ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 15,

1983

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 35,

)

R83-6

(Docket A)

SUBTITLE

D:

MINE RELATED WATER

POLLUTION, CHAPTER

I, PARTS

405 and 406

PROPOSED RULE.

FIRST NOTICE

PROPOSED OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by B. Anderson):

On February

7,

1983 the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (Agency) and the Illinois Coal Association

(ICA)

proposed that the Board amend 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 405 and 406

to add an effluent standard for manganese and to set a

permanent rule specifying the application of water quality

standards to coal mine discharges.

Amended proposals were

filed on May 27 and August 26,

1983.

The proposal was the

result of

a joint industry/government group called the Mine—

Related Pollution Task Force

(MRP).

On May 5,

1983 the Board designated this proposal as

Docket A of R83—6.

Docket B was utilized to extend the

expiration date of Section 406.201 beyond July

1,

1983

(Final Order, Adopted Rule,

October

6,

1983;

7 Ill.

Reg.

14515, October

28,

1983).

Public hearings were held on May 12,

1983 at Springfield,

arid on May 27,

1983 at ma,

Since the pages are not numbered

sequentially, Roman numeiais will be used to indicate the

volume.

Thus,

(II—17)

will refer to page 17 of the second

day of hearings.

On July

5,

1983 the Department of Energy and Natural

Resources notified the Board that a negative declaration had

been made.

On August 26,

1983 the Hearing Officer closed

the record except for final comments

(Section 102.163).

No

comments were received during this period.

Summary of the Proposal

The proposal will be discussed in detail in the order

of sections affected.

The following is a summary

in a more

informative order.

55-293

---

—2—

The proposal adds an effluent standard of 2.0 mg/I

manganese, with a modified pH standard where necessary for

manganese treatment

(Section 406.106).

The proposal repeals the temporary exemption from the

water quality standards contained

in Section 406.201.

This

is replaced with a permanent procedure.

Mine discharges

will have permit conditions based on the permanent procedure

for total dissolved solids

(TDS),

chloride and sulfate if:

1.

There

is no impact on public water suppUe~

2.

The applicant utilizes “good mining practices”

to

reduce TDS production;

and,

3.

The discharge is less than 1,000 mg/i chloride and

3,500 mg/i suifate,

If the discharge exceeds

the numerical levels,

the permittee

will need to prove no adverse effect to the receiving st~-eam

(Section 406.203)

Finally,

the proposal extends the TDS water quality

provisions to abandoned mine impoundments and discharges

(Sections 409.109 and 409.110).

Discussion

of Proposed Amendments

Section 405.109

Abandonment Plan

Paragraphs

(b) (3)

and

(b) (4) have been added, and the

old paragraphs with these numbers moved

down.

These para-

graphs specifically address the impact of the special TDS

provision of Section 406.203 on discharges from abandoned

mines and on waters remaining in impoundments at such mines.

This point first arose

in a case decided during the process

of adoption of new Chapter

4

(IEPA v. Material Service Corp.

and Freeman United Coal Mining Co.,

PCB 75-488,

37 PCB 275,

February

7,

1980)

(1—42)

Strip mines frequently leave a final cut which fills

with water after abandonment;

slurry ponds and other impound-

ments may also be left

(1—40).

Some of these may have a

surface water discharge.

Paragraph

(b) (3)

addresses the

discharge, while paragraph

(b) (4)

addresses

the waters in

the lake or impoundment.

Discharges from abandoned impoundments will have to

meet the effluent standards of Section 406.106.

If there

was no TDS water quality condition imposed under special

procedures

during

active mining,

the discharge will have to

55-294

---

—3—

avoid water quality

violations,

if there

was such a TDS

water quality

condition, the waters of the

impoundment will

have to meet the effluent

standards and make a part

of the

showing required under

the TDS water quality

Section 406.203(c) (1)

and

(c) (2)

(1—38,

11—10,

14,

18)

Paragraph

(b)

(4)

applies

to the waters in the

impound-

ments, which may not

be required to meet water

quality

standards during active mining,

as for example,

treatment

lagoons and settling basins,

Impoundments which will not

meet such standards on abandonment

will

be required to meet

the effluent standards

after abandonment,

and

to

make

part

of the showing

under the TDS water quality Section

406.203

(c) (1)

and

(c) (2)

(11—21)

Section

406,109(b)

(4)

applies the effluent

standards as

though they

were water quality standards

(1-38,

lI-li,

14,

18)

-

This

will be sufficient to ensure that any

discharge

will at least meet

the effluent standards.

