ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 15,

1983

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

 PCB 82—122

131—PETRO REFINING COMPANY,

INC.,

a Delaware corporation,

Respondent.

MS. GWENDOLYN W. KLINGLER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON

BEHALV

OF

THE

 COMPLAINANT.

MOHAN,

ALEWELT

 PRILLAMAN

(MR.

 FRED

C.

 PRILLAMAN, OF COUNSEL)

APPEARED

BEHALF

THE

RESPONDENT.

OPINION

AND

ORDER

THE

BOARD

(by

W.

 J. Nega):

This matter comes before the Board on the October

1982

Complaint brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency).

Count

 I of the Complaint alleged that the Respondent:

(1)

failed to suhm~tdischarge monitoring reports

 the Agency

containing moniLorinq results for effluent discharged from Outfall

001 for 8 specified months between August,

 1978 and June,

 1981;

(2) failed to submit discharge monitoring

 reports containing moni-

toring results

 for effluent discharged

 from Outfall

 002 for 15

specified months between August,

 1978 and June,

 1981;

 (3) failed

to submit monitoring results

 for concentrations of oil and grease

in effluent discharged from Outfall

 001 for 13 specified months

between May,

 1979 and August,

 1980;

 (4) failed to submit monitor-

ing results

 for concentrations of oil and grease in effluent dis-

charged from Outfall

 002 for 5 specified months between October,

1979 and August,

 1980;

 (5) failed

 to submit discharge monitoring

reports containing monitoring

 results for effluent discharged

from Outfalls 001 and 002,

in

 a timely manner,

 for 9 specified

months between December,

 1977 and December

 1980;

and

 (6) submitted

unsigned discharge monitoring

 reports for 9 specified months

between March,

 1978 and December,

1978

 in violation of the terms

and conditions

 of its NPDES Permit No.

 IL 0004758 and

35

 Ill.

Adm. Code 305.102(a);

 305.102(b);

 and Section 12(f)

 of the Illinois

Environmental Protection

Act

 (Act).

55-221

—2—

Count II alleged that~

 (1) on

 6 specified dates between

June

4,

 1979 and February 24,

 1981,

 the Respondent caused or

allowed the discharge

 from Outfall

 001 of ef~luentexceeding by

more than

 5 times the allowable concentration limit of

 10 mg/i

of BOD

 (i.e.,

 the concentration of BOD

 on those

 6 dates ranged

from 7~mg/i to 725 mg/i);

(2)

 on FebrJry

18,

 1981,

 the Res-

pondent caused or allowed the discharge

 from Outfall

 001 of effluent

exceeding by more than

 5 times the allowable concentration

limit of~2.0 mg/i for total iron

 (i.e., the discharge contained a

concentration of 54.1 mg/i of total

 iron);

 (3) on November

19,

1979 and February 18,

 1981,

 the Pc~spondentcaused or allowed the

discharge

 from Outfall 001

 of effluent exceeding by more than

 5 times

the allowable concentration limit ot 0.3 mg/i of phenols

 (i.e., the

effluent contained

 a concentration of 6.6 mg/i of phenols on

November 19,

 1979 and a concentration of 19.0 mg!l of phenols on

February 18,

 1981);

and

(4)

 on February 18, 1981,

 the Respondent

caused or allowed the discharge

 from Outfall 001 of effluent hav-

ing a pH value of 2.6 which was outside the required range of pH

values

 (i.e.,

 between a pH of

 6 and a pH of

9)

 in violation of

 35 Ill.

 Adm.

 Code 304.104(a);

 304.104(b)

 and 304.125(a) and Section

12(a)

 of the Act.

Count

 III alleged that,

on

 5 specified dates between June

4,

1979 and February 24, 1981,

 the Respondent caused or allowed the

discharge

 from Outfall

 001 of effluent having an unnatural color,

odor, and turbidity in violation of 35

 Ill.

 Adm.

 Code 305.106 and

Section 12(a)

 of the Act.

Count IV alleged that,

 on February 18,

 1981 and February 24,

1981,

 the Respondent caused or allowed the discharge

 of effluent

from its facility which caused water quality concentration standards

for ammonia nitrogen,

 total copper,

 total

 iron, phenols and silver

to be exceeded

 in Coal Creek and its unnamed tributary

 (as well

as

causing

 a violation of water quality concentration standards for

total dissolved solids on February 24,

 1981)

 in violation of

35

Ill.

 Adm.

 Code 302.203;

 302.208;

 and 304.105 and Section 12(a)

of the Act.

