ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June 4,
1992
IN THE
MATTER
OF:
TOXIC AIR CONTANINANTS LIST
)
R90-l(A)
(35 ILL.
ADM. CODE 232)
)
(Rulemaking)
PROPOSED RULE
SECOND NOTICE
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. C. Marlin):
This regulatory proposal to list toxic air contaminants in
the State of Illinois
is before the Board following a hearing
held January
7,
1992,
and the expiration of the post-hearing
public comment period, extended to March 31,
1992 at the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency’s (Agency)
request.
The hearing
concerned the Board’s second first notice proposal of regulations
adopted September 26,
1991 and published in the Illinois Register
on October
18,
1991.
(15 Ill. Reg.
14969.)
The Board’s original
first notice proposal was adopted on April
26,
1990 and published
in the Illinois Register on June 8,
1990.
(14 Ill. Reg.
8905.)
The rulemaking is required by Section 9.5(d)
of the Environmental
Protection Act
(Act)
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1991,
ch.
111 1/2, par.
1001 et seq.)
Today, after reviewing the record, the hearing transcript
and all public comments,
the Board makes certain changes to the
text of the rules as proposed at second first notice and submits
them to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
(JCAR)
for
second notice review.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Board received ten public comments
(PC) following
publication of the second first notice proposal.
These are:
PC 42
Office of the Secretary of State,
Administrative Code Division
PC 43
Illinois Department of Energy and Natural
Resources (DENR)
PC 44
Illinois Fertilizers and Chemical Association
(IFCA)
PC 45
Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club
(ICSC)
PC 46
Illinois Steel Group
(ISG)
PC 47
Illinois Department of Commerce and Community
Affairs
PC 48
Ford Motor Company
PC 49
Illinois Department of Energy and Natural
Resources
PC 50
Dow Elanco
PC 51
Illinois Department of Energy and Natural
Resources
The Board conducted a hearing on January
7,
1992,
in the
134—117
2
Stratton Office Building, Rm.
D-1, Springfield,
Illinois.
Presenting testimony at that hearing1 were Mr. Henry Naour on
behalf of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency),
Mr. Dan Grissom of the Chemical Industry Council of Illinois
(CICI), and Ms. Mary Ross representing the Illinois Chapter of
the Sierra Club, the Chicago Lung Association and the Coalition
for Consumer Rights. Mr. Jeff Lang testified for the Styrene
Information and Research Center (SIRC).
Mr. William Buffaloe
testified on behalf of Rhone-Poulenc.
Post-hearing public comments were filed by:
PC 52
Growmark
PC 53
Illinois Farm Bureau
PC 54
Styrene Information and Research Center
PC 55
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
PC 56
Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club
PC 57
Illinois Steel Group
PC 58
Chlorobenzene Producers Association
(CPA)
PC 59
Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical
Association
PC 60
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
PC 61
CF Industries
PC 62
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
PC 63
Rhone-Poulenc
DISCUSSION
Three sections of the second first notice proposal received
significant attention at hearing and in comments.
These are
1)
Section 232.200 “Characteristics for Determining a Toxic Air
Contaminant”;
2) Section 232.320 “Carcinogen Classification” and
3)
Section 232.500 “Procedures for Listing and Delisting Toxic
Air Contaminants”.
In addition, the listing of two chemicals,
styrene and ammonia, and the listing of agricultural pesticides
and fertilizers, were the subject of testimony and questioning at
hearing.
The following discussion focuses on each in turn.
Section 232.200 “Characteristics for Determininc~a Toxic Air
Contaminant”
In its Second First Notice Opinion and Order, the Board
proposed to add the statutory definition of toxic air contaminant
to Section 232.200 as a ~mnarrativettstandard. The Board commented
1
References to the record of the January 7,
1992 hearing
are designated “3R.
“.
References to the March 21,
1991
hearing are referred to as “2R.
“;
those of the June 25—26 and
September 6-7,
1990 as “lR.
