ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July
7,
1977
In the Matter of
Amendment to Rule 203(h)
)
R75-7
Water Pollution Regulations
)
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by Dr.
Satchell):
This opinion is in support of the Board Order in the
above matter, passed on May 12,
1977.
BACKGROUND
AND
CHRONOLOGY
The
ori~gina1Rule 203(h) of Chapter 3 provided that:
“Any substance toxic to aquatic life shall not
exceed one—tenth of the 48—hour median tolerance
limit
(48-hr.
TLm)
for native fish or essential
fish food organisms.”
Since the adoption of this Rule, the Board had received
requests for variances primarily to-permit application of
fish toxicants to aid in the achievement of “balanced” fish
populations in lakes.
The Board raised the question whether
certain toxicants could be applied without the cost, time and
energy expenditure of the variance procedure pursuant to
Section 37 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act) ~
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
Ch.
111 1/2,
§1037
(1976).
On September 19,
1974 the Board requested the Illinois
Institute for Environmental Quality
(Institute)
to undertake
a study to determine the state of the art of fish toxicants.
The Institute contracted with the Aquatic Biology Staff of
the Illinois Natural History Survey to perform the study.
On
May
7,
1975 the Board
received
the report entitled,
“An Evaluation of Fish Toxicants,” IIEQ Document No.
75-13.
This apparently was
a preliminary report to the more formal
printed version subrrtitted to the Board on July
11, 1975 and
entitled,
“Chemicals Used to Control -Fish and Aquatic P1-ants
in Illinois”
(Ex.
1).
As noted in the above title, this
report also included information on aquatic herbicides and
also carried the designation of “IIEQ Doc. No.
75—13.”
A proposed amendment to Rule 203(h)
and supporting state-
ment of need was published June 2, 1975 in the Board’s
Environmental Register No.
103.
This amendment would have
permitted two fish toxicants,
antimycin and rotenone,
to
be applied to waters of the State under permit conditions
established by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) without prior grant of a variance from Rule 203(h).
—2—
Hearings were held on the proposed amendment on July
16
(Springfield) and July 22, 1975
(Urbana).
Evidence was
received on piscicides
(fish toxicants)
and on aquatic
herbicides
(materials used to kill aquatic plants).
Some
aquatic herbicides may adversely affect water quality,
fish
and fish food organisms.
Based on the aforementioned studies and evidence adduced
at the hearings,
Dr. Russell Odell prepared a proposed final
draft opinion and final draft language for Rule 203(h)
which
was adopted for public comment by the Board on August 28,
1975.
The proposed final draft language of Rule 203(h) was
published for public comment in the Environmental Register
No.
109, dat~edSeptember 5,
1975.
The major changes in the proposed final draft were:
(1)
the inclusion of aquatic herbicides;
(2)
substituting
“USEPA registered” for named piscicides and aquatic herbi-
cides; and
(3) deleting the mandatory Agency permit require-
ment for applications to waters not used for food processing
or public water supplies, when made by or under the super-
vision of the Department of Conservation or the Illinois
Natural History Survey.
During the public comment period,
P.A.
79-790 became
effective
(October 1, 1975).
This amendment to the Act
mandated that the Institute prepare an economic impact
study and that the Board conduct public hearings on the
study.
The Institute contracted for the aforementioned study
with Drs. Sofia and Robert yogi, Environmental Consultant
and Assistant Professor respectively, of the Loredo Taft
Field Campus, Northern Illinois University
Their report
entitled,
“Economic Impact of Fish Toxicant Regulations,”
IIEQ Doc. No.
76/16 was submitted to the Board on August
5,
1976.
A substantive hearing was held on September 23,
1976
in Springfield on aquatic herbicides and this was followed
on the same day by a hearing on economic impact.
The second
economic impact hearing was held in Carbondale on October 19,
1976.
Pursuant to Section 13(a) (6)
of the Act, the amendment
of 203(h)
(as published in the Environmental R~g~ster
No.
109
on September 5,
1975) was submitted on November 1,
1976 to
the “Interagency Committee on the Use of Pesticides”
for
approval.
—3—
On February 22,
1977 the Interagency Committee
submitted
a proposed final draft amendment to
Rule
203(h)
with the recommendation for Board adoption.
On
March
3,
1977
the Board authorized the publication of
this draft for
public comments.
