RECEIVED
CLEJ3WS OFFICE
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD~
MAR
17
2004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
)
Pollution Control
Board
Complainant,
v.
)
PCBNO.
)
(Enforcement)
CONOCOPHILLIPS Company, a Delaware
)
Corporation
Respondent.
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Donna
F-I.
Carvalho
Senior Counsel
McLean 1106
600 North
Dairy Ashford
P.O.
Box 4783
Houston, TX
77079
PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE that on this date
I
mailed for filing with the Clerk of the Pollution
Control Board of the State of Illinois, an
APPEARANCE, MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM HEARING
REQUIREMENT,
a COMPLAINT
and
a STIPULATION AND
PROPOSAL
FOR
SETTLEMENT,
copies of which are attached
hereto and
herewith served
upon
you.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
JAMES
E.
RYAN
Attorney General of the
State of
Illinois
MATTHEW J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation
Division
BY:
4L/L~~2.
SALL~’
A.
CARTER
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
500 South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
March
15, 2004
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I
hereby certify that
I did
on
March
15, 2004,
send by
First
Class Mail, with
postage
thereon fully
prepaid, by depositing in a
United States
Post Office
Box a true and
correct copy
of the following instruments
entitled
NOTICE OF FILING, APPEARANCE,
MOTION
FOR
RELIEF
FROM HEARING
REQUIREMENT,
COMPLAINT and
STIPULATION AND
PROPOSAL
FOR SETTLEMENT:
To:
Donna
H.
Carvalho
Senior Counsel
McLean
1106
600
North Dairy Ashford
P.O.
Box 4783
Houston,
TX
77079
and the original
and ten copies by
First Class
Mail with
postage thereon fully prepaid
of the
same foregoing
instrument(s):
b
To:
Dorothy Gunn, Clerk
Illinois
Pollution Control
Board
State of
Illinois Center
Suite
11-500
100 West
Randolph
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
Sally A.
~rter
Assistant Attorney General
This filing is submitted on
recycled paper.
RECEIVED
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD CLERKS OFFICE
-
MAR172004
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
Complainant,
)
)
—1
v.
)
PCBNOJ~
)
(Enforcement)
CONOCOPHILLIPS Company,
a Delaware Corporation,
)
Respondent.
APPEARANCE
I,
SALLY A.
CARTER, Assistant Attorney General of the State of
Illinois,
hereby file
my
appearance
in the proceeding on
behalf of the Plaintiff,
PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MATTHEW J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement
Division
BY:
~Q/2~-~
(7..
SALLY~X.CARTER
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
500 South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
21 7/782-9p31
Dated:
3J;~/o~
RECEIVED
CLERKS OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
MAR
17
20O~
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
p~n~oi6oard
Complainant,
v.
)
PCBNO.
)
(Enforcement)
)
CONOCOPHILLIPS Company,
a Delaware Corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
)
MOTION
FOR
RELIEF FROM HEARING
REQUIREMENT
NOW
COMES the Complainant, PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA
MADIGAN,
Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and
pursuant to subsection
32(c)(2) of the
Illinois
Environmental Protection Act (“the Act”), 415
ILCS 5/31(c)(2)
(2002),
moves that the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
(“the Board”)
grant the PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
and
CONOCOPHILLIPS Company relief from the hearing
requirement in the above-captioned
matter.
In support of this motion,
Complainant states as
follows:
1.
Simultaneously with the filing of this motion, the Complainant is filing a
Complaint
with the Board, alleging
that the Respondent caused the release of hydrocarbon
vapor and
sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere.
2.
The People of the State of Illinois and the Respondent,
ConocoPhillips,
have
reached agreement
on
all outstanding
issues
in this matter.
3.
This agreement is memorialized and
presented to
the Board in
a Stipulation
and
Proposal for Settlement, filed
contemporaneously with
this motion.
The terms of this
agreement were finalized
prior to
December 31,
2003.
4.
The parties, the People of the
State
of Illinois and
ConocoPhillips,
agree that a
hearing
on the Stipulation
and
Proposal for Settlement
is not necessary,
and
request relief from
such
a hearing
as provided
pursuant to subsection
31 (c)(2)
of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/31 (c)(2)
(2002).
