1

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, )

)

Complainant, ) PCB NO. 96-147

)

v. )

)

ILLINOIS CEMENT COMPANY, )

a joint venture, )

)

Respondent. )

Hearing commenced at 11:10 a.m. at the

LaSalle County Courthouse, Ottawa, Illinois, on

June 28th, 1996.

BEFORE:

JUNE EDVENSON, Hearing Officer,

APPEARANCES:

ATTORNEY MARY ROSE D. SILVA,

Assistant Attorney General,

100 West Randolph Street, 11th Floor,

Chicago, Illinois, 60601

Counsel for the Complainant.

ATTORNEY SHELL J. BLEIWEISS,

of the firm of McDermott, Will & Emery,

227 West Monroe Street,

Chicago, Illinois, 60606

Counsel for the Respondent.

ATTORNEY ROBERT M. ESCHBACH,

728 Columbus Street,

Ottawa, Illinois, 61350

Counsel for SOLVE.

REPORTER:

Carrie L. Vaske,

Certified Shorthand Reporter,

Ashton, Illinois

ITV

2

INDEX

Witness Page

Ms. Silva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Mr. Bleiweiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Mr. Eschbach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Mrs. Jasiek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Mrs. Knaff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Mrs. Wallock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Mrs. Moriarty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Dr. LaVieri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Mr. Franklin Jasiek . . . . . . . . . . 37

Mrs. Gapinski . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Ms. Ryba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Mrs. Rosploch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Mr. C. R. Jasiek . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Mr. Ciesielski . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Mr. Maas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Mr. Knaff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

EXHIBITS

Exhibit Page

Exhibit No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Exhibit No. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Exhibit No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Exhibit No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Exhibit Nos. 5-1 - 5-5 . . . . . . . . . 60

Exhibit No. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Exhibit No. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Certificate of Shorthand Reporter . . . 86

ITV

3

MS. EDVENSON: We can go on the record

at this point. A settlement in this case

was filed with the Board on December 29th,

1995. This is the case of People of the

State of Illinois versus the Illinois Cement

Company, PCB 96-147. This case is in the

nature of an enforcement action related to

mine water.

Good morning. My name is June

Edvenson. I am the Board's Hearing Officer

for this case. I will now request the

Counsel for the two parties in the case

introduce themselves for the record.

MS. SILVA: I'm Mary Rose Silva,

Assistant Attorney General representing the

People of the State of Illinois.

MR. BLEIWEISS: I'm Shell Bleiweiss

with McDermott, Will and Emery representing

Illinois Cement Company.

MS. EDVENSON: Thank you. And the

cause for our hearing is a request of

citizens in the community to hold a hearing

ITV

4

concerning the settlement which was filed

with the Pollution Control Board in this

case, and I believe that they have counsel.

Counsel, would you please introduce

yourself.

MR. ESCHBACH: My name is Robert

Eschbach and I represent SOLVE.

MS. EDVENSON: And could you tell us

what that stands for.

MR. ESCHBACH: SOLVE is Save Our Little

Vermillion Environment and SOLVE is a

not-for-profit corporation.

MS. EDVENSON: Thank you very much.

Let the record show that we have a number of

persons in attendance at the hearing. I

imagine we have persons who are interested

in testifying and also persons who are

simply attending to hear the proceedings

today. I have distributed a list -- a pad,

rather, so that the persons in attendance

may make a list of their presence here today

should they wish to place their name on that

ITV

5

list. This list will be made a part of the

record of the proceedings and will go to the

members of the Pollution Control Board with

the transcript of the proceedings that we

are going to have today.

In anticipation of this hearing we

prepared an order of hearing and we also had

a filing of a list of persons who were

interested in testifying today. The order

of the hearing is as follows: Preliminary

remarks will be made by the Hearing

Officer. This will be followed by the

introduction of persons who are present, and

that will be followed by a statement of the

nature of the settlement which will be

presented by the Assistant Attorney General

and Counsel for Illinois Cement Company,

Mr. Bleiweiss.

Related questioning will then

occur by citizens' counsel, Mr. Eschbach and

that will be followed by -- I believe that

will be followed by testimony of interested

ITV

6

citizens, unless the Company or the Attorney

General have witnesses at this time that

they will wish to present today. The

testimony of interested citizens will be

followed by the adjournment of the hearing.

With respect to the time, if it

appears that we will need to go through

lunch then I would prefer at some point to

take a break, a break for lunch, and then

come back in approximately an hour and

proceed with the hearing to its conclusion.

That concludes the remarks I will make at

this point in time.

With respect to the introduction

of persons, I think that we will go with the

list that I have distributed for persons to

put their name on, and then we have had the

introduction of Counsel, so at this point in

time I will ask for the Assistant Attorney

General and Counsel for the Illinois Cement

Company to present to the persons present

the nature of the settlement that they have

ITV

7

come to in this case.

MS. SILVA: The stipulation and

proposal for settlement basically covers the

alleged violations in the complaint. The

complaint has two counts. The first count

involves the Respondent's discharge of storm

water runoff from its facility without an

NPDS permit, NPDS standing for National

Pollutants Elimination Discharge System.

The count basically alleges

violations of Section 12A and 12F of the Act

as well as Section 403.12 of the regulation.

MS. EDVENSON: Miss Silva, could you

come up here to the front? That would be

helpful. Thank you.

MS. SILVA: With respect to Count II,

Count II alleges that Respondent constructed

its mine facility without the required

Agency construction authorization, although

the Respondent did obtain that construction

authorization in 1993 which is -- which was

put in as a condition in its NPDS permit.

ITV

8

The stipulation and proposal for

settlement contains several terms among

which include Respondent's agreement to pay

a $15,000 penalty, although the Respondent

did deny the violations as alleged in the

complaints of the People also contend that

they had violated the allegations.

Respondent did agree to maintain valid

permits for its mining operations and

equipments found on its facility, and they

have agreed to cease and desist from further

violations of the Act.

So that's what basically the

stipulation covers. So when we did file the

stipulation the citizens did write a letter

requesting this hearing, and I guess we

would seek to have the citizens have their

say as far as what they are concerned with

as far as the stipulation.

MS. EDVENSON: Thank you, Miss Silva.

Mr. Bleiweiss, do you have some remarks?

MR. BLEIWEISS: That sounded like an

ITV

9

accurate summary, and we have nothing to

add.

MS. EDVENSON: All right. Thank you

very much. Will the Attorney General or the

Company be presenting testimony of any

witnesses today?

MS. SILVA: No.

MR. BLEIWEISS: No.

MS. EDVENSON: All right, then we'll

proceed with the testimony of the interested

citizens that are here, and Mr. Eschbach, do

you have a method by which you wish to

proceed?

MR. ESCHBACH: If I may, I'd like to

just make a couple of introductory comments,

and we could proceed down the list that you

have in front of you and that has been

submitted. I would only indicate that there

are a few people who aren't here or may be

coming who only have a short period of time,

perhaps a lunch hour or whatnot, and if

those people would let me know, at the

ITV

10

appropriate point I would ask that they be

allowed to speak so long as the other people

on the list have no objection, and I don't

think they do.

Just as a prefatory comment I

would indicate, as I said, I represent

SOLVE, Save Our little Vermillion

Environment, an Illinois Not-For-Profit

Corporation. SOLVE has been acting as a

guardian of sorts of the Little Vermillion

River here in LaSalle County for many

years. It was SOLVE members who first

directed aerial photographs to the

Environmental Protection Agency in Rockford

that made the Agency aware of violations

that are at issue today.

I have -- I don't know if all of

the people in this room are SOLVE members,

and I do not represent them if they are

not. I would state though that I have met

with many of the SOLVE members to discuss

with them today's hearing and the subject

ITV

11

matter of today's hearing, and many of the

members individually in SOLVE as an

organization have been involved with

proceedings with Illinois EPA and other

State agencies for many years, and I've

tried to make our membership aware that the

issue today has to do with the proposed

settlement as outlined by our representative

from the Attorney General's office here.

