TDS (chloride) 13,000 to 15,000 mg/i

the following practices:
58-155.

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

May

18,

1984

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

PR~OSED

AMENDMENTS

 TO TITLE 35,

)

 R83—6

 (Docket

SUBTITLE

MINE

WATER

POLLUTION,

CHAPTER

PARTS

405

and

406

PROPOSED RULE.

 SECOND NOTICE

SECOND PROPOSED 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—

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 Urder,

 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 ma.

 Since the pages are not numbered

sec’iuentially,

 Roman numerals will be used to indicate the

vo1ume~

 Thus,

 (11—17) will refer to page

 17 of the second

day of hearings.

July

 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

conments

 were received during this period.

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

 Ill,

 Reg.

 78 and 93, January 6,

 1984.

On February 15,

 1984 the ICA, acting on behalf of the

rlRPg requested that the comment period be extended.

On

February

 they requested an additional hearing.

 On March

6

the

Hearing

 Officer extended the comment period and scheduled

 an additional hearing.

58-147

On

March

 20 and 26,

 1984 the Agency,

 acting on behalf

 the MRP,

 filed a written comment addressing several aspects

of the First Notice Proposal.

 The MRP

presented

t~stimony

and exhibits on

this

 matter at the third public hearing,

held in Springfield on April

13.

On April

17,

1984

the

Hearing

Officer

entered

Order

allowing additional written comments through April

27.

The

Board received comments from Peabody Coal Co. and the Agency,

both acting on behalf of the MRP.

The Board notes that throughout this proceeding it

has

received comments and testimony only from the MRP.

Summary of the Proposal

The proposal will he 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

 rng/l

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

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:

 There is no impact on public water supplies;

2.

 The applicant utilizes “good mining practices” to

reduce production of TDS related contaminants; and,

3.

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

3,500 mg/l sulfate,

If

the

 discharge exceeds the numerical levels, the permittee

will need to prove no adverse effect to the receiving stream

(Section 406,203),

 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)(3)

and

(b)(4)

have

been

added,

and

the

old paragraphs with these numbers moved down.

 These para—

58-148

—3—

graphs specifically address the impact of the special TDS

provision of

Section

 406.203 on discharges from abandoned

mines and on waters remaining in impoundments at such mines.

This point

 first arose in a case decided during the process

of adoption of new Chapter

4

 (IEPA

 Material Service ~

and Freeman United Coal M~~n Co., PCB 75—488,

 37 PCE 275,

February

7,

 1980)

 (1—42),

Strip mines frequently leave a final cut which fills

with water after abandonment;

 slurry ponds and other impound-

ments may also be left (1-40).

 Some of these may have

a

surface water discharge.

 Paragraph

 (b)(3)

 addresses

the

discharge, while paragraph

 (b)(4) addresses the waters in

the lake or impoundment.

Discharges

 from abandoned impoundments will have to

meet the effluent standards of Section 406.106.

 If there

was no TDS water quality condition imposed under special

procedures

 during active mining, the discharge will have to

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(e)(1)

and

 (c)(2)

 (1—38,

 11—10,

14,

 18).

Paragraph

 (b)(4)

 applies to

 the waters in

 the impound-

ments, which may not be

 required to meet water quality

standards during active mining,

 as for example, treatment

lagoons and settling basins.

 Impoundments which will not

meet such standards on abandonment will be required to meet

the effluent standards after abandonment, and to make part

of the showing under the TDS water quality Section 406.203

(c)(i)

 and (c)(2)

 (11—21),

Section 406,109(b)(4) applies the effluent standards as

though they were water quality standards (1—38,

 lI—il,

14,

18).

 This will be sufficient to ensure that any discharge

will at least meet the effluent standards.

The second and third proposals limited the TDS procedure

to impoundments which

did

not

meet

the

water

quality

standards

during active mining,

The

Board

has

deleted

this

require-

ment, since the water

quality

problems

final

cut

lake

may not appear until

after

abandonment

(1—40),

The Board

has

added

paragraph

(e)

the

proposal:

this requires conditions

abandonment

plans

assure

continued application

the

TDS

water

 quality

procedure

(I—

37),

58-149

in the First Notice Order

the

Board

proposed

strike

the lanquage in Section 405,109(b)U)

 requiring the Agency

to approve abandonment plans showing that the plan can be

executed within one year “unless otherwise approved by the

Agency”.

