ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

23, 1972

IN THE MATTER OF

MINE

RELATED

POLLUTION

)

#R71-25

REGULATIONS

)

OPINION

OF THE BOARD

(BY SAMUEL T.

LAWTON,

JR.)

On December 16,

1971

the Illinois Pollution Control Board

(“Board”)

proposed comprehensive regulations for the control of mine-related

pollution.

¶I~oamendments were added on January 24,

1972

(Ex.

1).

Public hearings

in Carbondale,

Harrisburg,

Peoria and Galena,

Illinois

produced a substantial volume of valuable testimony in response

to

which we revised our initial proposal and published on April

4,

1972,

a proposed final draft

(Ex.

44).

Considerable additional written

public comment was received

(Ex.

45(a)

-

(p).

)

Today we adopt

the final regulations with some sections changed for clarification,

some sections deleted and

some new sections added to allow greater

flexibility to mine operators

in meeting the requirements

of the

Regulations.

These Regulations require

a permit for opening,

operating and

abandoning

a mining operation;

compel the institution of environmental

safeguards into mining operations;

and apply effluent criteria con-

trolling the harmful water pollutants present in mine ~rainage.

This

action completes

a most significant phase of the program for environ-

mental protection

in Illinois.

Following is

a detailed discussion of the environmental impact

of the Illinois mining industry;

the ability of these Regulations

to

abate that impact;

and the economic and technical

feasibility of the

prescribed control measures:

I.

Illinois Mining and

Its Environmental Impact.

Illinois has

a varied metallic and non-metallic mining

industry.

The Illinois coal industry

ranks fourth in the nation,

surpassed only

by the prodigious outputs

of West Virginia,

Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

Illinois

also produces

clay,

sand,

gravel,

limestone,

fluorspar and

lead-zinc,

each with environmental problems of their own.

The present regulations cover both surface and underground methods

of mining.

Sand dredging in water and drilling for oil and gas

are not covered by these regulations.

Surface mining essentially

4— 589

---

consists of the stripping

of

coal and open pit extraction of clay

and sand,

limestone and gravel referred to as

“aggregate”..

In

open

pit surface mining the “overburden”,being the earth covering

the

mineral strata to

be extracted,is removed and the mineral with-

drawn.

Because

the mined strata

are generally quite

thick, open

pit

mining

may

continue

for

years

in

a

confined area.

The ratio of

overburden

to

mineral

is

quite

small,

resulting

in

small

spoil

banks

of

removed overburden,

and

much

less

disruption

of

the

earth’s

surface

than

coal strip mining.

The

generally

flat

terrain

of

Illinois allows most

surface

mining

of

coal

to

be

accomplished

by

area

stripping, where

the operator

cuts

a

hox~-cut

trench

through

the

overburden,

exposing

a

portion

of

the

coal

seam

for

extraction,

and

deposits

the

spoil

in

a

row

paralleling

the

first

cut.

The

process

is

repeated,

extending

the

cut

horizontally

to

the

limits

of

the

coal

seam.

As

the

mining

moves

laterally,

the

overburden

from

each

succeeding

cut

is

dumped

into

the previous

cut.

At

the

horizontal

limIt of

the

coal

seam

the

final

cut

is

made,

producing

an

open

trench

the

depth

of

the

i:hickness

of

the

overburden

and

the

coal

seam,

bordered

on

one

side

by

the

final

spoil

bank

and

on

the other side

by

a

“highwail”.

Prior to

acceptable

regrading

and

reclamation

the mined

area

is

a

battered

washboard

of

spoil

banks

and

intervening

furrows.

Contour

stripping

designed

for

hilly

and

mountainous

areas

is

also

practiced,

although

infrequently,

in

Illinois,

The

overburden

is stripped

from

the

edge

of

a

hill

exposing

the

outcrop

of

the

coal

seam for

extraction,

Successive

bites

are

made

inward

toward

the

center

until

the depth

of

overburden

is

too

great

to

continue

with

mining

from

the

surface.

Large

draglines

make

surface

mining

possible

to

depths

of

nearly

200

feet;

technological

improvements

may

make

surface

mining

possible

to

depths

of

2,000

feet.

This process

is

then

extended

laterally

along

the

face

of

the

hillside,

creating

a

‘ribbon”

effect

along

the

tops

of

hillsides

as

if

each

were

spun

and carved on a lathe.

Available technology permits most overburden from this process to

be retained on the “bench”, being

the

flat area created by the first

cut into the hillside,referred to

as the “block—cut” method,

Common

practice allows the overburden to be pushed over the hillsides.

Water pollution from erosion and slides is produced by these sloppy

downslopes

as well as by the washboard spoils of area mining.

Auger mining is associated with stripping and is used to recover

addi~ionalcoal when the depth of overburden becomes too great for

economical surface removal, or to recover coal near the surface out-

crop left by earlier underground mining.

Auger mining is conducted

by boring horizontally into a seam, extracting coal much like

wood

shavings are pulled back by

a drill.

Auger insertions are often seven

feet

in diameter, and two hundred feet deep,

paralleling one another

for the breadth of the reachable coal seam.

The major pollution danger

4— 58n

---

from augei~ingis posed by ground and surface water percolation

through the exposed seam in the hole and out the borehole front

carrying acid and mineral salts into the waters of the state,

Underground mining in Illinois extracts coal,

fluorspar and

lead—zinc.

Shafts are driven into the ground vertically

(“shaft”

mine), horizontally at the base of a hillside

(“drift” mine), or

at an angle to the surface plane

(“slope’~mine)

to the depth

of

the mineral seam.

Spoil banks are formed from the overburden

hauled to the surface.

The sources of air and water pollution from these mining activities

are myriad.

Previously we enacted controls for two of these sources;

effluent in water and air emissions from the mineral preparation or

processing plant.

(See

PCB

Reguiation~,Chapter

II

-

Air

Pollution;

Chapter III

-

Water Pollution).

Today we enact regulations for

the

control of land runoff (specifically exempt from Chapter

III, Water

Pollution)

and dust entrainment from mined and mine

refuse

areas.

The sources of contaminating mine drainage are

mine

refuse

areas,

spoil banks, exposed mineral seams;

and mine haulage and entrance

roads and mine yards covered

with

acid-producing refuse.

Mining-related water pollution in

Illinois predominately

comes

from surface drainage over and percolation through mine refuse heaps,

the solid waste products of the cleaning and

preparation

of mined

minerals

(See Exhibit 16(b), slides

#6,

23—25, for pictures of this

“gob” pile drainage).

Coal mine refuse piles,

in particular,

pose a

tremendous and continuing threat of water pollution because

they

contain iron sulfide,

“pyrites”,

a mineral substance ~hich upon

oxidation and contact with water can produce drainage

containing sti-

furic acid and iron.

Oxidation of pyrite to form sulfuric acid in

coal mine refuse piles has been shown to occur at the rate of 198

pounds of acidity per acre of refuse per day,

(Exhibit 19(a),

p.

37

Acid is particularly toxic to aquatic life,

and iron,when it

settles

out of the drainage,forms

a coating on stream

beds

(“yellow boy”)

which smothers bottom dwelling organisms,

taxes

the

oxygen

capacity

of the stream and reduces the

breeding

spaces

for

aquatic

life

(Ex.

14, Appendix

F, p~1—21).

Besides the continuous production and washing away of sulfuric

acid at the outer mantle of these refuse areas,

“gob” piles tend

to act as giant sponges absorbing rainfall during the wet seasons

and,

in a delayed response, during dry weather oozing visible and

hidden streams of polluted drainage at a fluctuating pace.

An esti-

mation is that 54

of the rainfall immediately runs off a pile;

the

remainder is absorbed, in part evaporating,

in part becoming

polluted seepage.

(Ex.

19(a),

p.

1).

Refuse piles from coal,

lead-zinc and clay mining are potential

sources of acid mine drainage, the threat varying with the pyrite

4— 59’

---

concenti~ation

in

the

refuse;

the spatial distribution,

size and

degree of crystallization of the pyrite;

the geological characteris-

tics of the surrounding refuse material and terrain, and

the

extent

to which oxygen and water gain access to the pyrite.

In addition,

all mine refuse piles are subject to erosion at a rate of approximate-

ly 17 cubic yards per acre per year;

(Ex.

16(b)

p.

2)

and can thereby~

continuously supply quantities of mineral salts such

as

aluminum

and

manganese

and

suspended

and

dissolved

solids

to

nearby

streams,

Similar but less severe water pollution is caused by drainage

over the massive areas of

spoil, banks and

the

exposed

mineral

seams.

Because

surface

mining,

especially

stripping,

involves

disturbance

of greater volumes of earth than underground mining, sedimentation

from these areas can be quite severe.

A study of the hydrological

influences of strip mining found

that

sheet erosion from spoil banks

had clogged two nearby Kentucky streams with dark gray sediment in

places

more

than two feet deep.

In the area adjacent to one stream,

strip

mining

had

disturbed

only

.8

of

the

land

but

contributed

83

of

the

erosion.

In

the

area

of

the

second

stream,

coal

stripping

had disturbed only 6.4

of the land and contributed 96

of the sheet

erosion.

One stream influenced by strip mine spoil erosion discharged

1900 tons of sediment per year, compared to 42 tons discharged during

the same period by a controlled stream unaffected by surface mining

(Ex,

9,

p. B3)

Illinois, with

t.he flat to rolling hill terrain

of

its

mining

sectors and an annual precipitation average of 33

to

43

inches

likely

endures somewhat less sedimentation from mine spoil b~ánksthan does

Appalachia

with

its

scarred

mountains

and

rainfall

exceeding

fifty

inches

per

year.

But

the

difference

re1at~only

to the quantity,

not

the presence or absence

of such pollution.

Drainage over exposed mineral seams is most often a problem

with

coal,

lead—zinc,

fluorspar and clay mining.

In coal,

lead—zinc and

clay mines this drainage can become acidic;

in lead-zinc mines it

picks

up

lead

and

zinc;

in

fluorspar

mining,

fluoride

in

the

run-off

is

a threat.

Water pollution from this source occurs primarily from

surface mines because most of the deep mines in Illinois lie below

the level of the natural drainage.

Generally, water entering a deep

mine does not flow through but is either pumped back to the surface or

retained underground ,unlike Appalachia where much mine pollution is

caused by surface drainage flowing into deep mine entrances,

gathering

contaminants, and running out,

to the nearest stream or body of ground

water.

In Illinois contaminated water is pumped to the surface from

underground mines for safety reasons or to permit mining to continue,

and this drainage is polluted.

However~the possible impact on ground-

water of water percolating through underground mines

in Illinois has

not been adequately studied.

Another source of contaminated mine drainage is leachate or

overflow from and ruptures in “slurry ponds”.

Mined minerals must

be crushed and cleaned prior to distribution.

This washing at a

4— 592

---

preparation plant produces a slurry effluent heavy in mineral fines,

metal tailings and other contaminants, which is generally pumped to

settling ponds, diked retention basins,

in order for the solids to

precipitate out and allowing re-use of

the

water in the

washery.

