ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 10, 1974

INDIAN

SPRINGS FARM, INC.

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 74—254

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Odell)

On July 8, 1974, Indian Springs Farm, Inc. (Indian Springs)

filed a Petition for Variance with the Pollution Control Board

(Board). Petitioner sought relief from Rule 203(h) of the

Illinois Water Pollution Regulations (Chapter Three). It wanted

to administer 165 gallons of the fish toxicant, trade named

Syn-Pren-Fish, to Windfall Lake and three artificial ponds owned

near Danville, Illinois. Syn-Pren-Fish consists of 2 1/2

emulsifiable rotenone and 2 1/2 sulfoxide. Rule 203(h) states:

“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.” Petitioner hopes to eliminate

large populations of carp and gizzard shad and restock the waters

with game fish for recreational fishing.

On July 11, 1974, the Board held that the Petition for

Variance contained insufficient information to enable a determination

to be made on the request. Specifically, the Petitioner did not

reveal whether the lake and three ponds are used or are connected

to a public water supply. In addition, the amounts of rotenone and

sulfoxide expected to flow into Windfall Creek were not given; the

effect of these levels on aquatic life or drinking water was not

indicated.

On July 31, 1974, Indian Springs filed its Amended Petition

for Variance. Petitioner stated that the waters are not used as

a public water supply and that treatment would be undertaken when

no overflow to lower bodies of water would occur. Treatment will

be administered by a fish and game biologist from the Illinois

Department of Conservation. Petitioner concluded by stating that

time was of the essence so that the treatment could be performed

during the existing no—overflow period.

Almost two months later, on September 20, 1974, the Environ-

mental Protection Agency (Agency) filed its Recommendation with

the Board. The Agency recommended in pertinent part that the

Petition for Variance be denied or, in the alternative, be dismissed

until:

14

135

---

—2—

(b) Petitioner agrees to close Windfall Lake, the

ponds and surrounding land area to all primary

and secondary contact uses, including but Snot

limited to swizmning, boating, fishing and camping

during the period in which disposal of the dead

fish is occurring And Petitioner adequately

posts its property to notify the public that

its facilities are not available for use during

the above prescribed periods;

“(c) Petitioner presents a method for disposal of the

dead fish in a manner acceptable” to the Board.

“(d) Petitioner provides information as to the title

holder of record of the northern most tip of

Windfall Lake consisting of four point five (4.5)

acres, and proves by affidavit or otherwise that

Petitioner is authorized to treat the entire area

of Lake Windfall consisting of thirty (30.0)

acres with the fish toxicant, Syn-Pren-Fish.”

It is within the Board’s power to grant variances when to do

so will not imperil the public health or welfare. While we do not

approve of the dilatory manner in which the Agency processed

Indian Springs’ Amended Petition for Variance, the questions raised

by the Agency need to be answered. Prompt action by the Board and

Petitioner still permits resolution of these issues before winter

weather arrives.

Petitioner is asked to promptly waive for 30 additional days

the 90-day requirement for final action in variance petitions

specified under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act.

Failure to file the waiver by October 22 will make the Petition

subject to dismissal for inadequacy.

ORDER

The Petitioner is directed to reply to the Board within

21 days from the adoption of this Order on the Agency’s inquiries

(b) through (d), as stated earlier in this Opinion. In addition,

the Petitioner shall provide to the Board sufficient information

to enable us to determine whether the concentration of Syn—Pren—Fish

in Windfall Lake and the three ponds will be excessive. Evidence

submitted might include an affidavIt from the biologist who will

administer the toxicant. Calculation of

the total volume of the

water

in Lake Windfall and the three ponds must be included.

IT IS SO

ORDERED.

I,, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify h t the above Opinion and Order was adopted

on the

j

~“

day of

,

1974, by a vote of

to~

~h~anL.~f~

14—

136