ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 8
,
1976
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 75—284
HARRISBURG COAL COMPANY,
)
Respondent.
Mr. Barry Forman, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney for
Complainant.
Mr.
J.
C. Mitchell, Mitchell
&
Armstrong,
Ltd., Attorney for
Respondent
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr.
Satchell):
This case comes before the Board on a Complaint filed
July 24,
1975 by the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
alleging that Harrisburg Coal Company operated an underground
coal mining facility, designated as Mine #1, from on or
about November 25,
1972 at all times pertinent to this com-
plaint without a permit granted by the Agency
in violation
of Section 12(b)
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
At the mine site
(Sections 26 and 27, Township
9 South,
Range
4 East in Williamson County,
Illinois)
a presently
abandoned coal processing facility and a mine refuse area
are located.
From on or about July
1,
1970 continuing until
an unknown date
in
June,
1973,
Respondent deposited mine
refuse at this site in such place and manner so
as to create
a water pollution hazard in violation of Section 12(d)
of
the Act.
The mine site is adjacent to an unnamed tributary
of Bankston Creek,
a tributary of the middle fork of the
Saline River which flows into the Ohio River.
From on or
about April
16,
1972 including, but not limited to,
the
following dates; May 2,
1972; May 30,
1972;
July 24, 1973;
July
26,
1973; February 20,
1974; August
30,
1974; December
23,
1974,
Respondent
is alleged to have caused or allowed unnatural
bottom deposits,
color and turbidity or matter in concentrations
toxic or harmful to human,
animal, plant or aquatic life to
be present in
the
aforementioned tributary which is defined
as waters of the State of Illinois
(Section 3(o)
of the Act)
(Rule
104 of Chapter
3: Water Pollution)
in violation of
Rule 203(a)
of Chapter
3 and thereby in violation of
Section 12(a)
of the Act.
21—39
—2—
Respondent is alleged to have caused or allowed the
discharge of contaminants into the aforementioned tributary
of Bankston Creek so as to cause violations of Illinois
Water Quality Standards with regard to: pH less than 6.5,
Rule 203(b);
total
iron greater than
1 mg/i, Rule 203(f);
total manganese greater than
1 mg/i, Rule 203(f);
sulfate
greater than 500 mg/i,
Rule 203(f); and total dissolved
solids greater than 1000 mg/l, Rule 203(f).
Each of the
Chapter
3 Rule violations are also alleged violations of
Section 12(a)
of the Act.
Respondent,
as
a result of operations at Mine
#1, from
November 25,
1972 until an unknown date in June 1973 dis-
posed of mine refuse without a permit from the Agency in
alleged violation of Rule 201 of Chapter
4: Mine Related
Pollution and Section 12(b)
of the Act.
In addition, by
disposing of refuse
in such
a manner as to cause or allow
pollution of the aforementioned tributary of Bankston
Creek,
Respondent is alleged to have violated Rule 401(a) (1)
of Chapter
4.
Respondent is alleged to have ceased mine refuse
disposal operations at Mine ~1 at some unknown date in
June 1973 without notifying the Agency within 30 days in
violation of Rule 501(a)
of Chapter
4, and had failed to
timely grade and vegetate the mine refuse disposal area
in violation of Rule 401(e)
of Chapter
4.
By failing to
obtain
a permit to abandon the mine refuse operation,
Respondent is alleged to have violated Rules 201 and 502
of Chapter
4 and Section 12(b)
of the Act.
The effluents
from Mine #1 previously alleged to have
caused violations of water quality standards
(Chapter
3,
Rules 203(a),
203(b), and 203(f))
are further alleged to
cause violations of Rules 605(a),
605(b)
,
606(a)
of
Chapter
4 and thereby Section 12(a)
of the Act.
At all times pertinent to the complaint, Respondent
operated a coal preparation and processing plant known as
the Barbara Kay Tipple located in Williamson County,
in
Section 18 of Township
9 South, Range
4 East of the
Third Principal Meridian.
