ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

September 29,

1975

IN THE MATTER OF

)

PROPOSED OXIDANT EPISODE

)

R75—4

REGULATION

ANENLIMENTS

)

INTERIM

OPINION

OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Goodman):

On

August

14,

1975,

the

proposed

oxidant

episode

regula-

tion

amendments

were

remanded

by

the

Board

to the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

for further study

with respect to testimony and comment from the hearings held

and any subsequeit information received by the Agency.

In

addition,

the Ag~iicywas ordered to resubmit the amendments

by November 15,

1975.

It is the intention of the Board in this Opinion to

elaborate on the rea3ons for the Order remanding the pro-

posed amendments

a-id to comment upon the response of the

various persons affected as shown by testimony and exhibits

presented and public comments submitted pursuant to the

hearings held in this matter.

The purpose fo2 remanding the proposed amendments

revolves around three conclusions determined by the Board:

1)

It appears

tJ-~atthe proposed regulations cannot be

promulgated in ti~ieto reasonably affect the 1975 oxidant

season due to the regulatory time constraints.

Indeed,

the

very earliest date upon which the regulation could be effec-

tive would be about the second week in September,

1975,

which would have

a very minimal effect upon oxidant episodes

in 1975.

2)

There was no evidence introduced at the hear-

ings which would inôicate that the existing regulations are

not protecting the citizens of the State of Illinois in a

reasonable manner at this time.

3)

The data available from

the 1975 oxidant season will be more than twice that pre-

viously available due to the increase in number of monitors

available to the Agency.

As it appeared from the evidence

presented at the hearings that the data base for these

proposed regulatory amendments was somewhat limited,

it

would seem pruden~to assess the additional data gained

during the 1975 episode season before determining whether

new regulations should be promulgated.

It is the intention of the Board that the Agency review

and revise the proposed regulations in light of both the

evidence and testimony introduced at the R75-4 hearings and

the additional monitoring data supplied by the 1975 oxidant

18

—

729

---

—2—

season.

The November 15,

1975,

date

for resubmission of the

proposal was chosen in order to allow sufficient time to

consider and promulgate the regulations and establish any

strategy plans that might be needed for the 1976 oxidant

season.

Considerations

A major cha.~igeproposed by the amendments concerns the

flexibility

allos..ed the Agency with respect to the deter-

mination of atmospheric conditions, Rule 402(c),

(R.76).

Dr.

R.A. Wadden, University of Illinois Medical Center,

expressed his concern with this flexibility indicating that

the National Weather Service forecasts,

coming from a third

party,

should be retained.

The Board feels that the flex-

ibility proposed by the amendments,

with respect to ozone

levels,

is reasonabie,

that the Agency’s techniques for

predicting ozone l-~velsare at least as good as those of the

National Weather Service, and that the Agency is closer to

the problem (R.l~?i).

The testimony of Richard Kates and others indicated

misunderstanding with respect to the ability of other agen-

cies to develop their own limits and strategies.

It is the

Board’s opinion that the amendments,

as they are now consti-

tuted, do promote .~nisunderstandingin this area and that

they should be re-evaluated to make the Agency’s position on

alternate

limits an’~strategies clear

(R.198).

Although a considerable amount of doubt was cast upon

the basis for the selection of a precise number correspond-

ing to the Emergency Level for ozone

at 0.5 ppm, the Board

feels

that

the

0.5

ppm

level

is

reasonable

in

the

face

of

two important fa’~bors:

1)

The United States Environmental

Protection Agency has proposed 0.5 ppm as the reco~nmended

level for ozone concentrations at the Emergency Level.

The

weight of this evidence is based both upon the expertise of

the USEPA, and the need for some sort of common target level

between the states ~qithrespect to action plans in an emer-

gency situation.

2~

It is generally accepted that a level

of 0.6 ppm of ozone will severely affect most persons,

i.e.,

0.6 ppm of ozone would be expected to cause significant

harm.

Since the level of 0.6 ppm of ozone is expected to

cause significant harm,

it is prudent to put the fullest

measure of abaten,c~nt into effect prior to that level.

The

precise level

at which this maximum effort should be ex-

pended is not apparent from the record.

Since there is no

precise level,

it would appear reasonable to accept USEPA’S

proposed level of 0.5 ppm of ozone

as the Emergency Level.

Should further information become available concerning this

Emergency Level prier to the Board’s consideration of the

proposed amendments,

such information should of course be

brought before the Board immediately

(R.760).

18—

730

---

—3—

Concerning aircraft flights

in the Cook County area,

the Board feels that,

unless the hydrocarbon emission reduc-

tion is expected to be significantly higher that the 0.5

estimated at the present time,

forbidding all aircraft

flight departures

is not a reasonable strategy for a Red

Alert.

If the total

reduction amounts to only 0.5,

it

would appear prudent to put this strategy into the Emergency

Level.

A showing

that such a strategy would reduce the

hydrocarbon levels in Cook County to a significantly lower

level would justify the strategy at the Red Alert Stage

(R.581)

The major question addressed by the proposed amendments

is the effect of ozone on the health of the population and

at what level certain strategies should be implemented with

the object of reducing this ozone concentration.

Ozone has

been determined to be a serious pollutant,

indeed Dr. Bertram

W.

Carnow (Director of the Environmental Health

Resource

Center of IEQ and Medical Director of the Chicago Lung

Association), states that “ozone is certainly the most

serious of all p~1lutants” (R.106).