134—118
3
as follows:
This change will have the effect of providing a
“general” or narrative description of what constitutes
a toxic air contaminant, as is found in the enabling
statute.
It will complement the numerical scoring and
classification protocols developed by the Agency.
The
Board believes that this change is most reflective of
the legislature’s intent and most protective of the
public.
A greater error, the Board believes, would be
to fail to include a toxic air contaminant by a
restrictive scoring mechanism.
Therefore the Board has
altered Section 232.200 to reflect this change.
This
change will also allow delisting of a compound that may
be delisted upon a suitable demonstration before the
Board that there are valid scientific reasons that they
should not be listed despite meeting the criteria of
232.200
(a)
or
(b).
(Second First Notice Opinion and
Order,
p.
13.)
The Agency testified at hearing that it opposes the
narrative standard included in this section because it is “open—
ended,
unstructured, and allows the Board to list or delist
chemicals regardless of their scores”.
(3R. 7.) The Agency
believes the scoring mechanism it devised is “sound and
replicable”.
(PC 55,
p.
2.)
However, the Agency did propose
certain changes at hearing which would allow its selection
procedure to be overridden.
Under the Agency’s proposal the
petitioner would have to show that the selection criterion was
flawed by its failure to consider “certain relevant evidence” and
that this evidence shows that the contaminant meets, or fails to
meet, the statutory definition of a toxic air contaminant
(TAC).
The Agency eventually offered three categories of evidence which
it believed met the standard of “relevant evidence”.
(3R 75.)
In
its post-hearing comments, the Agency added two more.
(PC 55,
p.
4.)
The Sierra Club supported the Agency’s concept,
stating that
the Board’s proposed clause was “fundamentally flawed” and could
result in a more under—inclusive list than the scoring procedure
alone.
The Sierra Club believed its proposal would make
“exceedingly clear that once a substance is determined a toxic
air contaminant under the Agency~’s criteria,
it cannot be
delisted based upon the presentation of differenc (sic
evidence
which simply ignores the evidence used initially.”
(PC 56.)
The Illinois Steel Group also objected to the narrative
standard as proposed at second first notice.
It suggested
language to ensure that toxic air contaminants can only be listed
in a regulatory proceeding,
after notice and opportunity for
hearing.
(PCs 46,57.)
The ISG stated that it saw no substantial
difference between the second first notice language and the
134—119
4
Agency’s proposed amendments.
(PC 57,
p.
2.)
The ISG also stated
that it would object to limiting the potential evidence to be
considered in determining whether the methodology was flawed with
regard to a particular substance.
(~~)
Section 232.200(d) has
been added to this second notice proposal to make it clear that
listing and delisting requires a regulatory proceeding.
Dan Grissom, for the dcl, testified that dcl also
disagreed with the Board’s language in the second first notice
proposal.
The CICI preferred the original first notice language
because it only listed chemicals on the basis of toxicity as
defined by the best available science and did not contain
a
narrative standard.
(3R. 93.)
The CICI proposed alternative
language which would require a petition to show that the listing
characteristics fail to consider scientific evidence or analysis,
which considered with all other evidence,
indicates that the
contaminant meets,
or fails to meet,
the statutory definition.
(3R.
95.)
It is apparent that the participants fear the flexibility
inherent in the narrative standard.
Some assume the standard
will be applied too. rigidly while others believe it will be
broadly applied.
The Board accepts the Toxicity Score and Carcinogen
Classification procedures as an efficient means of determining
whether most compounds meet the statutory definition.
The vast
majority of chemicals will be listed in Appendix A on the basis
of the Agency screening procedure, which identifies compounds
which are reasonably expected to pose a threat to human health.
Indeed, today’s Board action lists 264 compounds based on
the Agency’s recommendation and scoring procedure.
It
is
unlikely that every chemical that fits the statutory definition
will neatly fit the procedures.
However,
it is the substance of
the statute contained in the legislature’s definition, which
controls what is and what is not put on the list as a “toxic air
contaminant”.
