ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

November 23,

1977

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

 PCB 75~280

ZEIGLER COAL COMPANY,

Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Dr. Satchell)

This matter comes before the Board upon

a complaint filed

on July 22, 1975 by the Environmental

Protection

Agency

 (Agency).

The complaint alleges that

Respondent operates

a coal mine

known as Spartan Mine #2

located in Sections

9,14,15,16,19,

20,21,22,23,26,27,28,29 and

 Township 4

South, Range

5

West,

 of the Third Principal

Meridian, Randolph

County, Illinois;

that Respondent has operated

its mine so as to

cause a violation

of Section 12(a)

 of the Environmental

Protection

Act

 (Act); that

Respondent deviated from the

plan documents

incorporated into

its mining permit in violation of Section

 12(b)

 of the Act; and

that Respondent caused various

violations of

Rules 205 (a)

203(a), 203(b), 203(f),

 402,

 408(a)

of

the

Chapter

 3: Water

Pollution Control Regulations

 (Chapter

3), and

Rules 605 (a)

and 605(b)

 of the Chapter

 4: Mine

Related

Pollution Regula-

tions

 (Chapter 4), and Sections

12(a),

 12(b),

 12(d)

 and 12(f)

of the Act.

 Hearings were held February 18,

 1976, April

5,

1976 and September 20,

 1977.

 At the

last

hearing a statement

of stipulated settlement was presented for Board acceptance.

There was no public comment on

the stipulation.

The stipulation provides that

Respondent

owns the mine

in question.

 This mine was previously operated by Respon—

dentts predecessors

 in interest,

 Bell

and

Zoller Coal Com-

pany and Zeigler Coal and Coke Company.

 The mine was first

opened in 1952.

 The location of the

mine is

predominantly

rural.

 There are relatively few

commercial

developments or

private residences in the vicinity

of the

mine.

 Most,

if

not all, of the residences were located

in

the area prior

to the commencement of the mining operations.

Respondent admits to having committed the violations

 alleged in the complaint.

 The stipulation provides that

almost all the a1l~gationscontained therein relate directly

or indirectly to discharges from the

mine site.

 These dis-

charges flow through natural drainage

courses

and low areas

—

227

—2—

to the Mary’s River which is within one—eighth mile of the

discharges.

 There are three principal sources of discharges

which include:

1.

 Direct discharges from

 a “fresh water lake”

pump house which discharges water from said

lake.

2.

 Non—point source seepages at the base of the dike

which

 forms

 an impoundment containing diversion

drainage from the mine refuse area.

3.

 Direct discharges

 from the above describea im

poundment at a point where a portion

 of the dike

has been washed out.

Complainant did take stream and effluent samples on

several dates that showed violations of the standards

 as set

out

 in the complaint

 (Stip.

 3-5).

 The stipulation provides

that the environmental harm caused by the discharges

 is the

creation of water quality conditions

 in the receiving stream

at levels found by the Board in regulatory proceedings to be

beyond those deemed necessary to prevent water pollution.

Both Respondent’s predecessor in interest and Respondent

had received letters informing them of the potential violations.

Respondent was also informed of observations made on several

inspection dates.

Concerning social and economic value of the pollution

source, the parties agreed that coal is an important source

of energy that must be developed but that it

 is equally im-

portant that coal mining be conducted in a fashion that does

not cause environmental harm.

 Thus Respondent’s mine pro-

duction is of social value but that value is diminished by

the environmental violations admitted by Respondent.

 Respon-

dent produced 876,046 tons of coal from the mine in 1975.

Respondent employs

 250 persons at the mine with

 a weekly pay-

roll of $57,000.

The discharges which cause the violations originate from

two sources:

 the “fresh water lake” pump house and the

diversion drainage basin.

 The water in the “fresh water lake”

becomes contaminated by use in the mine processing plant.

The

water

 in the diversion drainage basin becomes contaminated

through contact with the mine’s gob pile.

Respondent has proposed a reclamation project which

has been incorporated in a new permit issued by the Agency

28

—

228

on March

23,

 1977.

The

proposal set out in the agreement

 basically includes:

Two trenches have already

been

dug to prevent

runoff water from property surrounding the

mine site from coming into contact with con-

taminated water and refuse.

Respondent has reclaimed a 15—acre area lying

southeast of the property and outside of the

dike containing the diversion drainage basin.

