ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February
    15,
    1979
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 78—223
    ENRECO,
    INCORPORATED,
    a Delaware
    Corporation,
    Respondent.
    MR. BRIAN REYNOLDS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
    BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.
    MR. DONALD
    R. LUCAS,
    ATTORNEY AT LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
    THE RESPONDENT.
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Dr. Satchell):
    This matter comes before the Board upon a complaint filed
    by the Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) on August 17,
    1978.
    The complaint alleges that Respondent commenced construc-
    tion of a coal recovery facility near Orient, Franklin County,
    Illinois,
    in Sections
    10 and 15 of Township
    7 South, Range
    2
    East,
    3rd Principal Meridian in violation of Rule 951(a)
    of the
    Board’s Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution Regulations,
    Rule 201 of
    the Board’s Chapter
    4:
    Mine Related Pollution and Section
    12 (b)
    of the Environmental Protection Act
    (Act).
    A hearing was
    held in this matter in Chicago, Illinois on December
    26,
    1978.
    At that time a stipulation and proposal for settlement was
    presented for the Board’s approval.
    No testimony was given.
    The stipulated facts provide the following information.
    On February
    1,
    1978 Enreco applied to the Agency for a permit
    to open and operate
    a mine or mine refuse area or coal recovery
    operation using coal refuse from the inactive Orient
    #1 mine
    site in Franklin County.
    On March
    22,
    1978, the application
    was denied.
    Enreco reapplied for the permit on April 14,
    1978.
    After several telephone communications the permit was issued
    on June
    14, 1978.
    On June
    1,
    1978 two Agency field investigators visited the
    facility to clear up some questions on the permit application.
    At this time the inspectors observed construction in its early
    stages.
    At that time Respondent’s employees were warned of
    32—555
    —2—
    potential violations.
    On June
    12,
    1978 ongoing construction
    was observed at the site and
    a warning of potential violation
    was given.
    No processing of coal occurred at the Enreco facility
    prior to August
    9,
    1978.
    To the best knowledge of the parties
    no other violations than those alleged in the complaint have
    occurred since August
    9,
    1978.
    Complainant would,
    if necessary, present evidence that no
    employee of the Agency ever indicated to Respondent that it
    would receive its permit on any particular day.
    On June
    6,
    1978, an Agency employee stated in a phone conversation with
    Respondent’s consulting engineer that construction without
    the appropriate permits would be in violation of the Regulations.
    Respondent would,
    if necessary, present evidence that in the
    course of an April 14,
    1978 phone conversation an employee of
    the Agency’s water permit section stated that it would take
    approximately two weeks to process the reapplication and issue
    the permit.
    No employee of the Agency ever asked Respondent
    to stop work at the site.
    The parties agree on the above facts;
    however, they do not
    agree on a penalty.
    The Agency recommends a penalty of $1500
    in light of the repeated notice given Respondent.
    Respondent
    believes that amount to be excessive considering the mitigating
    factors.
    Enreco admits violations of Rule 951(a)
    of Chapter
    3;
    Rule 201 of Chapter
    4; and Section 12(b)
    of the Act.
    Respondent
    agreed to cease and desist from further violations.
    The parties
    agreed to submit the penalty issue to the Board.
    The Board will accept the stipulated agreement under Pro-
    cedural Rule 331 and considering Section 33(c)
    of the Act.
    The
    Board finds Respondent in violation of Rule 951(a)
    of Chapter
    3,
    Rule 201 of Chapter
    4, and Section 12(b)
    of the Act.
    The Board
    finds that a penalty is necessary to aid enforcement of the Act
    considering the Agency’s repeated notices.
    However, because of
    the short duration of the violation,
    Respondent’s ongoing efforts
    to comply and no apparent environmental damage,
    a penalty of $750
    is sufficient.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
    1.
    Enreco,
    Inc.
    is found to have violated Rule 951(a)
    of the Chapter
    3:
    Water Pollution Regulations;
    32—556
    —3—
    Rule 201 of Chapter
    4:
    Mine Related Pollution
    and Section 12(b)
    of the Environmental Protection
    Act.
    2.
    Respondent shall
    cease and desist further violations
    of the Act.
    3.
    Respondent shall pay a penalty of $750 within thirty-
    five days of this Order.
    Payment shall be by certified
    check or money order payable to:
    State of Illinois
    Fiscal Services Division
    Environmental Protection Agency
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield, Illinois
    62706
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Baord, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were
    adopted on the
    /5~
    day of
    ?e4-~iJ.(t&LJ
    ,
    1979 by a vote
    of
    3-p
    .
    /
    ehi~ot~ui
    ~,.
    Christan L. Moffett,”Cler
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    32—557

    Back to top