RECE~V~D

(‘LERK’S OFF~C~

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

AUG

02200k

PEOPLE OF THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS,

TP~TEOF ILUt’1OIS

Complainant,

)

~

O~ntr°~

~oard

v.

)

PCB

NO.

99-120

)

(Enforcement)

WOOD RIVER REFINING

COMPANY,

)

a Division of EQUILON ENTERPRISES,

LLC,

)

NOTICE OF FILING

To:

Mr. Joseph

A.

Girardi

Henderson

&

Lyman

175 West

Jackson Blvd.

Chicago,

IL

60604

PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE that

on this date

I

mailed for filing with the Clerk of the Pollution

Control

Board of the State of Illinois,

a MOTION

FOR RELIEF FROM HEARING REQUIREMENT

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

LISA MAD IGAN

Attorney Genera! of the

State of

Illinois

MATTHEW J.

DUNN, Chief

Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos

Litigation

Division

BY~___________________

THOMAS

DAVIS

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

500 South

Second Street

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

217/782-9031

Dated:

July 29, 2004

---

RECE~VED

CLERK’S

OFFICE

People vs. Wood

River

Refining Co.. PCB

No. 99-1 20

AUG

02

20O4’~

CERTIFICATE

OF SERVICE

Po~Iu~on

Control Board

I

hereby certify that

I

did

on July 29, 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

foregoing

instrument

entitled

NOTICE

OF

FILING,

MOTION

FOR

RELIEF

FROM

HEARING

REQUIREMENT and

STIPULATION AND

PROPOSAL

FOR SETTLEMENT upon:

Mr. Joseph A.

Girardi

Henderson

& Lyman

175

West Jackson

Blvd.

Chicago,

IL

60604

and

the original and ten copies

by First Class

Mail with

postage thereon fully prepaid of the same

foregoing

instrument(s):

To:

Dorothy

Gunn, Clerk

Illinois

Pollution Control

Board

State of Illinois

Center

Suite

11-500

100 West

Randolph

Chicago,

Illinois 60601

A copy was also sent by First

Class Mail with

postage thereon fully prepaid

To:

Ms. Carol

Sudman

Hearing Officer

Pollution Control

Board

600 South Second Street,

Suite 402

Springfield,

IL

62704

Thomas Davis

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

500

South Second Street

Springfield, Illinois

62706

(217) 782-9031

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

-

)

Complainant,

)

vs.

)

PCB No.

99-1 20

)

(Enforcement)

WOOD RIVER REINING COMPANY,

)

a

Division of EQUILON

)

ENTERPRISES,

L.L.C.,

)

Respondents.

)

MOTION

FOR

RELIEF FROM

HEARING

REQUIREMENT

NOW

COMES Complainant,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS,

by

LISA

MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois,

and

pursuant to

Section

31(c)(2) of the

Illinois

Environmental Protection Act (“Act”), 415

ILCS 5/31(c)(2)

(2002),

moves

that the

Illinois

Pollution Control

Board grant the parties

in the above-captioned matter relief from the hearing

requirement imposed by

Section

31 (c)(1) of the Act, 415 ILCS

5/31 (c)(1)

(2002).

In

support of

this motion,

Complainant states as follows:

1.

Complainant has filed a Complaint with

the

Board,

alleging

air pollution and

waste storage/disposal

violations by

the Respondents.

2.

The parties have reached agreement on all outstanding

issues

in this matter.

3.

This agreement is presented

to the

Board

in a Stipulation

and

Proposal

for

Settlement, filed

contemporaneously with

this motion. This document has

been

corrected on

pages

1,

3,

11,

and

15 to

accurately indicate that Wood

River was a division of Equilon,

rather

than

a separately incorporated entity; these

corrections have

been initialed by the parties.

1

---

4.

All parties

agree that a

hearing on the Stipulation

and

Proposal for Settlement

is

not necessary,

and respectfully request relief from such a hearing as allowed by Section

31(c)(2) of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/31(c)(2) (2002).

WHEREFORE,

Complainant,

PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS,

hereby request

that the Board grant this

motion for

relief from the hearing

requirement set forth in

Section

31(c)(1) of the Act.

Respectfully submitted,

PEOPLE

OF THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS

LISA MADIGAN

ATTORNEYGENERAL

MATTHEW J. DUNN, Chief

Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos

Litigation

Division

BY:____________________

THOMAS

DAVIS, Chief

Environmental Bureau

Assistant Attorney General

500

South

Second Street

Springfield,

Illinois 62706

217/782-7968

Dated: 7/28/04

2

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLIJTION CONTROL

~

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

AUG

022004

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Complainant,

)

Pollution

Control

Board

PCB

NO.

