine discharges or non—point

source mine discharges.

b)

No person shall

cause

or allow a mine discharge effluent

to exceed the following levels of contaminants:

Storet

Constituent

Number

Concentration

Acidity

00435

(total acidity shall

not

exceed total

alkalinity)

Iron

(total)

01045

3.5 mg/i

Lead

(total)

01051

1 mg/l

71.527

---

Ammonia Nitrogen

(as N)

00610

5 mg/l

pH

00400

(range

6

to 9)

Zinc

(total)

01092

5 mg/i

Fluoride

(total)

00951

15 mg/l

Total suspended

solids

00530

35 mg/i

Manganese

01055

2.0 mg/I

1)

pH is not subject to averaging

2)

The ammonia nitrogen standard is applicable only to

an operator utilizing ammonia

in wastewater

treatment.

3)

Any overflow,

increase

in volume of

a discharge or

discharge from a by—pass system caused by

precipitation or

snowmelt shall not be subject to the

limitations of this Section.

This exemption shall be

available only if the sedimentation basin or

treatment works

is designed, constructed and

maintained

to contain or

treat

the volume of water

which would

fall on the areas tributary to the

discharge,

overflow or bypass during

a 10—year, 24—

hour or larger precipitation event

(or snowmelt of

equivalent volume).

The operator shall have the

burden of demonstrating that the prerequisites to an

exemption set forth

in this subsection have been met.

4)

The manganese effluent limitation is applicable only

is required to meet the

iron or pH effluent

limitations.

The upper limit of pH shall

be 10

for

any such facility that

is unable to comply with the

manganese limit at pH

9.

The manganese standard

is

not applicable to mine discharges which are

associated with areas where

no active mining,

processing

or

refuse disposal has taken place since

May 13, 1976.

(Source:

Amended at

8 Ill.

Reg.

13239, effective July

16,

1984)

Section 406.106(b)(3) provides an exemption from effluent

limitations

for mine discharges occuring during wet weather

events

if the sedimentation pond utilized at the site

is designed

to contain or treat runoff from all storms of lesser magnitude

than one of a 10—year,

24—hoar event.

This optional design

standard was enacted

in 1980

so as to mirror as closely as

possible the federal regulation then

in effect at 40 CFR 434.

71428

---

—7—

CHANGES

IN FEDERAL

LAW

The Board’s existing regulations pertaining

to mine related

discharges were adopted from United States Environmental

Protection Agency (“USEPA”) standards which that agency

promulgated

in response

to the requirements of the Clean Water

Act of

1972.

USEPA promulgated new regulations on October

13,

1982, incorporating changes based upon new data and the results

of studies commissioned by USEPA.

The most significant change

was the adoption of a settleable solids criterion

in place of

total suspended solids (“TSS”)

for discharges due

to runoff

from

precipitation events less than the 10—year, 24—hour precipitation

event.

On October

9,

1985 USEPA promulgated changes to the 1982

regulations pursuant to a settlement agreement in the matter of

National Coal Association,

et.

al.

v. Environmental Protection

Agency, Nos. 82—1939 et. al., 4th Cir., August

23,

1983.

The Board’s regulations governing mine related discharges

during precipitation events have not been consistent with the

USEPA regulations since the changes

to the latter

in

1982.

Section 434.63(a)

of Part

40

of the Code of Federal Regulations

describes the federal standard for discharges of alkaline mine

drainage

(the predominant type

in Illinois) during precipitation

events less than the 10—year,

24—hour event.

That standard

is

performance—based and requires such discharges

to meet an SS

limitation of 0.5 ml/l and maintain pH between 6.0 and 9.0.

These guidelines replaced the optional design standard that

Illinois has retained

to the present time.

For precipitation

events of greater magnitude than

a 10—year, 24—hour event,

the

federal regulations require compliance with only the pH

limitation

(40 C.F.R.

434.63(d)).

The federal regulations have

retained the same dry weather limitations; thus Illinois and

federal

regulations governing mine discharges during dry weather

(35 Il.

Adm. Code 406.106 and 40 C.F.R.

434.42,

respectively)

are consistent.

THE ICA PROPOSAL

By its submission of February 25,

1985,

the ICA proposes

that Section 406.106 be revised

to appear as follows:

Section 406.106

Effluent Standards

2

In the Matter

of Proposed Amendments to Chapter

4

of the

Regulations of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, R76—20 and

R77—10

(consolidated),

39 PCB 260, July 24,

1980.

At the time of

its promulgation

in

1980,

section 406.106 was known

as Rule 606

of Chapter

4: Mine Related Pollution.

71.529

---

—8—

a)

The effluent limitations contained in Part 35 Iii.

Adzn.

Code 304

shall not apply to mine discharges or non—point

source mine discharges.

b)

No person shall

cause or allow a mine discharge effluent

to exceed the following levels of contaminants:

Storet

Constituent

NuLber

Concentration

Acidity

(total acidity shall

alkalinity)

Iron (total)

01045

3.5 mg/i

Lead

(total)

01051

1 mg/i

Ammonia Nitrogen

(as N)

00610

5 mg/i

pH

00400

(range

6

to

9)

Zinc

(total)

01092

5 mg/l

Fluoride

(total)

00951

15 mg/i

Total suspended

solids

00530

35 mg/i

Manganese

01055

2.0 mg/i

1)

pH

is not subject to averaging.

2)

The ammonia nitrogen standard

is applicable only to

an operator utilizing ammonia

in wastewater

treatment.

~

Any oyerf3ow7 inereese ~n vo~w~te

of a d~sehargeor

dehar~e

from

a

by—pace

aysteT!t

eaueed by

preettettort or enewme&t ahe~ net be c~b~eetto the

~tet4one

of th~cSeCt~OrtT ~hic eemptton ehe~~be

eve4~ab~een3y

4f the sed±mentet4onbeam

or

treatment worka ~a destgned7 eonatrtteted end

me±nte~nedto eentetn or

treat

the ve~umeof water

whteh

weu~dfe~ on the areas tr~buteryto the

dtaeher~e7everf~owor by—pace

dtir~ng

a

~—year7

~4—

year or ~erger pree5p±tat4enevent ~or enowme~tof

e~titve~entve~ume~ Phe operator

ehe~

have the

btirden

of demenetret4ng that the prereqtt4e1tee to

an

exempt~onact forth ~n th~ceubseet~enhave

been

met.

34) The manganese effluent limitation is applicable only

to discharges from facilities where chemical addition

is required

to meet the iron or pH effluent

limitations.

The upper limit of pH shall

be 10

for

any such facility that

is unable

to comply with the

manganese limit at pH

9.

The manganese standard

is

not applicable to mine discharges which are

71.530

---

—9—

associated with areas where no active mining,

processing

or refuse disposal has taken place since

May

13,

1976.

~j

For any new source which discharges water1

the

effluent limitation for iron shall

be 3.0 mg/i.

~j

Any discharge or

increase

in the volume of

a

discharge caused

by precipitation within any 24—hour

period less than

or equal

to the 10—year,

24—hour

precipitation event

(or snowmelt of equivalent

volume),

or from

a reclamation area,

shall be exempt

from this subsection

(b)

except

as

it applies to

pH.

Such discharge shall also meet

a settleable

solid concentration of 0.5 mi/i.

Any discharge or

increase

in volume of

a discharge

caused by precipitation within any 24—hour period

greater than the 10—year,

24—hour precipitation event

(or series of storms or

snownielt of equivalent

volume) shall

be exempt from this subsection

(b)

except

as

it applies to pH.

For purposes of this subsection the term “reclamation

area” means 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.

The ICA has stated that its proposal

is

intended to be a

“mir5or

image” of the comparable federal regulations

(Tr.

4 at

135)

,

translated

into language compatible with

Illinois’

regulatory format.

ICA Responsive Comments, June

5,

1986,

p.

1.

Though the ICA so

intended, the Board believes the regulation

proposed by ICA is

in fact less stringent than the federal

regulations.

Consequently, at first notice the Board modified

the

ICA proposal

in some respects in order that the regulation be

in fact as stringent

as present federal regulations.

Five transcripts have been produced during the conduct of this

proceeding: one each from the two merit hearings, two EelS

hearings, and December

10,

1986,

hearing.

Unfortunately, the

transcripts of the five hearings are not numbered consecutively.

Therefore,

in order

to minimize confusion

in citing

to the

record, each transcript will be referred

to

in the chronological

order

in which

the hearing

it transcribes occurred.

Thus, the

transcript of the November

30,

1984, merit hearing will be

referred

to as Transcript

1

(“Tr.

1”), the transcript of the

December

21,

1984, merit hearing as Transcript

2

(“Tr. 2”), etc.

78-531

---

THE AGENCY PROPOSAL

The Agency submitted a revised proposal on March 21,

1985,

which it offered for Board adoption

in lieu of the ICA

proposal.

The Agency proposal states as follows:

Section 402.101

Definitions

For purposes of this Chapter the following

terms are defined:

“Alkaline Surface Drainage”:

any drainage which results

in a mine

discharge other than from processing or mineral preparation

plants which prior

to treatment has a pH equal

to or

greater than

6.0 and does not contact any acid producing material.

Section 405.105

Surface Drainage Control

a)

A state or NPDES permit shall

include a plan for surface

drainage control as a condition.

b)

The applicant’s plan for surface drainage control shall

be incorporated into a permit by reference if

it meets

the standard of Section 405.102;

otherwise,

the Agency

shall either deny the permit or issue

it with a plan

modified by conditions subject to the provisions of

Section 405.101.

