ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 11, 1986

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 35,

)

R84-29

SUBTITLE

D:

MINE RELATED WATER

)

POLLUTION, CHAPTER

I, SECTION

)

406.106

)

PROPOSED RULE.

FIRST NOTICE.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by R.C.

Flemal):

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 proposal requests the

Board

to amend 35

Ill. 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

406.106(b)

(except pH) during rainfall events,

but

a

0.5 ml/l settleable solids 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

volume).

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 economic

sediment ponds.

Merit hearings on the proposal were held in Urbana,

Illinois, on November

30,

1984,

and in Springfield, Illinois, on

December

21, 1984.

ié~ürrenteffluent 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)

(to be 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.

71-78

---

—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 May 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 occuring

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

Water Pollution Regulations”, was received by the Board on

February 3,

1986.

Hearings on the EcIS were conducted

in DeKalb,

Illinois, on March 10, 1986,

and

in Springfield, Illinois, on

March 18,

1986.

The EcIS 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 EcIS 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.

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.

71-79

---

—3—

For the reasons discussed below,

the Board today adopts

for

First Notice language largely paralleling the proposal put forth

by the ICA.

CURRENT ILLINOIS LAW

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/l

Lead

(total)

01051

1 mg/l

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.

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

71-80

---

—4—

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

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.

(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—hour 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.

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

(“SS”) criteria

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 promulated changes

to the 1982 regulations pursuant to

a settlement agreement in the

matter of National Coal Association,

et. al.

v. Environmental

Protection Ageñcy, Nos. 82—1939 et.~ál.,~4thCI~,Aiigüst~23,

~?hé Matter of

P!~posed

Amendments

to Chapter

4 of the

Ri~ili?Ionsof

the

Ilfinois_Pol1ution~Control~oard,1~Th—20 and

TT7—T~(consolidated),

WPCW26~7~Iuly 24,

1~8~J.At the

time

of

its promulgation

in 1980, section 406.106 was known

as Rule 606

of Chapter

4: Mine Related Pollution.

71-81

---

—5—

The Board’s regulations governing mine related discharges

during precipitation events have not been consistent with the

USEPA regulations

for those discharges

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/1 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 Ill. 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

406.106

be revised

to appear as follows:

Section 406.106

Effluent Standards

a)

The effluent limitations contained

in Part 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

Acidity

00435

(total acidity shall

not exceed

total 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/i

Fluoride (total)

00951

15 mg/i

Total

suspended

solids

00530

35 mg/i

Manganese

01055

2.0 rng/l

1)

pH

is not subject to averaging.

71-82

---

—6—

2)

The ammonia nitrogen standard is applicable only

to an operator utilizing ammonia in wastewater

treatment.

3+

Any

overf3ow7 ~nereese 4n vo3ume of

a

d4seharge or

diseharge

from

a

by—pass

system

eaused

by

pree~pitati~on

or enowme~tsha3~not be eub~eetto

the

mitat~ons

of

this

Seet~ort7

This

exemption

shaH be ~ab~e

ort3~y ~f the sedimentation basi~n

or

treatment

works 4s designed~eonstrtieted and

ma4nta4ned to eonta~nor treat the vo3ume of water

wh~ehwou3d feH on the areas tributary to the

dteehargey overflow or by—pass during a 3~6—year7

~4—year or 3arger pree~pitati~onevent ~or snowme3t

of eqeivaient ,o3t,me+-

~he operator sha33 have

the burden of demonstrat±ngthat the prere~u~s~tes

to an exemption set forth 4~nthis eubseetion have

been met.

3)4)

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.

4)

For any New Source which discharges water,

the

-

_---

effluent_limitation for iron shall be3.9~9L~

5)

Any dischar~or increase

in the volume of

a

—

——~

—‘.———

——

———

_-—-————————~——————~

discna~ caused by~pre~itationwithin any 24-

~o~eriod

less thar~or_eq~altoth~lO—~ear,24—

—

———-

——

hour ~~çipitation

event

(or snowmelt of

__

__

-

~ui valent vol

ume) ,or

rrom

a

rec

1amation area,

shlIb~ exempt ffom t~issubsection

(b) ex~eptas

ita~plfè~to

1.~hd~ar~e

shall also meet

a setfI~ibI~soridconcentr~t~On~0~3mi7l.

