The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
ORDER FOLLOWING BENCH TRIAL
The United States brought this action under the endangerment provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), RCRA Section 7003, 42 U.S.C. § 6973, seeking injunctive relief requiring Apex Oil abate the existing and potential threats to human health and the environment posed by an accumulation of subsurface petroleum hydrocarbons contaminating soil and groundwater beneath Hartford, Illinois. The evidence presented at a 17 day bench trial that began on January 7, 2008 establishes Apex Oil's liability under RCRA Section 7003 and the appropriateness of the requested relief.
I. Hartford Refinery - Early Ownership
1. The Village of Hartford is located in Madison County, Illinois on the east bank of the Mississippi River, approximately twelve miles northeast of St. Louis, Missouri. (Pl. Ex. 143 at APEXDEPO_005359). According to the 2000 census, Hartford has a population of 1,545 people. (Pl. Ex. 143 at APEXDEPO_005359).
2. In 1940, Wood River Oil & Refining Co, Inc., a Kansas corporation now known as Koch Industries, Inc. ("WROR"), constructed a refinery on what is now known as Hawthorne Street in the northeast section of the Village of Hartford, Illinois (the "Hartford Refinery"). (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 1). The Hartford Refinery opened on or around March 1, 1941. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 1). Historically, the Hartford Refinery has also been identified as the "Wood River Refinery." (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 1).
3. On June 27, 1950, WROR and Sinclair Refining Company ("Sinclair Refining") entered into an agreement whereby, among other things, WROR agreed to sell the Hartford Refinery to Sinclair Refining. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 2). The sale closed on or around June 30, 1950. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 2).
II. Clark Oil and Refining Corporation / Apex Oil Company, Inc.
4. On or around September 29, 1967, Sinclair Refining sold the Hartford Refinery to Clark Oil and Refining Corporation, a Wisconsin corporation ("Clark Oil"). (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 3).
5. Apex Oil Company was a Missouri general partnership formed in 1979 ("Old Apex"). (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 4). On October 23, 1981, Clark Oil was merged into Apex Acquisition, Inc. (an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Old Apex) and Apex Acquisition, Inc. subsequently changed its name to "Clark Oil and Refining Corporation" ("Clark Oil-Apex"). (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 5)
6. On December 24, 1987, Old Apex and most of its subsidiaries (including Clark Oil-Apex) filed for protection under Section 301 of Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, Case No. 87-03804-BKCBSS. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 6).
7. On November 20, 1988, Clark Oil-Apex sold the Hartford Refinery to "Clark Oil and Refining Corporation" (initially known as "AOC Acquisition Corporation" and subsequently known as the "Premcor Refining Group Inc." ("Premcor")) in a sale approved by the Bankruptcy Court. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 7).
8. Apex Oil Company, Inc. ("Apex Oil") was incorporated on November 16, 1989 and Clark Oil-Apex was merged into Apex Oil on December 12, 1989. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 8). Apex Oil is a successor-by-merger to both Clark Oil and Clark Oil-Apex, who collectively owned the Hartford Refinery between September 29, 1967 and November 20, 1988.*fn1 (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 9).
9. On September 29, 1948, Sinclair Refining acquired property to the northwest of the Hartford Refinery for the purpose of building a tank farm and terminal facilities (the "North Terminal") and a pumping station ("Pumping station") for a pipeline that travelled west across the Mississippi River to Oklahoma. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 10). At an unknown date, the North Terminal was tied into the Marathon Pipe Line system. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 10). When Sinclair Refining sold the Hartford Refinery to Clark Oil in 1967, it retained the North Terminal and the Pumping Station. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 11).
10. Sinclair Refining was merged into Sinclair Oil Corporation on September 30, 1968. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 12). On March 4, 1969, Sinclair Oil Corporation merged into Atlantic Richfield Company ("ARCO"). (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 12). On or around August 3, 1976, ARCO sold the North Terminal to Keller-Piasa Terminal, Inc. ("Keller-Piasa"). (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 12). ARCO retained the Pumping Station. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 12). Subsequently, Keller-Piasa sold the North Terminal to the Hartford/Wood River Terminal Company. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 12).
IV. Hartford Refinery Pipelines
11. To provide for barge transportation of its products, WROR built a dock on the Mississippi River west of Hartford and constructed product pipelines between the Hartford Refinery and the dock. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 13).
12. By Ordinance No. 232 adopted by the Village on January 7, 1944, Hartford granted WROR the right to lay three 8-inch pipelines and one 3-inch pipeline underground through the Village, travelling north along the east side of North Olive Street and then west along the south side of Elm Street to the west side of North Old St. Louis Road (the "River Lines" or "Original River Lines"). (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 14). One of the 8-inch lines was designated for transporting gasoline, one was for distillates (#1 and #2 fuel oil), and one was for heavy oils. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 15).
13. The Original River Lines were bare and lacked protective wrapping used to prevent corrosion. (Faryan Test. Day 1 at 102-03). The Original River Lines suffered numerous leaks during the Clark/Apex Era. (See Section XI, below). In April or May 1978, Clark Oil ceased use of the gasoline and distillate lines, at which time those lines were water washed, air blown and blinded off. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 16). Clark Oil continued to utilize one of the Original River Lines for the transfer of heavy oils. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 17).
14. In 1982, Clark Oil-Apex had new pipelines consisting of one 10-inch gasoline line, one 10-inch fuel oil line, one 10-inch spare line, and one 14-inch black oil line designed and installed (the "Replacement River Lines"). (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 18). The Replacement River Lines became operational in late 1983. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 18). The Original River Lines were left buried in place. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 18).
15. On August 5, 1952, the Village adopted Ordinance 310, which allowed Sinclair Refining to lay two 10-inch pipelines along and beneath the easterly edge of North Olive Street from a point approximately 50 feet south of the center line of Forest Street to Rand Avenue, then west along the south side of Rand Avenue, and then crossing Rand to the North Terminal property ("North Terminal Lines"). (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 19). In 1952, Sinclair Refining laid the two 10-inch diameter North Terminal Lines, one for gasoline and one for fuel oil, underground between the Refinery and the North Terminal. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 20).
16. Sinclair Refining (later known as ARCO) may have retained ownership of one of the North Terminal Lines following the sale of the Hartford Refinery and associated pipelines to Clark Oil in 1967, although this pipeline would have been inactive.*fn2 (Pl. Ex. 53).
17. Clark Oil used the North Terminal Line to make deliveries to the North Terminal and the Pumping Station and to make deliveries to Marathon Pipe Line, which was connected to the North Terminal. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 21). The North Terminal Lines were bare, lay 3" to 5" apart, and no active corrosion program was carried out on the lines by Clark Oil. (Pl. Ex. 26 at APEXDEPO_001847; Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 232-33). The lack of a protective coating on the pipeline (i.e., being "bare") made the line susceptible to corrosion. (Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 233). The North Terminal Line suffered numerous leaks during the Clark/Apex Era. (See Section XI, below). The North Terminal Line was formally abandoned by Clark Oil on May 3, 1978. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 21).
18. In December 1979, Clark Oil agreed to sell the North Terminal Line to Sinclair Marketing, Inc. ("Sinclair Marketing"). (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 22). On December 28, 1979, pending finalization of such sale, Clark Oil agreed to allow Sinclair Marketing to utilize the North Terminal Line to transport petroleum products. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 22). The sale by Clark Oil of that pipeline to Sinclair Marketing was completed on September 28, 1981. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 22).
V. Hartford Refinery Operations
19. As of 1976, the Hartford Refinery had the capacity to process 53,000 barrels of crude oil per day. (Pl. Ex. 246 at PRG.DOJ08259, 270; Gustafson Test, Day 8 at 16-17). By 1986, crude processing capacity at the Hartford Refinery had increased to 60,000 barrels per day. (Pl. Ex. 77 at APEXDEPO_002138).
20. A barrel of petroleum (or a refined petroleum product such as gasoline) is a unit of volume that equates to 42 gallons. (Gustafson Test. Day 8 at 43).
21. During the first-half of 1973, the crude oil throughput at the Hartford Refinery averaged 37,580 barrels per day. (Pl. Ex. 246 at PRG.DOJ08263; Gustafson Test Day 8 at 17-18). In 1983, the Hartford Refinery's average crude charge was 43,939 barrels per day. (Pl. Ex. 160 at IEPA000200). For the period from January 1984 through March 1986, the Hartford Refinery's average crude charge was 47,946 barrels per day. (Pl. Ex. 77 at APEXDEPO_002166).
22. Petroleum products produced by the Hartford Refinery included: leaded gasoline, unleaded gasoline, No. 2 Fuel Oil, and Six Oil. The 1983 production figures for these products were:
Leaded Gasoline5.3 million barrels
Unleaded Gasoline6.5 million barrels
No. 2 Fuel Oil4.8 million barrels
Six Oil1.0 million barrels
(Pl. Ex. 160 at IEPA000202).
