ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
30,
1987
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
)
R84—29
TITLE 35,
SUBTITL~
D: MINE
)
RELATED WATER POLLUTION,
)
CHAPTER I,
PART 406
PROPOSED RULE.
SECOND NOTICE.
OPINIO~IAND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.C.
Flemal):
On July 11,
1986,
the Board proposed for
first notice
publication amendments to certain oortions of
35
Iii.
kdm. Code
402 and 406.
The proposed amendments were published at 10 Iii.
Reg.
12927,
August
1, 1986.
These proposed amendments largely
parallel the substance of the proposal put forth in this matter
by the Illinois Coal Association (“ICA”).
Two comments were
received during the first notice period:
one from the ICA on
September 12,
1986,
and the other
from the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(“Agency”)
on September 15, 1986.
The two comments received during the first notice period
raised several questions concerning the proposed amendments,
and
reflect the widely divergent persoectives on this matter which
have been espoused by the two major participants to this
rulemaking,
the ICA and the Agency.
Probably the most
significant of these differences focused on the annual
increase
in sediment loading
to Illinois waterways projected to result
from adoption of the 0.5
mi/l
settleable solids (“SS”)
standard,
and
the environmental impact of that additional
runoff.
Adoption
of the SS standard, which has been the focus of the ICA proposal
throughout this docket, was proposed by the Board along with
certain other amendments
in its July 11, 1986,
Opinion and
Order.
The Agency has reoeatedly indicated
its belief
that the
ICA, and the EcIS prepared
in this matter, underestimate the
adverse environmental impact that would result from adoption of
the
SS standard.
*
The Board wishes
to
thank Mr. Richard DiMa’nbro of the Board’s
Scientific
and Technical Section for his continued guidance and
assistance
in this matter.
77-385
In response to the conflicting nature of the comments
received during first notice,
the Board determined that an
additional hearing would be necessary in order that certain
aspects
of the record might
be expanded uoon.
More soecifically,
the Board stated by Interim Order of October
9, 1986,
that this
might be accomolished
if certain matters were addressed at
hearing, including:
1.
A presentation of the results derived
from the Agency’s
experimentation with the Sedimot
II computer model
(as
described in paragraoh four of the Agency’s first notice
comments).
2.
Receipt of additional comments on 35 Iii. Adm. Code
406.102(i),
as proposed by the Board
in its First Notice
Opinion and Order.
3.
A clarification by the Agency of why
it believes the
Board’s proposal
is more stringent,
in some regards,
than the Federal limitations
(the Agency espoused this
position in paragraph three of its
first notice
comments).
4.
A clarification by the Agency of the assertions made
in
paragraph two of its comments.
5.
Additional testimony of Mrs. Linda Huff, President, Huff
& Huff,
Inc.
(the contractor which produced the Economic
Impact Assessment (“EcI3”)
for this proceeding),
particularly
in regard
to her perspectives on the
Agency’s projections derived
through the use
of the
Sedimot II model, and any additional comment she may
have regarding the predicted economic ramifications of
Alternative
“B” of the Agency’s March
15, 1985,
proposal.
6.
Additional testimony addressing the environmental
effects of settleable solids.
The additional hearing was held on December 10, 1986,
in
ringfield,
Illinois.
Post—hearing comments were filed by the
partment of Energy and Natural Resources on December
22, 1986,
d the Agency on February
3, 1987.
BACKGROUND
This proceeding was initiated by a May 31, 1984,
proposal
ed by the ICA.
That proposal was later revised on February
1985.
The 1CA oroposal requests that the Board amend
35 Iii.
t.
Code 406.106 by deleting the current provision relating
to
.5
discharges during reinfall events,
and substituting
it with
ndards patterned after
the
federal regulations governing
such
77-386
—3—
discharges.
Under the provisions of the ICA proposal, mine
discharges would be exempted from the requirements of S406.106(b)
(except
pH)
during rainfall events, but a 0.5 nil/i
settleable
solids limitation would be imposed on any disdharge
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 vojume).
The 0.5
mi/l S3 standard
is the current federal
standard
The impetus for the ICA proposal,
inter
alia,
is that
it
would allow mine operators in Illinois to utilize more economic
sediment ponds.
Since
the United States Environmental Protection
Agency promulgated the SS standard,
all of the midwestern states
other
than Illinois have adopted
it
(EcIS at vi).
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
(EcIS at
99).
Merit hearings were held
on the ICk proposal
in Urbana,
Illinois,
on November
30,
1984, and
in Springfield, Illinois,
on
December
21, 1984.
The Agency submitted
an alternative regulatory prooosal
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 ate:
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”).
The economic impact analysis (“EcIS”) prepared for
this
proceeding,
“Economic Impact Analysis of R84—29:
Mine Related
Watet Pollution Regulations”, was received by the Board
on
February
3,
193G.
Hearings on the EcIS wets conducted
in DeKaib,
Illinois, on March 10, 1986,
and
in Springfield, Illinois, on
March 18,
1986.
Detailed discussions of current Illinois and Federal law
applicable
to mine discharge effluents,
as well as analyses of
the ICA and Agency proposals
in this matter,
are contained in the
The current effluent limitations guidelines
for the
coal mining
point source category were promulgated on October
9,
1985 and are
found
at 50 Fed.
Reg.
41,296
(1985)
(to be codified
at
40 C.F.R.
Part 434).
77-387
—4—
Board’s July ii,
1986,
Opinion and therefore will not be
repeated
here.
TODAY’S ACTION
After
consideration of the first notice comments,
the
testimony presented at the December 10,
1986 hearing,
and the
post—hearing comments received, the Board remains persuaded of
the merits of the SS standard.
The Board therefore now proposes
for second notice, with slight modification, the amendments to
Parts
402 and 406 which were published for
first notice on August
1,
1986.
The degree of variance
in the viewooirits presented
to the
Board
in this proceeding has made the Board’s task particularly
difficult in this instance.
Due
to the discordance of the
record,
the Board provides the following discussion in support of
the position
it takes today.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
As noted above, the questions of the potential increase
in
sediment loading
resulting from adoption of the SS standard, and
the environmental
impact of the additional sediment loss brought
about
as
a result, have been strenuously debated throughout
the
record
in this matter.
