BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
r~~*~_5~87
~
ILLINOIS ENVIRONNENTAL
)
*
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
)
-vs-
)
PCB 83—150
)
ARCHER
DANIELS
MIDLAND
COMPANY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
STIPULATION
AND
PROPOSAL FOR
SE~LEMENT
Pursuant
to
35
111.
AcIm.
Code 103.180,
the following Stipu-
lation and Proposal for Settlement entered into between complain-
ant,
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(hereinafter
“Agency”),
the respondent,
Archer Daniels Midland Company (hers-
inafter
“ADM”)
,
is
set
out
for
the purpose
of
approval
of
the
proposals hereinafter set forth.
It
is
expressly understood and
agreed by
and between ADM,
the Attorney General
and the Agency
that
the
agreements,
plans,
stipulations
and
statements
herein
contained are not binding on the parties and shall be deemed null
and void and held for naught,
in the event
such approval
is not
obtained,
or
in
the
event
additional
terms
or
conditions
which
are unacceptable
to
the parties
are
imposed.
This
Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement is made for the purpose of settlement
only and putting an
end
to litigation,
and neither the fact that
a
party
has
entered
into
this
Stipulation
and
Proposal
for
Settlement
nor
any
of
the
facts
stipulated
herein,
shall
be
introduced
into
evidence
or
construed
as
an
admission
in
any
other
proceedings
conducted
outside
of
the
jurisdiction
of
the
—1—
80—308
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board.
Subject
to
the
foregoing
understanding and agreement,
it is further agreed as
follows:
STIPULATION OF FACTS
1.
ADM
is
a
Delaware corporation duly authorized
to con-
duct business in Illinois.
2.
ADM
owns
and operates
a facility located at 4666 Panes
Parkway
in
Decatur,
Macon
County,
Illinois.
The
facility,
commonly referred to
as
the “East Plant”,
consists
of
a soybean
oil
refinery,
a
corn
sweetener
plant,
and
a
grain-milling
and
alcohol-refining plant and associated buildings and a transporta-
tion network.
3.
On
August
29,
1980
the Agency
issued ADM NPDES
permit
No.
IL006l425
(the
“1980
permit”)
covering
certain
discharges
from the East Plant.
The 1980 permit authorized ADM to discharge
effluent at four different points.
a)
Discharge Point
001:
approximately a 48”
diameter
concrete
storm
sewer
located
just
north
of
the
corn
sweetener plant
and which
discharges
storm
water runoff
into the north branch of Faries Park
Creek;
b)
Discharge Point
002:
approximately a 12” diameter
tile
located just north of
the
former
site
of
a
now-dismantled
wooden
cooling
tower
and
which
discharges
storm
water
runoff
into
the
north
branch of Faries Park Creek;
c)
Discharge
Point
003:
a
pipe
located
south
and
west of the
syrup plant and which discharges
into
-2-
80—309
an unnamed stream tributary
to Lake Decatur;
and
d)
Discharge Point 004:
approximately
a 36” diameter
tile
originating
just east
of
the
ADM corporate
office parking lot and which discharges storm
water runoff
into the south branch of Panes Park
Creek.
4.
The
1980
Permit
contained
conditions
establishing
the
following effluent limitations:
Discharge No.
001:
CONCENTRATION LIMITS
(mg/i)
Parameter
30 Day Avg.
Daily
Max
BOD
10
20
TSS
12
25
Discharge Nos.
002 and 004:
CONCENTRATION LIMITS
(mg/i)
Parameter
30 Day Avg.
Daily Max
BOD
10
20
TSS
12
25
Dissolved
Discharges shall not cause a
Oxygen
violation
of
the
dissolved
oxygen
water quality limitations
of
6
mg/i.
pH
The pH
shall
be
in
the range
of 6.0 to 9.0.
Discharge No.
003:
CONCENTRATION LIMITS
(mg/i)
Parameter
30 Day Avg.
Daily
Max
BOD
10
20
Iron,
total
--
2.0
TSS
12
25
—3-
80—3 10
5.
On February
24,
1986 Permit No.
1L0061425 was reissued.
The
new
permit
deleted
the
dissolved
oxygen
effluent
limitation
for
discharges
002
and
004
and increased the
daily
maximum
for
iron
of Discharge
No.
003
to
4.0 mg/i
and imposed
a
2.0 mg/i
30-day average
liviitation.
6.
The Agency has
alleged
that on various
occasions,
raw
and/or processed materials
have been spilled at
the East Plant
and
that
storm
water
runoff
passing
over
these
materials
has
contributed
to
discharges
of
effluent from the East Plant which
contained contaminants in concentrations exceeding those allowed
by Permit No.
IL0061425.
7.
The Agency has alleged that a majority of the Discharge
Monitoring
Reports
submitted
by
ADM
to
the
Agency,
reflected
daily maximum levels of BOD5 or TSS in excess of permitted levels
at one or more of the discharge points.
8.
The Agency has alleged that on at least three occasions
effluent discharged from outfall
004 had a pH of less than 6.0.
9.
The
Agency has alleged that during the period of October
3,
1980
to
February
24,
1981,
ADM
discharged
effluent
from
outfalls
002 and
004
which
caused
the
dissolved
oxygen
concen-
trations of the waters
of the north and south branches of Panes
Park Creek to be less than 6.0 mg/i.
10.
The
Agency
has
alleged
that
during
the
period
of
January
1,
1982
to
the present,
ADM has
failed to
submit
DMR’s
for any of the discharge points at the East Plant.
11.
The Agency has
alleged
that ADM has failed
to notify
the Agency within
five days
after
it became
aware
that
it had
—4-
80—311
discharged
effluent
containing
contaminants
in
excess
of
the
levels
set forth in its permits.
12.