~~dischar~~pr

increase

in volume o~_~

dischar~ecaused by_preci i?atioi~within any 24—

ho~i~

periOd greàtertant eT0—~ar, ~24—hour

precipitat~n é~ii? (or

series

ofs~O~ñ~

~

snowmel~~

béexempt

frOm tF~Thsubsèction (bLexce~ as ~ii.a~ies to

For p~pses of

thissubsection the_term

“reclamation_area” means thesurfaOéarea of

a

coa~lmine which ha~Theé~ñ_~èturned?~requifed

coñ~fO~O

r and

oi

wiiT~

h

~~~etati

on

~ipécif£~iI~

seeding or planting) work has commenced.

71-83

---

—7—

The ICA has stated that its proposal

is intended to be

a

“mirror image”

of the comparable federal regulations

(Tr.

4 at

l35)*,

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,

the Board has modified the ICA

proposal

in some respects

(see p.

17)

in order that the

regulation proposed today

for First Notice publication

is

in fact

as stringent as present federal regulations.

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 Drainaq~”:any drainage which results in

a mine

~isc~ar~eothér

than f~m ro~ssi~or mineral preparation

~

~H

equ~1to or ~eater

than

6.0 and

does

not

contact ~y

~

inaterT~1.

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.

~~ZiE

transcripts have been produced during the conduct of this

proceeding:

one from each of the two merit hearings, and one from

each of the two EcIS hearings.

The merit hearing transcripts

contain both consecutive and non—consecutive page numbering.

The

EcIS hearing transcripts do not contain consecutive page

numbering.

To minimize confusion,

references to the record will

be made by citing

to the transcript containing such reference.

The transcripts will

be numbered in the chronological order

in

which the hearings they transcribe 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.

71-84

---

—8—

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

~_

coal mineihall~bepassed throu9~ia sedimer~tation_pond

EI~avinq

ET~mine

~eaTTh~T

T5~3~s of

-

_____

______

-

-——,-——

-

—

—_

Section

au5.i05(e)

shall not be su~jectto the effluent

•

—~—

~

-~

limitations

or

monitor

i

njreq~rementso

L

r

fo~

iron, manaanese,

or total

sus_pended solids;

and shall

-

__~___;____-_?_____

—

~e

desi~d,

constructed

and

maintained

in

accordance

with

the fol1~~:

—

--

___

___

1)

Detention Time

A)

Sedimentation

ponds

shall

be designed,

con~ru~Eed and

tháiñtáIned~EO provide

24

1i~i~sOfdeté~ntion

tfi

for all inflow

in~ud~ thi runoff ~om

tfibuti~yareas

which results from a10_tear

——

24 hour~

T6Ve~t7~

B)

An_alternate sedimentation~onddetention

—

time

is

allowable

prG~Thed_t~i~i~cant

~trate~~hat

80~èi~bval

oT~edlment

1n

~

~—---~--.----—

-——---~—--___

all

in flow

xnc1udi~ the runoff

result~

Troin

a ~year

--_~rnur ~r

~fOn

event

wcIl

be achieved.

The

a~1Tcant

must

demons t rate

tW~

removal efficié~y

throu~one or more

of~

~efo1low~methods

1)

Influent and effluent

sam~je

anaiyses of

e~s~~sedTment

p~ndi_whic~h

treat

af~aline_sur~ced~ain~

Tiorn ?r~ibutary

areas

~hs~l_~

r~no~

~Eharacteristics

2)

Sediment

deliv

ry2

sedimentremoval and

p~ndp&~ormance_models;

3)

Sous

analyses and sedimentation pond

~draulic

analy~ses.

2)

Sedimentation

ponds

of Section 405.105(e)

shall

include

~parate

storage_volume for sediment to

accumulate.

71-85

---

—9—

3)

Sedimentation p~nds

of

Section 405.105(e) shall

be

T~pecté6annuaU

Lthe

permftfee

an~

-

—

—~——~————~——-———

•

—r-•—’~•————————

certification made

in writin~tot~

engy_that

t~pond meets the_cr~eri~ofSection4O5.105(e).

4)

If

the_permittee

determines

by the annual or other

~

ctions tha

tt~e

actu

ald~n,construction

or~erat~ion

ar

a sediméi~tpond

~p~roved

under

~ection ~5.l~5(e)

does not mee?

the criteria of

thi~Subsectfori,_the~ermittee shall noti~y~

~9eflflwritin~~ycertifi

edm~l

~i ?h

in

five

~ys

and_ident~~y~he

corrective action to be

~

fhfs Subsection.

The Agency

is proposing 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.