Most

pollution

from

this

source

is

accidental

due

to

a

break

in

the

dam

or

due to faulty design or location

(See Ex.

38,

re: Man, West

Virginia mine disaster on Buffalo Creek).

A

related

pollution

source

is

flooded

pits

on

surface

mines,

containing highly

acid

or

alkaline

waters.

(See

Ex.16(b);

slide

4~3i, 32 for pictures of pollutional drainage fro~athese mine pits).

The

remaining

significant

source

of

polluted

mine

drainage

is

runoff from

mine

roads and mine yards’constructed with acid prOducing

mine

refuse,

This

is almost exclusively a problem near coal mines,

although clay

mine

roads

may

have

this condition.

Air pollution from mining is caused by wind sweeping across

dusty

mine

roads,

spoil

banks,

refuse

piles,

open

pits

and

dried

slurry ponds.

These

sources

of

mine—related

air

and

water

pollution,

unlike

the

sources of such pollution from most other industries, contaminate the

environment during commercial production and

continue to pose a

pollution threat years after operations have come to a halt,

Any

meaningful strategy for mine—related pollution control must cope not

only

with

the

present

effects

of

past

mining

and

the

immediate

impact

of

current

operations,

but

also

with

the

distant environmental conse-

quences

of today’s mines.

A multitude of these widespread contaminating point and non-point

sources has polluted and threatens to pollute the water and

air

of

Illinois.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(“Agency”) testi-

fied to typical drainage from southern Illinois coal mine yards, gob

roads, refuse piles and flooded acid and alkaline strip pits and

to the typical impact of such drainage on the waters of Illinois.

The Agency witnesses conclusively demonstrated that coal mining im-

poses a burden of severe water pollution on the Saline and Big Muddy

River Basins as well as other streams in southern Illinois.

Drainage from abandoned and active coal mines

in southern Illi-

nois reflects the following:

(a)

Mine yards sampled had a pH of 2,6 to 3.3 and an iron

content of 96 to 480 ppm.

4

—

593

---

(b)

Drainage from mine roads constructed with acid-

producing

refuse

had

a

pH

of

2.5

to

3.3

and

an

iron level of 14 to 1140 ppm.

(c)

Refuse piles typically discharged water of a pH range

of

1.6

to

2.7;

an

iron

concentration

of

120 to 13,0C)0

ppm;

and

a

dissolved

solids

level

of

6800

to

95,000

ppm,

compared with our recently adopted limit on

dissolved solids effluent from manufacturing arid

processing sources of 3,500

ppm.

~o

of the

refuse

piles sampled, abandoned

in 1929 and 1949,

continue

to discharge water with a pH of

2,2 and an iron load

of

1930

ppm to 8200

ppm, indicating the continuous

nature of these pollution sources once they are under-

way.

(Ex.

16(a),

“Mine Drainage Impact on the

Saline

River”,

Robert

Gates,)

As

a standard of reference

it should

be

noted

that

the Board has

imposed a limit of

2 mg/I

(about

2 ppm)

iron for manufacturing sources,

and today adopts a pH standard of

5-10

for

mine drainage.

Biological

studies

show

that

a

pH of less than

4,5 will destroy most aquatic life

and

that

some

game

fish do not reproduce effectively in a pH of

5.

Some

of

the

effects

of

iron

in

mine

drainage

have

been

previously

discussed.

(See

Exhibit

14,

Appendix

F).

Water quality data and biological

testing in the Saline

and Big

Muddy River Basins

(Exhibits 15 and 16(a), pp.

2—9)

reflect

the

following:

(a)

The South Fork of the Saline River upstream from

major

active

and

abandoned

coal

mining

operations

is

not

polluted

and maintains

a balanced aquatic life.

(b)

Sections of many

of

the

tributaries

to the South Fork

of the Saline River which are directly affected by coal

mining drainage are polluted and do not support aquatic

life,

(c)

Much of the South Fork of the Saline and the Saline River

itself downstream from major active and abandoned coal

mining operations

is polluted and does not support aqua-

tic life,

(d)

Mine polluted’ water in the mainstream of the Saline can

“back up” into the North Fork where it enters the Saline,

adversely affecting that portion of the North

Fork.

Acid

slugs down the mainstream of the Saline have resulted in

fish kills near the mouth at the Ohio River.

(Ex.

16(a),

pp.

8—9;

16(b)

slides #56,

57

—

Photos of these kills)

4—594

---

(e)

At

those

points

on

the

Saline

and

Big

Muddy

where

known~minedrainage does not exist, dilution can work

to

reduce the impact

of

mine drainage upstream.

(f)

Those

sampled

points

on

the

Saline

and

Big

Muddy

Rivers

which

are

downstream

from

mining

operations

but

which

have

a sufficiently high

pH

to

support aquatic

life,

contain

inordinately high levels of dissolved solids and sulfates,

in

most

instances

exceeding and in all cases approaching

allowable

water

quality

limits.

(Ex.

15,

p.

9;

and

16 (a).

(g)

In

certain sections of

the Saline

River

Basin,

not

at

present

severely

affected

by

coal

mine

drainage,

as

well

as

in

sectors

affected,

large

areas

of

unmined

coal

reserves

are

being

acquired

for

future

extractio:r.~.

(Ex.16(a),

pp.

5—6,

8)

.

The

water

~ualitv

data

and

the

survey

of

typical

mine

drainage

would

tend

to

indicate

that

dilution

from

large

upstream

watersheds

is

at

present

of

prime

impor-

tance

in

cushioning

the

over-all

impact

of

coal

mine

drain-

age

on

the

Saline

River

Basin

(Ex.

15(a),

pp.

3,5,6—7),

which

effect

c&nnot

be

depended

upon

to

prevent

future

adverse

impact

in

~urrentiy

unaffected

sectors

when

the

number

of

mine

sites

increases.

There

is

little

room

to

assimilate

more

mining, let

alone

additional

industrial

and

municipal

growth,

The

evidence

indicates

a

widespread

local

impact

on

small

re-

ceiving

streams which because of dilution is not always reflected

in

the

larger

rivers.

(Although

dilution

on

the

Little

Muddy

River

does

not

always

prevent

fish

killS

from

mine

acid

slugs,

Ex.

5),

Sycamore

Creek,

a

small

creek

flowing

through

one

of

the

mined

areas

in

the

Big

Muddy

River

Basin,

upstream

from

a

mined

area

carries

acceptably

low

levels

of iron, manganese,

dissolved solids and

sul-

fates;

its

pH is

6.3.

Downstream

from

the

mined

area

the

pH

plunges

to

3.2;

iron rises from

.3

to 200 mg/l; manganese

from

.1

to

23.2

mg/i;

and

sulfates

increase

from

170

mg/i to 1600

mg/i.

The expert

testimony that this impact is by no means unique for small tributaries

is

borne out by data for Walker Creek near DuQuoin,

Illinois, damaged

by

an

abandoned

mine

refuse

pile

(Ex.

19, pp. 94-95).

The record likewise demonstrates the coal mine drainage impact on

the

water quality of central Illinois.

Kahokia Creek near Gillespie;

Macoupin Creek

near Farinersville; Grape Creek

in

Vermillion

County

where a seven mile stretch is adversely affected by contaminated

drainage from the refuse piles of one deep mine; Spoon River from

eastern Knox County to its confluence with the Illinois River; and

the south fork of the Sangamon River near Springfield have suffered

from coal mine—related water pollution

(R.573,

574),

4

—

595

---

The

Illinois

Institute

for

Environmental

Quality

conducted

a

study

of

the

technical feasibility and the economics of applying

effluent standards

to mine drainage

(Ex.

17).

The Study’s data

and some of

its conclusions affirm that the impact of coal mine

drainage is

a matter of serious concern in certain sections of

Illinois.

Generally,

Illinois surface and deep coal mines pose water

pollution problems from suspended solids, heavy metals and acid

mine drainage.

Acid mine drainage

is predominantly a problem of

southern Illinois, where, based

on

preliminary

effluent

data, coal

mines

also

discharge

rather

high

levels

of

iron,

lead,

manganese,

zinc

and

nickel.

The

Colchester

No.

2, Davis and Dc Koven coal

seams

of southern Illinois seem

to

be

the

most

consistent

sources

of

acid

drainage.

(Ex.

17,

p.

16),

Surface

coal

mines

in

central

Illinois appear to have suspended solids, manganese and iron

problems.

The

northern sector of the

coal

mining

area

of

the

state

does not appear to have acceptable discharges

of

suspended

solids,

fluoride,

iron

and

lead.

(Ex.

17,

pp.

60-67).

Ground

water,

after seeping into underground mine workings

be-

comes polluted, often containing

high

concentrations of acid,

dissolved solids, iron and chlorides.

(Ex.

17,

pp. 50~52)

.

Refuse

pile drainage from deep and surface coal mines

is by

far the major

source of mine-related water pollution

(Ex.

17,

p.

56).

These effluent data are the more striking when the potential

volume

of

mine drainage directly affecting the total mine contaminant

load on

the

waters of Illinois is considered,

From each deep

coal mine approximately 56 million gallons per year

(mg/yr.)

of

run—off occurs from refuse piles and from polluted water pumped to

the

surface from underground.

Approximately 1500 mg/yr. of run-off

is estimated to occur

from

the refuse piles alone of

a strip coal

mine containing high gob acreage.

(Ex.

17, p.

59,

Table 18).

The

volume of runoff from these two areas can be much greater.

Some

lead-zinc and fluorspar deep mines pump out

2

to

5 m.g./d

(id, pp.

113,

124)

Further, the future of coal mining in Illinois portends an im-

pressive threat of additional air and water pollution.

This state

has mined only 3

of its mineable reserves, with approximately 194

billion tons remaining.

(Ex.

16 and 27,

p.

93).

Over three billion

tons of these reserves are strippable resulting in the potential dis-

ruption of almost 1000 square miles of land.

(Ex.

2,

p.

‘2).

The testimony of Mr.

R.

E. Favreau, Regional Engineer for Region 5

of

the Illinois Department of Public Health, on the need to control

mine drainage in Illinois,

raises the specter of disease related to

4

—

596

---

mine

runoff,

of

mining

which

if

permitted

in

certain

areas

(Lusk

Creek) would likely

cause

irreversible

water

pollution

(R.l28),

and

of

municipalities

and

their

water

supplies

seriously

disrupted

by

contaminated

mine

drainage.

In

the

past,

chloride

washers

have

been

used

for

coal

cleaning

operations, the discharge from which led to a “tremendous breeding

problem” of encephalitis-carrying salt marsh mosquitoes (“aedesolli-

citan”)

in the West Frankfort and Saline County

area,

and

in

Carrier

Mills and Stonefort, Illinois,

This mosquito has now adapted to

breeding in mine refuse and mine wastes that

do

not contain high chlor-

ide concentrations

(R,l22,

123),

Studies in

the area of

Will

Scarlet Mine, near Carrier Mills, indicate that in the flood plains

receiving high sulfate or chloride di~chargesas many as 30,000

of these mosquito eggs per square foot may be deposited.

(R,127).