The changes to Section 232.200(c)
are based on
this concept.
The Board notes that the Agency Toxicity Score and.
Carcinogen Classification procedures cannot displace the very
broad statutory definition in Section 9.5(c)
of the Act
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1991,
ch.
111 1/2, par.
1009.5(c).)
Any person would
be free to file a rulemaking proposal based on the statute
seeking to have a chemical added to the list.
If the Board finds
that the evidence presented in the proceeding demonstrates that
the chemical meets the statutory definition, the Board may add
such chemical to the list,
regardless of whether it met the
Agency supported criteria.
The addition of the statutory
definition as part of the process to evaluate compounds for
listing allows any person to bring to the attention of the Board
134—120
5
additional evidence which may justify the addition or removal of
a toxic air contaminant.
The rulemaking process grants each
participant the opportunity to support or oppose the.petition.
We believe that no less is required by the express language of
the statute.
The Agency is commended for developing the procedures, which
will remain the primary basis for most listing and delisting
regulatory proceedings.
Likewise, the commenters made many
useful observations.
The changes and clarifications reflected in
Sections 232.200 and 232.500
(see discussion below)
and are a
result of these comments.
The Board agrees with the comments of the Illinois Steel
Group that modifications to the list should occur only in a
regulatory proceeding with notice and opportunity for hearing.
(PCs 46,
57.)
The proposal has been modified accordingly.
Finally, all groups agreed that language in the section
relating to environmental effects should be removed at this time.
The Agency’s environmental effects proposal
is to be considered
in Docket B of this proceeding.
Until that proposal is
submitted, the participants agreed that consideration of
environmental effects in the listing or delisting decision was
premature.
(PC5 56,
60,
62.)
In response to these concerns, the
Board has removed the phrase “and environmental effects” from the
statutory citation in Section 232.200(b).
We anticipate that
upon consideration of the Agency’s promised environmental effects
proposal this phrase will be restored.
This temporary deletion
from the rule does not contravene the statute.
Section 232.320(b)
Carcinogen Classification
At second first notice, the Board addressed a highly
contested issue regarding the carcinogen classification scheme
initially proposed by the Agency:
whether USEPA final rules
should be used as an additional basis for exemptions under
Section 232.200(b)
from carcinogen classification along with
accepted International Agency for Research on dancer
(IARC),
USEPA’s Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS), National
Toxicology Program
(NTP) and American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) carcinogen listings (“the four
carcinogen listings”).
Essentially, the first notice proposal
provided that any chemical meeting a certain classification on
one of the four carcinogen listings would be considered a toxic
air contaminant.
Based largely on comments by the CPA, the Board
proposed at second first notice to exclude those chemicals from
the toxic air contaminant list any carcinogen for which USEPA had
adopted a final rule classifying the chemical as a category “C”
carcinogen.
After much testimony regarding the difficulties of
implementation, the Board has decided to remove the exemption
from Section 232.320.
134—12
1
6
The crux of the continuing debate lies in considering whether
the exemption should be “applicable to air contaminants” as
proposed by the ~Agency (PC 55) or only apply to those substances
which can be shown to not cause exposures via inhalation route by
reviewing the underlying studies.
The Agency states that it
opposes the use of underlying data to determine the applicability
of inhalation exposure as such a review “would require the Agency
to develop criteria in this proposal to evaluate the
applicability of the data to inhalation exposure.
This would
create a great burden on the Agency and the Board”.
(PC 55, pp.
6—7.)
The Board’s second first notice language had removed all
references to inhalation exposure or air contaminants from the
carcinogen exemption.
The Agency further argues that the carcinogen exemption
should be applied in a “conservative manner” as it is in the
“public interest” to do so.
The Agency opines that the Board
overlooked the fact that these exemptions are from two
internationally recognized carcinogen classification sources.
(PC
55,
p.
7.)
The CPA initially proposed that EPA classifications be
considered if they could be shown to be applicable to inhalation
exposure.