VI. Other Area Refineries
23. The former Amoco refinery (the "Amoco Refinery") situated north of the Hartford Refinery, opened around 1907, closed in 1981, and is now dismantled. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 24).
24. The former Shell Oil Co. refinery (the "Shell Oil Refinery"), situated just east and northeast of the Hartford Refinery, opened in 1918 and is currently operating under the ownership of ConocoPhillips, Inc. (Uncontroverted Facts at Para. 25).
VII. Geology Beneath the Village of Hartford and the Refinery
A. Site Geology Has Been Influenced by Proximity to the Mississippi River.
25. Geology in the area of the Village of Hartford and the Hartford Refinery is dominated by proximity to the Mississippi River. The environment beneath the Site is a mixed-load, river avulsion zone, where the Mississippi River has historically breached its natural flow, splaying sediments and creating new channels in the flood plain. This process deposited widely variable sediments ranging from finer grain deposits to course sands, generating an inter-mixed distribution of sand, silt, and silty-clay layers across the Site. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 34, 40; Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000186-187).
B. The Main Sand Is Predominant Throughout the Site
26. The predominant geologic feature beneath the Village of Hartford and the Hartford Refinery is the Main Sand, a massive, very porous, permeable sand which underlies the entirety of Hartford and surrounding areas. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 31; Pl. Ex. 203 at EPA_RPT038415; Sharma Test. Day 14 at 116). The Main Sand is a very coarse-grained sand, with some silty elements, that was deposited at the end of the glacial periods when the river was much larger and covered the entire flood plain. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 30).
27. Generally at Hartford, the top of the Main Sand begins to appear at depths ranging from 19 to 45 feet below ground surface. (Pl. Ex. 203 at EPA_RPT038415). The Main Sand, however, varies in proximity to the surface and in some locations is very close to the surface. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 30-31). The top of the Main Sand varies based on the presence or absence of the overlying clay and silt strata. A finer-grained portion of the Main Sand is referred to as the Main Silt. (Pl. Ex. 203 at EPA_RPT038413).
28. A "structural high" is a location where the Main Sand comes close to the surface. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 34). A significant structural high is present in the central portion of North Hartford, where the B Clay and/or C Clay strata are absent and the upper surface of the Main Silt/Main Sand is overlain only by the A Clay stratum. (Pl. Ex. 194 at EPA_RPT036003). At its apex, the structural high lies as little as six feet below ground surface. (Pl. Ex. 203 at EPA_RPT038414-415; Howe Test. Day 6 at 33-34, 37).
C. Clays at the Site Are Primarily Silty-Clays
29. The Site has a thin veneer of silty-clays on top, below which is about 150 10 or 200 feet of very coarse grain sand down to a carbonate or limestone bedrock. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 17; Pl. Ex. 196 at EPA_RPT042621). The clay-like strata (sometimes referred to as the A, B, C, and D Clay layers) consist primarily of silty-clays with trace amounts of sand. (Pl. Ex. 203 at EPA_RPT038413; Pl. Ex. 199 at EPA_RPT026166, 247, 253).
30. The upper geological strata at the Site are principally silts or silty-clays and not true clays. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 29; Pl. Ex. 199 at EPA_RPT026166, 247, 253). Most of them range from about 25 to 100 percent silt, which indicates that they would not act as a complete barrier to liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons. (Howe Test. Day 7 at 56). The presence of silts in clay can affect permeability and water would be able to flow through silty-clays. (Sharma Test. Day 14 at 114).
31. Three more permeable units, the North Olive stratum, the Rand stratum, and the EPA stratum, are found within the overlying veneer of silty-clays. (Pl. Ex. 196 at EPA_RPT042621). In the north central portion of Hartford, the North Olive, Rand, and EPA strata merge into the Main Sand. (Pl. Ex. 196 at EPA_RPT042622).
32. Basements of Hartford homes are generally set in the A Clay. (Faryan Test. Day 1 at 209). In certain portions of Hartford, such as in the vicinity of Elm Street and North Delmar Avenue, the Main Sand is in contact with the A Clay, without any intervening geologic strata. (Pl. Ex. 194 at EPA_RPT036003-004). In other portions of Hartford, such as in the vicinity of Birch Street, multiple silty-clay layers exist above the Main Sand, separated by silt layers. (Pl. Ex. 194 at EPA_RPT036003-004).
33. Clays at the Site can have cracks known as "fractures" and there may be sandy seams within the clay stratum ("permeable lenses") that create preferential pathways for the movement of liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons. (Pl. Ex. 176 at EPA_RPT001874; Faryan Test. Day 1 at 209-210). The extent of fractures in clay strata is frequently difficult to determine to the extreme heterogeneity of geological conditions. (Pl. Ex. 172 at APEXDEPO_001650). It is recognized that many clay layers, once considered to be impermeable, often act as fractured media, containing preferential pathways for liquid hydrocarbon and hydrocarbon vapor migration. (Pl. Ex. 172 at APEXDEPO_001650).
34. Fractures and permeable lenses have been identified in "clay" layers beneath North Hartford. Fractures were observed in the A Clay in the test pits excavated at the Hartford Community Center in 2004. (Pl. Ex. 176 at EPA_RPT001873). Permeable lenses have been found in soil borings into the B Clay at monitoring well location HMW-46B, on the Community Center property. (Pl. Ex. 194 at EPA_RPT042939-40; Pl. Ex. 200 at EPA_RPT041421).
VIII. Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contamination: Four Phases
35. Following their initial release into the environment, petroleum hydrocarbons (also referred to as light non-aqueous phase liquids or "LNAPL") will migrate downward into the subsurface under the force of gravity. (Pl. Ex. 172 at APEXDEPO_001644, 649). After being leaked or spilled in soils, petroleum hydrocarbons appear in the subsurface in several forms.
36. "Residual-phase hydrocarbons" (i.e. hydrocarbons sorbed to soils) are generated as the mass of petroleum hydrocarbons moves through the subsurface and small portions of the mass are left behind, retained in soil pore spaces. (Pl. Ex. 172 at APEXDEPO_001644, 649). Residual-phase hydrocarbons appear as petroleum-stained soils. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 64) Residual-phase hydrocarbons fill soil pore spaces and by doing so serve to make hydrocarbons from subsequent spills pass through the soil more easily, without likewise getting bound in the soils. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 61). Residual-phase hydrocarbons generate hydrocarbon vapors through volatilization and contaminate groundwater as water comes in contact with or moves through areas of residual-phase contamination. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 61).
37. A hydrocarbon release will continue its movement in the subsurface until its mass is fully depleted through conversion to residual-phase hydrocarbons or it encounters a physical barrier such as the groundwater table, as hydrocarbons are lighter than water, or low permeability geologic strata, such as a clay layer. (Pl. Ex. 172 at APEXDEPO_001644, 649). The effectiveness of the physical barrier in halting movement of the petroleum release depends on the remaining "head" or force behind the release. Pipelines transport petroleum products under significant pressure and releases from pipelines can result in hydrocarbons being forced through low permeability layers and even causing depressions in groundwater. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 61; Pl. Ex. 172 at APEXDEPO_001645, 649).
38. Liquid or "free-phase" hydrocarbons can be found in soils when all of 13 the absorption sites within the soil are filled or saturated, a condition known as the irreducible saturation. Free-phase hydrocarbons appear like oil floating in water and drip from soil cores pulled from the subsurface. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 62). Upon reaching the groundwater table, petroleum hydrocarbons may move outward laterally, floating as a layer atop the groundwater due to their greater buoyancy. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 27, 61-62; Pl. Ex. 172 at APEXDEPO_001644-45).
39. Dissolved-phase hydrocarbons are constituents of hydrocarbons that dissolve into groundwater or surface water. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 62; Pl. Ex. 172 at APEXDEPO_001651). Among gasoline constituents, benzene is far more water soluble than some of the heavier hydrocarbons and will dissolve more readily into groundwater, as will other lighter hydrocarbons like xylenes. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 62).
40. Vapor-phase hydrocarbons arise from the volatilization of residual-phase and free-phase hydrocarbons. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 62-64; Pl. Ex. 172 at APEXDEPO_001651). The closer the source, generally the higher the concentrations of vapor-phase contaminants in the subsurface gas mixture. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 62-64).
IX. Petroleum Beneath Hartford - Prior Analyses of Apparent Product Thickness
41. Investigative tools available during the Clark/Apex Era were limited in their ability to provide a complete understanding of the site. Early investigations of the Village of Hartford and the Hartford Refinery used wells and soil borings to establish the nature and extent of contamination. (Howe Test. Day 5 at 237-38; Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000182). Geologic data and hydrogeologic information were limited by the low density of wells and the complex and dynamic nature of the hydrogeologic system. (Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000182).
