CLERK
s
OFFCE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
~
V 7 2
1926
MADISON
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
vs.
)
PCB No. 95-163
)
CLARK REFINING & MARKETING
)
CORPORATION,
)
Respondent.
PARTIAL STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
Pursuant to 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 103.180
(1992), the following
Partial 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”)
in order to resolve Counts I-Ill and
VI-XIII of the Amended Complaint.
Counts IV and
V
will be
resolved in a contested proceeding.
It is expressly understood
and agreed to by and between Clark,
James
E.
Ryan, Attorney
General of the State of Illinois
(“Attorney General”), and the
Illinois EPA that the agreements,
stipulations, and statements
contained herein shall not be binding on the parties, and shall
be deemed null and void,
if not approved by the Board, or if
additional terms or conditions are imposed by the Board which are
rejected by either of the parties.
This Partial 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 Partial 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 of the jurisdiction of the
Board except to enforce the terms hereof by 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.
Air Issues
4.
At its refinery, Clark operates three units referred to
as the Naphtha Hydrotreater, the Hydrogen Plant, and the
Isomerization Unit.
Clark has been issued Air Pollution
Operating Permits for those units by the Illinois EPA.
5.
Each permit contained the following Special Condition:
4.a.
The permittee shall fulfill applicable
notification, record keeping and reporting requirements
-2-
of the NSPS,
40 C.F.R.
60.7 and 60.592(e) (refer to
60.486 and 60.487)
6.
Pursuant to that permit condition and the regulations
incorporated by reference therein, Clark was required to submit a
semi-annual report
(containing the information described in 40
C.F.R.
60.487(c))
for the period of June
1,
1993 to November 30,
1993.
Clark submitted the report on March 10,
1994.
7.
Pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 219.449
(1993)
Clark was
required to provide the Illinois EPA with a leaking components
inspection report by September
1,
1993.
Clark performed the
leaking components inspection prior to September 1,
1993;
however,
the report was not submitted to the Illinois EPA until
March
10,
1994.
RCRA
Issues
8.
During the period of January
1,
1989 to May 1994,
Clark
pumped
a mixture of API separator sludge and DAF Float to a tank,
referred to as Tank 4.
During the period of May 1994 to
November,
1995,
Clark pumped DAF Float to Tank 4.
From Tank 4
this material was transferred by vacuum truck to a second tank
(T1-18).
From T1-18 the sludge was piped to the quenching phase
of Clark’s coke production process.
9.
As a part of its storm water management system, Clark
utilizes ditches and an on-site retention basin
(known as the
Guard Basin)
to manage excess storm water flows at the refinery.
If the Guard Basin received primary or secondary oil/water/solids
separation sludge after May 2,
1991 as a result of “dry weather”
-3-
flows, such flows may have resulted in the deposition of F037 or
F038 listed hazardous waste.
However,
there is no evidence that
(9
the Guard Basin and associated storm water drainage system
received such flows or deposition.
Pursuant to an agreement
entered with the Illinois EPA, Clark emptied and cleaned-out the
Guard Basin
in 1994 under the Illinois EPA’s voluntary clean-up
program, previously known as the “Illinois Pre-Notice Site Clean-
Up Program’t and now known as the
“Site Remediation Program.”
Clark is continuing to monitor soil and groundwater in the area
of the Guard Basin under that program to determine compliance
with clean-up objectives.
10.
Clark did not maintain a written record of its
hazardous waste determination for 13 drums of soil cuttings from
the installation of the Guard Basin monitoring wells.
Clark does
maintain manifests demonstrating proper disposal of these
cuttings.
11.
On one occasion,
Clark did not record the date of the
transporter’s acceptance on manifest 1NA0624516
at the time of
delivery of the waste.
12.
On one occasion,
Clark did not retain a copy of its
land disposal restriction notification given to the disposal
facility for lab packs.
Spill Issues
13.
During the period of December
6,
1991 to May 1,
1995,
there were a number of incidents involving spills or releases of
materials at Clark facilities and three incidents where an oil
-4-
sheen was observed on the Mississippi River in the vicinity of
Clark facilities.
14.
On December 6,
1991,
approximately 30 gallons of
a~phaltspilled from the asphalt pipeline between the refinery
and Clark’s River Dock
(Incident No.
913533).
On March 11,
1994,
approximately 142,000 gallons spilled from the asphalt pipeline
(Incident No.
940515)
.
On April 19,
1994, 420 gallons spilled
from the pipeline
(Incident No.
940851).
15.
Clark uses sulfuric acid on its cooling tower system at
the refinery.
On May 6,
1993,
2,000 gallons of sulfuric acid
spilled from an injection line in the cooling tower system
(Incident No.
931160)
16.
On May 23,
1994
(Incident No.
4DBB)
and May 31,
1994
(Incident No.
4DBC)
a petroleum sheen was observed on the
Mississippi near Clark’s River Dock.
On July
2,
1994,
two
barrels of high sulfur fuel oil spilled into the Mississippi near
Clark’s River Dock
(Incident No.
941478).
On March 2,
1995,
20
gallons of gasoline spilled into the river from the River Dock.
(Incident No.
950356)
.
17.
On July 9,
1994,
13,000 gallons of naphtha spilled from
a tank at the refinery
(Incident No.
941526).
18.
On August
1,
1994,
200 gallons of gasoline spilled from
a tank at Clark’s terminal
(Incident No.
941701).
19.