Count V alleged that,

on

 5 specified dates between Januaz~ 17,

1979 and February 24,

 1981,

 the Respondent caused or allowed the

discharge of effluent from its facility which caused the presence

of visible oil, hydrocarbon odor,

 and turbidity

 in Coal Creek

and its unnamed tributary in violation of

 35 Ill.

 Adrn. Code

302.203 and Section 12(a) of the Act.

A hearing was held on October 13,

 1983.

 The parties filed

a Stipulation and Proposal

 for Settlement on November

7,

 1983.

The Respondent, Bi—Petro Refining Company,

 Inc.

 (Bi—Petro),

is a Delaware corporation duly authorized by the Illinois Secre—

tary of State

 Lu transact business

 in I11inoi~.

 Bi—Petro owns

55-222

—3—

and operates a facility located west of U.S.

 Route 51 just south

of the

City

of Pana in Christian County,

 ILlinois.

The Respondent’s 46—acre,

 fenced property, which

 is loc~ed

near the City of Pana’s sewage treatment plant,

 is currently

used to store petroleum products such as hexane and to service

trucks that haul crude oil.

 The company’s site was formerly

used as an oil

refinery.

After

Bi—Petro

bought

the

refinery

1976, the company engaged in oil

 refining operations.

 However,

Bi-Petro ceased to conduct any oil refining activities after

Deceuther of 1979

 (with the sole exception of a brief time period

between February,

 1981 and May,

 1981).

 (Stip,

 2—3).

At the present time,

 the majority of the Respondent’s

site

 is not being used and there are no plans to reactivate the

refinery operation.

 Additionally, the rail service adjacent to

the refinery has been abandoned

 (thereby reducing the likelihood of

any future large bulk chemical storage at the property).

The

Respondent’s facility presently includes various refinery equip-

ment, multiple storage tanks, and oil

 separation equipment on the

east side

 (east

 oil separator)

 and west side (west

oil

 separator)

of the company’s property.

 (Stip.3;

 see:

 Exhibit 1).

 The storage

tank area in containment encompasses

 15 acres of land,

 while the

process area drainage outside the containment dikes covers i5.3

acres.

The discharge of effluent from the Respondent’s facility is

via Outfall 001 following the west oil separator and via Outfall

002 following the east oil separator.

 (Stip.

3).

 Effluent con-

taining contaminants

 is discharged from the company’s facility

into an unnamed ditch which leaves the Respondent’s property

on the west side and follows the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad

tracks down to a point where it

 joins Coal Creek.

 Coal Creek,

which is fed from a spillway from Miner’s Lake,

 is tributary t~

Beck’s Creek which

is

tributary to the Kaskaskia River upstream

of Lake Carlyle.

 Both the unnamed ditch and Coal Creek have no

flow during dry weather.

 (See:

 Exhibit

1).

Effluent discharges from Outfalls 001 and 002 were made

pursuant to NPDES Permit No, IL 0004758 which was issued by the

Agency on October 21,

 1977.

 Prior to the expiration

of

its

NPEDES Permit on September 30,

 1982,

 the Respondent submitted an

application for permit renewal to the Agency.

 As of this date,

the Agency has not renewed the NPDES Permit, and the Respondent has

agreed to reapply for this permit by February,

 1984 in accord with

its agreed—upon compliance plan.

 (Stip.

3),

The proposed settlement agreement provides that the Respon-

dent admits the violations alleged in the Complaint and agrees

to:

 (1) cease and desist from further violations;

(2)

 follow

55-223

—4—

a specified compliance program and schedule of design and construc-

tion work to prevent the improper discharge

 of contaminants; and

(3) pay a stipulated penalty of $5,000.00.

 (Stip.

 8—14;

 see:

Exhibits 1-4 and Exhibits

A,

 B, and C).

The total estimated cast of the improvements that the Res-

pondent will make

 to protect the environment

 is approximately

$200,100.00.

 (Stip.

 13),

 The cost breakdown

 is as follows:

(1) engineering and inspection work——$30,500.00;

(2)

 railcar

loading dock clean-up work-—$30,000.O0;

 (3) improvements to the

west 011 separator~$26,500.0O; (4)

 improvements

 to eliminate

the east trap——$25,750.00;

 (5) additional wastewater storage

via lagoon excavation and transfer piping——$24,500.00;

(6)

 sewer

manholes and iniets—--$i1,950.00;

(7)

 improvements

 to the fire

lagoon

 for ultimate disposal of oil

 (including clay liner, seepage

drains,

 and monitoring wells)——$10,500.00;

(8)

 truck loading dock

clean—up work——$7,500..00;

(9)

 seal coating of road surfaces——

$7,000.00;

 (10)

 site work

 (including ditch cleaning, cut dike

earthwork,

 and small culvert

 installation)—--$7,000.00;

 (ti) dike

area valve

 improvements (including the clearing of buried valves

and installation of new valves)——$2,000.00; and

 (12) construction

of brine water storage

 (holding)

 faciltties——$1,500.00.