C)

Mining activities and the deposition of mine refuse shall

be planned and conducted so as

to avoid contact or

interference with waters of the State where such contact

can reasonably be expected to cause or allow pollution of

such waters.

d)

Diversion, redirection or impoundment of streams shall

not be undertaken where

the Agency demonstrates that

there is an economically reasonable alternative.

e)

Alkaline surface drainage

from the affected land of a

coal mine shall

be passed

through

a sedimentation pond

before leaving the mine area.

Sedimentation ponds of

Section 405.105(e)

shall not be subject to the effluent

limitations or monitoring requirements of Part 406 for

iron, manganese, or total

suspended solids;

and shall

be

designed, constructed and maintained

in accordance with

the following:

.)

Detention Time

A)

Sedimentation ponds shall

be designed,

constructed and maintained

to provide

24 hours

of detention time for all inflow including

the

runoff from tributary areas which results from

a 10 year

——

24 hour precipitation event,

or

78-532

---

—11—

B)

An

alternate

sedimentation

pond detention time

is

allowable

provided

that

the

applicant

demonstrates that 80

removal

of sediment in

all inflow including the runoff resulting from

a

10

year

——

24

hour

precipitation

event

will

be

achieved.

The

applicant

must

demonstrate

the

80

removal efficiency through one or more

of the following methods:

1)

Influent and effluent sample analyses of

existing sediment ponds which treat alkaline

surface drainage from tributary areas with the

same soil and runoff characteristics

2)

Sediment delivery, sediment removal and pond

performance models

3)

Soils

analyses

and

sedimentation

pond

hydraulic

analyses.

2)

Sedimentation

ponds

of

Section

405.105(e)

shall

include

separate

storage

volume

for

sediment

to

accumulate.

3)

Sedimentation

ponds

of

Section

405.105(e)

shall

be

inspected

annually

by

the

permittee

and

certification

made

in

writing

to

the

Agency

that

the

pond

meets

the

criteria

of

Section

405.105(e).

4)

If

the

permittee

determines

by

the

annual

or

other

inspections

that

the

actual

design,

construction

or

operation

of

a

sediment

pond

approved

under

Section

405.105(e)

does

not

meet

the

criteria

of

this

Subsection,

the permittee shall notify the Agency in

writing

by

certified

mail

within

five

days

and

identify

the

corrective

action

to

be

taken

to

achieve

compliance

with

this

Subsection.

The

Agency

proposed that monitoring

(sampling)

of settling

pond

discharges

be

abolished

because

of

its

belief

that

numerous

samples must be taken during precipitation events

in order

to

reliably ascertain pond performance.

Tr.

2

at

112.

Such

sampling

is not presently required, and the Agency itself

believes that frequent sampling during periods of runoff is

impractical.

Id.

at 113.

The Agency proposal therefore utilizes

alternative design standards

(10—year,

24—hour pond size,

or pond

removing 80

of

the sediment

in the runoff) rather than an

effluent standard requiring monitoring

for verification of

performance.

---

DISCUSSION

OF

TSS

AND

SS

STANDARDS

All

of the midwestern states, with the exception of

Illinois, have adopted the SS standard.

EelS at vi.

The

essential difference between the TSS and SS standards is

in the

manner

in which solids are measured.

As described in the EelS:

The analytical difference between suspended solids and

settleabie solids translates into differing levels of

treatment technology.

The suspended solids test

is

based upon filtering solids from the effluent through

an 0.3 micron filter, drying,

and measuring the

residue.

Thus,

the suspended solids test truly

measures all suspended particles greater than 0.3

microns

in size

in the wastewater.

The settleable

solids test, however, measures the volume of suspended

particles which settle

in an Imhoff Cone within a one

hour

period.

(Theoretically,

this

would

include

all

particles greater than 12 microns, plus varying

fractions of particles with smaller diameters).

Thus,

small or colloidal particles will remain suspended

during

the settleable solids test and these particles

are not measured

in this test.

EelS at 2—3.

William Telliard,

Chief of the Energy and Mining Branch,

Industrial

Technology

Division,

USEPA,

testified

that

that

Agency’s

1982

adoption

of

the

SS

standard

resulted

from

“extensive engineering and statistical analysis..”

Tr.

1

at

31.

More specifically, Mr. Telliard

related that two studies

were relied upon by USEPA,

both of which dealt with the

application of pond design.

One of the studies concluded that

USEPA could not feasibly propose a national suspended solids

standard applicable to all operators at all

times during

precipitation events.

Id.

at 32.

The second study, which

evaluated the performance of certain 10—year, 24—hour ponds in

nine states

(including Illinois),

found that these ponds achieved

99

compliance with the SS standard.

Id. at

33.

Mr. Telliard also indicated several additional reasons

behind USEPA’s promulgation of the SS “effluent” standard,

in

place

of the 10—year,

24—hour “design” standard.

First, USEPA

found that ponds smaller than those sized

to meet the 10—year,

24—hour criteria can still meet the

SS standard through the

application of additional technology used

to aid settling.

Mr.

Telliard indicated it was USEPA’s belief that operators should

have the flexibility to choose the manner

in which they comply

with

the

applicable

standard.

Id.

at

34.

Additionally,

USEPA

feels that the SS measurement better reflects the true

performance of

a pond employing simple settling technology.

Id.

at

35.

78.534

---

—13—

The latter point was echoed

in testimony presented by Victor

Ordija,

Supervisor

for the Environmental Quality Control

Department,

Mid—Continent Region, Consolidation Coal Company.

Mr. Ordija related that settling ponds operate on the principle

that suspended particles can be entrapped

in the pond by settling

to the bottom.

He further stated that settling ponds are not

“filters”, which he believes

is the type

of technology necessary

to meet the

35 mg/i TSS limitation of Section 406.106.

Id.

at

65.

Mr. Ordija said that the

35 mg/i standard can generally be

met after several days of dry weather, but that as soon as a

substantial rain occurs large runoff volumes entering the pond

throw the discharge out of compliance.

Id.

at 64.

The Agency is opposed

to adoption of the

SS standard

primarily for two reasons.

First,

it believes the standard is

subject

to the same impracticality regarding sampling that caused

the Agency to drop sampling as a requirement within its own

proposal

(see

p.

12,

above).

Second,

the SS standard

is based

on

a test which the Agency contends

is not capable of measuring most

of the sediment carried

in runoff waters.

Id.

at 88.

The SS test requires that a 1000 ml water sample be placed

in an Imhoff cone and allowed

to settle

for a one—hour period.

At the end

of that time the amount of settleabie solids

accumulated

in

the

bottom

of

the

cone

is measured.

The water

column

length

from

the

water

~urface

to

the

cone

bottom

is

l&/2

inches.

Based

on

Stokes’

Law

,

under

standard

conditions

of

10

C

water

temperature and 2.65 g/cni3 particle density, all particles

larger

than .012 mm should settle to the bottom of the cone

during the test.

Agency Exhibit

1, at

7.

In support of its argument that the

SS test is inadequate,

the Agency offered testimony on its opinion regarding the types

of soil particles that are/are not measured by the Irnhoff cone

test.

Ronald Barganz, Manager, Division of Mining Pollution

Control, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

testified that

“about half of the silt—size particles and all clay—size

particles can’t be measured as part

of the settleable solids in

an Imhoff cone test because they will not settle to the bottom

during

the time of the test”

(i.e. are smaller than

.012 nun).

Tr.

1 at

90.

He further stated that “(s)ilt and clay—size

particles frequently make up

75 to

90 percent of surface soil

samples and deeper unconsolidated overburden samples

in the

(Illinois) mining

areas”.

Id.

He concludes that “most of the

solids entering a sedimentation pond...(and)...almost all the

solids leaving the sedimentation pond are not measurable using

this

(SS)

test”.

Id. at

91.

Stokes’

Law

is

a

relationship

which

expresses

the

settling

velocity of a sediment particle as

a function of properties of

the particle and the fluid through which

it settles.

78.535

---

~.1

~*

—

Later questioning

of Mr.

Barganz, however,

indicated that

these particles are sometimes detected during an Imhoff test in

one of several ways.

A portion of the particles less than

.012

mm

in size that begin the

1 hour settling period

in the lower

portion of the cone will

settle during

the test.

Tr.

2 at 120.

Sometimes particles larger than .012 mm,

as they settle through

the cone will hit smaller particles, agglomerate with them,

and

pull the smaller particles down to the bottom.

Id. at 121.

Also,

a standard procedure of the Imhoff test

is

to scrape the

side of the cone 45 minutes into the settling period.

Some of

the smaller particles that had been at rest on the side of the

cone may settle to the bottom after being scraped.

Id. at 122.

Mr. Barganz also testified that,

in his estimation, ponds

designed

to meet the SS standard will trap 20—30

of the sediment

instead of the

70—90

of sediment that would have been captured

by 24—hour ponds.

Agency Exhibit 1,

at 10.

Mr. Barganz

acknowledged, though, that this prediction

is theoretical and

is

not based on actual sampling of ponds

in operation.

Id.

at 127—

8.

ECONOMIC

IMPACT

The EelS reports that of the 492 coal mining discharges

in

Illinois, approximately 430 would be affected by the ICA and

Agency proposals.

EelS at vi.

The expected economic impact of

each

proposal

will

be

discussed

separately.

Economic Impact of the ICA Proposal

The

EelS

calculates

that

if the ICA proposal were adopted,

the size of settling ponds built

in Illinois would be expected

to

decrease 57

as compared

to the size required

by the existing

regulation.

EelS at vii.

This reduction would be expected to

result

in a savings to the coal industry of between $3.66 and

$5.07

million

annually

(due

to reduced construction and removal

costs).

Id.

at

44,

96.

As this proposal

is projected to

increase suspended solids

in settling pond effluents during

precipitation events by 96

nig/l

(Id. at 54), costs to downstream

public water supplies would be expected to increase a maximum of

$3,100 to $19,000 per year.

