ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 7~ 1974
MINERVA OIL COMPANY,
)
Petitioner,
PCB 73—284
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OZARK MAHONING COMPANY,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 73—294
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
Joseph F. Hale, Attorney on behalf of Petitioners
Thomas A. Cengel, Assistant Attorney General, for the EPA
OPINION AND
ORDER
OF THE BOARD (by ~4r. Henss)
Petitioners Minerva Oil Company and Ozark-Mahoning Company
request variance from certain sections of the Illinois Water
Pollution Regulations. These two companies are engaged in the
mining and concentration of fluorspar (CaF2) at their mines and
mills located in Hardin and Pope Counties, Illinois. Together
they produce about 80 of the total U. S. production of fluorspar.
Discharges from their mines and mills contain concentrations
of
calcium fluoride and suspended solids which exceed the turbidity
limitations of Rule 203(a) and 403 and the fluoride and suspended
solids limitations of Rule 408 of the Regulations.
Rule 203(a) in part requires that all waters of the State
shall be free from ~unnatural sludge or bottom deposits,
.
,un—
natural color or turhidity~ except as provided elsewhere in
the
Regulations. Rule 403 provides that no effluent shall
contain
~...sludge so1ids~ and that ~color, odor and turbidity must he
reduced
to
below obvious
1eve1s~,
Rule
408 limits Petitioners~
effluent
to no more than 2.5 mg/i fluoride and
~L5.0 mg/i
total
suspended solids.
In
addition
to their
request for variance from
the above
cited
Rules,,
Petitioners also
seek variance from
Rule 921(a)
insofar as that Rule requires ultimate
compliance
with
the
tiuoride
standards herore permits can oe ~ssuect.
Ooera-cions invo1~ed :Ln the current petitions
include
Minerva~s
No. 1, Spivey and Gaskins Mines, the No. ~L and Crystal Mili~ and
Czark—Mahcn±ng~s Rosiciare Mill.
The Ga.skin Mine,
located
at the
eastern edge of Pooe County, discharges an effluent
which
varies
in suspended solids content from 0 to 400 ing/l
depending
on the
time of day samples are taken.
This effluent discharges to a
natural drainage ditch channel tributary to Big
Grand
Pierre Creek,
Analyses of recent Aqency samples indicate
that
the Gaskins
Nine discharge contains obvious levels of color and turbidity.
EPA investication
also indicates that the Gaskins
Mine
discharge
contributes
to the growth of unnatural henthic fio~a
and/or
fauna
in the receiving drainage course and in portions of Big Grand
Pierre Creek. The surveillance also confirmed
that the discharges
exceed the
15
mg/i standard of Rule
408.~ A summary
of Agency
sampiing
activity
was
shown as toilows:
AGENCY OPAL SAMPLES AT AND IN
THE
VICINITY OF’ THE GASK::Ns MINE
Upstream BGP
Downstream BGP
Mine effluent
Upstream BGP
Clear
Downstream BGP
~vident
Mine effluent
190
Evident
~95
JTU)
*
Total
solids via electro conductivity
+ Big Grand Pierre Creek
Location
Upstream BGP+
Downstream BGP
Downstream
BGP
Mine effluent
Mine
effluent
Drainage course
Date
Mar 27/73
Aug 9/73
Sep 5/73
(mg/i)
0.1
0.8
0.2
2.1
2.2
2.2
0.4
1.1
1.2
SS
(mg/i)
460
390
T 5/ EC
*
(n(g/l)
110
90
300
300
290
170
360
400
Turbidity
Clear
Slight
Slight
Evident.
Evident
Evident
-
Clear
-
Evident
-
Evident
4.9
420
H ~ar ~ proposes to meet the turbidity and buspended solids
star dardc~ for the Gaskins Mine discharge by constructing a dare—
ficatior or settling pond near the facility at a cost of about
$10,000 The Gaskins Mine is located or land owned by the Unites
States Forest Service and Petiteoner states that it is present y
negotiating w_th the Forest Servi~e for use of adjace~tand ad
joining land owned by the Forest Service for construction of th
pond If approval from the Forest Service is obtained Petit~o~r
claims that construction of the pond can be accompleshed withi
90 to 180 days aft~rthe issuarce of a perain
Most of the mine water discharge trom Minerva~sMene No.
flows to the Mill No, I water supply reservoir for use as process
water. Water discharged trom the~miii flows t a series of tOur
settlina nonds which ultimately discharge to Rcck Creek an
irter-
mittent stream tributary to Harm Creek and the Saline River No
information as to the concentrations of contamir ants in this
eff uent wa~ provided. Petitioner admitted that the mill ta ing~
effluent does not presently meet the Standards
Minerva proposes to bring the mill tailing~effluent into
compliance with the turbidity and total suspended solids limitathun~
through the installation of alum and line chemical feed equipment a
a cost of approximately $8,000. Minerva has the flocculation
equipment on hand and is ready to install this equipment at pond #
ane arrange with its electric power supplier to extend an electric
distribution line to that pond. Minerva estimates that the lengtt
of time required to install and place the equipment in operation
would be approximately 90 to 180 days after receipt of a permIt.
