RECEJV~D

Cl

FP~’ç

~pp~j’~

-

MAR

01

200U

STATE

OF

ILUNOIS

Pollution

Control Bc~ord

MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

)

Complainant,

)

vs.

)

PCB No.

95-163

)

CLARK REFINING & MARKETING, INC.,

)

)

FINAL STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT

Pursuant to

35111. Adm. Code

103.180 (1992), the foflowing Final Stipulation and

Proposal for Settlement entered into between the Complainant, People

of the State of Illinois, by

JAMES

E.

RYAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, on behalf of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”), and the Respondent, Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc.

(“Clark”),

is tendered for approval by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”).

It is

expressly understood and agreed to

byand between Clark, James E. Ryan, Attorney General of

the State of Illinois (“Attorney General”), and the Illinois EPA that the agreements, stipulations

and statements herein contained shall not be binding on the parties, and shall be deemed null

and void,

if not approved bythe Board, or if additional terms or conditions are imposed bythe

Board.

This Final Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement

is made solely for the purpose of

settling and putting an end to the litigation of the matters addressed herein, and neither~the

fact

that a party has entered into this Final Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement, nor any of the

facts stipulated herein, shall

be introduced into evidence or construed as an admission in any

other proceedings conducted before the Board or outside the jurisdiction of the Board except to

THIS DOCUMENT SUBMIrFED ON

RECYCLED

PAPER

---

enforce the terms hereofby the parties to this agreement

Subject to the foregoing

understanding and agreement, it is further agreed as follows:

I.

STIPULATION OF FACTS

1.

Clark is a

Delaware corporation.

2.

Clark operates a refinery in Hartford, Madison County, Illinois.

3.

At its refinery, Clark converts crude

oil into gasoline and other petroleum

distillates.

A.

COUNTV

1.

Clark operates a wastewatertreatment facility at the refinery.

The wastewater

treatment

facility

emits volatile organic material subject

to

air pollution control operating permit

No. 72110683.

2.

In its September 17,

1998 decision in this case, the Board determined thatClark

was issued an air pollution control operating permit for the wastewatertreatmentfacility by

default on February 8,

1994, but that Clark operated its wastewatertreatment facility without a

)

~

valid permit from July 15,

1993 to February 8,

1994.

The Board ordered thatthis matter be sent

tO hearing to address the appropriate penalty for operation ofthe wastewater treatmentfacility

without an air pollution control operating permit during that period.

3.

Prior to November8,

1993, Clark installed a carbon canister on its DAF device,

one of the components ofthe wastewatertreatmentfacility.

4.

In its September

17, 1998 decision in this case, the Board determined that Clark

performed this construction without obtaining a construction permit from the Illinois EPA and

ordered that this matter be sent to hearing to address the appropriate penaltyfor the

construction without a permit.

THIS

DOCUMENT S(JBMI11’ED ON RECYCLED

PAPER

---

B.

ADDITIONAL MATTERS

1.

Clark utilizes Tank T-144 to store a spent caustic liquid which

contains a small

percentage ofentrained volatile petroleum liquid (‘WL”).

The capacity of the tank is 43,168

gallons.

Because this tank is a caustic storage tank rather than a VPL storage tank, this tank is

not required to be equipped with a floating roof with closure seals or a vapor recovery system.

Normally, separated

VPL

levels are kept to a minimum byskimming VPL from the tank 2 to 3

times

perweek.

In June of 1995, operator error resulted in an accumulation of approximately

5,000 gallons of separated VPL in the tank.

2.

Shortly after this accumulation occurred, it was discovered during an

Illinois EPA

inspection of the refinery.

Clark then skimmed the

VPL

fromthe’tankand revised

its procedures

for transferring caustic into the tank.

3.

Clark utilizes a continuousopacity monitorto monitor emissions from its Fluid

Catalytic Cracking Unit (“FCCU”).

The monitor was out of service from 9:00 a.m. on October

22,

1995 to 10:30 a.m. October 31,

1995, after it was damaged by lightning.

