ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 21, 1980

SAHARA COAL COMPANY, INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

PCB 79~l46

ENVIRONMENTAL P ROTECTI

ON AGENCY,

Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Satchel?):

This matter comes before the Board upon a petition and an

amended petition for variance filed July 25 and October 24, 1979

by Sahara ~Coal Company, Inc. (Sahara) The petitions request a

variance from Rule 605(a) of Chapter 4: Mine Related Pollution

(Chapter 4) The~requested variance would authorize discharges

from the Sahara Mine No. 6, a surface coal mine, into waters

which are in excess of water quality standards for sulfate and

total

dissolved

solids (TDS) as provided by Rule 605(a). Sahara

waived its right to a hearing. On August 28, 1979 the Environ~

mental Protection Agency (Agency) recommended denial of the

variance, but on November 27, 1979 filed an amended recommenda~

tion to grant the variance with conditions. The Board has re~

ceived comments from Luc±an Lewis and the City of Harrisburg.

Sahara Mine No. 6 is a surface coal mine located in Sections

19 through 30, T. 9 S., R. 5 E. and Sections 19 and 30, T,

9

S.,

R, 6 E,,

3

PM, Saline County (Rec. I) In the mans attached to

the amended petition the mine appears to extend beyond this

fourteen square mile area at several noints, The City of Harris~

burg is about one mile east of the mine, To the north is Bank~

ston Fork and to the south is Pankey Branch. These streams flow

east to join the Middle Fork of the Saline River just east of

Harrisburg. The mine currently has fourteen discharges. Dis~

charges 001 through 011 flow north into Bankston Fork, 014 flows

south into

Pankey

Branch. Discharges 012 and 013 flow east into

an unnamed ditch which

runs just north of flarrisburg into the

Middle Fork of the

Saline River, between Bankston Fork and Pankey

Branch.

Discharge

001

consists of

open channel overflow from old

final cut lake about one and one~halfmiles from the western

edge of the mine. Discharge

002 is an overflow pipe from another

37—393

---

old final cut lake about two miles downstream from 001 on

Bankston Fork. Discharges 003 through

011 are further down~

stream on

Bankston Fork, These consist of surface runoff and

pit pumpage from Sahara~s active

mine areas as do discharges

012 and 013 which are into the

unnamed ditch. Discharge 014

consists of surface runoff only

and

is tributary to Pankey

Branch (Rec. 3, Amended Rec, 3,

Amended

Petition 2).

The original

petition did not identify the discharge points

or fully identify the receiving streams, In its original re-

commendation the Agency relied on information contained in Sa-

harass

discharge

monitoring reports and pending NPDES permit

renewal application. These contained unpermitted existing dis-

charges and were inconsistent with respect to locations and

receiving

streams. Beyond these inconsistencies there were

further errors eventually disclosed. The parties are

now

in

agreement

that the scheme set forth above represents the dis-

charges.

Rule

605(a) of Chapter

4

provides that mine discharges shall

not

cause

in the receiving stream violations of the water quality

standards contained

in Part II of Chapter 3: Water Pollution

(Chapter

3).

Rule 203(f) of Chapter

3

sets general use water

quality

standards

which are applicable to the waters receiving

Saharavs discharges, Thesa Standards are 500 mg/l for sulfate

and 1000 mg/l for TDS. Frequent violations of ~these standards

occur in Bankston Fork and the Middle Fork of the Saline River

below Bankston Fork (Rec. 7, Amended Rec. 5, Amended Petition,

Ex, 2), These pleadings set forth averages of data taken at

various times from 1974 through 1977, The following table sets

forth averages taken at three points: Point A, Route 34 bridge

over the Middle Fork, Saline River, three miles upstream from

Harrisburg; Point B, Bankston Fork downstream from Sahara; and

Point C, Middle Fork, Saline River, five miles downstream from

Bankston Fork.

