ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

22,

1979

A & C COAL COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 79-40

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

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

This matter comes

before the

Board upon a variance petition

filed February

26,

1979 by A

& G Coal Company

(A & G

)

by L.

Dean Goolsby, a partner,

An amended petition setting forth

more information was filed on March 23,

1979, pursuant to Order

of the Board of March

1,

1979.

A

& G operates a small strip

mine near Harrisburg.

It requests

a variance for five years

from the sulfate and TDS water quality standards of Board Rule

203(f)

of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution.

The Environmental

Protection Agency

(Agency)

filed

a recommendation on May 9, 1979

in which it recommended granting the variance with conditions.

No hearing was held.

A

& G holds

a Chapter

4 permit issued by the Agency and an

NPDES permit

(Rec.

1,

2),

The strip mine is located on five

acres about one and one—half miles south of Harrisburg

in Secs.

22 and 27,

T.

9 S.,

R.

6 E.,

3 PM, Saline County.

Petitioner

has also submitted an application for a permit to mine an

additional 9.6 acres

(Rec.

2).

A & G mines the No.

6

(Herrin)

coal seam and has an estimated annual output of 15,000 to 20,000

tons,

A

& G has five employees and

is in its first year of

operation.

It discharges into an unnamed ditch about one mile

upstream from Pankey Branch Creek, which

is tributary to the

Middle Fork of the Saline River.

Pankey Branch has a seven-day,

ten—year flow of zero near the point of confluence with the ditch.

The Harrisburg STP discharges a three month average low flow of

.7 MGD into Pankey Branch one and one-half miles downstream

from

the ditch

(Rec.

3).

Sources of A

& G~sdischarge include pit pumpage and surface

runoff from disturbed areas.

These are combined and pass through

sedimentation ponds before discharge.

Soda ash

is added to

neutralize the usually acid runoff

(pH 5).

The soda ash increases

the TDS in the water.

The sedimentation ponds do not reduce

either the sulfate or TDS levels.

A

& G estimates

its average

discharge at no higher than 200 GPD

(Pet.

1).

The Agency has

requested that A & G be required to collect information on pumping

~3

/4~79

---

—2—

rates and frequencies to better establish the low flow discharge

(Rec.

3).

Apparently, most of A & G~sdischarge occurs during

wet weather when surface water flows through the system.

At this

time there

is ample dilution during discharge.

Records

of rain-

fall would help clarify this.

The Agency believes that during

dry conditions

a discharge of 200 GPD would evaporate or percolate

into the stream bed

(Rec,

4),

It could create a salt bed which

would produce high TDS

in the stream when flow resumed after a

rain.

The Agency does not discuss

this problem.

A & G has been

unable to find a use for its waste water.

Its haul road is short

and it has no dust problem,

It cannot find an industry to use

the water.

A

& G indicates that it is seeking a source of fresh

water to dilute its discharge.

This

is not generally

an accept-

able method of control under Rule 401(c)

of Chapter

3:

Water

Pollution.

Petitioner presents the following data:

Discharge

Average

Maximum

Pankey Branch Creek

Sulfate

1796 mg/i

1990 mg/i

1150 mg/i

TDS

2688 mg/i

2970 mg/i

1672 mg/i

The Agency conducted a biological stream survey

in September,

1978,

Pankey Branch was classified as semipolluted above and

below the ditch,

Pankey Branch is limited to secondary contact

usage between the ditch and the Harrisburg STP because of the

nature of the intermittent stream and surrounding land uses.

Below the STP,

there will be little or no impact on water quality

because of the small volume discharged and the large dilution.

No community water supplies exist downstream before the discharge

is further diluted by the Ohio River

(Rec,

4).

Two regulatory proceedings are before the Board which may affect

A

& G’s operation.

P76—7 requests exemption of coal mine discharges

from the TDS limits,

P77-10 involves extensive changes

in Chapter

4:

Nine Related Pollution,

The Agency agrees with petitioner that

it is not technically feasible or economically reasonable for A

& G

to contain its TDS and sulfate at the required levels

(Rec,

5).

The Board finds that it would impose an arbitary and unreasonable

hardship on A & G to require it to install expensive control equip-

ment prior to resolution of the pending rule changes.

The petition is vague about A

& G~sneutralization apparatus,

but it is stated that soda ash is used for neutralization.

Special

Condition

2 of

A

&

G~spermlt requires

a supplemental permit to

construct additional treatment facilities.

The variance will be

34—80

---

—3—

conditioned on Petitioner’s applying for such a permit.

Soda

ash refers to a mixture of sodium salts consisting largely of

sodium carbonate.

A & G should consider using hydrated lime

(calcium hydroxide)

for neutralization.

This would involve

introduction of a slightly smaller mass of TDS per unit of acid

neutralized and the resulting calcium system should have a

slightly higher buffer capacity than sodium.

At high sulfate

or calcium levels,

calcium sulfate should precipitate.

It has

a solubility of about

3000 mg/l which should serve to limit TDS

and sulfate

levels.

The Agency asks that the variance be conditioned on A & G

adopting good mining practices to reduce its TDS and sulfate.

The Agency wants a plan from A

& G within sixty days of publi-

cation of the “Code of Good Mining Practices”

by the Mine Related

Pollution Task Force.

The variance will be conditioned on this

also,

The Agency recommends

a variance from Rule 605(a)

of Chapter

4:

Mine Related Pollution

(Rec.

1).

Rule 605(a) specifies that mine

effluents shall not cause a violation of water quality standards

(including Rule 203(f)

of Chapter 3:

Water Pollution).

Petition-

er has requested a variance only from Rule 203(f).

However, on

the basis of the recommendation,

the variance will be granted for

Rule 605(a).

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.

A & G Coal Company

is granted a variance from Rule

605(a)

of Chapter

4:

Mine Related Pollution as that

rule applies to total dissolved solids

(TDS)

and sul-

fates,

for a period of three years or until final

resolution of the regulatory proceedings

(P76—7 and

R77-lO)

,

whichever comes first.

2.

A

& G shall not exceed the following discharge limits:

TDS

3000 mg/i;

Sulfate

2000 mg/l.

3.

A

& G shall comply with the management requirements of

its NPDES permit.

4.

A

& G shall maintain for Agency inspection records

of

daily rainfall and amounts discharged

at the site.

If

it

is not practicable

to measure the actual discharge,

A & C shall maintain a daily record of pumping together

with an estimate of the amount of discharge.

34—81

---

—4—

5.

Within forty-five days of the date of this Order, A & C

shall apply for supplemental permits

for its wastewater

treatment facility.

6.

A

& G shall, within forty-five days of the date of this

Order, request Agency modification of its NPDES Permit

to incorporate all conditions of the variance set forth

herein,

7,

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 including such

interim effluent limitations as may reasonably be

achieved through application of best practicable

operation and maintenance practices

in existing

facilities.

8.

Within sixty days of the publication of “Code of Good

Mining Practices,” A

& G shall submit to the Agency a

report outlining specific steps It intends to take in

order to achieve good mining practices and reduce its

TDS and sulfate effluent levels.

9.

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:

CERTIFICATION

I,

(We), _____________________________,

having read

and fully understanding the Order in PCB 79-40, hereby accept

that Order and agree to be bound by all of its terms and

conditions.

SIGNED

TITLE

DATE

34—82

---

—

5*

I, Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

hereby ce,5kify the above Opinion and Order

were adopte

on the

~

day of

t~&~

,

1979 by

avoteof

~

Illinois Pollution

34—83