The FCCU was

not

continuously monitored during this period.

Clark has since obtained a spare opacity monitor.

4.

During October and November of 1995, the emissions from Clark’s newflare unit

included droplets of “Prussian Blue” (ferric ferro cyanide) which stainedthe outside of the flare

and some siding on some homes in the vicinity ofthe refinery.

-

5.

The Prussian Blue droplets formed as a

resultof a reaction between off-gases

from the sour water stripper and corrosion byproducts in the line from the stripper to the flare.

6.

Since thattime,

Clark has cleaned and/orreplaced all stained siding atthe

affected residences.

Clark has also eliminated the formation ofthe Prussian

Blue droplets by

removing the expansion loops

in sur water off-gas piping in the flare system pipe rack and

installing a knockout drum at the base of the flare to collect any condensed water or Prussian

Blue droplets (any liquid collected

is recycled through the crude unit and sour Water stripper).

THIS DOCUMENT

SUBMITFED

ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

II.

SECTION 33(C)

FACTORS

Section 33(c) ofthe

Act,

415 ILCS 5/33(c) (1996), provides:

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 reasonablenessof

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 asfollows:

~

A.

COUNT V.

1.

The operation

ofthe wastewatertreatment system without an air pollution

control permit during the period at issue was

related tothe dispute over the applicability

ofSubpart TI to that system.

The installation ofthe carbon canister ultimately proved

ineffective in controlling emissions.

Neither caused injury to or interfered with protection

of public health or the environment.

2.

Clark’s refinery is a major manufacturing facility which has been located

in Hartford for more than 40 years.

It employs morethan 300

people and produces a

substantial portion ofthe gasoline and petroleum distillates manufactured in the State of

Illinois.

The wastewater treatment system is an essential and environmentally beneficial

part of refinery operations.

.

3.

The

refinery is located in an industrial area

adjacent to residential areas.

The refinery existed at this location before the existing

residential areas were developed.

~

L

THIS DOCUMENT

SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

4.

It was technically practicable and economically reasonable for Clark to

submit a construction permit application prior to the installation of the carbon canister.

5.

Clark is nowin compliance on these matters.

B.

ADDITIONAL MATTERS

1.

a.

Tank T-144: The

State contends that Tank T-144 temporarily

contained an accumulation ofVPL with a vapor pressure of 1.5 psia or greater.

However, Clark maintains that the VPL accumulated in TankT-144 onlytemporarily and

inadvertently, that this

condition was promptly corrected upon discovery, and the

temporary accumulation of excessive levels of separated VPL did not convert this

caustic storage tank into a VPL storage tank.

b.

Ooacitv monitor: The State contends the FCCU was not

continuously monitored while the

opacity monitor was out of service.

The outage,

however, was due to a lightning strike and the monitor was promptly repaired when

replacement parts became available.

In addition, Clark has purchased a back-up

opacity monitor in response to this incident.

c.

The State contends the Prussian Blue emissions from the flare

stained residential property.

Prussian

Blue is not a hazardous air pollutant and no

emission limits were exceeded.

The Prussian Blue staining, while unaesthetic, did not

create

a public health or environmental hazard

but

did interfere with the use and

enjoyment of adjacent residential

property.

2.

As noted above, the refinery has social and economic value through the

employment it provides and the products it produces.

3.

As noted above, the refinery is located in an industrial area and

pre-dates the existing residential areas.

4.

Although it was technically practicable

and economically reasonable to

prevent each ofthese occurrences, each was short in duration,

each was promptly

THIS DOCUMENT SUBMITTED

ON RECYCLED

PAPER

---

remedied upon discovery,

and resulted in only minor injury or interference with

protection of the public health or the environment.

5.

Clark is nowin compliance as to these matters.

Ill.

DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CIVIL PENALTY

Section 42(h) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/42(h)

(1994),

provides:

h.

