ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
July 24,
1980
SANCHEZ ENERGY
CORPORATION,
INC.,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 80—45
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by D.
Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board upon a petition and amended
petition for variance filed March 17 and May 2,
1980 by Sanchez
Energy Corporation,
Inc.,
(Sanchez) an
Illinois business corp-
oration.
The pleadings request variances from Section 12(a)
of
the Environmental Protection Act (Act),
Rules 605(a),
605(b)
and
606(a)
of Chapter 4:
Nine Related Pollution (Chapter
4 or Mine
Rules)
and Rules 203(a),
203(b), 203(f)
and 408(b)
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution (Chapter 3), as these rules apply to discharges
from Sanchez’s proposed coal recovery operations at the abandoned
Little .Dog Mine.
On June
2, 1980 the Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
recommended that the variance be granted in part
with
conditions.
The
hearing
was
waived
and
no
public
comment
has been received.
Pending before the Board
is
a proposal to adopt a new version
of Chapter
4
(Adopted Rule,
Final Order,
Order of July 24, 1980;
R76-20 and R77-lO).
In this Opinion reference is made to the rules
in both old and new Chapter
4.
It i~the Board’s intention that
any variance granted will be construed as
a variance both from the
old and new Mine Rules.
The following table
shows the numbers of
the comparable applicable rules in the old and new versions of
Chapter
4:
Old Chapter
4
New Chapter
4
605(a)
605
605(b)
607
606(a)
606(b)
The Little Dog Mine
is situated just outside the City of
Gillespie in the NE
¼
of
Sec.
13,
T.
8
N.,,
R.
7
W.,
3
PM,
Macoupin
County
(Rec.
Ex.
7).
It
is
an
underground
coal
mine
which
was
apparently abandoned in November of 1968.
The previous owners
abandoned the site without performing reclamation work of any
—2—
nature
(Pet.
1;
Rec.
2).
The Agency brought an enforcement action
against a previous owner of the site.
This was dismissed because
the Agency was unable to obtain service upon the Respondent (EPA
v. Harold D. Woods, PCB 77-338,
33 PCB 5, March
1,
1980).
The
site has since been purchased from an intermediate owner by Mr.
Joseph Sanchez, who is an officer and director of Petitioner
Sanchez.
The 47.85 acre site presently consists of three abandoned
slurry ponds and two gob piles from the operations associated
with the abandoned mine
(Rec.
Ex.
7,
2).
Mine spoil and coal
fines cover the entire site
(Rec.
Ex.
5,
1).
Recoverable coal
slurry occupies 31.3 acres
(Rec.
Ex.
5,
3).
Mr.
Sanchez owns at
least six acres adjacent to the site
(Rec.
Ex.
7,
2).
Prior to mining the site was
a relatively flat plain with
mild drainage, predominantly toward the east,
to an unnamed drain-
age ditch tributary to Bear Creek,
Cahokia Creek and the Mississ-
ippi River
(Rec.
Ex.
2,
Ex.
10,
1:
Ex.
11).
The site now includes
very steep slopes on the gob piles.
The permit application identi-
fies six major drainage areas
(Rec.
Ex.
10,
6).
Drainage leaves
the site to the east, west and northwest, with identifiable point
sources only at the southeast and northeast corners
(Rec.
Ex.
10,
1).
Below is
a summary of analyses of water taken on and around
the site
(Rec.
Ex.
1).
These results are similar to those quoted
by Sanchez
(Amended Pet.
2).
The results of Agency analyses at
stations
8 through 11 are not included since these were taken
downstream of the site.
These results show levels of these para-
meters for the most part decreasing with distance from the site,
although mostly in excess of the applicable water quality stan-
dards for the unnamed ditch even on the far side of Gillespie,
about 1.5 miles downstream.
The results
of analyses 1-7 from the
site and vicinity are as follow
(Rec.
Ex.
1):
mg/l
(except pH)
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Total Acidity
300
1030
2280
Total Alkalinity
0
0
0
Total Iron
14.2
77.6
154
Manganese
1.2
12.0
33.7
Residue on Evaporation
(ROE)*
650
11,700
54,000
Sulfate
330
8000
42,000
Suspended Solids
(TSS)
28
1000
3390
Zinc
0
21
82
pH
1.8
3.0
—3—
*The pleadings do not indicate whether the data are for filter-
able, non-filterable or total ROE.
Filterable ROE
is similar
to total dissolved solids
(TDS).
