ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June
    12,
    1980
    ARM1~K
    COMP1\NY,
    )
    Pet:ltlt)nc’r,
    v.
    )
    PCB 79—153
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE
    BOARD
    (by D. Satchell):
    On April 29,
    1980 Armak Company
    (Armak)
    filed a petition
    to vacate the Board’s Opinion and Order of March 20,
    1980 which
    affirmed the conditions of NPDES Permit IL 0026069
    as written.
    The Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) has filed no re-
    sponse.
    The Board acknowledges the testimony of Mr. Bols to the
    effect that the ditch only drains Armak’s property
    (R.38). How-
    ever,
    Armak’s exhibits show that the ditch proceeds beyond its
    property line.
    The Board acknowledges
    that the pooling on April
    14, 1979 may have resulted from Armak’s discharge
    (Pet.
    Ex.
    10)
    However, even if the pools resulted only from Armak’s discharge,
    their presence demonstrates that natural runoff through the ditch
    would likewise pool.
    Rule 104 of Chapter
    3: Water Pollution de-
    fines “aquatic life”
    as “native populations of fish and other
    aquatic life.” The definition clearly includes more than fish.
    It was incumbent upon Armak to demonstrate through expert testimony,
    or otherwise,
    that the ditch was not capable of supporting aquatic
    life.
    Armak has requested clarification of the effect of Rule
    401(a)
    of
    Chapter
    3.
    The
    Board
    agrees
    that
    classification
    as
    an
    “industrial
    ditch”
    would
    mean
    that
    Armak would not have to maintain
    the
    water
    quality
    standards
    in
    it.
    However,
    the
    Agency
    may
    still
    have
    authority
    under
    Rule
    401(a)
    to
    designate
    the
    tile
    as
    the
    point
    of
    discharge
    for
    purpose
    of
    applying
    the
    effluent standards
    since
    it
    is
    arguably
    a
    “point immediately following the final
    treatment process and before mixture with other waters.” Armak
    does
    not
    contend
    that
    the
    ditch
    is
    a
    part
    of
    the
    treatment
    pro-
    cess.
    Furthermore,
    the
    concentrations
    entering
    Aux
    Sable
    Creek
    should
    be
    recomputed
    to
    correct
    for
    any
    dilution
    by
    other
    drainage
    entering
    the
    ditch. The petition is
    denied.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    Mr. Goodman dissented.
    —2—
    I, Christan
    L. Noffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control
    Board,
    hereby
    certify
    that
    the
    above
    Order
    was
    adopted
    on
    the
    day
    of
    ,
    1980
    by
    a
    vote
    of
    I/.—/
    ChristanL.
    Nof’~~~~’erk
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board

    Back to top