ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

29,

1984

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO

TITLE

35,

)

R83~6

(Docket A)

SUBTITLE

D:

MINE RELATED WATER

POLLUTION,

CHAPTER

1,

PARTS

405 and 406

FINAL ORDER.

ADOPTED RULE

FINAL OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by J. Marlin):

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-V

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,

and on May 27,

1983 at Ina.

Since the pages are not numbered

sequentially, Roman numerals 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.

On

December

15, 1983 the Board proposed for

first

notice

amendments to Part 405 and 406.

The Board

adopted

a

Proposed Opinion on the same date,

The proposal appeared at

8

ill,

Reg.

78

and

93,

January

6,

1984.

The

Board notes with appreciation and sorrow the contri~

butions

made

by the late Board Member Donald B.

Anderson

in

overseeing the early development of these rules,

The Board

also

motes

the contributions made by Morton Dorothy as

Hearing

Officer.

58~515

---

February

15,

1984

the

ICA,

actiri;

on

behalf

of

the

~~ue~ted

that

the

comment period be

exLended,

On

F~b~a~r~

1/

th~v

requested

an

additional

hearing.

On

March

6

thu

u~

~xing

Officer

extended

the

comment

period

and

scheduled

~aiditionalnearing.

On

March

2J

and

26,

1984

the

Aqency,

arting

on

behalf

ot

tic

Mi~,

fifed a

written

comment

addressing

several

p~ct~ of

thu

First

Notice

Proposal.

The

MRP

presented

tc~-tu~cny

and r~xhtitson this matter

at

the

third

public

1

~:rinj.

hLld

in ~rinyfie1d

on April

13,

On April 17, 1984 the Hearing Officer entered an

Order

all

irig

addition~~.

written

communts

inLou’~hApril

27

The

BaaLd

recuived

cu~rn~nt~

from

Peahci’~

Coal

Co.

and

the

Agency,

1.

)th

~ct

big

ci.

bcaa.1

£

of

the MR1~,

The

Boar

notes

that throughe~t

th.~~

proceeding

it

has

receis~ed

conu’~ants anci

testimony

only

ft

r~tic

MRP.

On

May

18,

1984

the Board modified

the

proposal

in

response to testimony and written comment received during

the

First Notice period and sent the proposal to second

notice,

On June

12, 1984 the Joint Committee on Administrative

Rules

(JCAR)

recommended changes in Part 405, and objected

to certain provisions in Part 406.

The recommendations and

objections relate to areas where the Joint Committee believes

the

rules are not sufficiently specific.

The matters involved

are:

1.

Need for standards or criteria to determine what

is

a “substantial change” from an abandonment

plan

(~405.109(e)) (Recommendation)

2.

Need for a dofinition of

“l0’~year,

24—hour

precipi-

tation

event”

in

§406,106

(Objection)

3.

Need for definitions of “disturbed areas”

and

“disturbed materials”

(Objection),

4.

Need for a definition of “adverse effect” and

“adversely

affect

any public water supply” in

§406,203

(Objection).

5.

Need

for

a

definition

of “significantly”

in

refer-

ence

to

contributions

of TDS from fracture zones

in §406.205(b) (Objection),

58~516

---

The Board has made changes to the text of the rules in

response to the Joint Committee Staff comments.

The changes

which the Board has made clarify the intent of the rules,

The five changes listed above could involve substantive

changes in the proposal or the existing rules if the Board

were to adopt definitions which were not the same as those

assumed by the proponents, and the Agency and affaeted

industries.

Adoption of these additions at second notice

would not allow the opportunity for notice or comment as

required by Title VII of the Act,

The Board refuses to further modify the Rule by making

the suggested substantive changes at this point because:

(1)

they are not statutorily necessary;

(2)

the rule is at

second notice; and

(3)

addition of such substantive changes

would require a new rulemaking.

The Board directs that the

rules be filed as modified by this Order,

and that a refusal

to further modify be published in the Illinois Register.