Id. at

84.

These costs are

associated with the treatment necessary to remove the additional

solids.

The EelS anticipates that adoption of the ICA proposal would

result in between 28,600 and 589,000 tons per year of additional

coal being mined

in

Illinois.

EelS at 101.

Regarding the impact

of adoption of the ICA proposal on economic sectors associated

with the coal industry, over 240 jobs would be expected

to be

created (Id.

at

104),

and a cumulative increase

in wages and

71-536

---

—I

~—

salaries of

$9 million5 would occur between 1986 and 1995.

Id.

at 106.

Adoption of the ICA proposal would

increase the demand

for goods and services between $17 million and $20 million over

that 10 year period,

and output or supply across all direct and

indirect sectors is calculated

to rise by $23 million

to $25

million over the same timeframe.

Id.

at 106.

Economic Impact of the Agency Proposal

The

Agency

proposal embodies two design alternatives, wholly

distinct

from

one another.

If

required

to

operate

under

the

provisions of this proposal, an operator would

be required

to

choose one of the two pond designs.

The theorized economic

impacts of the two designs vary considerably, and

so will be

discussed separately.

As already defined, Alternative

“A” refers

to

the design and construction of a 10—year,

24—hour pond,

while

Alternative

“B”

refers to a sediment pond capable of removing 80

of the sediment from a 10—year,

24—hour

event.

Economic impact of Alternative “A”.

The

EelS reports that

adoption of the Agency’s Alternative

“A” would result

in a cost

savings

to

the

coal

industry of $315,000 annually.

EelS at

ix.

This potential cost savings

is attributable to the Agency’s

elimination of monitoring

as a requirement under both its

Alternative “A” and Alternative

“B”.

The

Board refers to this

economic benefit as “potential” because

there

is some

disagreement as to whether or not the benefit would exist.

Douglas Downing, Supervisor, Land Reclamation Division, Illinois

Department of Mines and Minerals (“IDMM”) believes that this cost

savings would not occur.

On May 29,

1986, he submitted

a letter

to the Board

(which has been docketed as Public Comment Number

3

in this proceeding)

indicating that even

if the Agency ceased

requiring monitoring,

62

Ill. Adm. Code 1780.21(b)(3) and

l784.14(b)(3) would

still require coal operators to sample and

report

the

data

to

IDMM.

Mr.

Downing

is

therefore

of the opinion

that IDMM’s requirements would negate any potential economic

benefit accruing from the Agency’s idea of eliminating

monitoring.

In response, Ronald Barganz,

Manager, Division of

Mining Pollution Control,

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency,

testified that

in his experience when the Agency relaxes

a standard pertaining to coal companies,

“Mines and

Minerals...very quickly follow(s)

suit”

(Tr.

4 at 158).

IDMM

requires monitoring, however,

because the federal Office of

Surface Mining requires compliance with USEPA regulations

(which

require

monitoring).

As

Mr.

Barganz

also

indicated

in

his

testimony,

for IDMM to be

in

a position

to be able to forego

monitoring, USEPA would have

to issue a written determination

indicating that the Agency’s (proposed)

regulation

is stricter

than

USEPA’s.

Id.

at

159.

Ignoring,

for the moment, the

In constant 1983 dollars.

71-537

---

—lb—

question

of

whether

Illinois

can

adopt

regulations dealing with

the

mining

industry

which

are

more

strict

than the applicable

federal

regulations,

the Board

notes

that

consideration

given

to

the question of what another Agency will or will not do involves

such

a great deal

of speculation that not very much weight can be

given to the prospect of any Agency taking one particular action

or another.

The EcIS also explores other aspects of the economic impact

of

Alterntive

“A”.

It

concludes

that

no

savings in capital costs

would

occur

pursuant

to

Alternative

“A”,

because the size of

sedimentation ponds constructed would be expected to remain the

same.

EelS at

46.

The EelS indicates that Alternative

“A” would

cause

an increased number of proposed site—specific rule changes,

thereby increasing

the administrative and engineering costs of

compliance.

Id.

at

94.

The EelS theorizes this would occur

since

the

10—year,

24—hour

design,

an

option

under

the

present

regulation, would become mandatory and that some mines cannot

utilize

the

design

because

it

is “economically and/or technically

infeasible”

Id.

The

EelS does not quantify this cost but

suggests

that

it

be

considered.

Id.

at

95.

The

EelS also

notes

that adoption of Alternative

“A” would continue the “dual” levels

of regulation of coal mine discharges that currently exists due

to

the Agency’s enforcement of Illinois standards and IDMM’s

enforcement

of

Illinois

and

federal

standards.

The

EelS

does

not

quantify this cost, but states that ambiguity could

be the result

of reporting under

and enforcing criteria with two sets of

standards

(Id.).

Economic impact of Alternative

“B”.

The

EelS did not

include detailed consideration of the Agency’s Alternative “B”.

Tr.

3 at

64.

Linda Huff,

President of Huff

& Huff,

Inc.,

the

contractor which performed the EelS, testified that Alternative

“B” was not considered because she was not sure of “how the

alternative would apply.

In other words, what

is

it that

(operators) have to do

in order

to prove this 80

(removal of

sediment)?”

Id.

Questioning of Ms. Huff at hearing did elicit

information for

the record, however, on what the probable

economic impact of Alternative

“B” would

be.

Ms. Huff stated

that

if the Board adopted

the Agency proposal, and

if all

operators chose Alternative

“B” as their manner of compliance,

the economic benefits

(cost savings)

accruing

to the operators

would

be approximately the same as that which would occur

as a

result of adoption of the

ICA proposal.

Id. at 67—9.

The

Board

continues

to

find

that

the

overall

economic

impact

of

these

proposed regulations is positive.

The cost savings

to

coal

operators

in

Illinois

are

considerable6,

and

the

increased

cost

to

public

water

supplies

in

Illinois,

estimated

to

be

in

the

6

See

December

22,

1986,

comment of the Department.

71-538

---

—j

I

—

area of $3,718 to $54,944

(Tr.

5

at

320—321), is minimal

in

comparison.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Some supporters of the ICA proposal testified that because

the existing regulation requires coal mine discharges to often be

lower

in suspended solids than the streams they discharge

into,

the regulation is stricter than necessary and thus should be

abandoned

in favor

of the SS standard.

Tr.

1 at 44—5,

73.

The

Board notes at the outset of this discussion that that line of

reasoning,

in and of itself,

is not sufficient when determining

the environmental impact of a proposed regulation.

If the Board

had

adopted

such

an

approach

in

the past, little progress would

have been made

in reducing the amount of pollutants

in

any

medium.

The observation made in the testimony mentioned above is

but

one

factor

for

the Board

to consider

in evaluating the merits

of

the

ICA

and Agency proposals.

Both

settleable

and

suspended solids can have an adverse

impact

on

aquatic

organisms.

For example, the European Inland

Fisheries Advisory Commission (1965)

stated that water normally

containing from 80

to 400 ppm (mg/i) suspended solids are

unlikely

to

support good freshwater

fisheries,

although fisheries

may sometimes be found

at the lower concentrations within this

range.

EelS

at

78.

Many Illinois streams fall within this

category

already.

Id.

Nevertheless,

a

proposal which would

allow additional sediment

to be discharged

to the State’s

waterways must be carefully evaluated for the degree of adverse

environmental impact stemming from it.

This concern

is justified

because,

inter alia, as discussed

in the EelS:

The addition of suspended solids will cause

an

increase

in

the

silt deposition.

As the sediment

accumulates

the

benthic

community

will

go

through

a

transition in which those organisms typically found

in

this

environment

will

be

replaced

by

sediment

dwelling

organisms,

such as, Chironomidae (midges)

and

Oligochaeta

(worms)

which are classified as tolerant

of

pollution

by

the

Illinois

Environmental Protection

Agency.

As the benthic community undergoes a

transformation,

there will also be change

in the fish

community with fish species,

such as, Carp (Cyprinus

carpio)

and

goldfish (Carassius auratus), which

tolerate

silty

conditions,

being the dominant fishes.

EelS

at

79.

Silt

also

decreases the occurrence of aquatic vegetation, due

to

the

loss

of

water

clarity.

EcIS

at

72.

The questions of the potential increase

in sediment loading

resulting

from

adoption

of

the

SS

standard,

and

the

environmental

78-139

---

impact of the additional sediment loss brought about as a result,

have been strenuously debated throughout the record

in this

matter.

Not surprisingly,

then, widely varying answers to these

questions have been offered

to the Board.

To assist the Board

in

arriving at well—reasoned decisions on these

and other questions

relevant

to this proceeding, the Board contracted with Dr.

Billy

Barfield, Professor of Agricultural Engineering at the University

of Kentucky,

to appear on the Board’s behalf as an expert witness

at the December

10,

1986,

hearing.

Dr.

Barfield

is

an

acknowledged expert

in the area of sedimentation pond design and

reservoir modeling.

He

is the chief author of the Sedimot

II

computer model,

a well—known model that can be used to predict

sediment pond performance.

In fact,

the United States Office of

Surface Mining has stated

in the Federal Register that this model

is the preferred method of predicting sediment pond performance,

(Board Exhibit 2(b)).

Both the ICA and the Agency utilized

Sedimot

II

in modeling the impacts they would expect to occur

from adoption of the SS standard.

Increased Sediment Loading,

as

Calculated

by

Participants

The

EelS prepared

for this proceeding predicted that

adoption

of

the

SS

standard

would

result

in

an

additional

loading

after

a 2—year, 24—hour

storm of 96 mg/l from a hypothetical pond

designed to meet the SS standard.