Ozone affects the human

mucus linings and lung tissue,

causes chromosal breaks,

is

an occular irritant and causes red blood cell fragility as

well as enzyme modifications

(Ex.

5A).

During the hearings on the proposed amendments to the

episode regu1ation~,medical testimony was received from Dr.

Carnow,

Dr. Edward

.

Calabrese (Assistant Professor of

Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois Medical

School and Assistant Director of Environmental Health Re-

source Center of IEQ),

Dr. Kent K. Knock

(Illinois EPA

Toxicologist),

R.A.

Wadden, PhD.

(University of Illinois

Medical Center) and J.W. Masterson

(Chief Statistician,

Chicago Board of Health).

The witnesses and their supporting exhibits stressed

the importance of the fact that most research in the area

involved healthy,

low risk, members of the population.

Therefore,

the res’.~dtsof the research may not adequately

reflect the danger to that portion of the population in the

high risk categories.

High risk categories would include

young people,

those carrying on heavy physical activity,

people with asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, heart

disease,

smokers, g’ucose-6—phosphate dehydrogenose

(G—6 PD)

deficient persons, and persons with dietary deficiencies

with respect to vitamins C and E, protein, and selenium (Ex.

5A).

Human exposure to 0.5 ppm of ozone for three hours per

day,

six days a week for twelve weeks, resulted in a de-

crease in lung capacity for as long as six weeks after

exposure.

Two hour exposure to 0.37 ppm resulted in a

significant decrease in lung capacity for over 90

of the

people tested

(Ex.

5A and

7).

18

—

731

---

—4—

In a study of Los Angeles student nurses, daily

eye

discomfort increa3ed

as daily maximum photochemical oxidant

levels exceeded 0.15 to 0.19 ppm.

Cough and chest dis-

comfort remained relatively constant until 0.30 to 0.39 ppm,

at which time the rates of both symptoms increased markedly.

Headache without fever began a slight but constant increase

at levels of 0.1 to 0.14 ppm and marked acceleration oc-

curred at 0.30 t

0.39 ppm.

(Ex.

25)

The American Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists concluded that ozone

is

a “highly injurious and

lethal gas at relatively low concentration

(a few ppm)

and

at short exposure periods

(a few hours).”

At lower concen-

trations, ozone may “initiate,

accelerate or exacerbate

respiratory tra~tdisease of bacterial origin.”

Although

there is no man!’~estinjury at concentrations of 0.1 ppm,

this level may rEsult in premature aging similar to con-

tinued exposure to ionizing radiation

(Ex.

21).

In

a

study

cf athletic performance in the Los Angeles

area,

the only correlation shown between poor performance

and poLlution levels was in connection with oxidant levels

one hour before the race

(Ex.

21).

It has been shown that ozone affects red blood cor-

puscles

and the release of oxygen hemoglobin

(Ex.

5A),

and

that it also re~u1tsin chromosome breakage at a very high

rate

(Ex.

5A,

R. d6)

It

has

also

been shown that ozone and sulfur dioxide

act synergisticElly.

Using maximal expiratory flow rate

(MEFR)

at 50

vi-Lal capacity as an index, it was found that,

at 0.37 ppm ozone,

a two hour period was needed to show a

significant efi~ectof MEFR.

However, when 0.37 ppm ~

was

also present, only

30 minutes passed before substantially

similar effects occurred.

(Exs.

5A,

25,

and R.150).

In

addition,

as mentioned previously, persons with

a G—6 PD

deficiency would have an acute hemolytic response when

exposed to 0.3 cr 0.4 ppm ozone for not more than

3 hours.

It

is

significant

that

thirteen

percent

of

the

black

popula-

tion in Cook Councy or 240,000 persons

in the Chicago Area

have this deficiency

(R155—6).

From the foregoing review of the record, the Board must

conclude that czone

is a dangerous pollutant,

not only at

high concentracions

(that is, above 0.37 ppm)

but also at

lower concentrations where symptoms are less pronounced.

Based on this record,

the Board suggests that the level for

a Yellow Alert and Red Alert be reviewed for possible change

consistant

with this

record.

For instance,

a 0.15 ppm ozone

level

may

be representative of one of the dangerous “plateaus”

as indicated

in this

record,

and a level of

0.35 or 0.37 ppm

of

ozone

may

be

ar.other

such

dangerous

“plateau.”

18

—

732

---

—5—

With repect to the proposed strategies at the Yellow

Alert Level, the Board feels that there

is insufficient

evidence upon which to base the assumption that such strate-

gies will indeed result in a lowering of the ozone

level.

Such strategies may be appropriate at a Red Alert or Emer-

gency Level, where imminent damage to the population in

general would promote the use of any strategy that might

conceivably be effective in lowering the ozone level.

The

equities at the lower Yellow Alert Level, however, would

seem to lie with the proposition that a questionable set of

strategies which are likely to cause considerable disruption

to

the

communities

upon

which they are imposed is not a

viable solution to the problem.

At the Yellow Alert Level,

suitable regulations calling for voluntary reductions in

certain

areas,

along

with

mandatory

reductions

in

areas

least likely to

cause

community

disruption,

should

be

con-

sidered by the Agency.

The Board urges the Agency to re—evaluate their pro-

posed amendments in light of the very latest information

available (inclu&~ngany update of Federal information) and

the

data

accrued

during

the

ozone

season

of

1975.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board4

hereby certify the above Opinion was adopted

on the

~q

_____

day ~

,

1975 by a vote

_

I~4)42~

Christan

L.

Moff~4.1Clerk

Illinois Pollutio~ontrol Board

18

—733