ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
3
,
1976
PEABODY
COAL
MPAN,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB
75-68
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB
75—403
)
PEABODY
COAL
COMPANY,
)
Respondent.
Mr. John VanVranken, Assistant Attorney General, appeared for the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Michael D. Freeborn appeared for Peabody Coal Company.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Satchell):
Case Number PCB 75-68 came before the Board on February
1975 as
a permit appeal and a variance petition from Peabody
Coal Company
(Peabody).
On July 31,
1975 the Board dismissed
Peabody’s petition for variance as inadequate.
On October
16,
1975 the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed an
enforcement case,
PCB 75—403 against Peabody.
These two cases
were consolidated by Board order on November 26, 1975.
Peabody applied for a permit for their Mine No.
10,
approximately three miles east of Pawnee,
in Christian County,
Illinois.
The Agency denied Peabody’s permit application on
the basis that Chapter
3 and Chapter
4 Regulations might not
be met in that current discharges violated Rule 606 of
Chapter IV.
The Agency brought its enforcement case on grounds of
operating a mine without a permit in violation of Rule 201,
Chapter
4 Regulations on Mine Related Pollution and Section
12(b)
of the Act and that Peabody is alleged to have allowed
22—7
—2—
effluent at Site 001
to flow into Lake Sanchris with its
total acidity exceeding its total alkalinity and with
such concentrations of iron and other contaminants
as to
be in violation of Rule 606 of Chapter
4 and Section 12(a)
of
the Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
and that the effluent
at Site 003 was turbid,
total acidity exceeded total alka-
linity and Site 003 had concentrations of iron and other
such
contaminants
as
to
be
in
violation
of
Rules
605(b)
and
606
of
Chapter
4
and
Section
12(a)
of
the
Act.
A
hearing
was
held
on
February
24,
1976
in
Taylorville,
Illinois.
At
this
time
a
tentative
settlement
agreement
was
presented.
Also
the
Agency
presented
two
memoranda
in
evidence.
The
subsequent
agreement
was
accepted
by
both
parties
on
March
11,
1976.
The
stipulated
agreement,
compliance
plan
and
stipulation
to
dismiss
are
as
follows.
PCB
75-68
is
an
appeal
from
a
permit
denial
by
the
Agency
of
a
permit
which
had
been
pre-
viously
timely
sought
by
Peabody.
PCB
75-403
is
an
enforcement
case
alleging
that
Peabody
was
running
Mine
#10
without
a
permit
and
that
certain
discharges
from
the
mine
violate
Rules
605(b)
and
606
of
Chapter
IV
of
the
Mine
Related
Pollution
Regulations
and
Section
12(a)
of
the
Act.
On
December
12,
1975
at
a
pre—
hearing
conference
Peabody
outlined
its
pollution
abatement
plan
at
Mine
#10.
Subsequently,
a
new
permit
application
was
filed
by
Peabody
pursuant
to
Chapter
IV
of
the
Board’s
regulations
and
a
permit
was
issued
by
the
Agency
to
Peabody
for
its
Mine
#10.
For
the
purposes
of
settlement
Peabody
admits
the
following;
that
employees
of
the
Agency
took
samples
of
the
discharges
from
Mine
#10
discharge
point
001
on
April
18,
1975
and
August
26,
1975
which
samples
contained
total
acidity
in
excess
of
total
alkalinity,
and
which
samples
contained
total
iron
greater
than
7
mg/i;
that
employees
of
the
Agency
took
samples
of
the
discharges
from
Mine
#10
discharge
point
003
on
April
18,
1975
and
August
26,
1975,
which
samples
were
turbid
and
which
contained
total
acidity
in
excess
of
total
alkalinity,
and
which
contained
total
iron
greater
than
7
mg/i;
and
that
Peabody
operated
its
Mine
#10
from
November
25,
1972
to
Decein-
ber
31,
1975
without
a
permit
granted
by
the
Agency.
Peabody
agrees
to
pay
a
penalty
of
$6,500
for
Peabody’s
operation
of
its
Mine
#10
without
a
permit
from
November
25,
1972
to
December
31,
1975,
and
for
the
discharges
described
above.