Mine drainage, high

in

chlorides

and. sulfates, must be so controlled as

to prevent overflow into these breeding grounds likely

to

occur

in

flood plain areas.

(Also see Ex,

22, pp.3-4).

Mr. Favreau affirmed previously discussed testimony of the

destructive influence

~f

coal mine drainage on the Saline River

(See Ex. 16(b),

slide #26); Bangston Creek; the Big Muddy River

especially tributaries affecting Crab Orchard

Creek,

Lake Creek,

Pond Creek and Beaucoup Creek;’ the Marys River and its tributaries

(R,1l7).

(See Ex.

16

(b)(f), slides #51 and p.5).

Favreau testified to mine drainage, including coal and slurry

fines from slurry pond breaks,

causing damage to private property,

aquatic life and public water supplies in MurphysbQro, Elkviile,

Herrin, Royalton, Harrisburg and Carrier Mills,

Illinois.

The Murphysboro water supply intake on the Big Muddy River

has a high mineral content, caused primarily by Beaucoup Creek

drainage which is high in dissolved solids and sulfates, largely due

to mine drainage; Ex.

15).

The citizens of Murphysboro pay to soften

their drinking water, which despite treatment is still high in dis-

solved solids

(R,118).

Herrin,

Illinois,

after coal mining operations produced acid

drainage in one of its watersheds, had to divert thissector of

the watershed from its public water supply, producing additional

costs for the people of Herrin and additional water pollution for

the recipients of the diverted watershed

(R.ll9),

Special treatment costs have been undertaken to correct mine—

related

acid,

iron

and~total

mineral

content

in

that

portion

of

the

Big

Muddy

River

supplying

Royalton,Illinois

(R’.

119;

see

Ex.

16(b),

slide

#55

for

a

picture

of

a

mine

drainage

‘fish

kill

at

this

water

supply

intake),

4

—

597

---

Harrisburg pumps its basic water supply from the Middle Fork

of the Saline River and

has

had

to

resort

to

filling

its

side-

channel reservoir only when

heavy

rainfalls

are sufficient to

dilute the acid and mineral content of the Middle Fork

(R. 119,

33 7-38,

341—45).

The problem

of

water

shortage has thereby become

critical, to

the point that the City is paying an additional $350,000

for

a plan to alleviate

it.s

sole dependence on the mine-drainage-

controlled Middle Fork

(R.

344),

Otherwise 15,000 people in the area

would be forced to find a new water supply.

The City of Harrisburg

testified,

“This

is

particularly

distressing,

since

the

area

has a very high

unemployment

rate

and

funds

and

tax

base

are

not

sufficient

for

improvements.

Also

due

to

the

inability

of

the

City

to

have

an

adequate

water

sup~1y,

industry

has

been

reluctant

to

locate

in

the area

which

compounds

the

unemployment

problem.”

(R.345)

Some

southern

Illinois

communities

have

been

forced

to

search

for

water

supplies

unaffected

by

mine

drainage.

(See

R,120,

DuQuoin’s

search

for

water

free

of

contaminated

mine

drainage

in

the

drought

of

1954-55;

Carbondale

in

its

search

for

water

to

meet

the

demands

of

growth

had

similarly

to

skirt

mine-drainage-contaminated

sources)

Galiatin

County

was

denied

a

lake

on

Eagle

Creek

specifically

be-

cause

of

water

pollution

from

the

area’s

active

and

abandoned

surface

and

underground

mines

(R.l21).

Mr.

Donald

Crane,

Director

of

Environmental

Resources

and

Plan-

ning

for

the

Appalchian

Regional

Commission,

and

Study

Director

for

the

comprehensive

report,

~

(Ex,

14)

‘testified

to

the

potential

bleak

future

of

southern

Illinois

if

mining

is

not

effectively

controlled.

Crane said of his

experiences in the Carbondale and Herrin,

Illinois areas:

“The piles of waste from underground mines, abandoned

coal processing plants,

abandoned mine portals, equipment

and other

(mine)

debris in and around towns and in the back-

yards

of

peoples’

homes

were

a

small

example

of

the

disturbances

that

I

was

later

to

see

in

the

Appalachian Region.1

1’

The Illinois Coal Operators Association and two coal mining

companies objected to the testimony of the representatives

of the Appalachian Regional Commission on the grounds that

Illinois is, after all, not Appalachia.

But these experts

in their direct testimony express full awareness of the

basic differences as well

as the basic pollution similariti,~s

between coal mining

in Appalachia and Illinois.

Further, Mr.

Crane was familiar with the mining techniques

of southeastern

(continued on page 11).

4

—

598

---

“I understand that the geology, configuration, and

topography of .the Illinois basin is not the

seine

as the

Appalachian coal basin.

However,

I recognize that there

are substantial aimilarities between

the

two basins, in-

cluding the extent of social,

economic and environmental

impacts resulting from mining.

If these impacts are allowed

to accumulate,

then conditions much like those in the

Appalachian Region will

occur.”

CR. 244).

“Over

the

past

hundred

years coal

mining

has

caused

increased amounts of acid,

sediments,

sulfates,

iron

and

manganese

in,

the

(appalachian)

Region

streair~s,

thus

sub-

stantially altering the water quality.”

“These conditions,

for all practical purposes,

are

permanent and are not self-correcting,

except

in

the

geo-

logic sense

of

time,”

(R.244,245)

“Postponement of pollution control from the mining

operations...separates the cost from responsible and

identifiable

parties

who

draw

a

directly

related

flow

of

income

from

the

mining,”

“..

.this constitutes

a direct subsidy

to

the

ultimate

users

of

the

coal

by

those who will find

it

is

necessary

to abate pollution at

a later date.”

“One

of

the

lessons

from

the Appalachian experience

is

that such a subsidy is wrong and it

is now proving

to be in

many

areas an insurmountable problem within

the

(Appalachian) Region.”

(R,260).

The

record points up other subsidies:

(a)

Mine drainage affects nearly every type

of

water

use,

increasing

the costs to industrial and municipal users

(Ex.

14, Appendix

A,

(R,249)

and testimony of

H.

E.

Favreau, supra).

Ohio,

a part of the Appalachian Region, with topography and

mining

technology

and

surface

mine

drainage

conditions

similar

to those of southern Illinois,

(R,317-3l9).

Furthel-,

the

study,

Acid

Mine Drainage in Appalachia

(Ex.

1.4,

pp.

6,

15,

16,

21,

22)

and the Coal-Mine Industry Advisory Committee to the Ohio River

Valley Sanitation Commission in its report on mine drainage

(Ex.

16,

p.

3)

affirm

that there

are

basic pollution attributes

of all coal mining.

Also,

the

water

quality impact of Illinois

coal mining (discussed,

supra)

reflects that many of the environ-

mental consequences of mining in Illinois are essentially similar

to

those

in Appalachia.

4

—

599

---

(b)

A setting of general environmental degradation in-

cluding contaminated mine drainage

and

other

mining

disturbances may be a significant disincentive in the

locational decision process of industry.

(R.249 and

testimony of the City of Harrisburg,

supra).

(c)

Small amounts of acid drainage can prevent the use of

surface waters for recreation and for fish and wildlife

management, preventing water resource development

(R.250

and testimony of Favreau

re

lake

on Eagle Creek,

supra).

Cd)

Abandoned coal mines cause dreadful environmental damage

and a costly economic burden from the past.

Eighty

percent of Appalachia’s mine-related water pollution

is

estimated to arise from

these

“orphan”

‘mines

(R,247),

An

educated

guess

is

that

abandoned mines generate

30-35

of

the

mine

drainage

pollution

in

the

Saline

and

Big

Muddy

watersheds

of

Illinois

(Ex.

17,

p.

68).

(See

Ex.

16(a)

and

19

and

Environmental

Protection

A9~encLy, Truax-Traer,

PCB 70~-l0~and ~

Coal

Com

an

,

PCB 71-323,

for representative examples of

‘po

uted drainage from coal mined areas long deserted),

Pennsylvania

may spend

$1 billion dollars in an attempt

to correct the aesthetic and water quality blight caused

by

its environmentally mismanaged coal mines

(R.257).

t’laryland

will

spend about five million dollars in a similar

effort

(R,257),

The Governor of Illinois proposes to spend

one

million dollars

as an initial step in a ten-year program

to cope with the burden imposed by 50,000 acres of abandoned,

polluting mined land in this state.

(See “Special Message

on

the

Environment,” Governor of

Illinois,

March

9,

1972;

Ex,

43),

The mining industry’s orphans should be readied

to face the future.

Those abandoned mined areas presently

causing water pollution should be corrected;

the creation

of more problems should be prevented.

This

Board

cannot

hold

that the citizens of Illinois must for-

ever shoulder the considerable social

and

economic costs of additional

public water supply treatment;

of clean water feasibility studies;

searches for uncontaminated public water supply;

foregone industrial

development;

lost recreational opportunity; and increased public

expenditures for mine-pollution abatement in order to subsidize the

mining industry or in order to provide cheaper electric power to

millions of people who live outside the mining region.

An industry’s

neighbors should not be put to the Hobson’s choice of dirty water or

inequitable subsidies when pollution control

is technically and

economically feasible,

4

—

600

---

While

we recognize that the impact of non-coal mines in Illinois

does not approach the environmental damage of coal mining, available

data do indicate that water and air pollution from these sources are

sufficient

to

include them within a general regulatory scheme, flexible

enough

to avoid unfair hardship, but possessing

a control framework

designed

to

prevent

possible

pollution

problems

from

occurring.

Wind-

blown

fugitive

dust from limestone quarries and haulage roads,

and

ftons

refuse piles

and

dried

slurry ponds

at fluorspar

and

lead-zinc mines,

as

well

as

coal

mines,

(Ex.

19,

p.

1)

can

cause

air

pollution. depending

on

their location and method

of

construction

and

maintenance

(H. 271)

Water quality data show that the mining

in

the

Il1ino~s

side

of

the

Upper Mississippi

Valley

Zinc—Lead District presents

a potential

drainage

problem

from

water pumphd to the surface from deep mines and

from

runoff

and

leachate

from

the

mine

refuse

areas

and

mill

tailings

pr;.uds

(Ex,

17,

pp~

119—20)

The

two

million

gallons

per

day

pumped

out

of

each lead-zinc mine

may

at

times

be

high

in

zinc and suspended

solids

(Ex.

17,

Table

62,

p.

121)

and

the

effluent

data

from a settling

basin

at

a

lead—zinc

mine indicates

a

zinc

problem

(Id.)

The

Institute

for

Environmental

Quality

study

shows

that

two

to

five

million

gallons ofwaterare

pumped

daily to the surface

from

each

of

Illinois”

fluorspar

mines,

This

water

is

high

in

fluorides.

(Ex.

17,

p.

24)

Runoff from tailing ponds

and

piles

at these

mines

is

a

source of excessive dissolved sofrds.

(P.208,

211,

387’~”88; See Ex~.

16 lb),

slide

4~52 for fluorspar discharge)

Clay mines are likely to have silt and iron and acid-producing

refuse

piles and exposed mineral seams which must he controlled.