It is this draft, with minor
editorial
changes,
that
is proposed for adoption.
REASONS FOR SUGGIiSTED CHANGES
The initial approach to changes
in Rule
203(h)
is well
demonstrated
by the Board’s Septeirder
19, 1974
letter
to
the
Institute,
requesting
a study which sought
information on
fish
toxicants
which had the desirable characteristics
of
(a)
efficiency after short exposure to
toxicant;
(b) minimal
hazard to
personnel applying formulation;
(c)
treated waters
non-hazardous to man, livestock, and wildlife;
(d)
rapid
degradation to permit early restocking;
(e) killed fish non-
toxic
to man and wildlife;
Ct) efficiency
in cold, warm,
soft,
hard,
acid, alkaline, clear, and turbid waters;
(g) sur-
vival of plankton, algae,
insects, bottom fauna, and aquatic
plants;
(h)
sterilization of fish eggs
(i)
rapid detoxication
by chemicals;
(j)
non-repellency of
fish;
(k) irreversible
action;
(1)
no odor or taste
to water or affected fish; and
(m)
easy application with available equipment.
The resulting study, IIEQ Doc. No.
75-13
(Ex.
1),
contains a wealth of information on the two piscicides,
rotenone and antimycin,
and also information on aquatic
herbicides and algicides which were currently registered
by U.S. EPA or had been granted an experimental
label,
or for which registration may be in the process
(Ex.
1,
p.
27).
Even
a casual reading of the above and the list of
U.S. EPA registered
(1974) aquatic herbicides and algicides
(Ex.
12)
is sufficient to recognize that the numerous com-
pounds, offered
in a number of formulations
for
a large
variety of
tirqet
species, precludes accumulatinq
the detailed
information originally sought by the Board
for fish toxicants.
The Illinois Department of Conservation
(hereinafter,
Conservation)
is mandated by law to manage fish
and
wildlife
(Ex.
14)
It
is stated
Ill.
Rev.
Stat,
Ch.
127,
§63(a)(l)
that
“The Department of Conservation
is tO take
all
measures necessary
for the conservation, preservation, distribution, introduction,
propagation, and restoration of fish, mussels, frogs,
turtles,
game, wild animals, wild fowl and birds~ (R.
196).
Chapter
56
Section 1.2 states the Fish Code is to be administered
by
Conservation
(R,
197)
and Section 1.7 states
in pertinent part
—4—
•
.
.
The Department may remove and dispose of all undesirable
aquatic life from any waters under the jurisdiction of this State
to maintain the biological balance of such life as the Depart-
ment deems proper”
(R.
198).
Emphasis
supplied.
At the first hearing Mr. Rudy Stinauer, an area fishery
biologist with Conservation, read Conservation Director Anthony
Dean’s statement
(Ex.
3)
opposing the rule change into the
record:
“Illinois has 76,200 recreational ponds and lakes totaling
180,000 water acres.
In addition, there are 133 potable water
supplies consisting of 94,000 water acres.
The Illinois Depart-
ment of Con~ervation,Division of Fisheries,
is charged with
providing more and better sport fishing opportunities on recrea-
tional bodies of water.
In order to do so,
it is necessary to
use approved chemicals,
such as rotenone and antimycin, as a
management tool to control fish populations.
Because we are
managing living organisms, the Division of Fisheries must work
according to a biological clock and perform necessary work as
soon as possible.
To spend an interim period of time waiting
to receive a variance could cause the problem to become so
severe that it would take extra man hours, treatments and money
to correct it.
In some cases, the waiting time could allow
the problem to become so severe that it could not be completely
corrected.
“The Department believes that the proposed amendment to
Rule 203(h), Chapter
3 of the Water Pollution Control Regula-
tions
is unnecessary because rotenone and antimycin, used as a
fisheries management tool, presently are controlled by the
Department.
A fisheries biologist recommends use of these toxi—
cants only if they are necessary and will enhance sport fishing.
Both toxicants have been used in Department-owned waters, waters
owned by other governmental entities and private waters.
Appli-
cation of the toxicants is always supervised and/or administered
by a Department Fisheries biologist who is also licensed by the
Illinois Department of Agriculture as a Pesticide Applicator.
“The Department regulates application of these toxicants
by following the conditions outlined below.