Respondent
is alleged to have
operated the tipple and disposed of the mine refuse without
an Agency permit in violation of Rule 201 of Chapter
4
and thereby in violation of Section 12(b)
of the Act.
21
—40
—3—
On
October
20,
1975,
Respondent,
Harrisburg Coal
Company,
filed
a pleading
to
the
Board styled “Third
Party
Comp1aint~which was
taken
to
be
a motion to include
Arlie King
and taVern King as
third party Respondents.
An
interim order
was passed by
the Board on November
6,
1975
directing Arlie
King
and LaVern King to be named as third
party
Respondents.
Mr. Meiroy
B. Hutnick, Hearing
Officer,
by
letter
dated
December15,
1975
requested
the intervention of the
Board
to
cause
a
hearing
to
be
held
since
the
Attorney
for
Respondent did
not
answer
a
letter
or
return
telephone
calls
made
to
attempt
to
set
the
hearing,
An
interim
Order
of
the Board passed December 18,
1975 directed the hearing
to
be set in
not
less than
30
nor
more
than
45
days.
A
hearing
was
held
January
29,
1976
in
Herrin
at
which
time a Stipulation of Facts and Agreed
Settlement was
entered into
by the parties,
Comp1ainant~s
Exhibits Nos.
1
through
9 were
entered
into
evidence.
In
addition
to
the
Hearing Officer and Attorneys
mentioned before,
Mr. George
W.
Tinkham, Attorney, Enforce-
ment
Section, Water Pollution Control
Division, Agency
and Mr.
Paul
T,
Austin, Attorney
for Respondent, were
present.
At
the hearing all
alleged
violations were admitted
(R.27).
Applications
for
operating and construction permits
were
submitted on January
28,
1976
(R.9).
Although the
Agency
had not had time
to evaluate
the applications,
it was
noted that ....~a
t
this point that it may be inadequate
in several respects”
(R.9).
It was agreed that all parties
are
hound
to exercise reasonable
and due diligence so that
construction
permits would
be issued by May 1,
1976
(R.l7,l8).
All parties agreed
that
no useful purpose would be served
by shutting down the mine as long as due diligence was
shown in
obtaining of permits and
attendant pollution
abatement.
The
cost
of
abatement
was agreed to be $75,000
(R.lO),
it was agreed
it has
always been technologically
feasible
to abate pollution
at both locations
(R.lO).
Financial
statements entered
into evidence
(R.40,41)
for
the years
ending June 30
of
1972,
1973,
1974 show retained
earnings
of $146,183.76 at
the end of this period and no
evidence of economic lardship.
It was agreed that the
21
—41
—4—
location
of both facilities
was appropriate and that there
was social
and economic value
to
the
continuing
operation
of the Harrisburg
Coal Mine
(R.41) (Ex.
1).
The
posting
of a performance bond by Respondent with
the
Office
of
the
Recorder
of
Williamson County
in the
amount
of
$75,000
was
agreed
to
assure
diligence
in
com-
pliance
with
the Regulations,
and thus to assure completion
of the pollution
abatement
(R.13).
It was agreed that the
completion
date
should
be
not
later
than
six months
from
the
date
of
the
Board
Order
(R,l2)
and
that
monthly
progress
reports
will be made
to the Agency
(R.35,36).
In clarification of the third party respondents, Arlie
and LaVern King,
it was agreed that they were included as
part of Harrisburg Coal Company
(R.34).
The Board accepts
the
Stipulated Facts, methods of
compliance,
and penalty agreed upon of $15,000
(R.28).
It
further notes from
the
Exhibits
(which include pictures and
analysis of effluent waters)
an all too familiar situation of
highly polluting effluents from mine refuse areas entering
and rendering some streams of the Saline River drainage
system
sterile of all naturally
occurring living matter
even
to the extent of bank vegetation.