(R.149,

154,

157)

The

“aggregate”

mines,

(sand,

gravel and limestone) have refuse

piles,

and

limestone operations utilize

a tailing pond system from

which run-off can occur depending

on

location and method of construc-

tion.

Limestone quarries are capable of causing air pollution from

wind

erosion

of

the pits, haulage roads and refuse areas,

(Ex.

45(a)).

The

‘massive disturbances of the earth’s surface from such mining

con-

stitute a sufficient threat of water and air pollution to warrant

apply-

ing

a permit system in order to assure

that where a threat does exist,

safeguards

are

taken.

Pennsylvania has taken a similar

approach

iii

regulating all such mining, even though coal mining

is

by

far

the

largest

polluter

(Ex.

18).

II.

EFFICACY

AND

FEASIBILITY OF

THE

REGULATIONS

While

serious

damage

has

been

done to the waters of Illinois and

a severe pollution threat remains, Illinois has begun to protect its

environment from

the

adverse consequences of miming.

This state bene—

fitd from a recently reformed surface—mined land reclamation law which

can achieve,

if

enforcement is

up to the task, the satisfactory re-

claiming of countryside hereafter subjected to surface mining.

4

—

601

---

(Ex.

34;

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

Ch.

93,

Sec. 201

et. seq., 197l~. Illinois

has effluent and emission standards restricting pollutional discharges

from mine washeries and mineral preparation plants.

(PCB Regulations;

chap.

iii, Water and Chap.

II,

Air Pollution.)

However,

this record demonstrates that effluent and emission

standards for mineral

processing

plants and land reclamation for all

new surface mines are not adequate to cope with the severe burden

of

mine-related

pollution.

Much

mining

is

not’

conducted on the

surface.

Reclaiming

sur-

face

mines

hereafter

will

not

reduce

pollution

from

those

surface

mines

begun

prior

to

and

not

covered

by

the

Surface-Mined

Land

Reclama-

tion Act.

Reclaiming stripped surface areas after mining

is

comp:Leted

Is

primarily

an

aesthetic

measure;

in

any

event,

it will not control

polluted surface runoff and leachate and

wind

erosion

while

mining

operations

cofltinue.

Effluent criteria

alone

cannot adequately control pollution

from

the multitude of widespread fluctuating,

“isible and hidden sources

of

surface

and groundwater contamination

which

pose

a constant pollution

threat

but

the effects

of

which

are

weather-dependent.

Numerical

effluent

and emission standaEds will

not abate mine drainage and nuisance

dust after the mining operation

has

closed, wastewater treatment ceased,

and

the

pollution—generating property reverted

to

a farmer whose finan-

cial

ability

to correct his inherited problem does not match

his

legal

obligation to do so.

Neither effluent limitations

nor surface land

reclamation can wipe away

the

pollution damage and social costs caused

by

an

environmentally il1’~piaced

or

mismanaged mine.

Prevention,

re-

ducing

the

threat of pollution. is

the

‘more palpable alternative.

To these ends,

we

have

combined the control philosophies of

effluent treatment and reclamation, with

the strategy of prevention

through environmental planning.

The Regulations,

of necessity, specify

in a certain

few instances

the required

control procedure, but generally

provide a flexible

control

framework,

allowing

a

variety

of

approaches

to

meet

a

variety

of

pollution

circumstances,

These

Regulations

require:

(a)

That

a

permit

be

obtained

to open, operate or abandon

a mine or mine refus’e area;

(b)

That

specific,

minimally

acceptable

environmental

safeguards be embodied into mining operations; and

(c)

That an operator meet defined environmental goals,

the methods

‘for

attaining

which

are

left

to be deter-

mined

according

to

local

conditions.

4

—

602

---

LEGAL ARGUMENTS

The

Illinois Coal Operators Association

and

some coal companies

have

raised legal objections

to

the

adoption of these Regulations.

Two of their objections have not been previously considered in

Opinions

of

this

Board:

(1)

Whether

this

Board

can

constitutionally

require

a permit to open,

operate or abandon a mining

facility; and

(2)

Whether

the

Surface

Mined

Land

Conservation

and

Reclamation

Act

of

:rllinois

(‘Surface

Act”)

con-

sidered in conjunction

with

the.

Environmental

Pro-

tection

Act

of

Illinois, barsany

pollution

control

regulation,

(except

~cr

viater

quality

standards)

of

the

mining

industry.

Sections

9 (b)

,

12

(b)

and

13

Cc)

of

‘the

Environmental

Protection

Act

empower

the

Board

to

require

a

permit

and

adopt

standards

for

the

issuance

cf

such

a

remit

for

the

constLucfroo,

,nstallation

or

operation

of

any

equipment

or

facih, lip

“capafr

e

of

causing’

water

or

sir

pollution.

Opponents

of

‘the

Beg’uiatnuns

contend

that

the

Board,

by

requiring

a

permit

for

oil

mining

fr’cr’atlons,

has

oresumed

that

all

cause

poilutien,

a

presumption

whi en

the

ocroention

goes

has

no

basis

in

fact

and

thus

constitutes

a

dt~~

os

Due

Process

at

The

argument

fails

at

the

first

step.

The

Fnvi

ronmental

Protec-

tion

Act

states

that

nermits

may

be

required

of

a

fac1l~ ty

“capable

of

causing’

pol1uticn~

The Coal

Operators

Association

bus

missed

the

plain

wording

of

the

statute

in

assuming

that

this

Beard

ha~ presumed

‘that

each

mine in Illinois

in

fact

causes pollution.

~uosuant

to our

statutory

authority,

we

do

find

that

any

mining

and

nine

refuse

dis-

posal

activity

is

“capable”

of

causing air and water pollution.

The

“factual

basis”

is

overwhelming

for

this

presumption

underlying

the

permit

requirement.

The record,

discussed in detail

below,

is

con-

clusive

that every kind

of

mining in this state maintains one or more

of the following:

refuse piles,

slurry or tailing ponds,

spoil banks

and

mine haulage

and

entrance roads; that any mining exposes mineral seams

and massive quantities of excavated earth

to wind and

water; that

any

or

all of these sources not only are

“capable’

of causing air or water

pollution

hut,

in

fact,

frequently do cause such

pollution.

Implicit in the Coal Operators contention

is

that

a permit may

be required

only

of a facility which has been shown to be a polluter.

(R.525).

The Act,

on its face, contradicts such an interpretation.

Furthermore, to so hold would deprive the permit system of its intended

value as a pollution prevention measure.

(See Environmental Protection

-

Agency v. Ayrshire Coal Co., PCB #71—323, ~

spent to control contaminated mine drainage from carelessly~placedand

4

603

---

constructed mine refuse piles.

The pollution and the resulting

ex-

pense could have been prevented by proper planning in the first

instance.

)

The Coal Operators further contend that this Board denies the

mining

industry

Equal

Protection

of

the

Law

by

singling out mining for such

a

permit

control

system

“while

ignoring

substantially

all

other

installa-

tions

of

like

capability”

(R,524-525).

Again,

the Coal Operators

lgnore

the plain and obvious fact.

The Board

requires environmental

protection permits of the great majority of

the

manufacturing and

processing

operations

and

all

of

the

sewage

treatment

plants

in

this

state,

all

of

which

are

“capable”

of

causing

air

or

water

pollution.

(PCB Regulations Chap.

II,

Air Pollution;

Chap.

III, Water Pollution).

As

another

Equal

Protection

objection,

me:rnbers

of

the

coal

industry

have

complained

that

this

Board

unfairly

controls

surface drainage

from

~nines

because

we

have

not

similarly

regulated

agricultural

drain-

age.

rfhe

Board

has

already

regulated

combined

sewer

overflows,

another

form

of

land

runoff

pollution

(PCB

Regulations,

Chap.

III,

Water

Pollution).

It

has

held

public

hearings

on

the

problem

of

water

pollution

from

agricultural

drainage

of

plant

nutrients;

this

issue

remains

under

our

jurisdiction

while

additional

data

are

gathered

on

the

extent

of

the

problem

and

feasible

methods

of

control.

(See

Opinion

in

#R7l--j5).

Proposed

rules

for

animal

feedlot

runoff

and

agricultural

sedimentation

are

being

proposed

on

which

the

Board

will

hold

public

hearings

and

enact

such

regulations

as

are

appropriate

based

on

the

evidence.

All

surface

drainage

pollution

sources

cannot

be

treated

alike,

which

fact prohibits simultaneous regulation of

all

of

such

sources.

The

evidence

of

the

pollution

impact

of

mining

justifies

giving

that

industry

a

priority

in

our

actions.

The

Environmental

Protection

Act

contains

numerous

provisions

authorizing

the

setting

of

operational

or

procedural

pollution

control

standards.

The

Legislature

has clearly

recognized

that

successful

environmental

protection

often

entails

more

than

the

settling

of

numerical

emission

or effluent limitations.

Sections 10

and

13

of

the

Environmental

Protection Act empower

the

Board

to

adopt

such

operational

standards

where

necessary

to

provide

immediate

and

long-range

protection

against

air

and

water

pollution.

Thus,

the

Coal

Operators

beg

the

question

when

they

contend

that

in

certain

in-

stances

(Sec.

301

for

example,

requiring

drainage

diversion,)

these

Regulations

by

controlling

how

mining

is

to

be

conducted

go

beyond

the

Board’s

statutory

authority.

The

question,

answered

in

the

affirmative by

the

record in

this

proceeding,

is

“are such measures

reasonably necessary for pollution control?”

Having failed

to

exempt the entire mining industry from

meaningful

pollution control, the coal operators next contend that this Board’s,

control of the surface mining industry,

except for water quality stan-

dards,

is preempted by the Illinois Surface Mined

Land Conservation

and

Reclamation Act of 1971, because

that

“Surface

Act” controls

the

reclama—

4— 684

---

cion of surface mines and thereby preempts the regulation of water

pollution control related to surface reclamation.

The issue

is one

Df Legislative intent.

Section 206(g)

of

the

Surface

Act,

following

a

delineation

of

the

mining

and

reclamation

duties

of

a

surface

mine

operator,

including

sertain

measures

pertaining

to

the

“reduction”

of

water

pollution,

states

as

a

further

duty

of

the

operator

that,

‘All

requirements

of

the

Bnvironmentai

Protection

Act,

and

of

rules

and

regulations

thereunder

shall

be

complied

with

fully

at

all

times

during

mining,

reclamation

and

after

reclamation,’

A

clearer

otatement

of

Legislative

intent

is

difficult

to

imagine.

The

General

Assembly

in

the

Surface

Act

re-

affirmed

its

purpose,

expressed

earlier

in

adopting

the

Environmental

Protection

Act,

of

maintaining

in

Illinois

a

comprehensive,

unified

program

of

air

and

water

pollution

control.

In

effect,the

Legislature

incorporated

as

part

of

the

Surface

Mined

Land

Conservation

and

Reclama-

tion

Act

all

air

and

water

pollution

control

measures

adopted

pursuant

to

the

Environmental

Protection

Act.