42. Apparent product thickness is the measurement of the vertical thickness of free-phase hydrocarbons floating on water in a well and, until recently, was one of the few methods of determining the extent of hydrocarbons in subsurface soils. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 71-72, 76; Pl. Ex. 172 at APEXDEPO_001655). If there are differences in the surrounding geology, there may be a difference in the apparent product thicknesses at two locations even though the same amount of product is floating on the water table. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 78). In addition, pumping of groundwater can lower the water table and make apparent product thickness look low, when in actuality, the same amount of hydrocarbon would still be present. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 80-81; Pl. Ex. 172 at APEXDEPO_001655).
43. In April 1978, an engineering firm known as John Mathes & Associates ("Mathes") was authorized by Clark Oil (on behalf of Clark Oil, Amoco, and Shell Oil) to investigate the cause of gas odors and fires in Hartford. (Pl. Ex. 18 at APEXDEPO_001810). Samples collected by Mathes in June and August 1978 indicated the presence of an oval-shaped free-phase hydrocarbon "pool" encompassing an area beneath Hartford, extending from Rand Avenue in the north to the alley south of Watkins Street in the south, and in an east-west direction for the full extent of Elm Street from North Olive Street to North Old Saint Louis Road. (Pl. Ex. 19 at APEXDEPO_002778, 780, 788).
44. Based on an analysis of apparent product thicknesses, Mathes estimated that there were approximately 4 million gallons of free-phase hydrocarbons beneath North Hartford in 1978. (Pl. Ex. 45 at APEXDEPO_002054). Mathes later estimated that the volume had been reduced to 3.2 million gallons of free-phase hydrocarbons by June 1984, due to product recovery efforts. (Pl. Ex. 45 at APEXDEPO_002054).
45. Measurements of apparent product thickness were conducted beneath Hartford in 1978 and from 1990 through 1995. (Pl. Ex. 191 at EPA_RPT022306-355). During these measurements, hydrocarbon thicknesses floating atop the groundwater beneath North Hartford were identified as high as:
DateWell I.D.Apparent Product ThicknessPage Citations in Pl. Ex. 191
46. Reductions in the extent of apparent product thickness are due in part to free product removal activities undertaken in the area and partly due to the rise in groundwater since the late 1970s, which has smeared significant quantities of hydrocarbons into soil pore spaces, generating greater volumes and concentrations of residual-phase hydrocarbons. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 82-83; Day 7 at 51-52).
47. More recent measurements, in 2005, still showed apparent product thicknesses of more than six feet atop groundwater in multiple areas beneath Hartford. (Def. Ex. 995 at 54, 151, 258, 261).
X. Petroleum Beneath Hartford - Recent ROST Analyses
48. Much more precise information concerning the nature and extent of hydrocarbon contamination beneath the Village of Hartford and the Hartford Refinery has been collected in the last few years. (Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000182). The more recent investigations have utilized modern and innovative tools, including a Rapid Optical Screening Tool ("ROST"), a cone penetrometer ("CPT"), and vapor probes, while continuing to use traditional wells to measure floating free-phase product. (Howe Test. Day 5 at 238). These tools have allowed collection of information on residual-phase hydrocarbons, not just free-phase product in wells. (Howe Test. Day 5 at 237-238).
49. The CPT/ROST instrument system provides continuous readings on the presence of hydrocarbon contamination as the probe is pushed down into subsurface soils to a depth of 60 feet or more. (Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000183; Howe Test. Day 6 at 17, 23, 28-29).
50. The ROST portion of the instrument system measures the intensity and wavelength of light emitted by fluorescence when petroleum contaminants are irradiated with a laser using a specific wavelength of ultraviolet light. (Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000183; Howe Test. Day 6 at 24-25). Lighter range hydrocarbons, such as gasoline, can be distinguished from heavier hydrocarbons such as diesel or crude oil. Lighter hydrocarbons generally appear as blue fluorescence, heavier hydrocarbons appear as green or yellow, and the heaviest hydrocarbons appear as red fluorescence. (Pl. Ex. 168 at 2 EXPRT000183; Howe Test. Day 6 at 23-25, 27-28).
51. While ROST does not explicitly distinguish between free-phase hydrocarbons and residual-phase hydrocarbons, the relative intensity of fluorescence signals received by the ROST instrument can be used to estimate the general presence or absence of free product in the subsurface hydrocarbon contamination. (Howe Test. Day 6 23-25). ROST cannot detect dissolved-phase or vapor-phase hydrocarbons. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 69).
52. ROST has been used to study extensive portions of the Village of Hartford and the Hartford Refinery. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 14-15; Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000204). In 2004 and 2005, 130 ROST boring locations were selected and completed in the Village on a systematic grid with a spacing of 50 to 100 feet between points. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 16-17; Pl. Ex. 200 at EPA_RPT041413). On the Refinery property 183 ROST boring locations were completed in 2006. (Pl. Ex. 182 at HOWE-000025).
53. ROST analysis has identified current hydrocarbon contamination (free-phase and/or residual-phase) beneath virtually all of Hartford north of East Watkins Street and extending east under the Refinery property. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 83; Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000210; Pl. Ex. 194 at EPA_RPT036012; Pl. Ex. 182 at HOWE-000085). The areal extent of the hydrocarbon plume has remained similar to that observed during the Clark/Apex Era. (Howe Test. Day 5 at 226; Howe Test. Day 6 at 83; Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000189-90).
54. Soils beneath the Hartford Site are contaminated with a complex three-dimensional distribution of different petroleum product types, but gasoline-range and diesel-range hydrocarbons predominate, according to the ROST studies and other confirming studies. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 70-71; Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000188). ROST results from 2004 show that the predominant hydrocarbons detected beneath the Village are light-range hydrocarbons, such as gasoline. A small area in the northern portion of the Village has mainly diesel or No. 2 Fuel Oil contamination. Soils under the eastern edge of the Village are contaminated with some slightly heavier product types. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 72-73; Pl. Ex. 194 at EPA_RPT036001).
55. The ROST studies have found up to 30-40 feet of total ROST response near the North Terminal Lines and the River Lines as they extend from the Refinery through the Village along North Olive and Elm Streets (meaning that the hydrocarbon contamination extends downward for 30-40 feet beneath those pipeline corridors). (Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000210; Pl. Ex. 194 at EPA_RPT036003-004). One of the areas of greatest total ROST response is near the intersection between Elm Street and North Delmar Avenue, where the structural high in the Main Sand comes closest to the surface. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 71, 74-76; Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000210).
56. Some portions of North Hartford have hydrocarbon contamination less than ten feet below ground surface. (Pl. Ex. 194 at EPA_RPT036004; Pl. Ex. 199 at EPA_RPT026199; Faryan Test. Day 1 at 172-73; Cahnovsky Test. Day 2 at 198.). At many locations in Hartford where hydrocarbon contamination exists, such contamination is first encountered less than 20 feet below ground surface. (Pl. Ex. 195 at EPA_RPT032803; Pl. Ex. 199 at EPA_RPT026199; Faryan Test. Day 1 at 178). A typical basement in Hartford descends to a depth of about eight feet below ground surface. (Faryan Tr. Day 1 at 174-75).
57. Near-surface contamination poses an immediate concern because it generates vapor-phase hydrocarbons in close proximity to residences. (Faryan Test. Day 1 at 174). Deeper contamination also raises concerns because vapors generated at depth can travel through the Main Sand and move upward toward homes. (Faryan Test. Day 1 at 174). Hydrocarbon contamination in the Main Sand also directly contaminates groundwater that it contacts. (Faryan Test. Day 1 at 174).
XI. Clark Oil / Clark Oil-Apex Pipeline Spills and Leaks in Hartford
58. Numerous spills and leaks of petroleum products from the River Lines and North Terminal Line during the Clark/Apex Era contributed to the subsurface hydrocarbon contamination presently beneath the Village of Hartford. The North Terminal Line and the River Lines were in poor condition, suffering numerous leaks until their eventual abandonment during the Clark Apex Era. (Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 231-32).
59. On October 15, 1974, a leak of No. 2 Fuel Oil occurred from the North Terminal Line, at a location east of North Olive Street and south of Rand Avenue. (Pl. Ex. 4 at APEXDEPO_000977-78). Pools of oil were observed in the roadside ditch, indicating that the fuel oil had surfaced from the buried pipeline, through near-surface soils. (Pl. Ex. 4 at APEXDEPO_000978). Clark Oil personnel noted that the petroleum may have flowed from Rand Avenue and North Olive Street into the Hartford storm sewer at Arbor Street. (Pl. Ex. 4 at APEXDEPO_000978). Oil was observed in the Mississippi River near the outfall from the storm sewer, indicating that the released volume of fuel oil was sufficient enough to travel from Rand Avenue and North Olive Street to the Mississippi River, and requiring Clark Oil to report the leak to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA"). (Pl. Ex. 4 at APEXDEPO_000977-79; Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 189).
60. In 1978, Alan Ludwig was serving as the Hartford Refinery's Manager of Operations and Harold Meicamp was the clerk in the maintenance department responsible for scheduling. (Ludwig Dep. at 12-13, 77-78; Van Petten Depo. at 25-26). In April of that year, Mr. Meicamp provided Mr. Ludwig with a list of "out of plant" pipeline repairs, addressing nine leaks between January 1977 and April 6, 1978. He noted that his records only went back to January 1977. (Pl. Ex. 7 at APEXDEPO_000980; Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 191-92). The list of repairs included the nine leaks described in Paragraph Nos. 61-67, 69 and 70, below.
