Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. v. ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY

April 9, 2003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, AND THE STATES OF ARKANSAS; INDIANA; ILLINOIS; IOWA; KANSAS; MINNESOTA; MISSOURI; NEBRASKA; NORTH DAKOTA; SOUTH CAROLINA; TEXAS; AND THE IOWA COUNTIES OF LINN AND POLK; AND THE NEBRASKA COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENERS,
v.
ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker, United States District Judge

CONSENT DECREE

WHEREAS, Plaintiff, the United States of America, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (herein, "EPA"), has, simultaneously with the lodging of this Consent Decree, filed a Complaint alleging that Defendant, Archer Daniels Midland Company ("ADM"), is and has been in violation of the following statutory and regulatory requirements of the Clean Air Act (the "Act") at its fifty-two (52) processing plants at forty-three (43) facilities nationwide: Part C of Title I of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7470-7492, Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD"); certain New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS"), 40 C.F.R. Part 60; the state or federal implementation plans ("SIPS" or "FIPs") which incorporate and/or implement the above-listed federal requirements; and SIP permitting programs for construction and operation of new and modified stationary sources;

WHEREAS, the States of Arkansas, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, and the Iowa Counties of Linn and Polk, and the Nebraska County of Lancaster, have filed Complaints in Intervention, joining in the claims alleged by the United States;

WHEREAS, the Complaints filed by the federal and state Plaintiffs (herein "Plaintiffs") further allege that ADM commenced construction of major emitting facilities and major modifications of major emitting facilities without first obtaining the appropriate preconstruction permits and installing the appropriate air pollution control equipment required by 40 C.F.R. § 52.21 and the SIPs applicable to each of ADM's 43 facilities;

WHEREAS, ADM does not admit the violations alleged in the Complaints;

WHEREAS, in March 2001, ADM voluntarily approached EPA to open negotiations with EPA and all concerned states toward a comprehensive resolution of compliance concerns under federal and state air quality programs, including alleged violations that were the subject of pending litigation previously initiated by the State of Illinois;

WHEREAS, on March 21, 2001, ADM executed a letter of commitment to negotiate with Plaintiffs for emission reductions at its facilities, as the basis for a comprehensive resolution of federal and state concerns;

WHEREAS, ADM has worked cooperatively with Plaintiffs to structure a comprehensive program that will result in reduction of approximately 63,000 tons of air pollution annually from ADM facilities in sixteen states;

WHEREAS, installations of air pollution control equipment undertaken pursuant to this Consent Decree are intended to abate or control atmospheric pollution or contamination by removing, reducing, or preventing the emission of pollutants, and as such, may be environmentally beneficial projects that may be considered to be pollution control projects by the appropriate permitting authorities;

WHEREAS, ADM is implementing and enhancing an extensive corporate-wide environmental management program and has an active auditing program, both of which are designed to prevent future violations of environmental laws. ADM has provided Plaintiffs with a description of these programs;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and ADM have agreed that settlement of this action is in the public interest, will result in air quality improvements in the areas where these facilities are located, and that entry of this Consent Decree without further litigation is the most appropriate means of resolving this matter; and

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and ADM consent to entry of this Consent Decree without trial of any issues;

NOW, THEREFORE, without any admission of fact or law, and without any admission of the violations alleged in the Complaints, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED as follows:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUS

1. The Complaints state a claim upon which relief can be granted against ADM under Sections 113 and 167 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413 and 7477, and 28 U.S.C. § 1355. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter herein and over the parties consenting hereto pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1345 and pursuant to Section 113 and 167 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413 and 7477. Venue is proper under Section 113(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413 (b), and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) and (c) because ADM owns and operates facilities in this District.

II. APPLICABILITY

2. The provisions of this Consent Decree shall apply to and be binding upon the Plaintiffs, and upon ADM as well as ADM's officers, employees, agents, successors and assigns, and shall apply to each of ADM's facilities listed herein for the life of the Consent Decree.

