1. CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 42(h) FACTORS
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 4,
1999
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 93-3
)
(Enforcement
-
Air)
ARCHER DANIEL MIDLAND COMPANY,
)
a Delaware corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
)
OPINION AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by C.A.
Manning):
On December 28,
1998,
the parties filed a stipulation and proposal for settlement.
The
Board accepts the stipulation and proposal for settlement filed by the parties in this matter.
The complaint alleged that the respondent violated Sections
9(a) and 9(b) of the Environmental
Protection Act (Act)
(415
ILCS
519(a),
9(b) (1996)) and
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 201.141, 201.142,
201.302(a), and 212.123
by causing or allowing air pollution, constructing a new emission
source without a permit,
violating opacity limits, violating special permit conditions,
and
operating a major stationary
source without a permit.
Pursuant to
Section 31(c)(2) of the Act (415 ILCS
5131(c)(2)
(1996)), the Board caused
publication of the required newspaper notice
of the stipulation and proposal for settlement and
request for relief from the hearing requirement.
The Board did not receive any requests for
hearing.
Accordingly, the Board grants a waiver from the bearing requirement.
The stipulation and proposal for settlement sets forth the facts relating to the nature,
operations,
and circumstances surrounding the allegations in the complaint.
The respondent
“does not admit to” the alleged violations
and agrees
to pay the sum of
$75,000.
Respondent
must continue
to comply with any federal,
State, or local regulations including, but not limited
to, the Act and the Board’s regulations.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in this
matter.
ORDER
1.
The Board hereby accepts the stipulation and settlement agreement executed by
the People of the State ofIllinois and the Archer Daniel Midland Company, a
Delaware corporation,
regarding its
facility located in Peoria, Peoria County,
Illinois.
The
stipulation and settlement agreement is incorporated by reference
as though fully set forth herein.
2
2.
The respondent
shall pay the sum of $75,000 within 30 days of the date ofthis
order.
Such payment shall be made
by certified
check or money order payable
to the Treasurer of the State of Illinois,
designated to the Environmental
Protection Trust Fund.
The case number, case
name, and the respondent’s
federal employer
identification number 41-0129150 shall also be included on the
check (or money
order) and should clearly
indicate
that payment is directed to
the Environmental
Protection Trust Fund.
3.
The check (or money order) shall be sent by first class mail to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
1021
North Grand Avenue East
P.O.
Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
A
copy of the payment transmittal and check shall be
simultaneously submitted
to:
Thomas S. Gozdziak
Assistant Attorney
General
Environmental Bureau
Attorney General’s
Office
100 West Randolph Street, 11th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
4.
Any such penalty not paid within the time prescribed
shall incur interest at the
rate set forth in subsection (a) of Section 1003
of the Illinois Income Tax Act,
(35
ILCS
5/1003), as now or hereafter
amended,
from the date payment is due
until the date payment is received.
Interest shall not accrue during the pendency
of an appeal during which payment of the penalty has been stayed.
5..
Respondent shall cease and desist from the alleged violations.
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/41
(1996)) provides for
the appeal of final Board orders to the Illinois Appellate Court within 35
days of the date of
service of this order.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 establish such filing requirements.
See
172 Iii. 2d R.
335;
see also ill. Adm.
Code 101.246, Motions for Reconsideration.
3
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
hereby certify that
the above opinion and order was adopted on
the 4th day of February 1999 by
a vote of 7-0.
Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
RE CE
~VED
(~I
rr?t~(~r~~i’~r
~.
~-~-•~
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
‘!‘~E(~! ii
~
—
.9
p
~
...~r1trc
~DJ~
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
)
-vs-
)
PCB 93-3
)
(Enforcement
-
Air)
ARCHER
DANIELS
MIDLAND
COMPANY,
)
a Delaware corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR
SETTLEMENT
Complainant, THE PEOPLE OF
THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS, by
JAMES
E.
RYAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, on his
own
motion,
and at the request of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Illinois EPA”),
and Respondent,
ARCHER
DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY
(“ADM’),
by its attorneys, Gardner, Carton
& Douglas, do hereby
submit this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement
(“Stipulation”).