The Board has adopted the amendments to Parts 405 and

406

as modified in

a separate Order,

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,

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, sulfate, iron and

manganese

if:

L.

There is no impact on public water supp1~es;

2.

The applicant utilizes “good mining practices” to

reduce production of TDS related contaminants; and,

3.

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

3,500 mg/i sulfate,

If the discharge exceeds the numerical levels, the permittee

will need to prove no adverse effect to the receiving stream

(Section 406,203),

58~517

---

—4—

Finally,

the proposal extends the TDS water quality

provisions to abandoned mine impoundments and discharges

(Sections 405.109 and 405.110).

Discussion of Proposed Amendments

Section 405.109

Abandonment Plan

Paragraphs

(b) (2) (A)

and

(b) (2) (B)

have been added,

and

the old paragraphs with these

numbers moved down,

These

paragraphs 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, T~5)(I-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) (2) (A)

addresses the

discharge, while paragraph

(b) (2) (B)

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

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) (2) (B)

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) (2) (B)

applies the effluent standards

as though they were water quality standards

(1-38,

Il-il,

14,

18),

This will be

sufficient to ensure that any discharge

will at

least meet the

effluent standards,

58~518

---

~econd ann

r~

i

:~ifn:t

jc~~iiientn~

WCh

~hiC

1

-

ctive

ni—: no

nert

bince

lbs

vale;

miy

:nt

appear

unc~

nt ?r

rc~cedure

~aniards

LYre—

rake

The Board has a(~

this

agnires

ccnditioia

continuect

apolioalic

373

:~

the Fi;sc No

ice

yn

tre

larguage

in

Section

4

to

approve

abandonment

exec eled

within

one

~cni

Agency”

The

Board

cxc

I

t

:

graph

(b)

(1)

into

~

cxcc: ~

stancs

und~r

which

t

~

es

abandonment

In

tls

:aicce~I

Agency

indicated

that

iste

~

(I)

(:)

as

ailowinq

~p

~

~trccx

~

once:

rcn

ii

reclamc-tion

planb

apc~~‘o

u

land

Cerser~atdon a~’

~c’arrnt

rme

problem

wlto

the

ex:s3i

the

Acency

is:

~t nil’;ws

a d~s

~1

no

~ar dard

for

revi

°i

,

and

it

cx

grar t

“var Lance

r;cn

a

cx

nchui3

inc

year.

TI:

Eec:

f

~

~re

-cnble

Iimc

by

~

the

tnue

required

to

comp~ete

:1

c

n-I

n--s

which

detein

Inc

-mc

1-

~:n tion

that

ore

-~esr La

e

Board

ham

-e~~’±cn

eaninenb0,

TEe

r

nr~cx

of

~x J

of

being

referenced

~c

~ C.

‘sve

been

mauc

pc;’’

~nd ether rewori~nr mais•~,

-

nw?rgs are C

-

can

vane

is

,Lc

fi

is

rather

tI,a—

addi

4.i

a~

4”u-nc3

en

inserted

in

JtLi~ ~

cx

quality

start

axIs

It

aneanese

snct

ph,

flhx-~

‘~

tsr

n

-

interpretation

alien

r

-j

nc

mine

rauring

vs

lab

-

-is

a’-

a

showIng

cnvctn

3—

cc

(I—

tiLke

£

n

ncy

~r

is

tie

-~

)cra

-

cirn’n—

c.

a

or

T

3-p—

tiS

(3

~

r

~c

~xc

~

cx

C-’:-

unc

r~5

sed

£Jy

ct

n

ith

n

:

Ye

Içcncv

to

ab

1.nr:ent

-

~

~ring

r

~

and

.

as

n;a

:sacnse

r

c-~stated

-

~(‘:

and

1-s

3~~\

-4

-,

-~

“t

ccxa—

-

L’e

£

(

~-s)(2

B~ to

i~

:tate

-~

~,

his

-)

3-

n~-t

r

ii~tl~y

---

Paragraph

Cc)

has

been

modit.--

~‘

.r.