We feel that the
following conditions express the Department’s full realization
of the harm indiscriminate or careless use can do:
1)
The impoundment owner must possess
a permit issued
by the Department of Conservation before he can
purchase or use the toxicant.
2)
These permits specify the piscicide to be used,
quantity, concentration
(p.p.m.), name of receiving
water, and expiration date of the permit.
—5—
3)
Permits are issued only if the inspecting biologist
determines
a need for fish population control.
4)
A
record
of
all
permits
issued
is
kept by the
Department of Conservation.
5)
All
reasonable
precautions
are
taken to assure no
piscicide
escape
into
other
waters.
For example,
the lake is
drained
down,
or
the
spillway
is
sand
bagged
to
insure
that
the
fish
toxicants
do
not
go
over
the
spiliway
of
recreational
lakes
until
they
are
no
longer
toxic
to
fish.
6)
All~toxicantsused are biodegradable.
7)
Fish
killed
are
removed
as
determined
desirable
by
the
fisheries
biologist.
Normal
procedures
result
in
the
removal
of
larger
fish.
Smaller
fish
are
left
as
a
means
of
fertilization
provided
there
is
no
foreseeable
health,
safety
or
personal
welfare problem.
8)
Potassium
permanganate
is
available
for use as a
detoxicant
if
it
is
needed.
9)
A
report
of
the
fish
kill
is
completed
by
the
biologist
administering
the
toxicant,
and
copies
of
the
report
are
kept
on
file
at
the
Department.
Past
experience
with
the
above
procedures,
involving
on—site
issuance of permits at the
time
of
the
inspection
verifying
the need, has shown that the Department’s
policy
is
sound
and
workable.
“It is the Department’s belief that the introduction of a
second permit/variance requirement stating mandatory require-
ments duplicates the procedure already used by the Department.
It will also delay necessary application of these toxicants,
and in turn will hinder the usefulness of this management tool.
Additional negative aspects of the proposed amendment include
additional paperwork and time on the part of the impoundment
owner to meet the conditions of the permit; posting notices
around the area; removing all fish killed; determining fish
survival for 48 hours
in live cans before normal activities
and uses can be resumed; and reporting results of the fish
kill.
To require impoundment owners to meet the conditions
of the proposed amendment would discourage him from attempting
to provide better fishing; thus;
fish populations would
grow
to a point where the resource would be less than desirable and
continue to deteriorate.
—6—
“I reiterate that the Department employs professionally
trained fish biologists who determine if toxicants need to
be applied, issue permits for application, administer the
toxicants under conditions whereby negative impacts are
avoided, remove fish in a manner that no harm will come to
public health or safety,
and collect data to prepare the
fish kill report which is kept on file at the Department.
“To adopt the proposed amendment will duplicate
a
similar procedure already enforced by the Department of
Conservation, discourage impoundment owners from seeking
assistance in developing or maintaining a good sport fishery
resource, and create an additional waiting period which could
cause severe deterioration of Illinois1
fishery resources.
Therefore, the Department of Conservation opposes adoption
of the proposed amendment to Rule 203 (h), Chapter 3 of the Water
Control Regulations, and recommends that the permit and appli-
cation procedures presently being used by the Department of
Conservation be adopted by the Pollution Control Board to con-
trol the use of fish toxicants in Illinois in lieu of the EPA
variance procedure and the proposed amendment.”-
Mr. Stinauer further testified that Conservation had
issued permits since 1959 and that during the past nine years
(prior to
1975)
1,325 fish toxicant permits had been issued
and that from 1963 through 1972, inclusive, 25,418 acres of
water had been treated.
Mr. James B. Park,
a registered professional engineer
and
supervisor of the Standards Unit of the Division of
Water Pollution Control, testified that the Agency agreed
that a permit program was desirable.
“.
.
.
the present
variance procedure creates cumbersome paper work problems
for all involved and may delay application of toxicant
beyond the ideal season for its use”
(R. 56).
He further
testified that the Agency had reviewed Conservation’s permit
program and found
“.
.
.
it incorporates the safeguards
for
the aquatic systems expressed in R75-7
.
.
.“
(R.