In

the

face

of

this

statutory

language,

~Sec.

206(g)),

the

Coal

Operators

and

Peabody

Coal

Company

contend

that

the

General

Assembly

thereby

intended

that

only

the

Board’

s

water

quality

standards

were

to

be

applicable

to

surface

mining.

In

light

of

the

wealth

of

provi-

sions

in

the

Environmental

Protection

Act.

which

empower

the

Board

to

adopt

pollution

control

regulations

which

go

beyond

numerical

effluent

standards

(discussed,

supra),

no

such

strained

discriminatory

interpre-

tation

can

he

lent

the

language

of

Sec.

206(g),

Had

the

legislature

intended

that

all

pollution

control

measures

pursuant

to

the

Environmental

Protection

Act,

except

water

quality

standards,

were

to

he

inapplicable

to

surface

mining,

it

would

have

so

stated.

Not

only

did

the

General

Assembly

not

make

such

a

distinction

as

to

the

kinds

of

pollution

control

regulations,

it

removed

any

con-

fusion

by

expressly

requiring

that

all

pollution

control

regulations

adopted

pursuant

‘to

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

be

obeyed.

Our

position

is

buttressed

by

the

fact

that

the

Legislature,in

enacting

the

Environmental

Protection

Act,

specifically

prohibited

the

application

of

any

regulations,

except

water

quality

standards,

to

defined

aspects

of

oil

and

gas

operations

controlled

by

a

previous

Act,

(Sec.

45),

Also

in

the

Environmental

Protection

Act,

the

Board

was

expressly

limited

in

regulation

of

pesticides

(Sec.

13(f)).

In

July,

1970,

when

the

General

Assembly

enacted

the

Environmental

Protection Act,

Illinois already had in effect the old Illinois

Surface Mining Reclamation law.

(Il1.Rev.Sta’t,,Ch.93,Sec.162—l80,Repeai,l94~

Had the Legislature intended that

the

Environmental Protection Act and

regOiations pursuant thereto,

(except for water quality standards), not

apply to the mining activity subjected to that first surface mining

reclamation law,

it would have so stated

in the Environmental Protection

Act,

as it did

with

regard

to

oil

and

gas

strata and pesticides,

in

4

—

605

---

adopting a new surface mining reclamation law, in 1971, efter the

Environmental Protection Act had already been adopted, the General

Assembly sought to remove possible confusion as

to preemption by’

the inclusion of Sec. 206(g).

Peabody

Coal

contends

that

Sec.

215

of the Surface Mining

Act

prohibits

this

Board

from

adopting’

“detailed

reclamation measures”

and

allows

only

the

setting

of

effluent

limitations

on

surface

mining.

Section

215

requires

that

the

Environmental

Protection

Agency

not

issue

a

permit

for

surface

mining

until

all

permits

required

by

the

Surface

Mining

Act

are

in

effect.

If

the

Company

is

contending

that

this

Board

does

not

have

as

a

delegated

Legislative

objective

the

reclaiming

of

rained

areas,we

agree.

The

Environmental

Protection

Act

restricts

our

regulatory

actions

to

those

measures

necessary

for

the

control

of

pollution.

in

the

case

of

mining,

we

have

found

‘that

attaining

this

statutory

objective

requires

that

mine

operators

conduct

their

activities

according

Ic’

certain

standards,

if

the

Company

is

contending

that

the

sequence

of

obtaining

permits

somehow

bars

this

Board

from

adopting

these

Regulations,

the

logic

of

its

position

escapes

us.

If

anything,

the

fact

teat

the

General

Assembly

saw

fit

to

make

obtaining

the

Environmental

Protection

Agency

permit

the

point of final

environmental

clearance,

reflects

the

special importance which

the

Legislature

placed

uoon

the

control

of

air

and

water

pollution

from

surface

min:Lng

by

regulations

under

‘the

Environmental

Protection

Act.

To

.irnply

preemption

is

to

contravene

the

General

Assembly’s

in’~

tent

by

tenor, ing

the

plain

statutory

language

of

both

the

Surface

Mined

Land

Conservation

and

Reclamation

Act

and

the

Environmental

Protection

Act,

To

do

so

is

to

fragment

the

comprehensive,

unified

approach

to

pollution

control

in

Illinois.

Such

a

drastic

step

by

the

Legislature

cannot

he

blithely

implied.

In

Mt.

Carmel

Public

~ilit

v.

Environmental

Protectio~Acenc’,

#PCB~I~53~as~ard

rejected

th~

iltty’s

contention

that

the

Illinois

Commerce

Commission

had

sole

jurisdiction

over

the

environmental

aspects

of

power

plants,

We

held

there,

“Had

the

General

Assembly

intended

the

ICC

to

have

exclusive

ur:Lsdi,ction

over

utilities

in

Illinois,

it

would

have

said.

so.

It

didn’t.”

Today

we

affirm

that

holding

as

applied

to

the

Surface

Mined

Land

Conservation

and Reclamation Act and

the

Illinois

Department of Mines and Minerals.

While Sec.

20’6(g)

is Legislative

affirmation

of

the fact that

operational

standards

beyond the reclamation provisions

of

the

Surface

Mined

Act

may

be

necessary

to

control

and prevent air and water pollu-

tion,

the regulations are consistent with

the

Surface Mined Act.

(see

Sec.~ 701,

Chap.

IV,

Mine-Related

Pollution).

Reclamation measures,

as such,

are not required by these Regulations.

In some cases, the

Regulations

provide

for

covering,

regrading

and vegetation as necessary

to prevent air and water pollution from refuse areas.

The periodic and

4—

606

---

final

covering

of

acid-producing

refuse

is

an

indispensible

water

pollution control and prevention measure which does not in any way

impede the application of the Surface Mined Act reclamation require-

ments

for

“gob”

piles.

The amount of and the

timing

for

application

of any required final cover of refuse areas and the grading and

vegetation

standards

to

be

applied

when

necessary

to

prevent

air and

water pollution correspond to the land reclamation standards of the

Surface Mined

Act.

(Sec.

401(c) (1)

and

(d); Sec.

701,

chap.

IV,

op.

cit.)

No

air

and water pollution control or prevention require-

ment of

these Pegulations

impedes

the

attainment

of any surface

land

reclamation

objective

of

the

Surface

Mined

Act.

A.

stem;

Part

Ii,

Sections

20.l~’20

7

A

permit

procedure

is

a

fundamental

method

of

environmental

control,

essential

to

any

effort

to

prevent

costl~’

pollution-causing

errors

and

valuable

to

effective

enforcement

of

pollution

laws.

Besides

helping

to

assure

compliance

with

the

various

procedural

safeguards,

a

permit

system

can

prevent

min:Lng

and

mine

refuse

disposal

from

Occurring

where

air

and

water

pollution

could

not

otherwise

be

avoided,

despite

compliance

with

these

Regulations.

(Sec

R.128,

507

for

examples

of

the

kind

of

situation

which

may

necessitate

this.)

We

agree

wltni

the

U,

S.

Environmental

Protection

Agency

that,

“Preplanning

of

all

phases

of

mining,

including

opening,

operating

and

closing

is

the

most

important

step

in

controlling

mining

pollution.”

(R.9,

and

we

find

that

the

permit

system

best

achieves

this.

The

Board

has

applied

such

a

control

measure

in

all

of

its

air

and

water

pollution

regulations.

The

States

of

Pennsylvania

and

Ken-

tucky

require

permits

as

part

of

their

programs

‘to

control

mine—related

pollution

(Exhibits

3,

18

and

25).

PennsyLvania

requires

only

one

permit

to

operate

a

mine,

for

which

the

operator

must

demonstrate

that

pollution

from

mining

will

not

occur

dunn

or

after

operations.

We

have

adopted

this

requirement

and

a

new

controa

strategy,

requiring

a

permit

to

abandon.

This

is

an

extra

safeguard,

a

final

check,

to

assure

that

an

operator

does

not

walk

away

‘from

the

environmental

problems

he

has

created.

It

should

prevent

water

pollution

from

mines

abandoned

in

the

future.

The

definition

of

“abandon”

covers

any

mine

which becomes in-

operative

after

the

effective

date

of

these

Regulations

and

which

is

not intended

to

be

reopened, or which becomes inoperative after its

mineable reserves are depleted,

A

mine closed down hereafter and which

remains closed for one year

is rebuttably presumed to be abandoned.

It

is

reasonable to assume that

some

operators

would

forever

“intend’

to

reopen

in order to avoid

the

requirements of abandonment.

Those

operations

in

the

aggregate

mining

industry which often close for years

before

reopening

to

meet renewed

demand can reasonably

demonstrate

4

—‘

607

---

such conditions

to

the

Agency and avoid

the requirement.of

a permit

to abandon.

Any dispute over

permits

can

be resolved by this Board,

pursuant to

the Act. A

mine

site once abandoned, of course,

may be

reopened

and

minincr

operations

renewed.

To avoid any possible pollu-

tion

from operations while

they

are closed down (though not “abandoned”)

interim

poilu’tion

control

measures are required.

(Sec.

501).

The

permit

applicant must submit data necessary for

the

Agency

to

assess

the

water

and

air

pollution

potential

of the mining activity.

Most

importantly,

the

operator

must

describe

the

waters

of

Illinois

which

will

be

encountered

during

mining

and

mine

refuse disposal

and

a

plan

which

will

he

incorporated

intc

the

operaticns

to

prevent

air

and

water

pollution

during

and

s,fter

mining.

(Sec.

204

(b),(c)

Li)

and

(b)

•.

Generaliy

speaking,

the

data

we

require

as

part

of

a

permit

appith

catton

are

required

by

the

P~nnsyivania

Department

of

Environmental

Resources

of

mines

in

that

state.

(Ex,

18)

.

Little

dispute

exists

over

the

permIt

anp,Llcaticn

provision,

except

for

Sec.

204(b), by

which

underground

water:

resources

to

be

encountered

during mining

or

mine

retuse

disposal

nus’t’te’.

desiqnated.

The

evidence

on

whether

t

CsI

be

ton

rs

com~wndt c~pfi,,stnq

Ti’~ .~rdimtr2

maintains

tha~

it

cannot

so

‘Locate

groundwater.

But

ots

own

testimony

reflects

that

h

core

drillin

locating

bodies

of

groundwater

which

might

inter-

fere

with

mining

operations

is

not

only

feasible but routinely

per-

formed

(R,23lLi2)

Pennsylvania

requires

applicants

for

mining permits

to

designate

‘tire

location

of

groundwater,

and

the

representatIve

of

thei:c

Department

of

Environmental

Resources

testified

that

this

is

feasible

and

routinely

performed

by

mines

in

that

state,

and ‘that

mines

may

often

avoid

core

drilling

by

relying

on

data gathered from previous

mining operations

in

adjacent areas

(R.5l6—517).

The Illinois

General

Assembly

has

a

similar

requirement

of

surface

mines

(Ex.

34).

Protection

of

our groundwater

resources

is

most

important.