61. On January 3, 1977, Clark Oil repaired a leak on its black oil line to the Mississippi River (one of the River Lines). (Pl. Ex. 7 at APEXDEPO_000981).
62. On February 22, 1977, Clark Oil initiated repairs on a leak on its gasoline line to the North Terminal / ARCO (the North Terminal Line). (Pl. Ex. 7 at APEXDEPO_000981).
63. On March 1, 1977, Clark Oil initiated repairs on a leak on the gasoline line to the North Terminal / ARCO (the North Terminal Line) at a location south of "Bio Road" -- indicating the Refinery's wastewater treatment plant. (Pl. Ex. 7 at APEXDEPO_000981; Van Petten Depo. at 25).
64. On March 23, 1977, Clark Oil initiated repairs relating to a fuel oil leak from the 3-inch pipeline to the Mississippi River (one of the River Lines). (Pl. Ex. 7 at APEXDEPO_000981).
65. On April 20, 1977, Clark Oil initiated repairs on a leak on the pipeline located at North Olive Street and Rand Avenue (the North Terminal Line). (Pl. Ex. 7 at APEXDEPO_000981).
66. On June 6, 1977, Clark Oil initiated repairs on a leak on the River Lines. (Pl. Ex. 7 at APEXDEPO_000981).
67. On October 28, 1977, Clark Oil initiated repairs on the River Lines' fuel oil line to Tank T-3-1. (Pl. Ex. 7 at APEXDEPO_000981; Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 198). Tank T-3-1 is located near the barge loading facility. (Pl. Ex. 188 at EPA_RPT020280).
68. On March 15, 1978, Clark Oil had a leak of gasoline and butane on the North Terminal Line in the area of Rand Avenue. (Pl. Ex. 13 at APEX_DEPO001953; Pl. Ex. 242 at VHPD000015; Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 201-203). On that date, Clark Oil had utilized the North Terminal Line to receive a shipment of butane from Marathon Pipe Line. (Pl. Ex. 12). The butane had been shipped with gasoline "plugs" on each end, consisting of 55,000 gallons each. (Pl. Ex. 13 at APEX_DEPO001953).
69. On March 19, 1978, Clark Oil again utilized the North Terminal Line to receive a shipment of butane from Marathon Pipe Line. (Pl. Ex. 12). The following day, March 20, 1978, Clark Oil initiated repairs on a gasoline leak in the North Terminal Line, located 30-feet north of Rand Avenue. (Pl. Ex. 7 at APEXDEPO_000981; Pl. Ex. 10 at APEXDEPO_000746; Gustafson Test. Day 8 at 123-124). While the North Terminal Line is a 10-inch pipeline, there was a reducer located at a point north of Rand Avenue which changed the size of the pipeline from 10-inch to 8-inch. (Gustafson Test. Day 8 at 123-124).
70. On April 6, 1978, Clark Oil initiated repairs on a leak on the distillate line to the Mississippi River (one of the River Lines). (Pl. Ex. 7 at APEXDEPO_000981).
71. On April 27, 1978, a leak occurred on the bottom side of the 8-inch gasoline line to the Mississippi River (one of the River Lines), at East Elm Street, approximately 30 feet east of North Delmar Avenue. (Pl. Ex. 242 at VHPD000050, 240-249; Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 206-207). On April 29, 1978, Clark Oil attempted to repair the line with a welded steel patch, but the line failed a pressure test, indicating that it was still leaking. (Pl. Ex. 242 at VHPD000054, 250-252; Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 208).
72. On May 1, 1978, Clark Oil was excavating portions of its pipelines along North Olive Street and pressure testing the lines, indicating that Clark Oil was investigating potential leaks at multiple locations. (Pl. Ex. 242 at VHPD000055, 254-259; Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 208-209). On May 2, Clark Oil announced that it was abandoning the North Terminal Line and that it would be repairing the River Lines. (Pl. Ex. 242 at VHPD000057; Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 209).
73. At noon on May 2, 1978, a leak in a Clark Oil pipeline located on North Olive Street, 20 feet south of East Elm Street, was reported to the Hartford Police Department. (Pl. Ex. 242 at VHPD000059A; Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 210). The Clark Oil North Terminal Line also leaked again at Rand Avenue and North Olive Street. (Pl. Ex. 242 at VHPD000059A)
74. On October 16, 1978, gasoline surfaced near the intersection of North 24 Olive Street and East Elm Street from a leak in a Clark Oil pipeline. (Pl. Ex. 21 at APEXDEPO_001986). The gasoline pooled in a three-foot hole dug directly above the pipeline and flowed down ditches to the north and south. (Pl. Ex. 21 at APEXDEPO_001986; Pl. Ex. 20). The leak resulted from a faulty valve at the Hartford Refinery, which allowed gasoline to flow into an abandoned Clark Oil pipeline. (Pl. Ex. 20; Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 216).
75. On April 23, 1979, ARCO Pipe Line Company conducted a hydrostatic test of Clark Oil's ten-inch North Terminal Line pipeline running from the Hartford Refinery to the North Terminal (then called the Keller-Piasa Terminal, and later called the Hartford/Wood River Terminal). (Pl. Ex. 26 at APEXDEPO_001847). The test uncovered eight leaks, five of which were old leaks which had been improperly clamped off and three of which were new corrosion pits. (Pl. Ex. 26 at APEXDEPO_001847). Four of the old, improperly clamped pits were located along North Olive Street, south of Rand Avenue. (Pl. Ex. 26 at APEXDEPO_001849). The line was in generally poor condition with large, concentrated corrosion pits. (Pl. Ex. 26 at APEXDEPO_001847).
76. ARCO attributed the condition of the line to the fact that the two North Terminal Lines were bare, lay three inches to five inches apart, and had been subject to no active corrosion management program. (Pl. Ex. 26 at APEXDEPO_001847). The North Terminal Lines lacked cathodic protection, a method of preventing corrosion through electrical means. (Pl. Ex. 130 at SINC000272; Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 237-38).
77. Clark Oil had been shipping 15,000 barrels of product weekly via the North Terminal Line to the North Terminal, but the Terminal found that the shipments were 360 barrels short each week, indicating that the gauges were off at the Refinery or Terminal or that the pipeline had a leak. (Pl. Ex. 96). The North Terminal ultimately stopped taking shipments from Clark Oil's North Terminal Line because the shipments were invariably short. (Pl. Ex. 96).
78. On January 8, 1981, a leak of No. 6 Fuel Oil occurred from the River Lines beneath Elm Street. (Pl. Ex. 34 at APEXDEPO_001989, 991). The product was seen leaching from under the pavement on Elm Street near North Delmar Avenue and entering the sewer. (Pl. Ex. 34 at APEXDEPO_001989, 991; Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 219). Approximately 400 gallons of product reached the Mississippi River. (Pl. Ex. 34 at APEXDEPO_001991). Clark Oil took responsibility for the leak. (Pl. Ex. 34 at APEXDEPO_001991).
79. On April 10, 1981, an oil leak was observed on the corner of East Forest Street and North Olive Street. (Pl. Ex. 37 at APEXDEPO_001992). A pool of oil at the site was described as "growing bigger by the minute." (Pl. Ex. 37 at APEXDEPO_001992). Clark Oil was identified as the offender. (Pl. Ex. 37 at APEXDEPO_001992).
80. On November 10, 1982, a leak of petroleum product, identified by the reporting police officer as "#6 diesel oil, being pumped to the River," was observed running out of the ground near the River Lines on the east side of North Olive Street, near East Forest Street. The spill encompassed an area one-half block long. (Pl. Ex. 39 at APEXDEPO_001993; Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 221-22).
81. On December 31, 1982, a leak of oil was again observed oozing out of the ground in the vicinity of North Olive Street and East Forest Street. (Pl. Ex. 40 at APEXDEPO_001994). Clark Oil-Apex was identified as the offender. (Pl. Ex. 40 at APEXDEPO_001994).
82. On November 20, 1984, No. 2 Fuel Oil surfaced in two locations along East Elm Street and West Elm Street from a leak in the River Lines. The oil was four to five inches deep in some portions of the street. (Pl. Ex. 48 at APEXDEPO_000038; Pl. Ex. 49 at APEXDEPO_004380). Oil on the street was flushed into storm sewers and reached the Mississippi River. (Pl. Ex. 48 at APEXDEPO_000038, 40; Pl. Ex. 49 at APEXDEPO_004382). The leak occurred when Clark Oil-Apex mistakenly pumped fuel oil into a previously abandoned 3-inch pipeline (one of the Original River Lines) when an incorrect connection to the old pipeline was made at the Hartford Refinery. (Pl. Ex. 48 at APEXDEPO_000040).