56)
and he
proposed the alternate wording to proposed Rule 203(h)
“.
except for applications of U.S. EPA approved piscicides by or
under the supervision of the Department of Conservation, State
of Illinois, pursuant to Chapter 56, Ill. Revised Statutes,
Section 1.1 et seq.,
as amended; provided, however, that no
piscicide shall be applied to any public and food processing
water supply,
as defined in Rule 104 of this Chapter, without
prior notice to the Division of Public Water Supply of the
Agency”
(R.
57).
Dr.
Odell
~Ucb~
~
iad
‘r
Park ~eg~ud
~
for water quality u det
~c
a
ised la’ju
c
Park responded.
in p it n n
~a
t,
Environmental DrotcaL o
A
a
~
had
c
determining the applicat on
a~e1s,p~ea~u~i
persistence of the pL.rt. cular
chemic
Agency~s only concern in thft respect
r n
are absolutely
assurec
t
..
the ope~et~1 f
supply
is intimately a~ara
f the activft
taken and is prepared for the possib l~y of
during the applicatror.
We have never
a
60)
ft
teak
aCCid
ft
CR
~9
Mr.
Stitiauer tes~ifia that undcr a duci
ci
H.
•
•
there would be seas people that just
r
-~
to go through all thi.~procedure and would
let
population continue to deteriorate
~R
80\
w
ft
se
f is
~
than
frai
ifiad later
racils
froir
situ
i
Cc1~ser ~a
‘It. McGinty
Mr. W.
S.
(Bill)
ftc neman,
nu
P
appeared
“.
.
•
as
a laxfaying c~Lft
and citi
a
I
major taxpaying corpor-tion
H
rotcs
a
cr3~
as
it
“.
.
•
will only cdl
rr?di~
ad t~
costly employees
to the Fit. sta
I
He ~r
~
change,
“203(h)
aquatic tox~ants,
ft
to
c
iL
undesirable flora or fauna,
and
wisict. a~c ut
are
excluded from regulatic
5”
CR.
68)
J
t
i
nan~
J a
ii
C
I
C
as
I
a
ii
-
-
ii.
Ind~ar
i
cinrq
b
L we
id not
I
a
I
i
Mr. David J. McGin:y
a fisheiths eisA
ft
Forest Preserve District of Cook County
de crjthci
operations and use of pesticides emphas~tig
t
blems with the van
ilutory condft
a
at that time.
His aap~ierce stressec
‘Ic nec
approved for aquatic
ss
He related
in eype~u
using rotenone to do a total river kiLl br res
when we went to stop it we stopped the rote-iore
stop the carrier
.
after
a numlmr ol w~ta~-
i.
number
of tesLs we found out
it was
he
Cd~”j
toxic”
(R.
181,
182)
It was also brought o t
that he did not obtain a ftnservation
perrCi
piscicides and he belieied
hat anyone could p
private distributors
(R
176).
This pirt se- a
in
that Mr. McGinty stated that he ordered
AU
a New York based company and he knew of no p
who can do this
(R.
220)
Mr. Richard A
Penn ~
tion District fishery biologist,
pointod out Lh~’
held
a Scientific Col1ector~sPermit and
it would
e illegal
for a private citizen
to use drugs or chemicals
a ta-ic fisi
CR.
207).
He also stated the main supplier in ce~~tralI
ir~o~’-
would not even sell to a fishery biologist from thstern him
is
University without a permit.
—8—
Mr. Rogers detailed the procedures, precautions and
forms used in applications of aquatic herbicides.
In addi-
tion to the label information which gives directions for
proper use and precautions
(R.
234), publications
are
available from Conservation:
“Aquatic
Plants of Illinois”
(Ex.
16);
“Aquatic Weeds-—their identification and methoas
of control”
(Ex. 17).
The
latter booklet
is
available from
County Extension Offices,
SCS offices and from all district
fishery biologists
(R.
229),
All
fishery biologists who
are recommending or applying aquatic herbicides are regis-
tered with the Department
of Agriculture
with a Public
Pesticide Applicator’s License
in aquatic
weed control
(R.
233).
There
is
no
permit
required to
purchase
herbicides as there is for piscicides
(R.
235)
Mr.
Roger D. Callaway,
an environmental specialist
in the Agency’s Variance and Technical Analysis Section,
testified that, if the Board were to require the Agency to
provide a permit program, the Agency recommends that man-
datory permit conditions be incorporated into a technical
policy rather than into the proposed
rule
change
(R.
236-240).
Dr.
R.