On August
9,
1994,
84,000 gallons of gasoline spilled
from a gasoline mixing tank at the refinery
Iricident
No.
941772)
-5-
20.
On August 18,
1994, 4,200 gallons of crude oil spilled
from a pipeline in Clark’s tank field
(Incident No.
941873)
21.
On October 10,
1994,
1,000 gallons of gasoline spilled
a pipeline near tank 200-1 in the refinery complex
(Incident
942288)
22.
On October 28,
1994,
6,000 gallons of No.
2 Stripper
oil spilled from a Clark pipeline between the refinery and the
River Dock
(Incident No.
942432).
23.
On August
23,
1994,
3,500 gallons of gas oil spilled
from one of Clark’s gas oil pipelines (Incident No. 941913).
On
September 25,
1994,
an additional 71,500 gallons of gas oil
spilled from one of Clark’s gas oil pipelines
(Incident No.
942188)
24.
On December 16,
1994,
1600 gallons of oil spilled from
tank 55-1
(Incident No.
942837)
25.
On February 21,
1993,
a disc ruptured on Tank 120-2
resulting in the release of 750 barrels of crude oil
(Incident
No.
930211)
26.
On December 20,
1994,
42 gallons of crude oil spilled
from a corroded pipeline
(Incident No.
942855).
27.
On April
11,
1995,
two barrels of distillate spilled
from a ruptured flexible hose at the River Dock (Incident No.
950726)
28.
On May 1,
1995, an oil sheen was observed on the
Mississippi River at and downstream of the River Dock (Incident
No.
950893)
from
No.
0
-6-
29.
On June
7,
1995,
350 barrels spilled from Tank 200-1
when a valve was left open
(Incident No.
951217).
30.
After discovering or being notified thereof,
Clark
reported each of the above referenced incidents to the Illinois
EPA and the Illinois Emergency Services and Disaster Agency and
took response actions,
including containment, product removal,
sampling, excavation,
and/or bioremediation after each spill.
NPDES Issues
31.
During the period of March 1992 to November 1,
1995,
effluent from Clark’s wastewater treatment plant repeatedly
exceeded daily maximum and monthly average limits set forth in
its NPDES permit for five-day biochemical oxygen demand
(“BOD5t’)~
Total Suspended Solids, Total Recoverable Phenolics,
Ammonia,
Sulfide load, and minimum pH level.
32.
Between 1993 and 1994,
Clark undertook the following
measures to address these excursions:
a)
Repair and maintenance of the sour water stripper;
b)
Installation of two above-ground equalization
tanks for the biological wastewater system;
c)
Modifying its process oily water sewers to route
noncontaminated storm water to an impoundment;
d)
Minimization of waters being sent to the process
oily water sewer system;
e)
Installation of four additional aerators in the
reactors;
f)
Aeration of firewater impoundment;
-7-
g)
Installation of a new coke maze in the coke
containment yard;
and
h)
Installation of flow through samplers;
Periodic excursions continued after this work was done.
II.
SUBSECTION
33(c)
FACTORS
Subsection 33(c)
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/33(c)
(1994)
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 invelved 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.
A.
Air Reports
1.
The delay in submission of the updated leaking
components list inhibited the Illinois EPA’s monitoring of Clark.
-8-
2.
The reports in question were submitted promptly after
Clark received notice that such reports had not been received and
all subsequent reports due to date have been timely filed.
B.
RCRA Activities
1.
Complainant asserts that under the RCRA regulations
Clark “stored” RCRA hazardous wastes in Tank
4 without satisfying
the requirements of RCRA creating the possibility that situations
could occur that RCRA safeguards were intended to prevent.
Clark
asserts that under the RCRA regulations Tank
4 was properly
classified as a recycling tank which held “recyclable material,”
not
“waste.”
2.
The parties agree that on one occasion
a spill of less
than one gallon of material from the tank into the concrete
secondary containment area was not cleaned up within 24 hours.
3.
The parties agree that Clark has properly closed Tank 4
and that Clark’s current handling of materials in new Tank T-l71
prior to introduction into the coker comports with
RCRA
operational standards.
C.
Spills
1.
Several of the spills referenced in paragraph 13
through 24 of the Stipulation of Facts had impacts on areas
outside of the refinery.
2.
The spills on Clark’s property resulted in temporary
surface soil and/or surface water contamination, and in some
instances may have contributed to subsurface soil and/or
groundwater contamination.
-9-
3.
As stated in Section
I,
Clark reported each of the
above referenced incidents to the Illinois EPA and the Illinois
C)
Emergency Services and Disaster Agency and took response actions,
including containment, product removal,
sampling, excavation,
and/or bioremediation after each spill.
To verify compliance
with risk-based clean-up objectives,
Clark has agreed to perform
additional investigation and monitoring at the locations
specified in paragraph II.C.4 below.
Clark has also agreed to
undertake additional remedial work as required to achieve clean
up objectives at the locations specified in paragraph II.C.4
below.
4.
As will be more fully described below,
Clark is
completing its remedial investigation and/or remedial activities
for the following spill incidents pursuant to sampling and
analysis plans and/or work plans approved by the Illinois EPA:
a)
No.
940851
(Asphalt)
(Area A)
b)
No.
941772
(Tank 35-2)
(Area B)
c)
No.
942837
(Tank 55-1)
(Area
C)
d)
No.
941526
(Tank 10-5)
(Area D)
e)
No.