A

TDS

1443 mg/l

2324 mg/l

1826 mg/l

Sulfate

253 mg/l

1287 mg/l

827 mg/l

The City of Harrisburg draws water for

its public water supply

from two side channel reservoirs located

adjacent

to the

Middle

Fork of the Saline River, downstream of Bankston Fork but upstream

of the unnamed ditch and Pankey Branch, These reservoirs are

37—394

---

—3—

periodically filled with water from the River and hence pOtentially

receive drainage from Sahara~s discharges 001 through 011. Ac-

cording to the City of Harrisburg, when it is necessary to pump

during periods of low flow, dams are constructed across Bankston

Fork to prevent the flow of water from the mine from entering the

river (Comment of September 13, 1979), The city constructs one

dam and Sahara constructs a second upstream. Water is also re-

leased from a reservoir eight miles upstream (Rec, 9), The city

feels that Sahar&s operation is not detrimental to its water

supply,

Sahara has requested that the Board take official notice of

the economic impact study prepared for~R76-7: The Economic Impact

of ~

Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality, Doc. No. 77/28,

November, 1977 (EcIS), That study notes that high TDS levels

damage public water supplies by increasing the rate of corrosion.

The study estimated that water of 2000 mg/l TDS would annually

cause $102,000 in damage to residential water users and $1183 to

industrial water users in Harrisburg, measured in 1977 dollars

(EcIS 98, 101), The study notes that water in this range has an

unpleasant taste and produces laxative effects for persons unac-

customed to it (EcIS 99, 100), Agricultural use is also limited

at 2000 mg/l TDS (EcIS 92).

Sahara~s discharges average around 3900 mg/l TDS and 2491

mg/l sulfate (Pet, 4), Pankey Branch, the unnamed ditch and

Bankston Fork all have a 7—day, 10-year low flow of zero (Rec. 6).

If these discharges occur during a period of zero flow, water

quality violations will necessarily occur. However, all water

leaving disturbed areas first goes through settling ponds which

usually retain all of the discharge during dry periods. The major

discharges occur during periods of high flow when there is dilution

available in the receiving stream (Amended Pet. 5).

Sahara presented with its Amended Petition a study of water

quality in Bankston Fork prepared by Dr. William C. Hood (Study).

This study showed that the water in Bankston Fork contains the same

level of TDS and sulfate above and below Sahara~s operation so that

Sahara is not causing a significant change in the concentration

(Study 1). The study concluded that Sahara~s contribution was of

better overall quality than the flow from upstream (Study l6~).

However, Rule 605(a) specifically covers the case of a water qual-

ity violation caused by the cumulative effect of more than one

source, Furthermore, the Sahara discharge is contributing to water

quality violations in the Middle Fork of the Saline River. It is

true that a discharge which has a lower concentration than the

37—395

---

—4—

receiving stream tends to bring the stream closer to

the water

quality standard

if the stream is in violation. However, the

discharge increases the flow and also the mass loading of the

pollutant. Where the receiving stream subsequently mixes with a

stream which meets the water quality standard prior to mixing, the

discharge will tend to worsen the water quality violation whenever

the discharge concentration is greater than the water quality

standard even though it is less than the concentration in the re-

ceiving water. Although Sahara~sdischarge may reduce the TDS

and sulfate concentration in Bankston Fork, it is increasing the

concentration in the River,

On August 23, 1979 the Board received from a Lucian Lewis a

letter dated August 17, 1979, objecting to the requested variatice.

In an Order entered January 10, 1980 the Board held that a hearing

was not required under Procedural Rule 407(a) (2) because the ob-

jection was not timely filed and because it complained of “deposits

of coal dust which ~comedown the creek in the form of suspended

solid and settle out on our cropland and into our drainage ditch,”

A hearing would be pointless since the variance would not author-

ize these discharges, The Board will, however, request the Agency

to provide ~r±tten notice to the Lewises of any permit applica-

tions, appeals or variance requests by Sahara within two years of

the date of this Order,

The Agency agrees with Petitioner that it is not presently

technically feasible

~or economically reasonable for Petitioner

to maintain its discharges at a level mandated by Rule 605(a) of

Chapter

4, However, Petitioner alleges that these discharges

have existed at these levels, or worse, for many years. Further-

more, progress is being made toward eventual resolution of the

problem of coal mine discharges causing TDS and related water

quality violations, as will be discussed below, The Board there-

fore finds that requiring immediate compliance with Rule 605(a)

would result in an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship to Sahara.

