ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 18,
1975
ILLINOIS NATURAL HISTOi~YSURVEY,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 75—316
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTXCTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Duinelle):
The Illinois Natural History Survey
(Petitioner)
filed
a variance petition on ~ugust 14,
1975, seeking relief from
Rule 203(h)
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations.
Petitioner seeks to make an application of a fish toxicant,
antimycin A on Lake Sangchris as part of a field study to
determine whether ce~rtainfishes can be removed without
affecting more desi:~ab1efish populations.
Following this
treatment Petitioner would make an application of rotenone
to complete a “standing crop” survey of fish populations in
the lake.
The Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
Recommendation was fi’ed on September 4,
1975.
No hearing
was held.
Lake Sangchris
is
~.
2,100 acre body of water.
Petitioner
proposes to treat only ~.hreesmall
(3-5 acre) bays without
tributary streams.
The waters of these bays are to be
separated from the reservoir and contained,
by polyethelane
sheeting.
Petitioner states that antimycin A will be applied
at
a concentration of .05 parts per billion, and rotenone
will be applied at
I part per million.
Petitioner also
indicates
that the antimycin A will remain toxic for approximately
1
1/2 days and the rotenone for six hours.
Petitioner
states that following the application, the embayed area will
be detoxified with potassium permanganate and the plastic
barriers may remain
in ~iace for an additional three or four
days as
a safety precaution.
The dead fish will be collected,
sorted,
classified, and then disposed of at a licensed
landfill.
Petitioner states that the treatment is to be
applied by its assistant aquatic biologist,
Dr. John Tranquilli.
Petitioner alleces that Rule 203(h) of Chapter
3 constitutes
an
arbitrary and unreasonable hardship as to Petitioner’s
fisheries research,
as it prohibits the testing of fisheries
manaqement chemicals and because there is no alternative
sampling procedure to determine the standing crop of fish.
18
—
586
—2—
The Agency Recommendation favors the granting of
a
variance.
The Age’icy agrees with Petitioner that given
Petitioner’s resea:ch functions and the lack of an alternative
fish census method,
the denial of a variance would work an
unreasonable hards1~ip.
The Agency indir~atesthat the lake is not used as
a
source of water supply for human or animal consumption.
The
Agency believes that the use of plastic barriers and the
application of potassium permanganate for up to three or
four days should adequately protect the remaining areas of
the lake.
The Agency Recommendation notes that in Lake Patterson
Fishing Club v.
Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 74-341
the Board conditioned the grant of
a similar variance on the
application of the chemicals by an Illinois Department of
Conservation Fishery Biologist, and that Petitioner proposes
that the application be made by its own assistant aquatic
biologist,
Dr. Tranquilli.
The Agency states that as Dr.
Tranquilli has eight years of experience in toxicant application,
and the proposed treat~ienthas been, approved by the Department
of Conservation’s District Fishery Biologist,
it would be
appropriate for the Board to allow Dr. Tranquilli to apply
the toxicant.
The Agency also states that Petitioner has
provided letters aporoving the treatment from Commonwealth
Edison Company and
~he Illinois Department of Conservation.
The Agency believes that these two approvals constitute the
required approval by all the holders
of interest in the
lake.
The Board finds that Petitioner would be subject to an
unreasonable hardship b~’a variance denial,
as no suitable
alternative means exist to obtain the research information
it requires.
In addition the application procedure reflects
sufficient safeguards for the protection of non-subject
portions of the lake and its aquatic populations.
Lastly,
there appears to be no inherent hazard to a public water
system is present.
Therefore;
a variance from Rule 203th)
is granted to the Natural History Survey.
The Board notes in conclusion,
that an amendment to
Rule
203(h)
(R75-7)
has been authorized nor final public
comment.
This amendment. provides, among other things,
an
exemption from Rule 203(h)
for the Illinois Natural History
Survey
in the application of fish toxicants under its research
programs.
Toxicant applications
in waters constituting a
public water supply will require a permit from the Agency.
For other waters the exemption would be automatic.
The Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
18
—
587
—3—
ORDER
The Pollution Control Board hereby grants the Illinois
Natural History Survey a variance from Rule 203(h)
of Chapter
3
during the Fall of 1975 subject to the following conditions:
1.
That the toxicants be applied by Dr.
John Tranquilli,
Assistant Aquatic Bioiogist of the Illinois Natural History
Survey, such applicati~cnto be made with all proper safety
precautions taken by applicator;
2.
That the Petitioner use polyethelane sheeting
to
retain the water
in the bays while the chemicals remain
toxic;
3.
That.
the embayed areas will be detoxified with
potassium permanganat.e upon completion of the study;
4.
That signs be posted surrounding the treated areas
warning against primary and secondary contact use of the
affected area during and after the application of the chemicals,
and such signs
shal1. remain posted until fingerling bluegills
survive
48 hours ex?osure in livecars.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
hereby certify the above Opinion, and Order were
adopted on the /f~day of September,
1975 by
a vote of
~,3—o
18
—
588