930211
(Tank 120-2)
(Area E)
f)
Nos.
942288,
941873,
942855, and 951217
(Tank
200-1)
(Area
F)
g)
No.
931160
(Sulfuric Acid spill)
(Area G)
h)
Nos.
941913 and 942188
(Hawthorne Ave Releases)
(Area H)
i)
No.
942432
(Route
3 Release)
(Area
J)
j)
No.
940515
(Black Oil River Line)
(Area
K)
-10-
k)
Nos.
941701,
950726,
950893
(River Dock Area)
‘(Area
L)
5.
The Illinois EPA has found that no further action is
needed at the spill sites associated with the incident numbers
913533,
941478,
942554,
950356, 4DBB and 4DBC because
contamination at these sites does not exceed clean up objectives
or water quality standards.
6.
A number of the spill incidents referenced in
Paragraphs
4 and
5 above were the result of deteriorated or
defective equipment or pipelines.
7.
Other spills were the result of human error.
8.
Since its acquisition of the refinery,
Clark has
undertaken
a number of programs to replace and upgrade its
pipelines and tank farms and to improve training and maintenance
procedures plant wide.
9.
It
is technically practicable and economically
reasonable to reduce the number of spills occurring because of
deteriorated or defective equipment and staff errors.
D.
NPDES Discharges
•
1.
Clark’s discharges of contaminants in excess of
permitted levels may have added to the contaminant loading
received by the Mississippi River.
2.
Clark has undertaken extensive work in an effort to
eliminate these excursions.
-11-
3.
Some of the excursions occurred inadvertently from
Clark’s efforts to correct an excessive buildup in the biological
reactors caused by the prior owner’s neglect.
4.
As will be described below,
Clark is completing a
compliance plan to correct the permit excursions.
III.
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)
and
(b) (3)
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 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 by the violator
because of delay in compliance with requirements;
4.
the amount
in 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.
A.
Air Reports
1.
Clark alleges the semi annual report required under 40
C.F.R.
60.487(a)
was not subject to a submission deadline under
either the permit or the regulations.
-12-
2.
The leaking component inspection report required under
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 219.449 was filed 157 days late.
However, the
underlying inspection was performed in a timely manner.
The
delay in filing the report was unintentional. Clark believed the
report had been filed by its consultant.
Clark promptly corrected
this failure when notified by the Illinois EPA.
3.
In the case of People v.
Clark Refining and Marketing,
PCB 93-250,
Clark was charged with failing to conduct leak
detection and monitoring meeting the requirements of 40 C.F.R.
60.487.
The parties filed a Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement in that matter with the Board on April
1,
1996.
4.
Any
economic benefit accrued would be minimal.
5.
A civil penalty ‘of $13,000.00 for these violations
would serve to deter repetition of these violations by Clark as
well as aid in enhancing voluntary compliance with the Act by
Clark and other persons similarly subject to the Act.
B.
RCRP~Activities
1.
Clark operated Tank
4 without demonstrating compliance
with RCR1~operational requirements for a period of at least
several years.
In 1995.. Clark constructed a new tank,
T-171,
to
replace Tank 4.
Clark has undertaken to operate T-17l in
compliance with all applicable RCPA regulations.
2.
Clark undertook clean-up of the Guard Basin voluntarily
in 1994.
Although Clark continues to believe that soil from the
clean-up of the Guard Basin is non-hazardous, Clark agreed to
dispose of that soil off-site as a hazardous waste.
-13-
3.
The other RCRA violations listed in Count
IX of the
Amended Complaint were corrected immediately.
4.
Any
economic benefit accrued was minimal.
5.
A civil penalty of $25,000.00 for these violations
would serve to deter repetition of these violations by Clark as
well as aiding in enhancing voluntary compliance with the Act by
Clark and other persons similarly subject to the Act.
C.
Spills
1.
There were a number of spill or release incidents over
the course of four years with quantities ranging from a few
gallons to hundreds of thousands of gallons.
2.
Two of the spills were discovered by a member of the
public.
3.
Clark notified the proper agencies and commenced
fl
emergency mitigation action within a short time after discovering
each spill.
4.
As
is more fully described below,
Clark has agreed to
undertake further remedial investigation and, possibly,
further
soil or groundwater remediation,
in order to verify completion of
clean-up under Sections 58.5-58.7 of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/58.5-
58.7
(1995),
using the Illinois EPA’s April
8,
1996, proposed 35
Ill. Adm Code Part 742 rules known as
“Tiered Approach to Clean-
up Objectives”
(“TACO”),
attached hereto as Appendix A, as
guidance, notwithstanding any subsequent version submitted to or
approved by the Board,
and the procedures specified herein.
The
-14-
parties may agree to utilize subsequent versions of TACO.
Said
agreements must be memorialized in writing.
5.
Since acquiring the Hartford refinery, Clark has
initiated a number of pro-active programs designed to identify
and repair, or replace defective pipe throughout the refinery.
6.
A civil penalty of $188,000.00 will serve to deter
•
repetition of these alleged violations by Clark as well as aiding
in enhancing voluntary compliance with the Act by Clark and other
persons similarly subject to the Act.
D.
NPDES Discharges
1.
Clark’s wastewater treatment plant experienced upset
conditions which resulted in exceedances of NPDES permit
limitations for the WWTP periodically between March 1992 and the
date of this Partial Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
2.
Clark commenced an extensive program to correct those
exceedances in 1993.
That program included the measures
described in Section
1, par.