The applicable effluent and water quality standards of Chap-
ters
3 and
4 are summarized as follows:
mg/l
(except pH)
Water Quality
Standard
——
Effluent Standard
Ch.
3(1)
Old Ch.
4(4)
New Ch.
4(5)
Acidity
————
~_~_(3)
Total
Iron
1.0
7
3.5
Manganese
1.0
Sulfate
500.
TDS
1000.
Zinc
1,0
5
5
Unnatural Sludge,
etc.
____(2)
Settleable
Solids,
etc.
————
2
~_(6
6)
pH
6.5to9
Stol0
6t0
~?4ine
Rule
605
and
Rule
203(f)
of
Chapter
3,
except
where
noted.
(2)Mine
Rule
605
and
Rule
203(a)
and
Rule
203(b)
of
Chapter
3.
(3)Total
acidity
shall
not
exceed
total
alkalinity
Old
Mine
Rule
606(a);
New
Mine
Rule
606(b).
~4~o1d
Mine
Rule
606(a).
~5~New
Mine
Rule
606(b).
~6~O1d
Mine
Rule
605(b)
and
New
Mine
Rule
607.
The
Agency
states
that
it
has
not
filed
an
enforcement
action
against
the
new
owner
pending
the
outcome
of
discussions
concerning
a
permit
authorizing
carbon
recovery
operations
on
the
site
(Rec.
3).
The
Agency
is
of
the
opinion
that
the
proposed operations will
result
in eventual improvement of the environment and compliance
with
the
effluent
and
water
quality
standards.
Recovery
of
coal
as
proposed
is
preferable
to
quicker
alternatives
such
as
immediate
—4—
grading and covering not only because of resource conservation but
also because it will result in better long term environmental
quality
(Rec.
9).
Sanchez proposes to resolve the water pollution problems on
the site by construction of
a system of drainage ditches and com-
pletion of the partial system of dikes around the site
(Rec.
Ex.
5,
5).
Precipitation will be diverted into Ponds Nos.
1 and 3,
each with capacities of 7.2 Ml*
(1.9 million gallons).
These will
drain into Pond No.
2 with a capacity of 4.9 Ml
(1.3 million gal—
ions).
The system will provide for 205 days of detention based on
average annual rainfall and several days of detention after a 10-
year precipitation event
(Rec.
Ex.
5,
12).
Pond No.
3 will dis-
charge on the eastern edge of the site into the unnamed ditch
(Rec.
~x. 3).
This
will apparently be the only discharge.
In many years
there will be inadequate precipitation to yield any discharge
because of evaporation and other water losses
(Rec.
Ex.
5,
13).
The diversion ditches will be lined with lime to increase
the pu
of runoff water from the site
(Amended Pet.
3).
At the
elevated pH iron, manganese and zinc will form insoluble hydrox-
ides or oxides.
These will precipitate
in the ponds along with
the suspended solids.
Sulfate and TDS levels will probably not
be lowered significantly by this treatment.
TDS and sulfate discharges are produced by the action of air
and water on materials exposed by coal mining.
These levels should
decline after the site has been graded and final cover applied.
Treatment for TDS and sulfate is currently available only in the
form of reverse osmosis,
distillation and other expensive, energy
intensive techniques.
The Board finds that it would impose an
arbitrary and unreasonable hardship on Sanchez to require treat-
ment for TDS and sulfate because of the limited life of the site
and
because of anticipated reduction of existing levels as opera-
tions proceed even without treatment.
The Agency has included with the recommendation Sanchez’s
Operations/Reclamation Plan
(Rec.
Ex.
4).
During the spring and
summer of 1980 Sanchez will scrape and consolidate washed out gob
and
slurry along the north and east edges of the site.
Snow fenc-
ing or hay bales will be utilized to reduce erosion through the
discharge point of the north slurry pond.
Dikes will be construct-
ed
and
seeded along the north and west property line.
Pond No.
1
will be constructed.
Mining of the north slurry pond will commence
*One
megaliter
equals
io6
liters.
—5—
after this has been done.
Ponds No.
2 and
3 will be constructed
and vegetated and the total water control system completed before
the fall of 1981.
The slurry ponds will be over-excavated so that fifteen feet
of soil will be removed below the recovered slurry.
This soil will
be stockpiled for use as final cover after all mine waste material
has been scraped into the resulting cavity.