To assist the Board
in arriving at well—
reasoned decisions on these and other
questions relevant
to this
proceeding,
the Board contracted with Dr.
Billy Barfield,
Professor of Agricultural Engineering
at the University of
Kentucky,
to appear on the Board’s behalf as an expert witness at
the December
10, 1996, hearing.
Dr. Barfield
is
an acknowledged
expert
in the
area of sedimentation pond design
and reservoir
modeling.
He
is the chief author of the Sedimot
II computer
model,
a well—known model that can be used
to predict sediment
pond performance.
In
fact,
the United States Office of Surface
Mining has stated
in the Federal Register that the model
is the
preferred method
of predicting sediment pond performance,
(Board
Exhibit 2(b)).
Both the ICA and the Agency utilized Sedimot II
in modeling
the
impacts they would expect to occur
from adoption
of the SS standard.
Increased Sediment Loading,
as Calculated by Participants
The EcIS prepared for
this proceeding predicted that
adoption of the SS standard would result
in
an additional loading
after
a 2—year,
24—hour storm of
96 mg/i from a hypothetical pond
designed
to meet the
S3 standard.
This equates
to
an increase
in
the annual statewide loading of 3,400 tons
(EcIS at
58).
In
77-388
—5—
calculating this figure,
the authors of the EcIS assumed that
ponds desi9ned
to meet the
SS standard would achieve
a trao~ing
efficiency
of 90,
and that they would be
50 to 60
smaller than
those currently constructed to contain runoff from 10—year,
24—
hour storm events
(EcIS at
54).
At the December 10, 1986,
hearing, Mrs. Linda Huff,
the primary author
of the EcIS,
revised
this figure
in light ~f calculations made by the Agency through
the use of Sedimot
II
.
At that time Mrs. Huff stated that she
felt the incremental statewide ioa~ingwould be somewhere between
3,400
and 17,000 tons per year
(R.
at 333).
The Agency presented calculations within the context of
its
first notice comment showing
that adoption of the SS standard
wou1~increase sediment loading statewide by 7,400
tons per
year
.
The ICA presented
its own calculations through the
testimony of Jim Buck
of Amax Coal Company.
Mr. Buck estimates
that adoption of the SS
standard would increase sediment loading
statewide by 1,440 tons annually (R.
at
305;
ICA Exhibit X).
Increased Sediment Loading,
as Calculated by Board
It
is agreed by all participants that the adoption of the
new regulations would cause
an increase
in the amount of sediment
2 The “trapping efficiency”
of a sedimentation pond
is the
percentage of sediment particles flowing
into the pond which
settle or are retained
in the pond, and do not flow out
in the
discharge from the pond.
These calculations are found
in the Agency’s September
5,
1986
first notice comment.
Unless otherwise noted, citations
to
the
record will refer
to
the transcript of the December 10, 1986, hearing.
The Agency calculated that adoption of the SS standard would
increase pond discharge by .74 tons per acre following a 2—year
24—hour storm event.
Multiplying this figure by 5,000 acres,
which is the figure assumed by the participants
to fairly
represent the annual acreage disturbed by mining operations,
the
Agency concluded that 3,700 additional tons would be discharged
following
a storm event of the 2—year 24—hour magnitude.
Dr.
Barfield indicated at hearing that twice the discharge resulting
from
a 2—year 24—hour storm event
for
a given watershed
is
approximately equal
to the
annual discharge from that watershed
(R.
at
305).
Therefore, accepting that assumption,
the Agency
predicts an annual
increased sediment loading of two times
3,700
tons,
or 7,400 tons.
77-389
—6—
released from coal mine sedimentation ponds.
This agreement
stems from an agreed assumption that new ponds would be sized
smaller,
and therefore that the trapping efficiency of the new
ponds would
be somewhat less than the trapping efficiency of
ponds constructed under the existing regulations.
A difficulty arises
in attempting to evaluate
the
incremental increase
in sediment loadings which would be
occasioned by the new regulations.
As shown, numerous estimates
have been presented
in the record of this proceeding.
All such
estimates are based
on reasonable authority, but ate nonetheless
disparate due principally to differring assumptions as well as
some apparent miscalculations.
Accordingly,
the Board believes
that the best perspective
is gained by initially reviewing the
basic calculations by which the
incremental loadings may be
estimated.
The basic relationship
is that
a given quantity of water
with
a given concentration of sediment contains a specific volume
of sediment.
In
terms of the
issue at hand,
this can be restated
in the form:
a given quality of runoff from a sedimentation pond
which has
a given concentration of sediment contains
a soecific
sediment load or yield.
Convenient units
in which to cast this
relationship are acre—inch per year
for runoff, mg/i for sediment
concentration, and pounds per
acre per year
for sediment yield.
Given
these
units,
a runoff of one acre—inch per year which has
a
concentration of
1 mg/i will produce a sediment yield
of .2266
lbs/acre/yr.
The next s~tepis
to consider
the average annual runoff,
measured
in inches, which
is typical of the coal mined areas of
Illinois.
Average annual runoff varies
as
a function of both
climate,
including annual precipitation, and local conditions of
topography, vegetation, etc.
Thus,
average annual runoff would
be most appropriately determined with site—specific data,
since
the runoff from mined areas may not be the same as runoff from
areas where land use is different.
However, absent such data,
the best approximations available are the average runoff data
collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in the principal coal
mining areas of the State.
Annual runoff
in the Big Muddy Basin,
as measured
at Murphysboro, averaged 11.23 inch/yr year prior
to
the construction of Rend
Lake, and has averaged 12.20
inch/yr
subsequent
to the construction of the lake.
Annual runoff
in the
basin of the South Fork of the Saline River,
as measured
at
Carrier Mills,
has averaged 14.97
inch/yr.
These two stations
are generally typical of the coal mining region of southern
Illinois.
The La Moine River,
as measured at Colmar,
and which
has had an average annual
runoff of 9.45 inch/yr, probably
provides
a more realistic estimate for runoff
in the coal mining
areas of western Illinois.
