BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
NOTICE OF FILING
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
SERVICE LIST- R07-009

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

R07-009

Ill. Adm. Code 302.102(b)(6), 302.102(b)(8)

Rulemaking

Water

302.102(b)(10), 302.208(g), 309.103(~)(3),

)

405.109(b)(2)(A), 405.109(b)(2)(B), 406.100((d)

)

REPEALED 35 1'11. Adm. Code 406.203 Part 407, and

)

PROPOSED NEW 35 111. Adm. Code 302.208(h)

)

NOTICE OF FILING

TO: See Attached Service List

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Environmental Law and Policy Center of the

Midwest ("ELPC"), Prairie Rivers Network and the Sierra Club today have electronically

filed PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF GLYNNIS COLLINS ON BEHALF OF PRAIRIE

RIVERS NETWORK, SIERRA CLUB AND THE EIWIRONMENTAL LAW AND

POLICY CENTER and FURTHER PRE-FILED QUESTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL

LAW AND POLICY CENTER, PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK AND SIERRA CLUB

TO IEPA

Respectfully submitted,

Albert F. Ettinger (Reg. No.

3 125045)

Counsel for Environmental Law

Policy Center, Prairie Rivers

Network and Sierra Club

DATED: April 9,2007

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 9, 2007

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

R07-009

35 111. Adm. Code

302.102(b)(6), 302.102(b)(8)

Rulemaking

Water

302.102(b)(lO), 302.208(g), 309.103(~)(3),

405.109@)(2)(A), 405.109(b)(2)(B), 406.1 OO((d)

)

REPEALED 35 Ill. Adm. Code 406.203 Part 407, and

PROPOSED NEW 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(h)

PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF GLYNNIS COLLINS ON BEHALF OF

PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK, SIERRA CLUB AND THE

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY CENTER

I am Glynnis Collins, Watershed Scientist for Prairie Rivers Network. Today I am presenting

testimony and a proposed modification to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's

proposed water quality standard. This testimony and proposal is being made on behalf of

Prairie Rivers Network, the Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Environmental Law

and Policy Center of the Midwest ("ELPC"). Prairie Rivers Network, the Sierra Club and

ELPC have numerous members in Illinois who are concerned about water quality and

protecting aquatic life in Illinois' rivers, lakes and streams.

I have a Masters Degree in Biological Sciences from the University of Southern California in

Los Angeles. I worked as an Environmental Scientist for the San Francisco Bay Regional

Water Quality Control Board in Oakland, California from 1998 to 2003, and as a Visiting

Senior Research Specialist in Agriculture at the Department of Natural Resources and

Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, in Urbana from 2003 to 2004. I have been

Watershed Scientist at Prairie Rivers Network since 2005.

Prairie Rivers Network, Sierra Club and ELPC are generally supportive of the IEPA

proposals regarding sulfate, total dissolved solids, and mixing zones. Of course we strongly

approve of the proposal to delete the provisions of Subtitle D which were construed to allow

mining operations to discharge dissolved solids in concentrations that could cause violation

of water quality standards.

Interactions between sulfate toxicity and other dissolved solids

We believe that scientific work regarding the effects of dissolved solids on aquatic life should

continue even after adoption of standards changes. We are not convinced that Illinois

standards are

hlly protective of aquatic life as there are some potentially toxic dissolved

solids which for which numeric water quality criteria do not exist in the Illinois standards.

We are concerned about waters with high calcium levels and we are concerned regarding

waters that have chloride levels higher than 500

mg/L.

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 9, 2007

Regarding calcium, some data suggests that when calcium is the primary cation in a solution,

it may serve to increase the toxicity of sulfate. We understand that in some cases, mining

operations use calcium hydroxide in their processing, which could result in the presence of

large amounts of calcium in effluent. We recommend that the Agency investigate the

potential for calcium hydroxide use to influence sulfate toxicity, and if necessary, restrict or

regulate its use in individual permits.

Turning to chloride, the data we have reviewed show that with chloride concentrations higher

than 25

mg/L, the toxicity of sulfate increases as chloride levels increase. This relationship

holds true for chloride concentrations up to 500

mg/L, the upper limit of chloride

concentrations in the available experimental data. While it is true that lllinois waters should

not have chloride levels in excess of the water quality standard of 500

mg/L, it is a regrettable

fact that many Illinois waters do not meet standards. The proposed rule does not define a

sulfate standard for these waters, unless hardness is greater than 500

mg/L, in which case,

under

302.208(h)(3)(B), the sulfate standard would be 2,000 mg/L. The proposed rule must

provide an equation, numeric standard, or procedures for site-specific standards development

covering the entire range of possible chloride and hardness levels in Illinois waters. The

proposal, as written, lacks this information for waters with chloride concentrations of over

500

mg/L when hardness is less than or equal to 500 mg/L.