99-120

WOOD RIVER REFINING COMPANY,

)

(Enforcement)

Dolawaro corporation,

and

form9rly

a Division of EQtJILON

ENTERPRISES,

LLC.,

Respondent.

STIPULATION

AND

PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT

NOW COMES the Complainant,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois,

at

the request of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

and

Respondent,

WOOD RIVER REFINING COMPANY, and hereby submit this

Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement

(“Stipulation”)

.

The

parties agree that this Stipulation is a compromise of a disputed

claim.

The parties further agree that the statement of facts

contained in this Stipulation is made and agreed upon for the

purposes of settlement only and that neither the fact that a

party has entered into the Stipulation,

nor any of the facts

stipulated herein,

shall be introduced into evidence in this or

any other proceeding except to enforce •the terms hereof by the

parties

to this Stipulation.

This Stipulation shall be null and

1

---

void unless the Board approves and disposes of this matter on

each and every one of the terms and conditions of the Stipulation

set forth herein.

I.

JURISDICTION

The Board has jurisdiction of the subject matter herein and

of the parties consenting hereto pursuant to the Act, 415 ILCS

5/1 et

~

(1998)

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.

III.

APPLICABILITY

This

Stipulation

shall

apply

to

and

be

binding

upon

the

Complainant

and

Respondent

and

any

officer,

director,

agent,

employee

or

servant

of

Respondent,

as

well

as

the

Respondent’s

successors and assigns.

The Respondent

shall not raise as a

defense to any enforcement action taken pursuant to this

Stipulation the failure of its officers,

directors,

agents,

servants,

or employees to take such action as shall

be required

to comply with the provisions of this Stipulation.

2

---

IV.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Parties

1.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(“Illinois

EPA”)

is an administrative agency established in the executive

branch of State government by Section 4 of the Act,

415 ILCS 5/4

(1998)

and is charged,

inter alia,

with the duty of enforcing the

Act.

This action was instituted on the Attorney General’s own

motion.

2.

Respondent,

Wood

River

Refining

Company,

(“Wood

River”),

formcrly a Division of Equilon~Enterprises LLC,

is

~-

Delaware corpor~ttior~.authorized

to do business in Illinois.

Its

registered agent

is C.T.

Corporation,

208 South LaSalle Street,

Chicago,

Illinois 60604-1136.

The Facility

3.

At all time periods relevant to the Complaint,

the

Respondent owned or operated a petroleum refinery and associated

tank farms,

the Wood River refinery

(“Facility”),

located at

900

South Central Avenue,

Roxana,

Illinois 62084.

From and after

June

1,

2000 Respondent .has not owned or operated the Facility.

The Complaint

4.

On

July

5,

2000,

Complainant

filed

a

Supplemental

Complaint

(“Complaint”)

against Respondent.

5.

On September

22,

1995,

the Illinois EPA issued

0

---

Respondent Operating Permit No. 72110637 for the distillate

hydrotreater.

6.

On

July

22,

1992,

the

Illinois

EPA

issued

Respondent

Operating Permit No. 72110618 for the Rectified Absorber Unit

(“RAU”)

.

On August

12,

1994,

the Illinois EPA issued Defendant

Operating Permit No. 72110626 for Tank L-174.

7.

In summary, the Complaint alleges the following:

Count

I:

Complainant alleges Respondent caused or tended to

cause air pollution in violation of Section 9(a)

of

the Act and 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 201.141

(1996),

as a

result of a release of hydrodesulfurized middle

distillate

from the distillate hydrotreater unit at

the Facility on July

2,

1998

Count

II:

Complainant alleges that,

as

a result

of a release

of hydrodesulfurized middle distillate from the

distillate hydrotreater unit

at the Facility on July

2,

1998, Respondent failed to properly maintain the

distillate hydrotreator so as not to cause air

pollution in violation of Section 9(a)

of the Act,

415 ILCS 5/9(a)

(1998)

and 35

Iii. Adm.

Code 201.141

(1996),

thus,

the Respondent violated Section 9(b)

of the Act and Special Condition No.

7 of Operating

Permit No.

72110637;

Count III:

Complainant alleges Respondent violated regulations

adopted by the Board in violation of Section 9(a)

of

the Act,

in respect to certain above-ground storage

tanks in volatile organic service, by failing to

conduct visual inspections of the floating roof

seals at least once every six months in violation of

35

Ill. Adm.

