ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONThOL BOARD

February

6,

1973

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

#72—256

v.

WHITE

BROTHERS

EQUIPMENT

COMPANY

DELBERT

HASCHEMEYER,

ASST.

ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF

THE

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

JAMES

W.

SANDERS,

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF

WHITE

BROTHERS

EQUIPMENT

COMPANY

OPINION

AND

INTERIM

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(BY

SAMUEL

T.

LAWTON,

JR.):

Complaint

was

filed

against

White

Brothers

Equipment

Cornoany

by

the

Environmental

Protection

Agency

alleging

violations

of

Sections

12(a)

and

(ci)

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

and

Rules

103(a),

(c)

and

(ci) and

105(b)

of

SWB—14,

resulting from Respondent’s carbon

removal and eumping operations from a strip pit in Saline County

during 1971 and 1972, which operation resulted in pollutional discharges

into an unnamed tributary

of

the South Fork of

the Saline ~River and

the

South

Fork

of

the

Saline

River.

The

offenses

charged

are

a

result

of

operations

conducted

by

Respondent in its efforts to remove carbon from an open pit which

had been flooded for many years prior to Respondent’s operation.

The

procedure

is described in the transcript of hearing

(R.

4 and Jollowing).

A crane was installed

to remove carbon from the flooded pit.

To

accomplish

this,

water was pumped out of

the pit with a pressure pump

having a capacity of 10,000 gallons a minute.

Approximately

45,000

tons

of

carbon

were

removed.

It

is

not

clear

who

the

owner

of

the

property

is

but

there

is

no

dispute

that

Respondent

is

responsible

for

the

operations involved in the proceeding.

When carbon was removed,

it was

riled up and allowed to dry.

Environmental Protection Agency

inspection reports confirm the acid content of water entering

the

South Fork of the Saline River as

a result of Respondent’s pumping

opera Lions demonstrating violations

of

the statute and regulations

as alleged.

(Exhibits

1 through

9 inclusive)

.

Exhibit

9 indicates

the

points

where

sampling

is

taken.

In substance1 poilutional discharges consequential

to Resoondcnt~s

operation result

from

a

combination

of

three

separate

but

interrelated

circumstances:

7—

15

---

1.

The pumping operation itself;

2.

The recurring flooding and overflow of the mine

oit independent of the pumping; and

3.

Possible nollutional impact from piles residue emr~1aced

after the carbon removal.

In addition, undoubtedly some nollution results from run-off over

abandoned refuse piles that have been created independent of Respon-

dent’s operation.

It

is difficult to tell which particular circurn-

stance results in the pollutional discharge

to any one time or place.

However,

it

is

evident

that

the

pumping

operation

is

the

most

severe

and continuing source of pollutional discharge and the easthst to

ascertain and

to abate.

Accordingly, we will enter an interim order directing ResL’ondent

to cease and desist its pumping operation,

creating a pollutional

discharge into the South Fork of the Saline River.

We will defer

any further

decision

with

respect

to

flooding

consequences

and

the

imposition of

a penalty until

we

are in receipt of suggestions as

to

a

oroposed

final

order

from

the

Agency

and

the

Respondent

which

we direct to be filed within

45

days

from

the

date

hereof.

We

have

previously

held

that

even

though

the

Respondent

is

not

responsible

for

the

conditions

that

initially

created

the

pollutional

discharge

while it has control and dominion of the property

in cuestion,

it

is incumbent ~pon it

to take affirmative steps

to eliminate

pollutional discharges, see Environmental Protection Agency

v.

Meadowlark Farms,

Inc.,

#72-343.

In the present case,

the

pollutional discharge is not only a consequence of natural land

run-off but directly att~ibutab1eto Respondent’s operations

in the

pumping of the strip pit involved.

This opinion constitutes the findings of

fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

IT

IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board:

1.

That Respondent cease and desist its pumping operation

at the abandoned strip

pit

location as described

in the

complaint herein unless such pumping oneration ceases

t~ocause

pollutional discharge into the waters

of the State.

2.

The Environmental Protection Agency and White Brothers

Equipment Company are directed to file,

either jointly or

severally, within 45 days from the date hereof,

their cr0-

posals for a final order with respect to definitive

abatement procedures covering the entire operation including

abatement of pollutional discharges

as a consequence of

flooding and recommendation for penalty.

—2—

7

—

16

---

3.

The

Board retains jurisdiction for such other and further

orders as may be appropriate.

I,

Christan Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the

~

day of February,

1973,

by

a vote of

______

to

C

—3—

7—17

---

S

.