ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARI)

August 30, 1973

)

ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY

)

PCB 72~173

)

V.

P. KREMM AND VIRGINIA KRE~,

)

d/b

CFIE1-MET 

CORPORATION

)

OPINION OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle)

Mr. Dennis R. Fields, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental

Control Division, appearing for the Environmental Protection

Agy

Mr.

John Mulder, appearing for Respondent Virginia Kremm

Complaint 

was

filed against Respondents on April 26, 1972

alleging that on September 10, 1971 and continuing to the present

time, (which we construe to mean the date of filing of the complaint),

Respondents owned and operated a manufacturing plant located on the

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal near Stickney, Illinois. The

complaint alleges that during the dates aforesaid Respondents operated

their plant so as to cause water pollution in violation of Section

12(a) of the Environmental Protection Act, deposited contaminants

on the land so as to create a water pollution hazard in violation

of Section 12(d) of the Environmental Protection Act, discharged

substances into the water which settled to form bottom deposits

detrimental to hiota and materials which discolor and foul the water

in violation of Rules 1.04 

la and lc of SWB-lS, discharged effluent

into the canal which contained metallic solids exceeding the limits

set forth in Rule 1.07 of SWB-lS and failed to provide storage

facilities for materials hazardous to health in violation of Rule 1.07 

of SWB-1S. Respondent, Virginia Kremm, filed an Answer alleging that

all violations described in the complaint have been corrected and that

Respondent is in full compliance with all relevant regulations.

We note initially that the complaint is against V.P. Kremm

and Virginia Kremm, d/b/a Chem-Met Corporation. While this is a

conflict of terms, Respondent Virginia Kremm has filed an Answer

alleging that all violations have been corrected but not denying

the allegations of the complaint that V.P. Kremm and Virginia Krenim

~‘ownedand operated” the facility in question and not denying a

commission of the violations alleged. Service appears to have

been made properly on all party Respondents and testimony of EPA

—

137

-2-

witnesses is sufficient to establish the operation of the facility

in question by Chern-Met Corporation. In addition Virginia Kremm

appeared at the hearing and stipulated as to the identity of certain

of the ernployes contacted 

EPA personnel (R. 190) 

We proceed

against the respondents as captioned.

The record discloses that Chem-Met Corporation produces ferric

chloride in 750 gallon batches by the mixing of iron and chloride

in a heated solution (R. 191). The company’s facility is located on

the

north

bank of the Sanitary and Ship Canal. The principal basis

for

the cause of action arose during a routine inspection being

conducted by Thomas Gorman, an Environmental Protection Agency

engineer on the Sanitary and Ship Canal on September 10, 1971. An

orange colored plume approximately 15 feet wide and between 1/4

and 1/2 mile in length was observed :in the stream which extended

between the (len-Met plant and the Ridgeland power station. At

that 

time the precise source of emission was not ascertained.

However statements by Chem-Met 

employes and physical inspection

the Chem-Met site disclosed that 

the company was in fact the

source

of the emissions. 

EPA Exhibit 1 (R. 13) is a photograph

taken of the stream indicating the presence of the plume.

Mr. Parker, an employee of Chem-Met indicated that the pipeline

had ruptured several weeks previously and substantial quantities

of materials had spilled on the ground (R. 42)

The material was

described as a batch of ferric chloride.

Inspection conducted

by

Agency personnel at the Chem-Met site on Scptember 23, 1971

disclosed the presence of a substantial amount of red stained mud

southeast of the

main building covering an area ranging :rom

10,000 to 50,000 feet (R. 17 and 163). The red colored mud drained

into gullies

which 

were also described as containing red mud which

in turn went

down 

the embankment to the Canal.

EPA Exhibit 3

mdi cates the configuration of the plant of respondent, the gullies,

the embankment and

Canal. 

Deposits of reddish-orange material

were likewise found in the area of the Canal where the gullies

drained extending approximately 15-20 feet to the embankment of the

Canal

(11. 

23).

Soil samples taken from the site on January 3, 1972

indicated that the red stained ground and gullies contain concentra-

tions of iron four times higher than the unpollued ground (R. 65, 73,

83-85, EI~A

Exhibits 9A, B, and C). Subsequent investigations made

by Agency personnel indicate a continuation

of the ground pollution

condition and a likiihood of potential water pollution resulting

therefrom.

More samples taken on January 3, 1972 and February 14, 1973

confirm the water pollution potential from this land contamination.