WHEREFORE, Complainant,
People of the State of Illinois, hereby
respectfully
requests
that the Board grant this
Motion for
Relief from the Hearing
Requirement between
ConocoPhillips
Company and the
People of the State of Illinois, as set forth
in subsection
31 (c)(2) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/31 (c)(2)
(2002).
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MATTHEW J. DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement
Division
BY:
9
SALL’~/A.CARTER
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
500 South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
21 7/782-9Q31
Dated:
3/ic/o~
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
MAR
172004
~,STATE
OF ILLINOIS
uOIIUtiOn
Control Boar
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
-1
v.
)
PCBNO.
)
(Enforcement)
CONOCOPHILLIPS Company,
a Delaware Corporation,
)
Respondent.
COMPLAINT
Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney
General
of the State of Illinois,
and at the request of the ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, complains
of the Respondent,
CONOCOPHILLIPS,
as follows:
COUNT
I
AIR POLLUTION
1.
This Complaint is brought by the Attorney General on
her own motion
and at the
request of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”), pursuant to
the terms
and
provisions of
Section
31
of the
Illinois Environmental
Protection Act
(“Act”), 415
ILCS
5/31
(2002).
2.
The Illinois
EPA
is
an agency of the State of Illinois
created
by the Illinois
General Assembly in
Section 4 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/4 (2002),
and
charged,
inter a/ia,
with
the
duty of enforcing the Act in
proceedings before the Illinois Pollution
Control
Board
(“Board”).
3.
The Complaint is brought pursuant to
Section
31
of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/31
(2002),
after providing the Respondent with
notice and opportunity for
a meeting with the
Illinois
EPA.
4.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, ToscoPetro
Corporation,
a subsidiary of
Tosco Corporation (“Tosco”) owned and
operated the Wood
River Refinery located at 900
South Central Avenue,
Roxana, Madison County,
Illinois
62084.
Tosco is a
Nevada
corporation
authorized to do
business
in
Illinois.
5.
On
September 17,
2001,
Phillips
Petroleum Company acquired the Tosco
Corporation
and
its assets,
including
the Wood
River Refinery.
On
September
1,
2002,
Phillips
Petroleum Company merged with Conoco
Inc.
to form
ConocoPhillips
Company
(“ConocoPhillips” or “Respondent”).
ConocoPhillips
is a Delaware corporation authorized
to do
business
in Illinois.
Its registered agent is C.T.
Corporation,
208 South
LaSalle Street,
Chicago,
Illinois 60604-1136.
6.
The refinery
processes approximately 295,000
barrels of crude oil
per day into
gasoline, aviation fuels, diesel oils,
lubricating
oils, heavy fuel
oils,
asphalt, and
propane.
Emission units at the facility
include distilling
unit #2.
Tosco was
issued operating
permit No.
72110616 for distilling
unit #2 on
July 29,
1993.
7.
Section 9(a)
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(a)
(2002),
provides:
No person shall:
a)
Cause or threaten or allow the discharge or
emission of any contaminant into the environment
in any
State so as
to cause or tend
to cause
air
pollution in
Illinois, either alone or in combination
with contaminants from other sources,
or so as to
violate regulations or standards
adopted by the
Board under this Act;
8.
Section
3.115 of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/3.115
(2002),
defines “air pollution” as
follows:
“AIR
POLLUTION” is the presence in
the atmosphere of one or more
contaminants
in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics and
duration as
2
to
be injurious to human,
plant,
or animal
life, to health,
or to
property, or to
unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property.
9.
Section
3.165 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.165
(2002),
defines “contaminant” as
follows:
“CONTAMINANT” is any solid,
liquid,
or gaseous matter, any odor,
or any form
of energy,
from whatever source.
10.
Section 201.141
of the Board’s Air Pollution regulations,
35
III.
Adm.