Given these data,
it is reasonable to
assume
a value of approximately 13.0
inches per year for runoff
in the southern part of the State,
and approximately 10.0 inches
per
year
in the western part of the State.
77-390
—7—
The second step
is to estimate the average sediment
concentration in that runoff which passes through sediment
ponds.
This
is the most difficult of the estimates to make,
partially because the paucity of data and partially because
sediment concentrations experience such wide extremes that a very
large data set is necessary to calculate
a meaningful average.
An additional compounding factor associated with the large
variability exhibited by sediment concentration data
is that high
concentrations tend to coincide with large discharges.
Thus,
high percentages of the total load are transported during just
that small
fraction of the time which corresponds
to high
discharges, and also concentrations averaged over
the
full
spectrum of discharge events are not likely to be representative
of the average “effective” concentration.
For these
reasons,
it
is most appropriate to consider the average concentration as that
concentration which typifies
a fairly high discharge event.
During the course of this proceeding,
the discharge event which
has been
so considered has been the runoff event produced
by the
2—year rainfall, which
is the maximum rainfall event
to be
expected
in any two—year period.
This event
is not entirely
arbitrarily chosen, but rather has some standing
in the field
of
sediment studies as the event most commonly used by
authorities.
The Board will accordingly use this event in the
following analysis,
and subsequent use of “average concentration”
will be assumed to be synonomous with the average sediment
concentration being discharged from a sedimentation pond
after
a
runoff event occasioned by
a 2—year rainfall.
It
is further
instructive to note that on the average the 2—year
rainfall tends
to carry approximately one—half of the average annual runoff
(see
footnote 5).
Thus, based on the figures cited above, the 2—year
rainfall would produce a runoff event of approximately 6.5 inches
in the southern part of the State
and 5.0 inches
in the western
part of the State.
Three different estimates of average sediment concentration
from ponds
are of interest.
These are the average concentrations
under
the present regulations, sediment concentrations which
could be expected assuming adoption of the proposed regulations,
and the increment of concentration change which would
be expected
were the regulations to be adopted.
The latter, which is
equivalent
to the difference between the two other average
concentrations,
is of principal interest because from this figure
the incremental loading associated with adoption of the proposed
regulations can be calculated.
Unfortunately,
there are poor
or conflicting
data regarding
both present average concentrations and average concentrations
under
the proposed regulations.
It
is therefore necessary to
consider possible ranges of values.
Considering first the
average concentrations from ponds
under
the present regulations,
the EcIS cites the figure of
96 mg/i.
This is generally at the
low end of estimates that have been provided
in the record, but
77-391
—8—
is consistent with the figures most commonly cited by members of
the Coal Association
(see,
for example,
R.
at 340,
342).
Dr.
Barfield indirectly provided an estimate which lies at the high
end
of the range.
Barfield estimated
that
effluent
concentrations from a pond which had a 90
trapping efficiency,
or from which 10
of the sediment would escaoe, would
be about
5000 mg/i.
Since
it
is generally agreed that ponds designed
according
to the present regulations have a trapping efficiency
of
about 95,
which is equivalent to allowing 5
of the sediment
to escape,
Dr. Barfield’s figures implies that present pond
effluent concentrations would be approximately one—half of 5000
mg/i,
or 2500 mg/i (i.e.,
an equivalent amount of water would
discharge, but the water would contain only half as much
sediment).
Both the EcIS and the Barfield estimates are open to some
question.
The EcIS estimate was criticized as having been based
on data collected during periods of only fairly low discharges
(R.
at 335—336), and thus as not being representative of the
higher concentrations tyoical
of high oond discharges.
Conversely,
the Barfield data
is based principally on Dr.
Barfield’s experience and actual field measurements made
in the
Appalachian coal province, which
is characterized by
substantially greater
relief, and hence also likely greater
runoff
and erosion, than typifies the coal mining areas of
Illinois.
There
is further question regarding the Barfield data
concerning whether the Barfield ponds were constructed
in a
fashion comparable
to ponds constructed under Illinois’ present
regulations.
In spite of these questions, these two estimates
serve as useful likely extremes with which to define the possible
range of average sediment concentrations from ponds constructed
according
to present Illinois regulations.
Given the range of average concentrations for existing
ponds,
as presented in the
two preceeding paragraphs,
it
is
relatively straightforward
to estimate the average concentration
to be expected from ponds constructed according
to the proposed
regulations.
This simplicity stems from the accepted
relationship,
as previously noted,
that the proposed regulations
would result in a trapping efficiency decrease from 95
to 90.
Since,
as also previously noted,
the same amount of discharge
occurs
in either case,
it follows that the average concentrations
under
the proposed regulations would
be twice the average
concentrations which exist under the present regulations.
Using
the EcIS estimate this would
be 192 mg/l, and using the Barfield
estimate this would
be 5000 mg/i.
The range of incremental
increase
in average concentrations
which would be allowed from ponds constructed according
to the
proposed regulations
is then the difference between the two sets,
or
96 mg/l
for the EcIS data and 2500 mg/i
for the Barfield data.
77-392
—9—
All
the data necessary for utilizing the beginning
runoff/concentration/yield
relationship are now assembled, and
the basic question of what would be the incremental increase in
sediment yield given adoption of the proposed regulations may be
addressed.
The following table
shows
the expected
incremental
sediment loading under
the various runoff and sediment
concentration scenarious:
Average
Average Annual
Incremental
Incremental
Runoff
Concentration
Sediment Loading
(in/yr)
(mg/i)
(lbs/acre/yr)
10.0
96
218
13.0
96
283
10.0
2500
5665
13.0
2500
7364
A useful dimension which may be added
to this analysis
is. to
consider
the incremental sediment loadings
in terms of
tons per
acre per year, which
is the conventional unit used
in discussion
of sediment yields from agricultural lands,
construction sites,
and other
similar areas where
sediment yields are of interest.
This
is accomplished by dividing the right hand column above by
2000 lbs/ton.
A second useful dimension which may be added
is to
consider
the total statewide incremental increase
in sediment
load.
This may be accomplished
by noting that there are at any
given time, approximately 5000 acres of disturbed land
in
Illinois which are tributary to coal mine sedimention ponds.
