ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 16, 1976
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB 76—141
EDWARD OUTLAW d/b/a E & L COAL
COMPANY,
Respondent.
Mr. Robert Bare~in, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
appeared on behalf of the Complainant.
Mr. Edward Outlaw appeared pro se.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Satchell):
This matter comes before the pollution Control Board upon
a complaint filed on May 12, 1976 by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (Agency). The complaint alleges that Respondent
has been or is engaged in operating a coal strip mine, known
as the E & L Mine #2, located in Section 5, Township 11 South,
Range 4 West of the 3rd Principal Meridian, in Johnson County,
Illinois. It is further alleged the Respondent has in the
operation and control of E & L Mine caused or allowed con-
taminated runoff to enter an unnamed branch of Sugar Creek
in violation of Sections 12(a) and 12(b) of the Environmental
Protection Act (Act) and of certain regulations of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution (Chapter 3) and Chapter 4: Mine Related Pollu-
tion (Chapter 4). Specifically alleged are violations of a
permit condition in violation of Section 12(b) of the Act;
violations of Rule 605(a) of Chapter 4 and Rules 203(a) and
204 (f) of
Chapter
3; vi
oiat:i
ons
~)
F Rule 6OI~(b)
of
Chripter
4
~nd
Sect loll
J
2
(i
)
of LIie
AoL;
111(i Vi
Old t
I
OilS
oF t~U1(’ 606
(~)
O~
or 4
dlI(~
~ecLioii
t2
(d)
ol:
Lhe
AoL.
IL
Is dl iejed
tliaL
RespoiidenL
agreed
to a
compliance plan and schedule on
December 10, 1975
to
be completed by July 1, 1976 and that
Respondent has failed to complete any of the required steps.
Two hearings were held in this matter. The first hearing
was held on July 23, 1976. The second hearing was held on
October 15, 1976. At the first hearing several portions of
the complaint were stipulated to as being correct allegations.
The stipulated facts are that the E & L Mine is located as
alleged and drains into an unnamed branch of Sugar Creek, which
i.s
a tributary to the South Fork of
the. Sa1~ne
River. It is
24—413
—2—
further stipulated that Respondent has since on or before
October 9, 1973 operated E & L Mine in such a manner so as
to cause or allow discharges into an unnamed branch of
Sugar Creek in violation of his permit and Section 12(b)
of the Act.
The water upstream from the mine was within the stan-
dards of the regulation of the Board (R. 36, 37, Comp. Ex. 1,
and 4G)
.
The water samples taken in areas of drainage from
the mine and downstream showed violations of total iron,
manganese, pH, sulfate and total dissolved solids (R. 13,
Comp. Ex. 2A-2G and Comp. Ex. 4A-4F). All of the downstream
samples also had an amber discoloration and contained orange
deposits and coal fines (Comp. Ex. 2A—2E, 4A—4D). One of two
flooded pits was cut to allow the water to drain out (R. 17).
At one sampling location (B-3 on Comp. Ex. 1) there is a sub-
surface discharge into the stream (R. 20, 21). At this point
part of the seepage is from a pooled area which is a result
of the abandoned mining operation (R. 21). There is a second
source which is seepage from another abandoned mine in the
area (R. 21)
The Board finds that Respondent is in violation of all
the allegations as alleged in the complaint. Prior to a
final determination in this cause the Board must consider the
factors of Section 33(c) of the Act. The tested samples show
clearly that the water polluted from the mine area greatly
exceeds the allowable standards for total iron, manganese,
pH, sulfate and dissolved solids (Comp. Ex. 2A-2G, 4A-4F).
These impurities must then be dealt with at a cost to the
people downstream from the mine. Uncorrected this problem
can continue indefinitely. Currently the mine has no social
or economic value. The mine has not been used for over a
year (R. 61)
.
An abandoned mine has no use unless it is
properly reclaimed. The location of the site is not in issue.
Mr
.