Code
201.141, provides:
No
person shall cause
or threaten or allow the discharge or emission of any
contaminant
into the environment
in any State so as, either alone or in
combination with
contaminants from
other sources,
to cause or tend to
cause air
pollution
in
Illinois, or so as to
violate the provisions of this Chapter,
or so as
to
prevent the attainment or maintenance of any applicable ambient air quality
standard.
11.
On February 3,
2001, Tosco experienced two separate releases
due to the over
pressurization in the deisohexanizer column of distilling unit #2.
This resulted
in the release of
250,000 pounds
of gasoline-range hydrocarbon
vapor,
including 780 pounds of benzene and
2,900
pounds of hexane
on two separate occasions.
12.
The emissions
released on
February 3,2001,
resulted in the nearby
communities of Wood River and
Roxana experiencing
strong odors.
Numerous
residents
complained of the strong
smell of gas associated with the release.
One citizen of Wood
River
was transported to
a
local hospital for medical treatment.
13.
Tosco submitted
its follow-up written
report to the Illinois
EPA on
February
13,
2001.
In this report, Tosco indicated that
one release occurred from 0332 hours
to 0441
hours
and the next release from 0509
hours to
0524 hours.
14.
Tosco determined
that the
February 3, 2001,
release was caused
by the
installation of an
incorrect valve
in
the instrument air system
and
the failure of the regulator that
supplies instrument air to the column
pressure
control valve.
3
15.
On April
28, 2001,
a fire occurred in the upper column
area of the same unit.
Material from a
leaking
pump ignited,
consuming
12,000 gallons of light gas oil
and 600 gallons
of light naphtha.
1,200
pounds of sulfur dioxide were
released during the
fire.
The fire lasted
approximately
161/2 hours and
two fire departments
had to
respond and
assist in fighting the
fire.
16.
Tosco determined
that the April 28, 2001, fire was due to foreign objects
making
its way to the pump
and
ultimately causing the failure of the pump’s seal.
17.
The February 3,
2001,
release of 250,000 pounds of
hydrocarbon vapor,
including 780
pounds of benzene and 2,900 pounds of hexane to the atmosphere and the April
28, 2001,
release
of 1,200 pounds of sulfur dioxide
to the atmosphere
has caused or tended to
cause air pollution in the State.
18.
By allowing the release of 250,000 pounds of hydrocarbon vapor,
including 780
pounds of benzene
and 2,900
pounds of hexane,
and the release of
1,200 pounds of sulfur
dioxide, the Respondent has violated
Section
9(a) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/9(a)
(2002) and 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 201.141.
PRAYER FOR
RELIEF
WHEREFORE,
Complainant,
the People of the
State of Illinois, respectfully request that
the Board
enter an order against the Respondent:
A.
Authorizing
a hearing
in
this matter at which time the Respondent will
be
required to answer the allegations herein;
B.
Finding that Respondent has violated
the Act
and
regulations as
alleged
herein;
C.
Ordering Respondent to cease
and desist from
any further violations of the Act
and
associated
regulations;
4
D.
Pursuant to
Section 42(a) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/42(a) (2002),
impose
a civil
penalty of not more than the statutory maximum;
E.
Pursuant to
Section 42(f) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/42(f)
(2002), awarding
to
Complainant its costs and
reasonable
attorney fees; and
F.
Granting
such other relief as the Board
may deem appropriate.
COUNT II
PERMIT VIOLATION
1-17.
The Plaintiff realleges and
incorporates
herein paragraphs I
through 17
of Count
las paragraphs
1
through
17 of this Count
II.
18.
Section 9(b) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/9(b)
(2002),
provides:
No person shall:
Construct, install, or operate any equipment, facility, vehicle, vessel, or aircraft
capable of causing
or contributing to
air pollution or designed to
prevent air
pollution,
of any type designated
by Board
regulations, without a permit granted
by the Illinois
Environmental Protection
Agency, or
in violation
of any conditions
imposed
by such
permit;
19.
Standard condition 7 of operating
permit no. 72110616 provides:
The permittee
shall maintain all equipment covered
under this permit in such a
manner that the performance of such equipment shall not cause a violation
of
the Environmental
Protection Act
of regulations promulgated thereunder.