W. Larimore,
Illinois
Natural History Survey
aquatic biologist,
testified
to
clear up some confusion
regarding the time for test procedures
to determine the
applicability of Rule 203(h).
A report entitled “Duration
of Tests to Determine Effects of Toxicants on Aquatic
Organisms” prepared by Dr. Richard E.
Sparks of the Illinois
Natural History Survey dated July 18,
1975 was entered as
Exhibit No.
8.
Dr. Larimore pointed out that the two day
(48-hr.
TLm)
or four day (96—hr.
TLm)
test period was used
not for fish toxicants but for more-or-less chronic effects
and therefore the 96-hr. TLm would be better to protect the
total aquatic environment.
Also as pointed out by Drs.
Larimore and Sparks the 96-hour TLm has become almost a
standard procedure
(R.
270,
Ex.
8).
In general, TLms of
24 hours
or less indicate short term effects; a median
tolerance limit of more than 48 hours indicates long term
effects.
Bioassay of toxicities of unknown substances would
normally be run so that plots of mortality vs. time intervals
would yield a mortality curve of definite shape so that criti-
cal time periods and possible end points could be ascertained.
Advantages of the 96-hr. TLm over the 48-hr. TLm were also
suggested by the U.S. EPA Region V Administrator in a June 6,
1974 letter to the Governor approving Chapter 3 Regulations with
amendments through June 28,
1973.
—9—
Public comment was received following publication of
Dr. Odell’s proposed final draft on September 5, 1975.
Dr.
Briceland’s letter
(September 19,
1975)
restated the Agency’s
position that a permit system by the Agency for application
of fish toxicants and aquatic herbicides even to public and
food processing water supplies was unnecessary.
He stated
the Department of Conservation had administered their fish
toxicant program for over fifteen years with no recorded
instances of significant adverse impact, and adequate notice
to the Agency of application to such waters would be suffi-
cient.
He also expressed concern about chronic toxicity and
sub—lethal effects of the full range of aquatic herbicides.
Director of Conservation Anthony T. Dean expressed depart-
mental agre~mentwith the amendment.
Mr.
W.
S. Brenneman,
Land Use and Conservation Supervisor, Illinois Power Company,
stated a hearing should be held on aquatic herbicides.
He
felt that the promulgated regulation was unnecessary because:
(1)
applicators must be licensed by the State;
(2)
all pesti-
cides must be approved by the Federal EPA;
(3)
the fish
toxicants are essentially harmless except to target fish and
(4) aquatic herbicides, properly applied, are harmless to
people or aquatic fauna.
He felt,
as previously promulgated,
the regulation would prevent timely applications, stating,
“The need for applying a herbicide may become apparent over-
night.”
A 45-day wait for a permit might render an appli-
cation too late and valueless.
In a letter dated March
9 1976, Director Anthony
T. Dean
urged prompt approval of the amendment stating,
“.
.
.
the
present required variance procedure is very time consuming.
and prevents the application of toxicants in a short time
frame.
In addition, it has severely curtailed rehabilitation
of fishing waters
and,
as such, has adversely affected our
fisheries management program.”
In a letter dated September 27,
1976, Mr. Robert Himel, President, Midas Midwest Inc. espoused
the use of “controlled release” aquatic herbicides and other
pesticides.
He enclosed a favorable clipping from Chemical
&
Engineering News
(September 28, 1975).
Some of these formu-
lations were reported to be especially effective in aquatic
environments allowing application at much reduced rates and
achieving control over relatively long periods of time.
The
limited availability of U.S. EPA approved slow release formu-
lations
to Illinois applicators may restrict recommendations
for their use.
On September 23,
1976 the third hearing was held in
Springfield, Illinois to gather further evidence on aquatic
herbicides particularly on their toxicity to non-target
organisms.
Dr. Hiltibran,
Biochemist, Section of Aquatic Biology,
Natural History Survey, explained some broad differences
between terrestrial and
aquatic herbicides
(and
algicides).
Generally aquatic
pesticides— are applied
to the water so
that
target and non-target
species are equally
exposed in
contrast to
terrestrial agents which can
be selectively
applied directly to
target species
(3R.
12)*,
Aquatic
herbi-
cides to be
effective must
be much more
toxic to target species
than to other
aquatic
organisms.
