JLLINOIf

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

February

6,

1973

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Complainant,

vs.

)

pCr~ 72--258

BELL

AND

ZOLLF.S

COAL

COMPANY

(now

Ziegler Coal Company),

(Ziegler Mine

*4),

Resnondent.

Jelbert Haschemeyer,

Assistant Attorney General for

the EPA

J.

Rev Orowning,

Attorney

for Respondent

CPINION

AND

ORDER

OF TPE

I3OARD

(by Mr.

Banns)

Ziecjlor

oal ComPany,

formerly Bell

and ZoiJer Coal

Cor’cany,

owns

and

operates

coal mining facilities near Johnston City.

Williarsoc County,

known

as Ziecler Mine

*4.

On Juno

23,

1972,

the Envireanental

Protection Agency filed

a Complaint alleging

that Ziegler had:

a)

allowed

the discharge

of

qob cile drainace

(acid vater,

iron and coal

fines)

so

as

to

cause

or tend

to cause

pollution

of

Lake Creek,

an unnamed tributary

of

Pond Crock

arid

Pond

Creek

in

violation

of

Section

12

(a)

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act;

b)

added

to

the

gob

piles

and

a

larqe

red

water

impoundment

so

as

to

create

a

water

polluticn

hazard;

c)

caused

or

allowed

the

discharge

of

coal

fines

and

iron,

which

will

fore

bottom deposits

that may be detrimental

to bottom biota

in

violation

of RuLe 1.03(a)

of Sanitary Water Board;

C)

allowed the

discharge

of suhstnnces

that produced

a color

or

odor nuisance;

e)

caused

or allowed the discharge of acid water

in concentrations

which are toxic

to human,

animal,

plant or aguatic

life;

and

f)

allowed these discharges

at points where water

is withdrawn

for

agricultural

or stock watering purooses.

Respondent

filed an Answer admitting ownership and operational

control

of the mining facilities but denying

any

violation

of

the

Statute and Regulations.

Respondent also challenqed

the

Board’s

power

to order payments of penalties,

stating that

Section 42 of

the Act granting

the Board this power violal:en

the rights

of the

Respondent

guaranteed

by

the State and

Fedeiv.l Constitutions,

The

Constitutional

question

has

been

previously

considered

in

PCB

70~34,

EPA

vs.

Granite

City

Steel,

and

PCB

70--38

and

7l~6

involving

the

EPA and Modern Platino Company.

he

adhere

to

our earlier decisions

and deny Respondent’s

Motion.

7

—

19

---

—2—

At the public hearing and in

a Fact Stipulation Respondent

admitted

all allegations of

the EPA Complaint.

The parties have

now submitted

a compliance prooram

to abate any further water

pollution

from

the facility.

Respondent’s drainage problems appear

to emanate from two

separate

snurces,

a water reservoir located on the south side

of

the

facility

and

a

gob pile

located on the north side.

Agency

memoranda,

pictures,

and

laboratory reports from July

31,

1970

to

March

6,

1972 reveal past incidents

of water pollution

and a

serious potential

for further violations.

An

Agency

memorandum

dated November

11,

1971 states that

the

Villages of Royalton and

Hurst draw their water supply from

the Big Mudd~7River at

a point

downstream

of

the confluence

of that river and Pond Creek.

There-

fore the possibility exists of contamination

of raw water supply

for the two villages.

Ziegler Coal has been aware

of

its pollution potential

for

~u~to

some

time.

A letter from the Sanitary Water Board on

Octoner

27,

1965

not:ified Respondent to report accidental dis-

charges

by

letter.

The record indicates

that,

although some

measures

~ere

employed to alleviate water pollution problems,

this was

at nest only stop-gap action with little being done

toward lone range solutions.

Begloning

in September,

1972 Respondent

initiated

a program

to control

its water pollution through

a closed loop system.

The

goal

is

to provide

for retention of all affected water within

a

c1osed system,

and to provide treatment of

the water

to such

a

ie;ree that

it can be recycled

as processed water.

Phase

I

of the

~rogram will involve

the grading and covering

of the refuse pile

with nonacidic cover material which will

be fertilized

and seeded

to provide

a vegetative

cover.

The slope

is

to be undercut and

hackfilled with material

impervious

to water

to prevent any seepage.

The top of the pile

is to be graded

to direct water runoff

toward

the south area of

the facility where

the water will be collected in

a secondary settling basin.