20.
By allowing the release of 250,000 pounds of hydrocarbon vapor,
including
780
pounds
of benzene and
2,900 pounds of hexane,
and the release of 1,200 pounds of sulfur
dioxide, the Respondent has violated the Act and thus,
Standard Condition 7 of operating
permit no. 72110616.
21.
By violating
Standard Condition
7 of operating
permit no. 72110616, the
Respondent has violated
Section 9(b) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(b)
(2002).
PRAYER
FOR RELIEF
5
WHEREFORE,
Complainant, the People of the State of Illinois,
respectfully request that
the Board
enter an
order against the Respondent:
A.
Authorizing a hearing
in this matter at which time the Respondent will
be
required to answer the allegations
herein;
B.
Finding that Respondent has violated the Act and
regulations as alleged
herein;
C.
Ordering Respondent to
cease and
desist from any further violations of the Act
and
associated
regulations;
D.
Pursuant to Section 42(a)
of theAct,
415 ILCS 5/42(a)
(2002),
impose a civil
penalty of not more than the statutory maximum;
E.
Pursuant to
Section 42(f) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/42(f) (2002),
awarding
to
Complainant its costs
and reasonable
attorney fees;
and
F.
Granting
such
other relief as the Board
may deem appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS
LISA MAD IGAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MATTHEW J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental
Enforcement Division
BY:_____________________
THOMAS DAVIS,
Chief
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
500
South Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
217/782-9031
Dated:
~r/o—y
6
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
MAR
172004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
POllution Control Board
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCBNO.O~1~(
)
(Enforcement)
)
CONOCOPHILLIPS
Company,
)
a Delaware Corporation,
)
Respondent.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney
General of the State
of Illinois, the
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(“Illinois EPA”),
and
Respondent,
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY,
have agreed to
the making of this Stipulation
and
Proposal for Settlement and submit it to
the Illinois Pollution
Control Board
(“Board”) for
approval.
The parties agree that the statement of facts
contained herein
represents a fair
summary of the evidence and
testimony which
would
be introduced
by the parties
if a
hearing
were held.
The parties further stipulate that this statement of facts
is made and agreed upon
for purposes
of settlement only
and that
neither the fact that
a party has
entered
into this
Stipulation,
nor any of the facts stipulated herein, shall
be introduced
into evidence
in any other
proceeding regarding the claims asserted
in the Complaint except as otherwise
provided
herein.
If the Board approves and
enters this Stipulation,
Respondent agrees to
be bound by
the Stipulation and
not
to contest its validity in
any subsequent
proceeding to implement or
enforce its terms.
1
JURISDICTION
The
Board
has jurisdiction of the subject
matter herein and of the parties
consenting
hereto
pursuant to
the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act (“Act”), 415
ILCS 5/1
et
seq.
(2002).
II.
AUTHORIZATION
The undersigned
representatives for each
party certify that they are fully authorized
by
the party whom they represent to enter into the terms and conditions
of this Stipulation and to
legally bind them to
it.
Ill.
STATEMENTOF FACTS
A.
Parties
1.
Simultaneously with
the filing of the Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement,
a
Complaint will
be filed
on
behalf of the People of the State of Illinois by
Lisa Madigan, Attorney
General of the State of Illinois,
on her own
motion
and upon the request of the Illinois EPA,
pursuant to
Section 42(d) and
(e) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/42(d) and
(e)(2002), against the
Respondent,
ConocoPhillips Company.
2.
The Illinois EPA
is an
administrative agency of the State of Illinois, created
pursuant to
Section
4 of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/4 (2002).
3.
At all times relevant to the Complaint,
ToscoPetro Corporation,
a subsidiary of
Tosco Corporation
(“Tosco”) owned and
operated the Wood
River Refinery located at
900
South
Central
Avenue,
Roxana, Madison
County,
Illinois
(“refinery’).
4.
Tocso is a
Nevada corporation
authorized
to do
business in
Illinois.
5.
On
September 17,
2001,
Phillips
Petroleum Company acquired the Tosco
2
Corporation and
its assets, including the Wood
River Refinery.