 The Board proposed to insert a reference to para-

graph

 (b)(l) into paragraph

 (d), which specifies the circum-

stances under which the Agency may approve longer times

for

abandonment.

 In its comments and at the third hearing,

the

Agency indicated that it interpreted

 existing paragraph

(b)(l)

 as allowing approval of longer abandonment plans in

circumstances other than those allowed under paragraph (d),

reclamation plans approved under the Surface Coal Mining

Land Conservation and Reclamation Act.

The problem with the

existing

 language as construed

the

 Agency is:

 it allows

 a discretionary Agency action

 with

no standard for review;

 and,

 it seems

 to allow the Agency to

grant a “variance”

 from the

Board

 requirement of abandonment

within one year.

 The Board has addressed

 this by

requiring

a ~reasonable time”, by specifying

 environmental

damage

and

the time required to complete the steps in the plan as

factors which determine

reasonableness,

and

creating

presumption that one year is a reasonable time,

Section 405,110

 Cessation,

 Suspension

Abandonment

Paragraph (e)(2) has been added

 to specifically require

a showing that Sections 405,109(b)(3) and (b)(4)

 have been

met before a certificate of abandonment is issued.

The

permittee will have to show that those sections will be met

to get approval of the abandonment plan, and also show that

they were in fact met before the certificate

 of abandonment

is issued

 (1—37,

 11—10,

 15).

Section 406,104

 Dilution

This section was taken from Section 304.102, which it

tracks almost verbatim.

 Paragraph

(a)

 has been amended to

make it clearer that the dilution rule refers only to the

effluent standards,

 This may have been lost when the lan-

 guage was moved from Part 304 to Part 406, which deals with

both effluent and water quality standards,

The Board does not construe Section 406.104 as in any

way liniting dilution after treatment in order to avoid

violation of water quality standards,

 This dilution may take

place prior to discharge to waters of the State, so long as

it does not interfere with contaminant

removal

efficiency

(1—62,

67).

 if effluent concentrations are measured beyond the dilution

point, concentrations would have to be

corrected,

58-150

Secti~n4~ ~05 has been renumbered to 406.202:

the

water q~a1ityr~leand special

 TDS procedure will be placed

together

ifl

 a Eonarate Subpart.

SectIon

406.~06

Effluent

Standards

effluent

standard

2,0

mg/l

manganese

has

been

added

the

table,

Manganese

 is frequently regulated as an

effluent

parameter,

and

its

 omission from

the

revised

mine

waste rules may have been an oversight caused by the ambiguity

as to whether the effluent standards table of old Chapter

4

 supplemented

superseded

the

 effluent standards of old

Chapter

3

 (1-55),

 The Board regulates manganese in effluents

other than mine

v~te

 at 1.0 mg/I

 (Section 304,124),

 Federal

regulations impose a limitation of

 2.0 mg/l on

 mining activ-

ities, including,

 for example, the acid

 mine

 drainage category

(40 CFR 434~32(a)),

Treatment

for

 manganese is similar to iron,

 involving

addition uf 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 n~gilstandard.

 Effluents will

be

 allowed to go

to pH

~ecessary

meet

the

manganese

 standard

 (1—36).

(For

~ela~ed

~iscusaion~

 see Section 304,125; R76—21,

 Opinion

of

September

1981,

PCI3

367,

 Ill.

 Reg.

 563),

The

Beard

regulates

manganese

 as a water quality stand-

 ard at 1,0 mg/I

 3ection 302,208).

 The standard was based

on fi~toxicity (R7~l4,

 3 PCB 755,

 4 PCB

3,

 March

i972~

 ~iacstucy of several streams impacted by mine

discharges~which is discussed below,

 Dr. Allison Brigham

foun5

that

rranganese

was

found

 account for the greatest

amorn

~‘srance

species

 diversity and richness of

seveal

vaniah~es

studiad

(11—31),

mba ~ano

 ~se effluent standard will not apply to mine

Qlseha ge~which are associated with areas where no mining

act’v ~Le’~ha~~e

 taken place since May 13,

 1976.

 This date

is ta~c~n~ron~Federal regulations regulating manganese

d1s~ba

ees

eoa~.

lining

(1—36,

54;

 11—10,

 12),

Vfolation

 of Water Quality Standards

Pus

 Section has been moved from Section 406,105.

Subpart

bart

406

will

deal

only

 with effluent rules,

while Suhpa~tB will deal with water quality rules.