This equates to an increase in

the annual statewide loading

of 3,400 tons

(EelS at 58).

In

calculating

this figure, the authors of the

EelS

assumed

that

ponds designed

to meet

the

SS

standard

would

achieve

a trapping

efficiency’

of 90,

and that they would be

50 to 60

smaller than

those currently constructed

to contain runoff from 10—year, 24—

hour storm events

(EelS at 54).

At the December

10,

1986,

hearing, Ms. Huff revised

this figure

in light o~calculations

made by the Agency through the use of Sedimot II

.

At that time

Ms.

Huff

stated

that

she

felt

the

incremental statewide loading

would be somewhere between 3,400 and 17,000 tons per year

(Tr.

5

at 333).

The

Agency

presented

calculations

showing

that

adoption

of

the

SS

standard

would

increase sediment loading statewide by

7,400

tons

per

year9.

The ICA presented

its own calculations

The “trapping efficiency” of a sedimentation pond

is

the

percentage of sediment particles flowing into the pond which

settle or are retained

in the pond,

and do not flow out

in the

discharge from the pond.

8 These calculations are found

in the Agency’s September

5,

1986

first notice comment.

The Agency calculated that adoption of the

SS standard would

78.540

---

through the

testimony

of Jim Buck of Amax Coal Company.

Mr. Buck

estimates that adoption of the

SS standard would

increase

sediment loading statewide by 1,440

tons annually (Id.

at 305;

ICA Exhibit X).

Increased

Sediment

Loading,

as

Calculated

by

Board

It

is

agreed

by

all

participants

that

adoption

of

the

new

regulations

would

cause

an

increase

in

the

amount

of

sediment

released from coal mine sedimentation ponds.

This agreement

stems from an agreed assumption that new ponds would be sized

smaller, and therefore that the

trapping efficiency of the new

ponds would be somewhat less than the trapping efficiency of

ponds constructed under

the existing

regulations.

A difficulty arises in attempting to evaluate the

incremental increase

in sediment loadings which would be

occasioned by the new regulations.

As shown, numerous estimates

have been presented in the

record of this proceeding.

All such

estimates are based on reasonable authority, but are nonetheless

disparate due principally

to differring assumptions as well as

some apparent miscalculations.

Accordingly, the Board believes

that the best perspective

is gained by initially reviewing the

basic calculations by which the incremental loadings may be

estimated.

The basic relationship

is that

a given quantity of water

with a given concentration of sediment contains a specific volume

of sediment.

In terms of the

issue at hand, this can be restated

in the form:

a given quality of runoff from a sedimentation pond

which has a given concentration of sediment contains

a specific

sediment load or yield.

Convenient units

in which to cast this

relationship are acre—inch per year

for

runoff, mg/l for sediment

concentration, and pounds per acre per year for sediment yield.

Given these units,

a runoff of one acre—inch per year which has a

concentration of

1 mg/i will produce a sediment yield

of .2266

lbs/acre/yr.

increase pond discharge by

.74 tons per acre following

a 2—year

24—hour

storm event.

Multiplying this figure by 5,000 acres,

which

is the figure assumed by the participants

to fairly

represent the annual acreage disturbed by mining operations, the

Agency concluded

that 3,700 additional

tons would be discharged

following a storm event of the 2—year 24—hour magnitude.

Dr.

Barfield

indicated at hearing that twice the discharge resulting

from a 2—year 24—hour storm event

for

a given watershed is

approximately equal

to the annual discharge from that watershed

(Tr.

5 at 305).

Therefore,

accepting that assumption,

the Agency

predicts an annual increased sediment loading of two times

3,700

tons, or 7,400

tons.

78-541

---

—zu—

The next step

is to consider

the average annual

runoff,

measured

in

inches,

which

is

typical

of

the

coal

mine

areas

of

Illinois.

Average annual runoff varies as a function of both

climate,

including annual precipitation, and local conditions of

topography, vegetation,

etc.

Thus, average annual runoff would

be most appropriately determined with site—specific data,

since

the runoff from mined areas may not be the same as runoff from

areas where land use

is different.

However, absent such data,

the best approximations available are the average runoff data

collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in the principal coal

mining areas of the State.

Annual

runoff

in the Big Muddy Basin,

as measured at Murphysboro, averaged 11.23 inch/yr prior to the

construction of Rend Lake, and has averaged 12.20 inch/yr

subsequent to the construction of the lake.

Annual runoff

in the

basin of the South Fork of the Saline River, as measured at

Carrier Mills, has averaged 14.97 inch/yr.

These two stations

are generally typical of the coal mining region of southern

Illinois.

The

La Moine River, as measured at Colmar,

and which

has had an

average annual

runoff of 9.45 inch/yr, probably

provides a more realistic estimate for runoff

in the coal mining

areas

of

western

Illinois.

Given

these

data,

it

is

reasonable

to

assume

a value of approximately 13.0 inches per year for runoff

in the southern part of the State, and approximately 10.0 inches

per year

in the western part of the State.

The second step is to estimate the average sediment

concentration

in that runoff which passes through sediment

ponds.

This is the most difficult of the estimates to make,

partially because the paucity of data and partially because

sediment concentrations experience such wide extremes that a very

large data set is necessary to calculate a meaningful average.

An additional compounding factor associated with the large

variability exhibited by sediment concentration data is that high

concentrations tend

to coincide with large discharges.

Thus,

high percentages of the total load are transported during just

that small fraction of the time which corresponds to high

discharges,

and also concentrations averaged over the full

spectrum of discharge events are not likely to be representative

of the average “effective” concentration.

For these reasons,

it

is most appropriate

to consider the average concentration as

that

concentration which typifies a fairly high discharge event.

During the course of this proceeding, the discharge event which

has been so considered has been the runoff event produced by the

2—year rainfall, which

is the maximum rainfall event

to be

expected

in any two—year period.

This event is not entirely

arbitrarily chosen, but rather has some standing

in the

field of

sediment studies as the event most commonly used by

authorities.

The Board will accordingly use

this event

in the

following analysis, and subsequent use of “average concentration”

will be assumed

to be synonomous with the average sediment

concentration being discharged from a

sedimentation pond after

a

runoff event occasioned by a

2—year rainfall.

It

is further

instructive

to note that on the average the 2—year rainfall tends

78.542

---

—ii—

to carry approximately one—half of the average annual runoff

(see

footnote

9).

Thus,

based

on the figures cited above, the 2—year

rainfall would produce

a runoff event of approximately 6.5 inches

in the southern part of the State and 5.0

inches in the western

part

of

the

State.

Three different estimates of average sediment concentration

from ponds are of interest.

These are the average concentrations

under

the present regulations, sediment concentrations which

could

be expected assuming adoption of the proposed regulations,

and the increment of concentration change which would be expected

were the regulations to be adopted.

The latter, which

is

equivalent to the difference between the two other average

concentrations,

is of principal interest because from this figure

the incremental loading associated with adoption of the proposed

regulations can be calculated.

Unfortunately, there

are poor

or conflicting data regarding

both present average concentrations and average concentrations

under

the proposed regulations.

It

is therefore necessary to

consider possible ranges of values.

Considering first the

average concentrations from ponds under

the present regulations,

the EelS cites the figure of

96 mg/l.

This is generally at the

low end of estimates that have been provided

in the record, but

is consistent with the figures most commonly cited

by members of

the Coal Association

(see,

for example, Tr.

5 at 340,

342).

Dr.

Barfield

indirectly provided an estimate which lies at the high

end

of the range.

Barfield estimated that effluent

concentrations from a pond which had a 90

trapping efficiency,

or from which 10

of the sediment would escape, would

be about

5000 mg/i.

Since

it is generally agreed that ponds designed

according

to the present regulations have a trapping efficiency

of about 95,

which is equivalent to allowing 5

of the sediment

to escape,

Dr. Barfield’s figures implies that present pond

effluent concentrations would be approximately one—half of 5000

mg/l,

or 2500 mg/i

(i.e.,

an equivalent amount of water would

discharge, but the water would contain only half as much

sediment).

Both the EelS and the Barfield estimates are open to some

question.

The EelS estimate was criticized as having been based

on data collected during periods of only fairly low discharges

(Tr.

5 at 335—336), and thus as not being representative of the

higher concentrations typical

of high pond discharges.

Conversely, the Barfield data

is based principally on Dr.

Barfield’s experience and actual field measurements made in the

Appalachian coal province, which is characterized by

substantially greater relief,

and hence also likely greater

runoff and erosion, than typifies the coal mining areas of

Illinois.

There

is further question regarding

the Barfield data

concerning whether

the Barfield ponds were constructed

in a

fashion comparable

to ponds constructed under

Illinois’ present

regulations.

In spite

of these questions, these two estimates

78443

---

—‘.‘.

serve

as useful likely extremes with which

to define

the possible

range of average sediment concentrations from ponds constructed

according

to present Illinois regulations.

Given

the range of average concentrations for existing

ponds,

as presented in the two preceeding paragraphs,

it

is

relatively straightforward to estimate the average concentration

to be expected from ponds constructed according to the proposed

regulations.

This simplicity stems from the accepted

relationship, as previously noted, that

the proposed regulations

would result

in a trapping efficiency decrease from 95

to 90.

Since, as also previously noted,

the same amount of discharge

occurs in either case,

it follows that the average concentrations

under

the proposed regulations would

be twice the average

concentrations which exist under the present regulations.

Using

the EelS estimate this would be 192 mg/l,

and using

the Barfield

estimate this would

be 5000 mg/i.

The range of incremental

increase

in average concentrations

which would be allowed from ponds constructed according to the

proposed regulations

is then the difference between the two sets,

or

96 mg/i for the EelS data and 2500 mg/i

for the Barfield data.