The parties stipulate that settlement of this matter is in the
public interest and that acceptance of this Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement without litigation is the most appropriate means of
resolving this matter.
The parties agree that the statement of
facts contained herein is agreed to only for purposes of settlement.
The parties further state that neither the fact that a party has
entered into this Stipulation, nor
any
of the facts stipulated
herein,
shall be admissible into evidence, or used for any purpose,
1
in this or any other proceeding, except to enforce the terms hereof
by the parties to this agreement.
Notwithstanding the previous
sentence,
this Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement, and any
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
(“Board”) order accepting same, may
be used in any future enforcement action as evidence of a past
adjudication of violation of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act
(“Act”),
for purposes of Section
42 (h)
of the Act,
415. ILCS
5/42(h)
(1996).
This Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement shall
be null and void unless the Board .approves and disposes of this
matter
on each and every one of the terms and conditions of the
settlement 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
seq.
(1996)
II.
AUTHORIZATION
The undersigned representatives for each party certify that
they are fully authorized by the party whom they represent to enter
into the terms
arid
conditions of this Stipulation
and
Proposal for
Settlement and to bind them legally to it.
2
III.
APPLICABILITY
This Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement shall apply to,
and be binding upon, the Complainant and Respondent,
as well as the
successors and assigns of Respondent.
The Respondent shall not
raise as a defense to any enforcement action taken pursuant to this
settlement 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 settlement; provided,
however, that nothing
in this settlement shall be deemed a waiver by
ADM
of its right to
assert any and all other defenses available to it in any action to
enforce this settlement or any of the requirements contained herein.
Iv.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.
The Illinois EPA is an administrative agency of the State
of
Illinois,
created pursuant to Section
4 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/4
(1996), and charged,
inter alia,
with the duty of enforcing the Act.
2.
Respondent,
ADM,
is a Delaware corporation in good
standing and qualified to conduct business under the laws of the
State of Illinois.
The
.ADM
facility which is the subject of the
Complaint is located at the foot of Edmund Street in Peoria,
Peoria
County,
Illinois
(“Peoria facility”).
3
3.
ADM is in the business of producing ethanol at its Peoria
facility.
ADM’s
ethanol production process involves the conversion
of components of corn into alcohol.
V.
ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS
The Complaint alleges the following violations:
COUNT I: AIR POLLUTION 415 ILCS 5/9(a) (1996)
and 35 Iii.
Adm.
Code 201.141.
From October 1988,
and
continuing until at least December 1988,
.P1DM emitted
soot and fly ash from its boiler stack to the
environment in sufficient quantities and of such
characteristics and duration so as to cause or tend
to cause air pollution in Illinois.
COUNT II:
VIOLATION OF OPACITY LIMITS
415 ILCS
5/9(a) (1996)
and
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 212.123.
In
October, November and December 1988, ADM’s boiler
stack opacity monitor strip charts indicated
numerous occasions when opacity was greater than 60
percent, and also when opacity was greater than 30
percent,
but not greater than 60 percent,
for
periods aggregating more than
8 minutes in a 60
minute period, and more than 3 times in a 24 hour
period.
COUNT
III: VIOLATION OF SPECIAL
PERMIT
CONDITION
415 ILCS 5/9(b) (1996).
On December 20,
1988,
ADM
conducted a stack test without proper notification
to the Illinois EPA in violation of special
condition number three of ADM’s operating permit
number 87070036.
COUNT
IV:
CONSTRUCTION OF EMISSION SOURCES WITHOUT
A.
PERMIT
415 ILCS 5/9(a) and
(b) (1996) and 35 Ill.
Adtn. Code 201.142.
On or before
~une
17,
1987,
AIiM
began excavating activities related to the
construction of new distillation columns without an
Illinois EPA construction permit.
On or before
4
September 10,
1987,
ADM
placed at least three new
distillation columns onto their foundations without
an Illinois EPA construction permit.
On or before
September
10,
1987,
ADM
commenced construction of
two new feed dryers, three new fermentation tanks
and two gas-turbine powered electric generating
units without an Illinois EPA construction permit.
This Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement is intended to
resolve the allegations set forth in the People’s Complaint filed in
this matter
(as summarized above)
and the additional alleged
violations set forth below, which Complainant became aware of
subsequent to filing the Complaint:
1.
Violations of 415 ILCS 5/9(a) (1996)
and 35 Iii. Adm. Code
201.141 resulting from the emission of smoke and odor by
ADMs
Peoria facility between approximately October 1984
and January 1991.
2.
Violations of 415 ILCS 5/9(b) (1996)
and 35
Il..
Adm. Code
201.143 based upon operation, at
ADM’s
Peoria facility,
of boiler #4,
2 grain scalpers and 2 drag conveyors
without an operating permit from December 10,
1991, when
its existing operating permit expired, until it obtained
its current operating permit no.
72110062 on
June
18,
1993.
3.
Violations of 415 ILCS 5/9(a)
and
(b) (1996) and 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 201.141 based upon emission of nitrogen oxide
from boilers *5 and #6 in excess of the limits contained
in special conditions of permits number 85010056 and
87110032, during the years 1989 through 1993.
4.
Violations of 415 ILCS 5/9.1(d) (1996), and Section 165 of
the Clean Air Act,
40 CFR 52.21(j) (3) based on ADM
exceeding the 40 tpy threshold for nitrogen oxide in
boilers #5 and #6 during the years 1989 through 1993.
5
5.
Violations of 415 ILCS 5/9 (b) (1996), based on the
e~cceedanceof the permitted limit of 776 million cubic
feet per year of natural gas set forth in
permit
number
85010056,
during
the
years
1989
through
1992.
6.
Violations of 415 ILCS 5/9(b) (1996)and 35 Ill.
Adin.
Code
201.161 and 214.141(b),
based on sulfur dioxide emissions
generated by ADM’s exceedances of the 5.5 lbs/mmbtu limit
set forth within permit special condition 2(b) of
operating permit number 83020045 and contained in 35 Z1l..
Adm. Code 214
.
141 (b), during the periods of January 1997
through March 1997,
and April 1997 through
June
1997.
7.
Violations of 415 ILCS 5/9(b) (l996)and 35 Ill. Adm. Code
201.161, based on ADM’s failure to keep adequate data of
coal usage to demonstrate compliance with special
condition 5 of operating permit number 83020045, during
the periods of January 1997 through March 1997, and April
1997 through
June
1997.
VI.
NATURE
OF
RESPONDENT’
S
OPERATION
ADM
is in the business of producing ethanol at its Peoria,
Illinois facility.
VII.
EXPLANATION
OF
ALLEGED
PAST
FAILURES
TO
COMPLY
1.
As to the violation alleged in Count
I,
ADM
acknowledges
that
high
levels
of
opacity
occurred
in
part
due
to
mechanical
problems associated with excessively wet coal that was delivered
during the time period alleged.
The wet coal exacerbated the
physical limitations of the boilers and their particulate control
system.
However,
.ADM
asserts that its boiler emissions were in
6
compliance with applicable particulate limitations, and it worked
with the Illinois EPA to develop a voluntary plan to reduce the
opacity emissions from its coal-fired boilers, which
ADM
carried
out.
.ADM
further
asserts that such emissions •did not cause any
unreasonable interference with the public health, safety or welfare.
2.
The violations alleged in Count II are closely related to
those in Count
I and were resolved through the installation of a
second
electrostatic
precipitator
after
less
costly
actions
failed
to reduce the particulate emissions sufficiently.
ADM
asserts
that
violations
of
the
60
opacity limit
cannot
be proven by
instantaneous peak readings when the levels averaged below
60
over
a limited time period.
3.
As to th~violation alleged in Count III,
ADM
sent a
letter to the
Illinois
EPA
dated
December
2,
1988,
advising the
Illinois
EPA
that
it intended to conduct stack testing of waste heat
evaporator Number One, but it inadvertently failed to provide
further notice of the particular testing date.
The results of the
stack tests were subsequently submitted to the Illinois EPA.
4.
As regards the violations alleged in Count IV,
ADM
believed that it could proceed with its construction activities
short of actual connection, prior t~obtaining Illinois EPA
construction permits.