I would note, and I think it's

important to direct comments to the criteria

that the Pollution Control Board is supposed

to consider in determining the

reasonableness and fairness of the proposed

settlement agreement. It's basically the

position of SOLVE that the proposed

settlement, particularly in terms of the

penalty, is not sufficient in light of the

degree of severity of the violations.

I note that the Environmental

Protection Act indicates that in making its

orders and determinations the Board is to

ITV

12

consider -- and I refer to Page 11 of the

violation which quotes Section 33C of the

Act, the Board is to consider the character

and degree of injury to or interference with

protection of the health, general welfare

and physical property of the people, and the

stipulation sets forth that the impact in

this particular case is the lack of

information the State had because permits

were not obtained and therefore the

admissions that were going to Little

Vermillion River were not reported.

MS. EDVENSON: Excuse me. The

reference is to Section 33C of the Act at

415 ILCS 5/33C.

MR. ESCHBACH: That's correct. And I

think the testimony of the members of the

public today will tend to show that we feel

that there was more at stake and more injury

to the State of Illinois than just lack of

information, and that involves the actual

discharge that is the subject of the

ITV

13

contaminants into the river.

I would also note that the Act at

Section 42H, again, 415 ILCS 5/42H,

indicates that in determining civil

penalties which is the crux of the issue

here the Board is authorized to consider any

matters of record in litigation or

aggravation of penalty, including but not

limited to the following factors: No. 1,

the duration and gravity of the violation,

and I think the testimony will show that the

duration has gone on for many, many, many

years beyond the seven years discussed in

the stipulation.

No. 2, the presence or absence of

due diligence on the part of the violator in

attempting to comply with requirements of

this act, and again, I think the time frame

is relevant here.

No. 3, the economic benefits

accrued by the violator because of delay in

compliance with the requirements, and again,

ITV

14

I think the delay and the economic benefits

here are not just a matter of paperwork and

not just a matter of information. Obviously

there can be a benefit in not having to do

paperwork to get the permits, but also

because the permits were not obtained

siltation ponds and other devices to control

storm water runoff were not erected at

considerable savings to the Company.

The fourth item is the amount of

monetary penalty which will serve to deter

further violations by the violator and to

otherwise aid in enhancing voluntary

compliance with the Act by the violator and

other persons similarly situated subject to

the Act. Again, I think the -- excuse me.

In this case I think the penalty has to be

relevant and it has to have some connection

to the size of operation and the abilities

of the violating party to pay, and I think

one of the items that will be discussed by

many of the witnesses here is how $15,000 in

ITV

15

the case of Illinois Cement Company is

insufficient.

And finally, the number, proximity

and time of gravity of previously

adjudicated violations of this Act, and in

that case I trust that the stipulation did

set forth the complete history of

adjudicated violations.

I believe that concludes my

comments, and if anybody does have a problem

with time at that point -- at the

appropriate point I'll raise that to the

attention of the Hearing Officer and we'll

try to accommodate people as best we can.

Thank you.

MS. EDVENSON: Thank you very much. At

this point would you like to proceed with

the testimony of the individuals who wish to

speak today? I believe we're ready to do

that. All right. Then I will call in the

order in which they were -- in which the

list of individuals were presented to us.

ITV

16

The first individual name is Nancy, and I'm

unsure how I might pronounce your last

name.

MRS. JASIEK: Jasiek.

MS. EDVENSON: Jasiek. Miss Jasiek is

the president of SOLVE. Miss Jasiek, could

you come up to the seat here in the front of

the room, and you are welcome to either sit

or stand.

MRS. JASIEK: Probably just as easy to

stand and maybe they can hear me better.

According to this complaint filed by the

office of the Attorney General it requires

the Respondent to pay a civil penalty of

$50,000 for each violation of the Act and an

additional penalty of $10,000 per day for

each day the violation is continued.

No. 5, ordering the Respondent to

pay into the Environmental Protection Fund

all costs, including attorneys, witnesses

and consultant fees expanded by the State in

its pursuit of this action, and 6, granting

ITV

17

such other relief as the Board deems

appropriate and just.

This penalty according to our

calculations if we go back approximately 17

years that we feel the Agency has been in

existence and this permit should have been

issued would be in excess of $50 million.

As taxpayers we have footed the bill, and

all you are reclaiming is a pittance,

$15,000. This could hardly cover the legal

fees for public hearings such as this. It

is inconceivable that you would expect us to

believe that this is a significant deterrent

since we have records to prove that Illinois

Cement has exceeded their fecal coliform

limits in February 1996 and perhaps even to

this day.

In 1993 Illinois Cement presented

a compliance schedule to the IEPA. This was

at the time that they were issued their

permit or they were applying for their

permit, the NPDS permit. This compliance

ITV

18

schedule promises to construct a laboratory

waste pretreatment system within four months

of the permit, and that's a quote. This

system, if it ever was installed, did not

work. They are showing us photos of a new

wastewater treatment system in 1996, three

years later.

How long can you allow violations

to go on without intervention? We must

address the problems associated with outfall

001. This is the original permit from 1986,

and we still have problems with it. Why was

Count I dropped from the complaint? When

monthly records for the last ten years show

frequent consistent violations at outfall

001 we can presume that contaminated water

has been pouring into the Little Vermillion

River as long as Illinois Cement has been in

existence.

At SOLVE's meetings with Mary Rose

Silva and Rob Lehmann (phonetic) they

indicated that this significant violation

ITV

19

could perhaps be reinstated. The IEPA and

Attorney General are responsible for the

public health and safety which has been

jeopardized by allowing Illinois Cement to

flagrantly violate your laws. Our rivers

and city wells cannot be restored with

$15,000.

Illinois Cement is a wealthy,

profitable group of corporations. They have

saved millions of dollars by not complying

with the NPDS demands. We were naive enough

to believe Mary Gady (phonetic) when they

issued this IEPA news release, and I have a

copy here which I would like to leave with

you, in which -- dated April 28th, 1993 the

title is Sand and Gravel Firms Charged with

Permit Violations, and it's Springfield,

Illinois, and I will just quote one or two

lines out of it where it states the IEPA has

asked the office of the Illinois Attorney

General to bring legal action against the

firms to compel them to obtain required air

ITV

20

or water pollution permits and to pay fines

that would offset estimated financial

benefits they have made by operating without

permits.

Further down Miss Gady states

without -- and this is a direct quote,

"Without adequate environmental safeguards

these activities can pose significant

threats to both the environment and the

general public, said IEPA Director Mary A.

Gady. Potential hazards include water

pollution, destruction of fish and wildlife

habitats, increases in flooding or soil

erosion, air pollution and damage to private

property."

We have been told that 15,000 is a

significant amount of money, but I would

like to present some additional examples of

fines that would be at least a deterrent.

How about nine duck hunters who were fined

more than $10,000 for killing three ducks or

ESK Company in Hennepin who was fined $1.3

ITV

21

million for air emission violations, and I

have copies of those news items in this pile

that I'm going to submit for you today.

MS. EDVENSON: Miss Jasiek, could I

have the news release that you quoted from

if you're finished with it.

MRS. JASIEK: I think I'm finished with

all that.

MS. EDVENSON: And would you like to

present all of these documents as part of

the record?

MRS. JASIEK: Yes, uh-huh.

MS. EDVENSON: We have a news release

from IEPA dated April 28th, 1993, and we

have the submission of several articles,

news articles and announcements.

MRS. JASIEK: And that's a copy of the

laboratory tests from Illinois Cement's

self-testing as of February 1996 which show

violations in fecal coliform as of February.

MS. EDVENSON: All right. I believe

what I would like to do here with respect to

ITV

22

these potential exhibits is give the parties

an opportunity to look at them and then

reserve a number for them, and then we will

number the exhibits in the order in which

they are presented here today. And I

believe I will classify the news articles

together, and they will be Exhibit 1, news

articles, and Exhibit 2 will be the

discharge monitoring report of Illinois

Cement Company.