If
it
is assumed that all of this acreage were eventually converted
to being
tributary to ponds constructed under
the proposed
regulations, the total incremental tonnage would be 5000 times
the incremental tonnage calculated according
to the procedure
outlined
at the beginning of this paragraph.
The following data
are thus produced:
77-393
—10—
Average
Statewide
Average Annual
Incremental
Incremental
Incremental
Runoff
Concentration
Sediment Loading
Sediment Loading
(in/yr)
(mg/i)
(tons/acre/yr)
(tons/yr)
10.0
96
.109
5456
13.0
96
.141
707
10.0
2500
2.83
14,162
13.0
2500
3.68
18,411
As the preceding discussion suggests, the most likely
situation
is likely be between the extremes presented above.
The Board remains convinced that little adverse
environmental
impact will
occur as
a result of adopting the SS
standard.
As
illustration,
the following worst—case scenario can
be developed.
The Big Muddy River
and Saline River basins
receive over two—thirds of the mining discharges
in Illinois
(EcIS at 65).
Taking
the highest estimate
in the record
for
statewide
incremental sediment loading
in tons per year (18,411),
and further assuming that all
the ponds
in the two drainage
basins are designed according
to the proposed
standards,
a
maximum of approximately 12,530 additional tons might be
anticipated
to be discharged
to those two river
basins.
The
record
also indicates that the existing sediment load for
the Big
Muddy River Basin
is on the order
of
255,900 tons per year
(EcIS
at 58).
Although the record does not contain
a similar estimate
of the sediment load of the Saline River,
it
is reasonable to
assume, given the similarity
in drainage basin characteristics,
that the unit area production of sediment
in the Saline Basin
is
similar
to that
in the Big Muddy Basin.
Therefore, since the
Saline and Big Muddy Rivers have drainage areas of 1177 and 2387~
square miles,
respectively,
the total existing sediment yield
6 The Board realizes
that the figure put forward
in the EcIS as
representing the statewide annual
incremental sediment loading
in
tons per year (assuming all ponds were designed according to the
SS standard)
is 3,400 tons
(EcIS at 58).
The Board belives,
howver, that that figure
is not consistent with the EcIS
conclusion that adoption of the SS standard would cause a 96 mg/l
increase in the sediment levels discharged from sedimentation
ponds following a 2—year
24—hour storm event.
By accepting the
latter finding of the EcIS, the Board has found
it necessary to
revise
(downward)
the 3,400 ton figure
(as shown above).
The
Board believes
its revised
figures to have been correctly derived
and calculated.
~ Drainage areas are from U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources
Investigations 79—110, “River Mileages and Drainage Areas
for
Illinois Streams”.
77-394
—11
—
from the two basins combined would be approximately 382,000 tons
per year.
The worst case scenario would thus cause
a 3.3
increase
in the sediment load of the two basins combined.
The Board
is confident that this analysis overstates what
the actual
incremental sediment load would be,
since
it
is
predicated on the severest possible assumptions.
Conversely,
if
one were
to accept as being more reasonable
the EcIS conclusion
that the statewide incremental sediment loading would
be 3,400
tons per year, the same analysis provides an estimate of only a
0.6
increase
in sediment load
in the two basins combined.
A
still lower estimate of 0.1
is arrived at
if the statewide
incremental loading of 707 tons per year,
as previously derived,
is assumed.
The Board notes that the above analysis should not be
construed as supporting
a view that a 3.3
increase
in the annual
sediment loading of
the Saline and Big Muddy Rivers
is
necessarily insignificant.
Rather, the Board presents the
discussion only for the purpose of showing that even under
the
worst possible conditions the projected incremental
sediment
loading
is
a small number, and additionally that under more
realistic assumptions than provided for by the worst case
scenario, the
incremental sediment loading would
be smaller
still.
The Board must also make one other note regarding the
potential environmental
impact stemming from adoption of the SS
standard.
The Agency has,
admittedly,, had concerns throughout
this proceeding regarding the increased sedimentation which might
occur
if the ICA proposal
is adopted.
These concerns have caused
the Agency to vigorously oppose the adoption here of the SS
standard.
In support of its position, and ostensibly to give the
Board more options
in this proceeding,
the Agen~yoffered a
proposal
of its own
in lieu of the ICA proposal°. The Agency
proposal would require sedimentation ponds
to be designed to:
provide
24 hours detention time
for flows
up to those occurring
as a result of
a 10—year,
24—hour storm event (“Alternative A”),
or provide an alternate detention time as long
as
it could be
shown that the pond will
remove at least 80
of the sediment
in
runoff resulting from
a 10—year,
24—hour storm events
(“Alternative B”).
During the
first notice period,
the Agency
submitted comments which included projections, compiled through
the use of Sedimot II,
of the performance of several hypothetical
sedimentation ponds sized according
to the requirements of the SS
standard.
The Agency had assumed that such ponds would remove
The Agency proposal was described at length at pages 7—9
of the
Board’s July 11, 1986
first notice Opinion and Order
in this
matter.
77-395
—12—
only 20—30
of the inflowing sediment.
However, the two SS—sized
ponds the Agency asked Sedimot
II to evaluate during
a theorized
10—year,
24—hour storm event both trapped 82
of the inflowing
sediment (Board Exhibit
3,
p.
49), and therefore would have
satisfied Alternative B of the Agency’s proposal.
Sedimot II, an
analytical
tool widely regarded as
the most authoritative model
of its kind, thus predicts that the increased sediment loading
will
be significantly less than that feared by the Agency.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The Board continues
to find that the overall economic impact
of these proposed regulations is positive.
The cost savings to
coal operators in Illinois are considerable
(see first notice
Ooinion and Order
at 12;
also see December
22, 1986, comment of
the Department of Energy and Natural Resources),
and the
increased cost to public water
suoolies
in Illinois, estimated to
be
in the area of $3,718 to $54,944
(R.
at 320—321),
is minimal
in comparison.
MONITORING DURING PRECIPITATION EVENTS
Adoption of
a performance based pond design standard (such
as the SS standard)
requires that periodic monitoring be done to
insure that ponds continue to meet the requisite level
of
performance.