The second

and third proposals limited the

TDS procedure

to impoundments which

did not meet the water quality

standards

during active mining.

The Board has deleted

this require-

ment,

since the water quality problems in a final cut lake

may not appear until

after abandonment

(1-40).

The Board has added paragraph

(e)

to the proposal:

this requires conditions

in

abandonment plans

to assure

continued

application

of the TDS

water

quality

procedure

(1—37)

Section 405,110

Cessation,

Suspension or Abandonment

Paragraph

(e)

(2)

has been added to

specifically require

a showing that

Sections 405,109(b) (3)

and

(b)

(4)

have

been

met before

a certificate of abandonment is issued.

The

permittee will have

to show that those sections

will be met

to get approval of

the abandonment plan, and

also show that

they were in fact

met before

the certificate

of

abandonment

is issued

(1—37,

11—10,

15).

Section 406.104

Dilution

This

section

was

taken from Section

304.102, which it

tracks almost

verbatim,

Paragraph

(a) has been amended

to

make it

clearer that the dilution rule refers

only to the

effluent

standards,

This may have been lost

when the lan-

guage was moved from Part 304 to

Part 406, which

deals with

both effluent and water quality standards.

Section 302.102

allows dilution in

a mixing

zone

before application

of the

water

quality

standards,

55-295

---

—4—

The Board does not construe Section 406,104 as

in any

way limiting dilution after treatment in order

to avoid

violation of water quality standards,

This dilution may

take place prior to discharge to waters of the State,

so

long

as it does not interfere with contaminant removal

efficiency

(1-62,

67)

.

If effluent concentrations are

measured beyond the dilution point, concentrations would

have to be corrected,

Section 406,105 has been renumbered to 406,202:

the

water quality rule and special TDS procedure will be placed

together

in

a separate Subpart,

Section 406,106

Effluent Standards

An effluent standard

of

2.0

mg/i

manganese has been

added

to the table.

Manganese

is frequently regulated

as

an

effluent parameter, and its omission from the revised mine

waste rules may have been an oversight caused by the ambiguit~

as to whether the effluent standards table of old Chapter

4

supplemented or superseded the effluent standards of old

Chapter

3

(1-55).

The Board regulates manganese in effluents

other than mine waste at 1,0 mg/i

(Section 304,124).

Federal

regulations impose a limitation of 2.0 mg/l on mining activ-

ities, including,

for example,

the acid mine drainage category

(40 CFR 434.32(a)).

Treatment for manganese

is similar to

iron,

involviny

addition of alkali to cause precipitation, followed by

sufficient detention

to

allow settling.

Unlike

iron, manganese

may be too soluble at pH

9 to precipitate sufficiently to

meet the 2.0 mg/i standard,

Effluents will be allowed to go

to pH 10

if necessary to meet the manganese standard

(1—36).

(For related discussion,

see Section 304,125; R76-21, Opinion

of September 24,

1981,

43 PCB 367,

6 Ill,

Req.

563).

The Board regulates manganese as

a water quality stand-

ard at 1.0 mg/i

(Section 302.208)

.

The standard was based

on fish toxicity

(R71—14,

3 PCB

155,

4

PCB

3,

March

7,

1972).

In her study

of

several streams impacted by mine

discharges, which is discussed below, Dr. Allison Brigham

found that manganese was found to account for the greatest

amount of variance of species diversity and richness of

several variables studied

(11-31),

The manganese effluent standard will not apply

to mine

discharges which are associated

with

areas where no mining

activities have taken place since May 13,

1976.

This date

is taken from Federal regulations regulating manganese

1ih~rri~~

fyr~m

r’s-~1

~iir~,r,

(T—~

‘~4. TT_lfl

19’~

—--——.—..~

—~

,

—

.,

I

—~I

55-296

---

—5—

Section

406,202

Violation of Water Quality Standards

This

Section has been moved from Section 406.105,

Subpart

A of Part 406 will deal only with effluent rules,

while

Subpart B will deal with water quality rules.

The

TDS procedure

of the next Section will thus appear next

to

the

Section which it modifies.

