ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 7~ 1974

MINERVA OIL COMPANY,

)

Petitioner,

PCB 73—284

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OZARK MAHONING COMPANY,      

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 73—294

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

Joseph F. Hale, Attorney on behalf of Petitioners

Thomas A. Cengel, Assistant Attorney General, for the EPA

OPINION AND 

ORDER

OF THE BOARD (by ~4r. Henss)

Petitioners Minerva Oil Company and Ozark-Mahoning Company

request variance from certain sections of the Illinois Water

Pollution Regulations. These two companies are engaged in the

mining and concentration of fluorspar (CaF2) at their mines and

mills located in Hardin and Pope Counties, Illinois. Together

they produce about 80 of the total U. S. production of fluorspar.

Discharges from their mines and mills contain concentrations 

calcium fluoride and suspended solids which exceed the turbidity

limitations of Rule 203(a) and 403 and the fluoride and suspended

solids limitations of Rule 408 of the Regulations.

Rule 203(a) in part requires that all waters of the State

shall be free from ~unnatural sludge or bottom deposits, 

,un—

natural color or turhidity~ except as provided elsewhere in 

the

Regulations. Rule 403 provides that no effluent shall 

contain

~...sludge so1ids~ and that ~color, odor and turbidity must he

reduced 

below obvious 

1eve1s~,

Rule 

408 limits Petitioners~

effluent 

to no more than 2.5 mg/i fluoride and

~L5.0 mg/i 

total

suspended solids.

addition 

to their

request for variance from 

the above

cited 

Rules,,

Petitioners also 

seek variance from

Rule 921(a)

insofar as that Rule requires ultimate

compliance 

with 

the

tiuoride

standards herore permits can oe ~ssuect.

Ooera-cions invo1~ed :Ln the current petitions

include

Minerva~s

No. 1, Spivey and Gaskins Mines, the No. ~L and Crystal Mili~ and

Czark—Mahcn±ng~s Rosiciare Mill.

The Ga.skin Mine,

located 

at the

eastern edge of Pooe County, discharges an effluent

which 

varies

in suspended solids content from 0 to 400 ing/l

depending 

on the

time of day samples are taken.

This effluent discharges to a

natural drainage ditch channel tributary to Big

Grand 

Pierre Creek,

Analyses of recent Aqency samples indicate

that 

the Gaskins

Nine discharge contains obvious levels of color and turbidity.

EPA investication

also indicates that the Gaskins

Mine

discharge

contributes

to the growth of unnatural henthic fio~a

and/or 

fauna

in the receiving drainage course and in portions of Big Grand

Pierre Creek. The surveillance also confirmed

that the discharges

exceed the 

mg/i standard of Rule 

408.~ A summary

of Agency

sampiing

activity

was

shown as toilows:

AGENCY OPAL SAMPLES AT AND IN

THE

VICINITY OF’ THE GASK::Ns MINE

Upstream BGP

Downstream BGP

Mine effluent

Upstream BGP

Clear

Downstream BGP

~vident

Mine effluent

190

Evident

~95

JTU)

Total 

solids via electro conductivity

+ Big Grand Pierre Creek

Location

Upstream BGP+

Downstream BGP

Downstream

BGP

Mine effluent

Mine

effluent

Drainage course

Date

Mar 27/73

Aug 9/73

Sep 5/73

(mg/i)

0.1

0.8

0.2

2.1

2.2

2.2

0.4

1.1

1.2

(mg/i)

460

390

T 5/ EC

(n(g/l)

110

90

300

300

290

170

360

400

Turbidity

Clear

Slight

Slight

Evident.

Evident

Evident

Clear

Evident

Evident

4.9

420

H ~ar ~ proposes to meet the turbidity and buspended solids

star dardc~ for the Gaskins Mine discharge by constructing a dare—

ficatior or settling pond near the facility at a cost of about

$10,000 The Gaskins Mine is located or land owned by the Unites

States Forest Service and Petiteoner states that it is present y

negotiating w_th the Forest Servi~e for use of adjace~tand ad

joining land owned by the Forest Service for construction of th

pond If approval from the Forest Service is obtained Petit~o~r

claims that construction of the pond can be accompleshed withi

90 to 180 days aft~rthe issuarce of a perain

Most of the mine water discharge trom Minerva~sMene No.

flows to the Mill No, I water supply reservoir for use as process

water. Water discharged trom the~miii flows t a series of tOur

settlina nonds which ultimately discharge to Rcck Creek an 

irter-

mittent stream tributary to Harm Creek and the Saline River No

information as to the concentrations of contamir ants in this

eff uent wa~ provided. Petitioner admitted that the mill ta ing~

effluent does not presently meet the Standards

Minerva proposes to bring the mill tailing~effluent into

compliance with the turbidity and total suspended solids limitathun~

through the installation of alum and line chemical feed equipment a

a cost of approximately $8,000. Minerva has the flocculation

equipment on hand and is ready to install this equipment at pond #

ane arrange with its electric power supplier to extend an electric

distribution line to that pond. Minerva estimates that the lengtt

of time required to install and place the equipment in operation

would be approximately 90 to 180 days after receipt of a permIt.