For this reason,
the Board proposed
for adoption
at.
first notice Section 406.102(i), which reads
in full
as follows:
At least one sample shall be collected during the
time period the alternate limitations
for
precipitation events
in 406.109 and 406.110 are
in
effect.
The operator
shall have the burden of proof
that the discharge or
increase
in discharge was
caused by the applicable precipitation event.
The Board intended that Section 406.102(i) would require one
sample
to be taken from each pond during each precipitation
event.
The comments received at first notice reflected
disagreement with the section.
The ICA contends that
it could
be “impossible
to comply”
with Section 406.102(i),
as “(m)anpower
to sample all of the
ponds
for each event
is neither
available, nor realistic”
(comments of the Illinois Coal Association Re:
R84—29, September
12,
1996).
The ICA suggests instead that monitoring
be limited
to the collection of one quarterly sample from each pond, taken
during
a precipitation event.
77-396
—13—
The Agency,
on the other hand,
feels that the Board’s
proposed requirement of one sample per pond per precipitation
event is “insufficient to effectively judge a pond’s performance
in actual operation”
(comments
of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency,
September
15, 1986).
The Agency states that
“meaningful” sampling requires that “multiple samples
(be taken)
during the rising
leg, at or near the peak and on the falling leg
of the hydrograph”
(Id.).
Alternatively, the Agency suggests
that
if the Board decides to not require multiple sampling during
each precipitation event, then
it should specify where on the
runoff hydrograph (rising leg, peak,
or
falling
leg)
the sample
should be collected.
The Board concludes that
a middle ground between the ICA and
Agency viewpoints has the most merit
in this instance.
Although
Section 406.102(i)
as proposed
at first notice does reflect a
position between those of the ICA and the Agency,
the Board
believes
it necessary to
further refine the requirements
of the
section.
The Board
is persuaded that a required sampling
frequency of one sample per pond per precipitation event may be
an onerous burden, particularly
in regard to those operators
which may have dozens of ponds on
a single mining site.
Therefore,
the Board will require that three samples be taken per
pond per
quarter, during three separate periods
in which the
alternate limitations
for precipitation events are in effect.
Formally, establishment of this requirement will be accomplished
by deleting the formerly proposed Section 406.102(i),
and
amending Section 406.102(d)
in the following manner:
d)
At a reasonable frequency to ‘be determined by the
Agency,
the permittee shall report the actual
concentration or level
of any parameter
identified
in the state of NPDES permit.
Each
report submitted pursuant to this subsection
shall
include at least
three samples taken from
each pond discharge during three separate periods
occurring during that reporting period
in which
the alternate limitations for precipitation
events
of Section 406.109 and 406.110 were
in
effect.
If such alternate limitations are
in
effect on fewer
than three separate occasions
during a reporting period,
one sample shall be
taken of each pond discharge during each occasion
in that period when the alternate limitations are
in effect.
The operator shall have the burden of
proof that the discharge or
increase
in discharge
was caused by the applicable precipitation event.
The Board believes that the monitoring requirements as now
proposed
impose
a more reasonable demand on the manpower
capabilities of mine operators,
yet at the same time will provide
a substantial data base from which
the performance of
sedimentation ponds can be calculated and assessed.
77-397
—14—
ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS
The Agency suggested
in its
first notice comment and at the
December
10,
1986 hearing that the Board add and/or amend
a
number of definitions pertaining
to certain terms used
in
proposed Section 406.110.
Most of these
terms are presently not
defined
in Subtitle
D.
The Board finds that it
is appropriate to
add definitions
for
the
terms “coal preparation plant”,
“coal
preparation plant associated areas”, “controlled surface mine
drainage”,
“mountaintop removal”, “steep slope”,
and “base flow”,
and
to amend the definition of “controlled surface mine
drainage”.
The Board will therefore adopt, with slight
modification,
the definitions
for these terms suggested by the
Agency.
The Agency also suggested that definitions be adopted
for
the terms “1—year, 2—year, and 10—year, 24—hour precipitation
events”.
The Board believes
it unnecessary to add definitions
for
these
terms, as their meanings are commonly understood.
The
Board therefore declines
to add definitions
for these
precipitation events.
Additionally, the Agency commented that given
the Board’s
stated objective of structuring these regulations
so as
to assure
consistency with the federal regulations, certain minor
alterations should be made to proposed sections 406.110(a)
and
(c).
The Board will make
these changes, and they are reflected
in the attached Order.
SODIC SOILS
The hearing conducted
in this matter on December
10,
1986,
generated
a subject of interest which had previously not been one
of the plethora of issues which were already present
in this
proceeding.
The new issue concerns “sodic”
soils,
or those
soils
having uncharacteristically high levels of “free” sodium
(R.
at
19).
The occurrence of sodic soils
is significant because the
particles of soils having that condition will
not tend
to
flocculate, but will rather
tend to disperse (Id.).
Because such
particles resist settling, the discharges of ponds receiving
runoff from sodic soil areas may contain high levels of total
suspended solids yet meet the
SS standard.
The topic
of sodic soils was raised at hearing by Dr.
Barfield, who
is familiar with studies concerning
the existence
of sodic
soil conditions
in Kentucky
(R.
at 47—48).
Dr. Barfield
also indicated that he knows of
a consultant who has done work
concerning some Illinois watersheds
and has
found some isolated
instances of sodic
soils
in Illinois
(R.
at 163).
77-398
—15—
At this point
in time the Board can only state that
questions such as whether
sodic
soils exist
in Illinois, where
they exist,
and what impact they have on the monitoring of
sedimentation pond performance warrant more investigation and
study.
The Board has searched
for additional information on this
subject, but has been unable to locate answers to
these and other
questions.
Even Dr. Barfield was unable to quantitatively define
a soil that might be considered “sodic”
(R.
at 47—48),
and did
not have any personal knowledge concerning the location of sodic
soils
in Illinois
(R.
at 163).
If
in the future
it
is discovered
that sodic soils exist in Illinois
in some significant degree,
a
future Board may do well
to consider amending these
regulations
to reflect the existence of such soils
and the ramifications they
pose to the monitoring of pond performance.
ORDER
The Board directs that second notice
of the following
proposed
amendments be submitted
to the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules.