On September 1,
2002., Phillips
Petroleum Company
merged with
Conoco
Inc. to form ConocoPhillips
Company
(“ConocoPhillips” or “Respondent”).
6.
ConocoPhillips is a
Delaware corporation
authorized to do business
in
Illinois.
Its registered agent is C.T.
Corporation,
208 South
LaSalle
Street,
Chicago,
Illinois 60604-
1136.
B.
Site
Description
1.
The refinery
processes approximately 295,000 barrels of crude oil
per day into
gasoline, aviation fuels,
diesel
oils,
lubricating
oils,
heavy fuel oils, asphalt,
and
propane.
Emission units at the facility include
distilling unit #2.
The refinery was issued
operating
permit
No. 72110616 for distilling
unit #2 on July 29,
1993.
2.
On
February
3,
2001, Tosco experienced two separate
releases due to the over
pressurization
in
the deisohexanizer
column of distilling unit #2.
This resulted
in the release of
250,000 pounds of gasoline-range hydrocarbon vapor,
including
780 pounds of
benzene and
2,900
pounds of hexane on two separate occasions.
3.
The emissions
released on
February 3,
2001,
resulted
in the nearby
communities of Wood
River and Roxana
experiencing strong odors.
Numerous residents
complained of the strong smell of gas associated with
the release.
One citizen
of Wood
River
was transported
to a
local hospital for medical
treatment.
4.
Tosco submitted
its follow-up written
report to
the
Illinois
EPA on
February
13,
2001.
In this report, Tosco indicated
that one release occurred from
3:32 a.m.
to
4:41
a.m.
and
the next release from 5:09 a.m. to 5:24 a.m.
5.
Tosco determined that the February
3,
2001,
release was
caused by the
installation of an
incorrect valve
in the instrument air system and the failure of the regulator that
3
supplies instrument air to
the column
pressure control valve.
6.
On April
28, 2001,
a fire occurred in the upper column area of the same unit.
Material from
a leaking
pump
ignited, consuming
12,000 gallons of light
gas oil and 600 gallons
of light naphtha.
1,200
pounds of sulfur dioxide were released during the fire.
The fire lasted
approximately 161/2
hours and
two local fire departments were requested by the refinery to
respond
and assist in fighting the fire.
7.
Tosco determined that the April 28, 2001,
fire was
due to
foreign objects making
their way to the pump and
ultimately causing the failure of the pump’s seal.
C.
Allegations of Non-Compliance
Complainant contends that the Respondent violated the following provisions
of the Act
and
Board
Regulations:
Count
I:
1.
The
February
3,
2001,
release of 250,000 pounds of hydrocarbon vapor,
including
780 pounds
of benzene and 2,900
pounds of hexane to the atmosphere and
the April
28, 2001,
release of 1,200 pounds of sulfur dioxide
to the atmosphere has caused
or tended to
cause air pollution
in
the State.
2.
By allowing the release
of 250,000 pounds of hydrocarbon vapor,
including 780
pounds of benzene and 2,900 pounds
of hexane, and the release of 1,200
pounds of sulfur
dioxide, the Respondent violated
Section
9(a) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/9(a) (2002) and
35
III.
Adm.
Code 201.141.
Count
II:
1.
By allowing the release of 250,000 pounds of hydrocarbon
vapor, including
780
pounds
of benzene and 2,900 pounds of hexane,
and the release of 1,200
pounds of sulfur
dioxide,
the Respondent violated the Act and thus,
Standard Condition 7 of operating
permit no.
4
72110616.
2.
By violating
Standard Condition
7 of operating
permit no.
72110616, the
Respondent violated Section 9(b)
of the Act, 415
ILCS
5/9(b) (2002).
D.
Admission of Violations
The Respondent represents that it has
entered
into this Stipulation
and
Proposal for
Settlement for the purpose of settling
and compromising disputed
claims without having to
incur
the expense of contested
litigation.
By entering
into this Stipulation and
complying with
its
terms, the Respondent does not affirmatively admit the allegations of violation within the
Complaint,
and
this Stipulation should not be
interpreted as
including
such admission.