Miss Jasiek, would you hand these

to Counsel, and then feel free to proceed

with your remarks.

MRS. JASIEK: We show OSHA fines in

excess of $690,000 to ADM. We show dental

offices with huge OSHA fines. In April

ArtCo (phonetic) was find 200,000 for

discharging contaminants and oil billet

water into the Illinois River, but at least

in that settlement we can see some benefit

being brought back to our area.

If it has been the policy to issue

ITV

23

such small fines, it is time to change.

Illinois Cement flagrantly abused its NPDS

permit and failed to obtain permit. It has

proven on many occasions to be deceptive,

untrustworthy and self-serving. Politics

must be put aside and industries that are

reaping huge profits must be made

accountable. As a private citizen I resent

the fact that I have to do the job of the

IEPA to be a watchdog as well as providing

tax dollars to cleanup and enforce the

problems.

At least two zeros should be added

to this penalty, and the fecal coliform

violations must be enforced with a similar

action. We look to the Pollution Control

Board for satisfaction by reconsidering this

case and the ridiculous settlement. We must

give the IEPA some teeth if it is going to

do its job. Thank you.

MS. EDVENSON: Thank you, Miss Jasiek.

Our next citizen listed here is Ellen

ITV

24

Knaff. Miss Knaff, please feel free to

either sit or stand.

MS. KNAFF: I think I'll stand. The

air conditioner makes it very hard back

there to hear. Can you hear me? I'm Ellen

Knaff and I own the northeast quarter of

Section 11, Nick Township 33 which was

deeded to my greatgrandfather in 1892, and I

have had trouble with this firm on a small

piece of roadway that was issued from my

grandfather and his wife that was to be a

roadway along the south 37 1/2 links wide to

be used as a roadway free from damages or

obstructions of any kind.

In 1986 the quarry tore up this

land and I did not get use of it again, nor

did they except with big machinery until

1992. All of this problem was with slumping

on that road which I hired a Dr. Robert

Morris in 1988 in May, and he alleged that

in two to three years it would wash away, my

farm would be damaged and so would their --

ITV

25

part of their section on the other side of

the fence.

I testified to this at an Illinois

Department of Mining and Minerals, October

27th of 1994, and at that time I predicted

that I would have trouble on the west side

of my farm and I have. All of this was

storm water that went into the Little

Vermillion River or they also on their side

had a large slide. A lot of that was washed

into the Little Vermillion River, and if you

look now at the bridge coming across Route 6

to the north where those trees and all that

things, that's what's growing on what used

to be some of their slump way. And at

various times they have asked to trade for

me so they would not have to fix their

mistakes, but the Departments of Mines and

Minerals, I met with them on 5 the 5th of

'93 and the 6th the 16th of '93, and at

that time they promised to do something and

make this little plan to hold it back with

ITV

26

rocks. If I had a cement company I could

hold it back with concrete. You put a

little water in it.

Then this also was an expenditure

by State department for which we pay to do

something and they didn't do it. On October

the 27th we had that public meeting, and

that was an expenditure. At almost all of

these meetings there's been two to three

people there. We've met with Bruce

Yardenstandler (phonetic), talked to Mary

Gady, and this permit that was issued in

1995, we talked to the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency who promised

at the end of the meeting that they would do

something about the water that wasn't the

right runoff and my slump, but then that was

taken care of with the permit so now we can

slump away.

We've had two meetings since then

with people that said they were going to

take care of it. Then March we met with the

ITV

27

State's Attorney's office who said they were

going to take care of it. All of this has

not been taken care of, and it makes an

additional expenditure for each of these

things.

And if they're benefiting from

making the rock out of this quarry with no

permits and damaging me, and I have spent

over $2,000 for a lawyer and for Dr. Morris

to tell me what happened and they were

written a letter and that was in their

letter in 1989, so this isn't a surprise at

all, and it shouldn't be a surprise to your

committee or anyone that the ones who have

to fix this, I fit in that class. The ones

who have been damaged, I am in that class.

And the fact that I am a woman has

been another thing. I inherited in '82. We

had no trouble before then because I ran my

uncle's operation before then when he was in

the nursing home, but immediately afterwards

when anyone was called -- it says Ellen

ITV

28

Knaff on the deed. They will call for my

husband even if I answer the phone, and

that's discrimination. This has been in my

family for over 100 years, and I feel that

not only are these men not being very honest

but they're rude, and that is all I have to

say.

MS. EDVENSON: Thank you, Miss Knaff.

The next person on our list is Robert

Wallock.

MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: He's not here.

He wasn't able to come.

MS. EDVENSON: And then the next

individual listed here is Henrietta

Wallock. Miss Wallock, am I pronouncing

your name correctly?

MS. WALLOCK: Wallock. Can I read a

letter from my son who is working?

MS. EDVENSON: Please do.

MS. WALLOCK: Members of the Pollution

Control Board, these are a few of my

concerns. The EPA saying it is their job to

ITV

29

issue permits and not to deny them; closer

watch needs to be taken in issuing permits

by the Agency; to give the permit more

meaning and to keep applicants more

accountable for the permit regulations.

I would like the Pollution Control

Board to be aware of the construction of the

bluff area on the west side of the

Vermillion River. That was to be left

intact.

To be aware of the runoff of red

clay from the quarry during a rain which can

be seen where the Route 6 bridge crosses

over the Little Vermillion; to be aware of

the resultant sediment that is in the Little

Vermillion as well as the Illinois River.

I feel that a $15,000 fine for a

corporation will not be enough deterrent for

them to keep them from future violations

considering the economy's benefits and

duration of the violations. Illinois Cement

should be ordered to pay into the

ITV

30

Environmental Protection Trust Fund all the

fees expended by the State for this action.

Thank you, Bill Wallock.

Can this be submitted?

MS. EDVENSON: Yes. Thank you, Miss

Wallock. Would you like to add your own

additional comments?

MS. WALLOCK: Well, I agree with the

letter 100 percent after having talked with

Bill about it, gone over the problems that

we've had. Thank you.

MS. EDVENSON: Okay. Thank you very

much. Next individual on our list is Miss

Betty Kasap.

MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: She's not here.

MS. EDVENSON: All right. If these

individuals arrive later then we will be

glad to entertain their oral testimony.

The next individual on the list is

Charlotte Moriarty.

MS. MORIARTY: I'm not very well

prepared for this. I thought I was going to

ITV

31

work today but there was just a couple of

comments I had. If I could ask the question

about whose responsibility -- this was

not -- this meeting was not published in

our newspaper, and other open hearings that

we've been to have been, and I wonder whose

responsibility that is. This is an example

of the public notice for our last hearing

from the Department of Mines and Minerals,

and there was absolutely nothing in the

paper about this meeting at all.

MS. EDVENSON: Okay. Let's pause just

a minute, Miss Moriarty, and I will provide

you with some information on that. The

notice of the settlement was published in

the News Tribune of LaSalle, Illinois.

MS. MORIARTY: Yes, that's where we saw

that.

MS. EDVENSON: I don't have the

information handy on the notice of this

hearing today, so I'm sorry.

MS. MORIARTY: Because if no one's

ITV

32

ultimately responsible then we would know

next time. I'd be willing to pay for that

notification because I know there's a lot

more people that are interested in this, and

we thought it was going to be in the paper,

and I know there would have been a bigger

turnout today.

MS. EDVENSON: You can confirm the

notice of the hearing with the Clerk of the

Board, Dorothy Gunn (phonetic), and I can

give you her phone number later.

MS. MORIARTY: I'd appreciate it.

MS. EDVENSON: We can speak after the

hearing.

MS. MORIARTY: I'd appreciate it. My

concerns have mainly been with the water

issues, the contamination and siltation,

also the close proximity of the new area of

mining to old landfills in the contaminated

M & H area. With this new area stripped and

not properly protected from runoff into the

Little Vermillion, the runoff from these

ITV

33

areas could also be included in the

contamination as a nuisance.