83. Pipeline leaks also occurred after the Clark/Apex Era, after the Hartford Refinery and its associated pipelines were sold to Premcor in 1988. (Faryan Test. Day 1 at 113-114; Pl. Ex. 188 at EPA_RPT020295-298). Pipeline leaks have also occurred near Hartford on pipelines owned or operated by Shell Oil and ARCO. (Faryan Test. Day 1 at 119; Pl. Ex. 164 at APEX000854).
84. There were no formal leak reporting requirements before 1970. (Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 182). From 1970 until the mid-1980s, the only formal reporting requirements for petroleum spills and leaks were for incidents where the material reached the navigable waters of the United States. (Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 182). The comparatively large number of reported spills and leaks after the Clark/Apex Era partly reflects more stringent reporting regulations imposed in the later time period. (Faryan Test. Day 1 at 114).
85. The geologic conditions near the pipeline corridors exiting the Hartford Refinery have promoted the accumulation and migration of spilled and leaked hydrocarbons beneath the Village of Hartford, as the pipelines lie along areas where the silty-clays are thin. The portion of the River Lines east of North Olive Street is buried approximately 12 feet below ground surface, and the portion of the River Lines extending beneath Elm Street is buried at a depth of five to six feet below ground surface. (Pl. Ex. 196 at EPA_RPT042646).
86. At the intersection of North Olive Street and East Elm Street, the River Lines lie in the North Olive silt stratum, separated from the Main Sand by only a few feet of silty-clay. (Pl. Ex. 199 at EPA_RPT026242). The portion of the River Lines along Elm Street, although closer to the surface, likewise lies only five feet above the Main Sand at the structural high beneath where Elm Street crosses North Delmar Avenue. (Pl. Ex. 194 at EPA_RPT036003; Howe Test. Day 6 at 92-93).
87. The North Terminal Lines are buried two to four feet deep in the A Clay along North Olive Street, where the A Clay generally extends 5 to 8 feet deep below ground surface. (Pl. Ex. 130 at SINC000272; Pl. Ex. 199 at EPA_RPT026241). The close proximity of the pipelines to permeable strata allowed leaked petroleum product to migrate easily into the Main Sand, where it could accumulate and maintain its integrity. (Howe Test. Day 5 at 225; Howe Test. Day 6 at 91-92; Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000180, 196-197).
88. The geologic conditions near the pipelines served as a preferential pathway for the downward migration of spilled and leaked hydrocarbons into the Main Sand. Once the hydrocarbons reached the porous Main Sand, they spread out and were able to move significant distances from the original source of the leak or spill. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 92).
89. The pipelines leading from the Hartford Refinery were a major source of the contamination beneath Hartford. The thickest ROST responses at the site are beneath the pipelines and extend out from there. (Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000210). Historic apparent product thicknesses measured in 1978 also indicate higher free-phase product thicknesses along Elm Street, at the corner of East Elm Street and North Olive Street, and along North Olive Street between East Date Street and East Birch Street. (Pl. Ex. 19 at APEXDEPO_002780; Howe Test. Day 6 at 48-49).
90. ROST responses also reflect the specific characteristics of the known pipeline releases during the Clark/Apex Era. For example, as noted above, a leak occurred on the Clark Oil 8-inch gasoline line beneath Elm Street, at a location between North Delmar Avenue and Market Street in April 1978. (Pl. Ex. 242 at VHPD000050, 54; Gustafson Test. Day 7 at 206-207). ROST measurements taken at North Delmar Avenue and Market Street, just north and south of Elm Street, show significant gasoline-range (blue) hydrocarbon responses. (Pl. Ex. 194 at EPA_RPT036003-004). ROST measurements taken on North Olive Street between Rand Avenue and East Birch Street indicate significant diesel-range (green) hydrocarbon contamination, consistent with Clark Oil's 1974 leak of No. 2 Fuel Oil at that location, as discussed above. (Pl. Ex. 199 at EPA_RPT026242). Likewise Clark Oil's numerous leaks of Six Oil in the early 1980s on North Olive Street and East Forest Street coincide with the heavier range (yellow) hydrocarbon signatures found there. (Pl. Ex. 199 at EPA_RPT026242).
XII. Hartford Refinery Conditions During the Clark/Apex Era
91. Numerous spills and leaks of petroleum products at the Hartford Refinery during the Clark/Apex Era contributed to subsurface hydrocarbon contamination, including contamination of groundwater, beneath the Refinery.
92. In April 1979, Clark Oil authorized Mathes to conduct an investigation of subsurface conditions at the Hartford Refinery. (Pl. Ex. 28 at PRG.DOJ01837; Pl. Ex. 29 at APEXDEPO_000138). In a December 1979 report, Mathes identified extensive hydrocarbon contamination beneath the Refinery, especially near the northeastern corner of the wastewater treatment plant area and near the southwestern portion of the Bulk Storage Tanks North Area. (Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000184, 219; Pl. Ex. 28 at PRG.DOJ01837-43). Soil borings drawn from across a large part of the Refinery were saturated with oil. (Howe Test. Day 5 at 234; Pl. Ex. 28 at PRG.DOJ01840-841).
93. Mathes found in excess of 22 feet of free-phase hydrocarbons (measured as apparent product thickness) floating on top of groundwater at certain Refinery locations. (Howe Test. Day 5 at 234; Howe Test. Day 6 at 143; Pl. Ex. 28 at PRG.DOJ01846). Mathes concluded that approximately 10 million gallons of hydrocarbon product lay beneath the Refinery in 1979. (Pl. Ex. 28 at PRG.DOJ01841; Pl. Ex. 29 at APEXDEPO_000142).
94. In 1983, Clark Oil-Apex personnel found in excess of 24 feet of hydrocarbons (again measured as apparent product thickness) floating on top of groundwater at certain Refinery locations. (Pl. Ex. 74 at APEXDEPO_002047). Although the two Refinery monitoring points that had shown the greatest apparent product thickness in 1983 were no longer accessible when measurements were next conducted in 1986, other locations indicated in excess of 19 feet of hydrocarbons floating on top of the groundwater beneath the Refinery. (Pl. Ex. 74 at APEXDEPO_002047).
95. Prior to 1980, contaminated material that was removed from the bottoms of product and crude oil storage tanks (called "tank bottoms") was buried adjacent to the tanks on the Refinery property. (Pl. Ex. 32 at APEXDEPO_001022; Howe Test. Day 5 at 235). The estimated volume of leaded tank bottoms from product tanks was 20,000 pounds per year, based on cleaning one 80,000 barrel tank per year. (Pl. Ex. 32 at APEXDEPO_001022). Leaded tank bottoms include tetraethyl lead. (Pl. Ex. 32 at APEXDEPO_001022).
96. On June 12, 1985, oil pockets were observed by an Illinois EPA inspector in six or seven locations in the ditch along Hawthorne Avenue next to the Hartford Refinery. (Pl. Ex. 56). Clark Oil-Apex removed the oil and contaminated soils and vegetation. (Pl. Ex. 56).
97. In March 1986, C.E. Knipping, a Technical Assistant at the Hartford Refinery with responsibilities relating to environmental management, wrote an internal company memorandum describing a wastewater pond at the Hartford Refinery (called the "guard basin") as "a mess" due to the "ever present oil" that caused "an eye-burning fog" in hot weather. (Pl. Ex. 67 at APEXDEPO_002009; Pl. Ex. 344 at APEXDEPO_000636).
98. In April 1986, a resident whose home bordered the Hartford Refinery complained to Illinois EPA that there were heavy oil stains and contamination in his backyard due to runoff from the Refinery property. (Pl. Ex. 68 at APEXDEPO_002029-30). Clark Oil-Apex trucked in fresh dirt and reseeded the backyard in response to the complaint. (Pl. Ex. 68 at APEXDEPO_002029).
99. In May 1986, oily runoff from the Hartford Refinery reached the Hawthorne Avenue ditch, again contaminating soils and vegetation. (Pl. Ex. 70).
100. In June 1986, Clark Oil-Apex inadvertently vented a vessel containing No. 2 Fuel Oil, spraying a fine mist of fuel oil over North Hartford for approximately 15 minutes. (Pl. Ex. 72). Fuel oil that was released during the incident impacted an area from the Refinery to Route 3 on the western edge of the Village, with oil droplets observed on vegetation and vehicles throughout a 15 square block area in the Village. (Pl. Ex. 72; Pl. Ex. 180;Grant Test. Day 7 at 109-112).
101. In July 1986, storm water runoff escaped the Hartford Refinery and flowed into the Hawthorne Avenue ditch following heavy rains. (Pl. Ex. 75). Clark Oil-Apex informed Illinois EPA that it would remove any accumulated material found in the ditch. (Pl. Ex. 75).