EcIS at vi.

The

essential difference between the TSS and SS standards

is

in the

manner

in which solids are measured.

As described in the EcIS:

The analytical difference between suspended solids and

settleable 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.

EcIS at 2—3.

71-86

---

—10—

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.

Tr.

1 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.

Tr.

1 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.

Tr.

1

at

34.

Additionally, USEPA

feels

that the SS measurement better

reflects the true

performance of a pond employing simple settling technology.

Tr.

1 at

35.

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/l TSS limitation of

406.106.

Tr.

1

at 65.

Mr. Ordija said

that the

35 mg/l 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.

9,

above

for discussion).

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.

Tr.

1 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 settleable solids

accumulated in the bottom of the cone

is measured.

The water

column length from the water surface

in

a filled cone to the cone

71-87

---

—“-

bottom

is l5~inches.

Based on Stokes’

Law*, und9 standard

conditions of

10 C water temperature and 2.65 g/cm

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 Imhoff 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 mm).

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.

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.

Tr.

2 at

127—8.

~

is described

as follows:

v5=

__9

(S—l)D2

l8u

where V~

=

settling velocity,

cm/sec

g

=

acceleration of gravity,

981 cm/s92

u

=

kinematic viscosity

of

a fluid, cm /sec2

S

=

specific gravity of a particle

D

=

diameter of

a particle, cm

71-88

---

—12—

ECONOMIC IMPACT

The EcIS reports that of the 492 coal mining discharges

in

Illinois, approximately 430 would be affected by the ICA and

Agency proposals.

EcIS at vi.

The expected economic impact of

each proposal will be discussed separately.

Economic I~p~ctof the ICA Pro2os a 1

The EcIS 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.

EcIS 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 mg/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 EcIS 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.

EcIS 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

salaries of $9 million* 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.

EconomicI~atoftheA9~cJ~P~pos

a 1

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.

~l~~Oñstant

1983 dollars.

71-89

---

—13—

~omi~pact

of Alternative_“A”.

The EcI S reports that

adoption of

the Agency’s Alternative

“A” would result in

a cost

savings

to the coal industry of $315,000 annually.

EcIS 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”.

No savings in capital costs

would occur pursuant

to Alternative “A”,

as

the size of

sedimentation ponds constructed would be expected

to remain the

same.

Id. 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 EcIS does not quantify this cost but

suggests that it be considered.

Id. at 95.

The EcIS 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

~

~Oard refers

to the economic benefit under Alternative

“A”

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 l780.2l(b)(3) and 1784.l4(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.

It should be mentioned

that 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 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.

71-90

---

—14—

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 im~t of Alternative”B”.

The EelS did not

includé~~itaiTedcon~Tderationof

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 Mrs. Huff

at hearing did elicit

information for the record, however,

on what the probable

economic impact of Alternative

“B” would

be.

Mrs. 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.

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.

EcIS at 78.

