ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 13,
1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 72—328
PEABODY COAL COMPANY,
(Will Scarlet Mine),
)
Respondent.
MR. LARRY
E.
EATON, appeared on behalf of Complainant;
MR. DANIEL M. HALL, appeared on behalf of Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelle):
This enforcement case has an extended history before the
Board.
We previously entered an Order rejecting a proposed settlement
on May 24,
1973.
On February
7,
1974 the Board approved a
settlement submitted by the parties.
However,
the parties felt
that we had incorrectly modified the proposed settlement.
Respondent
therefore appealed the Board’s decision.
The Board, together with the
parties, entered into a settlement which was presented to the
court which would have the court vacate the Board’s Order and
remand for further hearings or appropriate proceedings.
On
March 14,
1975 the Fifth Appellate District vacated the Board’s
Order and remanded for further hearings.
On March 26, 1975 we
entered an Order setting the matter for a hearing on the merits.
A hearing was held on July
24,
1975.
The parties submitted a
stipulated summary of the record and proposed order on September
16,
1975.
Rather than repeat the prior Opinion of the Board in
approving the settlement, we hereby incorporate that Opinion
as it discusses
the facts presented
(EPA v. Peabody Coal Company,
(Will Scarlet Mine), PCB 72-328,
11 PCB 157,
(February
7,
1974)).
Complainant has charged respondent with numerous violations of
Section
12(a),
(c) and
(d)
of the Environmental Protection Act,
certain sections of the Sanitary Water Board Regulations,
and Chapters
3 and 4 of the Pollution Control Board Rules and
Regulations.
These violations were alleged to have occurred
19
—
271
—2—
because of mine discharges to an unnamed creek, Sugar Creek
and the south fork of the Saline River.
A limited amount of new evidence was presented at the
latest hearing.
It is apparent that Complainant has terminated
the mining operations at the mine referred to as “Pit
8” during
the fall of
1974.
This has resulted in the termination of
discharges from Pit
8.
However, at least three times since
February
7,
1974 there have been some discharges from Pit
8
(R.
13).
Respondent has undertaken
a program to abate the
violations alleged in the complaint.
Respondent has transferred
its mining operations to an area referred to as
“Pit
14” which
is not the subject of this enforcement case.
Certain modifications have been instigated in the abatement
procedure contemplated by the prior settlement proposal.
Respondent
has replaced the continuous treatment with a batch treatment system
at Pit 11 because of problems associated with employee safety
(R.
24 and 33).
The parties previously agreed that the payment of a
penalty should be stayed pending the development of
a possible abatement
program on property not owned by the respondent.
Respondent has
cited that it would be unable to carry out the alternative abatement
work because of a depressed financial condition
(R.
28).
Therefore,
the parties have stipulated that a penalty should be assessed.
The parties agreed to a penalty of $17,500 for the violations
rather than the $15,000 previously submitted and approved by the
Board.
Based on the record presented at the July 1975 hearing, and
the previous record we find that the settlement and proposed order
submitted by the parties
is acceptable.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
ORDER
We find that Peabody Coal Company has violated the Act and
Regulations as alleged in the Complaint.
It is ordered that:
1.
Respondent shall complete reclamation of Pit
#8 in accord
with applicable law,
applicable regulations of the Department of
Mines and Minerals, and applicable regulations
of the Pollution
Control Board.
19—
272
2.
Respondent shall continue to treat all discharges of
runoff from Pit #11, and other subject portions of the premises
of Will Scarlet Mine in a manner so as
to comply with all
applicable provisions of the Act and Regulations, continuing
the existing batch treatment process,
or any method as effective.
3.
Respondent shall perform normal inspection and adequate
maintenance of the retaining
darn near Bulitown Bridge, and levee
located near the mine garage,
so as to maintain necessary impound—
ment of surface runoff,
4,
Respondent shall continue to maintain the treatment plant
and appurtenant facilities at Pit #10
so as to maintain impound-
ment and to maintain treatment efficiency
to its best operational
level.
5.
Respondent shall submit quarterly reports to the Agency
detailing activities conducted in relation to the foregoing portion
of this Order.
The Agency may elect to reduce such reports to a
semi—annual basis or to combine such reports with reports
of
other activities
lawfully required at the Will Scarlet Mine.
6.
Respondent
shall provide
to the Agency all available data
on discharge from the treatment plant under any permit or other
legal requirement.
7,
Respondent shall, within
35 days from the date of this
Order, pay a
penalty
of $17,500 to the ~State of Illinois” and
send to:
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Fiscal Services Division
2401 West Jefferson
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby certify
the above Opinion and Order were adopted
on the
Jday
of
November,
1975
by
a
vote
of
~I~-O
__________
Illinois Pollution
~ol Board