PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
of the State of Illinois,
ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY
a ~elaware corporation,
Respondent.
RE CE ~V
E 0
CLERK’S OFP~
JUN
92003
STATE
OF
ILLINOiS
Pollution
Control Board
)
No. PCB 95-180
(Enforcement)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Lee R.
Cunningham
Archer Daniels Midland Company
4666 Faries Parkway
P.O.Box 1470
Decatur,
Illinois 62526
Carol Sudman
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution
Control Board
600
S.
Second Street
Springfiel,
Il.
62704
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE. that
I have today filed with the Office
of the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board an original
and nine copies of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement,
an Agreed Motion for Relief from the Hearing Requirement, Notice
of Filing and a Certificate of Service,
a copy of which
is
attached herewith and served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
DATE:
June
9,
2003
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General
State of Illinois
BY:
7Xom1cL
£~MV1~
THOMAS DAVIS,
Chief
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
500 South Second Street
Springfield,
IL 62706
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Complainant
vs.
THIS
FILING
IS
SUBMITTED
ON
RECYCLED
PAPER
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
REC~LLflE~D
CLER~’S OFF~CE
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE
OF
)
JUN
92003
ILLINOIS,
)
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Complainant,
)
Pollution
Control Board
v.
)
PCB NO.
95-1 80
)
(Enforcement)
ARCHER
DANIELS
MIDLAND
COMPANY,
a Delaware corporation,
Respondent.
MOTION
FOR RELIEF
FROM HEARING
REQUIREMENT
NOW
COMES
Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney General
of the State of
Illinois, and
pursuant to
Section
31 (c)(2) of the
Illinois
Environmental Protection Act (“Act”),
415
ILCS
5131(c)(2)
(2002),
moves that the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
grant the parties
in the above-captioned
matter relief from the hearing
requirement
imposed by Section
31 (c)(1) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/31 (c)(1)
(2002).
In
support of
this motion, Complainant states as follows:
1.
Complainant and Respondent had previously filed
in June 1995 a
Stipulation and
Proposal
for Settlement,
but subsequently requested that the Board
defer consideration of that
settlement pleading.
2.
The parties have
recently reached an agreement on all outstanding
issues
in this
matter.
3.
This agreement is presented
to the
Board
in a
Stipulation
and
Proposal for
Settlement, filed contemporaneously with this motion,
which supercedes the June 1995
settlement pleading.
4.
All parties agree that a hearing on the Stipulation
and
Proposal for Settlement is
not necessary,
and
respectfully request relief from such
a hearing
as allowed by Section
31(c)(2) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/31(c)(2)
(2002).
WHEREFORE,
Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
hereby request
that the Board grant this motion for relief from the hearing
requirement set forth
in Section
31 (c)(1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/31 (c)(1)
(2002).
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
LISA MADIGAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MATTHEW J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation Division
BY:____________________
THOMAS
DAVIS, Chief
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
500 South Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
217/782-7968
Dated:
$,/ô
~-/~ ~
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
RECE~VE0
CLERK’S ~
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
)
.
.
JUN
92003
ILLINOIS,
STATE OF
ILLiNOIS
Complainant,
)
.
Pollution
Control
Board
v.
)
PCB NO.
95-1
80
)
(Enforcement)
ARCHER
DANIELS
MIDLAND
)
COMPANY,
)
a Delaware corporation,
)
)
Respondent.
)
STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
NOW
COMES
the Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois,
on
her own motion and
at the request of the
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, and
Respondent, ARCHER DANIELS
MIDLAND
COMPANY,
a Delaware corporation,
and
hereby submit this Stipulation
and
Proposal for
Settlement.
The parties agree that the statement of facts contained
herein represents
a fair
summary of the evidence and testimony which would
be introduced
by the parties if a full
hearing were held.
The parties agree that this Settlement is a compromise of a disputed
claim.
The parties further stipulate that this statement of facts
is made
and agreed
upon for the
purposes of settlement only and that
neither the fact that a party has entered into the
Stipulation, nor any of the facts stipulated
herein, shall
be introduced
into evidence
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,
as
provided
in Section
42(h)
of the Illinois
Environmental
Protection Act (“Act”), 415
ILCS 5/42(h) (2002).
The agreement
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.
JURISDICTION
The
Board
has jurisdiction of the subject matter herein
and of the parties consenting
hereto pursuant to
Section
31
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/31
(2002).
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 and conditions
of this Stipulation
and
Proposal for Settlement and
to legally bind them to
it.
Ill.
APPLICABILITY
This Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement shall apply to and
be
binding upon the
Complainant and
Respondent and any officer,
director, agent, employee or servant
of
Respondent,
as well as the Respondent’s successors and
assigns.
