BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
R~E~VED
CLERK’S OFFICE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
)
OCT - 6 2004
ILLINOIS
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PoIIut~onControl Board
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB NO. 99-120
)
(Enforcement)
WOOD RIVER REFINING
)
COMPANY, a division of
)
EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC,
)
)
Respondent.
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Thomas Davis, Esq.
Carol Sudman
Assistant Attorney General
Hearing Officer
Environmental Bureau
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois Attorney General’s Office
Suite 402
500 South Second Street
600 5. Second Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Springfield, Illinois 62704
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 6, 2004, we filed with the clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board an original and nine copies of Respondent’s Motion to
Modify Order, a copy of which is attached hereto and herewith served upon you.
Respondent,
By:_______
o ts ~‘torneys
Dated: October 6, 2004
Joseph A. Girardi
Henderson & Lyman
175 W. Jackson Boulevard
Suite 240
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 986-6960
1
-‘
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I, Janet Baumann, a non-attorney on oath, state that I served a copy of this Notice
and Respondent’s Motion to Modify Order on the above-named individuals at the above
addresses by depositing the same in the U.S. mail at 175 West JacksonBoulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604 at or before 5:00 p.m. on October 6, 2004.
Subscribed and sworn to before
me this 6th day of October, 2004.
Notary Public
ET
OFFICIAL SEAL
JUUE A D~1EY
NOTARY PUDLIC - STATE OF U.UNOIS
MY OO~MSSiON RES:12~1~7
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDRECE~VED
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
)
C’~ERK’S
OCT -
6OFFICE
200k
ILLINOIS
)
Complainant,
)
/
PollutionSTATE OFControlILLINOISBoard
v.
)
PCBNO. 99-120
)
(Enforcement)
WOOD RIVER REFINING
)
COMPANY, a division of
)
EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC
)
)
Respondent.
)
MOTION TO MODIFY ORDER
Respondent Wood River Refining Company, a division of Equilon Enterprises LLC,
by its attorneys, pursuant to 35111. Adm. Code 101 .520, moves to modify the final order of
the Pollution Control Board entered on September 16, 2004, to delete paragraph 5 of the
order regarding a cease and desist requirement, and as grounds, states:
1. Complainant People of the State of Illinois brought this action against
Respondent Wood River Refining Company, a division of Equilon Enterprises LLC,
alleging Respondent violated certain provisions ofthe Environmental Protection Act and
the Pollution Control Boards rules, as codified in the Illinois Administrative Code, relating
to alleged incidents at Respondent’s former refinery in Wood River, Illinois.
2. On July 30, 2004 Complainant and Respondent filed a stipulation and proposed
settlement of this matter, together with a request for relief from hearing. Exhibit 1. After
publication and not receiving any requests for a hearing, the Board entered its order of
September 16, 2004 (“Order”), in which the Board,
inter alict,
granted the request for relief
1
from hearing. Exhibit 2.
3. In paragraphs 1—4 of the Order the Board accepted the stipulation and proposed
settlement, ordered Respondent to pay the civil penalty proposed in the stipulation, and
directed where and when the civil penalty is to be paid. In paragraph 5 of the Order the
Board also ordered that Respondent shall “cease and desist from the alleged violations”.
Exhibit 2, para. 5. The stipulation and proposed settlement submitted byparties, however,
does not contain any cease and desist language or requirement; thus, Respondent requests
the Order be modified to delete paragraph 5.
4. Respondent completed any remedial action required by Complainant well prior
to the stipulation and settlement being proposed in July, 2004. Respondent sold the
refinery where the violations are alleged to have occurred in June, 2000, approximately
four (4) years prior to the stipulation and settlement being proposed, andRespondent has
not owned or operated the refinery since that time. Thus, at the time of negotiating the
stipulation and settlement agreement, substantially all that remained to be resolved was
the amount of any civil penalty. Language requiring Respondent to cease and desist from
the violations alleged was not relevant nor necessary under the circumstances of this
matter, as (a) the violations alleged have been remediated and no longer continue, and (b)
Respondent, no longer being the owner or operator of the refinery, could not commit or
continue to commit the violations alleged.
5. For these reasons Complainant and Respondent specifically agreed not to include
any cease and desist language or requirement, and Respondent, therefore, requests the
2
Board modify the Order to delete paragraph 5. Concomitantly, Respondent also requests
the Board modify the Order to extend the period of time within which Respondent must
pay the civil penalty until after the Board had ruled on this Motion.
6. Mr. Thomas Davis, Assistant Attorney General, has advised Respondent that
Complainant does not object to, and intends to join in, this motion.
WHEREFORE Respondent respectfully requests that the Board (a) modify its Order
of September 16, 2004 to delete paragraph 5 and any ceaseand desist type of requirement,
(b) modify its Order of September 16, 2004 to extend the period of time within which
Respondent must pay the civil penalty until after the Board had ruled on this Motion, and
(c) enter such other and further relief as deemed just.