(a). In the event ADM proposes to sell or transfer all or part of any of its facilities subject to this Consent Decree, it shall advise such proposed purchaser or successor-in-interest in writing of the existence of this Consent Decree and provide them with a copy of the Consent Decree, and shall send a copy of such written notification by certified "nail, return receipt requested, to EPA and the air pollution control authority where the facility is located at least 30 days prior to such sale or transfer. This provision does not relieve ADM from having to comply with any applicable state or local regulatory requirement regarding notice and transfer of facility permits.

(b). ADM may comply with any emission reduction requirement of this Consent Decree by permanently shutting down the emission unit to which the requirement applies. ADM shall provide written notice of the shut down to the appropriate Plaintiffs and permitting authorities prior to the planned shut down as required in the applicable Control Technology Plan. For purposes of this Consent Decree, the term "appropriate Plaintiff" shall mean the united States and the Plaintiff-Intervener where the particular plant is located.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS

3. ADM, a Delaware corporation, is a multi-national agribusiness that owns and operates 43 facilities in 16 states which process corn, wheat, soybeans, and other oilseeds into value-added products used in the food, feed, ethanol and other industries.

4. ADM's corporate headquarters is located in Decatur, Illinois. ADM is a "person" as defined in Section 302(e) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7602 (e), and an "operator" as defined in Section 113(h) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413 (h), and the federal and state regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act.

5. (a). Plaintiffs allege that certain of ADM's facilities are "major emitting facilities," as defined by Section 169(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7479 (1), and the federal and state regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act.

(b). The requirements of the Control Technology Plans ("CTPs") which are Attachments 2 through 11 to this Consent Decree, are incorporated herein by reference and made a directly enforceable part of this Consent Decree. Non-material modifications to the CTPs may be made by written approval of the appropriate Plaintiffs. Such approval shall not be withheld if the modification meets the emission reduction requirements and schedules set forth in this Consent Decree.

6. Unless otherwise defined herein, terms used in this Consent Decree shall have the meaning given to those terms in the Act, and the federal and state regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act. For purposes of this Consent Decree, the term "plant" refers to any ADM processing plant that is listed in this Decree at Paragraphs 7 through 14. Certain of ADM's 43 facilities include more than one plant.

7. ADM owns and operates the following twenty-two (22) plants for processing soybeans:

(a). Champaign, Illinois (now closed and sold)

(b). Clarksdale, Mississippi (now closed)

(c). Decatur West, Illinois

(d). Decatur East, Illinois

(e). Des Moines, Iowa

(f). Fostoria, Ohio

(g). Frankfort, Indiana

(h). Fredonia, Kansas (now closed)

(i). Fremont, Nebraska

(j). Galesburg, Illinois

(k). Granite City, Illinois (now closed)

(l). Helena, Arkansas (now closed)

(m). Kershaw, South Carolina

(n). Lincoln, Nebraska

(o). Little Rock, Arkansas

(p). Mankato, Minnesota

(q). Mexico, Missouri

(r). North Kansas City, Missouri

(s). Quincy East, Illinois

(t). Quincy West, Illinois

(u). Taylorville, Illinois (now closed)

(v). Valdosta, Georgia

8. ADM owns and operates the following twelve (12) plants for processing corn germ, cottonseed, canola and sunflower seed:

(a). Clinton, Iowa (corn germ)

(b). Decatur, Illinois (corn germ)

(c). Goodland, Kansas (sunflower seed)

(d). Levelland, Texas (cottonseed) (now closed)

(e). Memphis, Tennessee (cottonseed)

(f). North Little Rock, Arkansas (cottonseed) (now closed)

(g). Port Gibson, Mississippi (cottonseed) (now closed)

(h). Quanah, Texas (cottonseed) (now closed)

(i). Richmond, Texas (cottonseed)

(j). Sweetwater, Texas (cottonseed) (now closed)

(k). Velva, North Dakota (canola)

(l). Valdosta, Georgia (cottonseed)