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.
IV.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.
The Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency (“Illinois EPA”) is an administrative
agency established in the executive branch of the State government by Section 4 of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/4 (2002),
and
is charged,
inter a/ia,
with
the duty of enforcing the Act.
2
2.
Respondent, Archer Daniels Midland
Company (“ADM”), is a Delaware
corporation qualified to do
business
in
Illinois.
3.
ADM owns and
operates a complex of buildings
and physical
plants in
Decatur,
Illinois.
ADM’s
Decatur complex consists
of the East campus, which contains
a Specialty
Soybean
Processing
Plant and related plants, Wet Corn
Processing
Plant; a Bio-products
Plant; Co-generation
(power) Plant; Vitamin
C Plant; Xanthan Gum Plant; Lactic Acid
Plant;
Ethanol Plant or Denatured Alcohol
Plant;
and
the West campus, which consists
of plants
involved in the production of oil from soybeans
by solvent extraction; the production of oil from
corn germ
using a press and solvent extraction
process; the secondary refining of vegetable
oils from the crude state with hydrogenation and
deodorization processes;
the conversion of
vegetable distillates
into vitamin
E products;
a De-oiled Lecithin
Plant;
and a Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
The Decatur plant also houses ADM’s
national corporate offices.
4.
The Complaint in
this matter was filed on June 22,
1995.
5.
Counts
I and
II are the subject of a Motion to Dismiss.
Respondent has
implemented measures
to ensure future compliance with applicable federal and State
laws and
regulations that are the subject of violations specifically
alleged within Counts
III through VIII
contained within the State’s complaint.
6.
The Alcohol
Plant violations alleged
in Counts
Ill and IV arose from a process
change which was not properly reflected
in the relevant permits, but which may have resulted in
lower overall
emissions.
ADM also operated
the carbon dioxide liquefaction plant from about
June
1989 until
March
16,
1990,
without an operating
permit.
7.
Count V involves ADM’s operation of a pressure relief device at
the AlcohOl
Plant
without
complying with the New Source
Performance Standards (“NSPS”).
8.
The violations alleged
in Counts
VI
and VII arose from
problems
in the start-up of
fluidized
bed combustion boilers
in the Co-generation
Plant.
Excess emissions resulted from
3
baghouse failures
and bypass damper sealing problems, which were largely remedied by early
1990.
9.
Count VIII
pertains to a release of ammonia from a pressure relief valve at
ADM’s
Food Oil Packaging
Plant.
The release was caused by an
electrical malfunction coupled
with the proper functioning of the valve,
and
a warning
system functioned properly at
the time of
the incident.
V.
FUTURE PLANS OF COMPLIANCE
Respondent shall diligently comply with the Act, 415 ILCS 5/1
et seq.
(2002),
and the
Board’s Air Pollution Regulations,
35
III.
Adm.
Code Subtitle
B.
VI.
IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC RESULTING
FROM
NON-COMPLIANCE
Section 33(c)
of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/33(c)
(2002),
provides;
c.
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:
the character and degree of injury to,
or interference with
the protection of the
health, general welfare
and physical
property
of the people;
ii.
the social
and economic value of the pollution source;
iii.
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;
iv.
the technical practicability and economic reasonableness
of reducing or eliminating the emissions, discharges
or
deposits resulting from such
pollution source;
and
v.
any subsequent compliance.
In
response to these factors, the parties state as follows:
4
1.
Complainant contends that the injury to, or interference with, the protection of the
health,
general welfare, and
physical property of the People would
be characterized
as
a
potential for air pollution and
the degree of potential injury would
be dependent upon the extent
of the pollution and the degree of exposure
to that pollution.
2.
The parties agree that Respondent’s facility is of social and
economic
benefit;
3.
Respondent’s facility is located at
a site which has
been used
for the operation of
a manufacturing facility for nearly sixty years.
Respondent’s facility has been found suitable for
such
use
at that location;
4.
The parties agree that complying with the Act and
regulations is technically
practicable and economically reasonable;
and
5.
Respondent has
implemented measures to
ensure future compliance with
applicable federal and
State laws and
regulations that are the subject of violations specifically
alleged within Counts
Ill through VIII
contained within the State’s complaint.
VII.
CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 42(H)
FACTORS
Section 42(h) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/42(h) (2002),
provides:
h.
in determining the appropriate civil penalty to be
imposed under
subdivisions
(a),
(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(5)
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;
5
(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 gravity and duration of the alleged violations were
significant enough to
warrant enforcement;
2.
In response to notices
of noncompliance issued
by
the Illinois
EPA, the
Respondent worked with the Illinois EPA to resolve compliance issues specifically
alleged within
the State’s complaint;
3.