The public water safety is just a

great concern to me. The Little Vermillion

is also a recharged source for our city

wells, and I have here, there's been ongoing

problems with our water in the city, and I

just brought the latest notice.

"The City of LaSalle public water

supply failed to submit required number of

samples or sample results of treated water

for nitrate and nitrite analysis during

December of '95. This is a violation of the

Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules and

Regulations. United States Environmental

Protection Agency sets drinking water

standards and as has determined that

nitrates and nitrites poses an acute health

concern at certain levels of exposure.

Failure to monitor these --" I won't go

through this whole article but I do feel

because the Little Vermillion is a source of

ITV

34

our city wells that all these things are

interconnected and I just find it extremely

important that the Company be kept in

compliance with their runoff into what goes

into our city wells.

And I just have one other little

comment about the fine. When one of my

children broke a window they had to pay for

damages in full, serve community service and

had a period of probation. I was all for

that punishment as a deterrent for further

problems, and it served the purpose very

well.

I don't know who decided this

won't work for big companies. This minimal

fine proposed here is absolutely not a

deterrent for a large corporation. Where is

the probation period until this Company is

in compliance? This fine should be adequate

to also serve as community service and the

fine used for reclamation and restoration of

the Little Vermillion River.

ITV

35

MS. EDVENSON: Ms. Moriarty, would you

like to leave the notice as a

demonstration?

MS. MORIARTY: Sure, and maybe this

just as a reminder. I put on there this is

an example.

MS. EDVENSON: All right. These

photocopies of the public notice will be

Exhibit No. 4. The next individual on our

list is Franklin Jasiek.

MR. ESCHBACH: Madam Hearing Officer,

we had one of our speakers just arrive who

is on a time constraint, that's John

LaVieri, and if he could speak now we'd

appreciate that.

MS. EDVENSON: All right, and sir,

could you state your name.

MR. LaVIERI: Dr. John LaVieri,

L-a-V-i-e-r-i, LaSalle.

I'm going to deal with the narrow

aspects of the amount of fine that was

levied. I feel if it was to be a deterrent

ITV

36

and to cover the expenses that they have

saved by not having the NPDS permits and the

drainage protection in place that the fine

should be commensurate with covering the EPA

and Attorney General's office costs -- I'm

assuming they can't cover the Pollution

Control Board's cost -- remediation of the

damage, the siltation into the Little

Vermillion. The Army Corps of Engineers

spends a lot of time dredging up and down

the Little Vermillion River, and it appears

that the fine has not been a deterrent

because they were there burning trees and

other nonvegetation refuse within a couple

days of the apparent agreement.

Other fines such as the ADM fines,

Archer Daniels Midland, for washing out

their barge in the Illinois River were much

higher than this, and many other fines where

harm was much less and the fines were much

higher.

The biggest thing I think is the

ITV

37

money they have saved for not having this in

place for 17 years. I realize the statute

of limitations of legal only goes back to 10

years, but if they were fined to the full

extent it comes to around $125 million over

17 years or about $55 million over 10 years

which is approximations, and so I feel that

the fine they had wasn't even a slap on the

wrist and has not been a deterrent, and

that's my main point today.

I assume I have 30 days for

written comment after the hearing.

MS. EDVENSON: We'll be discussing the

timeline for written comments at the

conclusion of the hearing, and that will be

made public.

MR. LaVIERI: Thank you.

MS. EDVENSON: Thank you very much.

MR. JASIEK: My name is Dr. Franklin

Jasiek. My comments will revolve around a

meeting that was held in January 1996. That

meeting was held with the associate director

ITV

38

of the Illinois EPA as well as the head of

the water division of the Illinois EPA. It

was the result of no public hearing being

allowed prior to the time that the NPDS

modification was allowed in December 1995

for the latest expansion.

We should not lose fact -- lose

sight of the fact that the violations did

occur for the entire 17 year duration prior

to 1993. The man who is head of the water

division actually has been head of that

division for 18 years. That night in direct

confrontation discussion he said the

violations did occur for all 17 years prior

to 1993.

If, in fact, we as citizens are

paying for cleanup for dredging of the

rivers, for the operation of the agencies of

the State of Illinois to be able to protect

the environment I think we can expect a lot

more than what we've seen to this date. I

know on a subsequent meeting it was said

ITV

39

that the Agency is there to issue permits,

not to place a regularity. When I look at

the complaint that was drafted by the

Attorney General's office it says that they

actually had the responsibility to enforce

and abate violations, not to issue permits.

Nowhere did I see this in the complaint from

the Attorney General's office as a function

of the Illinois EPA.

If we look at the cost of dredging

the Illinois River, and basically we're

looking at the result of a lot of

sedimentation -- lack of sedimentation

control that existed during those years, in

my lifetime I can remember dredging three

times over that 17- year to 20-year period

of time. We don't see dredging occurring

upstream from the Little Vermillion River.

We see it downstream. Now, we have to be

realistic and know that all sedimentation

that occurs in the Illinois River and the

Little Vermillion is not a result of mining

ITV

40

operations. Obviously a lot of it comes

from farming and other reasons that are

occurring upstream, but as the Illinois EPA

has indicated there's a very indicative high

sulfide red clay that's associated with

mining, not with farming, not with logging

but with cement mining, with limestone

mining.

If we, in fact, look at the aerial

photographs of the mouth of the Little

Vermillion River we see a total change in

that 17-year period of time and the course

of the Little Vermillion entering into the

river. The amount of sediment coming in is

forcing the river to go more and more east,

more and more upstream. You can walk out

into the Illinois River hundreds of feet and

be knee deep by the amount of sediments

there, and by the Illinois EPA's own

admission. They have walked it. They know

the shallowness of it. And also if you look

at it you're really looking at high sulfide

ITV

41

red clay color primarily. Not solely, but

primarily.

I think there's enough evidence to

show that not having the required permits

over such a long period of time has cost the

taxpayers of Illinois millions of dollars in

sediment removal in trying to keep the

shipping channels open for the grain and the

coal and oil and everything else that's

transported on the Illinois River.

Is it the citizens' responsibility

to be able to go ahead and do that?

Obviously that seems to be the attitude

because nothing is done. Nothing was done

for all those years by the agencies in

trying to enforce and abate the sections of

the law that are written, that are existing

on the books in the State of Illinois.

Hopefully we can start to see some

change in attitude to be able to correct

some of the deficiencies that did exist. As

far as being a deterrent for future

ITV

42

violations, I know Dr. LaVieri also already

referred to it, but within hours, within 24

hours from the time that the latest

modification was issued, December 29th,

1995, there were more violations already

occurring.

Now, I know that when it was

brought to the Illinois EPA's attention they

said that the field person did not observe

any of the violations. We did, in fact,

provide some photographs that showed the

violations that were alleged after December

29th, and when they were presented to the

field person the remark was made that in the

morning, as is customary, I get out of my

house, I scan the sky for black smoke and if

I don't see it, I presume there's no open

burning.

An analogy I would give is if a

dentist arrived at his dental office and

walked through the waiting room, passed the

people sitting in the chairs, walked back

ITV

43

and said, there's no decay present, I didn't

see any, that would be commensurate with the

analogy I gave. I feel like it is woefully

inadequate as far as a way to be able to

have a person who's hired by the State of

Illinois to be able to fulfill his role as

air quality control person for the area.

There are other -- there is other

evidence already existing showing sediments

going into the Little Vermillion since that

December date as well. I'm not going to

belabor those points right now, but I will

close with a statement from an attorney in

regard to another matter. He said something

to the effect, it's a sad commentary when it

takes a citizen taxpayer's court action to

enable State agencies to be able to carry

out the purpose for which they were

created. Thank you.

MS. EDVENSON: Thank you, Mr. Jasiek.

The next individual on our list of

interested citizens is William Stoetzel.

ITV

44

MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: He wasn't able

to come. He's ill today.