9. ADM owns and operates the following five (5) plants for multi-seed processing:

(a). Augusta, Georgia (peanut, corn germ, canola, soybean) (now closed)
(b). Enderlin, North Dakota (canola, soybean, and sunflower seed)
(c). Lubbock, Texas (corn germ, cottonseed, and peanuts)
(d). Lubbock North, Texas (corn germ, cottonseed, and peanuts) (now closed)
(e). Red Wing, Minnesota (canola, flax, and sunflower seed)

10. ADM produces crude vegetable oil and meal products by removing oil from the oilseeds identified in Paragraphs 7-9 above. Some oil extraction is accomplished through direct contact with an organic solvent. ADM's plants which use solvent extraction for vegetable oil production are major sources of n-hexane, a hazardous air pollutant ("HAP"), and may be major sources of volatile organic compounds ("VOCs"). Sources of VOC and HAP emissions include the solvent recovery system, meal dryers, coolers, residual solvent in meal and oil products, leaking equipment components, storage tanks, and wastewater. These plants are subject to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 63, subpart GGGG (vegetable oil production NESHAP), applicable SIP requirements, and in some instances are subject to the PSD requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 52.

11. ADM owns and operates the following five (5) wet corn mill plants for the production of corn products, including ethanol:

(a). Cedar Rapids, Iowa

(b). Clinton, Iowa

(c). Columbus, Nebraska (formerly Minnesota Corn Processors)
(d). Decatur, Illinois
(e). Marshall, Minnesota (formerly Minnesota Corn Processors)
12. ADM owns and operates two dry corn mill plants for the production of corn products, including ethanol:

(a). Peoria, Illinois

(b). Walhalla, North Dakota

13. ADM's corn processing plants produce a number of products from corn, including starch, sweeteners, germ, ethanol, and animal feed. The manufacturing process at ADM's corn processing plants results in emissions of significant quantities of regulated air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides ("NOx.), carbon monoxide ("CO"), particulate matter ("PM'), sulfur dioxide ("SO²"), VOCs and HAPs. The primary sources of these emissions are the dryers, carbon furnaces, fermentation units, boilers, and ethanol load-out systems. These plants are subject to the PSD requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 52 and applicable SIP requirements.

14. ADM owns and operates the following six (6) additional plants:

(a). Southport, North Carolina (citric acid)

(b). Decatur, Illinois (BioProducts)

(c). Keokuk, Iowa (wheat gluten)

(d). Decatur, Illinois (vitamin E)

(e). Decatur, Illinois (vitamin C)

(f). Decatur, Illinois (De-oiled lecithin)

15. ADM operates combustion sources at all 43 facilities, such as industrial boilers, process heaters, and burners for dryers and other process units, which are sources of NOx, PM and PM10, CO and SO² emissions.

IV. COMPLIANCE PROGRAM FOR CORN PROCESSING PLANTS

PROGRAM SUMMARY: As set forth in this Part, ADM shall implement a program to reduce the emissions of VOCs, CO, PM, NOx, and SO² from its corn processing plants nationwide by approximately 59,000 tons per year. ADM shall accomplish the emission reductions through the installation of pollution control technologies and implementation of emission reduction projects in accordance with the compliance schedules set forth in this Consent Decree and in the facility — specific Control Technology Plans ("CTPs"). Where required, ADM shall propose new emission limits as a result of these projects and shall demonstrate compliance with applicable limits at individual units through performance tests, continuous emission or operating parameter monitoring, and recordkeeping. ADM shall submit permit applications to incorporate the new limits into federally — enforceable and all state-required permits for each facility.
A. FACILITY-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

16. The specific requirements applicable to ADM's corn processing plants are contained in the attached CTPs numbers 2 through 8, and Attachment 12. The CTPs include the following:

(a) Identification of all units to be controlled;

(b) Engineering design criteria for the proposed controls;