Section

406,203

Water Quality—based TDS Permit

Conditions

TDS

includes all material dissolved

in water,

as opposed

to

total suspended solids,

In Illinois coal mine discharges

TDS

consists mostly of chloride and sulfate

(I—49).

Under-

ground

mines often have high chloride levels from saline

water

encountered in mining.

Surface mines often produce

sulfuric

acid from the action of air and water on sulfur

minerals

exposed in mining.

Neutralization of the acid

produces

sulfate salts,

and further increases the TDS because

of

the

dissolved solids in the alkali which must be added.

The problems with treating for TDS have been

adequately

addressed

in prior Board Opinions.

The Board

repealed

the

TDS

effluent standard in R76-2l, s~pj~,finding that the

only

treatment technologies involved large amounts

of energy

consumption,

and produced concentrated brines

which still

required ultimate disposal,

Regulation of TDS

discharges

was

left

to

enforcement of water quality standards

of Section

302,208:

Chloride

500 mg/i

Sulfate

500 mg/i

TDS

i000 mg/i

In R76—20, 77—b,

the Board recognized that

coal

mines

faced

a special problem with TDS

in that they produced high

TDS

discharges, but were often forced to locate upland,

away

from major

rivers with dilution adequate to avoid violation

of water

quality standards.

In response,

the Board

adopted

the temporary exception procedure now found at Section

406,201

(Opinion and Order of July 24,

1980,

39 PCB 196,

260)

The

permanent TDS rule follows the temporary exemption

in some

respects:

the applicant

is required

to

demonstrate

that

he

is

utilizing

“good mining practices”, and that there

will be

no impact on public water supplies

(1-30).

However,

under

the

permanent rule,

the permittee, rather than

the

Agency,

will be required to demonstrate no impact on

the

receiving

stream,

The

TDS

procedure

creates

a

presumption

of

no

adverse

impact on

the stream if discharge levels are less than

3500 mg/i sulfate

and 1000 mg/i chloride

(1—30)

.

If

levels

are higher,

the permittee will have to prove no

adverse

55-297

---

—0--

impact.

This will involve actual stream studies to be done

by the

permittee,

involving a demonstration of the effect

of

the existing

or proposed discharge levels on the stream, not

a

showing

of

compliance

with

water

quality

standards

(1-31,

46,

61).

If the 1000 and 3500 mg/i numbers are met, it is

assumed

that there

is no adverse impact on the receiving

stream.

This is a presumption which could be rebutted

by

other

evidence

introduced

into the record in the permit pro-

ceeding before the Agency.

If the water quality-based TDS condition is granted,

the

discharge will not be subject to the water quality

standards for sulfate, chloride and total dissolved solids,

The permit will contain conditions requiring monitoring for

these

parameters and limiting discharge concentrations

(I—

47,

11—17)

The proposal would have allowed exemption from the

water

quality

standards

for

iron

and

manganese,

as

well

as

the TDS

related contaminants,

The Board has dropped this

from the

proposal.

The logical relationship between the

presumptive

sulfate and chloride

levels

and

the

iron

and

manganese

levels is tenuous

at best.

Furthermore,

there

exists

a simple,

relatively inexpensive way to treat for

iron

and

manganese.

As

noted

above,

manganese

concentration

was

found to be adversely affecting stream conditions

in

sites

affected by mine discharges.

These discharges will

have

to

avoid causing water quality violations:

General Use

Effluent Std.

Water Quality Stds.

Iron

3.5 mg/I

1.0 mg/I

Manganese

2.0 mg/I

1.0 mg/l

The presumptive levels refer to concentration of su1fat~

and

chloride,

with no TDS level specified.

As a matter of

experience,

TDS

is mostly these two ions

(1-49).

Sulfate

and

chloride

concentrations

generally

correlate

better

with

environmental

impacts

than

TDS

(1-33;

Ex,

E,

p.

29, 11--32),

Monitoring

of TDS will continue to provide a check for

the

possible

presence

of

large

concentrations

of

some

other

material

(1—47,

11—17).

Exhibit

E

is a study entitled “Acute Toxicity of Chlorides,

Sulfates,

and

Total

Dissolved

Solids

to

Some

Fishes

in

Illinois”

by

Paula

Reed

and

Ralph

Evans

of

the

State

Water

Survey.