ADM
also asserts that all of the construction
permits for the relevant equipment were subsequently issued by the
7
Illinois EPA, with the exception of the permit for the corn germ
drier which
ADM
asserts issued by operation of law since more
than
90 days elapsed from the date of the application on May. 5,
1988
and
the subsequent denial dated August
4,
1988.
VIII.
PuTu1~E
PLANS
OF
COMPLIANCE
.ADM
shall comply with all air related requirements of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/.
et
seq-.
(1996), the Clean Air Act,
42 U.S.C. §~7401
et.
seq.
(1996),
and
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board Air Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ii..
Adm.
Code
Subtitle
B.
XX.
IMPACT
ON
THE
PUBLIC
RESULTING
PROM
ALLEGED
NON-COMPLIANCE
Section 33(c)
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/33(c)
(1996), provides as
follows:
In
making
its
orders
and
determinations,
the Board shall
take into consideration all the facts and circumstances
bearing upon the reasonableness of the emissions,
discharges,
or deposits involved including, but not
limited to:
1.
the character
and
degree of injury to, or
interference with the protection of the health,
general welfare and physical property of the people;
2.
the
social
and
economic
value
of
the
pollution
source;
8
3.
the suitability or unsuitability of the pollution
source to the area in which it is located,
including
the question of priority of location
in
the
area
involved;
4.
the technical practicability and economic
reasonableness of
reducing
or eliminating the
emissions, discharges or deposits resulting from
such pollution source; and
5.
any subsequent compliance.
In response to these factors the parties state as follows:
1.
The odor and smoke emissions from
ADM’s
Peoria facility
resulted in citizen complaints possibly related to these emissions.
2.
The social and economic value of ATDM’s Peoria facility is
great.
ADM
employs approximately 230 people in the Peoria facility,
is a major purchaser of Illinois grain, .and provides food products
internationally.
3.
The Peoria facility is suitable to the area in which it
is located,
in that it is largely surrounded by commercial and
industrial properties and has few residences within three blocks.
It has been in operation since 1937.
4.
It was technically practicable and economically feasible
for
ADM
to reduce its emissions.
5.
ADM
has resolved, or is in the process of resolving,
all
compliance issues.
9
X.
CONSIDERATION
OF
SECTION
42(h)
FACTORS
Section
42(h)
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/42(h)
(1996),
provides
as
follows!
In
determining
the
appropriate civil penalty .to be
imposed under subdivisions
(a),
(b) (1),
(b) (2)
or
(b) (3)
of this Section, the Board is authorized to consider any
matters of record in mitigation or aggravation of
penalty,
including but not limited to the following
factors:
1.
the duration and gravity of the violation;
2.
the presence or absence of due diligence on the part
of the violator in attempting to comply with the
requirements of this Act and regulations thereunder
or to secure relief therefrom as provided by this
Act;
3.
any economic benefits accrued by the violator
because of delay in compliance with requirements;.
4.
the amount of monetary penalty which will serve to
deter further violations by the violator and to
otherwise aid in enhancing voluntary compliance with
this Act by the violator and other persons similarly
subject to the Act; and
5.
the number, proximity in time, and gravity of
previously adjudicated violations of this Act by the
violator.
In response to these factors the parties state as follows:
1.
The violations that are the subject of this Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement include permitting and emission
violations that are of various durations beginning in 1984 and
ending in 1997.
While the State views permit and reporting
10
violations as being serious in that the permit process and reporting
requirements lie at the heart of the State’s air pollution control
program,
the duration and gravity of the alJ.egecl violations are,
in
part,
off-set by the following factors:
a.
None of that equipment was physically connected to.
allow operation until after the construction permits
were obtained;
and
b.
There are no alleged violations of National Ambient
Air Quality Standards.
2.
ADM
has shown increased diligence in responding to the
more recent alleged violations.
ADM
took the following actions to
resolve the alleged violations:
a.