27 above.
When those measures were
found to be only partially effective, Clark took additional steps
to correct the problem in 1995 and 1996.
3.
Some of that work was necessary to correct neglect of
the system by the prior owner.
4.
As will be detailed below,
Clark has committed to the
implementation of additional measures to bring its WWTP discharge
into compliance on a continuous basis.
5.
A civil penalty of $65,000.00 will serve to deter
repetition of those violations by Clark as well as aiding the
-15-
voluntary compliance with the Act by Clark and other persons
similarly subject to the Act.
(9
E.
Environmental Prolects
Clark has implemented the following environmental projects.
Clark’s has implemented the following environmental projects
which the State believes demonstrate Clark’s diligence in
upgrading its facility for purposes of Section 42(h)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/42(h) (1994).
Clark’s implementation of these projects
justifies
a reduction of $68,000 in the amount of penalty Clark
should pay.
1.
Coke Truck Wash
This project was undertaken in 1994 to ensure that coke dust
particles are not carried off-site on dirty coke trucks.
Clark
estimates that dirty trucks previously generated as much as three
to five tons per year of fugitive coke fines.
Washing the trucks
reduces the quantity of coke dust on the trucks by approximately
ninety-five percent.
Under this project,
a truck wash building
was constructed in the coke yard which allows the trucks to be
spray washed indoors,
thus reducing a source of fugitive coke
particle emissions.
The wash water is directed through the coke
maze system which allows the solids to settle out.
These solids
become
a coke product rather than a waste.
2.
Filter Press
The new filter press installed at the Hartford Refinery in
1993 allowed Clark to eliminate the disposal of aggressive
biological treatment sludges.
Previously,
this sludge had to be
-16-
disposed of at the Peoria Disposal Company hazardous waste
disposal facility in Peoria,
Illinois, although it was
non-hazardous, because of its liquid form.
After the
i~istallationof the new filter press in November 1993,
the
non-hazardous solids generated in the filter press in 1994 and
1995 were disposed of as a special waste at a non-hazardous waste
landfill.
In 1995,
the filter press reduced the volume of WWTP
waste disposed of off-site by 93,
i.e. 18,000,000 gallons
(150,200,000 lbs)
of liquid waste was reduced to 9,600,000 lbs of
solid waste.
3.
Dead Leg Removal
During 1995 Clark eliminated 100 feet of pipeline referred
to as “dead legs”
in the refinery industry.
“Dead legs” are
portions of pipelines that are no longer used,
but are connected
to active lines and eventually could leak.
The removal of “dead
legs”,
is considered a proactive step to prevent the potential
for future pollution.
4.
Pursuant to OSHA,
Clark has performed “Haz Op” studies
within the last five years on the Propane System, Butane System,
Amine System, and Hot Oil System at the Hartford Refinery.
Within 30 days following Board approval of this Partial
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement, Clark shall submit to
the Illinois EPA a list of measures
it has implemented or intends
to implement pursuant to those studies.
-17-
F.
Reimbursement of Illinois EPA and Attorney General
Clark has agreed to reimburse the Illinois EPA for its past
and future response costs relating to oversight of the cleanup of
t~eGuard Basin and spills described above.
Clark has previously
paid Five Thousand Dollars
($5,000.00)
toward Illinois EPA’s
Guard Basin oversight costs and under this Settlement will pay
One Thousand Two Hundred and Three
($1,203.00)
for Guard Basin
oversight costs incurred through December 31,
1995 and Twelve
Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety-Nine Dollars and Sixty-four
Cents
($12,599.64)
for spills response costs incurred through
March 31,
1996.
Response costs incurred after those dates will
be billed on a semi-annual basis.
Under this Settlement,
Clark
will also pay Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00)
to the Illinois
Hazardous Waste Fund for all Illinois EPA attorneys’
fees
incurred for over sight
in this matter.
•
Clark will also pay Ten
Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00)
to the Attorney General’s State
Projects and Court Ordered Distribution Fund for the sole purpose
of funding environmental enforcement activities.
IV.
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER
LAWS AND REGULATIONS
This Partial 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 5/1, ~
~q.
(1994), and the
Board’s Rules and Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code Subtitles A
through H, or the interim limits provided herein.
-18-
V.
JURISDICTION
0
The Board has jurisdiction of the subject matter herein and
of the parties consenting hereto pursuant to the Act.
VI.
APPLICABILITY
This Partial Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement shall
apply to and be binding upon the Attorney General’s Office,
the
Illinois EPA and Clark,
its officers,
agents,, employees,
servants,
successors and assigns.
Clark shall not raise as a
defense to any action to enforce this Partial Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement the failure of any of the above to take
such action as shall be required to comply with the provisions of
this Partial Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
VII.
PROPOSAL
FOR
SETTLEMENT
A.
Civil Penalty
1.
Clark shall pay a total settlement penalty of Two
Hundred Thirty-Two Thousand and Eight Hundred Dollars
($232,800.00)
($10,400.00 for the Late Reports,
$20,000 for the
RCRA activities,
$150,400 for the spills, and $52,000.00 for the
NPDES discharges).
2.
This penalty shall be paid by corporate or certified
check, within thirty
(30) days of issuance of the Board Order
approving this Partial Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement,
made payable to the Treasurer,
State of Illinois, for deposit
into the Environmental Protection Trust Fund and submitted to:
-19-
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Section
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
The name,
number of the case,
and Clark’s Federal Employer
Identification Number
(43-1491230)
shall be noted on the check. A
copy of the check and transmittal letter shall be sent to:
Donna Lutes
Environmental Bureau
Illinois Attorney General’s Office
500 South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois
62706
For purposes of payment and collection Clark may be reached at
the following address:
Mr. Richard A.