They

studied

effects

of

TDS

and

constituents

on

channel

catfish

fingerlings,

large

mouth

bass

fingerlings

55-298

---

—7—

and blue

gill fingerlings.

They

found

the

following

96-hour

median tolerance

limits

(1--33,Ex.

E,

p.

29):

Sulfate

11,000

to 13,000 mg/l

Chloride

8,000 to

8,500 mg/l

TDS

(sulfate)

14,000 to 17,500 mg/I

TDS

(chloride)

13,000 to 15,000 mg/I

The presumptive values for sulfate are set at about

one-third

of the 96-hour median tolerance limit;

those for

chloride

at about one-eighth

(I—33).

This is less

stringent

than the general

practice

of

setting

water

quality

standards

at

one-tenth

the

median

tolerance

limit

(Section

302.210);

however,

this departure

is

justified

for

these

contaminants,

which are

highly soluble, not toxic

in

the

usual sense

and

not expected

to accumulate or have any chronic effect.

The presumptive levels are also well below the levels

considered safe

for livestock watering

(I—34),

If the discharge is above

the presumptive

levels,

the

operator could elect to treat

the effluent,

or to

obtain a

source of fresh

water to dilute

it to below the presumptive

levels

(1—61,

67).

However,

the thrust of the proposal is

to allow

permittees

to adopt operating practices designed

to

reduce TDS

production, rather than to require

end-of-pipe

treatment.

The Agency

is to approve the water quality-based TDS

condition

only

if the permittee proves that it is

utilizing

“good

mining practices” designed to minimize TDS production.

The Agency

may promulgate a code of good operating

practices,

in which

case compliance

with

the

code

would

be

prima

facie

proof of

use of good mining practices.

A “final” draft of

the code

has been filed as Exhibit

H,

The Board has proposed

Sections

406.204 through 406.208

as a definition of “good

mining

practices”.

These are taken from Exhibit

H,

Section 406,204

defines “good mining practices,”

The Agency

is to consider whether the operator is utilizing

the

following

practices:

1,

Practices

which

may

stop or minimize water

from

coming

into

contact

with disturbed areas,

2.

Retention and control within the site

of

waters

exposed to disturbed materials,

55-299

---

—8—

3.

Control and treatment of waters discharged from

the site.

4.

Unconventional practices.

These practices are each further defined in Sections 406.205

through 406,208.

These Sections are not intended to require that each of

these practices be carried out at each site;

indeed,

some of

the practices would exclude the use

of

others.

What the Board

intends

is that the Agency review each

of

these practices to

determine

if

the operator is doing all that

is economically

reasonable at the site to prevent the production of TDS

discharges or to minimize their impact.

The proposal

is

in practice

a modification to the

Illinois NPDES program, since all mines with point source

surface discharges are presently required to have NPDES

permits.

Section

302(b)

of the Clean Water Act allows the

State to establish procedures whereby dischargers can avoid

application of water quality standards where the discharger

demonstrates at a public hearing that “there

is no reasonable

relationship between the economic and social costs and bene-

fits

to be obtained.”

The procedures of Section 406.203

will arise in the context of NPDES permit modification.

Hearings required by the Clean Water Act will be provided

pursuant to Section 406.203(a).

Based on the record before it,

the Board has determined

that,

for coal mine discharges taken as

a class,

which have

levels of chloride and sulfate less than the presumptive

levels,

which are not upstream of public water supplies and

which are engaged in good mining practices,

the cost of

treatment outweighs the value of any improvement in

stream

quality by many orders of magnitude.

Furthermore,

the

societal costs associated with the effective prohibition of

mining in much of Illinois would he enormous

(R 50,

64).

The proposed procedures allow the Agency to confirm this

conclusion in particular cases, with an opportunity for

a

public hearing.

In the case of discharges which exceed

the presumptive level,

the Agency will make a case-by—case

determination pursuant to permit application including

actual stream studies conducted by the applicant

(Proposed

Section 406.203(c) (4).

In June,

1983 there were

45 active coal mines

in Illinois,

19

surface and 26 underground.

Of these,

31 are operating

under the current exemption of Section 406.201,

14

surface

and 17 underground

(Agency comment of August

3,

1983 in R83-

6B)

-

by the permanent TDS procedure.

