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

    Back to top