Environmental Progress - Spring 1999

Legal Side-bars

Shell Oil Company Pays $40,000 Civil Penalty

Releases from underground petroleum tanks contaminated groundwater in Lockport

On Jan. 25, 1999, a Will County Circuit Court judge entered a consent order requiring Shell Oil Company to pay a $40,000 civil penalty and comply with a corrective action plan as the result of a release of petroleum products that contaminated soil and groundwater in Lockport.

The company formerly owned a gasoline service station at 518 S. State St. in Lockport where three 10,000 gallon underground storage tanks contained unleaded gasoline.

The Illinois EPA was first notified of potential groundwater contamination when Shell discovered gasoline in an observation sump at the facility. To determine whether groundwater had actually been contaminated, Shell performed a series of investigations that verified that the groundwater had been impacted but left the extent of the contamination unknown. Concentrations of benzene and BETX, chemicals generally found in gasoline products sold at service stations, were found in the groundwater.

Officials of the Illinois EPA were concerned that the level of contamination exceeded both Class I and Class II groundwater quality standards, developed to identify groundwater contaminant levels that may create a health concern. Class I standards are generally applicable for drinking water. Class II standards are applicable for non-potable water.

Steve Putrich, Illinois EPA project manager, noted "whenever levels of contaminants in groundwater are above Class I standards and there is the potential the people may drink the water, a serious environmental concern is raised. The city of Lockport provides water services to its citizens from local wells. Fortunately, both wells were located more than 1,000 feet up gradient from the site and the contamination did not reach the wells." Thus, since the city's wells were up gradient, there was never an actual threat to the city wells.

Throughout, Shell cooperated in determining the extent of the contamination problem

From the beginning, when the contamination was discovered, Shell took steps to determine the extent of the contamination, reviewing UST records to find if there had been appreciable loss of product, performed soil borings and installed additional groundwater monitoring wells.

Because groundwater had been impacted, legal proceedings were initiated. According to Bruce Kugler, Illinois EPA enforcement attorney, "Whenever the groundwater has been impacted a strong but measured response from the state is appropriate. The Illinois EPA's response was to refer the matter to the Attorney General's Office for initiation of a formal enforcement case and imposition of a civil penalty."

The case was referred to the Attorney General's Office in August 1995 and in June 1997, with the assistance of the Will County State's Attorney's Office, a two-count complaint was filed against Shell alleging violations of the Environmental Protection Act. The complaint alleged that from at least June 15, 1988, Shell not only caused or allowed the release of petroleum containing benzene and BETX to enter the groundwater but it also caused or allowed petroleum to remain in the soil underlying the Lockport facility.

Following the entrance of the consent order, Kugler stated "Balancing the level of the contamination and the commitment by Shell to implement the corrective action plan, the size of the penalty was appropriate."

Small Business Back In Compliance, Assessed $3,000 Fine

Soil contamination at Bolingbrook firm first identified in 1994

In November 1994, the Illinois EPA received a citizen complaint regarding the Fischer Crane Co., a small business located in Bolingbook (DuPage County) that sells, services and installs hydraulic truck cranes. When Tina Kovasznay, an inspector for the Agency's Bureau of Land, arrived at the facility, she observed soil contamination in an area approximately 30 by 30 feet where oily wastewater from equipment steam cleaning was allowed to flow directly onto the ground. The company was consequently notified of several environmental violations.

According to Kovasznay, the Illinois EPA frequently seeks to informally resolve these types of matters. "I always try to work with a business to resolve their environmental problems," she said. "During an inspection, our agency inspectors seek to educate parties on regulations that apply to their business and inform the business of the technical steps it must take to achieve compliance. Understanding the demanding pressures that face a small business owner, I personally attempt to provide a great deal of latitude and flexibility when establishing compliance deadlines when there is no immediate threat to the environment or public health."

Unfortunately, the company did not provide the appropriate level of diligence and progress on a cleanup. Fischer Crane initially agreed to submit a work plan by April 30, 1995, and complete all work by Sept. 1 of that year. However, the proposed plan as submitted was not adequate. Rather than immediately initiating a formal enforcement case, the Illinois EPA granted an extension that moved the date for all remedial activities to Jan. 1, 1996. This compliance deadline also was not met but on May 20, 1996, FCC submitted an acceptable compliance plan.

After contaminated soil was removed, additional testing was required

Excavation of the contaminated soil was completed in June 1996, after which the Agency requested further sampling to confirm that all contamination had been removed. On Aug. 6, 1997, FCC submitted sample results showing that a sufficient amount of contaminated soil had been removed and that the applicable remediation objectives were achieved.

Based on this history, the company was ultimately referred to the Office of the Attorney General for imposition of a civil penalty and a formal complaint was filed before the Illinois Pollution Control Board on Dec. 24, 1997.

Generally, most enforcement cases contain two components, according to Bruce Kugler, Illinois EPA enforcement attorney. "There is a technical compliance portion and a penalty portion. Civil penalties are appropriate in a variety of situations including when a party has failed to use diligence to resolve outstanding environmental violations. Yet the penalty must be proportional to the violation and ability of a small business to pay a penalty. Each case must be evaluated on its own merit and unique circumstances."

The Agency and Fischer Crane eventually agreed on a stipulation and proposal for settlement which was accepted by the Board on Dec. 17, 1998. The company admitted the violations in the complaint and will be paying a penalty of $3,000.