E.
Compliance Activities to Date
Respondent equipped the upper column bottom pumps,
P-391 8 with
suction
screens
to
catch foreign objects.
In
addition, the
Respondent replaced the failed air regulator on the DIH
column
overhead
pressure control valve and
installed physical stops on the valve handle of the
instrument air/nitrogen
4-way valve.
IV.
APPLICABILITY
This Stipulation
shall apply
to and
be binding
upon the Complainant and the
Respondent, and
any officer or agent of the Respondent,
as well
as any successors or assigns
of the Respondent.
The Respondent shall not raise as a defense to any enforcement action
taken
pursuant to this Stipulation the failure of any of its officers or agents to
take such action
as shall
be required
to comply with
the provisions of this Stipulation.
V.
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS
This Stipulation
in no way affects the responsibilities of the Respondents to comply with
5
any other federal, state
or local laws or regulations including, but not limited to, the Act and
the
Board
Regulations, 35
III. Adm. Code,
Subtitles A through
H.
VI.
IMPACT ON THE
PUBLIC RESULTING
FROM ALLEGED
NON-COMPLIANCE
Section
33(c) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/33(c)(2002), provides as follows:
In
making
its orders
and determinations, the
Board
shall take into consideration
all
the facts and
circumstances bearing
upon the reasonableness of the
emissions, discharges, or deposits involved including, but not limited to:
1.
the character and degree of injury to,
or interference with
the protection
of the health,
general welfare and
physical
property of the people;
2.
the social and
economic value of the pollution source;
3.
the suitability or unsuitability of the pollution source to the area in which it
is located,
including the question
of priority of location
in the area
involved;
4.
the technical practicability
and economic
reasonableness of reducing
or
eliminating
the emissions,
discharges
or deposits resulting
from such
pollution source; and
5.
any subsequent
compliance.
In
response
to these factors, the
parties
state the following:
1.
Complainant contends that the injury to,
or interference with, the protection of the
health,
general welfare,
and
physical property
of the People would
be characterized
as
a
potential for air pollution and the degree
of injury would
be dependent upon the extent of the
pollution and
the degree of exposure
to that pollution;
2.
The parties
agree that the refinery is of social and
economic benefit;
3.
The refinery is located
in
an industrial
area adjacent to
residential areas.
The
refinery existed
at this location
before the existing residential areas developed;
4.
The parties agree that for the purposes of this Stipulation
and Proposal for
Settlement complying with the Act and
regulations is technically practicable
and economically
6
reasonable;
and
5.
The Respondent promptly
implemented measures subsequent to
the alleged
violations that are the subject of the Complaint in this matter
in order to operate in compliance
with the Act and the Board’s Air Pollution
Regulations.
VII.
CONSIDERATION OF SECTION
42(h) FACTORS
Section
42(h) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/42(h)(2002), provides as follows:
In
determining the appropriate civil penalty to
be imposed under.
.
.
this Section,
the Board
is authorized
to consider any matters of record
in
mitigation or
aggravation of penalty,
including but not limited to
the following factors:
1.
the duration and
gravity of the violation;
2.
the presence or absence of due diligence
on the part of the violator in
attempting
to comply with requirements of this Act and
regulations
thereunder or to
secure relief therefrom
as
provided by this Act;
3.
any economic benefits
accrued
by the violator because of delay in
compliance with requirements;
4.
the amount of monetary penalty which will serve to deter further violations
by the violator and to otherwise aid
in enhancing voluntary compliance
with
this Act
by the violator and other
persons similarly subject
to the Act;
and
5.
the number,
proximity in time,
and gravity of previously
adjudicated
violations of this Act by the violator.
In
response to these factors, the parties state as follows:
I.
The alleged violations,
specifically the Respondent’s release of gasoline-range
hydrocarbon vapor,
including benzene
and hexane occurred on
February
3,
2001,
or on a date
better known to the Respondent.
The Respondent’s release of sulfur dioxide occurred on April
28, 2001,
or on a date better known to the Respondent;
2.