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE D:
MINE RELATED WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 402
DEFINITIONS
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
77-399
—16—
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,
Wastewater, Wastewater Source, Water Pollution
and
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.
“Acid
or Ferruginous Mine Drainage”: mine drainage which,
before
any treatment, has
a pH of less than 6.0
or
a total
iron
concentration greater
than
10 mg/L.
“Acid—producing Material”: material which when exposed to air and
water
is capable of causing drainage containing
sulfuric acid.
In determining whether material
is acid—producing,
consideration
shall be given to the sulfur content of the material,
the size
and spatial distribution of pyritic compounds and other compounds
of sulfur, the neutralizing effect of surrounding intermixed
materials and the quality of drainage produced by mining on sites
with similar soils.
“Affected Land”: any land owned or controlled
or otherwise used
by the operator
in connection with mining’ activities except the
surface area above underground mine workings that
is not
otherwise used for mining activities.
The
term does not include
offsite office buildings and farming operations
or recreational
activities on undisturbed land.
Land described in a certificate
of abandonment issued by the Agency under
Section 405.110(e)
is
no longer part of the affected land.
“Alkaline Mine Drainage”: mine drainage which, prior
to
treatment, has
a pH equal
to or
greater than 6.0 and
a total
iron
concentration of less than 10 mg/L/.
“Aquifer”:
a zone, stratum or group of strata which can store and
transmit water
in sufficient quantities
for
a specific use.
“Base Flow”:
any flow which
is not
a result of immediate runoff
from precioitation.
It includes, but
is not limited
to,
groundwater
flow, mechanical pumpages, springs,
discharges from
77-400
—17—
subsurface drainage systems,
and controlled outfalls from other
treatment works.
It
is normally any flow beyond
24 hours after
the rainfall ceases.
“Coal Preparation Plant”:
a facility where coal
is subjected to
cleaning, concentrating,
or other processing or preparation
in
order
to separate coal from its impurities.
“Coal Preparation Plant Associated Areas”: coal preparation plant
yards,
immediate access roads, coal refuse piles and coal storage
piles and facilities.
“Coal Refuse Disposal Pile”: any coal refuse permanently
deposited on the earth or stored
for more than 180 days.
It does
not include coal refuse deposited within the active mining area
or coal refuse never removed from the active mining area.
“Coal Transfer Facility or Coal Storage Yard”: any area were coal
is transferred from one mode of transportation to another
or
where coal
is dumped, piled,
stored or blended.
The term
includes but is not limited to coal docks, blending yards,
conveyor
belts and pipelines.
As used
in this Chapter,
the terms
mining activity and mine related facility shall include coal
transfer facilities and
coal storage yards.
“Construction Authorization”: authorization under Section 403.104
to prepare land for mining activities or
to construct mine
related facilities.
Construction authorization is issued
to
a
person who holds or
is required
to have an NPDES permit.
“Construction Permit”:
a state permit issued under Section
404.101 which allows the operator to prepare land for mining
activities or
to construct mine related facilities.
“Controlled Surface Mine Drainage”: any surface mine drainage
that
is pumped
or siohoned from the active mining area.
“Domestic Retail Sales Yard”:
a business which stockpiles coal
or
other materials solely for the purpose of supplying homeowners,
small businesses,
small industries or other
institutions with the
mineral
for their
individual consumption.
The term does not
include any sales yard located
at
a mine.
“Drainage Course”:
any natural or man—made channel or ditch which
serves the purpose of directing the flow of water into
a natural
waterway.
“Facility”: a contiguous area of land,
including all structures
above or below the ground, which
is owned or controlled by one
person.
77-401
—18—
“Mine Area or Mined Area”:
the surface and subsurface land where
mining has occurred or
is occurring.
The term does not include
the unmined surface land directly above underground mine workings
which
is not otherwise disturbed by mining activities.
“Mine Discharge”:
any point source discharge, whether natural
or
man—made, from
a mine related facility.
Such discharges include
but are not limited
to mechanical pumpages, pit overflows,
spiliways, drainage ditches, seepage from mine or mine refuse
areas, effluent from processing and milling or mineral
preparation plants.
Other
discharges including but not limited
to sanitary sewers and
sewage treatment works are not mine
discharges.
The term mine discharge includes surface runoff
discharged from a sedimentation pond but does not include non—
point source mine discharges.
“Mine Refuse”: gob,
coal,
rock, slate,
shale, mill tailings,
boney,
clay, pyrites and other unmerchantable solid or
slurry
material intended
to be discarded which
is connected with the
cleaning and preparation of mined materials at a preparation
plant
or washery.
It includes sludge
or other precipitated
matter produced by the treatment of acid mine drainage but does
not otherwise generally include sediment from alkaline mine
drainage.
The term also includes acid—producing spoil.
“Mine Refuse Area”: any land used
for dumping, storage or
disposal of mine refuse.
“Mine Refuse Pile”: any deposit of solid mine refuse which
is
intended
to serve as permanent disposal of such material.
“Mine Related Facility”:
a portion of a facility which
is related
to mining activities.
The term includes, but
is not limited to,
the following:
a)
Affected land;
b)
Coal storage yard
or transfer facility;
C)
Mine;
d)
Mine drainage treatment facility;
e)
Mine refuse area; and
f)
Processing or mineral preparation plant.
“Mining”: the surface or underground extraction or processing of
natural deposits of coal,
clay,
fluorspar, gravel,
lead bearing
ores, peat,
sand,
stone,
zinc bearing ores or other minerals by
the use of any mechanical operation or process.
The term also
includes the recovery or processing of the minerals from a mine
77-402
—19—
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.
“Mountaintop Removal”: surface coal mining and reclamation
operations that remove entire coal seams running through the
upper
fraction of a mountain,
ridge,
or hill by removal
of all of
the overburden and create a level plateau or gently rolling
contour with no highwails remaining.
“New Soutce Coal Mine”:
a coal mine,
including an abandoned mine
which
is being remined, at which:
a)
Construction commenced after May
4, 1984;
or
b)
A major alteration
has resulted
in
a new,
altered or
increased discharge of pollutants.