Many Illinois streams fall within this

category already.

Id.

Nevertheless,

a proposal which would

allow addikional 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

71-91

---

—15—

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 (~çy~~inus

carpio)

and goldfish

(Carassius

auratus), ~T~h

tolerate silty conditions,

being

the

dominant fishes.

EcIS at 79.

Silt also decreases the occurrence of aquatic vegetation, due

to

the loss of water clarity.

EcIS at 72.

The ICA proposal,

if adopted,

is expected to increase the

suspended solids

in mine discharges during precipitation events

by 96 mg/l.

EcIS at

54.

This will equate

to an annual

incremental

loading of

3,400 tons statewide.

EelS at

58..

The

current statewide sediment loading

is over 8,000,000 tons per

year.

Id.

Mining discharges occur within

28 major watersheds

in

western, central,

and southern Illinois.

EcIS at

60.

However,

over two—thirds

of

the mining discharges are to the Big Muddy

River and Saline River Basins.

EcIS

at 65.

Given the prominence

of the Big Muddy River

in this regard,

the EcIS compared the

annual sediment yield

(tons/sq..rni.)

of the Big Muddy

to other

watersheds where there are no mining activities.

The comparison

appeared as follows:

Drainage

Annual

Area

Sediment yield,

-

tons/~.mi.

Big Muddy River

2,162

118

Iroquois River

2,092

117

Vermilion River

1,251

187

Kankakee River

2,294

45

LaMoine River

1,293

726

Id.

This comparison seems

to indicate that the Big Muddy River

Basin does not differ substantially from other watersheds in

terms of sediment yield per square mile, and reflects the fact

that the major sources

of sediment to streams are agricultural

land uses.

Tr.

2

at 63.

All indications

in the record are that

coal mine discharges do not contribute significantly to the

sediment loadings

of Illinois streams during precipitation

events.

The EcIS concludes that:

As agricultural lands are the predominant land use

in

the coal mining regions

in Illinois, sedimentation

ponds

for

the disturbed coal mining

lands reduce

the

suspended solids discharged compared

to the pre—mining

activity.

The effluent from the sedimentation ponds in

71-92

---

—16—

most cases will dilute the suspended solids reaching

the watersheds from the adjoining agricultural lands.

Thus, as

long as the sedimentation ponds are designed

for

capturing sediment,

the coal mines are not

contributing

to the peak suspended solids

concentrations in the watersheds.

This

is valid under

the existing regulation,

as well

as under

the ICA and

IEPA proposed regulations.

CONCLUSION

The Board

is persuaded by the record

in this proceeding that

the basic tenets of the ICA proposal merit adoption.

As has been

noted, Illinois stands alone among Midwestern states

in not

having adopted the SS standard promulgated by the USEPA.

The

increased costs to Illinois mine operators incurred

as

a result

of having

to continue

to build 10—year, 24—hour ponds places them

at

a competitive disadvantage with operators from surrounding

states.

EelS

at 99.

Adoption of the SS standard will allow

Illinois operators

to construct ponds sized commensurately with

the ones competing operators are required to build.

Whether

the purported economic benefits of the Agency

proposals would be realized by operators

is an open question.

Testimony of

the IDMM indicates that Illinois mine operators

would continue

to be required

to sample mine discharges, even

if

the Agency proposal were adopted.

This would occur because the

IDMM has the responsibility of enforcing Illinois and USEPA mine

effluent regulations, and

the

latter requires monitoring

to show

compliance with the performance—type standard.

Tr.

2

at 63.

The

economic benefits of the Agency’s Alternative

“A” are related

entirely to the expected savings from the elimination of

monitoring

(see pg.

13,

above).

The estimated economic benefits

of the Agency’s Alternative

