ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 19,
    1994
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v.
    PCB 83—150
    (Enforcement)
    )
    ARCHER
    DANIELS
    MIDLAND,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    )
    ORDER
    OF
    THE BOARD
    (by C. A. Manning):
    This matter comes before the Board on a “Joint Motion for
    Modification” filed on April 29,
    1994 by the Archer Daniels
    Midland Company (“ADM”) pursuant to 35 Ill. Ada. Code
    103.241(b) (1).
    ADM
    requests the Board to modify its June 3,
    1993, order and opinion.
    The proceeding was originally before
    the Board on a complaint alleging that
    ADM
    of Decatur, Macon
    County, Illinois, violated Sections 12(a)
    and 12(f)
    of
    the
    Environmental Protection Act (“Act”),
    415 ILCS 5/12
    (1992), as
    well as various sections of the Board’s water pollution control
    regulations.
    On August 20,
    1987, the Board issued an order
    accepting the parties’ stipulation and proposal for settlement.
    On March 16, 1993, the parties filed a Joint Motion for
    Modification of Final Order.
    The Board granted that motion and
    issued an order on June 3, 1993 modifying the August 20,
    1987
    order.
    BACKGROUND
    This matter was originally before the Board upon a
    seven-count complaint filed by the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency
    (“Agency”) on October
    3,
    1983.
    The complaint
    alleged that
    ADM
    violated Section 12(a)
    and 12(f) of the Act and
    certain Board regulations.
    ADM owns and operates a facility
    located at 4666 Farries Parkway in Decatur,
    Illinois.
    The
    facility, commonly referred to as the “East Plant”, consists of a
    soybean refinery, a corn sweetener plant, a grain milling and
    alcohol refinery plant, and associated buildings and
    transportation network.
    ADM’s NPDES permit authorized it to
    discharge effluent at four discharge points.
    There are two
    discharge points into the north branch of Farries Park Creek,
    one
    discharge into Lake Decatur, and the last discharge into the
    south branch of Farries Park Creek.
    The complaint alleged that ADM’s discharged effluent was
    above the limitations set forth in its NPDES permit and Board
    2
    regulations,
    that it failed to submit Discharge Monitoring
    Reports, failed to notify the Agency of the exceedences, and that
    its discharge contained settleable solids, floating debris,
    visible solids, obvious color,
    odor and/or turbidity.
    The
    parties filed a signed Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement on
    August
    5,
    1987.
    The proposed settlement agreement, that was
    accepted by the Board, provided that
    ADM
    agreed would pay a
    $10,000 civil penalty and develop and implement a compliance plan
    to cure the violations.
    ISSUE
    Pursuant to the Board’s June 3,
    1993 order modifying the
    settlement agreement
    ADM
    is currently required to place its
    proposed capture and treatment system into operation by July 1,
    1994.
    ADM
    states that due to the unusually heavy rains during
    last s~i~nmerand fall in the Decatur area and due to the resultant
    high water table, construction of the proposed system, which had
    commenced in August became impracticable since all major
    components of the system entail excavation.
    As a result ADM
    argues that it can not make the deadline of July 1,
    1994.
    ADM
    states that it requested a permit modification from the Agency to
    reflect a completion date of October
    1,
    1994.
    The Agency
    appropriately takes the position that due to the Board’s June 3,
    1993 order it has no authority to alter the completion date of
    July 1,
    1994 as established in the NPDES permit issued on January
    25,
    1994.
    ADM
    requests that the Board modify its June 3,
    1993 order by
    modifying Condition 2(a) of the settlement agreement which
    currently reads:
    2.
    Archer Daniels Midland shall:
    a)
    construct the capture and treatment system agreed
    to pursuant to the schedule set forth in ADM’s
    renewed NPDES permit issued on January 25,
    1993.
    ADM modification would add the following language:
    “or as that schedule may be extended by the Agency
    through issuance of an NPDES permit modification
    following a demonstration by
    ADM
    that an extension is
    justified on the basis of acts or circumstances,
    including adverse weather and groundwater conditions,
    which are beyond the control of ADM.”
    DISCUSSION
    Prior to this modification request the parties requested an
    earlier modification which the Board granted.
    The Board
    generally does not allow the compliance dates in orders to be
    3
    modified by a motion.
    (See generally Bill Men.
    et.
    al.
    v. City
    of Freeport,
    (Dec.
    20,
    1993), PCB 86-193; ioliet Army Ammunition
    Plant v.
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
    (November 15,
    1989), PCB 89-79;
    American Steel Container Company. Drum Shoe
    V.
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
    (March 28,
    1991),
    PCB
    87—91.)
    However, since the Board in this matter had originally
    allowed the parties to alter its order by a motion because the
    parties were still negotiating certain aspects of the agreement,
    we will entertain a motion to modify this order.
    However, the
    Board is required to hold a hearing in this matter pursuant to
    Section 31 of the Act.
    Thus matter is to be set for hearing.
    The hearing must be scheduled and completed in a timely
    manner, consistent with Board practices.
    The Chief Hearing
    Officer shall assign a hearing officer to conduct hearings.
    The
    Clerk of the Board shall promptly issue appropriate directions to
    the assigned hearing officer consistent with this order.
    The assigned hearing officer shall inform the Clerk of the
    Board of the time and location of the hearing at least 40 days in
    advance of hearing so that public notice of hearing may be
    published.
    After hearing, the hearing officer shall submit an
    exhibit list,
    a statement regarding credibility of witnesses and
    all actual exhibits to the Board within five days of the hearing.
    Any
    briefing schedule shall provide for final filings as
    expeditiously as possible and,
    in time—limited cases, no later
    than 30 days prior to the decision due date.
    If after appropriate consultation with the parties, the
    parties fail to provide an acceptable hearing date or if after an
    attempt the hearing officer is unable to consult with the
    parties, the hearing officer shall unilaterally set a hearing
    date in conformance with the schedule above.
    The hearing officer
    and the parties are encouraged to expedite this proceeding as
    much as possible.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
    (415 ILCS
    5/41
    (1992), provides for appeal of final orders of the Board
    within 35 days.
    The Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois
    establish filing requirements.
    (See also 35 Ill. Ada. Code
    101.246, Motion for Reconsideration).
    4
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    —
    Board, hereb
    certify that
    the above order was adopted on the
    zr~
    day of
    __________________,
    1994, by a vote of
    &
    0
    A
    Dorothy M. Gur~h,Clerk’
    Illinois Poll
    ion Control Board

    Back to top