Keffer, Esq.
Senior Attorney
Clark Refining & Marketing,
Inc.
8182 Maryland Avenue
St. Louis, 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)
(1994), pursuant to Section 42(g)
of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/42(g)
(1994).
B.
Additional Payments
1.
In addition to the settlement penalty described above,
Clark has agreed:
a)
To pay the amount of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and
Ninety Nine Dollars and Sixty-Four Cents
($12,599.64)
for all
response costs and litigation related costs of the Illinois EPA
with regard to the spills identified in Counts VI through XIII of
-20-
the Amended Complaint incurred through March 31,
1996.
b)
To pay Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00)
for all
attorney’s fees of the Illinois EPA.
c)
To pay One Thousand and Two Hundred Dollars
($1,200.00)
for all of the Illinois EPA’s costs for oversight of the Guard
Basin cleanup through December 31,
1995.
d)
To pay the costs specified in paragraphs
(a),
(b) and
(c)
above by corporate or certified checks within thirty
(30)
days after entry of
the Board Order approving this Partial
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
These checks shall be
made payable to the Treasurer of the State
of Illinois and’ sent
to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Section
2200 Churchill Road
P.O.. Box 19726
Springfield,
Illinois
62794-9276
Additionally,
the check for the costs specified in paragraph
(a)
shall be noted for deposit into the Hazardous Waste Fund and
designated for emergency response activities.
The check for the
costs specified in paragraph
(b)
shall be noted for deposit into
the Hazardous Waste Fund and designated for environmental
enforcement purposes. The check for the costs specified in
paragraph
(c)
shall be noted for deposit into the Hazardous Waste
Fund and designated for the Site Remediation Program.
-21-
e)
To reimburse the Illinois EPA for all reasonable and
documented future response costs
(other than attorneys’
fees)
(9
incurred after March 31,
1996 relating to oversight of Clark’s
remedial investigation and/or remediation of the spills
identified in Counts VI through XIII of the Amended Complaint and
after December 31,
1995 relating to oversight of the Guard Basin
clean-up. These costs shall include,
but are not limited to:
(1)
personnel services costs,
(2)
travel costs,
(3)
automobile
operating costs,
(4) professional contractor costs,
(5)
laboratory costs,
(6)
response contractor costs,
(7) supply
costs,
and
(8)
indirect costs.
The Illinois EPA will send Clark
a detailed accounting of the Illinois EPA oversight activity
involved,
the time spent by each Illinois EPA employee involved,
and the costs incurred by the Illinois EPA on a semi-yearly
basis.
Within 60 days of receipt of the accounting,
Clark shall
submit its
payment
in
the
manner
specified
in
paragraphs
(c)
and
(d)
above.
f)
To make the payment of Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00)
to the Attorney General specified in paragraph
III.F.6
above.
The
payment
shall
be
submitted
within
45
days
of
entry of the Board Order approving this Partial Stipulation and
Proposal
for
Settlement
and
be
made
by
corporate
or
certified
check
payable
to
the
Attorney
General
for
deposit
into
the
Attorney General’s Special Projects and Court Approved
Distribution
Fund
and
delivered
to:
-22-
Donna Lutes
Illinois Attorney General’s Office
Environmental Bureau
500 South Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
C.
Compliance Measures
1.
Clark shall cease and desist from any violations of
subsections 9(b),
9.1(b)
and
(d) (1)
and
(2),
12(a),
(d), and
(f),
and 21(f)
of the Act,
(415,
ILCS 5/9(b),
9.1(b) and
(d) (1)
and
(2),
12(a),
(d), and
(f), and 21(f)
(1994)),
35 Ill. Adm. Code
302.203,
304.141,
703.121,
703.150,
722.123,
722.134,
722.140,
725.115,
725.116,
725.131,
725.173,
725.212, 725.242,
725.291,
725.292,
725.296, and 728.107
(1994),
and its permits as alleged
in Counts
I through III and VI through XIII of the Amended
Complaint.
2.
In addition to any other authority provided by law,
Clark shall allow duly authorized representatives of the Attorney
General’s Office and/or the Illinois EPA entry and access to
those portions of Clark’s Hartford refinery, terminal, and
pipelines covered by this Partial Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement to investigate and verify compliance with the terms
and objectives of this Partial Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement,
including,
but not limited to photographs, reviewing
and copying plant records and other documents, and inspecting
equipment,
process operations and remedial activities.
Clark may
request that any photographs,
information,
or copies obtained
during such inspections be maintained and handled by Plaintiffs
-23-
as exempt from disclosure by the State pursuant to Section 7(g)
of the Freedom of Information Act,
5 ILCS 140/7(f)
(1994),
pursuant to Section 7 of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/7
(1994)
,
or
pursuant to
2
Ill. Adm. Code 1827.201-1827.603.
If applicable,
the restrictions on disclosure of those provisions shall be
applied.
3.
Spills Compliance Measures
a.
Clark has submitted plans for sampling and analysis of
the following areas to determine whether any further remedial
action
is necessary to address the spills in those areas:
Area A; Spill No.
940851
Area B;
Spill No.
941772
Area C;
Spill No.