As regards the alleged opacity violations:
i.
made repairs to the boiler ~3 to eliminate or
substantially reduce the amount of excess air
being drawn into the system and retubed the air
heater of that boiler;
ii.
replaced the internal ash collecting cyclone of
that
boiler;
iii.
began
external
calibration
of
the
stacks’
opacity
meter
on
a
quarterly
basis;
iv.
assigned
a
full-time
instrument
technician
to
the
powerhouse;
v.
replaced
the
internal
cyclones
on
boiler
*1
and
#2;
and
vi.
installed
a
second
electrostatic
precipitator
to
control
boiler
#3
and
used
the
existing
unit
to
control
boilers
*1
and
#2;
11
b.
As regards the alleged construction
permit
violations,
ADM
worked cooperatively with the
Illinois
EPA
to
obtain
all
necessary
permits,
and
all
permits
were
ultimately
issued.
3.
ADM
accrued
some
economic
benefit
by postponing
expenditures
with
respect
to resolving the alleged
opacity
and
PSD
violations.
4.
Based
upon
all
of
the
factors
set
forth
in
Sections
33(c)
and
42(h)
of
the
Act,
the
parties
have
agreed
that
ADM’s
payment
of
$75,000
to
the
Environmental
Protection
Trust
Fund is appropriate to
deter
future
violations
and
to enhance voluntary compliance with the
Act.
5.
Past
adjudicated
violations
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
by
ADM:
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
v.
ARCHER
DANIELS
MIDLAND
PCB
80-151
Opinion
Dated:
March
24,
1983
The
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
found that
ADM
had
violated
Rules
203,
402,
403,
404(c),
408(a)
and
901
of Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution
and
Sections
12(a)
and
(f)
~f the I11ino~s
Environmental
Protection
Act.
The
effluent,
water
quality
and
NPDES permit violations related to discharges from at least
1976
through
1981 from ADM’s Decatur facility.
RICHARD MOORE AND SALLY MOORE
v.
ARCHER
DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY
PCB 8.7-171
Opinion Dated: May 11,
.1989
The Illinois Pollution Control Board found that noise emissions
from
ADM’s
Decatur,
Illinois cogeneration plant constituted a
vjolation~of
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
900.102
and
Section
24
of
the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
12
XI.
TERMS
OF
SETTLE)~NT
1.
ADM
does not admit to the violations alleged by the
Complainant herein.
2.
ADM
shall pay the sum of Seventy Five Thousand. Dollars.
($75,000.00)
into the Illinois Environmental Protection Trust Fund
within thirty
(30) days of the date of the Board’s entry of a final
opinion
and
order
accepting
this
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for
Settlement.
Payment
shall
be
made
by
certified
check
or
money
order,
payable
to
the
Treasurer
of
the
State
of
Illinois,
designating
it
for
deposit
into
the
Illinois
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,
IL 62794
A copy of the check shall be sent to:
Thomas
S.
Gozdziak
Assistant
Attorney
General
Environmental
Bureau
100
West
Randolph
Street,
11th
Floor
Chicago,
IL
60601
ADM
shall
write
its
Federal
Employer
Identification
Number
(“FEIN”),
41-0129150,
upon
the
certified
check
or
money
order.
For
purposes
of
payment
and
collection,
the
Respondent
may
be
reached
at
the
following
&ddress:
13
Archer
Daniels
Midland
Company
Attn:
General Counsel
4666 Fa.ries
Parkway
Decatur,
IL
62526
3.
Pursuant to Section 42(g) of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/42(g)
(1996),
interest
shall
accrue
on
any
amount
not
paid,
within
the
time
period
prescribed
herein,
at
the
maximum
rate
allowable
under
Section
1003 (a)
of
the
Illinois
Income
Tax Act,
35
ILCS
5/1003
(a)
(1996)
a.
Interest
on
unpaid
amounts
shall
begin
to
accrue
from
the,
date
the
penalty
is
due
and
continue
to
accrue
to
the
date
payment
is
received.
b.
Where
partial
payment
is
made
on
any
payment
amount
that
is
due,
such
partial
payment
shall
be
first
applied
to
any
interest
on
unpaid
amounts
then
owing.
c.
All
interest
on
amounts
owed
the
Plaintiff,
shall
be
paid
by
certified
check
payable
to
the
Treasurer
of
the
State
of
Illinois
for
deposit
in
the
Environmental
Protection
Trust ‘Fund
and
delivered
in
the
same
mariner
as
described
in
Section
XI
paragraph
2
herein.