Respectfully submitted,
Wood River Refining Compa
,
a
division of Equilon Enterp es LLC
By
e its 4torneys
Joseph A. Girardi
Henderson & Lyman
175 W. Jackson Boulevard
Suite 240
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 986-6960
3
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB NO. 99-120
(Enforcement)
WOOD RIVER REFINING COMPANY,
a Division of EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC,
)
Respondent.
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Mr. Joseph A. Girardi
Henderson & Lyman
175 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
PL.EASE 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 MADIGAN
Attorney General 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
g~,1
People vs. Wood River Refining Co., PCB No. 99-1 20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
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 Riverwas 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 MAD IGAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
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 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
PCB NO. 99-120
V.
WOOD RIVER REFINING COMPANY, -a-
Dolawar~ corporation, and-
formerly
a Division of EQUILON
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
-
AUTHOR I ZAT ION
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 o’f 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 EnvironmentaiProtection 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”), formc~ly a Division of Equilon Enterprises LLC, is -a-
Delaware corporatton 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
3
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 Ill. 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 secondary seals, 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. Admn. 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
theAct 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-174 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
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 attributable 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 permitted to
receive or dispose of hazardous waste, interfered with the
protection of the health, general welfa-re 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 ILOS 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 placard 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
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 economi.c
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, formcrly a divi’sion of Equilon Enterprises;
Z1~
6. Self-disclosure is not at issue in this matter.
7. The settlement of this matter does not include a
supplemental environmental project.
VII..
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
‘
A. The Respondent shall pay a penalty of one hundred
twenty-six thousand dollars ($126,000.00) i’nto the Illinois
EnVironmental Protection Tru.st 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 Employe.r Identification Number (“FEIN”)
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:
Office 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 herei’n, 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 check 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
s~.
and the Board’s Regulations, 35
Ill. Adm. Code, Subtitles ‘A through H.
.
‘
13
Ix.
DISCHARGE OF 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:
7/2
~‘
/ô ~
THOMAS DAVIS, Chief
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE:
97~~7~~
WOOD RIVER REFINING COMPANY, -a-.
Delawarc corporation, and formorly a
Division of EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC
BY:
___________________________
Name:
C~o
£T
2-ZL
Title:
V~ ~
DATE:
JOSEPH E. SVOBODA
.ief Legal Counsel
15
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 16, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLiNOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB99-120
)
(Enforcement
—
Air, Land)
WOOD
RIVER REFINING COMPANY, a
)
division ofEQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC,
)
)
Respondent.
.
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):
On February 23, 1999, the Office ofthe Attorney General, on behalfofthe People of the
State ofillinois (People), filed a complaint against Wood River Refining Company.
See
415
ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2002); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.204. On July
5,
2002, the People filed a
supplemental complaint against respondent. The People allege that respondent violated Sections
9(a),
9(b),
21(e) ofthe Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS
5/9(a),
(b), and 21(e)
(2002)). The People further allege that respondent violated the Board’s rules at 35 Iii. Adm.
Code 201.141, 219.123(b)(4) and (6), 219.123 (b)(3)(A), 219.124(a)(2)(A) and (B), 722.112(c),
722.120(a), 722.123, 728.107(a)(1), and 728.138(a). The People assert that respondent violated
these provisions by releasing contaminants into the air and improperly transporting solid waste to
landfills. The complaint concerns respondent’s petroleum refining facility at 900 South Central
Avenue, Roxana, Madison County.
On July 30, 2004, the People and respondent filed a stipulation and proposed settlement,
accompanied by a request forrelief from the hearing requirement ofSection 31 (c)(1) ofthe Act
(415 ILCS 5/31 (c)(1) (2002)). This filing is authorized by Section 31 (c)(2) ofthe Act (415 ILCS
5/31(c)(2)
(2002)).
See
35 ill. Adm. Code 103.300(a). The Board provided notice ofthe
stipulation, proposed settlement, and request for relief from hearing. The Board published
newspaper notice in
Alton Telegraph
on August 8, 2004. The Board did not receive any requests
for hearing. The Board grants the parties’ request for relief from the hearing requirement.
See
415
ILCS
5/31(c)(2)
(2002); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.300(b).
Section 103 .302 ofthe Board’s procedural rules sets forth the required contents of
stipulations and proposed settlements. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.302. These requirements include
stipulating to facts on the nature, extent, and causes ofthe alleged violations and the nature of
respondent’s operations. Section 103.302 also requires that the parties stipulate to facts called
for by Section 33(c) ofthe Act (415 ILCS
5/33(c)
(2002)). The People and respondent have
satisfied Section 103.302. Respondent denies the alleged violations and agrees to pay a civil
penalty of$126,000.
The Board accepts the stipulation and proposed settlement.
EXHIBIT