The

TDS

~ioceure

the

Section

will

 thus appear next to

the

Seciaon

~hin

modifies,

Water

Quality—based

TDS

Permit

Conditions

58-151

—6—

TL’S ~ cl’~sall material dissolved in water, as opposed

to total s~3pe’~edsc~ids.

 In Illinois coal mine discharges

TDS

ccns~sts

a~ y

cflloride

and

 sulfate

 (1—49).

 Under—

grounö

mines

often

have

high

 chloride levels from saline

water

encoun

er~d in

mining.

 Surface mines often produce

sulfuric

acid

from

~ne

action

air

 and water

on

 sulfur

minerals

exposed

ifl

mining.

 Neutralization

 of the

acid

produces

sulfate

salts,

and

 further increases the TDS because

of

the

dissolved

solids

the

 alkali which must

be

added.

The

problems

with

treating

 for TDS have been adequately

 addressed

prior

Board

 Opinions.

 The Board repealed the

TDS

effluent

standard

 in R76-2l,

 finding that the

only

treatment

technologies

 involved large amounts of energy

consumption,

and

produced

 concentrated brines

which

still

required

ultimate

disposal.

 Regulation of TDS discharges

was

left

enfcrcernent

 water quality standards of Section

302.208:

CnLride

500

rng/l

Sulfate

 500 mg/I

1000

mg/i

R76

~l0

the

Board

 recognized that coal mines

faced

spe~ia

prob

with

TDS

 in that they produced high

TDS

discharge~,

but

 were often forced to locate upland, away

from uajor “~ivas with dilution adequate

 to avoid violation

of water quail ~y 5a5 dards.

 In response,

 the Board adopted

the teiporaa; c~.

p

ion procedure now found at Section

40F

I.

 p~-’~

 a~uC~5erof July 24,

 1980,

 39 PCB 196,

260),

The pe~-rsnenF~)S rule follows the

 temporary

 exemption

in some aespec~’ 1ne applicant is required

to

demonstrate

that

a

 ~s ~tn

~

 ~goad mining practices~,and that there

will be no I:v~acta” public water supplies

 (1—30).

 However,

unde

 tha ~‘~r~uu~F rule,

 the permittee, rather than the

Igenc

 wil~ bE

 puired to demonstrate no impact on the

reed

 ~ng straaa

:he

~‘

 p~coudurecreates a presumption of no adverse

imoac

o

 th~’st ~ecurif discharge levels are less than

3500

~

 sul~taand 1000 mg/I chloride (1—30).

 If levels

are hIgh

 eer~itteewill have to prove

 no adverse

impact

 This will irvolve actual stream studies to be done

by the permittee,

 involving a demonstration of the effect of

the exis~i g c~paopu~eddischarge levels on the stream,

not

a show~nc’of

 om’~lia~ce

 with water quality standards

 (1—31,

58-152

~f t:e

~r

~

 mg/I

numbers are met,

assumed

 ttaL

 ~ere

o

 ad~iercseimpact

on

the

receiving

stream,

 ~hich could

rebutted

other

evidence

in

 u~ed into

the

 record in the

 permit

proceeding

before

 the ie~nen

_f the wat~rquu~ity~based

TDS condition

 is granted,

the

dlschd ~ye~ill not be

subject to the water quality

star~

‘~

f

 n~e, chloride,

 iron,

 manganese and

 total

dissolved so

~

rhe

 permit will contain conditions requir-

ing ncnitciin~j f

 ~hese

parameters and limiting discharge

concen

rnt~~

~

 11—17),

The Bo~rd

 ~aolosed

Section

406.203

differs

from

the

amended

propot

I

 an tugust

26, 1983

 in several respects.

The

most

 fnnlair

 rita

 difference

 that, whereas the

MRP

proposed a r ~le

~hiah

would “exempt”

 the mine discharge

 from

the w~iter

pra’i

;

 standards, the

Board

has

 proposed a

 special

proceduTe lb wt~’ efnfluent

limitations may

be

 written

into

the parr~t ~

 c’~ uning

practices,

 impact on public

water

suppl’es

at

 I ~rpscL

 on the

receiving stream,

 without

regard

to n1rerir~ai

aotra

 ~ality

 standards,

 The MRP proposal

allow

I

n

~

 ‘~ienof

impact on

 the receiving

 stream

unle~a

e~f~u.

exceeded

3500/1000,

Then

the

 Agency

had thn

I

 ~equire

the

permittee

to

 demonstrate

ne ad~ar~eu~c

 1~eBoard

rule on the

 other hand

requires

a sI~cr’inc ~t no

 v rse effect in all

cases.