Major
alterations
are:
1)
Extraction from a
coal seam not previously extracted
by that mine
77-403
—20—
2)
Discharge
into a drainage area not previously
affected by wastewater discharge from that mine
3)
Extensive new surface disruption at the mining
operation; and
4)
Construction of
a new shaft, slope
or drift.
“Non—point Source Mine Discharge”: surface runoff from the
affected land.
The term does not include surface runoff which is
discharged from a sedimentation pond
or seepage from a mine or
mine refuse area.
“Opening
a Mine”: any construction activity related
to
preparation
for mining on a facility.
“Operating Permit”:
a state permit required of
a person carrying
out mining
activities.
“Operator”:
a person who carries out mining activities.
“Permittee”:
a person who holds
a
state or NPDES permit issued
under
this Subtitle
D,
Chaoter
I.
In some contexts the term
permittee 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
to the contour
required by permit and on which
revegetation work has commenced.
“Slurry”: mine
refuse separated from the mineral
in the cleaning
process consisting of readily pumpable fines and clays
and other
materials in the preparation plant effluent.
This term includes
mill tailings.
“Spoil”:
the accumulation of excavated overburden or other earth,
dirt or rock overlying
the mineral seam or other deposit
excavated from
its original location by surface or underground
mining.
“State Permit”
a construction permit or operating permit issued
by the Agency.
NPDES permits are not state permits.
“Steep Slope”: any slope
of more than
20 degrees.
77-404
—21—
“Surface Drainage Control”: control of Surface water on the
affected land by
a person who
is engaging
in mining activities.
Control of surface water
includes diversion of surface waters
around
or away from the active mining area or mine refuse area
and diversion, redirection or
impoundment of a stream or
impoundment of water
for flow augmentation or controlled release
of effluents.
“Surface Mining”: mining conducted
in an open pit including area
and contour strip mining.
“Underground Mining”: mining conducted below the surface by means
of constructing
an access
facility to the mineral deposit.
The
term includes slope, drift, shaft mines and auger
or punch
mining.
“Use of Acid—producing Mine Refuse”: use of acid—producing mine
refuse includes any use, offer
for sale,
sale or offer
for use
in
roadway projects, mine roads, mine yards or
elsewhere.
(Source: Amended at
TITLE
35:
SUBTITLE D:
CHAPTER
Ill.
Reg.
_____,
effective
__________.)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
MINE RELATED WATER
POLLUTION
I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART
406
MINE
WASTE
EFFLUENT AND WPATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
SUBPART A: EFFLUENT STANDARDS
Section
406.100
406.101
406.102
406.103
406.104
406.105
406.106
406.107
406.108
406.109
406.110
Preamble
Averaging
Sampling, Reporting and Monitoring
Background Concentrations
Dilution
Vte3et4on of
.
Wetet Qme~tyS~endatde
-f~ftevtembe~ed-~
Commtngling of Waste Streams
Effluent Standards for Mine Discharges
Offensive Discharges
Non—point Source Mine Discharges
Effluent Standards for Discharge from Reclamation
Areas
Alternate Effluent Standards for Precipitation
Events
77-405
—22—
SUBPART B~:WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
Section
406.201
Temporary Exemption from Section 406.105
(Repealed)
406.202
Violation of Water Quality Standards
406.203
TDS Related Permit Conditions
406.204
Good Mining Practices
406.205
Contact with Disturbed Areas
406.206
Retention and Control of Exposed Waters
406.207
Control of Discharge Waters
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—5B
at.
7 Ill.
Reg.
8385, 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 oart
shall be determined on the basis of
24—hour composite
samples averaged over any calendar month.
In addition,
no single 24—hour composite sample shall exceed two
times the numerical standards prescribed
in this part
nor
shall any grab sample taken
individually or as an
aliquot of any composite sample exceed five times
the
numerical standards prescribed
in this part.
b)
Subsection
(a)
of this section notwithstanding,
if
a
permittee elects monitoring and reporting by grab
samples as provided
in Section 406.102(f),
then
compliance with the numerical standards of this part
shall
be determined on the basis of three or more grab
samples averaged over
a calendar month.
In addition,
no
single grab sample shall exceed two times the numerical
standards prescribed
in this part.
c)
The numerical standards for
settleable solids are
maximum values not
to be exceeded
at any time and are
not subject to averaging.
77-406
—2~—
d)
The numerical standards
for pH shall be within
the
specified
range at all times and
are not subject to
averaging.
Section 406.102
Sampling, Reporting and Monitorin9
a)
Where
treatment
is provided for
a discharge, effluent
samples shall
be taken at a point after
the final
treatment process and before entry
into or mixture with
any waters of the state.
b)
Where treatment
is provided the permittee shall design
or modify structures so as
to permit the taking of
effluent samples by the Agency at the required point.
c)
Where
treatment
is not provided for
a discharge,
effluent samples shall be taken at the neatest 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.
Each report submitted
pursuant
to this subsection shall
include
at least
three
samples taken from each pond discharge during three
separate periods occurring during that reporting period
in which the alternate limitations for precipitation
events of Section 406.109 and 406.110 were
in effect.
If such alternate limitations are
in effect on fewer
than three separate occasions during a reporting period,
one sample shall be
taken of each pond discharge during
each occasion
in that period when the alternate
limitations are
in effect.
The operator shall
have the
burden of proof that the discharge or
increase
in
discharge was caused by the applicable orecipitation
event.
e)
The Agency may by permit condition require monitoring
and
reporting on the basis of 24—hour composite samples
averaged over calendar months.
However, grab samples
or
composite samples of shorter duration may be
permitted by the Agency after demonstration that such
samples reflect discharge levels over standard operating
conditions.
f)
Subsection
(e)
of
this Section notwithstanding,
if
a
permittee
so requests, the Agency shall by permit
condition require monitoring
and reporting
on the basis
77-407
—24—
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.
Section 406.105
V4e~e~4et’t
ef We~er~
&~en~et~de
+Re~m~e~e~Commingling
of Waste Streams
Where waste streams from any facility described
in this Part are
combined
for treatment
or discharge with other waste streams from
another facility,
the concentration of each pollutant in the
combined discharge may not exceed the most stringent limitations
for that pollutant applicable
to any component waste stream of
the discharge.
