ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
6,
1980
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB
77—157
DECATUR
SANITARY
DISTRICT,
A.
E.
STALEY
MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
and
ARCHER -DANIELS
—MIDLAND
COMPANY,
)
Res~ondents.
MR.
REED
NEUMAN,
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON BEHALF
OF
THE
COMPLAINANT.
MR.
GUS
T.
GREANIAS,
GREANIAS
& BOOTH, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT DECATUR SANITARY DISTRICT.
MR.
LOUIS M. RUNDIO, JR., MCDERMOTT, WILL
& EMERY, AND
MR.
KEITH
CASTEEL,
SAMUELS,
MILLER,
SCHROEDER,
JACKSON
&
SLY,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
RESPONDENT
A.
E.
STALEY~MANUFACTURING
COMPANY.
MR.
WAYNE
L.
3ICK~.S,
ROSENBERG,
ROSEN~ERG,
BICKES
&
JOHNSON,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
RESPONDENT
ARCHER--DANIELS-MIDLAND
COMPANY.
INTERIM
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Dr.
Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board u~ona complaint and
amended complaint filed June 10, 1977 and August 18, 1978 by the
Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) naming as Respondents
the Decatur Sanitary District
(Decatur)
,
a corporation organized
under Illinois
law,
A.
B. Staley Manufacturing Co.
(Staley) and
Archer~-Danie1s--MidlandCompany
(ADM)
,
both Delaware corporations.
Counts II and III of the amended comp1~dntrespectively allege
that ADM and Staley violated Rule 701(a)
of Chapter
3:
Water
Pollution by discharging into Decatur’s sewers wastes which caused
the effluent from the system to violate applicable effluent stand-
ards.
The remaining counts allege violations by Decatur only.
On
January 21,
1980
a hearing was held in Decatur, Macon County,
at
which time settlement proposals between the Agency and ADM and
between the Agency and Staley were presented.
ADM and Staley
moved for expedited consideradon
of Counts
II
and III separate
from the counts involving only Decatur.
There
was
no objection
and the Nearinc~Officer submitted the motions to the Board.
Members
of the public attended the hearing but did not comment.
37—439
ADM operates a grain processing plant
at 4666 Faries Park-
way, Decatur.
The plant employs about 850 persons.
It discharges
into Decatur’s sewers,
apparently via two pretreatment plants re-
ferred to as “Decatur East” and “Decatur West.”
These discharge
to Decatur’s Dipper Lane sewage treatment plant
(STP).
According
to the amended complaint,
this STP discharges
to the Sangamon
River via an unnamed ditch.
There is no indication whether this
is upstream or downstream of Lake Decatur.
Staley operates a corn wet milling and soybean processing
plant
employing about 2500 persons at 2200 Eldorado Street,
Decatur.
It
discharges
at
three
points
to
the
Dipper
Lane
STP.
It
also
has
pretreatment
facilities although few details are
specified
in
the settlement proposal.
At
one
time
some
wastes
were discharged without oretreatment.
It is not clear
if this
is still the case.
The Dipoer
Lane
STP was substantially upgraded prior
to
May,
1977.
It has a capacity of twenty—five million gallons
per day and an organic loading of 291,000 population equivalents
(P.E.).
The population served by the district is
110,000 which
contribute 80,000 P.E.
exclusive of ADM and Staley.
These two
large dischargers are under separate contract with Decatur.
ADM
has
a basic load allowance of 55,000 P.E. on a ten day moving
average and 68,750 P.E. on a three day moving average.
Staley
has a basic load allowance of 110,000 P.E.
on a ten day moving
average and 137,000 P.E. on a three day moving average.
These
figures are to be met at least ninety—five per cent of the time.
The applicable effluent standards for the Dipper Lane STP include
10 mg/i five day biobhemical oxygen demand
(BOD)
and
12 mg/l
total suspended solids
(TSS).
ADM and Staley each admit that on certain unsDecified dates
when
the
STP was operating in excess of its design capacity and
its effluent was in violation of applicable standards, their dis-
charges to the system exceeded their basic load.
Neither admits
that it was the cause of the violation.
However,
based on the
admissions, the Board finds that ADM and Staley have violated
Rule 701(a)
of Chapter
3 by causing the Decatur STP’s effluent
to violate aptlicable standards through excess organic loading.
37—440
—3—
ADM and Staley also disclaim responsibility for odors from
the STP.
However,
there is no allegation in the complaint of
any violation of this nature by these Respondents.
In
1977 ADM was in the process of establishing and imple-
menting
a plan to reduce
its loading of Decatur’s
sewers.
These
include upgrading of the two pretreatment plants and process
chanqes, including recycling of process and cooling water and
repair of heat exchangers.
Work is
in progress to install a new
recycle tank car washing system to reduce volume and organic
loading in the refinery effluent and to install a sludge bag
filter system to reduce suspended solids in the effluent.
There
is no indication of the cost to ADM of this work or of the extent
of the reduction in loadings achieved.
Staley has expanded and upgraded its pretreatment facilities
also.
It has improved its warning systems to avoid discharges due
to accidental process
losses.
It has increased the overall
efficiency of its pretreatment processes from 80
to
85.
The
direct cost of this program to Staley has. been $1,600,000.
With
some minor exceptions Staley has not exceeded its
basic load
since June
15,
1977.
The settlement proposals provide for penalties of $3000 each
from ADM and Staley.
The agreements provide that the penalties
are for
any
and all violations which could have been alleged.
There
is
no
provision
for
a
cease
and
desist
order
and
the
parties
expressly reserve all rights
for future violations.
Without a doubt ADM and Staley have social and economic value
and there is no guestion of their suitability to the area.
From
the steps actually taken
it aPpears that it was technically
practicable and economically reasonable
to pretreat the discharges
to an extent greater than that practiced in 1977.
There is no
evidence in the record on which the Board can base a finding as to
the character and degree of the public injury which resulted from
the discharges.
Having considered Section 33(c)
of the Environ-
mental Protection Act, the Board finds the settlement proposals
acceptable under Procedural Rule 331.
ADM
and Staley’s motions for expedited consideration are
granted.
This Partial Opinion and Order is the Final Opinion
and Order of the Board with respect to these two Respondents.
It
is
a final action of the Board which is
appealable.
However, this
case will continue against Decatur.
37—441
—4—
In adopting this procedure the Board does not intend to
encourage the future use of such partial settlements.
In this
case there are separate counts against these two Respondents
which stand alone;
they are not involved in the rest of the
complaint.
it is possible and efficient to consider these counts
in isolation from the others.
It is unlikely that this
circuin-
stance will arise often in the future.
This i~nterimOpinion constitutes the Board’s findings of
fact
and conclusions
of law in this matter with respect to these
two
Respondents.
ORDER
1.
The motions
for expedited consideration are granted.
2.
Respondents A.
B. Staley Manufacturing Co. and Archer-
Daniels-Midland Company have violated Rule 701(a)
of
Chapter 3:
Water Pollution.
3.
Within forty-five days of the date of this Order,
Respondents
A.
E.
Staley
Manufacturing Co.
and Archer—
Daniels-Midland Company shall,
by certified check or
money order payable to the State of Illinois, each pay
a
civil
penalty
of
$3000
which
is
to
be
sent
to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Services Division
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Messrs.
Dumelle and Werner concur~
Mrs. Anderson abstains.
I, Christan
L. Noffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above
tnteri~Opinion and
Order were adopted on the
L+~
day of
____________,
1980 by
a vote of
4-o
Christan L. Moff~~4Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
37—442