The remainder of Minerva~smine water from Mine #1 does not

flow to the mill water supply reservoir but directly into Running

Bear Branch, a tributary of Rock Creek ~Minerva alleges that the

total suspended solids of this discharge is below the maximum

standards and creates no turbidity problem.

At its Crystal Mill, Minerva operates a heavy media plant

about three weeks per month and anticipates that it will operate

a flotation mill about one or two weeks per month, Mill tailings

from the heavy media plant and the flotation mill are separately

discharged into a settling pond which overflows into a natural

drainage channel tributary to a privately owned lake known as the

Big Sink, which Petitioner leases, No information was available

on the current discharge concentrations of total suspended solids

for this mill.

Minerva proposes to meet the suspended solids requirements at

its Crystal Mill by raising the dike of its present pond and in-

stalling flocculation equipment. These changes will cost about

$5,000 and take about 90 to 180 days for com~letiononce a permit

is issued.

11

—

175

Operations at Minerva~s Spivey Mine are just beginning.

Minemva estimates that suspended solids in the mine effluent

will be about 50 ppm. About 180 days will be required to

construct a settling pond for the mine effluent 

so

as to reduce

suspended solids to an allowable level.

At the Ozark-Mahoning Rosiclame Mill the discharge waters,

containing from 800 to 2800 mg/i of total suspended solids, are

discharged to a settling pond and then go by pipeline to the

Ohio River, Petitioner proposes to achieve compliance with the

turbidity and suspended solids standards by constructing another

settling pond adjacent to the existing pond and to introduce

into the pond a flocculant to clarify the mine tailings before

discharge to the Ohio River. Petitioner alleges that the mine

tailings discharge consist ~rimamily of limestone (caldium car-

bonate) and some fluorspar and sand. Petitioner alleges that all

of the discharge materials are inert and non—toxic but create a

probleth of turbidity and exceed the standards as to total suspended

solids at the point of discharge.

Petitioners have discussed their control programs with the

EPA or have applIed for EPA permits to allow construction of the

troposed control

facilities. Th?. Agency contends that it is pre-

vented from issuing construction and operation permits for the

control facilities by the provisions of Rule 921(a). The Agency

concedes that if permits .could have been issued when they were

applied for, compliance with the turbidity and suspended solids

standards might have been actieved by this time.

The prime reason for a denial of the permits appears to be

that Petitioners have. not shown that compliance with the fluoride

limitations can be achieved. Petitioners allege that there is no

economically reasonable and technologically feasible method of

fluoride abatement for use at Petitioners operations.

Petitioners further allege that 1) 

for all practical

purposes,

fluorspar is considered an inert, non—toxic mineral, It has a

solubility of 17.5 mg/i in soft water which is equivalent to a

fluoride

concentration of 8 mg/I. 2) 

Discharges of

fiuoriia in

present concentrations have caused and will cause no significant

adverse 

environmental impact.

3) Water containing the mine dis-

charge

effluent has been used 

for

livestock watering 

purposes and

there is normal aquatic life in the 

intermittent

streams receiving

Petitioners~ mine water. 4) There are no recorded cases of fluorosis

known to man or animals ~which might have resulted from drinking

Petitioners~ mine waters.

Petitioners have relied on bioassay testing conducted by the

Colorado School of Mines Research Institute on tailings effluent

from Ozark—Mahoning~sColorado fluorspar operation. This report

11

—

176

details that no ill 

effects 

were found on fin 

erling

trout sub-

jected to process water 

with

a fluoride ion concentration of 32

ppm. In another report submitted by Dr. William F. Sigler,

Department of Wildlife Science, Utah State University, in sunport

of Petitioners’ contentions, it is stated that ca:Lcium fluoride

has a solubility of 

17.5

ppm while sodium fluoride, with a

solubility of 19,000 

ppm,

is over 1,000 times more soluble in

water, This 

equivalent 

to a solubility of 19 gm/l for sodium

fluoride and 0.0175 gr/l for calcium fluoride. The Sigler report

continued: “Fluotide ion has a high affinity for calcium and its

presence in the 

water in 

significant amounts seems to reduce the

effective concentration of calcium in the body of the fish,

Fluorspar, however, dissociates to form so few fluoride ions that

evidently only light symptoms of fluorosis are produced. Moreover,

the calcium ion: 

made available 

by the dissociation of calcium

fluoride would 

seem to 

provide a replacement for any calcium

extracted from the 

body 

of the fish”. This is a very important

statement when 

compared

with the solubility information stated

above. Simply stated, 

it means 

that when the sodium fluoride is

dissolved in water a tremendous concentration of fluoride ions is

made available to combine with the calcium in the body of the fish.

However, when the 

less

~oluble calcium fluoride dissociates, one

of the dissociation products is calcium and there is no reason to

believe that the 

fluoride available

from 

the

dissociation would

have any more 

affinity for the calcium in the body

of the fish

than for the calcium available from

the dissociation process.

In the March 7, 1972 Opinion adopting the Effluent Criteria

and Water Quality Standard Revisions, the Board provided a short

discussion of reasons

why

certain levels of water contaminants

were selected.