The

permittee

may

o~

o~ ~r~tion of no

adverse

 effect if

effluent

level

~ir”

~

 /1000,

 This could be rebutted by actual

cud

u

 n~~fectpresented by

the

 Agency

or

the

pub an

~t

levels exceed

3500/1000,

the

permittee

must

sh~’~

‘~n

effect

 through

stream

studies.

the

~uainig

the

MRP

accepted

this

without

c~p

~an~

the

last

 aspect~

MRP

wants

the

waive

the

stream

study

the

 situation

~c1

pa

i~ to

small

tributary

 which runs a

joining

stream

with

 adequate

dilution

qu~laty

standards.

Lnt~nes

allow

the

 Agency to waive the

situation

outlined

 above,

 the stream

detailing

the

 size,

 length

and

the

 tributary, and the mixing zone

~‘an,

The

Agency

may

 accept this as a

a~versc effect

 case—by—case basis.

no

-‘lois

special

 conditions for iron and

~hcn

Lbe

 3500/1000 presumptive levels for

sulfate

could

allow

 the Agency to write a

58-153

perm~. cor’dat~::

~ti

nurerical

 limitation between the

water

‘iurlit~y

s I~rds and

effluent

 standards

for

iron

and

maneanese

w3L~)~n c~rsideratjon

 actual

 effect on the

strear

The

pet.

~it

cood

not

allow

iron

 or manganese

to

exceed

the

ef~

standards

Section

 406,106:

General Use

Fffluent

Std.

Water

Quality

Stds.

iron

3,5

mg/l

 1.0 mg/i

tlngancre

2,0

mg/l

 1.0 mg/i

The

Boar~

Zi~cst notice

 proposal

 did not allow inclusion

of iron

and

manj

‘5enc

 special permit

 conditions.

In

its

comments

MRP

ak~o~ladged

the

 lack of

 information on

 these

parameters

tlu

ea5~1ier

 record,

At

the

third

hearing

MRP

supplemented

the

reard

the

basis

 for including

these

parameters~

bSEPIrn~

~3~d

that

 effluent

levels

equal

the

Section

406~1O~rt~-~~d

~ds

for

iron

and

 manganese represent

the

best

~ie

t~’lno1ogy

 economically

achievable

 (BAT)

(Exhibit

S~i

coal

 mines cannot

 freely relocate

point

where

tbs~

ould

 adequate dilution

to

 meet the

stricter

water

c1u

standards.

 Treatment of discharges

beyond

tfle

BIt

l~vc

meet

 water quality

standards

would

oronabitive

~xae~sive

 Accordingly

 the Board has

included

iron

anganese

the

 proposal,

 allowing

the

Agency

s’t

nEr

‘cndations

between

the

 water

 quality

and

erdl~tnn~

5sed

 case—by—case evalutations

aticns

strear~ impact

s’~eam uses

and

 mining

 practices.

The

pres~~t

levels

refer

 concentration of

 sulfate

ani

chloride;

“a

Ti)S

level

 specified.

 As a matter

e)4.Erlence~.

Tt)S

‘-

~ouIy

these

two

 ions

 (1—49),

Sulfate

an~

h1~1de

ions

generally

 correlate better with

envr’o~inwenOa’

~

J~an TDS

(1—33;

Ex.

E,

29,

 11—32),

Moo

t~or~r.co~ Tl~

~ontanue

 provide a

 check

 for the

possa~1e presn~”e

lange

concentrations

 of some other

oa~er~al

l~s~t~

I,)

~ a~dy

entitled

“Acute

 Toxicity of Chlorides,

a tres,

one

)

solved

Solids

Some

Fishes

Illinois”

Pa5i

~teed

and

 Ralph

Evans

the

 State

Water

Surv’y.

They

Ea~d3ed effects

TDS

and

constituents

cb~mel

catfash

~:lings,

large

 mouth

bass

fingerlings

acid

blue

gill

fan~rr~,eqs.

They

found

the

 following

96—hour

mediaa

tolera~cc

lunts

1—33,

Ex.

p.

 29):

58-154

.1.9..

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

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

accumulate

have

any

chronic

effect.

The

presumptive

levels

are

also

well

below

the

levels

considered

safe

for

livestock

watering

(1—34).

the

discharge

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

require

end—of—pipe

treatment.