Reclamation of the
north area will proceed concurrently with mining of the south
slurry pond.
Reclamation of the entire area is expected to be
completed in the summer or fall of 1984.
The Agency has attached to the recommendation as exhibits
parts of Sanchez’s application for Coal Surface Disturbance Permit.
The Agency has requested that these documents be incorporated into
the Order by reference and that Sanchez be ordered to comply with
the plans set forth in the application
(Rec.
9,
12).
The applica-
tion is
a part of the record in this proceeding and the Board has
made reference to it as
a part of the Agency recommendation.
How-
ever, conditioning the variance on compliance with such a detailed
plan would essentially place the Board in a position of writing a
permit.
This is the Agency’s responsibility under Section
39 of
the Act.
Furthermore, it would require modification of the Board
Order each time the application or permit were modified.
Accord-
ingly, the Board will not impose detailed operational conditions
on this variance.
This holding is not intended to in any way
limit the Agency’s authority to impose conditions on any permit
granted Sanchez.
In order to assure that Sanchez continues with its plans the
Board will order it to proceed diligently toward obtaining a permit
from the Agency.
If no permit is issued within eighteen months,
the long term aspects of this variance will expire.
Sanchez will
be required to install within six months
some form of temporary
erosion control devices to reduce or eliminate gob washouts across
the site boundaries from identifiable point sources.
Petitioner
will be required to complete the dike around the site, to construct
at least one sedimentation pond and to divert all surface drainage
on the site to discharge points through sedimentation ponds within
eighteen months of the grant of this variance.
Petitioner shall
complete this last work whether a mining permit is awarded or not,
and completion of
it
will not limit the Agency’s authority to file
an enforcement action if the site
is still out of compliance, ex-
cept in mitigation of any penalty under Section 33(c)
of the Act.
—6—
The following is
a
summary
of
the
relief
requested
in
the
petition and amended petition
and
recommended
by
the
Agency:
Para-
Interim Standard
Rules
meter
Term
(Months)
mg/i
(except
pH)
Pet.
Rec.
Pet.
Rec.
3:203(a)
(1)
_(2)
18
4:605(b)
3:203(b)
pH
18
18
2.0
4:605
3:203(f)
Fe
18
18
3240
4605
(6)
Mn
18
18
3,~
Sulfate
18
18
1000” ~
Zn
18
18
70
TDS
18
18
1594
4:607~~~
60
18
--—-
4:606(b)
Acidity
18
18
11,500
11,500
Fe
18
18
3240
3240
pH
18
18
2.0
2.0
Zn
18
18
70
70
TSS~5~
18
18
3390
3390
3:203(f)
TDS
60
36
1594
l594~~
4:605
Sulfate
60
36
1100
1100
3:408(b)
TDS
60
——
——-—
Deny
Sulfate
60
--
--—-
Deny
(l)n3:~~
means Chapter 3,
“4:” meands new Chapter
4.
~2~Freedom from unnatural sludge, bottom deposits, etc.
~3~Agency recommends
a variance only as that the rule applies to
settleable solids, color and turbidity
(Rec.
11).
~4~Applicableonly to ditch adjacent to eastern boundary.
~5~Sanchez inadvertently requested a variance from TDS rather
than TSS
(Rec.
6).
~6~Petitioner at One point requested a five year variance from
Rule 605 of Chapter
4 and at another point
an eighteen month
variance from the Rule 203(f)
of Chapter
3
parameters
(Amended
—7—
Pet.
1;
Rec.
6).
The effect of a five year variance from Rule
605 would be a five year variance from all parameters of Rule
203(f).
The Board construes the request
as
it appears in the
table:
The five year variance
is requested only for TDS and
sulfate.
~7~This is probably a typographical error in the recommendation.
The recommended eighteen month standard for sulfate should probably
be 1100 mg/l,
the same as the thirty—six month
(Rec.
11).
The parties are in agreement with regard to the eighteen month
variances from the effluent standards of Rule 606 of Chapter
4.
In
addition,
Sanchez has requested a variance from Rule 408(b) of Chap-
ter
3 as it applies to TDS and sulfate
(Amended Pet.
1).
The
Agency recommended a denial because Rule 408(b)
is inapplicable to
mine discharges
(Rec.
7).
In addition, Rule 408(b)
sets no limit
on sulfate in effluents.
The Board will also deny the requested
variance from Section 12(a)
of the Act.