Code 219.123(b) (4)

(1996); by failing

to maintain records of the visual inspections of the

floating roof seals

in violation of 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 219.123 (b) (6)

(1996)

;

by failing to maintain

the secondaryseals,

intact and uniformly in place

around the circumferences of floating roofs,

in

violation

of

35

Ill. Adm.

Code 219.124 (a)

(2) (A)

(1996); by allowing the secondary seals to have gaps

in excess of the limit of 1.0 square inch per foot

of tank diameter,

in violation of 35

Ill. Adm.

Code

4

---

219.124 (a)

(2) (B)

(1996); and by allowing the gauge

hatches to be open on external floating roof tanks,

in violation of

35

Ill. Adm.

Code 219.123(b)

(3)

(A)

(1996)

;

Count

IV:

Complainant alleges Respondent caused or tended to

cause air pollution in violation of Section 9(a)

of

the Act and 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 201.141

(1996)

as a

result of a release of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen

oxide from Catalytic Cracking Unit #1 through the

Facility’s north flare on June 25,

1999;

Count V:

Complainant alleges Respondent caused or tended to

cause air pollution in violation of Section 9(a)

of

the Act and 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 201.141

(1996)

as a

result of a release of hydrogen sulfide from the

pressure relief valve on the Rectified Absorber Unit

on July

1,

1999;

Count VI:

Complainant alleges that Respondent violated

Section 9(b)

of the Act,

415 ILCS 5/9(b)

(1998)

and

Standard Condition No.

7 of Operating Permit No.

72110618 by failing to properly maintain the

Rectified Absorber Unit so as not to cause air

pollution in violation of Section 9(a)

of the Act

and 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 201.141

(1996);

Count VII:

Complainant alleges Respondent caused or tended to

cause air pollution in violation

of Section 9(a)

of

the Act and 35

Ill. Adm. Code 201.141

(1996)

as

a

result

of an explosion in an asphalt storage tank L-

174

at the Facility that released mineral or rock

wool and asbestos on January 25,

2000;

Count VIII:

Complainant alleges Respondent violated Section

9(b)

of the Act and Standard Condition No.

7 of

Operating Permit No. 72110637 by failing to properly

maintain the floating roof on asphalt storage tank

L-l74

so as not to cause air pollution in violation

of Section 9(a)

of the Act and 35

Ill. Adm. Code

201.141

(1996)

Count

IX:

Complainant alleges that on July 14,

1998

Respondent violated Section 21(e)

of the Act and 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 722.112(c)

(1996) by shipping

hazardous waste to the Roxana Landfill,

which is not

permitted to receive or dispose of hazardous waste

and has not received a USEPA identification number

5

---

a

Count

X:

Complainant alleges that on July 14,

1998

Respondent violated Section 21(e)

of the Act and 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 722.120(a)

and

(b)

(1996) by failing

to properly prepare manifests for transportation

of

hazardous waste,

and by failing to designate a

facility which is permitted to accept and dispose of

hazardous waste;

Count XI:

Complainant alleges that on July 14,

1998

Respondent violated Section 21(e)

of the Act and 35

Ill. Adm. Code 722.133

(1996) by failing to properly

placard or offer the initial transporter the

appropriate placards for transportation of hazardous

waste pursuant to Department

of Transportation

regulations;

Count XII:

Complainant alleges that on July 14,

1998

Respondent violated Section 21(e)

of the •Act and 35

Ill. Adm. Code 728.107 (a) (1)

(1996) by failing to

notify the.Roxana Landfill in writing of the

appropriate treatment standard and. any applicable

prohibition levels for hazardous waste; and

Count XIII:

Complainant alleges that on July 14,

1998,

as a

result of the disposal of hazardous waste,

Respondent violated Section 21(e)

of the Act,

and 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 728.138(a)

(1993).

The Answer and Affirmative

Defenses

Respondent filed an answer to the Complaint and Affirmative

Defenses to the Complaint.

On August

8,

2002,

the Board,

following Complainant’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses,

granted the Motion to Strike in part and denied the Motion to

Strike in part.

V.

IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC RESULTING FROM NON-COMPLIANCE

Section 33(c)

of the Act,

415 ILCS 5/33(c)

(1998),

provides;

c.

In making its orders and determinations,

the

6

---

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 or 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 as follows:

1.

Complainant contends that injury to, and interference

with,

the protection of the health,

general welfare, and physical

property of the People occurred as the result of air and land

pollution attributabl.e to the facility and the degree of injury

was dependent upon the degree of exposure to that pollution.

