ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 16
,
1978
E~NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Complainant,
PCB 77—24
J.
ROYDEN
PEABODY,
JR.,
D.
IRVING
LONG
and JANE
PEABODY
DURHAM,
Respondents.
MR.
PATRICK
J.
CHESLEY,
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
COMPLAINANT.
MR.
RICHARD
M.
DOGGETT,
ATTORNEY
AT
LAW,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE RESPONDENTS.
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 January 21,
1977.
Amended complaints were subsequently filed on June
13,
1977 and November 10, 1977.
The second amended complaint
alleges
in eighteen counts various violations
of Rule 203
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations
(Chapter
3)
and
Section 12 (a)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act);
Rule
402 of Chapter
3;
and Rule 605(a)
of Chapter
4:
Mine
Related Pollution
(Chapter
4)
and
Section 12(a)
of the Act.
A hearing was held in this matter on September 26, 1978 at
which
time
a statement of stipulated settlement was presented
to the Board for acceptance under Procedureal Rule 331.
No
testimony
was
given.
The
stipulation
provides
the
following
facts.
Since
at
least July
1,
1970 the Respondents have owned property located
in
Vermilion County approximately one—third of a mile west of
Illinois Route
1 at a location approximately one and one-half
miles south of the intersection of
U.
S.
Interstate
74 and
Illinois Route
1 and described as the Northeast quarter of
Section 30, Township 19 North, Range 11 West of the Second
Principal Meridian.
The property is basically used for
farming purposes; however, approximately fifteen acres of
property was leased to coal mining companies
for mining oper-
ation.
No coal was mined on the property, but the property
was used for access to the underground mining areas and the
storage of waste from the underground mining operation.
)
—2—
The operators of the mine were
V.
Day mining Company,
V.
D. Coal Company, and V.
S.
Reddy d/h/a
V.
D. Mining
Company and Arthur Zainberletti, Frances Zamberletti and
Carl Zamberletti, d/b/a V.
D.
Coal Company.
In PCB 72-174
a cease and desist order was entered against V. Day Coal
Company for non—compliance with the Rules.
Because of the
insolvency and the dissolution of the V.
Day Coal Company
the order was unenforceable.
In connection with the mining operation performed on
portions of Respondents~ property two gob piles were created.
Run-off
from these gob piles flows
into Grape Creek causing
or contributing to the water quality violations
found
in
Grape Creek.
The run-off from the gob piles contains acid,
manganese,
zinc,
iron,
sulfates,
unnatural sludge and material
which creates bottom deposits, unnatural color and turbidity.
The run—off has occurred from April
9,
1975 up until the time
of filing the amended complaint causing, either alone or in
combination with matter from other sources, violations in
Grape Creek of the following water quality standards of
Chapter
3:
Rule 203(b)-—pH;
Rule 203(f)---manganese; Rule
203(f)——zinc; Rule 203(f)——iron; 203(f)——sulfate;
and Rule
203(a) --freedom from unnatural sludge or bottom deposits,
floating debris,
unnatural color or turbidity.
In the past the Respondents have received some financial
benefit from lease payments in connection with mining oper-
ations on their property.
In September,
1972 mining operations
were
terminated
for
reasons
beyond
the
control
of
Respondents
and the mine has not been operated since that time.
The
lease was finally terminated on April
9,
1975 upon default of
the mine operators.
Respondents have not conducted and have
no intention of conducting coal mining operations on the
property in the future because such operation is not econom-
ically feasible.
Respondents will apply for a grant from the
federal government under the Federal Mine Reclamation Act for
the reclamation of their property.
Respondents have retained
the firm of M
& E/Alstot, March and Guillou,
Inc. which has
devised
a plan to abate the pollution from the gob piles on
the property.
The plan to be completed by December
1,
1979
calls
for the following:
A.
Grading of the gob material on the site;
B.
The application of agricultural limestone for the
neutralization of the gob material to
a depth of
six inches;
32—72
—3—
C.
Application of six inches of soil cover over the
neutralized gob material;
D.
Application of agricultural limestone to the soil
cover; and
E.
Vegetating the cover material.
The cost of this plan
is estimated at $43,448.
The Agency
is not certain that the reclamation plan will
be
a permanent solution but the Agency is willing
to accept
the Respondents’
engineer representations for the settlement
of the case.
However, the Agency reserves the right to bring
an enforcement case for any new pollution on the property
aubseciuent to completion of the plan.
As a result of the water quality violations
in Grape
Creek from various other sources, the stream is polluted
to such
a condition that the uses to which
the water in
Grape Creek can be put are severely limited.
As an operating mine,
low sulfur coal was supplied to
residents of the area.
With the mine not
in operation there
is no social value to
it and the economic value is greatly
reduced.
The priority of location is not in issue in this
case.
It is technically possible but not economically
feasible to eliminate the run-off from the gob piles, but
Respondents
are willing to undertake steps
to eliminate the
problem.
The parties agreed that considering the nature and
length of the violations,
the Respondents’ willingness to
undertake a program to eliminate the discharges
from their
property and the cost involved with such a plan that a $1500
fine
is appropriate to aid the enforcement
of the Act.
Respondents
also
agree
to
provide
the
Agency
with
a
survey
of
the
area
which
will
be
reclaimed
under their plan.
The
Board
finds
the
stipulated
agreement
acceptable
under
Procedural
Rule
331.
The Board finds
the Respondents
in
violation
of
Rules
203(a),
203(b)
and
203(f) of Chapter
3.
All
other
allegations
of
violations
are
dismissed.
The
stipulated penalty of $1500
is assessed.
Respondents will
comply with all the requirements
of the stipulated agreement.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law in this matter.
32—73
—4—
ORDER
It
is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Respondents are found
in violations of
Ru:Les 203(a)
203(b)
and 203(f) of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution
Regulations.
All other allegations
of violations
are dismissed.
2.
Respondents shall comply with all terms
of the
stipulated agreement incorporated by reference as
if
fully
set
forth
herein.
3.
Respondents
shall
pay
a
penalty
of
$1500
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
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order
were
adopted
on
the
____________day
of
_______________,
1978
byavoteof
-
~
Illinois Pollution
trol Board
32—74