In advance of as well as in
response to
notices of noncompliance issued
by the
Illinois EPA, the Respondent worked with the Illinois
EPA to resolve
its concerns.
In
an attempt
7
to ensure compliance with the Act in the future, the
Respondent equipped the upper column
bottom pumps,
P-3918 with suction screens
to. catch foreign objects.
In addition, the
Respondent replaced the failed air regulator on the
DIH column
overhead pressure control
valve and
installed physical stops
on the valve handle of the instrument air/nitrogen 4-way
valve;
3.
The economic benefit of Respondent’s
noncompliance is the savings realized
by
not having in
place suction
screens to
catch foreign objects
in the upper column bottom pumps,
P-3918,
not appropriately maintaining
the failed air regulator on the DIH column
overhead
pressure control valve and
not having
installed
physical stops on the valve handle of the
instrument air/nitrogen
4-way valve;
4.
Complainant has
determined that a penalty of thirty-five thousand three hundred
and
eighty-six dollars ($35,386.00) will serve to
deter further violations and
aid
in future
voluntary compliance with the Act and Board
regulations.
5.
On January 24, 2002,
the
Board
accepted
a Stipulation
and Proposal for
Settlement between the People of the
State
of Illinois
and Tosco for Tosco’s
disposal of lead
contaminated sandblast sand, a
hazardous waste, to
a non-hazardous
waste disposal site, the
Roxana Landfill.
VIII.
TERMS
OF SETTLEMENT
A.
Monetary Payment
1.
The Respondent shall pay a
penalty in the sum of thirty-five thousand three
hundred and
eighty-six dollars
($35,386.00)
to the Environmental
Protection Trust Fund within
thirty (30) days after the date the Board
adopts and accepts this Stipulation. The penalty
described
in this Stipulation
shall be paid
by
certified check
payable
to the Illinois
EPA,
8
designated to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Trust
Fund
and submitted
to:
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services
Section
1021
North
Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
IL 62794-9276
The
name and
number of the case and
ConocoPhillips
Wood
River Refinery Federal Employer
Identification Number (FEIN),73-0400345, shall appear on the check.
A copy of the certified
check or money order and the transmittal letter shall
be sent to:
Sally Carter
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
500
South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62702
2.
Pursuant to
Section 42(g)
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/42(g)
(2002),
interest shall
accrue
on any payment not paid within the time period
prescribed above at the maximum rate
allowable under Section
1003(a) of the Illinois Income Tax Act,
35
ILCS 5/1003 (2002).
Interest
on
any unpaid payment shall begin to
accrue from the date the payment is due and
continue to
accrue
until the date payment
is received.
When
partial payment(s) are
made,
such partial
payment shall be first applied to
any interest on
unpaid
payment then due and
owing.
All
interest on payment owed shall be
paid
by certified
check or money order,
payable
to the
Treasurer of the State of
Illinois, designated to the Environmental Protection Trust Fund
and
delivered to
the address and
in
the manner described above.
3.
For purposes
of payment and
collection, the Respondent may be
reached at the
following
address:
Gina
P.
Nicholson
Manager,
Health,
Safety & Environmental
Wood
River Refinery
900
South
Central Avenue
P.O. Box 76
Roxana, IL 62084
9
4.
In the event of default, the Complainant shall be entitled to all available
relief
including, but not limited to,
reasonable costs of collection
and reasonable
attorney’s fees.
B.
Future Use
Notwithstanding any other language
in this Stipulation to
the contrary, this Stipulation
may
be
used against the Respondent in any subsequent enforcement action as evidence of a
past adjudication of violation
of the Act and the
Board
Regulations promulgated thereunder, for
purposes
of Sections 39(i) and/or 42(h)
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/39(i) and/or 5/42(h)(2002).
C.
Correspondence. Reports and
Other Documents
Any and all
correspondence, reports
and any other documents required
under this
Stipulation, except for payments
pursuant to Section VIII. of this Stipulation, shall be
submitted
as follows:
As
to the Complainant
Sally Carter
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
500 South Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62702
Maureen Wozniak
Assistant Counsel
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North
Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois 62794-9276
As to
the Respondent
Gina
P.
