ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June 23, 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 Motion for
    Reconsider and a Motion for Relief from Hearing Requirement
    filed on May 31,
    1994 by the Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)
    and the People of the State of Illinois
    (State).
    ADM requests
    the Board to reconsider its order which required that a hearing
    be held in this matter or alternatively ADM requests relief from
    the hearing requirement.
    The State requests relief from the
    hearing requirement pursuant to Section 31(a)(2)
    of the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Act (Act).
    (415 ILCS 5/31
    (1992).)
    The Board directed this matter to hearing pursuant to
    Section 31 of the Act,
    in its May 19,
    1994 order.
    ADM states
    that Section 31 of the Act does not require a hearing in this
    matter but only on the appropriate filing of a complaint.
    ADM
    argues that since this is not before the Board upon a filing of a
    complaint but rather a motion to modify a Board order no hearing
    is required pursuant to Section 31 of the Act.
    ADM further
    states that it is in the Board’s discretion to require a hearing
    but a hearing should not be necessary and therefore alternatively
    request relief from the hearing requirement.
    The State in its motion for relief from the hearing
    requirement states that since the parties agree to the requested
    modification a hearing
    is not necessary.
    Therefore the State
    moves the Board pursuant to Section 31(a) (2)
    of the Act to grant
    relief from the hearing requirement.
    This matter was originally before the Board upon a seven—count
    complaint filed by the State on October
    3,
    1983.
    The complaint
    alleged that ADM violated Section 12(a)
    and 12(f) of the Act and
    certain Board regulations.
    The parties filed a signed
    Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement on August 5,
    1987.
    The
    proposed settlement agreement provided that ADM agreed would pay
    a $10,000 civil penalty and develop and implement a compliance
    plan to cure the violations.
    The requested modification is not
    2
    the result of newly discovered evidence but rather a result of a
    change in the conditions facing ADM which may prohibit it from
    meeting the compliance deadlines contained in the settlement
    agreement.1
    We feel that since the Board in effect would be
    modifying an enforcement settlement agreement in this matter
    which is now 11 years old the hearing requirements of Section 31
    of the Act should apply.
    Therefore ADM’s motion is denied.
    As a result of Section 31 of the Act applying to this matter
    Section 31(a) (2)
    of the Act also applies.
    However, the Board may
    not rule on the motion to waive the hearing requirement until 21
    days after the publication of the request to waive the hearing
    requirements.
    Therefore the Board will reserve ruling on the
    State’s motion to waive the hearing requirements until said
    period runs.
    The Clerk of the Board shall publish the request to
    waive the hearing in this matter.
    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. Adm. Code
    101.246, Motion for Reconsideration).
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify
    th~at
    the above order was adopted on the
    ______
    day of
    __________________,
    1994,
    by a vote of
    ~
    I
    /~
    ~
    Dorothy M.
    Gu~n~,
    Clerk
    Illinois poiijdtion Control Board
    The Board had granted an earlier modification request in this matter
    on June
    23,
    1993.
    The modification request currently before the Board
    is
    to
    modify the Board’s June 23,
    1994 opinion and order.

    Back to top