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.

—

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

—

588