(Source:
Amended
in R84—29
at
Ill.
Reg.
______
effective
________.)
Section 406.106
Effluent Standards for Mine Discharges
a)
The effluent limitations contained
in 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
304 shall not apply to mine discharges
or non—point
source mine discharges.
b)
No ~
el~e~
ee~e
e~e~ewExceptas provided
in 35
Ill. Adm. Code 406.109
and 406.110,
a mine discharge
effluent to shall not exceed the following levels of
contaminants:
Storet
Constituent
Number
Concentration
Acidity
00435
(total acidity
shall not exceed
total alkalinity)
Iron
(total)
01045
3.5 mg/i
Lead
(total)
01)51
1 mg/i
Ammonia Nitrogen (as N)
00610
5 mg/I
pH
00400
(range
6
to
9)
77-408
—25—
Zinc
(total)
01092
5 mg/i
Fluoride
(total)
00951
15 mg/i
Total suspended solids
00530
35 mg/i
Manganese
01055
2.0 mg/i
~+
pH
net
eab~eet
to avere~4n~
~1) The ammonia nitrogen standard is applicable only to
an operator utilizing ammonia
in wastewater
treatment.
~+
~rty
everf3~ew74nereaee ~n vo~meof e
d~sel’ter~e
Cf
ee~er~e
from a by—pace cyctem ee~ee~
by
pree4e4tat4en or ertewme~te~a~net be e~b~eetto
the
~tet4one
of t~’t4sSeet4en~ Th~ee,empt4on
&‘~e~be ev ~abie
en~y4f
the
eed~mentet~en basin
or
treatment
wet*, is
~e54~ne~7
eet’t5tr~ete~
en~
meine~
to
rentain
or
treat the ve~me
of
water
w~4e~’twet~~fe~ en
the
areas t
bt~teryto the
eel’ter~e7everfew
or
bypass
d rirt~a ~—yeerT
~4—
1’~ot~ror ~erger precipitation event ~er enewme~tof
eive~enbve~me~
The
operator eha~ ~eve
the
b~r~en
of ~emonetretin~ that
the
prere
~ie4tes
to
an
exemption set ferth in this s~bseebien~‘tevebeen
wtet~
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
limitation of 3.0 mg/i
in addition
to the requirements
of subsection
b) above.
(Source: Amended
in R84—29 at
______
Ill.
Reg.
effective
.)
Section 406.109
Effluent Standards for Coal Mine Discharges
from Reclamation Areas
a)
The effluent limitations contained in
35 Ill.
Adm. Code
304 and 406.106 shall not apply to mine discharges from
reclamation
areas.
77-409
—26—
A mine discharge effluent from a reclamation area shall
not exceed
the following levels of contaminants:
Storet
Constituent
Number
Concentration
Settleable solids
0.5 ml/l
00400
(range 6—9)
c)
Notwithstanding b),
above, any discharge,
or
increase
in
the volume of discharge caused by precipitation within
any
24 hour period greater
than the 10—year,
24—hour
precipitation event
(or snowmelt of equivalent volume)
shall
be subject only to
a pH limitation (range
6—9).
Section 406.110
Alternate Effluent Standards for Coal Mine
Discharges During Precipitation Events
Discharges of alkaline mine drainage (except discharges
from underground mines that are not commingled with
other discharges eligible for
these alternate limits),
discharges from mountaintop removal operations,
discharges from steep slope areas, and discharges from
coal preparation plants and plant associated areas,
except for drainage from coal refuse disposal piles are
eligible for alternate effluent limitations durin~
precipitation events.
Any discharge or
increase
in the
volume of a discharge caused
by precipitation within any
24—hour
period less than or equal
to the 10—year,
24—
hour precipitation event
(or ‘snowmelt of equivalent
volume) may comply with the following limitations
instead of those
in 406.106(b):
Storet
Constituent
Number
Concentration
Settleable solids
0.5 mi/i
00400
(range 6—9)
b)
Discharges of acid or ferruginous mine discharge from
coal refuse disposal piles are eligible for alternate
effluent limitations during precipitation events.
Any
discharge or
increase
in the volume of a discharge
caused by precipitation within any 24—hour period
greater than the 1—year,
24—hour precipitation event and
less than or equal
to the 10—year,
24—hour precipitation
event
(or snowmelt of equivalent volume) may comply with
the following limitations
instead of
those
in
406.106(b):
a)
77-410
—27—
Storet
____________
Number
_______________
Settleable solids
0.5 mill
______
(range 6—9)
c)
Discharges of acid or ferruginous mine drainage (except
for discharges
in subsection
(b), above, mountaintop
removal areas, steeo
slope areas,
controlled surface
mine discharges and discharges from underground
workings):
caused by precipitation within any 24 hour period
less than or equal
to the
2—year,
24—hour
precipitation event
(or snowmelt of equivalent
volume) may comply with the following limitations
instead of those
in 406.109(b):
Storet
Number
Concentration
0.5 ml/l
01045
3.5 mg/i
00400
(range
6—9)
Constituent
Settleable solids
Iron (total)
Q~
fl
Caused
by
precipitation
within
any 24 hour ~eriod
greater
than the 2—year,
24—hour precipitation event
but less than or equal
to the 10—year,
24—hour
precipitation event
shall
be subject to
the
requirements of subsection
c)
1), above, except
for
the total
iron effluent standard.
d)
All
discharges
mentioned
in
(a),
(b),
and
(c)
of
this
section, discharges of acid
or ferruginous mine drainage
from underground workings which are commingled with
other discharges
and controlled acid or ferruginous
surface mine discharges caused by precioitation within
any
24
hour
period
greater
than
the
10—year,
24—hour
precipitation
event
(or
snowmelt
of
equivalent
volume)
shall
be
subject
only
to
a
pH limitation (range 6—9).
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
John
Marlin
concurred.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution Control
Board,
hereby
certify
that
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
was
adopted
on
the
JO~Z7
day
of
~p~t~L
,
1987, by a vote
of
~O
.
Dorothy M./tunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Constituent
Concentration
00400
1)
77-411