The Agency has
alleged that ADM has
failed t~ sample
the effluent discharged from the East Plant on a composite basis.
13.
The Agency has alleged that on July
11,
1984, May
21,
1984,
April
23,
1984,
March
15,
1984,
May
23,
i983,
March
1,
1982,
July
7,
1981,
October
31,
1980,
May
16,
1980,
April
25,
1980 and March
26,
1980,
samples of effluent discharged from the
East
Plant
collected by
the Agency contained concentrations
of
BOD, TSS,
and Iron
more
than five times
in
excess
of
10 mg/i,
12
mg/i and 2.0 mg/i,
respectively.
14.
The
Agency has alleged that
on March
26,
1980,
April
25,
1980,
May
16,
1980,
July
7,
1981
and March
1,
1982,
dis-
charges of effluent from the East Plant has caused the waters
of
the north and south branches
of Faries Park Creek and the unnamed
tributary to contain ammonia nitrogen concentrations in excess
of
1.5 mg/I and
to have
foul,
unnatural odors, unnatural color, and
unnatural bottom deposits.
15.
The Agency has
alleged that on March
26,
1980,
April
25,
1980,
May
16,
1980,
July
7,
1981 and March
1,
1982, ADM has
discharged effluent from the East Plant which contained settle-
able
solids,
floating
debris,
visible
solids,
obvious
color,
odor,
and/or turbidity.
PROPOSAL
FOR
SETTLEMENT
A.
ADM neither admits nor denies
the violations as alleged
in the complaint.
-5-
80—312
B.
On behalf of ADM,
Lynch Engineering,
Inc.,
will conduct
a
comprehensive
engineering
study,
as
outlined
in
the
STORMWATER
DISCHARGE
STUDY
attached hereto
as
Exhibit
A,
to
identify
any
potential
sources
which
may
contribute
to
the
violations
alleged
in the complaint and types
of contaminants of the kind alleged in
the
complaint
and
to
develop
appropriate
remedial
measures.
The engineering
study
shall
be
completed
within
90
days
of
Board
approval, weather conditions reasonably permitting.
C.
ADM will submit to the Agency a proposed compliance plan
and schedule based upon the engineering study within 75 days from
its
submission of the engineering
study.
Upon receipt of Agency
approval, ADM
will
then implement the proposed compliance plan.
D.
ADM
has
purchased
and
installed
automatic
continuous
flow sampling devices to monitor discharge points 001,
002,
003,
and
0014,
said
installation
taking
place
on
or
about
December,
1986.
E.
Within
30
days
of approval of
the Settlement
Proposal,
ADM shall submit
to
the Agency all discharge monitoring reports,
and any other
data that
is
of
the
type
included
in
the DMR’s,
that
it may have
in
its possession
for
the
East Plant
covering
the period
of January
i,
1982
to
the present.
Thereafter, ADM
shall
submit
discharge monitoring reports
as required under
its
NPDES permit.
F.
ADM neither admits
nor denies
that a penalty is proper
but shall pay a penalty of
$10,000 into the Environmental Protec-
tion
Trust
Fund
in
consideration
of
full
settlement
of
this
-6-
80—3
13
litigation and
for
any
and
all
past
violations
of
ADM’s
NPDES
permit
No.
IL0061425,
as
amended
and
reissued,
or
the Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act,
as
amended
(the
“Act”),
arising
from the
types
of activities
described
in
the Complaint
to
the
date of this Agreement.
The penalty shall be paid by check drawn
to the “Environmental Protection Trust Fund” and submitted to the
Manager,
Fiscal Services
Section,
Illinois Environmental Protec-
tion
Agency,
2200
Churchill
Road,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706,
within
30
days
of
the Board’s
approval of
this
Stipulation
and
Proposal for Settlement.
ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY
By ~
T.
A.
Duff
ield,/’Yice President
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
By ~~~__________________________
Svob~d-a
NEIL F.
HAP..TIGAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
A
~
By:
~
~-~Aj
Rd~5ertY~Shuf~,Jr.
First
Assistant
Attorney
General
80—3 14
EXHIBIT
A
ARCHER-DANIELS -MIDLAND
COMPANY
DECATUR EAST PLANT
STORNWATER DISCHARGE STUDY
The ADN Decatur East Plant is
a large corn and soybean processing
facility located at the northeast corner of the
city of Decatur,
Illinois.
The
plant
area
east
of
the north-south
road on
the
west
side
of
the
corn plant
(the
actual
processing
and
grain
handling area)
is
approximately
80
acres.
Stormwater
from this
area discharges through four points which have been issued NPDES
permits by the IEPA.
There
is
also sheet runoff from this area.
There are numerous catch basins, manholes, storm sewers,
and rocf
drains
throughout
the
area.
The
purpose
of
this
study
is
to
identify
the water
quality
at
all
four discharge points
and
to
identify
any
corrective
action
needed
to
bring
the
discharges
into
compliance.
The
following
sampling
program has
been de-
signed to identify potential problem areas:
Sampling and Analysis Program
The entire plant
area will be divided into
a number of
drainage
basins
using
as
criteria
areas
which
have
similar
pollution
causing
activities,
such
as
parking
lots
and
grain
loading!
unloading areas.
A manhole or catch basin representative of each
drainage basin would
then be
identified on each
of
three con-
secutive rainfall
events;
a
grab
sample would
be
collected
of
water entering the
catch basins near the beginning and expected
80—315
middle
of
each
rainfall
and
one
hour
after
the
end
of
each
rainfall.
These
samples would be analyzed for contaminants
as an indicator
of pollution loading.
Rainfall amounts will be measured by an on
site rain meter.
Alternative Control Measures
Both structural
and non-structural controls will be considered.
A specific control plan will be developed for each drainage area.
—2—
80—316