“B”

(if “B” was utilized by all

operators)

is approximately the same as that of the ICA proposal

(see p.

13,

above).

However,

the record indicates that if the

Agency proposal were adopted, substantial confusion would exist

among mine operators as

to how to meet the 80

removal

demonstration required by Alternative

“B”

(Tr.

4

at 79—82).

Therefore,

it seems unlikely that all mine operators would choose

Alternative

“B” over “A”.

The record also illustrates that little adverse

environmental impact will occur

as a result of adopting the ICA

proposal.

The additional stream sediment loading brought about

by the regulatory change

is minimal when contrasted with the

statewide loading

(see p. 15, above).

The Board

is convinced

that, given the slight environmental impact and substantial

economic benefit of

the ICA proposal

(as well

as the Agency

proposal),

the proposal (with slight modifications to insure

consistency with USEPA regulations) should be adopted for First

Notice publication.

71-93

---

—17—

Finally,

both the ICA and the Agency presented arguments as

to whether

or not the Illinois Surface Coal Mining Land

Conservation and Reclamation Act,

Ill. Rev. Stat.

ch. 9&/~,

7901.01 et seq.

(1985), and specifically

7902.(c) of that Act,

prohibits the establishment of regulations more stringent than

those required to meet the Federal Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977

(PL 95—87).

The Board need not reach

this issue,

as the regulation the Board proposes today

is

intended to be no more stringent than the federal regulations

currently in place.

PROPOSED_FIRST NOTICE LANGUAGE

The ICA intended their proposed regulations

to be less

complex but just as stringent as the federal requirements.

Under

the ICA proposal, however, some discharges will be subject to

effluent standards less stringent.

The Board has modified the

proposal by adding several definitions and new sections

to the

regulations.

Definitions for acid or ferruginous mine drainage and

alkaline mine drainage have been added because federal

requirements are different for each.

The term “controlled

surface mine drainage” has been added because discharges pumped

or

siphoned from surface mining areas can be controlled

by the

operator at all times.

They will not be subject to the

alternative precipitation limitations.

The ICA indicated that

the

“definition of new source performance standard that was

finally adopted

in the Federal R~ister is acceptable

to us.”

(Tr.

3 at 126).

The Board can find no definition for “new source

performance standard”.

There

is

a definition for “new source

coal mine” at 40 CFR 434.11(j) which

the Board will adopt with

minor language modifications.

The definition of reclamation area

proposed by the ICA will be adopted.

Section 406.101

is modified

to explicitly describe the two

numerical standards not subject

to averaging, pH and SS.

The ICA

did not specify whether SS was

to be

a maximum standard never

to

be exceeded or a standard subject

to averaging “because of the

uncertainty on the federal level...”

(Tr,

4

at 137).

In fact,

the

federal regulations are explicit in describing the SS

limitation as

a maximum value not to be exceeded at any time.

Adoption of new subsection 406.101(c)

removes any ambiguity.

Subsection 406.102(i)

is intended to insure that monitoring

occurs during periods when the alternate precipitation

limitations

are

in effect.

The alternate precipitation

limitations are applicable only during precipitation events which

are unpredictable.

A monitoring frequency based upon time

intervals

(3 samples per month,

for example)

is not

appropriate.

Mr. Allen 0.

Oertel,

of the Illinois Department of

Mines and Minerals, stated that “the Department does believe that

monitoring

is the only way to effectively judge

a pond’s

performance

in actual operation.

Because the present monitoring

71-94

---

—18—

program does not provide this information,