MS. EDVENSON: And the next individual

on our list is Lisa Lau, L-a-u. Is there a

Lisa here?

MR. ESCHBACH: She doesn't appear to be

here.

MS. EDVENSON: The next individual on

our list is Marjorie Gapinski.

MS. GAPINSKI: I'm going to stand right

here.

MS. EDVENSON: That's fine.

MS. GAPINSKI: Before I start my

written remarks I would like to make a few

comments, and I will start with you

representing the Pollution Control Board. I

feel as though we've had several statements

made about who you're representing, and I'd

like you to know that I think you're

representing the citizens of the State of

Illinois. I don't feel you should be the

party to be white-washing any violations or

ITV

45

trying to cover up any violations or giving

this Company a small fine. You are

representing us, and the same goes for the

EPA, and the same goes for the Attorney

General. You're being paid by the State of

Illinois, and that is the citizens of the

State of Illinois, and I don't feel that you

should say your job is to issue permits. I

think your job is to protect the

environment, to protect the citizens from

pollution and to protect our laws of the

State of Illinois. Now that's just some

extra comments I wanted to make.

First of all you should know that

I was outraged at the fine of $15,000 for

all the damage that Illinois Cement Company

has done to the Little Vermillion River and

the people of the City of LaSalle and

LaSalle Township. You should also know that

we have been trying to stop this desecration

of our Little River ever since it started in

1991. You should also know that the mayor

ITV

46

of the City of LaSalle has been playing

footsy with this Company for 30 years as an

alderman, tax assessor, township supervisor

and now mayor. He has appointed all the

members of the planning and zoning boards

and they all vote the way he wants them to.

We had close to 800 signatures on

petitions against mining on the west side of

the Little Vermillion. They, the Planning

and Zoning Board and all alderman except one

alderwoman, disregarded all of them. The

mayor has all the alderman except for the

one lady in his back pocket. That is how

the cement company got the okay to have this

property rezoned.

The people of LaSalle and LaSalle

Township were against any more raping of our

land by a cement quarry. You also need to

know that this Company has accused Save Our

Little Vermillion Environment of attempting

to discredit the Company by half truths and

innuendos while in reality it is the

ITV

47

Illinois Cement Company that has tried to do

this to SOLVE.

To substantiate this I have as my

first exhibit a letter by Illinois Cement

Company to the mayor in which they accuse us

and then tell many lies to him, such as,

under Issue 2, that the Attorney General's

office informed them that they have dropped

this case. Included in the Exhibit No. 1 is

a substantiating letter from M. Elizabeth

Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, that they

indeed did not drop the case nor do they

have any plans to do so.

Another lie is in Issue 5 where

they failed to tell the complaint of a lot

more than some large rocks along a short

portion of the Little Vermillion, such as

mining without a permit for 17 years.

I have also included in Exhibit

No. 1 a letter from Edward W. Kleppinger

(phonetic) of the EWK Consultants,

Incorporated, disputing their statements in

ITV

48

Issue 1. Exhibit No. 1 should prove to you

what kind of a company you have allowed to

ruin our area, but I will continue to prove

why I was so outraged at a mere $15,000 fine

and giving them a permit to mine, and this

is my Exhibit No. 1.

In 1991 the stories started

pouring in about how Illinois Cement was

damaging the Little Vermillion River.

Fishermen were telling about huge oaks,

maple, ash being pushed into the river.

They were burning all these beautiful trees

and pushing them into the river along with

dirt and other debris. This is when SOLVE

and others interested in the area got

organized. The Company skinned that area

right down to the river. That is when the

siltation of the Little Vermillion River

began.

My Exhibit No. 2 is various

pictures taken establishing the damage to

the river. The first page of Exhibit No. 2

ITV

49

is three pictures showing the siltation.

Right in here, this is to the north of the

Fifth Street bridge and this is to the

south. All of this here is siltation that

has been caused by the Illinois Cement

Company, and you can see right here, right

in this area you can step across the Little

Vermillion River now. This is to the

north. This is to the south.

This was the original channel of

the river here and that's all been put in

there by Illinois Cement since they started

their digging and damaging the river and I

have another picture -- oh, no, that one

goes with the other one.

MS. EDVENSON: The original page of

photographs, the top photograph is from the

north, the bottom photograph is from the

south and the land to the right -- how did

you describe that?

MS. GAPINSKI: That is siltation from

the dirt that keeps going into the Little

ITV

50

Vermillion. This is to the south and this

is -- no, that's to the north and this is to

the south.

MS. EDVENSON: All right, thank you.

MS. GAPINSKI: Uh-huh. And my other

pictures, I just happened to take this --

these pictures on a dark, dreary, rainy day,

and the reason that I was there at that

time, I had talked to a Department of

Conservation officer, a Mr. Ritter, and told

him about what was going on in the Little

Vermillion and told him about all this

brown, red water that kept flowing down

there, and he told me that he would like to

see that, I should call him.

I called him in the fall of 1992

and he was in Princeton, and he told me that

he would come and see this brown water.

Well, I waited and I waited and he didn't

come so I took my pictures and I left. He

didn't show up, but these pictures will show

you.

ITV

51

This is 1992. You can see the

distance here between this right here and

this right here. That's four years you can

see. Now you can step across there. This

also shows the murky waters. Like I say, it

was a dark, dingy day. It was hard to get a

good, clear picture, but even on that kind

of a day you can see the mud going in here.

You can see the mud over here. You can see

the mud in the water there. That's part of

Exhibit No. 2.

MS. EDVENSON: Let the record show that

Miss Gapinski is comparing the two sets of

photographs that were taken over the course

of a space of time.

MS. GAPINSKI: Now, I also have another

set of photographs, and these were taken

right after this damage started, probably in

1992, and this shows right here the area

where they were pushing the dirt and the

trees down in here, and this is another shot

of it right here, and this was taken

ITV

52

recently, 6/25/96. You can see that it's

still there. There's been no remediation to

any of it, and those are my photographs.

That is my Exhibit No. 2.

This is when the siltation of the

Little Vermillion began. My Exhibit No. 2

is various pictures taken establishing the

damage to the river. The first page of

Exhibit No. 2 is three pictures showing the

siltation which has changed the way the

river flows. In picture No. 1 you can see

that it is possible now to step across the

river.

The next page of Exhibit No. 2 is

six pictures taken in the fall of 1992 while

waiting for Officer Ritter of the Department

of Conservation to look at the brown, red

water coming from the damage by Illinois

Cement. He never showed up. It was a dark,

rainy afternoon about 4 p.m. They were all

taken from the north side of the Fifth

Street bridge. The water was very red,

ITV

53

brown, and even though it is dark you can

see the murky waters.

There is another area at the mouth

of the Little Vermillion where this flows

into the Illinois where siltation has caused

the course of river to be changed. We

couldn't get pictures of that because the

water has been too high.

The last page of Exhibit No. 2 is

two pictures showing how they came right

down to the river even though the Department

of Conservation recommended at least 200 to

300 feet setback from the 100-year

floodplain. This company is no friend to

the environment like they profess to be. In

my opinion Illinois Cement should either

remove all the siltation they have caused in

the river or pay the State of Illinois to

dredge it, to restore it to its original

condition. They should be made to stay

behind the 200 foot setback from the 100-

year floodplain.

ITV

54

In the January 2nd, 1996 letter

from the Attorney General's office on Page 6

it talks of a $50,000 penalty and an

additional penalty of $10,000 per day. Why

weren't they made to pay that penalty

instead of a measly $15,000? That penalty

is a sin compared to other penalties

companies have had to pay in this area.

On Page 7 of that same letter it

says no person shall cause, threaten or

allow the discharge of any contaminant into

the waters of the State as defined herein,

including, not limited to, water, to any

sewage works or into any well or from any

point source within the State and so forth.

On Page 8, No. 18 it says the

Agency reissued an NPDS permit allowing for

the discharge of treated domesticated water

and storm runoff. On Page 9 it talks about

a penalty of $10,000 for each violation and

an additional $10,000 per day for each

violation of Section 12F of the Act. We

ITV

55

have records to show that as late as

February 1996 they are still pouring

untreated waste from toilets and so forth

right into the Little Vermillion River.