In determining the appropriate civil penalty to be imposed under

subdivisions (a), (b)(1),

(b)(2) of (b)(3) ofthis Section, the Board is

authorized to consider any matters of record in mitigation oraggravation

of penalty, including

but

not limited to the following factors:

1.

the duration and gravity ofthe violation;

2.

the presence or absence of due diligence

on the part of the

violator 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 bythe violator because ofdelay in

compliance with requirements;~

4.

the amount in monetary penalty which will serveto deter further

violations by the violator and to otherwise aid in enhancing

voluntary compliance with this Act bythe violator and other

persons similarly subject to the Act; and

5.

the number, proximity in time, and gravity of previously

adjudicated violations ofthis

Act

bythe violator.

In response to thesefactors, the parties state as follows:

1.

a.

Count V:

Clark operated the wastewatertreatment facility without an

pollution control permit from July

15, 1993 to February 8,

1994.

Clark constructed the

DAF carbon canister without a construction permit prior to November 8,

1993.

The unit

was described in the November 8, 1993 air pollution control operating permit application

which was granted by default.

b.

Tank T-144: Clark accumulated separated VPL in Tank 1-144 for

approximately one month.

c.

Opacity Monitor: The opacity monitor was out of service for 10 days.

THIS DOCUMENT SUBMITTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER

---

ci.

Prussian Blue: The Prussian

Blue was emitted for approximately one

month.

2.

a. Count V:

The operation ofthe wastewater treatment system without an

air pollution control permit during the period

at issue was related tothe dispute over the

applicability of Subpart TI to that system.

b.

Tank 1-144: The accumulation of separated VPL resulted from operator

error.

c.

Opacity monitor: The opacity monitor was incapacitated by a lightning

strike and was repaired as expeditiously as possible.

d.

Prussian

Blue: The Prussian Blue emissionsoccurred as a result

-of

an

unprecedented and

unanticipated chemical

reaction

in the flare.

3.

There appears to be no economic benefit to Clark as a result of these

incidents.

-

4.

a.

Count V:

A civil penalty of $5,000.00 for each incident will

serve

to deter Clark from further violations ofthis

type and will otherwise aid in the

enforcement of the Act.

b.

Tank T-144, opacity monitor. and Prussian Blue incidents:

A civil penalty

of $27,500.00 for these incidents will serve to deter Clark from further violations ofthis

type and will otherwise aid in the enforcement ofthe Act.

5.

The State

and Clark have previouslyentered

into a Consent Order

addressing alleged air pollution violations at Clark’s Blue Island refinery in the case of

People v. Clark RefininQ and Marketina. Inc.. 94-CH-7229 (Cook County).

That Consent

Order reflects the factthat Clark denied any violation in that case

but

agreed to entry of

the Consent Order to avoid litigation.

The Order was approved bythe Circuit Court on

August 11,

1994.

THIS DOCUMENT

SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

IV.

COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

This Final Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement in no way affects the

responsibility of Clark to comply with any other federal, state or local laws or regulations,

including,

but

not limited to, the Act, 415 ILCS 1, ~ ~g.

(1996), and the Illinois Pollution

Control Board’s Rules and Regulations, 35

III. Adm. Code, Subtitles Athrough

H.

V.

JURISDICTION

The Board has jurisdiction ofthe subject matter herein

and ofthe Parties

consenting hereto pursuant to the Act

-

VI.

APPLICABILITY

This Final -Stipulation Wand Proposal for Settlement shall -apply to and

be binding

upon the Attorney General, the Illinois EPA, and Clark, and its officers, agents,

employees, servants, successors and assigns thereof.

Clark shall not raise as a

defense to any action to enforce this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement the failure

of its officers, agents, employees, servants, successors and assigns to take such

action

as -shall be required to comply with the

provisions of this Final Stipulation and Proposal

for Settlement.

VII.

PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT

1.

Clark shall pay a civil penalty ofThirty-Seventy Thousand and Five

Hundred Dollars ($37,500.00).

2.