The

Complainant further states that Respondent’s shipment of

hazardous waste

to the Roxana Landfill,

which is not perñiitted to

receive or dispose of hazardous waste,

interfered with the

protection of the health,

general welfare and physical property

7

---

of

the

People.

Respondent

contends

that

no

violations

of

the

Act,

the

Illinois

Administrative

Code

or

any operating permits

occurred,

and

that

any

occurrences were of a minor duration and

gravity

which

did

not

injure

or

interfere

with

the

protection

of

the

health,

general

welfare

and

physical

properties

of

the

People.

2.

The

Parties

agree

that

Respondent’s former Facility is

of

social

and

economic benefit;

3.

The

Parties

agree

that

the

Facility

is

located

in

an

industrial

area

adjacent

to

residential

areas,

but

that

the

Facility

existed

at

this

location

before

the

residential areas

were developed;

4.

Complainant contends that complying with the Act and

regulations

is technically, practicable and economically

reasonable, which Respondent,

in respect

to certain specific

areas,

denies,

and;

5.

The Parties agree that Respondent

implemented measures

subsequent

to the occurrences in order to minimize the risk of

similar future occurrences.

VI.

CONSIDERATION

OF SECTION 42(h)

FACTORS

Section

42(h)

of

the Act,

415

ILCS 5/42(h)

(P.A.93-0575,

eff.

01/01/2004)

,

provides:

h.

In determining the appropriate civil penalty

to be imposed under subdivisions

(a)

,

(b)

(1)

8

---

(b)

(2)

,

(b)

(3)

,

or

(b)

(5)

of

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 respondent in

attempting to comply with the

requirements of this Act and regulations

thereunder or to secure relief therefrom

as provided by this Act;

3.

any economic benefits accrued by the

respondent because of delay in

compliance with requirements,

in which

case the economic benefits shall be

•

determined by the lowest cost

alternative for achieving compliance;

4.

the amount of monetary penalty which

will serve to deter further violations

by the respondent and to otherwise aid

in enhancing voluntary compliance with

this Act by the respondent. and other

persons

similarly

subject

to

the

Act;

5.

the number, proximity in time,

and

gravity of previously adjudicated

violations of this Act by the

respondent;

6.

whether the respondent voluntarily self-

disclosed,

in accordance with subsection

i of this Section, the non-compliance, to

the Agency;

and

7.

whether the respondent has agreed to

undertake a “supplemental environmental

project,” which means an environmentally

beneficial project that

a respondent

agrees to undertake in settlement

of an

enforcement action brought under this

Act, but which the respondent

is not

otherwise legally required to perform.

9

---

In

response

to

these

factors,

the

parties

state

as

follows:

1.

Complainant

contends

the

alleged

violations

occurred

on

specific

dates

intermittently

between

July

2,

1998,

and

January

25,

2000, but contends that Respondent’s failure to maintain the

equipment was continuous in nature.

In addition,

Complainant

contends that the violations were aggravated.by the Respondent’s

shipment of hazardous waste to the Roxana landfill,

failure to

properly prepare manifests for the transportation of hazardous

waste,

failure to plac~rd’the hazardous material, and the

inappropriate disposal of hazardous waste. Respondent denies it

failed to maintain the equipment and denIes that any violation of

the Act,

the Illinois Administrative Code or any operating

L

permits occurred.

Respondent further contends

that’ if any

violation occurred it was minimal

in duration and gravity, and

any impact on public or private property was minimal ‘and

immediately responded to and resolved by Respondent.

2.

The Parties agree that Respondent

is paying for part of

the cost of an ‘eight-year program being conducted by the current

owner of the Facility to inspect and repair storage tanks.

3.

Complainant contends the economic benefit of

Respondent’s noncompliance

is the savings realized by not having

in place an adequate inspection and preventative maintenance

program to ensure proper operations and maintenance of the

10

---

affected

equipment.

In addition,

the economic benefit of

Respondent’s

noncompliance

is

the

savings

realized

by

not

incurring disposal costs

at a hazardous waste disposal facility.

Respondent denies it derived any economic benefit

as Complainant

contends.

Nonetheless,

the Parties stipulate that any economic

benefit

realized

by

Respondent

is

less

than

the

amount

of

the

penalty

agreed

upon

herein.

4.

The Complainant has determined that a penalty of one

hundred

and

twenty-six

thousand

dollars

($126,000.00)

is

reasonable

and

will

serve

to

deter.further

violations

and

to

otherwise aid in enhancing voluntary compliance with the Act and

Board regulations by Respondent and other persons similarly

subject

to the Act;

5.