4.
ADM
shall
comply
with
all
air
related
requirements
of
the
Act,
415
ILCS
5/1
et
seq.
(1996),
the
Board
Air
Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
Subtitle
B,
the
Clean
Air
Act,
42
U.S.C.
§~7401
et
seq.
(1996),
and
all
standard
and
special
14
conditions contained in permits issued by the Illinois EPA to the
Peoria
ADM
facility.
XII.
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS
This Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement in no way affects
Respondent’s responsibility to comply with any federal,
state or
local
laws
and
regulations,
including
but
not
limited
to,
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act,
415
ILCS
5/1
et
seq.
(1996).
XIII.
RIGHT
OF
ENTRY
In
addition
to
any
authority
of
law,
the
Illinois
EPA,
its
employees
and
representatives,
and
the
Illinois
Attorney
General,
his
agents
and
representatives,
shall
have
the
right
of
entry
to
the
facility at all reasonable times,
for the purposes of conducting
inspections of Respondent’s operations.
The Illinois EPA,
its
employees and representatives, and the Attorney General,
his agents
and representatives, may take any photographs or samples they deem
necessary in order to conduct their inspection, provided that:
(1)
upon request
.ADM
will be provided with split samples and copies of
photographs and
(2)
ADM
is not waiving
any
rights it may have to
request that any documents or photographs obtained by the Illinois
15
EPA or the Attorney General pursuant to this provision be held and.
maintained as confidential information.
XIV.
RELEASE
FROM
LIABILITY
In consideration of Respondent’s payment of Seventy Five
Thousand
Dollars
($75,000.00)
into
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Trust
Fund
and
commitment to refrain from further air
related
violations
of the Act, the Board Air Pollution Regulations
and
the
Clean
Air
Act,
upon
receipt
by Complainant of the payment.
required
by
Section
XI.2.,
the
Complainant releases,
waives
and
discharges
Respondent
and
its
officers,
directors,
employees,
agents,
successors
and
assigns
from
any
further
liability
or
penalties
from
claimed
violations
of
the
Act,
the
Board
Air
Pollution
Regulations
and
the
Clean
Air
Act
which
were
the
subject
matter
of
the
Complaint,
as
well
as
the
additional
alleged
violations
set
forth
in
Section
V
of
this Stipulation and Proposal
for
Settlement.
However,
nothing
in this Stipulation and Proposal
for
Settlement
shall
be
construed
as
a
waiver
by
Complainant
of
the
right to redress future violations or obtain penalties with respect
thereto.
16
Settlement as written.
AGREED:
FOR
THE
COMPLAINANT:
PEOPLE OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
JAMES E. RYAN
Attorney
General
State of Illinois
MATTHEW
1T.
DUNN,
Chief
Environmental
Enforcement
/
Asbestos Litigation Division
By:
WILLIAM D.
SEITH,
Chief
Environmental Bureau
Assistant
Attorney
General
Dated:
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
By:
JOSE/~/E..
SVOBODA
Gen4~?1 Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
Dated:
1/_?r~—9I
FOR THE
RESPONDENT:
ARCHER
DANIELS
MIDLAND
COMPANY
By:
,4s~r/a#~/
c~rnr,-~..1
Co~-~r~e/
Dated:
12--/F
—
-~
-
WHEREFORE,
Complainant and Respondent request that the Board
adopt and accept the foregoing Stipulation and Proposal for
17
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
I,
THOMAS
S.
GOZDZIAK,
an Assistant Attorney General in this case, do certify fiat I caused
to
be served this
29th
day of
December,
1998, the foregoing Notice ofFiling, Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement, and
Agreed
Motion Requesting Relieffrom
the
Hearing Requirement, upon theperson(s)
listed in the Notice ofFiling by placing
same
in an envelope,
postage prepaid,and
depsiting
same
with
the United States Postal Service at
100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois.
THOMAS S. GOZÔ~1AK
THIS
FILING SUBMITTED
ON RECYCLED PAPER

Back to top