All the data necessary for utilizing the beginning

runoff/concentration/yield relationship are now assembled,

and

the basic question of what would be the incremental

increase in

sediment yield given adoption of the proposed regulations may be

addressed.

The following table

shows the expected incremental

sediment loading under

the various runoff and sediment

concentration scenarios:

Average

Average Annual

Incremental

Incremental

Runoff

Concentration

Sediment Loading

(in/yr)

(mg/i)

(lbs/acre/yr)

10.0

96

218

13.0

96

283

10.0

2500

5665

13.0

2500

7364

A useful dimension which may be added

to this analysis is to

consider the incremental sediment loadings in terms of tons per

acre per year, which

is the conventional unit used

in discussion

of sediment yields from agricultural lands, construction sites,

and other similar areas where sediment yields are of interest.

This

is accomplished by dividing the right hand column above by

2000 lbs/ton.

A second useful dimension is to consider the total

statewide incremental increase in sediment load.

This may

be

accomplished

by noting that there are at any given

time,

approximately

5000 acres of disturbed land

in Illinois which are

tributary to coal mine sedimentation ponds.

If

it

is assumed

that all of this acreage were eventually converted to being

---

—4 ~S—

tributary to ponds constructed

under the proposed regulations,

the total

incremental tonnage would be 5000 times the incremental

tonnage calculated according

to the procedure outlined

at the

beginning of this paragraph.

The following data are thus

produced:

Average

Statewide

Average Annual

Incremental

Incremental

Incremental

Runoff

Concentration

Sediment Loading

Sediment Loading

(in/yr)

(mg/i)

(tons/acre/yr)

(tons/yr)

10.0

96

.109

54510

13.0

96

.141

707

10.0

2500

2.83

14,162

13.0

2500

3.68

18,411

As the preceding discussion suggests,

the most probable

incremental loadings are likely be between the extremes presented

above.

With

these

data

in

mind,

the

Board

remains

convinced

that

little adverse environmental impact will occur as a result of

adopting the

SS standard.

As illustration, the following worst—

case scenario can be developed.

The Big Muddy River

and Saline

River basins receive over two—thirds of the mining discharges

in

Illinois (EcIS at 65).

Taking the highest estimate

in the record

for statewide incremental

sediment loading

in tons per year

(18,411), and further assuming that all the ponds

in the two

drainage basins are designed according

to the proposed standards,

a maximum of approximately 12,500 additional tons might be

anticipated

to be discharged

to those two river basins.

The

record also indicates that the existing sediment load for the Big

Muddy River

Basin

is on the order of 255,900 tons per year

(EelS

at 58).

Although the record does not contain a similar estimate

of

the

sediment

load

of

the

Saline

River,

it

is

reasonable

to

assume, given the similarity

in drainage basin characteristics,

that the unit area production of sediment in the Saline Basin

is

similar

to that in the Big Muddy Basin.

Therefore, since the

10 The Board realizes that the figure put forward in the EelS as

representing the statewide annual incremental

sediment loading in

tons per year (assuming all ponds were designed according to the

SS standard)

is

3,400 tons

(EelS at 58).

The Board belives,

howver, that that figure

is not consistent with the EelS

conclusion that adoption of the SS standard would cause a 96 mg/i

increase

in the sediment levels discharged from sedimentation

ponds following

a 2—year 24—hour storm event.

By accepting the

latter finding of the EelS, the Board has found

it necessary to

revise (downward)

the 3,400 ton figure

(as shown above).

The

Board believes

its revised figures

to have been correctly derived

and calculated.

11-545

---

Sali~çand Big Muddy Rivers have drainage areas

of 1177 and

2387~square miles,

respectively, the total existing sediment

yield from the

two basins combined would

be approximately 382,000

tons per year.

The worst case scenario would thus cause a 3.3

increase

in the sediment load

of the

two basins combined.

The

Board

is

confident

that

this

analysis

grossly

overstates

what the actual

incremental

sediment load would be, since

it

is

predicated on the severest possible assumptions.

Conversely,

if

one were

to accept as being more reasonable

the EelS conclusion

that the statewide incremental sediment loading would be 3,400

tons per

year, the same analysis provides an estimate of only a

0.6

increase

in sediment load

in the two basins combined.

A

still

lower estimate

of 0.1

is arrived at if the statewide

incremental loading of 707 tons per year,

as previously derived,

is assumed.

The Board notes that the above analysis should not be

construed as supporting

a view that a 3.3

increase

in the annual

sediment loading of the Saline and Big Muddy Rivers

is

necessarily insignificant.

Rather,

the Board presents the

discussion only for

the purpose of showing that even under

the

worst possible conditions the projected incremental sediment

loading

is a small number, and additionally that under more

realistic assumptions than provided for by the worst case

scenario,

the incremental

sediment loading would be smaller

still.

The Board must also make one other

note regarding

the

potential environmental impact stemming from adoption of the SS

standard.

The Agency has, admittedly,

had concerns throughout

this proeeedinq regarding the increased sedimentation which might

occur

if the ICA proposal

is adopted.

These concerns have caused

the Agency to vigorously oppose the adoption here of the SS

standard.

In support of its position, and ostensibly to give

the

Board more options in this proceeding, the Agency offered a

proposal

of its own

in lieu of the ICA proposal (see pgs.

10—12,

above).

During the first notice period, the Agency submitted

comments which included projections, compiled through the use

of

Sedimot

II, of the performance of several hypothetical

sedimentation ponds sized according to the requirements of the SS

standard.

The Agency had assumed that such ponds would remove

only 20—30

of the

inflowing sediment.

However, the two SS—sized

ponds the Agency asked Sedimot

II

to evaluate during

a theorized

10—year,

24—hour storm event both trapped 82

of the inflowing

sediment (Board Exhibit

3,

p.

49), and therefore would have

satisfied Alternative B of the Agency’s proposal.

Sedimot II, an

11 Drainage areas are from U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources

Investigations 79—110,

“River Mileages and Drainage Areas

for

Illinois

Streams”.

78-546

---

—25—

analytical

tool

widely

regarded

as

the

most

authoritative

model

of

its

kind,

thus

predicts

that the increased sediment loading

will

be

significantly less than that feared by the Agency.

MONITORING

DURING

PRECIPITATION

EVENTS

Adoption

of

a

performance—based

pond—design

standard

(such

as

the

SS

standard)

requires

that

periodic

monitoring be done to

insure

that

ponds continue

to meet the requisite level of

performance.

For this reason,

the Board proposed for adoption at

first notice Section 406.102(i), which read

in full as

follows:

At least one sample shall

be collected during the time

period the alternate limitations

for precipitation

events

in 406.109 and 406.110 are in effect.

The

operator

shall have the burden of proof that the

discharge or increase

in discharge was caused by the

applicable

precipitation

event.

The Board intended that Section 406.102(i) would require one

sample

to be taken from each pond during each precipitation

event.

The comments received at first notice reflected

disagreement with the section.

The ICA has contended that it could be “impossible to

comply” with Section 406.102(i),

as “(m)anpower

to sample all of

the ponds for each event

is neither available,

nor realistic”

(comments of the Illinois Coal Association Re: R84—29, September

12,

1986).

The ICA suggested instead that monitoring

be limited

to the collection of one quarterly sample from each pond,

taken

during a precipitation event.

The Agency, on the other

hand,

has argued that the Board’s

proposed requirement of one sample per pond per precipitation

event

is “insufficient

to effectively judge a pond’s performance

in actual operation”

(comments of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency, September

15,

1986).

The Agency stated that

“meaningful” sampling requires that “multiple samples (be taken)

during the rising leg, at or

near the peak and on the falling leg

of the hydrograph”

(Id.).

Alternatively,

the Agency suggested

that if the Board decides to not require multiple sampling during

each precipitation event,

then it should specify where on the

runoff hydrograph (rising

leg, peak,

or falling leg)

the sample

should be collected.

The Board concluded

in its second notice Opinion and Order

that

a middle ground between the ICA and Agency viewpoints has

the most merit

in this instance.

Although Section 406.102(i)

as

proposed at first notice did reflect

a position between those of

the ICA and the Agency,

the Board believed

it necessary to

further refine the requirements of the section.

The Board was

persuaded that

a required sampling frequency of one sample per

75-547

---

pond per precipitation event may be

an onerous burden,

particularly

in regard to those operators which may have dozens

of ponds on a single mining site.

Therefore, the Board proposed

at second notice, and adopts today, the requirement that three

samples be taken per pond per quarter, during three separate

periods

in which the alternate limitations

for precipitation

events are

in effect.

Formally, establishment of this

requirement was accomplished by deleting the formerly proposed

Section 406.102(i),

and amending Section 406.102(d)

in the

following manner:

d)

At

a

reasonable

frequency

to

be

determined

by

the

Agency,

the permittee shall report the actual concentration or

level

of any parameter

identified

in the state of NPDES

permit.

Each report submitted pursuant to this

subsection shall include

at least

three samples taken

from each pond discharge during three separate periods

occurring

during

that

reporting

period

in

which

the

alternate limitations for precipitation events of Section

406.109

and

406.110

were

in

effect.

If

such

alternate

limitations are

in effect on fewer than three separate

occasions during a reporting period, one sample

shall

be

taken of each pond discharge during each occasion

in that

period when

the alternate limitations are

in effect.

The

operator shall have the burden

of proof that

the

discharge

or

increase

in

discharge

was

caused

by

the

applicable precipitation event.

The Board believes that the monitoring requirements as now

adopted impose a more reasonable demand on the manpower

capabilities of mine operators,

yet at the same time will provide

a substantial data base from which the performance of

sedimentation ponds can

be calculated

and assessed.