Leachate

from

refuse

piles

and

percolation

through

underground

mine

workings

may

constitute

a

significant

threat

to

these

resources

(See

A,

329—30

to

the

effect

that

if

groundwater

from

Illi-

nois

mined

areas

or

areas

affected by deep mine percolation

were

utilized

such

might

be

found

to

be

polluted.

See

Ex.

14,

p.

21

to

the

effect

tha’t,

“Most underground mines intersect groundwater, which becomes

altered to mine drainage quality.”

The evidence shows that

deep

mining

can significantly

alter

the

hydrological

pattern of an area

(Ex. 17,

p.

32-36~and

that

underground

mine

water

is

often

polluted.

The fact

‘that

most

public

water

supplies

in

Illinois

presently

depend on surface

waters

is part of the reason so little appears to be

known about the

impact of deep mining on groundwater qua1it~.

Our action today accounts

for

the

fact

that

most

underground

mining

in

Illinois

occurs below

the level of natural drainage, thus

preventing

water

which

enters

the

deep

mine

from

leaving

it

to

enter

surface

streams

(See

Sec.

103(a)

and

301(b),(d)

and

(c).)

But

the

possibilities

that

sinking

a

deep

4

--

6O~

---

mine shaft and altering the hydrological pattern of an area, that

lateral percolation from deep mine workings and that leachate from

refuse piles may adversely alter the groundwater resources of this

state

are threats which must be guarded against.

While groundwater

may not be particularly vital

as

a source of water supply now,

this

resource must certainly be protected for future use.

(See R.368’-370

for testimony in opposition to Sec.

204(b), which testimony implies

that

because

surface

water

is

the

major

source

of public supply, we

need not be concerned with groundwater.)

Section

204(b)

requires only that underground water

resources

be

designated

—

aquifiers, underground streams or other substantial,

concentrated flows.

,Locate such resources.

If for reasons of profit or safety,

flooding a site,

mined soil and mine refuse.

sis,

(See

Ex. 42

most likely of the kind designated in Section 205 (b), which threatens

the sudden discharge of contaminants into the waters of Illinois,

-the

permittee must

immediately notify the Agency and take corrective mea-

sures.

While the gentle hills of southern Illinois

are’, indeed,

not

the mountains of West Virginia,

Illinois ha~had at least two large

slurry pond breaks similar in kind if not in consequence to that which

occurred in West Virginia on Buffalo Creek on February 26, 1972

(See

Ex.

38.)

Such environmental disasters must be prevented.

Besides the

permit system for supervising the proper construction and maintenance

of mine-water retaining facilities, immediate notification of those

expert in mine drainage control is necessary when emergencies arise.

B.

Operational

Procedures; Parts

III, IV and V,

Sections

301—502.

The operational safeguards

of Parts

III,

IV

and V of these Regula-

tions constitute the embodiment into mining activi’?ies of the results

of the environmental planning required by the Permit procedure of

Part II.

(R.253).

Such safeguards are necessary not only to control

current pollution, but to prevent mine’ sites from becoming long—term

pollution sources.

(R.277—78).

The evidence, both from

representatives

of public agencies with expertise in and responsibility for coping with

the environmental effects of mining,

and from mine pollution abatement

reports

in which the mining industry was represented,

is overwhelming

that these procedural standards are necessary

and feasible.

4

—

609

---

Section 301(a) requires that mining and haulage roads avoid

contact with the waters of

Illinois

where such can reasonably be

expected to cause water pollution.

Not only will this control

the

location of spoil banks and haulage roads from mining, but will regu-

late the practice

of

strip-mining through small streams.

Pennsylvania

requires

that

no

strip mining occur within 100 feet of a stream and that

a

permit

be obtained to relocate a stream.

(R.499 and Ex. 18).

Ken-

tucky has a similar provision.

Rather than

a

rigid approach we

have

left the control method to

be

determined according to the specific

mining conditions.

Although

the re—routing

of very small streams

may

he permissible

under certain

conditions,

the

redirecting

of

streams

is

to be avoided,

and

allowed only

under

a

showing

that

water

pollution

will not

occur.

Section

301(b)

requires in certain circumstances, diversion of

water around and impoundment

Qf run—off water from mine refuse areas.

It prohibits

the

entrance to a

coal,

fluorspar or

lead-zinc mine

which

lies above the level of natural drainage

from

intercepting a drainage

course unless the

water therefrom is re-routed around the entrance.

The

phrase “drainage course” applies, not to all natural drainage

slopes’but to streams,

creeks

and ditches, man-made or natural, which

carry a concentrated flow of surface drainage.

This

section

may

require

a “highwall diversion” ditch to

divert

all surface run-off from

the

mining

pit.

Rather than a

rigid

requirement,

the

determination of

the

need

for such control is left

to

be

made as part of the permit proce-

dure.

The

requirement does

not

apply to a mine lying below natural

drainage.

The evidence shows that in such cases water entering the

deep

mine cannot escape

directly

to

surface waters.

Pits which are used

to impound run-off water to comply with

Sec.

301(b) will

not

be acceptable

upon closing of the mine

if

they hold or collect polluted water.

Section

301(c)

requires that all surface entrances

to underground

mines which lie above natural drainage be plugged and sealed upon per-

manent termination of their use,

As with Section 301(b) and Part

IV

(infra)

regarding refuse disposal,

the operator has the burden of

establishing,

as part of the permit procedure,

that his mine lies below

the

level

of natural drainage”~ The phrase “level”ôf natural drainage”,

as defined

(sec.

103(h)

means that

such

water must not percolate

to reach underground water resources.

Sections 301(b) and

(c) rest

on the premise that as much water as possible should be kept’ out of

these mined and mine refuse areas.

The requirements of Part III are similar to those imposed on the

mining industry by Pennsy1vani~. (Ex.

3 and 18,

R.

nized as feasible and necessary mine pollution controls by the follow-

ing:

(a)

The

U.

S. Environmental Protection Agency(R.

9,

et. seq.,

and Exhibit #40);

4

—

610

---

(b)

The Coal Industry Advisory Committee to the Ohio

River Valley Sanitation Commission

(Ex.

16);

(c)

The Science Advisor to the Appalachian Regional

Commission

(R.

270 et.

seq. and 290); and

(d)

The comprehensive report, Acid Mine Drainage in

Appalachia,

(Ex.

14, Appendix

13,

pp.

130-141).

In addition,

the -testimony indicates that the cost of

drainage diver-

sion would likely be less

in Illinois than in Appalachia where these

costs are routinely carried by

the

coal industry

of

Pennsylvania~and

Kentucky

This is because

the steeper, more unstable surface

of

Appalachian mining terrain makes maintenance of diversion ditches

:ore

difficult

(R.

301,

302,

320,

323,

and

Ex,

14,

id.

p.

131).

See

Ex.

29,

p.

27, for an exa~npleof a coal company routinely diverting

all surface’ drainage around refuse areas

to prevent water pollution).

Part

IV

controls

pollution

from

mine

refuse

areas.

All

mine

refuse

must

he

deposited according to a plan submitted

by

the

operator

and

approved

by

the Agency as part of a

permit

application.

A refuse

disposal

site

must he

so located and

the

method of disposal must be

such

that

run-off,

leachate,

flooding

or wind erosion from the refuse

area

will not

cause water

or air pollution during or after active

mining operations.

No refuse site is

to be located

in

an area of

natural springs or

a drainage course.

Acid-producing solid mine refuse disposed above the level of

natural

drainage

is to be spread and compacted as it is admitted to

the

site unless conditions

of

wetness prevent such mea~ures. Covering

is required at intervals dependent upon whether the refuse is produced

by surface or underground mining, which, in

turn, relates

to the amount

of available cover material and

the

accessibility of

pits

or other

surface

depressions

for

burial

of

the

acid—producing refuse.

The dis-

tinction is based on economic reasonableness.

All piles of acid-

producin~refuse generated after the effective date of these Regulations

shall, upon completion, be covered

with

two to four feet of relatively

impermeable material.

Any operator who contends that in his particular

operation

the

covering of acid-producing refuse is not necessary to pre-

vent water pollution may resort to an alternative control strategy

under defined conditions, discussed below.

All completed mine refuse piles shall be graded and revegetated

and completed slurry or tailing ponds revegetated in accordance with

specified standards when reasonably necessary to reduce siltation and

prevent air and water pollution.

The value of environmental planning has been previously discussed

and applies with special force to mine refuse operations.

Keeping

4

—

611

---

refuse areas out of water courses and springs

is common .sense.

Avoiding the use of acid-producing refuse in construction

(Sec.

404)

is

a necessity which works no hardship.

Spreading and compact-

ing acid—producing refuse is an inexpensive (about 10~per cubic yard

or refuse,

Ex.

17, Appendix B.

p.

147) and necessary procedure to

reduce soil erosion, spontaneous combustion from refuse pile fires and

percolation.

Our requirements

for the covering

of

acid—producing re-

fuse areas have been strongly opposed by

the coal

mining industry,

generally with mere conclusions that the required system is not needed

but with no compelling evidence of a better method for bringing this

Overcoming the industry’s uniform opposition are the following:

(a)

the conclusions to be derived from the research

presently available on the effectiveness and environ-

mental benefit of covering;

(b)

the testimony of experts based upon their field

experience

in regulating the mining industry to

the effect that routine covering

is necessary and

feasible;

(.c)

the evidence that certain segments of the coal

mining industry presently utilize refuse

covering

as

a pollution control procedure.

The most complete studies available to date on toxic drainage

from mine refuse areas and acid—producing spoil

banks

are “Control

of Mine Drainage from Coal Mine Mineral Wastes”

(Ex.

l9a’)and “Mine

Spoil Potentials for Water Quality and Controlled Erosion”,

(Ex. 42),

both conducted under the auspices of the U.

S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

These studies warrant detailed discussion because of their reflec-

tion on the unique nature of refuse pile drainage and the elements

which must be accounted for in any successful program to control this

drainage.

The ‘first study, still in progress,

involves a 40-acre refuse

pile at what was formerly the New Kathleen Mine near Duquoin, Illinois.

The refuse pile forms a part of a slope mine into the Herrin #6 coal

seam, abandoned in 1955,

The facts that the drainage from this pile

into Walker Creek

is highly acidic and that the Herrin #6 seam overburden

is not normally as acid—producing as other seams,

reflects the acid—

producing potential of any coal mine refuse.

The fact that

the

pile

was abandoned in 1955 and continues exerting a most destructive influence

on Walker Creek, demonstrates the potential continuous nature of the

pollution problem which we seek to control.

(Ex.

19, pp.9,

81, 97).

The pile

is very susceptible to erosion and contains

a mixture of clay,

shale, and low grade

coal,,,

in which both sulfur and large

crystal

pyrite

forms are found.

The pile contains a large number of individual

seepage points at

its

base,

some flowing continuously, others spora-

dically, indicating that either a storage pooi of waterexists in the

4—

612

---

pile or that parts of the pile rest on ground water springs, or

both.

(See Sec. 401(a) (2); Ex. 19, pp.

9,

14)

The refuse pile is reactive

(acid—forming)

at its outer mantle,

the surface expos~to the atmosphere.