102. In August 1986, an engineering firm known as Purvin & Gertz evaluated the conditions at the Refinery for a company that was considering buying Clark Oil-Apex. (Pl. Ex. 77 at APEXDEPO_002131, 2134). In performing the analysis, Purvin & Gertz inspected the facility and reviewed information and data provided by Clark Oil-Apex. (Pl. Ex. 77 at APEXDEPO_002134, 2143). Purvin & Gertz concluded that "the maintenance effort was lacking" at the Hartford Refinery and that "[t]oo many pump seals were leaking and there were too many areas which were in need of cleanup." (Pl. Ex. 77 at APEXDEPO_002145).
103. In July 1987, another engineering firm, Arthur D. Little, Inc. ("ADL"), presented a technical assessment of the Clark Oil-Apex refineries to Getty Petroleum Co., because Getty was considering buying those facilities. (Pl. Ex. 81 at APEXDEPO_001706; Gustafson Test. Day 8 at 10).. The technical assessment was generated in part from information provided to ADL by Clark Oil-Apex at a June 1987 meeting in St. Louis and documents subsequently provided by Clark Oil-Apex. (Pl. Ex. 209 at GETTY_000001-002). The assessment identified substantial surface and subsurface oil contamination as a major area of concern regarding the Hartford Refinery. (Pl. Ex. 81 at APEXDEPO_001707, 708, 751, 752).
104. ADL also conducted a site visit to the Refinery where it visually identified "evidence of tank overflows, spills and leaks without cleanup" and stated that the quantity of oil on the ground was "excessive." (Pl. Ex. 81 at APEXDEPO_001750). Tank dike areas, ditches, unpaved areas, and the guard basin were identified as being heavily contaminated with oil. (Pl. Ex. 81 at APEXDEPO_001767, 768). ADL recommended removing 30,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils. (Pl. Ex. 81 at APEXDEPO_001767; Howe Test. Day 5 at 231).
105. As part of its inquiry, ADL also reviewed a 1986 report on "stock loss" for the Hartford Refinery, which indicated that 1.7% of the total weight of crude oil receive by the Hartford Refinery was lost that year. (Pl. Ex. 81, APEXDEPO_001726; Pl. Ex. 209 at GETTY_000002). Other internal reports prepared by Clark Oil-Apex indicated losses of 1.4% for 1985, 1.9% for 1986, and 1.6% for 1987. (Pl. Ex. 81, APEXDEPO_001726). These figures reflect a material balance analysis comparing closing inventory at the Refinery with opening inventory, adjusted for any shipments received or delivered out of the system. (Gustafson Test. Day 8 at 9).
106. The goal within the refining industry is to have as small a stock loss as possible. (Gustafson Test. Day 8 at 9). ADL found that the stock loss at the Hartford Refinery greatly exceeded its 1.0% benchmark for "below average performance" for a typical refinery in the late 1980s. (Pl. Ex. 81, APEXDEPO_001725). The engineering firm identified "significant oil leaks at the . . . refinery" as a potential source of part of the high stock loss. (Pl. Ex. 81, APEXDEPO_001725).
107. In November 1987, inspectors from U.S. EPA and Illinois EPA visited the Hartford Refinery and identified soils that were severely saturated with oil around two large tanks near the western end of the facility, which were designated as Tank 10-6 and Tank R-16. (Grant Test. Day 7 at 115-122; Pl. Ex. 141 at IEPA001048-49; Pl. Ex. 299; Pl. Ex. 84 at APEXDEPO_005832, 834, 835, 837). Soil samples collected in the vicinity of Tank 10-6 and Tank R-16 were characterized as being collected from soil "saturated with oil." (Pl. Ex. 84 at APEXDEPO_005839-840).
108. In February 1989, an Illinois EPA inspector observed significant oil contamination within the earthen berm surrounding another tank at the Refinery, which was designated Tank 10-2. (Grant Test. Day 7 at 123-124; Pl. Ex. 141 at IEPA001052-53; Pl. Ex. 89 at APEXDEPO_005871, 874). By that time, Tank 10-2 was approximately 50 years old. (Pl. Ex. 89 at APEXDEPO_005874). Although Premcor had recently purchased the Refinery, the Illinois EPA inspector characterized the soil contamination around Tank 10-2 as "years of accumulation of waste drippage and spillage" based on the combined accumulation of wet recent contamination and older cracked and dried oil contamination. (Grant Test. Day 7 at 124-28; Pl. Ex. 89 at APEXDEPO_005874).
109. Premcor determined that closure of Tank 10-2 was necessary to comply with newly-promulgated State regulations applicable to tanks like Tank 10-2 that were used for storage of certain oily materials that were classified as hazardous wastes. (Grant Test. Day 7 at 123-128; Pl. Ex. 92 at APEXDEPO_005883). Premcor removed the tank and its contents and excavated and disposed of 409 tons of the most grossly-contaminated soil from within the earthen berm for Tank 10-2. (Grant Test. Day 7 at 128-31; Pl. Ex. 92 at APEXDEPO_005883). The remaining soil contamination within the berm area was left in place and treated with microbes. (Grant Test. Day 7 at 131-132; Pl. Ex. 92 at APEXDEPO_005883).
110. Before it was removed, Tank 10-2 was located on the western side of the Refinery property, near the facility's wastewater treatment area. (Grant Test. Day 7 at 132-133; Pl. Ex. 188 at EPA_RPT020285). In apparent product thickness testing conducted in 1979, approximately ten feet of free-phase hydrocarbons had been identified below Tank 10-2. (Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000219; Pl. Ex. 188 at EPA_RPT020285).
111. ROST analyses recently conducted on the Refinery property showed a mixture of products in subsurface soils, including gasoline, diesel, and what appeared to be asphalts or heavier products. The observed pattern of contamination at the Refinery is typical of an area where there have been many releases of different kinds of hydrocarbon products, and where the lighter-range product contamination has migrated away and left the less mobile products. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 74).
112. The areas of thickest hydrocarbon contamination beneath the Refinery (combined free-phase and residual-phase contamination as identified by ROST) include the area near the pipeline terminus for the Refinery's River Lines and North Terminal Lines (which is near the wastewater treatment area) and the main Refinery process areas. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 71, 74-76; Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000210).
XIII. Free-Phase Hydrocarbons Have Migrated From the Refinery to the Village
113. As set forth in detail below, during the Clark/Apex Era, petroleum hydrocarbons migrated from the Hartford Refinery to the Village of Hartford in the following manner:
• Hydrocarbons which had accumulated due to leaks and spills at the Refinery migrated deep into the Main Sand beneath the Refinery due to low groundwater levels in the 1960s and early 1970s. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 104, 107-108).
• A "structural high" in the Main Sand acted as a ramp running from the Refinery toward the middle of the Village of Hartford. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 113).
• Prior leaks and spills filled soil pore spaces in a corridor of the Main Sand between the Refinery and the Village and formed a preferential pathway for migration of other liquid hydrocarbons, which are often called light non-aqueous phase liquids ("LNAPL"). (Howe Test. Day 5 at 224-25; Howe Test Day 6 at 102, 105).
• As water levels rose beginning in the late 1970s, the rising water forced the hydrocarbon materials up along the preferential pathway from beneath the Refinery to beneath the Village. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 109-110).
• The hydrocarbon movement along the preferential pathway was enhanced by localized groundwater flow toward the Village. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 109).
A. Significant Hydrocarbon Contamination Existed In the Main Sand Beneath the Hartford Refinery in the 1970s.
114. Significant quantities of petroleum products were spilled or leaked into the subsurface when Clark Oil owned the Refinery. As noted above, a 1979 investigation conducted for Clark Oil determined that approximately 10 million gallons of petroleum products were present beneath the Hartford Refinery at that time. (See Section XII, above).
115. Groundwater levels were low from the mid-1960s through the mid-1970s due to drought-like conditions in the Hartford area. (Howe Test. Day 5 at 225; Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000197, 209). Hydrocarbon leaks generally follow the pull of gravity, descending into the subsurface until they make contact with the water table and spread outward, because hydrocarbons are lighter than water. (Howe Test. Day 5 at 225). Thus, when water levels are low, hydrocarbons will penetrate deeper below the surface than when groundwater levels are higher. (Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000197).
116. Recent ROST studies of hydrocarbon contamination beneath the Refinery show hydrocarbons as deep as 40 to 50 feet below ground surface, consistent with groundwater levels during the early portion of the Clark/Apex Era, and 8 to 12 feet below current groundwater levels. (Howe Test. Day 5 at 255; Howe Test. Day 6 at 103-104; Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000212).
B. There is a Structural High in the Main Sand Beneath North Hartford
117. Silts and clays at the site thin at a structural high, where more permeable sands come closer to the surface. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 43-44). Structural highs are significant because they are areas where hydrocarbons tend to accumulate. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 109). Rising groundwater levels will move hydrocarbons from areas where less permeable layers extend further below the ground surface, up into the more permeable structural high, where the hydrocarbons will pool and persist for a long period of time. Hydrocarbons naturally migrate upward into structural high spots because they are less dense (or more buoyant) than water. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 33, 43-44).
118. A structural high in the Hartford area generally extends from beneath the Refinery's wastewater treatment area to the central portion of the Village, reaching its apex in the vicinity of Elm Street and North Delmar Avenue, where it rises to within approximately 12 feet of the ground surface. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 40; Pl. Ex. 225 at EPA_PRT018024).