SODIC SOILS

The hearing conducted in this matter on December

10,

1986,

generated a subject of interest which had previously not been one

of the plethora of issues which were already present in this

proceeding.

The new issue concerns “sodic”

soils,

or those soils

having uncharacteristically high levels of

“free” sodium

(Tr.

5

at 19).

The occurrence of sodic soils is significant because the

particles of soils having that condition will not tend

to

flocculate, but will

rather tend

to disperse

(Id.).

Because such

particles resist settling, the discharges of ponds receiving

runoff from sodic soil areas may contain high levels of total

suspended

solids

yet

meet

the

SS

standard.

The topic of sodic

soils was raised at hearing by Dr.

Barfield, who

is familiar with studies concerning the existence

of sodic

soil conditions

in Kentucky (Id.

at 47—48).

Dr.

Barfield also indicated that he knows of a consultant who has

---

—27—

done work concerning some Illinois watersheds and has found some

isolated instances of sodic

soils in Illinois

(Id. at 163).

At this point

in time the Board can only .state that

questions such as whether sodie soils exist

in Illinois, where

they exist,

and what impact they have on the monitoring of

sedimentation pond performance warrant more investigation and

study.

The Board has searched for additional

information on this

subject, but has been unable

to locate answers to these and other

questions.

Even Dr. Barfield was unable

to quantitatively define

a soil that might be considered “sodic”

(Id.

at 47—48), and did

not have any personal knowledge concerning the location of sodic

soils in Illinois

(Id.

at 163).

If

in the future it is

discovered that sodic soils exist

in Illinois in some significant

degree,

a future Board may do well to consider amending these

regulations

to reflect the existence of such soils and the

ramifications

they

pose

to

the

monitoring

of

pond

performance.

AGENCY’S JUNE

22,

1987,

MOTION

On June 22,

1987, the Agency filed

a Motion for

Clarification and Modification in which

it requests that the

Board,

inter alia, modify the definition of “acid or ferruginous

mine

drainage”,

and

make

a

conforming

modification

to

the

definition of “alkaline mine drainage”.

The Agency contends

that, contrary to the general acknowledgement that most Illinois

mine drainge

is alkaline, the definition as drafted would require

that Illinois mine drainage be classified as ferruginous mine

drainage,.

The Agency contends this to be the case since

ferruginous mine drainage

is defined as mine drainage which has

an iron concentration greater than 10 mg/i, and since the wet

weather runoff from Illinois mines typically contains more than

10 mg/i of total

iron.

The Ageny’s proposed modification would

clarify that the test of whether the drainage

is ferruginous is

not to be conducted

on wet weather

runoff, but rather under base

flow or low flow conditions.

The conforming modification

to the

definition of “alkaline mine drainage” would include a similar

proviso.

The Board believes that the Agency’s proposed modification

would serve

a useful purpose of clarification.

The reading that

the test for ferruginous drainage is to be made under base flow

or low flow conditions

is the reading which has been historically

applied

to this definition.

However, the Board does not believe

that the modification is either essential or advisable at this

time.

The definitions

in question have been drawn directly from

definitions used in federal regulations,

in conformity with the

intent

of

making

the

Illinois

regulations

mirror

as

closely

as

possible the

federal regulations.

The

issue of whether the test

for ferruginous drainage may be made under wet weather

runoff

conditions had apparently not arisen under the federal

78.549

---

—28—

regulations

until raised by the Agency.

In response

to an

inquiry

from

the

Agency

to

the

USEPA,

the

USEPA

has

noted:

This letter

is to advise the State that the

determination of whether

a coal mine should

be

classified

in the acid/ferruginous

or alkaline

subcategory of the coal mine point source category may

be

made

on

the

basis

of

base

flow

or

low

flow

conditions.

Agency Ex.

23,

Attach. V

It is thus clear that the interpretation which the Ageny intends

for these definitions

is already permissible under federal

interpretation, without needed additional modification.

There

is the further practical matter of adopting

a

modification at this late stage

in this proceeding.

The entire

rule has proceeded through both first and second notice.

Moreover, the first notice period expires on August

1,

1987.

Accordingly,

it would

seem necessary that

if the Board were to

make the modifications,

it would have to begin the entire

noticing process anew.

The rulemaking has already been drawn out

longer than

is reasonable,

and the Board does not believe that

the uncertain gain

in clarity justifies any more delay in

adoption of the overall rule.

The Agency additionally requested

in the June 22,

1987,

motion that “coal preparation plants and plant associated area”

be included

in the exceptions specified

in 406.110(c).

For the

reasons noted above, the Board also believes that the merits of

this modification do not justify delaying the final adoption of

the

rule.

75-550

---

—29—

ORDER

The Clerk of

the Pollution Control Board

is directed

to

submit

the following adopted rules to the Secretary of State

for

final notice:

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

D:

MINE

RELATED

WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER I:

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 402

Section

402.100

Terms Defined Elsewhere

402.101

Definitions

AUTHORITY:

Authorized

by

Section

27

and

implementing

Sections

12

and 13 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Ill. Rev.

Stat.,

ch.

111 1/2,

pars.

1012,

1013 and 1027) unless otherwise

noted.

SOURCE:

4 Ill.

Reg.

no.

34,

p.

164, effective August

7,

1980;

Codified

5 Ill.

Reg. no.

34,

p.

8527, effective August

21,

1981

unless

otherwise

noted;

Amended

at

______

Ill.

Reg.

_______,

effective

Section 402.100

Terms Defined Elsewhere

Unless otherwise stated or

unless the context clearly indicates a

different meaning, the definition of terms used

in this Chapter

are the same as those

found

in the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act

(Act),

(Ill. Rev. Stat.

1979,

ch.

111 1/2, Section

1001 et seq.), the Water

Pollution Regulations of the Illinois

Pollution Control Board

(Subtitle C,

Chapter

I)

and the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act of

1972 (FWPCA)

(33 U.S.C.

1251 et

seq.,

1972 as amended).

The following definitions which apply to

this Chapter can be found in the Act, Subtitle C, Chapter

I or

the FWPCA: Administrator, Agency, Board, Contaminant, Effluent,

Federal Water Pollution Control Act

(FWPCA), National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Point Source Discharge,

Pollutant, Refuse, Storet, Treatment Works, Underground Waters,

Section 402.101

Definitions

For purposes of this Chapter

the following terms are defined:

“Abandon”:

to transfer ownership of or

to close down mining

activities,

a

mine

or

mine

refuse

area

with

no

intention

by

that

operator

to reopen

the affected land.

A mine or mine refuse area

which has been inoperative for one year shall be rebuttably

75.551

---

presumed

to be abandoned.

“Acid

or Ferruginous Mine Drainage”: mine drainage which,

before

any treatment,

has a pH of less than 6.0 or

a total

iron

concentration greater than 10 mg/L.

“Acid—producing Material”: material which when exposed

to air and

water

is capable of causing drainage containing sulfuric

acid.

In determining whether material

is acid—producing, consideration

shall

be given

to the sulfur content of the material, the size

and spatial distribution of pyritic compounds and other compounds

of sulfur,

the neutralizing effect of surrounding intermixed

materials and the quality of drainage produced by mining on sites

with similar

soils.

“Affected Land”: any land owned

or controlled

or otherwise used

by the operator in connection with mining activities except the

surface area above underground mine workings that

is not

otherwise used for mining activities.

The

term does not include

offsite office buildings and farming operations or recreational

activities

on

undisturbed

land.

Land

described

in

a

certificate

of abandonment issued by the Agency under Section 405.110(e)

is

no longer part of the affected land.

“Alkaline Mine Drainage”: mine drainage which, prior

to

treatment,

has

a

pH

equal

to

or

greater

than

6.0

and

a

total

iron

concentration

of

less

than

10

mg/L/.

“Aquifer”:

a zone,

stratum or group of strata which can store and

transmit water

in sufficient quantities

for

a specific use.

“Base Flow”: any flow which

is not a result of immediate runoff

from precipitation.

It includes,

but

is not limited to,

groundwater flow, mechanical pumpages, springs, discharges from

subsurface drainage

systems, and controlled outfalls

from other

treatment works.

It is normally any flow beyond

24 hours after

the rainfall ceases.

“Coal Preparation Plant”:

a facility where coal

is subjected

to

cleaning, concentrating, or other processing

or preparation in

order

to separate coal from its impurities.

“Coal Preparation Plant Associated Areas”: coal preparation plant

yards,

immediate access roads, coal refuse piles and coal storage

piles and facilities.

“Coal Refuse Disposal Pile”: any coal

refuse permanently

deposited on the earth

or stored

for more than 180 days.

It does

not include coal refuse deposited within the active mining area

or coal refuse never

removed from the active mining area.

“Coal Transfer Facility or Coal Storage Yard”: any area were coal

is transferred from one mode of transportation to another or

75-552

—31--

where coal

is dumped, piled,

stored

or blended.

The term

includes but is not limited to coal docks, blending yards,

conveyor belts and pipelines.

As used

in this Chapter, the terms

mining activity and mine related facility shall include coal

transfer facilities and coal storage yards.

“Construction Authorization”: authorization under Section 403.104

to prepare land for mining activities or

to construct mine

related facilities.

Construction authorization

is issued to a

person who holds or

is required

to have an NPDES permit.

“Construction Permit”:

a state permit issued under Section

404.101 which allows the operator to prepare land for mining

activities or to construct mine related facilities.

“Controlled Surface Mine Drainage”:

any surface mine drainage

that

is pumped or siphoned from

a mine area or mined area.

“Domestic Retail Sales Yard”:

a business which stockpiles coal

or

other materials solely for the purpose of supplying homeowners,

small businesses,

small

industries or other

institutions with the

mineral for their individual consumption.