942837
Area D;
Spill No.
941526
ni
Area E; Spill No.
930211
Area F;
Spill Nos.
942288,
941873,
942855,
951217
Area G; Spill No.
931160
Area H; Spill Nos.
941913,
942188
Area J; Spill No.
942432
Those plans have been approved by the Illinois EPA.
b.
Within 30 days of Board approval of this Partial
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement,
Clark shall implement
the approved sampling and analysis plans for the areas specified
in Paragraph VII.C.3.a.
c.
Within 75 days following approval of this Partial
Stipulation and Proposal, Clark shall submit to the Illinois EPA
-24-
Office of Chemical Safety
a Tier
1,
2 or 3 Risk Assessment or
Risk Assessments,
as may be appropriate,
including proposed
clean-up objectives,
for the areas specified in Paragraph
VII.C.3.a. in accordance with the procedures and standards
contained in Section 58 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/58.5-58.7
(1995)
and using the applicable version of TACO
(as described in
Paragraph III .C.4.).
d.
Within 45 days after receipt of the Risk Assessment(s)
and proposed CUO’s,
the Illinois EPA shall provide in writing
either:
1)
an approval of the Risk Assessment(s) and proposed
CUO’s;
2)
an approval of the Risk Assessment(s)
and/or proposed
CUO’s with conditions; or
3)
a disapproval of the Risk
Assessment(s) and proposed CUO’s
in whole or in part.
Any
Illinois EPA disapproval or approval with conditions shall be
~II7
accompanied with a written explanation of such action consistent
with Section 58.7(d) (3)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act
(415 ILCS 5/58.7(d) (3)).
e.
In the event that the Illinois EPA disapproves,
in
whole or in part, or approves with conditions a proposed Risk
Assessment or proposed CUO’s, Clark shall have 35 days to either:
1) notify Illinois EPA that
it will submit a revised Risk
Assessment and/or CUO’s to the Illinois EPA within 45 days or 2)
request
a 45-day period to meet with Illinois EPA to resolve
differences between the parties and,
if matters are not resolved,
within 14 days after the end of the 45 day period,
appeal the
Illinois EPA’s disapproval or approval with conditions as a final
-25-
Illinois EPA action to the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
A
revised Risk Assessment and/or revised CUO’s shall be reviewed by
the Illinois EPA and approved or disapproved as provided in
paragraph d.
above.
An appeal pursuant to this paragraph shall
be subject to the procedures and standards of review applicable
to permit appeals under the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act.
f.
Within 45 days after receipt of the Illinois EPA’s
written approval of the proposed CUO’s for an incident, Clark
shall submit to the Illinois EPA Office of Chemical Safety
either
1)
a Remedial Action Completion Report
(“RACP”) with the
approved CUO’s for that incident or 2)
a Remedial Action Plan
(“RAP”),
including a schedule,
for achieving compliance with the
approved CUO’s for that incident.
g.
Within 45 days after receipt of
a RACP or RAP, the
Illinois EPA shall either approve or disapprove,
in writing, the
RACP or RAP.
The Illinois EPA may disapprove
a RACP or
RAP
in
whole or in part.
The Illinois EPA may also approve a RACP or
RAP
with conditions.
The Illinois EPA shall not require that a
RACP or
RAP
required under this Proposal
for Settlement address
contamination which is not associated with the spill incidents
which are the subject of the Amended Complaint.
Clark shall have
the burden of demonstrating that contamination encountered during
sampling pursuant to an approved sampling and analysis plan is
not associated with the spill incident being investigated.
-26-
h.
In the event the Illinois EPA approves a RACPsubrnitted
by Clark,
the Illinois EPA shall
issue to Clark a letter
pertaining to the area or areas covered by the
RACP.
Such letter
shall be consistent with and have the effect of a No Further
Remediation Letter issued pursuant to Section 58.10 of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/58.10
(1995).
i.
In the event that the Illinois EPA disapproves a
RACP
or
RAP,
in whole or in part,
or approves
a RACP or
RAP
with
conditions,
Clark shall have 35 days to either:
1)
notify
Illinois EPA that
it will
submit a revised RACP or RAP within 45
days or 2)
request a 45-day period to meet with Illinois EPA to
resolve differences between the parties and,
if matters are not
resolved, within 14 days after the end of the 45-day period,
appeal the Illinois EPA’s disapproval or approval with conditions
as a final Illinois EPA action to the Illinois Pollution Control
Board.
An appeal pursuant to this paragraph shall be subject to
the procedures and standards of review applicable to permit
appeals under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
j.
Within 30 days following receipt of Illinois EPA
approval of a RAP,
Clark shall commence implementation of the
RAP
and shall,
thereafter, provide the Illinois EPA with quarterly
reports on the status of work under the RAP. Upon completion of
the work prescribed by the RAP,
Clark shall either
1)
submit a
RACP with the approved CUO’s or 2)
an Addendum to the
RAP
for
achieving compliance.
The procedures in paragraphs h and i above
shall apply to a
RACP
under this paragraph and to an Addendum to
a RAP.
—27—
k.
Clark has submitted a
RAP
and groundwater monitoring
protocol for Area K
(Black Oil River Line:
Incident No. 940515)
which has been approved by the Illinois EPA.
Clark shall
commence implementation of that
RAP
and groundwater monitoring
protocol for Area K within 30 days after approval of this Partial
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
1.
Clark has submitted to Illinois EPA a
RAP
for Area L
(River Dock:
Incident Nos.