(c) Applicable emission limits, as specified in this Section IV;
(d) Required procedures for the proposal and setting of new emission limits;
(e) A schedule for installation;
(f) Identification of monitoring parameters and parameter limits;
(g) Identification of all units for which ADM must perform emissions testing along with the schedule for those tests and the applicable test methods; and
(h) Identification of emission units that will have Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems ("CEMS"), and a description of how ADM will monitor compliance using the CEMS.
17. ADM shall meet the unit emission limits or percentage reductions (collectively referred to herein as "emission reduction projects") set forth below in accordance with the attached CTPs. Where the Consent Decree requires "percent reductions," these reductions shall be demonstrated by calculating the difference between the mass of pollutants measured at the control device inlet and outlet unless otherwise specified in a CTP or Attachment 12. Where part per million ("ppm") limits are referenced in this Consent Decree or the CTPs, compliance will be determined using ppm by volume on a dry basis. Where optimization of existing equipment is required under this Consent Decree, initial startup will be defined as completion of the optimization study, for purposes of Paragraph 34 and the applicable CTP.

18. CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA (CTP at Attachment 2)

(a). VOC/CO/PM Emission Reduction Projects

Gluten Feed Dryers 1-5: VOC: 95% control or 10 parts per million ("ppm") CO: 90% control or 100 ppm PM: Emission limit to be set as described in the CTP
Gluten Meal Dryers 1-2: VOC: 95% control or 10 ppm CO: 90% control or 100 ppm PM: Emission limit to be set as described in the CTP
Carbon Furnaces 1-3: VOC: 95% control or 10 ppm CO: 90% control or 100 ppm PM: Emission limit to be set as described in the CTP
(b). VOC Emission Reduction Projects

Ethanol Fermenters: 95% contol or 20 ppm

Non-dedicated Ethanol Loadout: 95% control

(c). SO² Emission Reduction Projects

Fluid Bed Germ Dryer 1: 90% control or 20 ppm

(d). NOx Projects

Cogen Boilers 1-3: Installation of selective non-catalytic reduction ("SNCR") and establishment of emission limit
Cogen Boiler 5: Optimization of SNCR as specified in Iowa Permit #98-A-507P
Package Boilers: Shutdown to achieve a reduction of 55 tons from the package boiler baseline as specified in Attachment 12
19. CLINTON. IOWA (CTP at Attachment 3)

(a). VOC/CO/PM Emission Reduction Projects

Stearns Dryer 1-3: VOC: 95% control or 10 ppm CO: 90% control or 100 ppm PM: Emission limit to be set as described in the CTP
Gluten Intensa Dryers 1, 5 and 6: VOC: 95% control or 10 ppm CO: 90% control or 100 ppm PM: Emission limit to be set as described in the CTP
(b). VOC Emission Reduction Projects
Yeast Propagators: 95% control or 20 ppm
Ethanol Fermenters: 95% control or 20 ppm
Non-dedicated Ethanol Loadout: 95% control
Stillage MR Vents: Installation of control equipment designed to achieve 95% control, with emission limits to be set as described in the CTP.
Millhouse Vent: 95% control or 20 ppm
(c). SO² Emission Reduction Projects
Stream Dryers 1-3: 90% control or 20 ppm
Vetter Dryers 1-5: 90% control or 20 ppm
Gluten Intensa Dryers 1, 5 and 6: 90% control or 20 ppm
Leader Dryers 1-4: 90% control or 20 ppm
Carbon Furnaces 1-3: 90% control or 20 ppm
Stoker boilers nos. 3-5: 1.2 lbs. SO²/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average
Cyclone boilers nos 6-7: Meet the SO² emission limits specified in Paragragh 26
(d). NOx Emission Reduction Projects
Cyclone Boilers 6-7: Emissions reductions projects and establishment of emission limits, as required in the CTP
Boiler 1-2: Installation of low-NOx burners and establishment of emission limits
20. DECATUR, ILLINOIS (CTP at Attachment 4)