The term does not

include any sales yard located at a mine.

“Drainage Course”: any natural or man—made channel or ditch which

serves the purpose of directing

the flow of water into

a natural

waterway.

“Facility”:

a contiguous area of land,

including all structures

above or below the ground, which

is owned or controlled by one

person.

“Mine Area or Mined Area”:

the surface and subsurface land where

mining has occurred or

is occurring.

The term does not include

the unmined

surface land directly above underground mine workings

which is not otherwise disturbed by mining activities.

“Mine Discharge”: any point source discharge, whether natural

or

man—made,

from a mine related facility.

Such discharges include

but are not limited

to mechanical pumpages, pit overflows,

spiliways,

drainage ditches, seepage from mine or mine refuse

areas, effluent from processing and milling

or mineral

preparation plants.

Other discharges including but not limited

to sanitary sewers and

sewage treatment works are not mine

discharges.

The term mine discharge includes surface runoff

discharged from a sedimentation pond but does not include non—

point source mine discharges.

“Mine Refuse”: gob, coal,

rock,

slate, shale, mill tailings,

boney,

clay, pyrites and other unmerchantable solid

or slurry

material

intended

to be discarded which

is connected with the

cleaning and preparation of mined materials at a preparation

plant or washery.

It includes sludge or

other precipitated

71-553

---

—.~‘—

matter produced by the treatment of acid mine drainage but does

not otherwise generally include sediment from alkaline mine

drainage.

The term also includes acid—producing spoil.

“Mine Refuse Area”:

any land used for dumping, storage or

disposal of mine refuse.

“Mine Refuse Pile”: any deposit of solid mine refuse which

is

intended to serve

as permanent disposal of such material.

“Mine Related Facility”:

a portion of a facility which

is related

to mining activities.

The term includes, but is not limited to,

the following:

a)

Affected

land;

b)

Coal

storage

yard

or

transfer

facility;

c)

Mine;

d)

Mine drainage treatment facility;

e)

Mine refuse area; and

f)

Processing or mineral preparation plant.

“Mining”:

the surface or underground extraction or processing of

natural deposits

of coal,

clay,

fluorspar,

gravel, lead bearing

ores,

peat,

sand, stone,

zinc bearing ores or other minerals by

the use

of any mechanical operation or process.

The term also

includes the recovery or processing of the minerals from

a mine

refuse area.

It does not include drilling for oil

or natural

gas.

“Mining Activities”: all activities on a facility which are

directly in furtherance of mining,

including activities before,

during and after mining.

The term does not include land

acquisition, exploratory drilling, surveying and similar

activities.

The term includes, but

is not limited to, the

following:

a)

Preparation of land for mining activities;

b)

Construction of mine related facilities which could

generate refuse, result in a discharge or have the

potential to cause water pollution;

c)

Ownership or control

of

a mine related facility;

d)

Ownership or control of a coal storage yard or

transfer

facility;

e)

Generation

or

disposal

of

mine

refuse;

71-554

---

f)

Mining;

g)

Opening

a

mine;

h)

Production of a mine discharge or non—point source mine

discharge;

i)

Surface drainage control;

and

j)

Use of acid—producing mine refuse.

“Mountaintop Removal”: surface coal mining

and reclamation

pperations that remove entire coal seams running

through the

upper fraction of a mountain, ridge,

or hill by removal of all of

the

overburden

and

create

a

level

plateau or gently rolling

contour

with

no

highwalls

remaining.

“New Source Coal Mine”:

a coal mine, including an abandoned mine

which

is

being

remined,

at

which:

a)

Construction

commenced

after

May

4,

1984;

or

b)

A

major

alteration

has

resulted

in

a

new,

altered

or

increased

discharge

of

pollutants.

Major

alterations

are:

1)

Extraction

from

a

coal

seam

not

previously

extracted

by

that

mine

2)

Discharge into a drainage area not previously

affected

by

wastewater

discharge

from

that

mine

3)

Extensive new surface disruption at the mining

operation;

and

IL

Construction

of

a

new

shaft,

slope

or

drift.

“Non—point Source Mine Discharge”:

surface runoff from the

affected land.

The term does not include surface runoff which is

discharged from

a sedimentation pond

or seepage from a mine or

mine refuse area.

“Opening

a Mine”: any construction activity related

to

preparation for mining on a facility.

“Operating Permit”: a state permit required of a person carrying

out mining activities.

“Operator”:

a person who carries out mining activities.

“Permittee”:

a person who holds a state or NPDES permit issued

under

this Subtitle

D,

Chapter

I.

In some contexts the

term

permittee

also

includes

a

permit

applicant.

75-555

---

—,~‘*—

“Person”: any individual,

partnership, co—partnership,

firm,

company, corporation, association,

joint stock company, trust,

estate, political subdivision,

state agency,

or any other legal

entity,

or their legal

representative, agent or assigns.

“Processing

or Mineral Preparation Plant”:

a facility used for

the sizing or separation from the ore or raw mineral of coal,

clay, fluorspar, gravel,

lead bearing ores,

peat,

sand, stone,

zinc bearing ores or other materials.

“Reclamation Area”:

the surface area of a coal mine which has

been returned

to the contour required by permit and on which

revegetation work has commenced.

“Slurry”: mine refuse separated from the mineral

in the cleaning

process consisting

of readily pumpable fines and clays and other

materials in the preparation plant effluent.

This term includes

mill tailings.

“Spoil”:

the accumulation of excavated overburden or other

earth,

dirt or rock overlying the mineral seam or other deposit

excavated from its original location by surface or underground

mining.

“State Permit”

a construction permit or operating permit issued

by the Agency.

NPDES permits are not state permits.

“Steep Slope”: any slope of more than 20 degrees.

“Surface Drainage Control”: control of surface water

on the

affected land by a person who is engaging

in mining

activities.

Control

of surface water

includes diversion of surface waters

around or away from the active mining area or mine refuse area

and diversion,

redirection or impoundment of a stream or

impoundment of water

for

flow augmentation or controlled

release

of effluents.

“Surface Mining”: mining conducted

in an open pit including area

and contour strip mining.

“Underground Mining”:

mining conducted below the surface by means

of constructing an access facility to the mineral deposit.

The

term includes slope, drift, shaft mines and

auger

or punch

mining.

“Use of Acid—producing Mine Refuse”: use of acid—producing mine

refuse includes any use, offer

for sale,

sale or offer

for use in

roadway projects, mine roads, mine yards or elsewhere.

(Source: Amended

in R84—29 at

Ill.

Reg.

_____

effective

__________

75.556

---

—35—

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

D:

MINE

RELATED

WATER

POLLUTION

CHAPTER

I:

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

PART

406

MINE WASTE

EFFLUENT

AND

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARDS

SUBPART

A:

EFFLUENT

STANDARDS

Section

406. 100

406.101

406. 102

406. 103

406.104

406.105

406.106

406. 107

406. 108

406.

109

406.110

Preamble

Averaging

Sampling, Reporting and Monitoring

Background

Concentrations

Dilution

Vte~1etten ef

Weter

eiaaiity

Standerd5

-~Rent~mbered-)

Commingling

of

waste

Effluent

Standards

for

Mine

Discharges

Offensive

Discharges

Non—point Source Mine Discharges

Effluent Standards for Discharge from Reclamation

Areas

Alternate Effluent Standards for Precipitation

Events

SUBPART

B:

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARDS

Section

406.202

406. 203

406. 204

406. 205

406. 206

406. 207

406.208

Temporary Exemption from Section 406.105

Violation of Water Quality Standards

TDS Related Permit Conditions

Good Mining Practices

Contact with Disturbed Areas

Retention

and

Control of Exposed Waters

Unconventional Practices

Expiration of Former Exemptions

AUTHORITY:

Implementing

Sections

12

and

13 and authorized by

Section

27 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1983,

ch.

ill 1/2, pars.

1012,

1013 and 1027).

SOURCE: Adopted

in R76—20, R77—l0,

39 PCB 196,

at

4 Ill.

Reg.

34,

p.

164, effective August

7,

1980;

codified at

5 Ill.

Reg.

8527;

emergency amendment in R83—6B at

7

Ill.

Reg.

8386,

effective July

5,

1983,

for

a maximum of 150 days; amended

in R83—6B at

7

Ill.

Reg.

14510,

effective

October

19,

1983;

amended

in

R83—6A

at

8

Ill.

Reg.

13239,

effective

July

16,

1984;

amended

in

R84—29

at

_____

Ill.

Reg.

_____,

effective

________

75457

---

—36—

Section 406.101

Averaging

a)

Compliance

with the numerical standards of this part

shall

be

determined

on the basis of 24—hour composite

samples averaged over any calendar month.

In addition,

no single 24—hour composite sample shall exceed two

times the numerical standards prescribed

in this part

nor

shall any grab sample taken individually or

as an

aliquot of any composite sample exceed five times the

numerical standards prescribed

in this part.

b)

Subsection

(a)

of this section notwithstanding,

if

a

permittee elects monitoring

and reporting by grab

samples

as

provided

in

Section 406.102(f), then

compliance

with

the

numerical

standards

of

this

part

shall

be

determined

on

the

basis

of

three

or

more

grab

samples averaged over a calendar month.

In addition,

no

single grab sample shall exceed two times the numerical

standards prescribed

in this part.

c)

The numerical standards for settleable

solids are

maximum values not

to be exceeded at any time and are

not

subject

to

averaging.

d)

The numerical standards for pH shall

be within the

specified range at all

times and are not subject to

averaging.

(Source:

Amended

in

R84—29

at

_____

Ill. Reg.