~

-

naragraph

(b),

Instead

of

Section

405..i.02.

~

•at

-c

~

.

ir.~n~e

has

been

added

to

paragraph

Cd).

Section

405.110

Cessacsan

-‘

.

-

x

cionment

Paragraph

(e)C2)

has

bee.

a4’ec

‘“

c

a

showing

that

Sections

405.l0’-~b

•i,

&

been

met

before

a

certificate

fl

-‘ii

rn

permittee

will

have

to

show

..he

~.‘

c

to

get

approval

of

the

aoandnnr e-

-

.i

they

were

in

fact

met

before

-t

-

is

issued

CI—37,

11—10,

Section

406.104

Dilution

t-ttly

require

a

C2)

CB)

have

-

L3°ued.

The

;i-

Li’

be

met

aO

5’

a

that

rdonment

This

section

was

taken

fror

Sct

n

C

tracks

almost

verbatim.

Paracn~

.

a

make

it

clearer

that

the

dilutso

r~t

-cr

effluent

standards

•

This

may

ha’

e

eex~

c

guage

was

moved

from

Part

304

to Po~

-

both

effluent

and water

quality

star4-,

The

Board

does

not

co’tctrue

~

way

Uniting

dilution

after

treatzttr

violation

of

water

aualaty

sta’iSa.ch

take

place

prior

to

dtschcrge

t~r

long

as

it

does

not

interfere

w’ t

‘or

-r

efficiency

CI—62,

67).

If

etfL’-e

measured

beyond

the

dt1.ut’~r oirr

nave

to

be

corrected.

Section

406.104Cc)

has

beer

-

sr

-

t-o-inents.

Concentrations

mearu—to

~

s-

th

section

406.106

are

to

b-

r

-~‘~ct

of

improper

dilution.

Section

406.105

has

been

rn’

‘ver

quality

rule

and

spec: ti

-oaather

in

a

separate

Subpart.

‘ction

406.106

Effluent

Stcc

‘i.

1

,

which

it

.t

~n~tded

tc

o

jv’othe

Wit.

tte lan—

‘

Ca

‘ea~

s

wi th

0.

-

osinany

ce~

•‘)

avoid

-

-.

-~ttn

‘nay

~‘

tate

so

-

-

‘noval.

4

-rc

t

n~w~u1d

Et0JCAR

flC

corp

1anre

~‘c~thc

‘O2~

the

‘placed

An

effluent

standard

of

2.0

rn

din

..o

the

table.

Manganese

t-

!fluent

parameter,

and

Lt~cm~

~

t°te rules

may

have

bee

~

an

ve ~

-

-

to

whether

the

effluent

star ia..-aa

-

-

‘s.ppleriented

or

superseded

t. e

a!fa

1hapter

3

CI—55).

The

3o~rd rtgu.

-

js

•~

ra~been

-;.

c.’.d

as

an

\

;e-’..

msna

-.

the.

anbaguity

~In

Chapter

4

-

°

(fi

old

-

J~

efiluents

5d-•

---

7

other

than

mine

waste

at

1.0

mg/i

(Section 304,124).

Federal

regulations

impose

a limitation of 2.0 mg/I on mining

activ-

ities,

including,

for example,

the acid mine

drainage category

(40 CFR 434.32(a)),

Treatment for manganese

is

similar to iron, involving

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/l standard.

Effluents will be allowed

to go

to

p1-I

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, Reg.

563).

The Board

regulates manganese as a water quality stand-

ard at 1.0 mg/l (Section 302.208).

The standard was based

on fish toxicity

(R71—l4,

3

PCB

755,

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

(II—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

discharges

from

coal mining

(I’~36, 54; 11—10,

12).