(a). VOC/CO/PM Emission Reduction Projects

Gluten Feed/Fiber Dryers 1-7: VOC: 95% control or 10 ppm CO: 90% control or 100 ppm PM: Emission limit to be set as described in the CTP
Gluten Meal Dryers 1-2: VOC: 95% control or 10 ppm CO: 90% control or 100 ppm PM: Emission limit to be set as described in the CTP
Carbon Furnaces 1-3: VOC: 95% control or 10 ppm CO: 90% control or 100 ppm PM: Emission limit to be set as described in the CTP
(b). VOC Emission Reduction Projects Germ Dryers (Fluid Bed 1 & RST 1B; FB2 RST 1A, 1C and 2) and Millhouse Vent: 95% control or 20 ppm Yeast Propagators: 95% control or 20 ppm
Ethanol Fermenters: 95% control or 20 ppm
Non-dedicated Ethanol Loadout: 95% control
Stillage MR vents: Installation of control equipment designed to achieve 95% control, with emission limits to be set as described in the CTP
(c.) SO² Emission Reduction Projects
Gluten Feed/Fiber Dryers 1-7: 90% control or 20 ppm
Gluten Meal Dryers 1-2: 90% control or 20 ppm
Germ Dryers (Fluid Bed 1 & RST 1B; FB2 and RST 1A, 1C and 2) and Millhouse Vent: 90% control or 20 ppm
Carbon Furnaces 1-3: 90% control or 20 ppm
(d.) NOx Emission Reduction Projects
Cogen Boilers 1-6: Installation of SNCR and establishment of emission limit
Cogen Boilers 9: Optimization of SNCR and establisment of emission limit, as specified in Illinois permit # 97050097
Feedhouse Boilers 5, 6, 9 and 10: Permanent shutdown
21. MARSHALL, MINNESOTA (CTP at Attachment 5)

(a.) VOC/CO/PM Emission Reduction Projects

Gluten Flash Dryer: VOC: 95% control or 10 ppm CO: 90% control or 100 ppm
Carbon Furnace 1: VOC: 95% control or 10 ppm CO: 90% control or 100 ppm PM: Emission limits to be set as described in the CTP
(b.) VOC Emission Reduction Projects
Feedhouse and MR Vent: 95% control or 20 ppm
Millhouse Vent: 95% control or 20 ppm
Ethanol Fermenters: 95% control or 20 ppm
Non-dedicated Ethanol Loadout: 95% control
(c). SO² Projects
Coal Boilers 1-2: Emission limit of 1.2.lb/MMBtu
(d). NOx Projects
Coal Boilrs 1-2: Emission limits to be set as described in the CTP
22. COLUMBUS, NEBRASKA (CTP at Attachment 6)

(a.) PM Emission Reduction Projects

Starch Dryers #1: Emission limit to be set as described in the CTP
Silt Emissions from Roads: Submission of permit application addressing control of road silt
(b.) VOC Emission Reduction Projects
Germ Dryers 1-3: 95% control or 20 ppm
Millhouse Vent: 95% control or 20 ppm
Stillage MR Vent: Installation of control equipment designed to achieve 95%, with emission limits to be set as described in the CTP
VB (Distillation) Scrubber Vent: 95% control or 20 ppm
Ethanol Fermenters: 95% control or 20 ppm
Non-dedicated Ethanol Loadout: 95% control
(c). NOx Emission Reduction Projects
Boiler #1: Emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu
(d). ADM shall submit a PSD permit application for the Columbus facility and correct such increment and NAAQS non-compliance as might be indicated in the process, as specified in more detail in the CTP. Such corrections as indicated in the resulting PSD permit may require additional emissions reductions beyond those presently stated in this Consent Decree and CTP. Such additional emission reductions shall be considered an obligation of and enforceable under the Decree. No further reductions shall be imposed for purposes of meeting best available control technology ("BACT") standards beyond those required under the Consent Decree.
23. PEORIA, ILLINOIS (CTP at Attachment 7)

(a). VOC/CO/PM Emission Reduction Projects

Direct-Fired Feed Dryers (RTO bypass stream): VOC: 95% control or 10 ppm CO: 90% control or 100 ppm PM: Emission limits to be set as described in the CTP
(b). VOC Emission Reduction Projects
Yeast Propagators: 95% control or 20 ppm
Ethanol Fermenters: 95% control or 20 ppm
Non-dedicated Ethanol Loadout: 95% control
(c). SO² Emission Reduction Projects
Coal boiler nos. 1-3: Meet the SO² emission limits specified in Paragraph 25
24. WALHALLA. NORTH DAKOTA (CTP at Attachment 8)