The zone

of’ reaction

extends approximately

4 to 24 inches into the pile, depending on the

degree of compaction.

Between rainfalls, pyrite oxidation

(acid forma-

tion) proceeds at a relatively constant rate,

with

acid products accu-

mulating in the reactive outer mantle at the average rate of 198

pounds

of acidity per acre of refuse per day.

During rains, approximate-

ly 54

of the precipitation appears at the base of the pile immediately

as acid runoff,

part of

the

remainder evaporates and part infiltrates

to the interior of the pile,

reappearing later as contaminated seepage.

Erosion at the outer surface of the pile during rainfall

carries away acid products and constantly renews the reactive mantle,

consequently,

the refuse pile can be expected

to

produce acid at a

relatively constant rate until it

is

completely eroded away or until

effective abatement procedures are adopted.

Such acid-drainage and

siltation will occur during mining operations and can continue for decades

afterwards.

(id, pp.

1 and 5).

The testing to date

is

to determine the effectiveness of different

techniques

in abating the acid-drainage from the pile.

Various proce-

dures have been utilized on sections of the pile; spreading of lime-

stone, revegation, installing a plastic cover, laying varying depths of

earth cover, and leaving certain sections uncontrolled as a basis for

comparing results.

Preliminary results are inconclusive as to the

effectiveness of the various covers in retarding or stopping pyrite

oxidation and acid mine drainage.

This

is due to the fact that the

40-acre refuse heap has, since its creation, been building an internal

store of leached oxidation products and percolation water.

The pile

will probably take several seasons to flush itself of this pre-existing

reservoir of toxic water

(id.,

p.

51).

However, much value can be derived at this point from the “New

Kathleen Mine” research:

(a)

It reflects what is for that particular pile a rate of

sulfuric acid production and potential erosion of acid

from the pile,

(supra.)

While this rate will

vary somewhat among acid-producing refuse piles, results

indicate a constant process of acid formation until the

pile is eroded away or controlled.

(b)

The study indicates that a refuse pile discharges acid

and other contaminants from two sources:

direct surface

runoff after a rainfall and seepage from the base of the

pile in a reservoir-building, delayed discharge response

to rainfall.

4—613

---

(c)

Acid products leached to the center of an uncovered

pile

during

rainfall

can

be

stored

there,

and

can

discharge slowly from the base of the pile, even after

the pile is covered

at the top, assuming that the top

cover alone

were

effective

in

preventing

the

formation

of n~reacid.

(d)

The

study suggests the environmental goal of any

effective refuse

pile cover and the following criteria

by

which a successful cover is

to

be judged

(id.

p.

41),

The basic control approach is to minimize the movement of air and

water into the pile by sealing it, thus reducing or eliminating the

formation of acid, siltation,

erosion and dust entrainment.

To

accomplish

this

a cover should possess the following characteristics:

“1.

The

cover

may

prevent

erosion

and

thus

prevent

the

continuing exposure of fresh pyrite surfaces.

Since

oxygen must

be

continuously supplied to support the

pyrite oxidation reaction and since any layer of material

separating pyrite from the atmosphere

will function as

a resistance to diffusion,

then

any

physical stabilization

of

the

pile surface will cause

the

zOne

of

oxidation

to

move

deeper into the pile and the overlying diffusion barrier

will eventually control the rate of pyrite oxidation.

The

reaction will decrease with time due to this

effect,

although the decrease may be very slow,”

“2,

The cover may be sufficiently impermeable to oxygen

transport

to act

as

an

efficient

diffusion

barrier.

For

example,

a plastic sheet placed over the refuse

may

effectively stop all oxygen transport to the pyrite and

oxidation will cease.”

“3,

The cover may

be sufficiently impermeable to water move-

ment

to decrease or stop water movement into the refuse.

If

this occurs, then oxidation products will not be

flushed

away from

the oxidation sites and

the only, move-

ment of acid salts into the

interior of the pile will be

through seepage generated by the hydroscopic nature of

the acid salts themselves.

Depending on oxygen avail-

ability, pyrite oxidation may continue, but the products

will be largely retained at or near the site of’oxidation..”

“4.

The

cover

may

function

as

an

oxygen-consuming

layer.

A

high concentration of organic matter in the soil to support

4

—

614

---

high rates of aerobic bacterial activity.

Such a

layer might be effective in removing oxygen from the

soil atmosphere before it reaches the zone Qf pyrite

oxidation.”

The foregoing factors

plus the presently inconclusive results

of the “New Kathleen” project

at

the present time strongly

suggest

the

need for periodic covering of acid-producing refuse.

Before the

“New Kathleen” project engineers can assess

the abatement consequences

of

their various final covers, they

must await the time, perhaps

several years, when the pile has flushed itself of

its pre-existing store

of acid products,

Consequently,

any final cover applied to an acid-

generating

refuse

pile

cannot

hope

to

abate

the constant acid runoff

and seepage from that pile during the months or years of its active

life,

before

a

cover is

applied.

After a cover

is applied, the pile

will

likely

continue

as

a

source

of

water

pollution

for several years

until its reservoir of acid products is flushed.

Contaminated drainage

at

that point would be abated only if the final cover,

in

itself

were

sufficient to either prevent water from reaching the reactive outer

mantle

or

prevent

oxygen

from reaching the pyrites in the mantle, or

both.

To allow acid products to accumulate in

the

interior

of

thousands

of acres of gob heaps, only

to

cap them over upon completion

is tanta-

mount to closing the hen house door after the fox is in, on the

theory

that the rest of the pack will be barred from the feast.

Periodic

covering with clean fill

is the control

most compatible with the

environmental standards which an effective cover system should meet.

Not only will regular covering with clean fill during the formative

years of a gob pile likely control water pollution from the culminated

heap, but the acid and mineral salts drainage of its active life will

also

be mitigated.

Laboratory studies conducted as part of the second study

(op. cit.,

Ex. 42), which represent field conditions, tend to prove

the

point.

Pulverized pyrite buried under three or more inches

of normal soil

in a lysimeter had a rate

of oxidation only 10 to 25

as great as pyrite

within

1/2 inch of the

surface.

When pyrite was buried at

6 depths

from 1/2 to 36 inches in four feet of

normal soil, no acid or iron

drainage occurred during 24 weeks of water percolaticn~

The downward

movement through and reaction with the soil neutralized the acid and

precipitated the iron

(id.,

pp.

3,

154,

161).

This report on the acid-producing potential of spoil banks points

up

other results, both field observations and laboratory conclusions,

that indicate periodic ~coveringof acid—producing refuse to be the most

‘easible, effective method of long-range control presently available:

4

—

615

---

(a)

The rate of oxidation of pyrite and extent of acid

drainage are affected by the accessibility of pyrite

to the near—surface weathering agents, by the type of

pyrite and its grain size,

and by the pattern in which

the pyrite is disseminated through the refuse or

spoil

(id.,

p.

55).

The more widespread the dissemina-

tion

pattern and the

finer the grain size,

the greater

the opportunity for oxidation and acid drainage upon contact

with surface water.

This is explainable in terms of surface

for reactions to occur, which

is inversely proportional to a

linear dimension of the pyrite particles.

Consequently,

small percentages of pyrite can be a serious pollution

matter unless neutralizing materials are present.

This

suggests the need to retard the rate of oxidation

by making pyrite materials inaccessible to surface

weathering agents,

by reducing the amount of pyritic

surface on which reactions can occur, and by making

available neutralizing materials.

Compacting the

acid—producing pyrite

(Sec. 401(b)) will tend

to reduce

the surface for reaction of the particles with air.

Bury-

ing the material rend?rs it

less accessible to surface

weathering agents

(id.,

p.

161).

The layered clean fill

provides

an alkaline material through which

the percolating

drainage can be neutralized and, by attachment to cation

exchange

sites

or

precipitation,

cleansed

of

its

(id.,

p.

154).

(b)

The role of microorganisms in the oxidation of pyrite is

not definitely determined as yet but those which are thought

to be most important in catalyzing the acid-forming process

are strictly aerobes.

Thus,

the Report recommends that high-

ly pyritic materials in the overburden from mining be set

aside and then buried as deeply as possible where anaerobic

conditions most probably exists

This should help abate acid

drainage from mining operations.

(id. pp. 154, 159).

(a)

Some evidence indicates that alkaline earth carbonates

may inhibit the bacterial oxidation activity, possibly

by preventing the soil pH from becoming less than

5,

thought to be necessary for growth of the sulfur and iron

oxidizing organisms.

(id.

p.

161).

This hypothesis suggests

the potential value of limestone or earth cover.

If the

hypothesis is incorrect,

earth cover retains much of

its

known acid-abating value.

If it is correct, the clean

earth fill requirement tends to deal with this one aspect

of the acid problem as well as with many of the other

factors which appear to be of major significance.

4

—616

---

(d)

Rapid establishment of vegetative cover tends to reduce

the rate of acid formation because plant respiration and

decomposition involves increased carbon dioxide and de-

creased oxygen in the

reactive outer zone.

(id.

p.

164).

Similarly,

it tends

to

prevent erosion, which, by continuously

renewing

the

reactive

outer

mantle,

sustains

the

process

of

acid

formation,

A rapid vegetative cover can best

be

es-

tablished

in

a

final

layer

of

soil.

Although

a

final

layer

of

four

feet

is

unnecessary

for

revegetation,

this

thickness

does tend to

serve

other

control

purposes

discussed

pre-

viously.

Sec.

401(e)

would

require such vegetation

in

most

cases.

(See

R,508,

for

evidence

that

revegetation

is

also

necessary

to

reduce

st±~eamsedimentation).

The

Pennsylvania

Department

of Environmental Resources similarly

requires

that

coal

mine

refuse

be

buried

between

alternating

layers

of

clean

fill.

In

surface

mining,

coal

refuse

is

returned

to

the

open

strip

pits

where

it

is

layered

and

compacted,

and

the

cut

is

backfilled

and

revegetated.

Where

strip

pits

are

unavailable

for

refuse

disposal,

the

operator

must

compact

the

refuse,

‘and

clean, non—acid cover

must

be

placed

between

cbal

refuse

layer~,

“in

a

manner similar to sani-

tary

landfill

operations,”

When

the

disposal

area

is

completed

it

is

covered

and

vegetated.

(Ex.

18

and

R,490-49l),

This

method

“has

considerably

reduced

the

potential

for

acid

production

in

the

pile,

although

it

has

not

always

resulted

in

complete

abatement

or

elimination of pollution.”

(R.

491).

The

testimony

from

this

expert

is

that

daily

covering

may

be

unnecessary.

If

daily

compaction

is

provided,

then

weekly

covering

would

be

adequate

(R.

501).

In

an

effort

to

be

flexible,

we

adopt

a

standard

by

which

the

frequency

and

thick-

ness

of

periodic

covering

depends

upon

the

physical

circumstances

of

the

particular

mine

site.

(See Section

401(b)

(a)

and

(d).

The

Coal

Industry

Advisory

Committee

to

the

Ohio

River

Valley

Water Sanitation Commission

similarly recognizes the value of

crush-

ing and placing the acid-producing material from surface mining where

it will not be

exposed.