The economic benefit derived by Respondent resulting from its failure
to operate
in
compliance with the Act and regulations
promulgated thereunder is undetermined;
4.
Complainant has
determined, without the agreement of Respondent,
in this
instance, that a penalty of one hundred and
sixty thousand dollars ($160,000.00) would
serve to
deter further violations and
aid
in future voluntary enforcement of the Act and applicable
regulations.
5.
The previously adjudicated violations of the Act by Respondent include PCB 94-
123
($6,500 penalty),
PCB 83-1 50
($10,000 penalty),
and
PCB 80-151
($15,000 penalty).
VIII.
TERMS
OF SETTLEMENT
A.
Respondent does
not admit
the violations alleged in the Complaint;
B.
The
Respondent shall pay a penalty of onehundred and sixty thousand dollars
($160,000.00)
into the Illinois Environmental Protection Trust Fund within thirty (30) days from
the date on which the Board
adopts a final order approving
this Stipulation and
Proposal for
6
Settlement.
Payment shall
be made by certified check
or money order, payable
to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, designated to
the 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.
Box19276
Springfield,
Illinois 62794-9276
Respondent’s
Federal Employer Identification
Number (“FEIN”) shall be written
upon the
certified
check or money order.
Respondent’s
FEIN
is: ________________________
A copy of the payment transmittal and
check shall
be simultaneously submitted to:
Office of the Attorney General
Donna Lutes, Environmental Bureau
500
South Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
C.
In
the event the penalty is not
paid
in a timely fashion,
interest shall accrue and
be paid by Respondent at
the rate set forth
in
Section
1003(a) of the Illinois
Income Tax Act, 35
ILCS
5/1003(a)
(2002),
pursuant to
Section 42(g)
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/42(g) (2002).
Interest
on
unpaid
payments shall begin to accrue from the date penalty is due and
continue to accrue
until the date payment is received.
Where partial payment
is made on
any payment amount
that is due, such
partial payment shall
be first applied to any interest on
unpaid
payments
owing.
All interest on
payments owed the Complainant shall
be paid in
the manner specified
above.
D.
Respondent shall at al~
times meet its obligations under the Act; the Board’s Air
Pollution
Regulations, 35
ill.
Adm.
Code Subtitle
B;
and
Respondent’s Operating
Permits.
Ix.
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS
AND REGULATIONS
This Stipulation and Proposal
for Settlement
in no way affects the responsibility of
Respondent to comply withany federal, state, or local regulations, including but not limited to
7
the Act, 415
ILCS 5/1
etseq.
(2002),
and the Board’s Rules and
Regulations,
35
III. Adm. Code,
Subtitles A through
H.
x.
RELEASE FROM LIABILITY
In consideration of the actionsADM has taken and whichADM has agreed to undertake
through this Settlement to
make the agreed
payment and to
comply with the Act and
applicable
rules adopted thereunder, the State of Illinois releases, waives and
discharges ADM,
as well as
the successors and assignees of each and
every officer, director, agent,
employee or servant of
ADM, from any further liability or penalties for any violations of the Act and State regulations
which were specifically alleged
in the Amended Complaint herein or for which protections are
provided
pursuant to the Terms of Settlement.
However, nothing in this Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement shall
be
construed as a waiver by complainant of the right to redress
other violations or obtain penalties with
respect thereto.
WHEREFORE,
Complainant and
Respondent request that the Board
adopt and
accept
the foregoing
Stipulation
and
Proposal for Settlement as written
and
grant the Motion to
Dismiss Counts
I
and
II.
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General,
State of Illinois,
MATTHEW
J.
DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos
Litigation
Division
Dated:______
BY:______________
THOMAS DAVIS, Chief
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General•
8
People of the State of Illinois
v. Archer Daniels Midland Company
PCB 95-180
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Dated:
V/’ ~/~‘~
~
()~5SEPHE.SVOBODA
Division of Legal Counsel
9
People of the State of Illinois
v. Archer Daniels Midland Company
PCB95-180
ARCHER DANIELS
MIDLAND
COMPANY
Dated:
~
BY:
.
4~’~”~”
~
Paul
Muihollem, President and Chief
Operating Officer
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,
ZEMEHERET BEREKET—AB,
an Assistant Attorney
General,
do
certify that
I caused to be served on this
9th day of March 2003,
the foregoing Notice of Filing,
a Stipulation and Proposal for
Settlement,
and an Agreed Motion for Relief from the Hearing
Requirement, upon the persons listed on said Notice by placing
same in an envelope bearing sufficient postage with the United
States Postal Service located at 100 West Randolph Street,
Chicago,
Illinois.
ZEMEHERET BEREKET-AB