Samples were taken from the sink marked “S” on Exhibit 3 and a trough

marked UTtI on the same exhibit and a pipe discharging into the Canal

identified

by the Number 3. Readings from the sink and trough

indicate relatively

small concentrations

of iron (EPA Exhibit 10 A ~ B)

—

138

-3-

whereas water samples taken from the pipe disclose readings of

110.1 mg/i of iron indicating that this runoff can only he from

the ground area in which the ferric chloride had seeped (R. 92-83).

Samples were also taken from a ferrlc chloride disposal pool indi-

cated as “4” on EPA Exhibit 3 (R. 25, 43, 87). Water sample from

this pool showed

readings of 3,018.8 mg/i of iron (EPA Exhibit U)

Respondent’s personnel admitted that this ferric chloride 

filtered

down through the ground (R. 43).

An additional water sample was

taken from a pipe identified

as “2’.

This pipe is buried in the

ground 

and

does not appear to be connected to 

anything. However,

groundwater is discharged through the pipe (R. 108-109)

Ground-

water sample taken from this location indicated 7500 mg/l 

iron 

the water (EPA Exhibit 11). Sample taken October 3, 1972 taken

from 2 bodies of water directly north o-f the plant 

show

concentra-

tions to 

2860 mg/i 

and

150 mg/i, respect:ively of iron (R. 172,

186).

From

the total record in this proceeding it is evident that

Respondent Che~n-Met Corporation permitted a ferric chloride dis-

charge into

the Sanitary and Ship Canal on September 10, 1971 

and

that pollutional discharges, principally of iron, continued from

the September 10, 1971 date to the date of filing of the complaint

and thereafter. These continuing discharges attributable to Chem-

Met Corporation, show failure to limit the groundwater 

seepage both

from the polluted ground on the pliant site and through the gullies

contiguous to the Canal, as well as the presence of seepage from

various pipes and from the ferric chloride pools.

While the lagoons,

have been filled in part,

the red polluted dirt 

has

not been removed

and runoff from and through this contaminated area continues unabated

(R. 111-116) with continuing pollutional discharge into the Canal.

find that respondents V.P. Krenm and Virginia Kremm, d/b/a

Chem-Met Cornoration between September 10, 1971 and April 26, 1972

have discharged contaminants so as to cause water pollution in vio-

lation of Section 12(a) of the Act, of creat:ing a water pollution

hazard in violation of Section 12(d) of the Act, and of violating

SWB-15, Rule 1.04, ic (discharge of 

materials causing coloration

nuisance) and Rule 1.07-11 (an inadequate storage of hazardous

materials to prevent leakage)

We assess a penalty in the amount

of $2,500 for the violations aforesaid.

We find that the record does not support the violations of

SWB-l5, Rule 1.04 la (creation of bottom deposits) nor of 11ttle 1J7

with

respect to maximum effluent discharges as no measurements 

were

—

139

-4-

made

at the point of entrance to the Canal.

We will direct that Chem-~’:1et Corporation, within 60 days

from the (late of this order, cease and desist the continuing vio-

llat:ion of all regulations and statutory provisions 

found in

this opinion.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions o:C law.

ORDER

It

is the order of the Pollution Control Board that:

Peiwiltv in the amount of $2 ,500 is assessed against V. P.

Creum and Virgin:i a Kremm, d/b/a Chem-Met Corporation for the

ca.usine of water pollution in violation of Section 12(a) of

the Environmental Protection Act, for the creation o:f the

water pollution hazard in violation of Section 12(d) of

~aid Act, and for violation of SWB-l5, Rules i.04c and 1.07 

-11

~ena1ty payment 

certi fied check or 

money

order payable

to

the

State of Illinois 

shall

be made to: Fiscal Services

Division, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2200

Churchill Road,

Springfield, Illinois 62706.

2)

Within

60 days from the date of this order, Respondents

V. P. Krewm

and Virginia Kremm 

d/b/a Chem-Met Corporation,

shalli cease and desist 

the violation of all regulations

and statutory provisions as found

in this opinion.

I

CNristan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illino:is Pollution Control

~oar~i, lie rehy cert fv the above Opini

on and 

Order

were adopted 

the

~)1’

day of August, 1973

lay a vote of 

~—(~

________________

~:__)Christan

/~~ kV~7~

L. Moffet~

/Y5

L&’~

.erk

Illliriois Po1lutior,’E~tro1 Board

—

140