Nicholson
Manager,
Health,
Safety
& Environmental
Wood River Refinery
900 South
Central Avenue
P.O. Box 76
Roxana,
IL 62084
Donna H.
Carvaiho
Senior Counsel
10
Legal
Environmental Group
Conoco
Phillips
McLean 1106
600
North
Dairy Ashford
Houston,
TX 77079
D.
Right of Entry
In
addition to any other authority, the Illinois EPA,
its employees and
representatives,
and the Attorney General,
her agents and
representatives,
shall
have the right of entry into
and
upon the Respondent’s facility which
is the subject of this Consent Order,
at all
reasonable
times for the purposes
of carrying
out inspections.
In
conducting
such inspections, the Illinois
EPA, its employees
and
representatives,
and the Attorney General,
her employees and
representatives
may take photographs,
samples, and
collect information,
as they deem
necessary.
E.
Cease
and
Desist
The Respondent shall cease and
desist from future violations of the Act and Board
Regulations, including but not limited
to those
sections of the Act and Board
Regulations that
were the subject matter of the Complaint as outlined
in
Section
llI.C.
of this Stipulation.
F.
Release from Liability
In
consideration of the Respondent’s payment of the $35,386.00
penalty and
upon the
Pollution
Control
Board’s acceptance and
approval of the terms
of this Stipulation and
Proposal
for Settlement, the Complainant
releases, waives and discharges the Respondent from any
further liability or penalties for violations of the Act and
Board Regulations
that were the subject
matter of the Complaint herein.
The release set forth above does
not extend to any matters
other than those expressly specified
in
Complainant’s Complaint filed simultaneously with the
filing of this Stipulation
and
Proposal for Settlement.
The Complainant reserves,
and this
Consent Order is without prejudice to, all
rights of the State of Illinois
against the Respondent
11
with
respect to all other matters, including
but not limited to, the following:
a.
criminal liability;
b.
liability for future violation of state, federal,
local, and
common
laws and/or
regulations;
c.
liability for natural resources damage arising out of the alleged violations;
and
d.
liability or claims based on the Respondent’s failure to satisfy the requirements
of this Stipulation.
Nothing in this Stipulation
is intended as
a waiver,
discharge,
release, or covenant not to
sue for any claim or cause of action, administrative or judicial,
civil or criminal,
past or future,
in
law or in equity, which the State of Illinois or the Illinois
EPA may have
against any person,
as
defined
by Section
3.315 of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/3.315,
or entity other than the Respondent.
G.
Enforcement of Stipulation and Proposal forSettlement
1.
Upon the entry of the Board’s Order approving
and
accepting this Stipulation
and
Proposal for Settlement, that Order is a
binding and
enforceable order of the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board and
may be enforced as such through any
and
all
available
means.
2.
Respondent agrees that notice of any subsequent proceeding to
enforce and
Board Order approving
and
accepting this Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement may be
made by mail and waives any requirement of service of process.
3.
The parties agree that,
if the
Board
does not approve and accept this Stipulation
and
Proposal for Settlement, then neither party is bound
by
the terms herein.
4.
It is the intent of the Complainant and Respondent that the provisions of this
Stipulation
and
Proposal for Settlement and
any Board
Order accepting
and approving
such
shall
be severable, and
should any provision
be declared
by a court of competent jurisdiction to
be inconsistent with
state or federal law, and
therefore unenforceable, the remaining clauses
12
shall remain
in full force and
effect.
WHEREFORE,
Complainant and
Respondent request that the Board
adopt and accept
the foregoing
Stipulation
and
Proposal for Settlement as
written.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
LISA
M.
MADIGAN
Attorney General
State of Illinois
MATTHEW J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement’
Asbestos
Litigation
Division
THOMAS
DAVIS, Chief
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
AGENCY
DATE:______
DATE:______
CONOCOPHILLIPS
PETROLEUM COMPANY
a Delaware Corporation
BY:
______
~‘~7
HERMAN SEEDOR~)
~Plant
Manager
DATE:_______
BY:
E. SVOBODA
iief Legal Counsel
13