On
the basis
of
the
Stipulation
and
the
foregoing,
we
find
that
Respondent
did
violate
the
Act
and
Regulations
as
charged
in
the
Complaint
by
operating:
(1)
Mine
#1,
a
source
of
water
pollution,
without
the
necessary
permits
from
November
25,
1972
to
at
least
the
Hearing Date in
violation of Section
12(b)
of the Act;
(2)
a coal mine
preparation
facility
and refuse area from July
1,
1970 to
some date in June
1973 without the necessary permit in
violation of Rule 201, Chapter
4 and thereby Section 12(b)
of the Act;
(3)
a second coal preparation facility and mine
refuse from some unknown date in June or July of 1973
continuing until at least the Hearing Date without an
Agency permit in violation of Rule 201 of Chapter
4 and
thereby of Section
12(b)
of the Act; and
(4)
by abandoning
aforementioned mine refuse site at Mine #1 without timely
notifying the Agency or obtaining a permit to do so in
violation of Rules
501(a), 201, and 502 of Chapter 4 and
Section 12(b)
of the Act and failing to timely grade and
vegetate the abandoned refuse area in violation of
Rule 401(e)
of Chapter
4.
21—42
—5—
Other
violations
included
pollution
of
waters
of
the
State of Illinois by violation of Rules
203 (a)
,
203 (b)
and
four
different
violations
of
203(f)
of
Chapter
3;
each
violation
of
Rule
203
is
also
a
violation
of
Section
12(a)
of
the
Act.
The
effluent
waters
from
the
mine
refuse
area
did
cause
violations
of
Rules
605(a),
605(b)
and
606(a)
of
Chapter
4 and thereby violations of Section 12(a)
of the
Act,
the
deposition
of
mine
refuse
in
such
place
and
manner
so as to create a water pollution hazard
in
violation
of
Section 12(d)
of the Act.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Respondent, Harrisburg Coal Company has operated
the aforesaid facilities in violation of:
Section 12(a),
12(b)
and 12(d)
of the Environmental Protection Act;
Rules
203(a),
203(b)
and 203(f)
of the Water Pollution
Regulations;
and Rules 201,
401(a) (1)
,
401(e)
,
501(a),
502,
605(a), 605(b)
and 606(a)
of Mine Related Pollution
Regulations and shall pay
a penalty of $15,000
for such
violations,
Penalty payment by certified check or
money
order, payable to the State of Illinois shall be made
within 60 days of the date of this Order to:
State of
Illinois, Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,
Illinois
62706.
2.
Within
30
days of the date of this order Respondent
shall
submit,
in a form acceptable to the Environmental
Protection Agency,
a performance bond in the amount of
$75,000 covering the conditions outlined in the foregoing
Opinion to achieve compliance with all Regulations;
such
performance bond shall be placed with the Office of the
Recorder of Williamson County,
Illinois; release of such
bond shall be effected by the Environmental Protection
Agency upon compliance with all Regulations.
3.
Respondent will submit monthly progress reports
on the first of each month subsequent to the date of this
Order;
such reports shall be sent to the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Division of Water Pollution
Control, Variance and Technical Analysis Section,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
21—43
—6--
4.
Respondent shall exercise due diligence so as to
obtain
all
necessary
permits
in
a
period
not
greater
than
six
months
from
the
date
of
this
order
and
required
con-
struction permits will be obtained by May 1,
1976.
5.
Respondent shall, within
35 days of the date of
this Order,
submit to the Environmental Protection Agency,
Manager, Permits Section, Division of Water Pollution
Control,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706
and to this Board,
a Certificate of Acceptance
in the
following form:
I
(We), _______________________,
having read the Order
of the Pollution Control Board in Case No. PCB 75—284,
understand and accept said order, realizing that such
acceptance renders all terms and conditions thereto binding
and enforceable.
~igned
Title
Date
Mr. James Young abstained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
hereby c~rtifythe above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
~
“
day of
_________,
1976 by a
vote of
_________
Christan L. Moffett,,.cj~~k
Illinois Pollution C~~-o1Board
21—44