Mixing

Zones

More critically, we believe that the proposed changes to the mixing zone standards in Section

302.102 must be clarified by the Board and that current Agency practice regarding the area

and volume in which mixing occurs must be codified by the Board so as to make the current

Agency practice fully known to the public and fully enforceable. In particular, we propose

that the language of Section

302.102(8) be changed to state:

(8) The area and volume in which mixing occurs, alone or in

combination with other areas and volumes of mixing must not

contain more than 25% of the cross-sectional area or volume

of flow of a stream except for those streams where the

dilution ratio is less than 3:

1. In streams wherethe dilution

ratio is less than 3: 1, other than streams that have a zero flow

for at least seven consecutive days recurring on average in

nine years out of ten, the volume in which mixing occurs,

alone or in combination with other volumes of mixing must

not contain more that 50% of the volume of flow.

This proposal does not change the first sentence of the current rule and accepts the

change proposed by IEPA to delete the second sentence of the current rule. Our proposed

second sentence clarifies and specifies what dilution ratio is required when the dilution ratio

is less than 3: 1 and the stream is not among those streams that the proposal would regulate

under.302.102(b)(6). We believe this is critical.

Currently, the standard simply does not say what is to happen when there is less than

1 dilution available but does provide that the discharge must meet the water quality

standard at the end of the pipe if the discharge is made to zero

7q10 streams. As stated by the

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 9, 2007

Agency in the hearing held March 7, the Agency has generally adopted a practice of

requiring that mixing occur in no more than 50% of the flow in such cases. Although we have

misgivings about this practice, we are willing to accept its continuation. This practice must,

though, be spelled out in the standard, particularly as the proposed deletion of the current

second sentence of

302.102(8) will allow mixing in waters providing less than 3: 1 dilution to

occur more frequently.

Our proposal deliberately allows an exception for the streams that frequently have

zero flow that are covered by the Agency's proposed changes to Section

302.102(6) and,

thus, should allow the mine discharges to very low flow streams that are contemplated by the

Agency proposal.

Our proposal closes a lacuna in the current standard that is already unfortunate and

that would be magnified in importance by the Agency proposal if it is adopted without our

proposed language.

I want to stress that there is a great difference between most zero 7q10 streams that

have no flow for a seven day period

once

in ten years and the small subset of those streams

that have zero flow for seven consecutive days

in nine years out of ten.

Many of the former

waters have flow almost all of the time. These smaller but significant streams play a critical

role in determining water quality, flow characteristics, and the health of aquatic life both

locally and downstream. Protection of the ecological

hnctions and water quality and flood

mitigation services they provide is essential to overall protection of waters of the state.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

DATED: April 9,2007

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 9, 2007

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO:

R07-009

Ill. Adm. Code 302.102(b)(6), 302.102(b)(8)

Rulemaking

Water

302.102(b)(10), 302.208(g), 309.103(~)(3),

405.109(b)(2)(A), 405.109(b)(2)(B), 406.100((d)

REPEALED 35 Ill. Adm. Code 406.203 Part 407, and

PROPOSED NEW 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(h)

FURTHER PRE-FILED QUI$STIONS OF ENVIRONNIENTAL LAW AND

POLICY CENTER, PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK AND SIERRA CLUB TO

IEP A

The Environmental Law and Policy Center of the Midwest, Prairie Rivers Network and the

Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club hereby file the following questions to the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency regarding its proposal to change certain water quality

standards in the above-captioned proceeding.

1. Agency staff have referred to the concept of "effluent treatment ditches" with regard

to discharges from mining areas. Are these considered treatment works under 35

IAC

301.415?

2. Please describe the criteria used to determine whether a channel receiving discharge

from a mining area is considered an "effluent treatment ditch" rather than a receiving

water for the purposes of NPDES permitting.

3. Do these criteria for waterways receiving a discharge from a mining area differ from

those used in permitting other types of facilities?

4. Are these criteria for waterways receiving a discharge from a mining area expected to

change at all as a result of this rulemaking?

Respectfully submitted,

Albert F. Ettinger (Reg. No. 3 125045)

Counsel for Environmental Law

Policy Center, Prairie Rivers Network

and Sierra Club

DATED: April 9,2007

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 9, 2007

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached PRE-FILED

TESTIMONY OF GLYNNIS COLLINS ON BEHALF OF PRAIRIE RIVERS

NETWORK, SIERRA

CLUE3 AND THE ENVIROIWENTAL LAW AIVD POLICY

CENTER and FURTHER PRE-FILED QUESTIONS

OF EIWIRONMENTAL LAW

AND POLICY CENTER, PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK AND SIERRA CLUB TO

IEPA upon the persons listed in the attached service list via U.S. Mail.

Respectfully submitted,

Albert F. Ettinger (Reg. No.

3 125045)

Counsel for Environmental Law

Policy Center, Prairie Rivers

Network and Sierra Club

DATED: April 9,2007

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 9, 2007

SERVICE LIST- R07-009

Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100

W. Randolph St.

Suite 1 1-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Sanjay K. Sofat, Assistant Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

102 1 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Marie Tipsord, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100

W. Randolph St.

Suite 1 1-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Beth Steinhorn

202 1 Timberbrook

Springfield, IL 62702

Andrews Environmental Engineering

3300 Ginger Creek Drive

Springfield, IL 6271 1

Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, April 9, 2007