(Ex.

16(a),

p.

5,

Case

Histories 2-6, 2-6.1,

2—7~l)

The

evidence

also

indicates

that

certain

members

of

the

coal

industry

are

presently

burying

acid refuse both from surface mining

in

strip pits and from underground mines.

(See Ex.

29, pp.

27 and 37).

This covering requirement presents some difficulty.

In many cases

the

costs should be insignificant.

This is especially true where

refuse

can

be

buried

in

strip

pits

and

covered

with

readily

available

overburden.But

in

most deep mining, pits

or

depressipns

of

sufficient

size

are

not

readily

available,

and

overburden

from

mining

is

inadequate.

Pits’or

trenches

can

be

dug

and

refuse

covered

with

the

earth

excavated.

(See

Ex.

16(a),

op.

cit.;

Case

History

2-7,1),

In

other

cases,

earth

excavated

from

borrow

pits

will

have

to

be

used

for

covering

above-ground

4—617

---

piles.

Weather,

as

well

as

cost,

is

a

problem

in

these

cases

(R.220,

221,

557,

558).

Within

the limits of environmental protection, we have

sought to account for these physical—economic differences by requiring

that

all

acid-producing

refuse

from

under~r~dtmihes

be sealed

at

a

refuse-to-cover

ratio

of

no

more

than

6

to

1.

This

is

the

Federal

Environmental Protection Agency recommendation

(Ex. #40

).

Acid—

producing refuse disposed by surface mining must comply with a 36”

to

12—24” refuse-to-cover rati.o

(the Pennsylvania requirement is 30”

to

24”)

Cost data submitted

by

t:he

mining

industry

for

refuse

covering

for

underground

mines

is based on the

Board’s

Lnitial

proposal

(Ex.

I

which

pr~p~ed

that

all refuse,

rather

than

just

acid—producing refuse,

be

covered

daily with six inches of

clean

filL

Thus,

Inland

Steel

Company

estimated

that

covering

15

to

25

of

all

the material

which

entered the preparation plant.’ would cost $i~250to $2,084 daily for

a

3

million

ton

per

year

mine.

This

assumed

a

need

for

500

cubic

yards

of cover which

would

have

to

he hauled

one

mile

costing

$2.00

per

cubic

yard,

plus

50~ per

cubic

yard

to

handle and spread.

The

requirement

for final cover

of

the

completed refuse pile of

this size

is

estimated

to

cost

from

five

million

to

eight

million

dollars.

(II,

375,

382,

383)

.

Testimony indicates

that

some

mine

refuse

is

non-acidic

(R,

76) and

thus

the

refuse

quantity

in

this

data

is

an

overestimation.

Likewise,

the

estimated

costs

are for a mine which

produces

t:hree million tons

annually

and

has 140 million tons of

reserves,

Thus,

the industry cast estimate for covering which is overstated,

assumes reasonable proportions when related

to

total

output, and weigh~ad

against the social costs of failing to spend the money for such

pollu-

tion.

One

study estimates total reclamation and

water

pollution

control

costs,

including

covering

refuse,

adds

less

than

200

per

ton

to

the

cost of coal.

(Ex.

14,

Appendix

B,

p.

146),

Coal

in

1969

had

an

average

value

of

over $4.00 per ton

(Ex.

29,

p.

89).

In addition,

other elements which go into the Company’s estimate

are extremely overstated

(‘750 acres of land purchased

to provide cover

material,

at a net cost of

$550 per acre)

when compared to

other avail-

able data.

A

23.2 acre gob piie

in

western

Kentucky

is

shown

to

have

been

finally

covered with

3 feet of earth

and vegetated

at a cost of

$438 ~

per acre and a tctal cost of S10,l80.03

(Ex. 16(a),

p.

21).

Old

Ben Coal Company estimated borrowing

and hauling a daily fill

requirement of 2,000 cubic yards,four times

the

Inland Steel estimation;

yet at a total cost of $11

‘to $14 million

(R.

34,

35) for

14,5 million

cubic

yards

of

fill

as

compared

to

a

total

cost

estimation

of

over

$19

million for the Inland Steel example which required one-fourth

the

daily

cover and estimated a total need for

8 million cubic yards of

fill at $2.50 per cubic yard.

Other evidence indicates that the cost of earth for such cover

is approximately $1.00 per

cubic

yard

(Ex.

35(a)),

and

somewhat

less

if the operator’ &nducts his

own

earth moving.

4

—

618

---

The report, Engiheerin~conomicStudy of Mine~DrainageControl

To~hnique~

(Ex,’ 14, Appendix B)

indicates that

the

cost

of. sealing

ceaLrefu$e areas with alternating layers of clay,

wheEi

the ~efuse areas

~r~’in”excess

of

200 yards

in diameter,

is less than one cent per cubic

~‘abd’,’bf”

refuse,

plus a handling cost of l4~to

200

per ton of fill per

half

mile.

This size refuse area hasa refuse to clay ratio of twenty

to

‘one

or

greater.

If

the

ratio

is

reduced

to

five

to

one, (more

cover

than

‘is

required

by Sec.

401(c) ~2)

for underground operators,) the cost for

sealIng

,is

30

to

100

per

cubic

yard

of

refuse,

,plus.

the

hauling

costs

of

150

to

200

per

half

mile

(id.

148—49,

F:Lg.

33),

:This

does

not

include

costs

of

operation

and

deiireciation

aE

equipment’

(id.

p.

148).

But

sealing

and

transportation account

for

the

‘majonit~.,

of the costs

and

are

only

a

small

addition

to the

original

cost

of,

p~1ing’ the

refuse

from

mining

operations,

which

must

be

spent

in,aiiy’event

(id.

pp.

143,

‘!,44)

.

The

contrast

with

industry

figures is striking.

On

the

whole,

the

cost

appears,reasonahle

when

balanced

against

the

public

‘s

environmental

benefits

from~effectivel~

sealed

mine

refuse

piles.

Hardship

due

to

unusual

circumstances

in

specific cases

can

be

dealt

with

ny the

variance

‘proceeding under the Environmental Protec-

tion Act.

Thj~s:Boarc~’cannot

gathie

on

the

industry

‘s

speculations

that

untried,

‘alternative

control

systens

will

prevent

the

continuation

of

I1iihois’

severe,

long—range water pollution

problems

from

mine

:refu~e’piIes.

Consequently,

we

adopt

a

covering

requirement

which

has proven

effective

and

which

seeks

to

account

both

for

the

difference

betwe~en 5u±~ace‘and

deep

mining

and

for

the social need for effective,

long~range

pollution control.

,

The Regulation imposes

a heavy

burden

on

an

operahoi~’s~eking

to avoid the periodic

(not the final) covering

rnqui~rement’:aS unhecessary for pollution control under the particular

conditions~

of

hit

operation.

To

rio

so,

the operator must demonstrate

from actuaJ~fieldconditions that his disposal procedure

for

acid-

producing

‘refuse

will

not

allow

seepage

from

the

refuse pile which

ex—

ceed~,”;the

effluent limitations of

Part

VI.

Comparable

experimental

data

‘may

be

donsidered.

If

the

system

provides for collection and

treatment’~,ofal1~surface

runoff

and

seepage

water

during

active

mining

operations, th’~’~perator

must demonstrate by using performance data

gathered

from ‘actual

or

representative

fieid

conditions

that

the

refuse

pile does’not collect, through percolation and internal accumulation of

acid—products, sufficient water,

acid and iron to cause a seepage prob-

lem after ‘treatment ceases.

‘

In any event, ‘the ‘refuse

areas must be

buried’under twoto four feet of earth upon completion.

Upon termina—

tion “ofthe,use of the alternative system,

it must be stabilized.

Such. pe-rmahent abatement”r~easureshall

be

co~np1eted within

one

year

f~b~Vt’-hecompletion of

the

refuse pile,

and refuse pile drainage shall

be

treated to comply with effluent standards, pending permanent abate-

ment.

(See Section 402),

4

—

619

---

Monterey Coal Company

is unique for offering testin~nysupporting

what it contends

is

an equally effective, presently available sy$tem

for controlling mine refuse drainage

(R,556-7

).

Their proposed

system would deposit acid—producing refuse in an artificially con-

structed pit with an impermeable clay bottom and earth-dike sides,

The sides of the pit are raised as refuse is added

to

produce

a berm which

prevents runoff over the sides and erosion of the earth dikes,

Refuse

is compacted as admitted to the area to reduce percolation.

Water

which collects on the refuse surface is pumped out and treated.

The

earthen dikes are vegetated and upon completion of

the refuse pit,

it

is

covered

over

and

vegetated.

This

control

system

or

a

variation

(such

as

sloping

the

refuse

surface

to

assure

rapid

runoff

of

all

surface

water,

thus

affording

more

protection

against

percolation)

may

well

work, and any

operator may implement

it

or

another

upon

a

showing

that

it will not only control present runoff, but will effectively prevent

internal

storage

and

delayed

seepage

from

the

base

of

the

pile.

To

allow experimentation with alternative systems for refuse pile control,

and

to

permit

testing

to

gather

the

field

data

necessary

to

justify

a proposed alternative control system,

the

Agency may allow an operator

to establish

“demonstration refuse areas”(”Experimental Permits”)

which cannot be the principal place of acid-producing refuse disposal.

While such refuse disposal operation need not comply

with the periodic

covering requirement, all other regulations are applicable.

Before

obtaining

a

permit

to

utilize

such

experimental

refuse

control

program,

the

operator

must

clearly establish that

the

system

has

a

substantial

chance after completion, of preventing seepage and runoff from

the pile

which violate applicable effluent standards.

We agree with the Pennsylvania Department

of

Environmental

Control

that more research is needed in the area of mine refuse drainage

control.

However, pending the outcome of this search for more effec—

‘bive andec°nomicalcontrol measures,presently available and feasible

control technology, specifically

the covering of acid—refuse,

should

be utilized because of

its “considerable beneficial results”,

(R.

492)

Thus,

the Regulation requires compliance with the only presently proven

control technology,

according to the evidence of this hearing, but

permits

the

use of alternative control methods should research demon-

strate their effectiveness.

Similarly,

the Board

will continue

its

observations of the problem of mine refuse pile abatement and will

revise the regulation in response to convincing new evidence.

If covering is to be the general rule

for treating

acid-producing

refuse,

the question of what is “acid—producing” becomes important.

As defined in

Sec. 103(b),

the phrase

covers the variety of conditions

which affect the quality of mine drainage.

It

is defined as “material

which

when exposed to air and water is capable of causing mine drainage

containing free sulfuric acid.”

This definition takes into account

the

potential neutralizing and precipitating effect of non-acid-producing

material’which may surround and be mixed with potentially acid-producing

material.

This is accomplished by using the phrase “capable of causing”

which relates the acid-producing potential

of

the material, ascertain-

able by use of

numerous

tesi:s and standards,

(infra)

to its capability

4

—‘

620

---

of producing drainage from the refuse pile containing free sulfuric