The

Agency

to

approve

the

water

quality—based

WS

condition

 only if the permittee proves

that

it is utilizing

good

 mining practices’ designed to minimize

TDS

 production.

The

Agency

may promulgate

code

good

operating

practices,

which

case

compliance

with

the

code

would

prima

facie

proof

use

good

mining

practices.

‘final’

draft

the

code

has

been

filed

Exhibit

The

Board

has

proposed

Sections

406.204

through

406.208

definition

‘good

mining practices’.

 These

are

taken

from

Exhibit

Section 406.204 defines ‘g~ mining practices.’

The Agency is to consider

whether

the operator is utilizing

the following practices:

Practices

which

may

stop

minimize

water

from

coining

into

contact

with

disturbed

areas.

Retention

and

control

within

the

site

waters

exposed

disturbed

materials.

•

Control

and

treatment

waters

discharged

from

the

site.

58-155.

~iO~

firther defined

in Sections

406.205

~

 ot intended to require that each of

these

 prac~ic~

 ~c~ried out at each site;

 indeed,

 some of

the practicos

~

i

 ~1cde the use of others.

 What the

Board i~’~n3.

 t~eAgency review each of these practices

to dot ~ri~~

~

 ato~is

 doing

 all that is reasonanle at

the si~etc ~

 p~oductionof TDS discharges or to

rniniiri ze

The ptoo

IUino4s

TPDF

surface disc

permitr.

~I

the come

I

provired

lowe3

‘-F

“significant

c

heari~c

j-n~

ofth

TCAcr~

~

hear

~

Sect

~t~’

ada

‘sap

~

-~.

dern~t

are

~er~

in practice a modification

to the

~~-r~r

 snce

 all mines with point source

mmd

 ~mecently required to

have NPDES

~

 e~of Section

 406.203

 will arise in

-cit

 modification.

 Hearings will be

~oction 309.115.

The

hearing

 is to be

‘-

ds,

 on the basis of requests

a

ibic

 interest in the draft permit

Order the Board included an aheolume

s

 or the proposition that Section 302

r 3uired such a hearing.

 The Agency,

L1~5

 interpretation at the final

 ten comments.

 They suggested that

~y ‘0

 situations in which the Admin—

roe that technology—based effluent

-nt to assure attainment of water

were 45 active coal mines in Illinois

~LcY~nd. Of these,

 31 are operating

~on of Section 406.201,

 14 surface

comment of August

 3, 1983 in R83~

a ~ assumed to be able to meet the

andards and are not impacted at all

r~ndure,

i’-.

 og under the temporary exemption

iy aemonstrate that they are using

~rd that they are not adversely impacting

in e these requirements are not

less than

1000

 mg/I

 chloride and

qualify under the permanent procedure

difference

 will be the mines which

r~. levels,

 They will be required to

‘~pacton the receiving stream.

 if they

—

 sh~-~ing,expensive treatment may be

cr~sration,

58~156

As noted,

Lhe

 ~tially

 affected mines include

14

surface

and

 undc~.~~d

 i~ires,

 Sulfate should he the

limiting

factor

for

‘

~m,

 chloride for underground mines.

It appears that at tho -~nnExhibit C was

prepared,

 no sur-

face mines exceeded

n~

5J

 mg/l sulfate level, but that

four underground ri!ce e~ceededthe 1000 mg/.

 chloride level

(11—52).

 Thus a oa~ir~~m

 c-f four underground mines are

expected to have to r~kestream studies.

 These are likely

cost

excess

-~f

1

 000 each.

The cost

 cost

 mq with the Part 302

water

 quality

standards through m~1~cmticnof end—of~pipe

treatment

 tech~-

nology was

discus3ed

 PCB 251.

 Updating these coFts to

the fourth quarter

al

 1982 infers construction

costs

 of Sl95

million and annual opc:uc:ng costs of $52.8 million

 (11—56)

However, the

number

i ‘nec

 in the State has

decreased,

possibly reducing t~c~cj

 gate estimates,

 Any costs a~so~

ated

 with

complia

~c

 c ~ae exemption procedure must b~

judged

as

savings

 ~pect to the cost of current retulatmons

Costs of varioc

g

 d dining practices are estimated in

Exhibit

C,

although

cifficult

 to summarize

these

concisely.

These

less

 than

the

cost

 treatment

by

orders

ma;

initial

 costs

have

already

 been

iret under the temp

c

u

 although there may be continu-

ing

costs

associate

‘

mome

practices.

The proposa’

for