Out I aw
doer;
have I he pr()per
perm
i
Is; for
iii
in
t
il~
trom both
he Ajency iid LIe Department,
of
MI nes aml M
I
nor
1; (M I nes and
Minerals) (Commip. Ix. 7, I~. 7). Iii order
to i eeoive a
poiimii L
from Mines and Minerals Mr. Outlaw posted a bond of $1,000
per acre (R. 58). Mines and Minerals is currently in the
process of requiring forfeiture of $4,000 of the bond in
order for that Department to do reclamation work at the mine
(R. 58). The fact that work will be done by Mines and Min-
erals although not being necessarily in compliance with Board
regulations is indicative that the necessary reclamation is
technically and economically feasible.
24—414
—3—
Mr. Outlaw appears to be unable to afford the necessary
work. Mines and Minerals is asking forfeiture of the bond,
which Mr. Outlaw is not opposing, in order to expedite the
process (R. 72). Mr. Outlaw rather than hire an attorney
spent the money he had to cover part of the coal that was
causing acid water (R. 60). Mr. Outlaw’s operation went
broke (R. 61). His equipment, a dragline, a loader, and a
C-pull, have been repossessed (R. 62). Two lending institu-
tions had liens on the equipment (R. 63). The land itself
is leased on a royalty basis so nothing is now being paid on
the land (R. 63). The Internal Revenue Service has a $10,000
lien on Respondent’s property (R. 61). Fabick Machinery
Company has a judgment against Respondent for $14,000 (R. 65).
The Bank of Egypt has a judgment against Respondent for
$14,000 plus attorney’s fees and costs (R. 66). A judgment
in excess of $7,000 is also held by the Bank of Harrisburg
(R. 66)
.
There are also some other pending court cases not
yet reduced to judgment CR. 67). Respondent has $1.65 at
the Bank of Egypt and four to six dollars at the Bank of
Goreville (R. 69)
.
Mr. Outlaw, who is 61, is attemptInq to
obtain Social Security benefits, compensation for having Black
Lung, and a Veteran’s Pension (R. 69). He lives with his wife,
who is not eirtployed (R. 70). He has borrowed money from per-
sonal friends and does not have the money to file bankruptcy
(R. 80)
.
Mr. Outlaw did make a trip to Springfield to see if
there was any way the bond could be released sooner so that
the necessary work could be done (R. 60, Resp. Ex. A)
Larry Bishop of the Agency attended a meeting with
Mr. Outlaw, Mr. Medvick of Mines and Minerals and several
others (R. 86). At this meeting it was stated that it could
possibly take one to two years before the money could be used
to reclaim the property (B. 87). Mr. Bishop had also been at
the site two days prior to the hearing (B. 82). Some coal
which had previously been exposed had been covered; however,
there was much
other work yet
Lo be clone ( ~
.
83)
Tt is clear Mr.
Outlaw has
viola ted 1: he cond i ~i ons of
his permit and several water quality standards. It is also
apparent Mr. Outlaw has neither the money nor the means to
correct the situation. The Board finds that the violations
in this case are such that would normally call for a sub-
stantial penalty. However, because of Mr. Outlaw’s difficult
financial situation and the fact that the bond with Mines and
Minerals will be forfeited to provide funds for reclamation
work, no penalty will be assessed. Respondent shall cease
and desist any further violation of the Act.
24 —415
—4—
This Opinion concludes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
IL. is the Order of the Pollu’cion Control Board that:
1. Edward Outlaw is found to be in violaLion of
Sections 12(a) and 12(b) of the Environmental Protection
Act, Rules 203(a) and 204(f) of the Chapter 3: Water Quality
Standards, and thereby Rule 605(a) of the Chapter 4: Mine
t~1aste Regulations and
Rules
605(b) and 606(a) of Chapter 4.
2. Respondent shall cease and desist further violations
of the Regulations and the Act.
Mr. James Young abstained.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby c~rtify the abo~ Opinion and Order
were adopt~don the ~
day of
~
1976 by a
vote of
~
~ristan
~
L.
~Li”
Moffet~,
/)T~
Clerk
~
1
1 I I rio is
Pol 1 ut i on .C~nml Board
24 —416