C. A Corridor with Higher Relative LNAPL Conductivity Has Facilitated the Migration of Hydrocarbons from Beneath the Refinery to the Village
119. LNAPL saturation of pore spaces in soils permits the freer flow of hydrocarbons through the soils. LNAPL conductivity is a measure of hydrocarbons' ability to move through the subsurface. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 108; Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000195; Pl. Ex. 203 at EPA_RPT038420). Studies done at the Site identified a corridor of high LNAPL conductivity extending from the vicinity of the Refinery's wastewater treatment area northwest to Elm Street. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 108; Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000211; Pl. Ex. 203 at EPA_RPT038511). The corridor from the Refinery's wastewater treatment plant area northwest to Elm Street in the Village still had the highest apparent product thicknesses at the Site in 2005. (Pl. Ex. 185 at HOWE000011; Def. Ex. 995 at 132-35, 151 (Figures 2-52, 2-53, 2-54, 2-55, 5-1)).
120. The existence of that corridor of high LNAPL conductivity also is reflected in the extraordinary high LNAPL removal and recharge rates that were observed during LNAPL recovery pilot testing that was done at the principal recovery well in the area (well HMW-44C, which is located beneath North Olive Street, between East Forest and East Elm Streets). (Pl. Ex. 203 at EPA_RPT038403; Pl. Ex. 204 at EPA_RPT010707-0023, 707-0299, 707-0308).
D. Rising Groundwater Levels Forced Hydrocarbons Along the Preferential Pathway from the Refinery to the Village.
121. Groundwater levels at the Site rose significantly from about 1977 through 1987. (Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000188, 213). As groundwater levels rose, free-phase hydrocarbons preferentially migrated along the structural high in the Main Sand toward the Village, rather than into the less permeable B/C Clay. (Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000188). Hydrocarbon migration along the structural high was facilitated by the presence of a high LNAPL conductivity corridor in that area, due to prior pipeline leaks. (Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000211). Through this mechanism, a portion of the millions of gallons of free-phase hydrocarbons present beneath the Refinery in the 1970s migrated to beneath the Village of Hartford.
E. Hydrocarbon Movement Along the Preferential Pathway was Enhanced by Localized Groundwater Flow Toward the Village
122. Groundwater flow generally has limited influence on the movement of free-phase hydrocarbons at rest on top of the water table (although it does transport contaminants that are dissolved into the groundwater itself -- i.e., dissolved-phase hydrocarbons). (Howe Test. Day 7 at 61-62). Even so, groundwater flow would have augmented the effect of rising groundwater on the movement of free-phase hydrocarbons up the structural high and through the highly-permeable and porous Main Sand toward the Village. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 113).
123. The groundwater beneath the Hartford Refinery would naturally flow to the west, toward the Mississippi River. (Pl. Ex. 183 at HOWE001186; Sharma Test. Day 14 at 99-100, 116; Pl. Ex. 200 at EPA_RPT041360-361). That natural groundwater flow has been altered by industrial groundwater pumping at several industrial facilities in the area, including at the Hartford Refinery itself and at the Shell Oil/ConocoPhillips Refinery and the former Amoco Refinery. (Pl. Ex. 183 at HOWE001186, 1198-99; Turner Test. Day 10 at 37; Sharma Test. Day 14 at 98-99; Pl. Ex. 200 at EPA_RPT041360-361, 41385, 41400).
124. As recently as 2004, the groundwater in the Main Sand beneath the western portion of the Refinery sometimes flowed to the northwest, toward the Village, though the flow in the area is subject to seasonal fluctuations. (Def. Ex. 995 at 92 (Figure 2-12); Sharma Test. Day 15 at 13-15). Even when groundwater beneath other parts of the Refinery was flowing in an easterly direction, there was often localized flow in a westerly direction from the Refinery's wastewater treatment area toward the Village. (Pl. Ex. 191 at EPA_RPT022262-64). A report that was prepared for Premcor and several other companies in early 2004 attributed that localized westerly flow to "an apparent mounding effect . . . in the northwest corner of the Premcor facility." (Pl. Ex. 191 at EPA_RPT022231).
125. A groundwater mound is a localized high groundwater elevation, similar to a hill in the water level. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 46; Sharma Test. Day 15 at 8-9).
126. Earlier studies of groundwater elevations in the Main Sand also identified a groundwater mound near the Refinery's wastewater treatment area. (Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000214 (Figure 13, prepared from Pl. Ex. 28 at PRG.DOJ01846), EXPRT000215 (Figure 14, derived from Pl. Ex. 164 at APEX000847)).
127. The groundwater mound in that area may have been due to the presence of finer grained sediments there, causing the water to be "wicked up," much as a thin straw placed in a glass of water causes water to rise within the straw above its normal level. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 45-46, 177-180; Howe Test. Day 7 at 61).
128. While the geologic preconditions for a groundwater mound are naturally occurring, the groundwater mound at the western end of the Refinery was likely enhanced through leakage of water from the Refinery's wastewater treatment plant into the subsurface. (Howe Test., Day 6 at 45-46, 177-180; Howe Test. Day 7 at 61). Clark Oil built the wastewater treatment plant on the Refinery grounds in 1973, adding a large fire water pond in the mid-1980s. The wastewater treatment plant's tanks processed millions of gallons of wastewater and leakage of water into the subsurface would be expected. The bottoms of these tanks were replaced in 1993, indicating prior leakage beneath the wastewater treatment area. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 110-11; Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000198).
129. Leakage is also indicated in a geological cross-section of the wastewater treatment area, which shows the near-surface North Olive stratum saturated with water. (Pl. Ex. 182 at HOWE-000066). The North Olive stratum is not typically saturated in this area and is above the regional groundwater table, suggesting that some source of water was infiltrating the area. (Howe Test. Day 6 at 112).
130. The groundwater elevation maps that have been prepared since early 2005 no longer show a groundwater mound near the Refinery's wastewater treatment area. (Def. Ex. 995 at 98-101 (Figures 2-18 to 2-21); Pl. Ex. 182 at HOWE-000057). That may be due to a recent increase in groundwater pumping at the Hartford Refinery. (Howe Test. Day 7 at 5-6, 61). For example, in the fall of 2004, Premcor rehabilitated and restarted an old groundwater production well near the western edge of the Refinery property, and sent water that was pumped from that well to the Refinery's wastewater treatment plant. That was done as part of a Western Property Boundary Gradient Control Plan that Premcor put in place to try to limit migration of groundwater contamination from the Refinery property toward the Village and its public water supply wells. (Pl. Ex. 183 at HOWE001182, 1197).
131. Years before that, in February 1986, the environmental manager for Clark Oil-Apex wrote an internal company memorandum recommending installation of an enhanced pumping system to establish a cone of depression in the groundwater and thereby assure that hydrocarbons would not migrate beyond the Refinery boundaries. (Pl. Ex. 65). It does not appear that Clark Oil-Apex adopted that recommendation, and it was not until late 2004 and early 2005 that Premcor implemented a groundwater control program to try to limit migration of hydrocarbon contamination from the Refinery property. (Pl. Ex. 183 at HOWE001202; Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000185).
132. The recent pumping activity at the western end of the Refinery property has artificially lowered groundwater levels in the immediate area, which appears to have eliminated any current sign of a groundwater mound and reversed the localized westerly flow of groundwater in the Main Sand that was observed in that area until 2005. (Howe Test. Day 7 at 5-6, 61; Pl. Ex. 168 at EXPRT000187; Pl. Ex. 182 at HOWE-000057). Even so, the groundwater studies at the Hartford Site are ongoing, and one of the most recent reports on the subject recommended "continued groundwater monitoring to verify the understanding of groundwater flow and the dissolved-phase plume." (Pl. Ex. 200 at EPA_RPT041355).
XIV. Clark Oil / Clark Oil-Apex Product Recovery Efforts
133. On July 31, 1978, Clark Oil installed and began operating a hydrocarbon product recovery well that was installed next to a service station near the intersection of North Delmar Avenue and West Forest Street (Recovery Well No. 1) (Pl. Ex. 23; Pl. Ex 358 at EPA_RPT035917). A second recovery well was installed on a lot at North Olive Street and East Date Street (Recovery Well No. 2) and it began operating in March 1979. (Pl. Ex. 23; Pl. Ex. 358 at EPA_RPT035917).
134. The recovery wells utilized low volume skimmer pumps which removed free-phase hydrocarbons from the surface of the groundwater and pumped them into a storage tank. (Pl. Ex. 111 at PRG.DOJ07194). The tanks would be inspected and when full a vacuum truck would be sent from the Refinery to collect the material. (Knipping Dep. at 60-61). The material was returned to the refining process and became a saleable product for Clark Oil. (Knipping Dep. at 61).
135. On April 16, 1983, the Hartford Police observed the tank located at Recovery Well No. 2 overflowing and leaking liquid hydrocarbons onto the ground. (Pl. Ex. 41 at APEXDEPO_000787).