The Board will adopt the interim limitations recommended by the

Agency: 3830 mg/l TDS and 2300 mg/l sulfate,

On December

13,

1979 the Board proposed to adopt a new

Chapter

4

in R76~20and R77-lO. The proposal would retain Rule

605(a) in

its

present form as new Rule 605.

The Board has also

proposed

to

adopt Rule 605.1 which would authorize the Agency to

temporarily permit discharges which tend to cause TDS and

sulfate

37—396

---

water quality violations upon a showing, among other things,

that the permittee is employing various good mining practices,

other than end—of—pipe treatment, to reduce the levels of these

parameters in the discharge. The Agency and the Mine Related

Pollution Task Force, a joint industry—government group, have

prepared a Code of Good Operating Practices to guide permittees

in achieving this end. A copy is attached to the Recommendation

as Exhibit 10. The Board will require Sahara to submit to the

Agency a plan outlining steps it intends to take to reduce its

TDS and sulfate discharge levels. Sahara will be required to

promptly apply for a permit modification under Rule 605.1 when

and if that rule is adopted by the Board, The variance will

expire whenever the Agency takes final action on the Rule 605.1

permit application but not later than July 1, 1981, the expira-

tion date of Proposed Rule 605,1. At the hearings on the Chapter

4 revisions, the Agency indicated that those mines which cannot

meet the Rule 605,1 criteria will have to request a variance from

the Board (Hearing of July 31, 1979, p. 80). This variance will

thus be made compatible with that interpretation.

The Agency requests also that the Board order Sahara to apply

for a new Chapter 4 permit reflecting the additional discharge

points which are not authorized by the present permit. However,

under the proposed Chapter 4 Sahara will be exempt from the state

permit requirement as an NPDES permit holder. Sahara has cor-

rected its pending NPDES application (Amended Petition 2). Al-

though Sahara may be subject to an enforcement action under the

present rules, the Board will not condition the variance on ap-

plication for a permit which may be unnecessary in a few months,

This Opinion constitutes the Board~s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

Petitioner Sahara Coal Company, Inc. is granted a variance

from Rule 605(a) of Chapter 4: Mine Related Pollution, as it

applies to total dissolved solids and sulfate, subject to the

following conditions:

1, Petitioner shall not cause or contribute to water

quality violations in streams in excess of the follow-

ing levels:

TDS

3830 mg/I

Sulfate

2300 mg/l

37—3 97

---

2, Within ninety days of the date of this Order,

Petitioner

shall submit to the Agency a detailed plan of

steps it

intends to take to reduce its TDS and sulfate discharge

levels

3,

Within ninety days of the adoption of a Final Order

in

R76—20 and R77—lO, Petitioner shall make application

for a permit under Proposed Rule 6O5~l,provided

that

4. This variance will expire on July 1, 1981 or upon a

final Agency action on the Rule 605~lpermit applica-

5, Within forty—five days of the date of this Order, Peti-

tioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois

Environ~

mental Protection Agency, Variance Section, 2200 Chur-

chill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706, a Certification

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

CERTIFI CATI ON

I, (We),

_____________________,

having read and

fully understanding the Order in PCE 79-146, hereby

accept that Order and agree to be bound by

all of its

SIGNED __________________________

TITLE _________________________

DATE

__________________________

~.

The Agency, pursuant to Rule 914 of Chapter 3:

Water

Pollution, shall modify the NPDES permit consistent

with the conditions set forth in this Order,

IT IS SO

ORDERED.

37—398

---

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

inion and Order were

Controladopted Board,on the

___________

hereby certifydaytheof ~

1980 by a

vote of

~

Mof

f

Illinois Pollution Control

Board