941701,
950726, and 950893) and shall
commence implementation of that
RAP
within 30 days after
receiving approval of the
RAP
or the approval of this partial
stipulation, whichever is later.
m.
The review,
approval and appeal of standards and
procedures in this Section VII.C.3 shall apply to Illinois EPA
actions on any Risk Assessments,
CUO’s,
RAP’s
or
RACP’s
submitted
by Clark for Areas A
-
L.
n.
Clark shall provide at least ten
(10) days notification
to the Illinois EPA of any field activities associated with the
tasks set forth in paragraphs VII
(c) (3) (a)-
(m)above.
Clark
shall coordinate with the Illinois EPA all of its field
activities to give the Illinois EPA or its representatives an
opportunity to provide field oversight and collect samples.
o.
Within 60 days following Board approval of this Partial
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement,
Clark shall prepare and
submit to the Illinois EPA for review a generic sampling protocol
and quality assurance plan for initial soil sampling at the site
of future spill incidents at the Hartford facility.
This
-28-
protocol is intended to be used as guidance by Clark and the
Illinois EPA.
4.
RCRA
Compliance Measures
a.
Clark shall operate Tank T-171 in compliance with the
RCRA regulations of 35
Ill. Adm.
Code Parts 721-728
(1994)
applicable to a less than 90-day storage tank.
b.
Clark shall complete all tasks related to the soil
sampling for the Guard Basin within 180 days of Board approval of
this Partial Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
c.
For all tasks prescribed under the Quality Assurance
Project Plan For The Guard Basin Removal Action dated February
1994;
the Work Plan For the Guard Basin Removal Action dated
February 1994;
and addendum dated May 24,
1994 that require
laboratory analysis or field measurements, Clark shall submit a
report to the Illinois EPA documenting these analytical results
and field measurements within
90 days of such activities.
If
these results demonstrate an exceedance of Groundwater Quality
Standards,
Clark shall submit a Remediation Objectives Report to
establish site specific cleanup objectives in accordance with
Sections 58.5-58.7 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/58.5-58.7
(1995).
d.
Within 45 days after receipt of approval of any site
specific CUO’s which may be established pursuant to Paragraph
(c)
above,
or within 90 days after Clark determines no site-specific
CUO’s will be proposed, Clark shall submit either a Remedial
Action Plan,
consistent with Section 58.6(d)
of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/58.6(d) (1994), which shall
include a schedule for
-29-
implementation,
or
a Remedial Action Completion Report consistent
with Section 58.6(e) (2)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/58.6(e) (2) (1994),
(3
documenting compliance with the established CUO’s to the Illinois
E~Afor review and approval.
e.
Clark shall provide at least ten
(10) days notification
to the Illinois EPA of any field activities associated with the
tasks set forth in the Quality Assurance Project Plan For The
Guard Basin Removal Action dated February 1994;
the Work Plan For
The Guard Basin Removal Action dated February 1994;
the Site
Health and Safety Plan dated February 7,
1994; addendum dated May
24,
1994;
and any field tasks associated with remedial action
deemed necessary pursuant to paragraph
(d)
above.
Clark shall
coordinate with the Illinois EPA all of its field activities to
give the Illinois EPA or its representatives an opportunity to
1’.
provide field oversight and collect samples.
5.
NPDES Compliance Measures
a.
Clark shall take Reactor T-66 and T-67 out of service
and perform the following tasks:
repair or replace the floors;
install nozzles
so that the reactors operate in series;
hydrotest;
and start-up and adjust reactor operation.
The work
on T-67 shall be completed within 30 days following Board
approval of this Partial Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
The work on T-66 shall be completed by October 1,
1996.
b.
Clark shall develop a modified operational protocol and
train its operators in the implementation of that protocol by
October
1,
1996.
—30-
c.
The waste water treatment plant shall achieve steady
state operations by July 1,
1997.
d.
During the period of November 1,
1995 thorough July 1,
1997,
samples from the wastewater treatment plant Clark shall not
exceed the following interim limits:
-31-
INTERIM
LIMITS
Concentrationl/ (mg/l)
Load2/ (lbs/day)
Daily
Mo. Avg.
Daily
Mo. Avg.
BOD
60
30
700
(890)
237
(494)
TSS
70
40
620
(620)
317
(396)
PHENOL
0 .75
0 .20
6.65
(6.65)
1.58
(3.24)
AMMONIA
-
-
593
(593)
270
(270)
All other parameters,
including increases for storm water
allowances,
would remain at current permit limits.
i/
Interim concentration limits were derived as follows:
1)
Analytical data for each parameter for January 1994
through October 1995 was averaged.
2)
General achievability was confirmed by comparing the
average for each parameter with the levels reported in
the Discharge Monitoring Reports for 1994 and 1995.
2/
Interim load limits were derived as follows:
1)
Average and’ maximum loads for each parameter were
calculated based on average flow
=
0.949 million
gallons and maximum flow
=
1.4 million gallons
(provided by Illinois EPA.)
The formula used is:
Flow X Concentration X 8.34
=
Load
(8.34
is simply a conversion factor).
2)
The calculated average and maximum flows for each
parameter were compared to federal guidelines for a
refinery Hartford’s size.
3)
The lower of the calculated or federal load limit was
selected as the interim limit.
Federal load limits are
shown in parenthesis.
-32-
6.
Force Majeure.
a.