Phase

I was estimated to cost $25,823

and required

90 working days

from September

6,

1972.

Phase

II of the program involves

the treatment of effluent from

the coal washing facilities by utilizing

five ponds

or impoundment

areas already on

the site.

The coal dust and clay laden water will

flow through

a series

of slurry ponds utilized

for the settling

of

solids and thence

to

a primary settling basin.

Overflow

from the

nrimary settling basin will be

treated with anhydrous ammonia as it

enters

the secondary settling basin where neutralization and

flocculation

is

to be accomplished.

Finally,

the overflow

from the

secondary settling basin will go

to

a fresh water lake and be

recycled

to the preparation plant.

The level

of

the fresh water

lake

is to be maintained

at

a point below the overflow

to accomodate

the runoff from the watershed..

Drainage water from the mine yard

area

is to be collected by ditches and culverts and directed to the

7

—

20

---

—3—

primary settling basin which is utilized to hold the effluent

from the processing plant.

Phase II was estimated to cost

approximately $39,300 and would require 119 working days immediately

after the completion

of Phase

I.

The parties have recommended that the Board issue an Order

containing the following provisions:

a) that the Respondent shall

comply with all provisions

of the compliance program as outlined,

b)

that within

30 days Respondent

shall post with the Agency

a

Performance Bond of $72,000 which shall be forfeited to

the

State

of Illinois

in the event that the conditions of the Order are not

met,

c)

that the Respondent submit bi—monthly reports detailing

the progress with the compliance program,

d)

that no penalty he

assessed pending a determination to be made

as

to the Respondent~s

participation in other pollution abatement projects presently under

discussion,

e)

that in the event the said discussions regarding

other pollution abatement projects prove to be

fruitless,

the

Agency shall so notify the Pollution Control Board at which time

the Board shall schedule further hearings on the issue

of penalty

in this case.

Apparently the parties in this case are negotiating for

pollution

abatement on

a number of other sites.

One such site,

although oct

clearly defined, seems to involve an area of about 200 acres of

which

119 acres

is

a gob pile.

This gob pile resulted from operation of

a shaft mine which closed around 1947.

Respondent did not own, mine

or operate this site at any time and the site is presently owned by

a local

farmer who purchased the land to provid.e water

for his live-

stock operation.

The Attorney General’s office has been informed that

the

pollution abatement project for this site will cost approximately

$741,000 upon completion.

No further details of this oroject

have

been provided

f

or the Board’s consideration.

We ha~eno objection to Paragraphs

(d)

and

(e)

of the Proposed

Order :incc submitted as voluntary procedure by the parties.

In

EPA

vs.

Ifienstra Concrete

(PCB 72—72)

we omitted a monetary penalty

in a case

rhere the Respondent had undertaken the abatement of

polluticri from an old slag pile created by another owner.

Whether

such

a rusult could again be achieved will,

of course, have

to

await the final hearing in this matter.

However,

we

reiterate

that

‘our

goal is environmental improvement.

Monetary penalties

will he imposed whore necessary to achieve that goal,

and they will

be omitted when we believe environmental

cualitv

will be enhanced

by

such

a course.’

PCB 72—72

7—

21

---

—4—

ORDER

It

is

the

Order

of

the

Board

that:

1.

Respondent shall comply with all provisions of

the Compliance Program as outlined in Group

Exhibits

30 and

31.

2.

That

within

30 days of the issuance of this Order

P.esoondent shall post with the Environmental

Protection Agency

a Performance Bond in a form

satisfactory to the Agency in the amount of $72,000

w~)ichamount shall be forfeited to the State of

Illinois in the event that the conditions of this

Order are not met.

3.

Respondent shall submit bi-monthly reports

detailing the progress or lack of progress with

the Compliance Program and the reasons therefore.

4.

That no penalty be assessed pending

the deter-

mination to be made as to the Respondent’s

participation in other pollution abatement

projects presently under discussion.

S.

That in the event Respondent chooses not to

participate in a manner acceptable

to the Agency

in other pollution abatement projects now under

discussion or in the event said discussions prove

to be fruitless the Agency shall

so notify the

Pollution Control Board at which time the Pollution

Control Board shall schedule further hearings on

the issue of penalty in this case.

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

Board, hereby cer-tify the above Opinion and Order was adopted

this

~

day ~

,

1973 by

a vote of

~J

to (~

c~

~

7

—