ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 8, 1972
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
vs.
)
PCB 72—72
KIENSTRA CONCRETE INC.,
Respondent,
Thomas J. Imrnel, Assistant Attorney General for the EPA
R. Emmett Fitzgerald, Attorney for Respondent
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF
THE
BOARD (by
Mr.
Henss)
Respondent Kienstra Concrete Inc. operates a concrete
plant on 23 acres at Edwardsville, Illinois. Respondent first
leased the property in 1959 then purchased it from Chicago and
Northwestern Railway Co. in 1964. More than 25 years prior to
Kienstra’s ownership of
the
property it
had
been used for an
underground coal mine, and during that time coal mine wastes
were deposited on the land. The resulting slag pile or gob
pile existed on the property when it was acquired by Kienstra.
The Environmental Protection Agency now alleges that
Respondent caused, threatened or allowed the discharge of
mine waste runoff and acids so as to cause water pollution.
IKienstra is also charged with depositing concrete waste matter
upon the land in such manner as to create a water pollution
hazard.
A Stipulation for Settlement reveals that Kienstra’s
handling of concrete waste water constituted a relatively
minor violation. It had been the custom of Respondent’s employees
to wash out concrete trucks near a creek which flows through the
property, and some of the waste water drained into the creek.
Respondent now dumps concrete waste water into a pit which has
been dug for that purpose. The parties refer to this violation
as ~occasiona1 or technicalu and state that
it
has been “adequately
corrected” by construction and use of the dumping pit.
The
slag pile however, has been a major source of water
pollution. The unnamed creek
which
flows near
the
slag pile
empties into the Cahokia Creek which in turn empties into the
Mississippi River. Below Respondent’s property the creek is
highly turbid, a milky white or yellow—orange in color, subject
to foaming and does not support aquatic life. These conditions
do not exist in
the
creek above Respondent’s property. An ~PA
6
—
137
—2—
investigator observed heavy deposits of a white—orange marbled
material in the bed of the stream just below Respondent’s land,
Analysis of water samples taken at several places above and
below the slag pile show that the creek receives heavy concen-
trations of acid and iron from Respondent’s land. The Stipu—
lation states that these violations of the Environmental
Protection Act were “created and caused more than 25 years ago
by the old mining operations on the lands owned by Respondent
and were not caused by any direct acts of Respondent”.
In an attempt to remedy the conditions and fully settle
the controversy, Kienstra has agreed to cover the mine slag
with earth and then plant vegetation to prevent erosion. This
will be accomplished by December 31, 1972. It is agreed that
the earth cover will be brought from an area a substantial
distance from the slag pile and will he deposited to a sufficient
depth that future rain and other moisture in the area will not
contaminate the creek.
Kienstra “assumes the responsibility for the work actually
correcting and remedying the violations.” The cost of the
project will be between $15,000 and $20,000. Respondent will
supply the EPA with a performance bond in the amount of $15,000
and will make monthly progress reports to the EPA.
We are asked to approve the Stipulation; find that
Respondent without wrongful intention violated the Environmental
Protection Act; and, in assessing a penalty, consider that the
problem was created by a previous owner, and that Respondent will
have expense in correcting the situation.
We do approve the Stipulation. A penalty in the amount of
$100 will be imposed for the careless disposal of concrete waste.
This violation was relatively minor, of short duration and has
been voluntarily corrected by the Respondent.
No monetary penalty will be assessed against Kienstra for
the mine waste pollution. The mine wastes were apparently a
major source of pollution for many years but Kienstra was not
at fault in accumulating the slag pile and has shown real
cooperation in the clean UP effort. Res-nondent’s expenditure
to cover the mine wastes with oarth and voqetation will be sub-
stantial.
We condenn those who lay waste to our natural resources but
commend the subsequent property ooners who will spend their cash
to abate a pollution source they ~Tidnot create. It will take
more of this spirit of cooperation to clean up the mining country.
Our decision not to impose a penalty
here
will perhaps be an
in~ucement for others to undertake similar abatement programs.
6
-~-
‘c38
—3—
Our goal is environmental improvement. Monetary penalties
will be imposed where necessary to achieve that goal, and
they will be omitted when we believe environmental quality
will be enhanced by such a course.
The Stipulation is approved in all respects.
ORDER
It is ordered that:
1. Respondent secure sufficient earthen cover from
a tract away from the area in which the old mine
slag pile i~presently located and use it to
completely and thoroughly cover the mine slag and
other sources of contamination to a sufficient
depth that future rain and other moisture in the
area will not, either alone or in combination
with matter from other sources, contaminate the
subject unnamed tributary of Cahokia Creek. Said
earthern cover will be supplied either from an
adjacent tract owned by Illinois Terminal Railroad
Comoany or from a portion of the tract owned by
Respondent but located a substantial distance from
the mine waste storage area.
2. Respondent promptly plant appropriate vegetation
upon the said earthern cover so used in such manner
as to
prevent wash and erosion.
3. Respondent fully accomplish the acts referred to
in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above on or before December 31,
1972 all at the expense of Respondent.
4. Respondent perform the above mentioned work under
the direction or supervision of Civil Engineer
Willard G. Flagg, Edwardsville, Illinois, who will
make monthly reports to the Environmental Protection
Agency as to the progress of the work.
5. Resoonuent warrant to the Environmental Protection
Agency that Respondent will have the work performed
in a workmanlike manner and assume the responsibility
for the work actually correcting and remedying the
violations.
6. Respondent supply the Environmental Protection Agency
with a performance bond in the amount of $15,000 to
6
—
139
—4—
guarantee the performance of the acts referred
to in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Order, with a
commercial bonding company as surety on the
performance bond.
7. Respondent shall pay to the State of Illinois
by December 31, 1972 the sum of $100 as a penalty
for the violations found in this proceeding.
Penalty payment by certified check or money order
payable to the State of Illinois, shall be made
to: Fiscal Services Division, Illinois EPA,
2200 Churchill Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62706.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board cer~ifythat the above Opinion and Order was
adopted on the ~
~
day of November, 1972, by a vote of
~
to 0
Christan L. Moffett,/~lerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
6
—~
140