The Board finds that Sanchez would suffer arbitrary or unreas-
onable hardship if it were required to immediately bring the site
into compliance.
The Board will award a variance with substantial—
ly the same interim standards recommended by the Agency.
The long
term variance for TDS and sulfate will expire not on July 1,
1983
as the Agency recommends,
but on December 21,
1984, the latest date
for final completion of operations
forecast by Sanchez
(Rec.
Ex.
4;
6).
The grant of this variance will not prejudice Sanchez’s right
to obtain exemption from certain water quality standards through
1983 pursuant to proposed Mine Rule 605.1.
Sanchez will as a con-
dition of this variance be required to employ within eighteen
months good mining practices to reduce the levels of its discharges
within the meaning of Rule 605.1, whether it applies
for the ex-
emption or not.
If
it
does
so,
then the Agency may further specify
these good mining practices through permit conditions.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Petitioner Sanchez Energy Corporation, Inc.
is granted
a variance from Rule 605 of Chapter 4:
Mine Related
Pollution,
as that rule incorporates the water quality
standards of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution found in Rule
—8—
203(a), Rule 203(b)
and, with regard to iron, manganese
and zinc Rule 203(f), subject to the following conditions:
a.
This variance will expire eighteen months from the
date of this Order.
b.
The Little Dog Mine shall not cause or contribute
to levels in excess of the following in waters of
the State receiving its drainage:
pH
Not less than pH 2.0 nor more than
pH
9
Iron
3300 mg/l
Manganese
4 mg/i
Zinc
70 mg/i
2.
Petitioner is granted a variance from Rule 605 of Chapter
4 as that rule incorporates the water quality standards
of Chapter
3 found in Rule 203(f) with regard to TDS and
sulfate,
subject
to
the
following
conditions:
a.
This variance will expire December 21, 1984; provided,
however, that this variance will expire eighteen
months from the date of this Order unless by such date
Petitioner has been issued by the Agency all permits
necessary to carry out mining activities on the site.
b.
The Little Dog Mine shall not cause or contribute to
levels in excess of the following in waters of the
State receiving its drainage:
Suifate
1100 mg/i
TDS
1600 mg/i
3.
Petitioner is granted a variance from the effluent stan-
dards for acidity, iron, pH,
zinc and total suspended
solids
(TSS)
of Rule 606 of Chapter 4,
subject to the
following conditions:
a.
This variance will expire eighteen months from the
date of this Order.
b.
Point source
mine
discharges from the site shall not
exceed the following interim standards:
—9-.
Acidity
11,500 mg/i
Total iron
3300 mg/l
pH
Range 2.0 to
9
Zinc
70 mg/l
TSS
3400 mg/i
4.
Petitioner is
granted
a variance from Rule 605(b)
(New
Mine Rule 607)
of Chapter
4 as that rule applies to
settleable
solids,
color
and
turbidity,
subject
to
the
following condition:
This variance will expire eighteen
months from the date of this Order.
5.
In addition to those conditions noted above, the vari-
ances granted in paragraphs
1,
2,
3 and
4 above
shall
be subject to the following conditions:
a.
Sanchez shall diligently take all steps necessary
to obtain from the Agency permits to carry out
its proposed mining activities on the site.
b.
‘~1ithin six months of the date of this Order Sanchez
shall install some form of temporary erosion control
devices to reduce or eliminate gob washouts across
the site boundaries from identifiable point sources.
c.
Within eighteen months of the date of this Order
Petitioner shall complete the dike around the site,
construct at least one sedimentation pond and divert
all surface drainage on the site through sedimenta-
tion ponds to point source discharges.
d.
Within six months of the date of this Order the
Environmental Protection Agency shall either issue
any permits necessary for Petitioner to carry out
condition 5(c) of this Order or shall indicate in
writing that no permits are required.
e.
Within forty-five days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, Variance Section,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706,
a
Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound
to all terms and conditions of this variance.
This
forty-five day period shall be held in abeyance for
any period this matter is being appealed.
The form
of the Certificate shall be
as follows:
—10—
CERTIFlCATION
I,
(We),
____________________,
having read
and fully understanding the Order in PCB 80-45, hereby
accept that Order and agree to be bound by all of its
terms and conditions.
IT IS SO
ORDERED
SIGNED
TITLE
DATE
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the
~above
Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
~
day of
__________,
1980 by a vote
of
.~-C
.
C ristan
L. Mof
,
Clerk
Illinois Polluti
Control Board