Pursuant

to JCAR comments, the final sentence

of the

manganese note has

been

clarified

to

make it clear that it

refers to the manganese standard, not the pH standard which

is mentioned in the preceding sentence,

All of the caveats

have

been

made

subsections

of

-paragraph

(b)

to

make

it clear

that

cross

references

to

Section

406.206(b)

are

intended to

also include the caveats,

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 Qua1ity~basedTDS 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-

e-round mines often have high chloride levels from

saline

58-521

---

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,

supra,

finding that

the

only

treatment technologies invoi

Fiarge 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

1000 mg/I

In

R76-20,

77~I0,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 exemption 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

(I~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

(I~30).

If levels

are higher,

the permittee will have to prove no adverse

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

(I~3l,

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 proceeding

before the Agency.

---

if

the

water

quality-based

~tt

~i

~on

is

granted,

the discharge will not be subjec

~‘

~i

~ter quality

sLandards for sulfate, ch1ozide~ ~ru

~aauese

and

total

dissolved solids.

The permit u~i

~t ~inconditions

requir-

ing

monitoring for tnese pa~:r~t

t

~mting

discharge

concentrations

(1-47, Il~L7~,

The Board~sproposed Sec~

t

amended proposal of August 2~

~

The most fundamental differen

proposed a rule which would “ex~a

.

the water quality standards,

procedure by which effluent limi

the permit based on mining pra~.

supplies and

impc~cLon

the

r~

to numerical water quality stan~ ~

allowed no consideration of

rmoa-

unless effluent levels exceeded

had the discretion to require th-~

no adverse effect.

The Boarö

it.

a showing of no adverse effect

:

may rely on a presumption of n

levels are under 3500/1000. This

evidence of adverse effect pre~e~.3

public.

Where effluent levels exc~

must show no adverse effect through

-stiers from the

‘~-~i

respects.

~ruas

the MR.P

a

ins discharge

from

~rposed

a special

be written

into

t

on

public

water

itbout regard

MRP proposal

receiving

stream

Then the Agency

~

to demonstrate

~

ther hand requires

a.

The permittee

~1-~ct

if effluent

S

rebutted by actual

y the Agency

or the

3-~3( .fl00~-

the permittee

it

~‘tudies,

At the third hearing the MRP

~c. ~‘sdthis without

complaint except as to the last

~

‘~tX~

wants

the

Agency to be able

to

waive

the st~-~c~

t

~y

in

the

situation

where

the discharge

is

to

a

smal

L’

y which runs a

short

distance

before

joining

a

Sr

~a.

i~’

adequate

dilution

to

meet

the water

quality

standaid~

rihe

Board

declines

to

allow

~

-

waive the

stream

study,

In

the

situation

ou5J

S

‘h

)~,

the stream

stud’~ may

consist

of a detailing

t~

t~

‘~

ength

and

~ow characteristics

of

the

trib~

~.‘y

~i

tbs

mixing

zone

rn

the

larger

stream,

The

Agercy

a~’ scocut

this

as

a

howjnq of no adverse effect

on

~-ice

basis,

The

proposal

allows

spec~a1

a

‘~riron

and

rr~1aircse, Note that the 3500/

JO

t.~.:

t:

~

levels for

‘~u~fatcand

chloride

could

aliow

‘~4

-

~

write a

permi’~ condition

with

a

numerical

~

‘~

i

between

the

water quality

standards

and

ef~

~r

Lrd~ for

iron and

manqanese without consideration o~

aJ. effect on the

stream,

The

permit

could

not

alio~

~

~

rianganese to

exceed

the

effluent

standardit

of

~

t~

06:

---

—10—

General Use

Effluent

Std.

Iron

3,5 mg/I

1.0 mg/i

Manganese

2.0 mg/i

1.0 mg/i

The Board~sfirst notice proposal did not allow inclusion

of iron and manganese in special permit conditions.

In its

comments

NRP

acknowledged the lack of information on these

parameters

in the earlier record.

At the third hearing

MRP

supplemented the record as

to the basis for including these

parameters.

USEPA has concluded that effluent levels equal to the

Section 406.106 standards for iron and manganese represent

the

best available technology economically achievable

(BAT)

(Exhibit S).

As noted, coal mines cannot freely relocate to

a point where there would be adequate dilution to meet the

stricter water quality standards.