Dr. Hiltibran
stated,
“At
the present
time, many
studies
in which
effects have been
found usually require
much higher rates than
those suggested
for aquatic
plant control.
“.
.
in our i~westigationof
the biochemical
effects of pollutants we have investigated many
aquatic herbicides,
and if
we found any
effect,
it was at a rate
higher than
the rates suggested
for aquatic
plant control”
(3R. 13).
“Active” uptake concentrates
applied
agents within an
organism
while “passive” uptake
indicates
equal concentrations
internal to and
external to an organism.
All the aquatic
herbi-
cides currently
registered
by the U.S. EPA
are in the “passive”
category at least by fish
(3R.
15,
16),
Residue data in
Document 75-13
(Ex.
1,
9)
support
this
conclusion,
Dr. Hiltibran
felt there was a lack
of understanding
during the previous hearings
of
the processes by which a com-
pany obtained U.S. EPA
registration of an
aquatic herbicide.
He had been
working with “several
different
chemical companies”
and outlined
the generally submitted data:
(1)
two year feeding
studies on two laboratory animals, usually the dog and rat;
(2)
the efficacy data;
(3)
disappearance
of residue data;
(4)
fish toxicity data;
(5)
non—target
organisms toxicity data
and
(6) data concerning the
degradative
products
(3R.
21,
22).
For many years
these data appeared to
be
adequate.
The publi-
cation of Silent Spr~, the
“DDT”
story, the 2,4-D and
2,4,5-T defoliants
in Vietnam,
and accumulated scientific data
indicated additional
investigations were
necessary prior to
the use of pesticides.
The detailed
information can be found
in Federal Register, Volume
40,
“Guidelines of Pesticide
Registration.”
“Phus, before
the
registration of a pesticide
is granted
at the present time,
the
possible accumulation of
the parent
compound and its degradative products within the
aquatic
and terrestrial environment, their possible mutagenic
and
tetragenic effects; their toxicity and effects on non--
target plants and
animals
are estimated.
These data are in
addition to the
data
cited above.”
*
Because
of error this hearing was not numbered consecutively’
therefore, the
“3”
is used to differentiate from the same
page number appearing in the first hearing.
—11—
“Thus,
there is
a large body of data available concerning
a chemical agent, which has been evaluated by scientists from
several disciplines prior to
the registration and prior to
the time investigators are pelatitted to evaluate the chemical
agent under field conditions”
(3R.
24,
25).
Based on his own work and published data concerning a
frequently suggested criticism that herbicide use increases
water nutrient content, Dr. Hiltibran concluded that aquatic
herbicides only alter the timing of the natural nutrient re-
cycling process.
The nutrients thus made available enhance
growth of other aquatic fauna including fish.
In addition
to a
number
of other benefits of aquatic herbicide use cited,
Dr. Hiltibrafl pointed out the quiet water surface provided
by aquatic plants makes an excellent mosquito breeding place
with its attendant human health aspect
(3R.
25-28).
In the hearing it was brought out that only licensed
applicators will be able to
procure restricted pesticides
subsequent to October 1, 1977
(3R.
33—35).
Fortunately,
the licensing process has been used in Illinois for many
years, but had not, previous to 1977, been mandated to
individual owners making applications for their own operations.
They could, of course, have attended the Custom Spray
Operators Training School and taken the qualifying tests, but
they were not previously required to have any formal training
to purchase and apply pesticides.
Up to this point, two groups within the “pesticide” area;
namely, piscicides and aquatic herbicides
(including algicides)
had been discussed.
Dr. Hiltibran was asked if other pesti-
cides might be needed such as molluscicides.
He
responded,
“Oh, yeah.
In fact there has been a need for molluscicide in
the control of snail and swimmer’s itch.”
“,
.
.
in fact
——
I keep bumping into this.
People keep calling me for informa-
tion
.
.
.“.
“And particularly in
--
along the northern tier
of counties
.
.
because they have a problem there”
(3R.
36,
37)
The aforementioned economic impact report
(IIEQ Doc. No.
76/16)
prepared by Drs. Sonia and Robert Vogi and sent to the
Board on August
5,
1976 was the subject of two hearings:
(1)
in
Springfield, Illinois on September 23,
1976 and
(2)
in Carbon—
dale,
Illinois on October 19,
1976.
Dr.
Sonia Vogl testified
at both hearings.