The remainder of Minerva~smine water from Mine #1 does not
flow to the mill water supply reservoir but directly into Running
Bear Branch, a tributary of Rock Creek ~Minerva alleges that the
total suspended solids of this discharge is below the maximum
standards and creates no turbidity problem.
At its Crystal Mill, Minerva operates a heavy media plant
about three weeks per month and anticipates that it will operate
a flotation mill about one or two weeks per month, Mill tailings
from the heavy media plant and the flotation mill are separately
discharged into a settling pond which overflows into a natural
drainage channel tributary to a privately owned lake known as the
Big Sink, which Petitioner leases, No information was available
on the current discharge concentrations of total suspended solids
for this mill.
Minerva proposes to meet the suspended solids requirements at
its Crystal Mill by raising the dike of its present pond and in-
stalling flocculation equipment. These changes will cost about
$5,000 and take about 90 to 180 days for com~letiononce a permit
is issued.
11
—
175
Operations at Minerva~s Spivey Mine are just beginning.
Minemva estimates that suspended solids in the mine effluent
will be about 50 ppm. About 180 days will be required to
construct a settling pond for the mine effluent
so
as to reduce
suspended solids to an allowable level.
At the Ozark-Mahoning Rosiclame Mill the discharge waters,
containing from 800 to 2800 mg/i of total suspended solids, are
discharged to a settling pond and then go by pipeline to the
Ohio River, Petitioner proposes to achieve compliance with the
turbidity and suspended solids standards by constructing another
settling pond adjacent to the existing pond and to introduce
into the pond a flocculant to clarify the mine tailings before
discharge to the Ohio River. Petitioner alleges that the mine
tailings discharge consist ~rimamily of limestone (caldium car-
bonate) and some fluorspar and sand. Petitioner alleges that all
of the discharge materials are inert and non—toxic but create a
probleth of turbidity and exceed the standards as to total suspended
solids at the point of discharge.
Petitioners have discussed their control programs with the
EPA or have applIed for EPA permits to allow construction of the
troposed control
facilities. Th?. Agency contends that it is pre-
vented from issuing construction and operation permits for the
control facilities by the provisions of Rule 921(a). The Agency
concedes that if permits .could have been issued when they were
applied for, compliance with the turbidity and suspended solids
standards might have been actieved by this time.
The prime reason for a denial of the permits appears to be
that Petitioners have. not shown that compliance with the fluoride
limitations can be achieved. Petitioners allege that there is no
economically reasonable and technologically feasible method of
fluoride abatement for use at Petitioners operations.
Petitioners further allege that 1)
for all practical
purposes,
fluorspar is considered an inert, non—toxic mineral, It has a
solubility of 17.5 mg/i in soft water which is equivalent to a
fluoride
concentration of 8 mg/I. 2)
Discharges of
fiuoriia in
present concentrations have caused and will cause no significant
adverse
environmental impact.
3) Water containing the mine dis-
charge
effluent has been used
for
livestock watering
purposes and
there is normal aquatic life in the
intermittent
streams receiving
Petitioners~ mine water. 4) There are no recorded cases of fluorosis
known to man or animals ~which might have resulted from drinking
Petitioners~ mine waters.
Petitioners have relied on bioassay testing conducted by the
Colorado School of Mines Research Institute on tailings effluent
from Ozark—Mahoning~sColorado fluorspar operation. This report
11
—
176
details that no ill
effects
were found on fin
erling
trout sub-
jected to process water
with
a fluoride ion concentration of 32
ppm. In another report submitted by Dr. William F. Sigler,
Department of Wildlife Science, Utah State University, in sunport
of Petitioners’ contentions, it is stated that ca:Lcium fluoride
has a solubility of
17.5
ppm while sodium fluoride, with a
solubility of 19,000
ppm,
is over 1,000 times more soluble in
water, This
is
equivalent
to a solubility of 19 gm/l for sodium
fluoride and 0.0175 gr/l for calcium fluoride. The Sigler report
continued: “Fluotide ion has a high affinity for calcium and its
presence in the
water in
significant amounts seems to reduce the
effective concentration of calcium in the body of the fish,
Fluorspar, however, dissociates to form so few fluoride ions that
evidently only light symptoms of fluorosis are produced. Moreover,
the calcium ion:
made available
by the dissociation of calcium
fluoride would
seem to
provide a replacement for any calcium
extracted from the
body
of the fish”. This is a very important
statement when
compared
with the solubility information stated
above. Simply stated,
it means
that when the sodium fluoride is
dissolved in water a tremendous concentration of fluoride ions is
made available to combine with the calcium in the body of the fish.
However, when the
less
~oluble calcium fluoride dissociates, one
of the dissociation products is calcium and there is no reason to
believe that the
fluoride available
from
the
dissociation would
have any more
affinity for the calcium in the body
of the fish
than for the calcium available from
the dissociation process.
