ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 17, 1973
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 71—377
    FREEMAN COAL MINING COMPANY,
    )
    Respondent.
    Larry
    R.
    Eaton, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of
    Environmental Protection Agency;
    Reese Elledge on behalf of Freeman Coal Mining Company.
    SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Samuel T. Lawton, Jr.):
    On March 15,
    1973,
    the Board entered an Order in this
    case, hoping that the case was, at long last, resolved.
    Freeman subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
    the Board’s Order, asserting that the Order was,
    in some
    respects, beyond the scope of the record in the case, and
    in some respects, beyond the scope of the Acts
    Except for
    one of the assertions, we disagree.
    Freeman claims that paragraph
    1 of the Order, which
    directs it to cease and desist from various SWB—14 viola-
    tions found by the Board, is improper because SWB-14 has
    been repealed.
    We agree, and paragraph 1 will be modified
    in the Order following the Supplemental Opinion.
    The change in the Order in paragraph
    1 of the Order will
    direct Freeman to cease and desist, not from the various
    SWB—14 violations, but from those same provisions
    as embodied
    in the Board’s Water Pollution Regulations dealing with
    Water Quality Standards.
    The cease and desist order for
    violations of Sections 12(a) and
    (d)
    of
    the Act will also
    remain in effect.
    Freeman’s other assertions have been considered by the
    Board, and the Board believes that its position,
    as em-
    bodied in the March 15,
    1973 Opinion and Order, remains
    correct.
    8—9
    Freeman’s assertion that the requirements of a performance
    bond is beyond the authority of the Board and this Act is refuted
    by Freeman’s own Motion for Reconsideration.
    In its ~motion, Free-
    man admits that it does not know precisely when it will be able to
    comply with the Board Order, and, therefore, to require a bond to en-
    sure timely compliance is well within the scope of authority granted
    to the Board under Section 33(b)
    of the Act.
    Freeman’s assertion that it cannot control the rain may be
    accurate but is totally irrelevant,
    Freeman has, at no time, been
    asked to control precipitation.
    Freeman has been asked to control
    the highly contaminated run-off from the highly contaminated, ex-
    tremely large refuse pile that it, and no one else, created.
    Regarding the penalty imposed in the March 15, 1973 Opinion
    and Order, the Board does not feel that the penalty was excessive
    or improper, but that the penalty was,
    in fact, reasonable.
    Finally,
    if Freeman is unable to comply with that part of the
    March 15, 1973 Opinion and Order describing the mixing zone, the
    appropriate remedy is for Freeman to file
    a variance from that part
    of the Board order.
    This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
    of law of the Board.
    IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
    Paragraph 1 of the Order in the March 15, 1973 Opinion and
    Order of the Board in the case entitled EPA v. Freeman Coal Mining
    Company
    is amended to read as follows:
    “Freeman shall cease and desist from violation of Sec-
    tions 12(a)
    and
    (d)
    of the Act, and Rules 203(a) and
    (b)
    of Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution Regulations, Part 2:
    Water Quality Standards,
    as the same incorporate those
    provisions of SWB-14 found to have been violated.”
    I,
    Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify
    that the above Su~plementalOpinion and Order was adopted by the
    Board on the
    ~
    day of May,
    1973,
    by a vote of
    ‘~
    —
    to 0
    rq
    —2—
    8—10

    Back to top