It repudiated this position in its post-hearing public
comment (PC 58) stating that the Agency’s position on this issue
was a continually shifting target and urged adoption of the
Board’s “clear,
simple” language.
The Styrene Information and Research Center’s voluminous
comments
(PC 54)
and testimony on this point contended that IEPA
erred in its comparison of International Agency for Research on
Cancer and USEPA’s Integrated Risk Information System cancer
classifications.
The SIRC did not directly address the issue of
the exemption expansion.
Limited testimony exists
in this record regarding USEPA’s
practice of identifying in a final rule whether a carcinogen
classification is applicable to inhalation exposure or specific
to an air contaminant. Thus, the Board must assume that a
detailed review of the final rule and, perhaps, the underlying
studies, will be necessary to determine the nature of the
classification.
The Agency has indicated their hesitance to be
hiirdened with this level of review.
(PC 55,
p.
7.)
Based on the continuing controversy on this issue and the
apparent complexity of the alternate proposals, the Board has
decided to strike Section 232.320(b)
of the second first notice
proposal of regulations, thereby eliminating the exemption.
The
opportunity to present evidence to the Board to list or delist a
compound is available to any person pursuant to Section 232.500
“Procedures for Listing and Delisting Toxic Air Contaminants”.
(see. discussion below).
Thus,
any party concerned with the use
134—122
7
of the carcinogen classification method may avail themselves of
this opportunity and will be provided the notice and comment of
formal Board proceedings.
In addition, the Board wishes to affirm its second first
notice decision to delist para—dichlorobenzene
(PDCB).
This is
based on the extensive testimony and evidence provided by CPA
which persuasively demonstrated that PDCB is not considered to be
a probable human carcinogen by USEPA and that USEPA has given the
evidence regarding PDCB’s human carcinogenicity a more thorough
review than IARC.
The Board has determined that the evidence
presented by CPA meets the requirements for delisting pursuant to
Section 232.500(b)(2).
The Board notes that neither the Agency
nor any other participant lodged objections to the removal of
PDCB from Appendix A in the second first notice proposal.
Section 232.500 “Procedures for Listing and Delisting Toxic Air
Contaminants”
In response to comments about the clarity and intent of the
listing and delisting process,
Section 232.500(b)
has been
modified.
It now specifically articulates that the
listing/delisting process is a regulatory process, and includes
specific requirements for the content of a listing or delisting
proposal.
The listing/delisting proponent must include a showing
that, at a minimum, one of five conditions exist.
The first is
that the Toxicity Score or Carcinogen Classification was
correctly determined as required by Subpart C.
This will
generally apply to listing petitions.
The other conditions
include demonstrating that the scoring or classification
procedure is not appropriate for a given contaminant, that the
procedure is applied incorrectly, or that the studies used
initially were inadequate for the purposes of scoring or
carcinogenicity listing.
A proponent may alsO bring to the
Board’s attention additional or new studies which they feel
should be considered in any deliberations regarding listing or
delisting of a compound.
These conditions are not exclusive,
and
a proponent is encouraged to supplement the record with all
available relevant evidence.
The Board feels that these
additions will narrow the scope of the listing or delisting
requests and provide the evidence needed to make, a decision.
They also address many of the concerns raised regarding the
narrative standard concept.
The Board proposed at second first notice that all
contaminants in proposals to list or delist be scored by the
Agency.
This score would then be presented to the Board
in the
form of an Agency recommendation or co—petition or response,
(See Sections 232.500(c)
and
(d)).
The Agency has asked the
Board to remove these two sections stating that the Board lacks
the authority to direct the Agency to perform these functions.
134—123
8
The Agency cited R90-20,
Diesel Vehicle Exhaust Opacity Limits
(December 19,
1991)
in support.
In the Board’s opinion concerning diesel exhaust opacity
limitations, the Board decided that it lacked the authority to
direct local law enforcement officials as to proper procedures
when confronted with a violation of diesel exhaust opacity
standards.