 (See:

Exhibit

1).

 Additionally,

 $15,400.00

 is the estimated cost

of various construction contingencies which may occur during the

installation of the previously enumerated improvements.

In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement

agreement,

 the Board has taken into consideration all the facts and

circumstances

 in light of the specific criteria delineated

 in Sec—

tion 33(c)

 of the Act and finds the settlement agreement generally

acceptable under

35

 Ill,

 Adm.

 Code 103,180.

However, the Board feels that paragraph

“J’

 on page 13 of

the Stipulation

 is inappropriate and should he entirely deleted

from the settlement agreement.

 Paragraph “J” includes somewhat

ambiguous language

in

 a covenant-not—to—sue which purports to

estop the Agency from doing anything for further cleanup beyond

the

compliance plan.

 The Board believes that this provision may

leave the public vulnerable to undetected problems at the site

(such

 as contamination of groundwater which might he subsequently

detected,

 etc.)

and

 is therefore against prudent public policy.

Accordingly,

 the Board will modify the settlement agreement

by deleting paragraph “3”.

A certificate of acceptance and agreement to be bound by the

modified Stipulation has been included as paragraph

 6 of the

Board’s Order.

 If the parties do not wish

to

sign the certi—

~icate, the Board intends to reject the Stipulation

 in toto

and remand the case to the parties for further proceedings.

The Board finds that the Respondent,

 Bi—Petro Refining

Company,

 Inc., has violated 35 Ill.

 Adm.

 Code 302.203; 302.208~

55-224

—5—

304,104(a);

 304,104(h);

 304,105; 304,125(a);

 305,102(a);

305,102(b);

 and 305,106 and Sections 12(a)

 and 12(f)

 of the Act,

The Respondent

will

 be ordered to cease and desist from further

violations;

to

follow the specified compliance plan and schedule;

and

to pay

a

stipulated penalty of

 $5,000.00.

This

 Opinion constitutes

 the Board’s findings

 01 fact and

conclusions

 of law

 in this matter.

(~Ofl~P

It

is

the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

that:

1.

 The Respondent, Bi—Petro Refining Company,

 Inc.,

has

violated

 Ill,

 Adm. Code 302,203; 302,208; 304,104(a);

 304,104(h);

304,105;

 304,125(a);

 305,102(a);

 305,102(h); and 305,106 and

Sections 12(a)

 and 12(f)

 of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Act,

 The Respondent

 shall cease and desist fro~nfurther

violations.

3.

 Within

days

 of the date of the Order, the

Respondent

shall, by certified check or money order payable

to

the State of

Illinois and designated

for deposit into the Environmental

Protec-

tion Trust

Fund,

 pay the stipulated penalty of $5,000.00 which is

to hesent to:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal Services Division

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield,

 Illinois

62706

4.

 Paragraph “3”

 on page

 13 of the Stipulation and Proposal

for

Settlement

 is hereby deleted.

5.

 The Respondent shall comply with all the terms and condi-

tions of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement,

 as modified,

filed

November

7,

 1983,

 which

 is incorporated by reference as

fully

set

 forth herein.

6.

 Within 4S days of the date of this Order,

 the parties

shall execute

 and forward to the Illinois Environmental Protec’~

tion Agency,

 Division of Water Pollution Control, Compliance

Assurance Section,

 2200 Churchill

 Road,

 Springfield,

 Illinois

 62706,

 a Certificate

 of Acceptance and Agreement

 to be bound

to all

 terms

and conditions of this variance.

 This 45 day period

shall be held

 in abeyance for any period this matter

 is being

appealed.

 The form of the certificate

shall

 be as follows:

CERTIFICATE

I,

 (We),

 having read

55-225

—6-’

the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

in

PCB 82—122

dated December

15,

 1983,

 understand and accept the said Order,

realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and conditions

thereto

binding

and

enforceable.

tllinois Environmental

 Bi-Petro Refining Company,

 Inc.

Protection Agency

By:

Authorized

Agent

By:

Authorized

Agent

Title

Date

ORDERED.

Christan

Moffett,

Clerk

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

 hereby

certify

th~

the

above

Opinion

and

Ordet

was adopted on the J~day ~

 1983 by a

~rote

Christan L. Moff~

 Clerk

Illinois Pollution~ontrol Board.

55-226