ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 15,

1979

SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS COAL CORP.,

Petitioner,

v,

)

PCB 79—12

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Dumelle):

Petitioner requested a five year variance from Rule

605

of Chapter

4: Mine Related Pollution for the discharge from its

mining operation in Randolph County.

The Agency recommended

a three year variance.

No hearing was held.

The Board granted

a three year variance subject to certain conditions on March

1,

1979.

This Opinion supports the Board’s decision.

Petitioner owns and operates a surface coal mine in

Randolph County known as the Streamline Mine.

Petitioner is

seeking a permit to continue the operation of the B field pit

at this mine and to open a new Willisville West Pit in March,

1979.

The B field pit is

set up to extract

#6 coal from virgin

till and #5 coal from areas which were mined previously with

smaller equipment.

The new pit will recover

#5 coal where

#6 coal has already been extracted.

Both areas are to be

reclaimed under the provisions of the Illinois and Federal

Reclamation laws.

In both areas surface runoff and ground water seepage must

be removed from the pits.

This water becomes contaminated when

it comes in contact with the disturbed or undisturbed surfaces,

and is discharged into tributaries of the Cox River.

Both

receiving streams may already exceed the water quality standards

of Rule 203(F)

of Chapter

3: Water Pollution for sulfate and

total dissolved solids.

Consequently any discharge from Petition-

er’s operations may contribute to further violations which is

prohibited by Rule 605 of Chapter

4: Mine Related Pollution.

Petitioner cites the record of a pending rulemaking proceed-

ing before the Board

(R76-7)

as evidence that although compliance

would be possible,

it would be prohibitively expensive.

These

costs are detailed in a document entitled “Economic Impact of

Dissolved Solids Regulation Upon the Coal Mining Industry

(R76-7)”

(IIEQ Document No.

77/28).

Petitioner’s compliance costs are

aggravated by the fact that its discharge flow and the level of

contamination are variable.

33—123

---

—2—

During the variance all excess flows will be diverted

from the mining area.

Discharges will flow through sedimentation

ponds.

Although these ponds do not reduce levels of total

dissolved solids and sulfates,

they at least allow for a controlled

volume of discharge during dry weather and periods of light

precipitation.

Petitioner is a member of the Mine Related Pollution Task

Force which is attempting to resolve this problem through estab-

lishment of a

“Code of Good Mining Practices”.

Petitioner

is

pledging to follow these practices.

The

B

field pit will be exhausted in 1982 and the Willisville

west pit in 1983.

After reclamation is complete, discharges

from these operations will terminate.

Petitioner claims that this variance will have minimal

environmental impact.

The receiving streams are dry part of

each year, are not used for water supply,

irrigation,

recreation

or sport,

and already exceed water quality standards.

Petitioner

also points to evidence that there

is little or no correlation

between maintaining a total dissolved solids limit

(which includes

sulfate) and maintaining aquatic biota in mine drainage receiving

streams.

Petitioner feels that the Streamline Mine does not have

enough active life remaining to justify installing the needed

controls

(reverse osmosis,

ion exchange, electrodialysis, or

distillation).

Closing the mine would result in lost revenue

of $140 million and the inability to use equipment valued at

$50 million.

In addition Petitioner quotes the above referenced

economic impact study to show that the costs associated with

maintaining the present water quality standard for total dissolved

solids

(1000 mg/l)

greatly exceed the benefits.

The Agency has indicated that Petitioner’s NPDES permits

authorize three discharges and that Petitioner is presently

reporting five.

The Agency summarized recent data in Petitioner’s

discharges to show that Petitioner should be able to meet

thirty day average standards of 3500 mg/i for total dissolved

solids and 2000 mg/i for sulfate and daily maximum standards of

4000 mg/l for total dissolved solids and 2500 mg/l for sulfate.

The Agency summarized water quality data downstream of Petitioner’s

discharge to show that the receiving stream exceeds the total

dissolved solids and sulfate standards of Rule 203(F)

of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution.

The Agency agrees that

it

would be neither technically

feasible nor economically reasonable to require Petitioner to

comply with these water quality standards at this time.

The

Agency recommends that a variance be granted subject to the

conditions that Petitioner comply with the existing management

requirements

in its NPDES permits and with the “Code of Good

33—124

---

—3—

Mining Practices” once it has been developed.

In addition the

Agency feels that Petitioner should comply with the interim

effluent limitations outlined in the preceding paragraph.

The Board does not intend to prejudge the merits of

two pending regulatory proceedings

(R76-7 and R77-lO) which

concern these same issues.

At the same time the Board recognizes

that Petitioner’s mine is nearing the end of its useful life.

By

requiring compliance with the “Code of Good Mining Practices” and

the management requirements in Petitioner’s NPDES permits,

the

Board will be imposing the only reasonable conditions available

at this time.

The interim effluent limitations requested by

the Agency also appear to be reasonable.

The variance will be

limited to three years or until the conclusion of R76-7 and

R77-lO so that a consistent statewide approach to this problem

can be maintained.

Petitioner’s discharges will probably not

have any significant effect on the receiving streams.

Denial of

this variance would constitute arbitrary or unreasonable hardship

on Petitioner.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

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

Control Bo~rd,hereby certify t e ab ye Opinion was adopted

on the

~

~

day of

______________,

1979 by a vote

of

_________________

Christan L. Moff~

,

Clerk

Illinois Polluti

ontrol Board

33—125