136. On September 26, 1987, the Hartford Police observed the tank located at Recovery Well No. 2 overflowing and leaking gasoline onto the ground. (Pl. Ex. 82).
137. On July 5, 1988, the tank located at Recovery Well No. 2 overflowed and leaked gasoline onto the ground. (Pl. Ex. 85).
138. In 1986, Mr. Knipping, Clark Oil-Apex's environmental manager, prepared an internal company memorandum discussing a proposed hydrocarbon recovery well for the Hartford Refinery property, which stated that a new recovery well "would pay for itself in a hurry and generate a considerable amount of revenue in the future." (Pl. Ex. 65). The recovery wells located in the Village likewise generated a profit for Clark Oil-Apex. (Novelly Dep. at 35-36).
XV. Forensic Analyses of Free-Phase Hydrocarbons Beneath Hartford
139. Forensic analyses conducted on free-phase hydrocarbon samples collected from beneath Hartford have consistently indicated that Clark Oil was a major contributor to the contamination, as indicated by the "fingerprint" of the alkylation process used in producing the product and the amount and type of organic lead additives found in the samples. (Pl. Ex. 24 at APEXDEPO_002065; Pl. Ex. 27 at APEX_US0000266; Pl. Ex. 167 at APEXDEPO_001054).
140. Organic lead gasoline additives were used beginning in the 1920s as "anti-knocking" agents to reduce noisy combustion in automobile engines. (Pl. Ex. 167 at APEXDEPO_001041).
141. The Hartford Refinery used tetraethyl lead (TEL) exclusively as the organic lead additive in its leaded gasoline during the Clark/Apex Era. (Nicholson Test. Day 8 at 208; Pl. Ex. 167 at APEXDEPO_001037, 38, 43).
142. The Shell Oil Refinery used a different organic lead additive -- commonly called a mixed lead package -- during at least portions of the period between 1960 and 1980. (Nicholson Test. Day 8 at 218; Pl. Ex. 229 at PRG.DOJ03925-926). The mixed lead package used by Shell Oil in 1978 contained tetramethyl lead (TML), trimethyl ethyl lead (TMEL), dimethyl diethyl lead (DMDL), methyl triethyl lead (MTEL), and a small amount of tetraethyl lead. (Nicholson Test. Day 9 at 155-56; Def. Ex. 242 Part 2 at 55-56; Def. Ex. 931).
143. The Amoco Refinery also used a mixed lead package as its additive for leaded gasoline during at least portions of the period between 1960 and 1980. (Nicholson Test. Day 8 at 218; Pl. Ex. 229 at PRG.DOJ03925-926).
144. Chemical analysis of leaded gasoline samples can be used to determine the type of lead additive contained in the gasoline. (Pl. Ex. 167 at APEXDEPO_001040-41, 43).
145. During the 1960s, leaded gasoline generally contained from 1.5 to 3.5 grams of lead per gallon. (Nicholson Test. Day 8 at 204). In the 1970s, lead levels ranged from 1.5 to 2.0 grams per gallon in leaded gasoline, or a little higher. (Nicholson Test. Day 8 at 204). In late 1979, new regulations limited the total lead composition of gasoline produced by refineries. (Nicholson Test. Day 8 at 203-204). In the 1980s lead levels were generally below 0.7 grams per gallon, dropping below 0.3 grams per gallon after 1986. (Nicholson Test. Day 8 at 204).
146. Lead in free-phase hydrocarbons tends to be conserved in the product at concentrations similar to those existing at the time it was released into the environment. (Nicholson Test. Day 8 at 207). The amount of total lead in a gasoline sample can therefore be used to help determine when the gasoline was produced. (Pl. Ex. 167 at APEXDEPO_001041, 43).
147. Alkylate is added to gasoline to increase octane. (Nicholson Test. Day 8 at 213). Alkylate can made using either hydrofluoric acid or sulfuric acid as a catalyst. (Nicholson Test. Day 8 at 213). The two methods require different facilities and there are technical differences in the two production processes. (Nicholson Test. Day 9 at 16).
148. The Hartford Refinery utilized a hydrofluoric alkylation process to enhance octane in gasoline it produced . (Pl. Ex. 27 at APEX_US000266; Pl. Ex. 81 at APEXDEPO_001711). The alkylation unit was built in 1969. (Pl. Ex. 78 at GETTY000107; Pl. Ex. 81 at APEXDEPO_001712). In the 1970s, gasoline refined by Clark Oil at the Hartford Refinery contained approximately 17% alkylate. (Pl. Ex. 230 at PRG.DOJ03988).
149. The Shell Oil Refinery and the Amoco Refinery both used a different alkylation method that utilized sulfuric acid as a catalyst. (Nicholson Test. Day 8 at 214-215; Pl. Ex. 27 at APEX_US000266; Def. Ex. 931).
150. The hydrofluoric acid alkylation process and the sulfuric acid alkylation process generate differing amounts of four trimethylpentane compounds in the alkylate. The ratios between those different trimethylpentane compounds can be used to determine the alkylation process that was used to make the alkylate in a formulated gasoline sample. (Nicholson Test. Day 8 at 213; Nicholson Test. Day 9 at 16; Pl. Ex. 167 at APEXDEPO_001039-40, 43-44).
B. Prior Forensic Analyses
151. In 1978, Clark Oil requested that DuPont characterize a petroleum hydrocarbon sample collected from beneath Hartford and investigate the lead-containing anti-knock compound present in the sample. (Pl. Ex. 14 at APEXDEPO_002058). DuPont concluded that the sample consisted of a regular grade gasoline containing tetraethyl lead (TEL). (Pl. Ex. 14 at APEXDEPO_002059).
152. In February 1979, the Illinois EPA analyzed 13 hydrocarbons samples collected from beneath Hartford and product samples from Clark Oil, Amoco, and Shell Oil to determine the organic lead or organic lead packages present in the samples. (Pl. Ex. 229 at PRG.DOJ03925-26). Clark Oil's leaded gasoline contained only tetraethyl lead (TEL), while Amoco's and Shell Oil's leaded gasolines contained a mixed alkyl lead package (abbreviated "TMX" ). (Pl. Ex. 229 at PRG.DOJ03925-926). Each of the 13 Hartford samples contained TEL and none contained TMX. (Pl. Ex. 229, PRG.DOJ03925-26).
153. In January 1979, Clark Oil retained Professor Lyle Albright of Purdue University to determine the alkylation process used in refining hydrocarbon samples collected from beneath Hartford. (Pl. Ex. 228 at PRG.DOJ03980; Pl. Ex. 24 at APEXDEPO_002065). Clark Oil provided Professor Albright with chromatography results for two product samples collected from beneath Hartford, 10 gas chromatographs from Clark Oil's gasoline blending stocks, and five gas chromatographs reflecting different finished gasolines produced Clark Oil and Shell. (Pl. Ex. 228 at PRG.DOJ03980; Pl. Ex. 230 at PRG.DOJ03988; Pl. Ex. 232 at PRG.DOJ04024).
154. To determine the alkylation process used, Professor Albright identified separate ranges of trimethylpentane ratios that would be found in alkylate prepared with an hydrofluoric acid catalyst and alkylate prepared with a sulfuric acid catalyst and he analyzed the Hartford samples and compared it to those reference standards. (Nicholson Test. Day 9 at 19). In March 1979, Professor Albright informed Clark Oil that the sample contained predominantly, if not exclusively, alkylate prepared with a hydrofluoric acid catalyst. (Pl. Ex. 24 at APEXDEPO_002065; Nicholson Test. Day 8 at 232).
155. Clark Oil's Laboratory Manager was M.C. Engelman. (Pl. Ex. 344 at APEXDEPO_000636). In a July 26, 1979 memorandum, Mr. Engelman reported the results of his own analysis of hydrocarbons that had been recovered from wells beneath Hartford. (Pl. Ex. 27 at APEX_US0000266). He determined that the samples contained tetraethyl lead and fluoride (indicative of Clark Oil's hydrofluoric acid alkylation process). Remarking at the flouride results in particular, the scientist observed "of course, this confirms Clark to be the guilty party." His memorandum concluded that "our work indicates that the hydrocarbon accumulation under Hartford, Illinois originated from Clark Oil as well as Shell and/or Amoco Oil." (Pl. Ex. 27 at APEX_US0000266).
156. In November 1990, the Illinois EPA issued a report entitled Hartford Underground Hydrocarbon Investigation. (Pl. Ex. 111). Illinois EPA concluded that the hydrocarbon contamination then present beneath Hartford had been leaked from pipelines associated with the Hartford Refinery during the Clark/Apex Era, due to the chemical composition of the hydrocarbon material and the hydro geology of the area. (Pl. Ex. 111 at PRG.DOJ07188). Illinois EPA also concluded that a December 1989 pipeline leak on Shell Oil's Rand Avenue pipeline and leaks from the North Terminal ...