We do not see,
however, how the Agency believes that
the Board’s admission that local law enforcement concerns were
outside Board authority also means that the Board lacks the’
authority to set procedures designed to assist in the evaluation
of toxic air contaminants.
Moreover, Section 9.5(c)
of the Act
in particular requires direct participation in developing
a list
which meets the requirements of this subsection.
We believe a
Board procedure for Agency involvement
in the scoring process is
appropriate.
The ICSC has also expressed a desire to have the Agency
participate in scoring citizen proposals to ensure consistency.
(Pd 45,
p.
2.)
We note that the Agency stated that it intends to
participate in citizen proposals.
The Agency’s participation,
however,
sometimes does not fully materialize because of time and
resource restraints.
A recent example would be the Agency’s
failure to address substantive issues in a timely manner in the
Keystone hazardous waste delisting proceeding.
Even after being
granted 100 days of extension beyond the
30 days to file its
response, the Agency informed the Board that it would not
evaluate a major portion of the petition “due -to informational
deficiencies” and,
if asked by the Board, would conduct a review
but would need an additional 45 days.
(AS 91-1,
PCB
(February 6,
1992).)
The Board has the authority in determining, defining and
implementing the environmental control standards applicable
in
the state of Illinois to subpoena and compel the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence reasonably necessary to
resolve the matter under consideration at hearing.
(Section 5(e)
of the Act.)
The Board believes that the proposed procedure is
an equitable solution to the issue.
If the Agency believes the
scoring requirement is made burdensome through submission of an
unreasonable number of compounds,
it may file the appropriate
motion to the Board for relief.
Therefore, the Board declines to
alter Section 232.500(c)
of the proposal.
The Agency has also requested that the Board remove
subsection
(d)
of Section 232.500. This subsection states that
the Agency will propose an update of the list on a two year
schedule.
The Agency testified at hearing that it would “commit”
to doing this, but again objected that the Board “does not have
the authority to direct the Agency to score or to propose
contaminants for listing”.
(3R.
17.)
134—124
9
The Board believes that the language contained in Section
232.500(d)
should remain in the proposed regulations. The Agency
originally proposed the language contained in Section 232.500(d).
That language has appeared in every version of the proposal over
two years and through five hearings since the Agency filed its
Amended Proposal of Regulations on April
17,
1990.
The language
gives at least minimal structure to the listing/delisting process
and provides a reason for environmental and citizen groups to
remain in periodic contact with theAgency regarding proposals.
Retaining the language will assist in fostering coordinated
listing and delisting petitions, rather than a piecemeal
approach.
In the event no update is necessary at the end of a
two—year period, the Agency may file a motion which so states.
Section 232.Anpendix A. “List of Toxic Air Contaminants”
This appendix contains the listing of the compounds found by
the Board to be toxic air contaminants pursuant to Section
232.200.
The Chemical Abstract Service Number
is also given.
The list adopted today consists of 264 compounds and is altered
from the second first notice order by the deletion of ammonia and
the addition of styrene.
The Board notes that the substances listed in Appendix A are
those that, at this time, have been reviewed, scored, and
subsequently proposed by the Agency and that other substances not
proposed by the Agency may exist which have a toxicity score of
3
or greater or which may be listed on one of the four carcinogen
references specified in Section 232.320.
The Agency has
te~tifiedthat it has not yet reviewed and scored every substance
with the potential to be a toxic air contaminant.
(lR.
425, 427—
8.)
The Board also notes that the Agency testified that it has
not proposed for listing as a toxic air contaminant any
carcinogen included in one or more of the four carcinogen
references
(i.e. meeting the criteria of Section 232.320)
if that
carcinogen falls within one or more of the following five groups:
(1)
it is a drug and/or research chemical falling within the
exemption provided under Section 9.5(e) (4)
of the Act;
(2)
it is
an industrial activity or process associated with increased
incidence of cancer among workers engaged in such activity or
process;
(3)
it is an individual element or compound from a
family of compounds that are already listed as a toxic air
contaminant;
(4)
it is a naturally occurring compound of mineral,
plant or microbiological origin not associated with industrial
processes; and
(5)
it is a carcinogen for which the Agency has
not made a determination as to whether they fit in the above four
groups or is associated with an industrial process.