Any failure by Clark to comply with any requirement of
Paragraph VII.C.3-5 shall not be a violation if such failure is
the result of actions by persons or events beyond the reasonable
control of Clark,
including,
but not restricted to,
acts of God,
acts of other parties,
fires,
floods,
strikes, freight embargoes,
or delays of contractors due to such causes.
b.
When,
in the opinion of Clark, circumstances have
occurred which cause or may cause a violation of any provision of
Paragraphs VII.C.3-5,
Clark shall notify the Illinois EPA in
writing as soon as practicable but not later than three
(3)
calendar days after the claimed occurrence.
Failure to so notify
the Illinois EPA shall constitute
a waiver of any defense under
this Paragraph
6 arising from said circumstances.
c.
Unless and until the
Illinois EPA provides written
notification that it disagrees that the delay in compliance has
been or will be caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable
control of Clark,
Clark will be deemed to have an extension of
the time for performance for a period equal to the delay
resulting from such circumstances.
d.
Increased costs associated with implementing the
measures required by Paragraph VII(C)
shall not, by itself,
excuse Clark from a failure to comply under the provisions of
this Paragraph 6.
-33-
-
-
.
7.
Compliance with other laws and regulations.
This Partial Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement in no
way affects Clark’s responsibility to comply with any federal,
state,
or local
law,
regulation,
permit,
or ordinance including,
but not limited to the Act, 415 ILCS
5/.
et
~.
(1995)
and the
Board’s Regulations, or the interim limits provided herein.
D.
Covenant Not to Sue
1.
In consideration of Clark’s payment of the civil
penalty specified above and the response costs specified above,
Clark’s performance of the environmental projects described above
and Clark’s compliance with the terms and conditions of this
Partial Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement,
and effective
upon approval thereof by the Board,
the Attorney General and the
Illinois EPA covenant not to sue Clark or seek attorneys fees
pursuant to Section 42(f)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/42(f)
(1994),
for any alleged violation in
1)
Counts
I through III and VI
through XIII of the Amended Complaint; and
2)
the August 25,
1995, and September 22,
1995,
Pre-Enforcement Conference Letters
from the Illinois EPA or any violation which would be premised
upon the circumstanqes or conduct which formed the basis for any
violation alleged in
1 or
2 above.
In consideration of the same,
the Attorney General and the Agency further covenant not to sue
Clark in any action before the Board or any Circuit Court of
Illinois based upon the violations or facts alleged in Count
I of
the original Complaint
filed in this enforcement action.
Nothing
in this paragraph shall
limit the State’s authority to enforce
-34-
the terms of this Partial Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement.
2.
This covenant not to sue does not extend to:
a)
Criminal liability;
b)
Claims based on Clark’s failure to meet the
requirements of the Partial Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement;
c)
Claims based on conduct or circumstances which did not
form the basis for any violation alleged in
1)
Counts
I through
III and VI through XIII of the Amended Complaint and 2)
the
August
25,
1996,
and September 22,
1996,
Pre-Enforcement
Conference Letters from the Illinois EPA.
d)
Liability for future violation of state,
federal, local
and common laws and/or regulations;
e)
Liability for natural resource damage arising out of
the alleged violations;
and
f)
Liability to third parties arising out of the alleged
violation for removal, cleanup or remedial action as a result of
a release of hazardous substances or petroleum.
3.
Nothing in this Partial 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 or judicial,
civil or criminal, past or future, in
law or in equity, which the State or the Illinois EPA may have
against any person,
firm,
corporation, or entity other than Clark
Refining and Marketing,
Inc.,
its parent, subsidiary and
-35-
t
•
I
CLARK
REFINING
AND
MARKETING,.. INC.
Respondent,
DATED:
______________
BY:
~
~
NAME:
Forrest Lauher
•
43—1491230
FEIN
-37-
0
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 the terms of the Partial Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement.
In the event that Clark refuses or
otherwise fails
to comply,
the State,
in addition to any other
remedies, may seek injunctive or other relief to compel
compliance.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
~.
~j.
JAMES
E.
RYAN,
Attorney
General of the State of Illinois
MATTHEW J.
DUNN,
Chief
Environmental Enforcement
/
Asbestos Litigation Division
I
DATED:
(f
/°
c
i~c
BY:
__________________________
THOMAS DAVIS,
Chief
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONT~ENTAL
DATED:
1/
-
/~~-
?
BY:
Ll Counsel
of Legal Counsel
-36
the terms of this Partial Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement.
2.
This covenant not to sue does not extend to:
a)
Criminal liability;
b)
Claims based on Clark’s failure to meet the
requirements of the Partial Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement;
c)
Claims based on conduct or circumstances which did not
form the basis for any violation alleged in
1) Counts
I through
III and VI through XIII of the Amended Complaint and 2)
the
August
25,
1996,
and September 22,
1996,
Pre-Enforcement
Conference Letters from the Illinois EPA.
d)
Liability for future violation of state,
federal, local
and common laws and/or regulations;
e)
Liability for natural resource damage arising out of
the alleged violations; and
f)
Liability to third parties arising out of the alleged
violation for removal,
cleanup or remedial action as a result of
a release of hazardous substances or petroleum.
3.
Nothing in this Partial 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 or judicial,
civil or criminal, past or future, in
law or in equity, which the State or the Illinois EPA may have
against any person,
firm,
corporation, or entity other than Clark
Refining and Marketing,
Inc.,
its parent, subsidiary and
-35-