it should not be a

basis

for

its elimination.

Rather,

it should be revised so that

a pond’s performance

can be effectively evaluated.”

Tr.

2 at

62.

He went on

to state that “the monitoring of a storm event

would

be the only way to tell whether or not that pond

is

performing

as designed, or whether

or not its efficiency is

decreasing.”

Tr.

2

at

69.

The Illinois State Water Survey

evaluated data from active coal mines and recommended that “data

collected as part of

the NPDES permit program should emphasize

sampling after rainfall events.”

(Board Exhibit 1).

Therefore,

the Board will

require sampling during precipitation events.

The

burden of proof

is placed upon the operators to show which

discharge limitations

are

in effect at any particular time.

The ICA proposal and the existing and proposed IEPA

regulations

are vague

about the effluent limitations

of waste

streams that are commingled prior

to treatment.

Section 406.105

clarifies that the effluent limitations of commingled waste

streams are the most stringent applicable

to any component waste

stream of the discharge.

This section, with minor language

modifications,

is taken directly from the federal regulations, 40

CFR 434.61.

Section

406.106 has been reorganized for clarity and a new

subsection, 406.106(c), has been added

to require a more

stringent total iron limitation

for new source coal mines,

as

proposed by the ICA.

A new section, 406.109, has been added

to list the effluent

standards for discharges from reclamation areas.

These standards

are taken directly from the federal

requirements.

Section

406.110 describes the alternate effluent standards applicable

during precipitation events.

The language

is, again,

from the

federal requirements.

Subsection 406.110(a)

is taken from the

ICA proposal, while subsections 406.110(b) and

(c) apply to acid

or ferruginous mine drainage.

71-95

---

—19—

ORDER

The March

21, 1986 proposal of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

is denied.

The Clerk

shall cause first notice publication

of the

following proposed amendments in the Illinois Register:

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

presumed

to be abandoned.

71-96

---

—20—

“Acid

or Ferr~flIousMine Drain~~”:mine drain~L~ich,before

~J~eatmsp~o~l

ess than~0oratota

1

iron

concentration ~reater

th

a ~IOmg7L.

“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 Draina9f: mine_drain~ewhich,_prior

to

treatment,

Tias

a

pH

e~ual t6

reateEEhan

6.0

and

a

total

iron

__

-_--

_____—

“Aquifer”:

a zone, stratum or group of strata which can store and

transmit water

in sufficient quantities

for

a specific use.

“Coal Transfer Facility or Coal Storage Yard”:

any area were coal

is transferred from one mode of transportation to another or

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 Drain~e”: an,~surface mine drainage

_______

-

—p-—————

that

is £~ed or s~nonedfrom 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.

71-97

---

—21—

“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,

spillways, 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

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.

71-98

---

—22—

“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;

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.

“New Source Coal Mine”:a coal mine,

including an abandoned mine

which is_b~remine~atwhi~

a)

Construction commenced ~

or

b)

A m~jpralterat

L

has

wltered

or

~reaseddiscT~a

r~e~polluta

n

t s.

Mr~tT3~s

are:

1)

Extraction from

oal sea

ntprevious~

ex~r~~t~at

miri~e

--

2)

Discharge into a~ain~jearea not~evious1~

d~yWaS~te~I~

a~efrom~a

t

mine

71-99

---

—23—

1ae~i

s~io~at

th

mining

2~L~P~

!i.

Construction ofan

shaft, ~1ope orri ft.

“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

perinittee also includes a permit applicant.

“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 ?~ tfi~contour required bypermftaiid