As was brought out in the hearings, many costs were
difficult to quantify;
it was equally difficult to identify
and quantify the benefits.
Only fifteen petitions for variance
—12—
for fish kills were received by the Board during 1974 and
1975 and only one case went to hearing
(ER,*
5).
This case,
City of Jacksonville, PCB 74-92,
13 PCB 631
(September 19,
1974), was determined to cost $2,385.88:
The applicant’s
cost was determined to be about $1500; the Board’s cost for
a hearing officer and notice fees totaled $143.11; Agency
-
expenses totaled $943.50; Conservation expenses were $655.38
(ER
6,
7,
8).
If a variance did not go to hearing,
the estimated cost
was $995.50 plus unidentified expenses to the Board.
When
applying toxicants to public water supples
(Agency permit
required)
under the proposed rule change, costs would be:
$115 for the 4applicant and to the Agency $123.
Dr. Vogl
stated this total ($238) would be
the
cost under the proposal;
however,
this ignores the cost to Conservation
(which would
be less than determined in the above case),
Dr. yogi’s
benefit/cost comparisons used this figure which is in error.
In spite of the difficulty in assigning costs, it must be con-
cluded there are no adverse cost implications.
During 1974 and 1975 a total of 281 permits to purchase
fish toxicants
(ER.
51)
and 79 permits to apply aquatic herbi-
cides
(ER.
52) were issued by Conservation.
The Board
received 15 petitions fOr variance for toxicants and
19 peti-
tions for herbicides during this period.
The principal impact of the rule change will be felt by
the owners of the 75,565 private lakes and the 623 publicly
owned waters.
Indirect benefits can be described but not
quantified.
Section 13(a) (6)
of the Act states that any regula-
tions relating to pesticides shall be adopted only in
accordance with “An Act to create an interagency committee
on pesticides to study and to advise in the use of pesticides
The proposed rule change was submitted to the Committee
on November 1, 1976 and the members submitted a proposed final
draft on February 22,
1977; the Board authorized the publica-
tion of this draft for public comment on March
3, 1977.
It
was published in the Environmental Register, No.
144, March 21,
1977.
Support for the proposed changes was submitted by experts
from the groups making up the Committee:
Harvey
J. Dominick,
*
Designation for Economic Impact Record.
—13—
Illinois Department of Public Health; Vincent M.
Russo,
Illinois Department of Agriculture, Dr. Stevenson Moore III,
University of Illinois,
and Thixton B. Miller,
Illinois
Department of Conservation.
~r, Hiltibran, Natural History
Survey, had testified previousiy and the Agency was
represented at all the hearings,
The statements made by these experts were all in agree-
ment with Dr. Hiltibran’s testimony with regard to the reliance
that could be placed on U.S. EPA label information for regis-
tered pesticides.
Dr. Moore stated in this regard:
“They are the ~
agency that has sufficient information
to make this’ judgment.
Standards that must be met for regis-
tering a pesticide are set by law,
Usually there is 100—fold
safety margin built into all pesticide usage registrations.
In contrast, drugs or medicines
work on
about a 10—fold
safety margin.”
The addition of “insecticides
and
other pesticides” Was
primarily added to allow control of mosquitoes,
gnats and
other aquatic flies.
Each expert mentioned the necessity for
Public Health and other agencies having responsibility for
control of biological agents to
be
able to move quickly, as
these vectors give very little lead time under optimum growth
conditions.
Dr. Moore stated,
“.
.
.
in Illinois.
Currently
about 9,000 commercial applicators and about 23,000 private
applicators have been trained.”
Public comment after the last publication ~oncerned the
insertion of the word “public” with “water supplies” and a
comment on the meaning of the word “pesticide”.
The word
“pesticide”
as herein used means any substance or mixture of
substance intended for preventing, destroying, repelling,
or
mitigating any insects, rodents, nematodes,
fungi, or weeds
or any other form of life declared to be pests.
Thus, all
more specific terms such as insecticide, herbicide,
algicide,
molluscicide, fungicide,
rodenticide, etc.
including plant
regulators, defoliants or desiccants are known generally as
“pesticides”.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board
hereby certfy the above Opinion was adopted
on the
day of
,
1977 by a vote of
~‘/.p
Ch~1stanL. Moffett, Clerk
~
Illinois Pollution Control Board