The
Parties
agree
that
the
amount
of
this
penalty
and
the
other
terms
and
conditions
in
this
Settlement
Aqreement1
Corr~pliance Plan
and
Stipulation
to
Dismiss
adequately
consider
and
reflect
the
nature,
extent
and
causes
of
the
above
admitted
facts,
22—8
—3—
the
nature
of
Peabody~s operations
and
control
equipment,
the
impact
on
the
public
resulting
from
the
above
admitted
facts,
the
benefits
to
be
obtained
as
the
result
of
the
compliance
plan
described
below,
and
the
prior
efforts
and
achievements of Peabody to control discharges from its
Mine
#10,
which
efforts
and
achievements
included
the
following:
a.
On November 8,
1972 Peabody timely filed its
application for a permit pursuant to Chapter IV
of the Board’s regulations.
b.
At about the same time, Peabody commenced an
intensified abatement plan which included better
management of the gob pile and plans for treat-
ment of runoff water with a base compound,
aeration and clarification system.
c.
In
February
1973,
Peabody
commenced
study
of
local
rainfall
and
other
data
to
determine
the
necessary
capacity
and
characteristics
of
such
a
treatment
system.
d.
In
June,
1973,
and
at
other
times,
consulting
firms were solicited to provide proposals in
connection
with
such
a
treatment
system.
e.
Ryckman/Edgerley/Tomlinson
&
Associates,
Inc.
(Hereinafter
“RETA”)
,
Consulting Environmental
Engineers,
contracted
with
Peabody
to
conduct
a study program and design such a treatment system.
f.
The RETA report was completed and furnished to
Peabody
on
June
27,
1975.
g.
Meanwhile,
Peabody
had
continued
prior
efforts
to acquire additional land surrounding its Mine #10
and in 1975 completed acquisition of sufficient land
to construct an additional slurry pond.
h.
This additional land made possible for the first
time an alternative process for the control of water
discharges from Mine ~l0, which alternative process
Peabody contemplates will be essentially a closed
system of dikes and
other
natural barriers, within
which water will be recycled and reused for washing
of coal, rather than discharged to waters of the state.
9
—4—
1.
Peabody contemplates completion of construction
of this alternative process on or before April
1,
1976.
j.
After completion, Peabody contemplates that, of
the five discharge points identified in its permit
application, there will be no remaining discharge
except from discharge points 002 and 004
(which
contain only shower water), barring unforeseen
circumstances beyond Peabody’s control,
such as
strikes, acts of God, or a flood of 100—year
magnitude or greater.
k,
The compliance plan envisioned by this alternative
process
is estimated to cost Peabody $228,000
initially, with annual operating costs of $11,000
per
year.
1.
Finally, the compliance plan envisioned by this
alternative process contemplates control of dis-
charges from Peabody’s Mine #10 more stringent
and more effective than is required by Board
Regulations or the Environmental Protection Act.
Except as
expressly
admitted
Peabody
denies
the
allegations of the complaint of PCB 75-403.
Peabody agrees
to dismiss its permit appeal 75-68.
The Board finds the stipulated agreement acceptable
under Procedural Rule 333.
The Board finds Peabody in
violation of Rules
201, 605(b)
and 606 of the Chapter
4:
Mine Related Pollution Regulations and of Sections
12(a)
and 12(b)
of the Act.
A penalty of $6,500
is assessed.
The penalty is adequate in light of the considerable time
and money Peabody has put into abatement.
This constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions
of
law.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Peabody Coal Company was in violation of Rules
201, 605(b)
and 606 of the Chapter
4: Mine
Related
Pollution
Regulations
and
Sections
12(a)
and
12(b)
of
the
Act.
22—10
—5—
2.
Peabody Coal Company will comply with all the stipu-
lated agreements.
3.
Peabody Coal Company will pay a penalty of $6,500
within thirty
(30)
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
4.
The permit appeal, PCB 75-68 is dismissed.
Mr. James Young abstained.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order
were
adopted
on
the
~
day of
_____________,
1976
by
a vote of
4~-~
~
Illinois Pollution
rol Board
22—11