At the present time treat-

ment of discharges beyond the BAT levels to meet water

quality standards would, in many instances, be prohibitively

expensive.

Accordingly the Board has included iron and

manganese in

the

proposal, allowing the Agency to set permit

conditions between

the

water quality and effluent standards

based on case-by—case evaluations of stream impact, stream

uses and mining practices.

The presumptive

levels

refer to concentration of sulfate

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

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/i

Chloride

8,000 to

8,500 mg/i

TDS

(sulfate)

14,000

to 17,500 mg/i

TDS

(chloride)

13,000

to 15,000 mg/i

58-~524

---

~~11—

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

(1-33),

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

(1—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 Board

has made several

changes to Section 406.203

in

response to

JCAR comments,

First, paragraph

(a) has been

modified

to

limit the entire

procedure to coal mines.

Second, “submits..,adequate proof”

has been shortened to

“proves” in paragraphs

(c) (1),

(c) (2) and

Cc) (3),

Third,

the conditional

“if the

expected

discharge concentration is

above these levels” has been

deleted

from paragraph

(c) (1) (B).

The permittee should be free

to submit a stream study even

if

the

discharge

is less

than

the presumptive levels.

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.

58~525

---

—12—

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.

The Board

has made a number

of changes to Sections

406.204 through

405,208.

These are mostly editorial changes

which are

self-explanatory.

A few merit mention.

“Appropriate”

has

been deleted from Section 406.206(b).

Routing and

segregation

or combination is “appropriate”

if it minimizes

any effect

on the quality of the receiving

stream.

This

is

clearly

stated without the need to introduce

the undefined

term

“appropriate”.

“Toxic” has

been

deleted from Section 406.208(b).

It

may be true that

clean

formation water can contact “toxic”

materials in the

course

of mining.

However, the way this is

worded in the

rule would seem

to limit groundwater intercep-

tion wells to

situations

where “toxic” materials are present.

The rule is intended to

encourage interception wells even if

only non—toxic TDS producing

materials are present.

“Several

theoretical”

has also been

deleted.

These techniques would

no longer be

theoretical

by the time an operator proposed

to employ them.

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 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.

The procedures of

Section 406.203 will arise in

the context of NPDES permit

modification.

Hearings will be

provided pursuant to

Section 309.115.

The hearing is to be

allowed if the Agency finds,

on

the basis of requests, a

“significant degree of public

interest in the draft permit(s)”.

In the First Notice Order the

Board included an absolute

hearing requirement based

on the proposition that Section 302

of the

Clean

Water Act

required such a hearing,

The Agency,

ICA and MRP objected to this

interpretation at the final

hearing and in their written comments.

They suggested that

Section 302 applies only in

situations in which the Admin-

istrator

of USEPA determines

that technology-based effluent

58-526

---

—13—

standards are not sufficient

to assure attainment of water

quality standards,

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).

The remaining 14 are

assumed to be able to meet the

current water

quality

standards and are not impacted at all

by the permanent

TDS procedure.

The 31 mines

operating

under the temporary exemption

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 wilibe required to

demonstrate no

adverse

impact

on the receiving stream,

If they

are unable to

make the

showing, expensive treatment may be

required for

continued

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 mg/i sulfate level, but that

four

underground

mines

exceeded the 1000 mg/l 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 t~iese

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.

58-527

---

—14—

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 dischargers,

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

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

specific 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

economically reasonable 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.

Conclusion

In a separate Order

the Board has modified the Second

Notice

proposal

of May 18,

1984, and refused to make addi-

tional modifications

in response to

JCAR objections to

Part

406.

The

Second Proposed

Opinion of Nay 18, 1984

is

58-528

---

—15~

withdrawn and

this Final

Opinion is substituted.

This Final

Opinion supports the Board’s Final Order, Adopted Rule Order

of this same date,

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

Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion was

adopted on the

~

day of

__________,

1984, by a

vote of

5-?)

m.

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board