Are you aware that the City of

LaSalle's water is not fit to drink since

about 1993? Everyone buys bottled water to

drink and cook with as their blasting and

mining caused a hole in the aquifer. Did

you know that the aquifer that LaSalle's

water supply comes from is under the Little

Vermillion? Don't you think that should be

checked out before you issue them a permit?

Exhibit No. 3 is a copy of three

maps, one from 1906 LaSalle County atlas and

two from the 1876 LaSalle County atlas which

shows where five coal mine shafts are in

very close proximity to Illinois Cement's

blasting and mining. I have also included a

copy from a genealogy news letter which

talks about a creek in Streator that broke

into a mine and flooded it. Do you know

ITV

56

that they have not broken through to the

aquifer? Don't you think that should be

investigated? Ordinary citizens are not

privy to that kind of information but your

agencies are.

They are keeping all the results

of an engineering study that we citizens

have been paying for very quiet. Can you

find out what this engineering company has

found? There has never been a report made

but we do know that they are not treating

their wastewater. It is going into the

Little Vermillion. If they have ruined our

water they should be made to pay for

correcting it and it should be done

immediately, not a measly $15,000 fine.

That is a drop in the bucket to all the

money they have made raping our beautiful

Little River. And this is my Exhibit No. 3

that shows you where the mine shafts are,

close proximity to their mining.

My Exhibit No. 4 is copies of

ITV

57

pictures which are in the LaSalle City

Library. The pictures show you that this

Little River has been a favorite spot for

recreation since the first settlers came

here in the 1830s. The Little Vermillion

River is the best spot in the State of

Illinois for small mouth bass. Did you know

that? Any time they report about fish in

the river they very conveniently forget to

mention that fact.

No one can enjoy recreation along

the Little Vermillion with their blasting,

no trespassing signs and fences. Even

adjoining property owners can't enjoy the

pleasure of the river when you never know

when they are going to blast. Their

blasting is so strong it is damaging homes

in the city, knocking pictures off the

walls, dishes out of cupboards.

How dare you subject law-abiding

citizens to this kind of living. You never

should have given them a permit to do this

ITV

58

so close to a city. Don't you believe them

when they say they are not -- they are

within the parameters of the requirements

for blasting. They are not. And these are

my exhibits of pictures showing the

recreation area that we have enjoyed until

they started their blasting.

My last Exhibit No. 5 is a sample

of the mud that is going into the Little

Vermillion. It was given to me by a

property owner on the river. Take a look at

that. That's what's going into the river.

That's what's causing all the siltation

right there. I hope you can see why I was

outraged at the measly penalty they were

given. I was even more outraged that you

have given them no remedial action to take.

Who did you all say you were supposed to be

representing? It sure looks to me like you

have allowed Illinois Cement to break the

law for years and made no attempt to make

them repair the damage they have done.

ITV

59

Illinois Cement should be made to

remove all the siltation they have put into

the Little Vermillion, remove all the trees

they have pushed into the Little Vermillion,

pay for the damage to the LaSalle water

supply and correct it. The Department of

Conservation has said they should stay away

from the banks of the river 200 to 300

feet. They should be made to do that. That

is State waters. They have no right to

contaminate it the way they have. And

that's a copy of my remarks.

MS. EDVENSON: Thank you, Miss

Gapinski. Before we proceed, I'm going to

sort the exhibits that Miss Gapinski has

given me and then I will identify the

numbers that will be assigned to those.

Miss Gapinski, how would you

identify the location from which the soil

was taken?

MS. GAPINSKI: Pardon me?

MS. EDVENSON: How would you identify

ITV

60

the location from which the soil was taken?

MS. GAPINSKI: I'm not sure exactly

where it was taken, but it was a property

owner along the river that collected that

for me.

MS. EDVENSON: Miss Gapinski identified

five general categories of exhibits, and at

that point in our proceeding we were up to

Exhibit No. 5, so these exhibit will be

numbered 5-1, 5-2 and the second number will

be the number that Miss Gapinski used in her

statement, so 5-1A will be letters, 5-1B is

news articles, 5-2A is 1996 photographs,

5-2B is 1992 photographs, No. 4 through 9.

5-2C is 1992 photographs, No. 10 and 11.

5-2D is one 1996 photograph. 5-3 is a map

-- or rather maps of the area. 5-4 is

historical photograph copies of the river,

and 5-5 which is for the information of the

Board and will not be retained in the record

of the proceeding in the final analysis but

will be available for the Board to see is

ITV

61

the collection of soil from the river bed.

Thank you very much. The next

individual on our list of persons interested

in speaking is Rebecca Ryba, so you're

welcome to come up to the front at this time

and sit or stand to make your remarks.

MS. RYBA: My name is Rebecca Ryba.

I'm from Peru.

MS. EDVENSON: And Miss Ryba, could you

speak up as much as possible, and also if

you're going to be reading testimony be sure

to go slowly enough so that our court

reporter can transcribe your remarks.

MS. RYBA: Ponder the thought: 17

years of damage, construction, lies.

$15,000 is only a minuscule amount to

correct these damages they have so

ruthlessly created. $15,000 is only pocket

change to such a large company as Illinois

Cement, and who is saying that this will

stop them from doing it again? This upsets

me greatly as a 14-year-old girl who wishes

ITV

62

to live life in a healthy, balanced

environment, but how can I when Illinois

Cement doesn't share my same dreams? I

strongly believe this fine should be

increased. Let us throw the political

issues aside and focus on what is real

important, the environment, period. It is

that simple. Thank you.

MS. EDVENSON: Thank you very much,

Miss Ryba.

MR. ESCHBACH: Madam Hearing Officer,

another person has entered the room on a

very tight schedule. That's Sharon

Rosploch. If she could speak, please.

MS. EDVENSON: And would you please

state your name and spell your last name for

us.

MS. ROSPLOCH: Sharon Rosploch,

R-o-s-p-l-o-c-h.

MS. EDVENSON: Okay, thank you, Miss

Rosploch. Please proceed.

MS. ROSPLOCH: Point No. 1 that I would

ITV

63

like to make in regard to this proposed fine

of $15,000 for violation of the NPDS permit

is by the Illinois Pollution Control Board's

own stipulation and proposal for settlement,

a $50,000 fine for each act and a $10,000

per day fine after that while the Company

was still in violation was stated.

How then could a $15,000 fine be

settled upon? I have articles showing fines

for different types of violations and costs

of cleanups to companies, and I have

articles for that. Do I just turn those to

you? I'm not going to read each one of

them.

MS. EDVENSON: Yes, you may give me

those.

MS. ROSPLOCH: Those would all be one.

Secondly, Illinois Cement was part

of a parent company and not new to the

mining industry when they came to Illinois.

They had to know the rules and the necessity

for the permits that were needed. Why did

ITV

64

they not follow them? Illinois Cement

certainly profited financially by not having

to get the necessary permits.

The EPA in the news in its own

letter said that all the companies should be

allowed to pay fines that would offset the

estimated financial benefits that have been

made by mining and operating without the

necessary permits. That would be No. 2.

No. 3, I have an article that is

short from the September 1989 Daily News

Tribune. "When We Had a Wet and a Wild

Wednesday," is the title. What it said is,

"Illinois Cement Company officially

reported a rain induced avalanche at a

quarry northwest of the intersection of US 6

and Interstate 39 at LaSalle. The face of

an 800-foot long limestone cliff collapsed.

In all, about 300,000 tons of limestone fell

from the stone wall into the quarry,

according to Virgil Sioni (phonetic), quarry

superintendent. He said it would have taken

ITV

65

one and a half years to mine that much

rock. 'We never, ever, ever had anything

like that out here,' Sioni said. 'In the 11

years I've been here I've never seen it, and

in the history of the company, well, I don't

think it's ever happened.'" Now, without

any environmental protection how much damage

could you figure was done with a rain like

that?