(2R. 44-49
and Exh.
26, Tables 1-5.)
The Board anticipates-that the Agency
will be reviewing and scoring additional compounds for future
update proposals and that Appendix A will be expanded to include
these compounds.
134—125
10
‘Section 232.Appendix B.
“Additional Procedures for Calculating
the Chronic Toxicity Score”
This appendix contains a method to select an appropriate chronic
toxicity study and a general equation for obtaining the correct
dose to be used in calculating a chronic toxicity score.
This
appendix has not been altered from the second first notice
proposal of regulations.
Section 232.Appendix C.
“Carcinogens (Categories A, Bi, and B2)
listed on the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS)
as of
December 31,
1989
(United States Environmental Protection Agency~
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment)”
This appendix contains a listing of compounds which have been
classified as A, Bl, or B2 carcinogens by USEPA within the IRIS
database.
The appendix is necessary because this list cannot be
incorporated by reference as
it is a subset of an electronic
database rather than a document and is cited in Section 232.320
“Carcinogen Classification”.
‘
The content of this list has
remained unchanged’ since the Agency’s amended proposal of
regulations although the Board has rearranged the wording in the
title to clarify the nature of the appendix.
Chemical Specific Challenges
Agricultural Fertilizers and Pesticides
The Illinois Farm
Bureau, Growmark and the Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical
Association appeared at the Board’s January
7,
1992, hearing and
also submitted public comments regarding the inclusion in the
second first notice proposal of many agricultural fertilizer and
pesticides.
(PC5 52,
53, and 59.)
The objections of these
groups to the inclusion of ammonia as it may impact agricultural
fertilizers is discussed in the section of this opinion entitled
“ammonia”,
all other portions of the comments will be discussed
here.
The objections of these groups can be summarized as follows.
The agribusiness industry states that EPA held meetings with the
affected public regarding the proposed regulations in late 1989,
prior to the Agency’s proposal to the Board.
Growmark states
that after much discussion,
the Agency agreed that pesticides and
fertilizers would not be included in the list.
However, at a
subsequent point, compounds were re—added, despite the
understanding.
The commenters contend that the Agency has no authority to
regulate pesticide storage or handling which is already regulated
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA).
They also expressed concern that monitoring could
impose a tremendous burden and future rules may prevent pesticide
application.
(PCS 52 and 53.)
In a post—hearing public comment,
134—126
11
the agribusiness community identified the agricultural pesticides
and fertilizers of concern.
(PC’ 63.)
The Agency stated at hearing that use of pesticides “has not
been a major problem” as far as air toxicity is concerned and
that the Agency’s primary focus
(for control) will be placed upon
stationary sources.
(3R. 165.)
The Board has reviewed the assertions of the agribusiness
industry regarding procedural impropriety.
(The Board notes that
the initial toxic air contaminant list filed with the Board in
the Agency’s January 1990 proposal contained many of the
chemicals of concern to the agribusiness industry.)
Those early
Agency proposals contained a list of from 80 to 130 chemicals.
Later the Agency expanded the list to include chemicals which may
not be emitted in Illinois.
At that time the list expanded from
approximately 130 to the present 264 chemicals or classes of
chemicals.
At no point did the Agency assert that the inclusion
or exclusion of chemicals from the list was premised upon
considerations of whether the chemical would be used in the
agribusiness industry or premised upon agreements with the
agribusiness industry.
To the best of the Board’s knowledge, the
chemical lists in ,the Agency proposals have been premised
exclusively on whether the chemicals met the stated criteria for
toxicity or carcinogenicity.
In addition, the Agency has not
responded to the assertions of an agreement to not include
agricultural chemicals on the list.