(a). VOC/CO/PM Emission Reduction Projects

DDGS dryer: VOC: 95% control or 10 ppm CO: 90% control or 100 ppm PM: Emission limit to be set as described in the CTP
(b). VOC Emission Reduction Projects
Yeast Propagator: 95% control or 20 ppm
Ethanol Fermenters: 95% control or 20 ppm
Non-dedicated Ethanol Loadout: Operational limit of less than 15% by volume non-dedicated truck loadouts per calendar year as specified in the CTP
(c). NOx Emission Reduction Projects DDGS dryer: Installation of a low-NOx burner and establishment of emission limits
25. SO² Emission Reduction Projects for Peoria boiler nos. 1-3: ADM shall reduce emissions of SO² from Peoria Coal Boilers 1, 2 and 3 in order to meet the following requirements:
(a). 12-month limit: ADM's combined SO² emissions from Peoria Coal Boilers 1, 2 and 3 shall not exceed 3,400 tons per rolling 12-month period.
(b). 30-day limit: ADM's combined SO² emissions from Peoria Coal Boilers 1, 2 and 3 shall not exceed 421 tons per rolling 30-day period.
26. SO² Emission Reduction Projects for Clinton Coal Boilers 6 and 7: ADM shall reduce emissions of SO² from Clinton Coal and 7 in order to meet the following requirements:
(a). 12-month limit: ADM's combined SO² emissions from Clinton Coal Boilers 6 and 7 shall not exceed 2,934 tons per rolling 12-month period.
(b). 30-day limit: ADM's combined SO² emissions from these units shall not exceed 338 tons per rolling 30-day period.
(c). ADM shall meet these limits through a combination of emission reduction projects as described in the CTP.
27. ADM's Cedar Rapids and Decatur Cogen Boilers shall comply with the SO² emission limits as set forth in the CTPs for these plants.

B. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

28. VOC Emission Reduction Schedule:

As provided in Paragraphs 16 through 24 above, ADM shall reduce VOC emissions from its corn plants located in Cedar Rapids and Clinton, Iowa, Decatur and Peoria, Illinois, Marshall, Minnesota, Columbus, Nebraska, and Walhalla, North Dakota. These emission reduction projects are estimated to result in VOC emission reductions of 16,800 tons per year (tpy). The schedule for implementing these emission reductions is as follows:

(a). ADM shall achieve a minimum of one-third (i.e., 5,600 tpy) of the estimated VOC emission reductions by December 31, 2005. ADM shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement in its July 30, 2006 semiannual report under this Decree.

(b). ADM shall achieve a minimum of three-fourths (i.e., 12,600 tpy) of the VOC emission reductions from these emissions units by December 31, 2007. ADM shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement in its July 30, 2008 semiannual report under this Decree.

(c). ADM shall achieve 100% of the VOC emission reductions from these emissions units by December 31, 2012. ADM shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement in its July 30, 2013 semi-annual report under this Decree.

(d). On or before December 31, 2007, ADM shall achieve a minimum of 60% of the total targeted VOC emission reductions in each state in which emissions reduction projects are planned. PLUM shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement in its July 30, 2008 semiannual report under this Decree.

(e). PLUM shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this Paragraph by demonstrating that, with respect to the applicable deadline, (1) it has installed and is operating VOC controls, and/or (2) it has met the applicable control requirements under this Decree through enhancement of existing processes and/or controls and/or through permanent shutdowns. Baseline emissions, required control efficiencies and estimated emission reductions from each of the units covered by this Paragraph are defined in Attachment 12.

(f). If any of the projects fails to meet the control requirements of this Decree, compliance with this Paragraph (other than Subparagraph (c)) will be determined by multiplying the demonstrated control efficiency for each completed project by the baseline emissions rate in Attachment 12. If ADM fails to demonstrate compliance it shall be subject to stipulated penalties as of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.