Most of the remaining reclamation work Respon-

dent proposes to undertake involves reclamation

of the gob pile, the present preparation

 plant

area and all present ponds.

 The timing of this

work is tied into construction and operational

activities pertaining to a

new

mine (Zeigler

No.

11)

 for which a permit application has been

submitted to Complainant.

To insure that there will

not

be any further polluted

 dis-

charges from the mine to

Waters

of the State the Respondent

proposes the following action:

1.

 Respondent will prevent further discharges

from the “fresh water

 lake” pump house.

2.

 Respondent has purchased a mix—meter for

treating acid water in the refuse drainage

basin.

 Said mix-meter will be used to

treat and discharge water from said basin

when the freeboard level in said basin is

less than three feet, and as required for

the proper operation of the mine.

3.

 If and when it becomes necessary to use the

above described mix—meter, acid water treated

by it will be discharged into

 a settling basin

to be constructed by Respondent.

 The settling

basin and mix-meter will be of sufficient size

and capacity to insure that any discharges from

the settling basin will not violate or cause

violations of the provisions of the Environ—

mental Protecti n Act or Regulations promul-

gated thereunder.

 Respondent will report to

Complainant the

 approximate

 length of time or

volume of discharges into the settling basin

and will also report the levels of the follow-

ing parameters contained in any discharges from

—

229

—4—

the settling basin:

pH,

iron

 (total),

total acidity, alkalinity,

suspended

~ToIids,

dissolved solids, manganese,

and

sulfate.

4.

 Respondent will collect all

seepages

from

the refuse drainage basin

and pump

them

back into said basin.

The parties further agreed that Respondent will report

regularly on a monthly basis to Complainant concerning the

progress of the reclamation program,

The Settlement Agreement provides that Respondent will

 follow the reclamation proposal as stipulated.

 Respondent

further agrees to make a contribution of $7,000 to the Illinois

Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation Council for the purpose of

reclaiming abandoned lands,

 Complainant agrees that in light

of the nature of the subject

site,

Respondent’s efforts to

implement environmental

safeguards,

the size of the operation

and Respondent’s $7,000 gift

that

 penalty would not be

appropriate.

 Respondent

further

agrees to post

 a performance

bond without surety with Complainant to insure performance of

the work described in part

 (D) (2) (d)

 of the stipulation.

No

other bond is to be required.

The Board

 finds that the provision in the stipulation

for Respondent’s

 $7,000 gift

 is highly unusual and that it

is of uncertain precedential value; however,

 it does appear

to be appropriate to the facts of this case.

 The Board will

accept the stipulated settlement agreement under Procedural

Rule 331.

 Acceptance of the gift provision

 is limited to the

facts of this stipulated settlement.

 The remainder of the

settlement agreement is quite satisfactory.

 The proposed rec-

lamation plan will recompense for past inadequacies.

The

factors of Section

 33(c)

 of the Act appear to have been fully

considered.

 The Board will consider the contribution as

a

penalty.

 Respondent will be required to comply with all

other terms of the settlement agreement.

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.

 Zeigler

Coal

Company

 is found to have been in

violation of

Sections 12(a),

 12(b),

 12(d)

and

12(f)

of

the

 Environmental Protection Act;

Rules

203(a),

 203(b),

 203(f), 205(a),

 402 and

28

—

230

—5—

408(a)

 of the Chapter

3:

 Water Pollution

Regulations;

and Rules

605(a)

 and 605(b)

of

Chapter

4:

 Mine Related

Pollution.

2.

 Respondent will

comply

with the proposed

reclamation plan set out in the stipulation

and incorporated by reference

as

 if fully

set forth herein.

3.

 Respondent shall pay $7,000

to the Illinois

 Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation

Fund within

35

days of

this order.

The

payment shall be

in care of:

Abandoned Mined Land

Reclamation Council

704 State

Office Building

400 South

Spring Street

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

4.

 Respondent shall

comn~v

with all other pro-

visions of the

stipuJated

settlement agreement

incorporated by

reference as

 if fully set forth

herein,

Mr. James Young abstained.

I,

 Christan L.

 Moffett, Clerk of the

Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby ce~ify

the

above Opinion and Order

were adopted on

the

~

 day of

 1977 by a

vote of

cc~ir’

~4/~L

Christan L. Moff~~)Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

—

231