_____

effective

_________

Section 406.102

Sampling, Reporting

and

Monitoring

a)

Where treatment

is provided for

a discharge, effluent

samples shall

be taken at a point after

the final

treatment process and before entry into or mixture with

any

waters

of

the

state.

b)

Where treatment

is provided

the permittee shall design

or modify structures so as

to permit the taking of

effluent samples by the Agency at the required point.

C)

Where treatment is not provided for a discharge,

effluent samples shall

be taken

at the nearest point of

access to the discharge source at a point where the

discharge leaves the mine or mine area or other portions

of

the

affected land,

but

in all cases effluent samples

shall

be

taken

before

entry

into

or

mixture

with

waters

of the state.

d)

At a reasonable frequency to

be determined by the

Agency, the permittee shall report the actual

75-558

---

—.~

I—

concentration or level

of any parameter

identified

in

the state or NPDES permit.

Each report submitted

pursuant to this subsection shall include at least three

samples taken from each pond discharge during three

separate

periods

occurring

during

that

reporting

period

in

which

the

alternate

limitations

for

precipitation

events of Section 406.109 and 406.110 were in effect.

If

such

alternate

limitations are

in effect on fewer

than three separate occasions during

a reporting period,

one sample

shall

be taken of each pond discharge during

each occasion

in that period when

the alternate

limitations are

in effect.

The operator shall have the

burden of proof that

the discharge or

increase

in

discharge was caused

by the applicable precipitation

event.

e)

The Agency may by permit condition require monitoring

and

reporting on the basis of

24—hour composite samples

averaged over calendar months.

However, grab samples

or

composite samples of shorter duration may be

permitted by the Agency after demonstration that such

samples reflect discharge levels over standard operating

conditions.

f)

Subsection

(e)

of this Section notwithstanding,

if

a

permittee

so

requests,

the

Agency

shall

by

permit

condition require monitoring

and reporting

on the basis

of

grab

samples,

in

which

case

Section

406.101(b) will

apply.

g)

Monitoring as required

in this rule shall continue after

abandonment until the permittee has reasonably

established that drainage complies with and will

continue to comply with the requirements of the Act and

this Chapter.

h)

All methods of sample collection, preservation and

analysis used

in applying any of the requirements of

this Chapter shall

be

in accord with the United States

Environmental Protection Agency’s current manual of

practice or with other procedures acceptable to the

United States Environmental Protection Agency and the

Agency.

(Source:

Amended

in

R84—29

at

Ill.

Reg.

_____

effective

Section 406.105

Ve~et4onef Water ~e~~ty

Stenderde

-(-Renum~ered~Comming1ingof Waste Streams

Where waste streams

from any facility described

in this Part are

combined

for treatment or discharge with other

waste

streams from

another facility,

the concentration of each pollutant in the

71-559

—38—

combined

discharge

may

not

exceed the most stringent limitations

for

that

pollutant

applicable

to

any

component

waste

stream

of

the discharge.

(Source: Amended

in R84—29 at

effective

________.)

Section 406.106

Ill.

Reg.

_____

Effluent Standards for Mine Discharges

a)

The

effluent

limitations

contained in

35

Ill.

Adm. Code

304 shall not apply to mine discharges

or non—point

source mine discharges.

b)

No person

shaH

ea~seor eHewExcept

as provided

in 35

Ill. Adm. Code 406.109

and

406.110,

a

mine discharge

effluent to shall not exceed

the following levels of

contaminants:

Constituent

Acidity

Iron (total)

Lead

(total)

Ammonia Nitrogen

(as N)

pH

Zinc

(total)

Fluoride

(total)

Total suspended solids

Manganese

Storet

Number

Concentration

(total acidity

shall

not

exceed

total alkalinity)

3.5 mg/l

1

mg/l

5

mg/l

(range

6

to

9)

5

mg/i

15

mg/i

35

mg/i

2.0

mg/i

3~

pH ~s net st~bjeet

to everegtng7

~1)

The ammonia nitrogen standard

is

an operator utilizing ammonia

in

treatment.

applicable

only

to

wastewater

3-~

Any everHow7 ~nereese -~nvo~umeof a d~seher~eor

deherge

from

a

by—pass

system

eat~sed by

pree~p~tat~onor

snowme3~t

shaH

net

be

s~b~eet

to

the

Hm4tet4ona

of

this

Seet~on~

Th~e

exempt~on

shaH

be

ava~eHe

en~y ~f

the

aed4mentat~on

bas~n

or treatment works ~s dee~ned7eonstrtteted and

ma~inte~ned

to eenta±n

or

treat

the

vo3ume

of

water

wMeh woti~dfaH on

the

areas

tHbt~tery

to

the

d~eeharge7everf~owor bypass dur-~nga ~8—yeer-,~4—

het~ror ~erger pree~p~tat~on

event +or snewme~tof

e~u~va~ent

ve~umef-

The

operator

shaH

have

the

bt~rden of

demonstret~4ng that

the

prere

~s~tes

to

en eempt~on set forth ~n this st,baeeHon have been

00435

01045

01051

00610

00400

01092

00951

00530

01055

71-560

---

—j~—

met7

42)

The

manganese

effluent

limitation

is

applicable

only to discharges from facilities where chemical

addition

is

required

to

meet the

iron or pH

effluent

limitations.

The upper limit of pH shall

be

10

for

any

such

facility

that

is

unable

to

comply with the manganese limit at pH

9.

The

manganese standard

is not applicable to mine

discharges which

are associated with areas where no

active mining, processing or refuse disposal

has

taken place since May 13,

1976.

çJ

New source coal

mines

shall

be subject to

a total

iron

limitation

of

3.0

mg/i

in

addition

to

the

requirements

of

subsection

b)

above.

(Source:

Amended

in

R84—29

at

Ill.

Reg.

_____

effective

__________

Section

406.109

Effluent

Standards

for

Coal

Mine

Discharges

from Reclamation Areas

a)

The effluent limitations contained

in

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code

304

and

406.106

shall

not

apply

to

mine

discharges

from

reclamation areas.

b)

A

mine

discharge

effluent

from

a

reclamation

area

shall

not

exceed

the

following

levels

of

contaminants:

Storet

Constituent

Number

Concentration

Settleable

solids

0.5

ml/l

00400(range

6—9)

c)

Notwithstanding

b), above,

any discharge,

or increase

in

the

volume

of

discharge

caused

by

precipitation

within

any

24

hour

period

greater

than

the

10—year,

24—hour

precipitation

event

(or

snowmelt

of

equivalent

volume)

shall

be

subject

only

to

a

pH limitation

(range 6—9).

(Source:

Adopted

in

R84—29 at

Ill. Reg.

_____

effective

_________

Section 406.110

Discharges During Precipitation Events

a)

Discharges of alkaline mine drainage (except discharges

from

underground

mines

that

are

not

commingled

with

other

discharges

eligible

for

these

alternate

limits),

discharges

from

mountaintop

removal

operations,

75-561

---

discharges from steep slope areas,

and discharges from

coal preparation plants and plant associated areas,

except for drainage from coal refuse disposal piles are

eligible for alternate effluent limitations during

precipitation events.

Any discharge or

increase

in the

volume of a discharge caused

by precipitation within any

24—hour period less than or equal

to the 10—year, 24—

hour precipitation event

(or snowmelt of equivalent

volume)

may

comply

with

the

following limitations

instead

of

those

in

406.106(b):

Storet

Constituent

Number

Concentration

Settleable solids

0.5 ml/1

00400(range 6—9)

b)

Discharges

of

acid

or ferruginous mine discharge from

coal

refuse

disposal

piles

are

eligible

for

alternate

effluent

limitations

during precipitation events.

Any

discharge

or

increase

in

the

volume

of

a

discharge

caused

by

precipitation

within

any

24—hour

period

greater than

the

1—year,

24—hour precipitation event and

less

than

or

equal

to the

10—year,

24—hour precipitation

event

(or snowmeit of equivalent volume) ma~ycomply with

the following limitations instead of those in

406. 106(b):

Storet

Constituent

Number

Concentration

Settleable solids

0.5 mi/i

00400(range

6—9)

~j

Discharges

of

acid

or ferruginous mine drainage

(except

for

discharges

in

subsection

(b),

above,

mountaintop

removal

areas,

steep

slope

areas,

controlled

surface

mine

discharges

and

discharges

from

underground

workings):

fl~

caused by precipitation within any

24 hour period

less than

or equal

to the

2—year, 24—hour

precipitation event

(or snowmeit of equivalent

volume)

may

comply

with

the

following

limitations

instead

of

those

in

406.109(b):

Storet

Constituent

Number

Concentration

Settleabie solids

0.5 mi/i

Iron

(total)

01045 3.5 mg/i

00400(range

6—9)

71-562

---

.1. —

~j

Caused

by

precipitation

within

any

24

hour

period

greater

than

the

2—year,

24—hour

precipitation

event but less than

or equal

to the

10—year, 24—

hour

precipitation

event

shall

be

subject

to

the

~quirements

of subsection (c)(l),

above, except

for the total

iron effluent standard.

d)

All discharges mentioned in

(a),

(b), and

(c) of this

section, discharges of acid

or ferruginous mine drainage

from

underground

workings

which are commingled with

other

discharges

and controlled acid or ferruginous

surface mine discharges caused by precipitation within

any 24 hour period greater than the 10—year,

24—hour

precipitation event

(or snowmelt of equivalent volume)

shall

be subject only to

a pH limitation

(range 6—9).

(Source:

Adopted

in R84—29 at

Ill.

Reg.

_____,

effective

_________

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED.

I, Dorothy

N.

Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the ab ye Opinion and Order was

adopted

on

the

~

day

of

______________,

1987,

by a vote

of

_______•

/

Dorothy

M.

9’unn,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

78-563