The penalty shall be paid by corporate or certified check, within thirty (30)

days ofthe issuance of the Board order approving this Final Stipulation and Proposal for

Settlement, made payable tothe Treasurer of the State of Illinois, for deposit in the

Environmental Protection Trust Fund and submitted to:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal Services Section

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

THIS DOCUMENT

SUBMITTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER

---

The name,

number of the case, and

Clark’s FederalEmployer Identification Number

(43-1491230) shall be noted on the check.

A copy of the check and transmittal letter

shall be sentto:

Donna Lutes

Environmental

Bureau

Illinois Attorney General’s Office

500 South Second Street

Springfield,

Illinois 62706

For the purpose of payment and collection, Clark may.be reached at the following addresses:

Mr. Richard Keffer, Esq.

-

SeniorAttorney

Clark Refining and Marketing, Inc.,

8182 Maryland Avenue

St. t.ouis, -Missouri 63105

3.

In the event that the penalty is not paid in a timely fashion, interest shall accrue

and be paid by Clark at the rate set forth

in Section 1003(a) of the Illinois Income Tax Act, 35

ILCS 5/1003(a) (1996), pursuant to Section 42 (g) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/42(g)

(1996).

B.

Compliance Measures

-

Clark shall cease and

desist from any violations of Sections 9(a) and (b) of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/9(a) and (b)

(1996), and 35

Ill. Adm.

Code 201.141, 201.142, 201.143, 201.144,

201.401(a), 219.121, 219.123 and 219.124(a)(1) as alleged herein.

C.

Covenant Notto Sue

-

1.

In consideration of Clark’s payment of the civil penalty specified

above and

Clark’s compliance with the terms and conditions of this Final

Stipulation and Proposal for

Settlement, and effective upon approval thereof in its entirety by the Board, the Attorney

General and

IllinOis EPA covenant not to sue Clark and notto seek attorneys fees pursuant to

section 42(f) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/42(f) (1996), for any violation 1) alleged in Count V of the

Amended Complaint, 2) alleged as

an “Additional Matter” in this Final Stipulation and Proposal

for Settlement, or 3) premised upon circumstances or conduct which formed the basis for the

THIS DOCUMENT

SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

allegations in I

or 2

above.

Nothing in this paragraph shall limit the State’s authority to enforce

the terms of this Final Stipulation

and Proposal for Settlement.

2.

This covenant notto sue does notextend to:

a.

Claims based upon Clark’s failure to meet the

requirements of the Final

Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement;

b.

Claims based on conduct or circumstances which did not

form the basis for any allegations herein;

C.

Claims based upon liability other than civil liability; and

d.

Liability for future violation of state, federal, local

and

commons

-laws

-and/or regulations.

3.

Nothing

in this

Final Stipulation and

Proposal for Settlement is intended as a

waiver, discharge, release, or covenant not to sue for any claim or cause of action,

administrative orjudicial,

civil or criminal, past or future, in law or inequity, which the State of

Illinois may have against any person, firm, corporation or

entity

other than Clark Refining and

9

Marketing, Inc., its

parent, subsidiary and affiliate

companies and their employees, directors,

officers, agents, successors and assigns.

4.

This covenant not to sue is premised and contingent upon Clark’s compliance

with theterms

of the Final

Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.

In the event that Clark

-

L

refuses or otherwise fails to comply, the State, in addition to any other remedies, may seek

injunctive or other relief to compel compliance.

THIS DOCUMENT SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

WHEREFORE, the Complainant and

Clark request that the Board adopt and accept the

foregoing Stipulation and

Proposal for Settlement.

DATED:

____________

DATED:

Respectfully submitted,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

JAMES E.

RYAN

Attorney General, State of Illinois

MATTHEW J.

DUNN, Chief, Environmental

BY:

Enf~~nUAsbestos

Litigation Division

THOMAS DAVIS, Chief

Environmental Bureau

-

Assistant Attorney General

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

JO$EPI~E.

Cb~ef

Legal

Counsel

CLARK REFINING AND MARKETING, INC.

BY:

-Il

DATED:

___________

THIS DOCUMENT SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED

PAPER