on whIch

~vejetat~o~ascornme~e

d.

—-

“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.

“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

71-100

---

—24—

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 at

Ill. Reg.

______,

effective

-~

TITLE

35:

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

SUBTITLE

D:

MINE RELATED WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

PART 406

MINE

WASTE

EFFLUENT

AND

WATER

QUALITY

STANDkRDS

SUBPART

A:

EFFLUENT

Section

406.100

406.101

406.102

406.103

406.104

406.105

406.106

406.107

406.108

406.1(9

406.110

Section

406.202

406.203

406.204

406.205

Preamble

Averaging

Sampling, Reporting and Monitoring

Background Concentrations

Dilution

Vio~e~iono~Water Que~~yStenderd~fRentiabered)

Comm~

jof

Was

te Streams

Effluent Standard~

f~r

Mine Discharges

Offensive Discharges

Non—point Source Mine Discharges

Effluent

Standards

for

Dischar~efrom

Reclamation

Areas

Alternate_Effluent_Standards

forP

recjpflation

Events

SUBPART

Temporary Exemption from Section 406.105

(Repealed)

Violation of Water Quality Standards

TDS

Related Permit Conditions

71-101

---

—25—

406.206

Retention and Control of Exposed Waters

406.207

406.208

Unconventional Practices

406.209

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.

111 1/2, pars.

1012, 1013 and 1027).

SOURCE:

Adopted

in R76—20, R77—lO, 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

—

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

maxT~umvalues not to be éiceeded at,~~~meand are

not su~ct

to

avera g

i

ng.

d)

The numerical standards for ~sha11

be within the

!pecTlied ra~e at all ET~tes and are not su~t

to

~Ii~1~-

—--

---

——---—---------

__

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.

71-102

—26—

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

concentration or

level of any parameter identified

in

the state or NPDES permit.

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

apermittee 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.

1)

~least

one sample shall be collected durin~~etime

perToa t~ealternat~IT~TtatTG~

F~r_~ec~it~ion

events ~in

~

an~Th~.TI~i~re

ñ

éTf~ct. TF~

o~ratorsEiiI~havet~eburden

prG~rE~i~

the

~

~cau~ed

b~the

icar

Iepreci~tation

eve

nt~

71-103

---

—27—

Section 406.105

V4o~ion of Weber e~by

Sbertd~rde

~

Streams

Where waste streams from an~faci1i~,described in this Part are

com5Thed

for treatment or ~is~1ia~jewith other waste_streamsfrom

another

f

aciITt~

tE~

concentration of each ~ol1

utant

in

?~

combTne~i sch a

~ma~ñot

excee

tfi~noststri~ent

ITmitat

ions

f~f

t~at

~o1lutant~.2~ficible

~to

any component waste stre~n

oT

--

(Source: Amended

in R84—29 at

Ill. Reg.

_____

effective

____

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 eI~e3~

eeuee or eowEx~~t

~rovidedin

35

Ill. Adm. Code 406.109 and 406.110,

a

mine discharge

effluent to shall not ex~eed~hefollowing levels of

contaminants:

—

Number

Concentration

00435

(total acidity

shall not exceed

total alkalinity)

01045

3.5 mg/l

01051

1 mg/i

00610

5 mg/l

00400

(range

6

to 9)

01092

5 mg/l

00951

15 xng/l

00530

35 wg/l

01055

2.0 mg/l

3~

pH ~s

not

~tib~eebto eve

g~rtg~

~1)

The ammonia nitrogen standard is applicable only

to an operator utilizing ammonia

in wastewater

treatment.

~

Any overHowy i~ncreese~n vo~umeof e d~eehergeor

dieel’~ergefrom e by—pees ey~temeeti.ed by

pree~pibet~onor enowme~tehefl

not be eub~eetto

the ~m4~beb~one of th~eSeet~en7 This exemption

eheH be eve~1ab3eon’y if the ~ed~mentet~on bee±n

or treetment worke ie ãe

gned7 conebrueted end

Section 406.106

Effluent Standards for

Mine Discharges

Constituent

Acidity

Iron

(total)

Lead

(total)

Ammonia Nitrogen

(as N)

pH

Zinc

(total)

Fluoride

(total)

Total suspended solids

Manganese

71-104

---

—28—

me4nbeined to eonta4n or treeb the vo’ume of weber

wh4eh wou’d fefl on the erees tr~buteryto the