And my last point I'm making is

that LaSalle wells recharge from the Little

Vermillion River. With LaSalle's ongoing

water problems and the discharge of fecal

coliform into the Little Vermillion River,

how safe is the LaSalle water for the public

to drink? And I have two discharge

monitoring reports, and that's all I have.

MS. EDVENSON: All right, thank you

very much, Miss Rosploch. We will take just

a brief pause while I sort the exhibits.

All of Miss Rosploch's exhibits will be

identified under the main number Exhibit 6.

ITV

66

Exhibit 6-1 will be entitled news articles.

Exhibit 6-2 will be rain storm news article,

and Exhibit 6-3 will be discharge monitoring

reports.

The next individual on our list of

persons interested in speaking today is

Heather Wise. Is Miss Wise here?

MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC: She's not

present today.

MS. EDVENSON: The next individual's

name is C. R. Jasiek. Please come forward.

MR. C. R. JASIEK: I'm Dr. Jasiek. I

have lived out there in the area of the

Little Vermillion for about 30 years now.

There have been many, many changes that have

occurred, and not for the better. I can

tell you the terrain has been destroyed.

A Mr. Vyerlene (phonetic), who has

written extensively on the Illinois Valley,

had cited this valley, the Little Vermillion

valley, as the most scenic spot in the north

central part of the State. One of the

ITV

67

consultants that Blau Karris (phonetic) had

hired stood on the site that is currently

being demolished on the west side of the

river and said that was probably the most

impressive site that he had ever seen in all

of his travels through the north central

part of the State. It is no longer there.

The recharge area -- it's going to

be fragmented, and I'll get back to the

Company itself and their attitudes. The

recharge area according to the city

engineer, Pam Broviak, is probably at least

one mile and could possibly be as great as

seven miles in diameter. The Little

Vermillion does flow over that area. The

main source of the water comes along Saint

Peter Sandstone.

The river itself is not the

primary source of water but it is the source

of water for recharge, and I would hope that

you, the attorney, would get in there and

start looking up some of this information

ITV

68

because without it it's -- a lot of the

discussion is meaningless.

The recharge is very, very

significant, and the more siltation that

occurs in the area, the greater the plugging

up of the aquifer is the end result, and so

therefore we're going to see continued

problems with the LaSalle water in the years

to come.

But a little bit about the

attitude of the Company. Recently I have

had some extensive contact I would say with

Mr. Danczak from the Company. We had aerial

photos of our land. I would have to go back

through our records and get them, and the

aerial photo clear discloses a fence line on

the west side. The cement company has since

purchased the adjacent land, and much to my

dismay even though that fence was old it is

now demolished. That is very typical of the

arrogance of that Company. They don't care

what happens around them as long as they can

ITV

69

get a buck out of the ground and I --

MS. EDVENSON: Dr. Jasiek, direct your

comments to me and the Board.

MR. C. R. JASIEK: Yes, okay. I'm

still waiting for the final call. I know

that Mr. Danczak has had problems with the

breakdown of the kiln and one thing or

another and rain or to go over there and

look at the fence line. They are not to

touch anything that belongs to someone

else. That's a matter of common courtesy.

Isn't that right, Mr. Danczak?

MS. EDVENSON: Dr. Jasiek.

MR. C. R. JASIEK: Anyway, it has been

destroyed. They're going to put up their

fence. I have asked them to keep off of my

property, but that's just typical of their

attitude, an arrogant attitude that we will

do what we want, the hell with everyone

else. I get a little fed up with it. I

think Mrs. Knaff has also indicated that

she's had many problems. I'm not the only

ITV

70

one. They have stepped on everyone in the

area, including the entire community and the

citizens of the State of Illinois by

promoting mining practices that cause

extensive siltation in the Illinois River.

That's about all I have to say.

Thank you.

MS. EDVENSON: Thank you very much.

That concludes the list of individuals that

we were made aware of in advance that would

like to speak at the hearing. However, we

will entertain the oral testimony and -- the

oral statements, rather, of any additional

persons that would like to speak at the

hearing. So at this time if anyone would

like to make additional remarks for the

record for the Board, then please do so.

Okay, and please come forward

then, sir. And just before you make your

remarks, state your name and also please

spell your last name.

MR. CIESIELSKI: All right. My name is

ITV

71

Thomas Ciesielski, that's

C-i-e-s-i-e-l-s-k-i. I live at 737 Seventh

Street, LaSalle. My only -- not only, but I

feel that this fine is ridiculous. It's

been beat pretty heavy so I'll go beyond

that. My concern about the Illinois Cement

Company is the dust, and I've been

complaining not to them because I know --

well, at one time at a meeting with SOLVE at

the KC building they had a couple of the men

there, and I was complaining about the dust,

and they followed me downstairs to the car.

And I just washed my car and I showed them

where the dust was on the car. I call it

talcum powder dust, you can't see it.

And the way I come onto that, I

was washing my car one day and went to

chamois it and I seen a whole bunch of

little pinpoint dust, and I didn't know what

it was. And I said to the neighbor, what

the heck is that? And he said, that's

cement dust.

ITV

72

And now my front of my house, for

years every year I take the hose down. I

live about nine blocks east from the plant,

not the property line but from the plant --

or nine blocks west to Joliet Street and

about nine blocks counting the side streets

down, down below, about nine blocks in

distance, the Seventh and Joliet Street and

about a half a block east, and you can go

out there and my mail box and take your

finger, and it's coated real thick with

dust. It's real on the storm door, dust.

And that's in the middle of the house, and

then going downstairs in the bottom to the

end of the steps or on the step there's

another mailbox, dust on there, but the

bricks is more of a natural color.

Now, this dust is getting into

people's lungs, going to cause silicosis.

Hard telling what it's doing to the little

kids playing on the sidewalks and in the

grass and running and breathing it. To me

ITV

73

it's a heck of a health hazard, and I can't

say what I want to say, but if you live

towards Springfield, you're going towards

Springfield, go on Route 6 'til you come to

the first traffic light, turn right two

blocks, left a half a block, and the middle

of the block is a two-story brick house.

It's the only one, and go up on the steps.

Got a red carpet. It's dusty, various

colors. This dust comes in under the

porch. People argue with me. They say, it

can't come under the porch, it can't come

under the porch, but they won't come to my

house and see it.

Now, you look like a very

interested lady and a very intelligent lady,

and if you're going that way, just stop by.

And if you gentleman's going that way, walk

up on my porch and take a look at the bricks

on the east side of the house and on the

west side and give it the finger test.

Thank you.

ITV

74

MS. EDVENSON: Thank you very much,

sir. Does anyone else in attendance like to

make a statement for the record?

MR. MAAS: My name is Herb Maas. I've

been a resident of LaSalle for 73 years.

MS. EDVENSON: And sir, would you spell

your last name.

MR. MAAS: M-a-a-s. I'd just like to

present a little article that was in the

paper about the wildlife. It's creating a

hazard around the neighborhood. They can't

supply traps fast enough with all the

animals coming into town. It used to be a

wonderful place for me to walk, swim, hunt

and everything else, which has taken away

from me. Might as well just destroy it

altogether because it's no use to the

citizens anymore. Thank you. That's all I

have to say.

MS. EDVENSON: Thank you, Mr. Mass.

Mr. Mass' news article will be entitled

Exhibit No. 7.

ITV

75

MR. KNAFF: I'm Joe Knaff, and I farm

my wife's ground adjoining the Illinois

Cement Company, and I'd like to talk on your

alleged good neighbor policy. When they

first approached us in the south, I don't

know just what year it was, the first thing

they did was bulldoze the fence line out

with no word to any of us at all. They just

came in, bulldozed the fence line out.

Well, that was their half of the fence line

so there wasn't too much we could do about

it. Well, then they had the surveyors come

in and they resurveyed, and Mr. Danczak was

out there that day and I think his name was

Sherman at that time, met with me on top of

the hill back there to show us the new

property line. It was 48 foot farther in at

one end than the original property line and

25 foot at the other end, and they said,

that's your new property line.