In the March 7, 1972 Opinion adopting the Effluent Criteria
and Water Quality Standard Revisions, the Board provided a short
discussion of reasons
why
certain levels of water contaminants
were selected.
On fluoride, the Opinion
stated:
“Fluoride can
delay the hatching of fish eggs and has been reported by McKee
and Wolf to kill trout at concentrations ranging from 2.3 to 7.2
mg/i. They recommended a standard of 1.5
mg/I. The figure of 1.4,
here repeated from the May 12 draft, is in line with that recom-
mendation and also should assure a potable supply”.
The reference to a trout kill at concentrations ranging from
2.3 to 7.2 mg/i above was taken directly from a Table
in McKee
and
Wolf at page 191. The Table specifically states
that
the form
of fluoride used in the original research was sodium fluoride (NaF).
Petitioners have submitted proposed changes to the Water
Pollution Regulations relative to fluoride concentrations. The
matter has been docketed as R73-15 and hearings on the proposed
changes will be held in the near future, While
it
would be pre-
mature to judge the outcome of those proceedings,
we
have noted
ii
—
177
tnat tue cectioc of Minee and ~ol~ cealinc specifically with
calciim ,luoride CeF2) stites thet the letkal dose required
to kil_. tin fish Ii ‘a .ilgaris w-s reported by Simonin to be
30 J00 mg
..
wh:cii is far great~.r ~ianrue solubility of calcium
fluoride n water.
The record presented in the rs~teraf hand thus shows that
~hi1e Petitioners have uresented c ntrol schemes capable o~
lileviat ng L e problems wlih turbidity and
su’pended
solios
icy ~anrot bta’c a perr~tto rp~emcnt these control scheres
due to their present inability to eet the fluoride standards.
Without ~uch permit Petitioners a ~e~e ‘hat they are presented
with the alternatives ~f (1) o~ingdown their fluorspar
lining dfld miilin~ perations or ~ operating
subject
to
prosecution and the Impositior of potentially
heavy
fines.
Petitioners say they are unub~e to propose installation
t equipment to c~~ntrcthe fluoride concentrations because of a
lack of any liternatives, The companies state tha~they continue
to perform researrh ;o acocire new tchnology and new control
trocessee but do not koi of cry feasinle control
system
at
resent. The LPJ oxpressed the belier that Petitioners have made
a sood faith effr’~
cit
complying ith the Regula~ions.
We do not bcliete ~1at Ic iti~nersare now seeking a oorwanent
variance from the fluoride stardcrds, but rather a temporary
variance until sucu ti~ieas ~he loath “an decide if
the
Requlatisms
should be amended. The Agency states that the absence of an
ultimate compliance date should not crevent. the granting of
limited relief, Tue ~peric~recommends granting the 1imi~eovarc~n~
uending discovery of a sasibie method o~ fluoride abatemen~.or
until a decision has been nade or~Pethtaoners’ Proposal to Amend
the Water Pollution legulations.
Without prejudging in any way the Proposal to Amend the
Regulations we
believe Petitioner nas satisfied
the
requirements
for receiving a tempcrary variance.
The granting
of
this
variance
in our opinion, will benefit
the
Illinois
environment because the
installation of
the control
facilities will
bring compliance
with the turbidity and suspended solids standards. The calcium
fluoride emitted by Petitioners seems not as
great an
environmental
problem as the
sodium
fluoride which was the
basis
for our Regu-
lation, but the burden will still he
upon
Petitioners to prove their
case
in the public hearings on the Regulation (R73-l5).
The Agency acted correctly in denying operating permits under
the Rules applicable to these two companies, but our grant of
variance from Rule 921(a) should now remove the
ob.~tac1e
to
issuance of permits. Upon reapplication for permit we would expect
EPA
approval
and
an early installation of
control
equipment by the
Petitioners,
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Minerva
Oil Company and Ozark—Mahoning Company be granted a variance from
Rules 203(a) and 403 (as those Rules pertain to turbidity), Rule
408 (as that Rule pertains to suspended solids and fluoride) and
Rule 921(a) (as that Rule requires ultimate compliance with the
fluoride standards before permits can be issued) of the Illinois
Water Pollution cpntrol Regulations until October 15, 1974. This
variance is subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioners shall apply for and obtain all necessary
permits for the installation of their proposed
control projects.
2. Petitioners shall submit monthly progress reports
to the Environmental Protection Agency. Such
progress reports shall commence on March 1, 1974
and shall provide details of Petitioners~ progress
towards completion of the proposed control projects
and results of effluent water quality sampling at
each’ fa~ilitydescribed in Part 3 of these
conditions.
3. This variance shall apply solely to operations at
Minerva’s #1, Spivey and Gaskins Mines, #1 and
Crystal Mills and Ozark-Mahoning’s Rosiclare Mill.
4. Petitioners shall diligently pursue all possible
avenues of research towards the development of
fluoride abatement equipment capable of achieving
compliance with the fluoride standards,
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board, hereby cert,ify~the above Opinion and Order was adopted
this
~
day of
_________
1974 by a vote
of ~~toO
0
11
—
179