dtseherge7 overf3ow or bypees during e 3~6—yeery

~4—hour or 3erger pree~p~tsb~on

event for snowme3t

of equ4ve3enb vo3~ume)7 The operetor she3~heve

the burden of demonstrat~rtg

thet

the

prerequ~s~tes

to en exempt4on set forth ~n thfs eubseet~onheve

been

ntet7

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.

C)

New source_coal mines

shall

be subject to

a total iron

—

Ti~i~i~i

~fT~D m~

~TETh~

t~Thi

~e~r~ñ~s

~?subsecTf6~TaLove.

(Source: Amended in R84—29 at

Ill. Reg.

-

effective

-

Section 406.109

RecT~maETonAreas

a)

The effluent

limitations contained in

35 Ill.

Adm. Code

añ~Tö~~h~1F

~

reclamation areas.

b)

A mine discharge effluent from a reclamation

area shall

~

Storet

Constituent

Number

Concentration

Settleable

solids

0.5

ml/l

00400

(range

6-9)

Notwjthstandjn~b),_above,an~disch~e,or increase

1n the v5l~me~

~T~Tn

a

n

TTho u r j~

iod

greater

?ha n

Ehe_T~~1,

24—

T?~?TG~

eveT~1Tè~ivalen?

voThme~

shall

be s~jectonly

to

a p~flmTta~Ioñ(range

r—g~——————-—-——-

71-105

---

—29—

Dis~~9esofalkaline

mine

drai~e, ex~~t_discharges

lThm under~o~~rnestatar~not c~mthi~IedwTtb

----

—-~-—-——~-‘—~-

-——————~—~————

otneroic~jeseii~bleor_t

e

se

alternate

I

imi ts,

thSCha~Sf

r orn

moun~Th~

v~~era

t ions,

th5car9s~rnSte~~S1o~eareas,

and di~Thar9esfrom

~prepar~on

p1~n~

j~a~t_~s

soc

i

~d~rea

5,

exc2~ for dra~~jehorn coal re~usedi~osa~i1é~are

e1~

i

~f~T~i

terrTh

te ~

fl~t~o~du

rThT

p~ecI~i?ationevents~Any ~Ts~Eàrge or

increase

in the

——

~

—-—--

-—

volume or

a

dischar~e

caused byprec,~~tionwithin

any ~—hoür

period less thin or eq~l to the

~

~pr~7~?~(o

r~oiv~~

~

volume)

ma~c~p~ywitri_the

roliow~~ limitations

Th~?

t~ose f~I~i

Storet

Constituent

Number

Concentration

Settleable solids

0.5_ml/1

--

00400

(range~—9)

b)

Discha~j~~f

acid or ferruginous mine dischar~_~~

coal_refuse ~j~osa~p

ee1i~

I

~1efor~à1ternate

effluent.

limitations

dur,nq~rec~,tation

events.

hi~?~T~ET~e

~l um~T~f~

~

~Y

PL~

~

tat f6~Y

Thinany2Thou~eriod

greater than

t~e~l-~ear, ~~our~recT~Ttation_event

an~Thss tT~

n

or eq~

a I to_the 1~—yea r,

T(—EGu r

-

—-~—,-——~———-—-—

——~

———--

__-1~--—

—

pre~~itationevent

(or

snowrnelt oT e~uivalentvolumel

—~—-

~—~—

———~-

-

may

coi~y

witThi~TolThwi~jTimitat,ons

instead

o’f

~

—

Constituent

Settleable

solids

Number

00400

Concentration

0.5 mi/i

(range 6—9)

c)

Discharges of acid or ferruginous

nine draina~~(exc~p~

—

____________

_____

removal_areas, steep_sio~e

areas,

controlrèd surface

~I~iedIscharj~sand_dischar~~romunderground

w6~sT~

1)

caused by precipitation_within anj 24 hourp~riod

~

r~ti~TThothe 2~ar, ~

____

~~flaiTh~,ent

~or

sno~,meIto~~~i~alent

~6T~eT~nay

corn

wT~t~efoI1owi~

lirni

tat ions

-

Thste aT

ftEo

se

in

41Y~.

r~i~

(b):

a)

Section 406.110

Alternate Effluent Standards for

Pre~rf~atf~n

Events

——

71-106

---

—30—

Storet

Constituent

Number

Concentration

Settleable solids

0.5 ml/l

Iron (totá~

01045

3.5

rn9/1

~040~

~an~e6-9)

2)

Causedb1 ~ecipitation

within a~24 hou

period

j~eatertF~a

n

the~year,

~ho

ur~é~i?at ion

event

but less than or e~j~i~1

to_the l0-year,~4-

hour_preci~a~~vent

shall

be

subject to the

rec~uTrementsoTs~hsecti~nc)l),_above,

except

Thrthe total

iion_é~Tluent_standii~rd.

d)

A11discha~es mentioned_in

(a), (b),and(c)

of this

section, disc~~es

~a~Id oi~Terruginousmiiié

Th~T~d~jThünd

~FkTi~

whT~i~e_comrni~ed

~T?~

other dIi~harjesan~contr~Iled_acT~or~

7—.

ferrujinous surface mine_disch~~scaused,fly

ta~i~?ny2ur~iodater

than

tff~j~ear,24~hou

r

p rec~itation

e~ient

çor~nowmelt

of e9uivalent volume) ~hall be su~j~ct

only

to

ft~?~je”~T~

--______

IT

IS

SO ORDERED.

Board Members Jacob D. Dumelie and Bill Forcade concurred.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on the

~

day of

~

-

,

1986,

by a vote

of

-e

-.

1~

~

J4~

Dorothy M. Gun,Clerk

--

Illinois Pollution Control Board

71-107