Well, that's when we had to go to

a lawyer and spend our money to reestablish

ITV

76

the original fence line that's been there

for probably 100 years. It was the property

line regardless of what. We had to leave

this right of way to the adjoining property,

but that was it. Well, then they pulled

back, but then they continued to mine. They

came right up to the fence line, and it all

slumped away.

Well, that went on for a few years

and we had an attorney and stuff and we

finally got that fixed, and then they

went -- when they went on the west side of

our property there wasn't really enough room

to go mine through between the Little

Vermillion and our property or my wife's

property, so they quarried through there

anyway. It was not our fault that there

wasn't enough room there, but they should

have never went through there. They did.

Now when you stand four foot from

our fence line it drops 20 feet, and there's

nothing we can do about it really according

ITV

77

to -- because they showed us where they were

trying to fix it. They should have never

done it in the first place, but they had

meetings with us and they were trying to fix

it and that's -- now they're mining on past

there, over by the Little Vermillion.

They're destroying the Little Vermillion.

The berms that were promised are

not there. They're putting them in now, but

that wasn't the idea. It was to leave the

berm, not to reestablish the berm, but

that's the way they operate. As far as

neighborly, they don't care about the Little

Vermillion. They don't care about LaSalle.

They don't care about the people in

LaSalle. They don't care about your house

or anything as long as they can just keep

going, keep mining, and that's all I want to

say.

MS. EDVENSON: Thank you, sir. Would

anyone else here like to make a statement on

the record?

ITV

78

MR. ESCHBACH: Madam Hearing Officer,

if I may, since it appears as though no one

else -- no other members of the public wish

to comment, I would just like to point out

for the record on Page 16 of the proposed

stipulation a concern that I have regarding

wording, and I expressed this concern at a

prior meeting with Mary Rose Silva, and

there is wording in -- and this is Section

13 entitled Release from Liability, and it

indicates that in consideration for payment

of the fines and so forth and so on that the

Complainant shall release, waive and

discharge Respondent from any further

liability or penalties from violation of the

Act which were the subject matter of the

complaint, which I would understand to be

only the specific allegations that are

spelled out in the complaint.

But then a few lines later it

says, however, nothing in this stipulation

and proposal for settlement shall be

ITV

79

construed to waive or to stop Complainant of

the right to address future violations or

obtain penalties with respect thereto, and

my concern is that it appears that there are

other past violations that are not addressed

in this particular complaint. And for the

sake of clarity, I think it should be made

absolutely clear that the State is not

waiving its right to redress any other past

violations. And by having the word future

in there, it kind of implies that maybe that

is not the case.

I draw that to the Agency's

attention and would ask them to take a

careful look at that wording and ask the

Board to take a careful look at that

wording.

MS. EDVENSON: Thank you,

Mr. Eschbach. There being no further offers

to present additional oral statements, we

have come to the point at which we will

adjourn the hearing. And prior to

ITV

80

adjournment of the hearing in a contested

case we are normally in the position to

discuss and identify the schedule which will

be in place for the closing out of the case

before it -- in other words, before it is

closed -- before the record is closed and

the case goes to the Board for their

decision.

And I understand that the Counsel

for the parties may have something to say at

this point in time.

MS. SILVA: Yes, Madam Chairman. The

Attorney General's office --

MS. EDVENSON: I'm sorry, Madam Hearing

Officer.

MS. SILVA: Oh, Madam Hearing Officer,

the Attorney General's office would like the

opportunity and time to consider the

statements that were made here and to

perhaps talk to the IEPA as well as the

other parties regarding the stipulation or

perhaps modifying the stipulation. At the

ITV

81

time that this matter was referred to the

office we were not aware of the siltation

problems or the blasting, open burning, as

well as the NPDS violations. We will take

that into consideration, and we would like

to have the -- to keep the record open to

have the opportunity to consider and

evaluate the information that was obtained

here.

MR. ESCHBACH: Madam Hearing Officer,

since that -- if that request were granted I

would also ask that members of the public be

given additional time to submit written

comments. Some of those people who were not

here today, I do not know why they were not

here but they may have had problems, and I

would appreciate it if the Hearing Officer

could extend us a period of perhaps 30 days

for any other written comments to be

submitted in this matter.

MS. EDVENSON: Okay. Prior to the --

prior to our hearing today I did discuss

ITV

82

with Counsel for the Attorney General's

office and Counsel for the citizens with

respect to the possibility that the Attorney

General's office would be interested in

submitting a motion to stay proceeding.

Such a motion could be directed

either to me or to the Board, and I

recommended that should such a motion be

submitted it be submitted to the Board. In

the interest of permitting time for persons

who wish to submit additional comments to

the Board with respect to this case and in

the interest of providing time for the

parties to present such a motion to the

Board should they wish, then what I will do

is at this point in time I will hold the

record open for the receipt of written

comments from any additional persons.

This being the 28th of June let us

hold the record open until July 26th, which

is a period of four weeks, and in the

meantime any motion that goes to the Board I

ITV

83

will be under the advisement of the Board as

to whether to close the record or not.

Then let us entertain additional

written comments from any individual or

group with respect to this case and the

settlement that's been proposed until July

26th. So all persons please direct your

materials to the Board by July 26th, and you

are welcome to work with Mr. Eschbach for

that purpose, and you may also direct

materials to the Board directly.

MR. BLEIWEISS: Madam Hearing Officer,

we don't have any objection to keeping the

record open and taking further written

testimony as you've laid out. I would just

ask that if there is a further modification

to the stipulation and if that in fact

necessitates another hearing being held that

that next hearing be limited to the subject

matter of the modification rather than

revisiting the ground we've covered today.

MS. EDVENSON: Your concern will be

ITV

84

reflected on the record of the proceeding

today. I think the Board retains the

discretion to hold a hearing on issues that

it considers of concern, so I'm not in the

position where I'll be saying anything with

respect to whether or not they would limit

it to the modification or not.

MR. ESCHBACH: Madam Hearing Officer,

one other item of clarification with respect

to the exhibits. I'm not sure what your

ruling is. I would ask that they be made a

part of the record of this proceeding.

MS. EDVENSON: Thank you. Because the

exhibits are from the citizens and the

hearing was held for the purpose of giving

the citizens an opportunity to present their

statement and materials, the exhibits will

be admitted into the record. A list of the

exhibits and a list of the witnesses and a

report of the hearing will be prepared by me

and will be filed with the Board within the

next few days. A copy of that can be

ITV

85

obtained from Counsel who will be served

with the hearing report.

For the record, I've identified no

issues of credibility with respect to the

statements that were made here today, and

this concludes our hearing for today in the

case of People versus Illinois Cement

Company, PCB 96-147. The transcript of this

proceeding will be reviewed by all the

members of the Board before a decision is

rendered, as will the materials that have

been submitted and the materials that may be

submitted after this date.

Thank you for your attendance and

cooperation. Thank you for your

orderliness, and the hearing is now

adjourned.

(The hearing was concluded at

12:50 p.m.)

ITV

86

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, )

)

Complainant, ) PCB NO. 96-147

)

v. )

)

ILLINOIS CEMENT COMPANY, )

a joint venture, )

)

Respondent. )

I, Carrie L. Vaske, hereby certify

that I am a Certified Shorthand Reporter of

the State of Illinois; that I am the one who

by order and at the direction of the Hearing

Officer, June Edvenson, reported in

shorthand the proceedings had or required to

be kept in the above-entitled case; and that

the above and foregoing is a full, true and

complete transcript of my said shorthand

notes so taken.

Dated at Ashton, Illinois, this

8th day of July, 1996.

Carrie L. Vaske

Registered Professional Reporter

Certified Shorthand Reporter

Illinois License No. 084-003845

8991 South Prairie Road

Ashton, Illinois 61006

ITV