55-300

---

—9—

The

31

mines

operating

under

the

temporary

exemptior

should be able to

easily demonstrate that

they are using

good mining practices and

that they are

not adversely impacting

public water supplies, since

these

requirements are not

altered.

The mines

with less

than 1000 mg/i

chloride and

3500 mg/l

sulfate will qualify under the

permanent

procedure

automatically.

The

main difference will be

the mines which

are above the

presumptive levels.

They

will

be required to

demonstrate

no

adverse

impact

on

the

receiving

stream.

This

could cost

quite a lot

of

money.

If they are

unable to make

the showing,

expensive

treatment may be

required for

con-

tinued

operation.

As

noted,

the 31 potentially affected mines

include

14

surface

and

17

underground mines.

Sulfate

should be

the

limiting

factor

for

surface,

chloride

for

underground

mines,

It

appears that at the time Exhibit C was

prepared, no sur-

face mines

exceeded the 3500 mq/l sulfate level, but that

four underground

mines

exceeded

the

1000

mg/i chloride level

(11—52).

Thus

a

maximum of four underground

mines

are

expected

to have to make stream studies.

These

are

likely

to cost in excess

of $10,000 each.

The cost of

complying

with

the Part

302 water quality

standards through application

of end-of-pipe

treatment tech-

nology was discussed at

39 PCB 251.

Updating

these costs to

the fourth quarter

of

1982

infers

construction costs of $195

million and annual

operating

costs

of

$52,8

million

(11-56).

However,

the number of mines

in the State has

decreased,

possibly

reducing the aggregate estimates.

Any costs

associ-

ated with

compliance with the exemption procedure must

be

judged

as

savings with respect to the cost of current

regulations.

Costs of

various

good mining practices

are

estimated

in

Exhibit C,

although

it is difficult to summarize

these

concisely.

These

costs are less than the

cost of treatment

by orders of

magnitude,

The initial costs

have

already been

met under the

temporary rule,

although

there,

may

be

continu-

ing costs

associated

with some practices.

The

proposal

creates a special TDS water

quality

rule

for a category

of

dischargers.

The Board has

proposed to

treat these

dischargers

differently for

several

reasons

unique

to

this

industry

group.

Section

28

of the Act allows

the

Board

to

make

“different

provisions

as

required

by

circumstances

for

different

contaminant

sources

and

for

different

geographical

areas”,

At

the

outset,

the

Board

notes

that

coal

mines

represent

an easily defined

category of

discharqers.

It

is

the only

industry group with

high TDS

discharges which has

made

itself

known to the Board by

filing a general

proposal.

The Board

would consider granting special

rules by

industry category

55-301

---

—10--

to

any group should that group propose rules to it

(Section

28

of the

Act

and 35 Ill. Adm, Code 102,120),

Having defined a category of TDS dischargers,

it is

possible

to be more

speci..fic

as to the identity of the TDS

constituents:

it

is either primarily chloride or sulfate,

and

not

often both.

This allows the use of chloride and

sulfate

toxicity data, which is better defined than for TDS

in

general.

Since there

is no or

on miral

y

reasonabie treatment

available

for TDS discharges,

compliance with the water

quality standards depends

on process changes and location

close

to large rivers with adequate dilution,

Existing

facilities have the variance and site—specific rulemaking

procedures to ease any difficulties,

However,

it has proven

possible to propose a general regulation for mines, both new

and existing.

The most unique feature of coal mines

is their relative

inability to locate close to major rivers; instead, they

must locate where coal deposits are located,

Thus choice of

location

is largely eliminated for this category of

dischargers.

Restricting

consideration

to

a

single

industry

group

allows

the

Board

to adopt meaningful regulations

taking

account

of the processes which produce the TDS.

It would

not

be

feasible to address such a problem for industry in

general.

In a separate Order the Board proposes

to adopt the

amendments

to

35 Ill,

Adm, Code 405 and 406 discussed

above,

The

record

will remain open for comment for a period of

45 days after publication in the Illinois Register.

This Proposed Opinion supports the Board~sProposed

Order

of this date,

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion was

adopted on the

~~L—

day of

~

1983 by a vot~

0

/

I

~‘2~

/1

~

Christan L. Moffett,

Clqr~

Illinois Pollution Control

Board

55-302