On fluoride, the Opinion

stated: 

“Fluoride can

delay the hatching of fish eggs and has been reported by McKee

and Wolf to kill trout at concentrations ranging from 2.3 to 7.2

mg/i. They recommended a standard of 1.5 

mg/I. The figure of 1.4,

here repeated from the May 12 draft, is in line with that recom-

mendation and also should assure a potable supply”.

The reference to a trout kill at concentrations ranging from

2.3 to 7.2 mg/i above was taken directly from a Table 

in McKee 

and

Wolf at page 191. The Table specifically states 

that 

the form

of fluoride used in the original research was sodium fluoride (NaF).

Petitioners have submitted proposed changes to the Water

Pollution Regulations relative to fluoride concentrations. The

matter has been docketed as R73-15 and hearings on the proposed

changes will be held in the near future, While 

it

would be pre-

mature to judge the outcome of those proceedings, 

have noted

ii

—

177

tnat tue cectioc of Minee and ~ol~ cealinc specifically with

calciim ,luoride CeF2) stites thet the letkal dose required

to kil_. tin fish Ii ‘a .ilgaris w-s reported by Simonin to be

30 J00 mg 

wh:cii is far great~.r ~ianrue solubility of calcium

fluoride n water.

The record presented in the rs~teraf hand thus shows that

~hi1e Petitioners have uresented c ntrol schemes capable o~

lileviat ng L e problems wlih turbidity and 

su’pended

solios

icy ~anrot bta’c a perr~tto rp~emcnt these control scheres

due to their present inability to eet the fluoride standards.

Without ~uch permit Petitioners a ~e~e ‘hat they are presented

with the alternatives ~f (1)  o~ingdown their fluorspar

lining dfld miilin~ perations or ~ operating 

subject

to

prosecution and the Impositior of potentially 

heavy

fines.

Petitioners say they are unub~e to propose installation

t equipment to c~~ntrcthe fluoride concentrations because of a

lack of any liternatives, The companies state tha~they continue

to perform researrh ;o acocire new tchnology and new control

trocessee but do not koi of cry feasinle control 

system

at

resent. The LPJ oxpressed the belier that Petitioners have made

a sood faith effr’~ 

cit

complying ith the Regula~ions.

We do not bcliete ~1at Ic iti~nersare now seeking a oorwanent

variance from the fluoride stardcrds, but rather a temporary

variance until sucu ti~ieas ~he loath “an decide if 

the

Requlatisms

should be amended. The Agency states that the absence of an

ultimate compliance date should not crevent. the granting of

limited relief, Tue ~peric~recommends granting the 1imi~eovarc~n~

uending discovery of a sasibie method o~ fluoride abatemen~.or

until a decision has been nade or~Pethtaoners’ Proposal to Amend

the Water Pollution legulations.

Without prejudging in any way the Proposal to Amend the

Regulations we

believe Petitioner nas satisfied 

the

requirements

for receiving a tempcrary variance.

The granting

this

variance

in our opinion, will benefit

the

Illinois

environment because the

installation of

the control 

facilities will

bring compliance

with the turbidity and suspended solids standards. The calcium

fluoride emitted by Petitioners seems not as 

great an

environmental

problem as the 

sodium

fluoride which was the 

basis

for our Regu-

lation, but the burden will still he 

upon

Petitioners to prove their 

case

in the public hearings on the Regulation (R73-l5).

The Agency acted correctly in denying operating permits under

the Rules applicable to these two companies, but our grant of

variance from Rule 921(a) should now remove the 

ob.~tac1e

to

issuance of permits. Upon reapplication for permit we would expect

EPA

approval

and

an early installation of 

control

equipment by the

Petitioners,

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Minerva

Oil Company and Ozark—Mahoning Company be granted a variance from

Rules 203(a) and 403 (as those Rules pertain to turbidity), Rule

408 (as that Rule pertains to suspended solids and fluoride) and

Rule 921(a) (as that Rule requires ultimate compliance with the

fluoride standards before permits can be issued) of the Illinois

Water Pollution cpntrol Regulations until October 15, 1974. This

variance is subject to the following conditions:

1. Petitioners shall apply for and obtain all necessary

permits for the installation of their proposed

control projects.

2. Petitioners shall submit monthly progress reports

to the Environmental Protection Agency. Such

progress reports shall commence on March 1, 1974

and shall provide details of Petitioners~ progress

towards completion of the proposed control projects

and results of effluent water quality sampling at

each’ fa~ilitydescribed in Part 3 of these

conditions.

3. This variance shall apply solely to operations at

Minerva’s #1, Spivey and Gaskins Mines, #1 and

Crystal Mills and Ozark-Mahoning’s Rosiclare Mill.

4. Petitioners shall diligently pursue all possible

avenues of research towards the development of

fluoride abatement equipment capable of achieving

compliance with the fluoride standards,

I,

Christan 

L.

Moffett, 

Clerk

of the Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board, hereby cert,ify~the above Opinion and Order was adopted

this

~

day of 

_________

1974 by a vote

of ~~toO

11

—

179