Complainant

is unaware of any previously adjudicated

violations’ of the Act by. the Respondent,

Wood River Refining

‘

Company,

formorly- a division of Equilon Enterprises’;

~1~’

6.

Self-disclosure

is

riot at issue

in this matter.’

7.

The settlement of this matter does not include a

supplemental environmental proj ect.

VII.

TERMS

OF SETTLEMENT

‘

A.

The Respondent

shall pay a penalty

of

one

hundred

twenty-six thousand dollars

($l26~000.00) into the Illinois

Environmental Protection. Trust Fund within thirty, (30)

days from

11

---

the

date

on

which

the

Board

adopts

a

final

order

approving

this

Stipulation.

Payment shall be made by certified check or money

order payable to the Illinois EPA,

designated to the

Environmental Protection Trust Fund,

and shall be sent by first

class

mail

to:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal Services Section

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois 62794-9276

Respondent’s Federal Employer Identification Number

(!FEINII)

shall

be written upon the certified check or money order.

Respondent’s FEIN is:

52—2074528

‘

A copy of the payment transmittal and check shall be

simultaneously submitted to:

Off’ice of the Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

‘.

500

South

Second

Street

Springfield,

Illinois 62706

A copy of the payment transmittal and check shall be

simultaneously submitted to:

Kyle

Davis

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency’

Division

of

Legal

Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois 62794-9276

C.

i.

Pursuant to Section 42(g)

of the Act,,

415 ILCS

5/42 (g)

,

interest shall accrue on any penalty

amount owed by the Respondent not paid within the

time prescribed herein,

at the maximum rate

12

---

allowable under Section 1003(a)

of the Illinois

Income

Tax

Act,

35

ILCS

5/1003(a).

ii.

Interest on unpaid penalties shall begin to accrue

from the date the penalty is due and continue to

accrue to the date payment is received

‘by the

Illinois

EPA.

iii. All interest on penalties owed the Complainant

shall

be paid by certified check or money order

payable

to the Illinois EPA for deposit

in’ the’

EPTF at the above-indicated address. Respondent’s

Federal Employer Identification Number

(“FEIN’)’

shall be written upon’ the certified check,or money

order.

A

copy

of

the

payment

transmittal

and

chec’k

shall

be

‘

‘

simultaneously

submitted

to.:

Office of the Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

500

South

Second

Street

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

VIII.

COMPLIANCE WITH ‘OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

‘

This Stipulation and Proposal

for Settlement

in no way

affects the responsibility

of,

,

Respondent

to comply with any

federal,

state,

or local regulations,

including but not limited

to the Act,

415

ILCS. 5/1 et

seq. and the ‘Boards Regulations,

35.

Ill. Adm.

Code,

Subtitles A through

H.,

.

13

---

Ix.

DISCI~RGEOF LIABILITY

In consideration of and following Complainant’s receipt of

Respondent’s payment of the civil penalty set forth in Section

VII hereof,

Complainant releases,

waives and forever discharges

Respondent and its parent,

related and affiliated entities from

any liability or penalties for violations of the Act,

the

Illinois Administrative Code and any operating permits which were

the subject matter of the Complaint herein. However,

covered

matters do not include:

i)

Criminal liability;

ii)

Claims based on Respondent’s failure to meet the

requirements of this Stipulation and Proposal for

Settlement;

iii)

Liability for future violation of state,

local,

federal,

and

common

laws

and/or

regulations;

and

iv)

Any future liability for natural resource damage or for

removal,

cleanup, or remedial action as a result

of a

release of hazardous substances or the liability of

Respondent under Section 22.2(f)

of the Act,

415 ILCS

5/22.2(f)

(1996),

or under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act

(42 U.S.C. §~9601-9675)

14

---

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

MADIGAN

Attorney

General

State of Illinois

MATTHEW

J.

DUNN,

Chief

Environmental Enforcement/

Asbestos Litigation Division

BY:

______________________

DATE:_________________

DATE:

THOMAS

bAVIs,

Chief

Environmental

Bureau

Assistant Attorney General

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

)SEPH

E.

SVOBODA

Lief Legal Counsel

Y

WOOD

RIVER

REFINING

COMPANY,

-a-.

Delawaro corporation,

and formorly a

Division

of

EQUILON

ENTERPRISES,

‘LLC

BY:

Name:_______________

Title

:

K

DATE:

77i~/o~

15