Such assertions regarding
Agency agreements are not relevant to the adoption of the list in
today’s’ Board proposal.
As far as the procedures for adoption of a chemical list by
the Board is concerned, no procedural impropriety exists.
The
Board adopted for first notice a list on April 26,
1990.
That
list of 84 chemicals of classes of chemicals was published for
first notice in accordance with all procedural requirements.
Later,
on September 26,
1991, the Board revised the proposal and
expanded the list of toxic air contaminants to about 264
chemicals or classes of chemicals.
That second first notice was
also published for first notice in accordance with all procedural
requirements.
The list adopted today consists of 264 compounds
and is altered from the second first notice only by the deletion
of ammonia and the addition of styrene.
Thus,
for each chemical
on today’s list, the Board has provided the appropriate notice
and publication under Illinois law.
In addition, the Board notes that the agribusiness
community’s participation in this proceeding began at least as
early as November 25,
1991 with Public Comment 44 from the
Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association.
This was shortly
after the September 26,
1991 Second First Notice, and well before
the public hearing on January 7,
1992.
Also,
the agribusiness
community provided testimony at hearing and provided comments
134—127
12
both before and after the hearing.
The Illinois Farm Bureau
(PC 53) asserts that the cost of
monitoring chemicals would be excessive.
(See also PC 52.)
The
Board notes that the comments presume that monitoring “equipment”
will be required at each farm and presume that such equipment
will be expensive.
No such decision has been reached in this
proceeding.
The agribusiness community has not provided comments
to demonstrate that inclusion of the listed chemicals alone will
cause a technically infeasible or economically unreasonable
burden on the agribusiness community.
Nor have those comments
indicated any disproportionate impact on the agribusiness
community compared to that anticipated in other aspects of
society by the General Assembly in adopting the requirements for
listing of toxic air contaminants.
In large part,
the agribusiness community concerns seem to
address not individual chemicals and their toxicity or
carcinogenicity,
but rather address that fact that these
chemicals are employed in an agricultural setting and are subject
to controls under other statutes.
The Board notes that the
obligation to adopt such listing is contained in Section 9.5 of
the Act and are subject to the exclusions of Section 9.5(e)
which
provides:
e.
The
requirements
of this Section
shall
not apply to the following:
1.
retail dry cleaning operations;
2.
retail
and
noncommercial
storage and handling of motor
fuels;
3.
combustion processes using only
commercial
fuel,
including
internal combustion engines;
4.
incidental
or
minor
sources
including
laboratory—scale
operations,
and
such
other
sources
or
categories
of
sources which are determined by
the
Board
to
be
of
minor
significance.
Nothing in this Section provides an exclusion for chemicals used
in agriculture.
Further, pesticides and agrichemical facilities
are certainly contemplated as within the purview of the Act.
(See Section 3.74 and 3.77 of the Act.)
The Board must conclude
that no such generalized exclusion is authorized in this
proceeding.
134—128
13
The legislation mandating the development of the toxic air
contaminant list requires inclusion of any air contaminant which
“may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or
incapacitating reversible illness, or may pose a significant
threat to human health or the environment”.
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1991,
ch.
111 1/2, par.
1009.5(c).)
The hearings held by the
Board regarding toxic air contaminants have focussed upon the
Agency’s criterion for determining whether these characteristics
were met.
The agribusiness community’s comments mainly focus on
the control strategy to be pursued, not whether the air
contaminants meet the statutory definition or the developed
criterion.
However, as the Agency has testified,
it has not yet
decided upon a control strategy for the listed chemicals and
compounds or whether control necessitates monitoring.
We find
therefore,
that promulgation of this list does not have the
effect that the agribusiness community is concerned about; rather
these arguments must wait until the Agency unveils its control
strategy.
The Board welcomes the continued participation of
these groups.
Tetrachloroethylene and Trichioroethylene
On December 2,
1991,
the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance
(HSIA)
filed its
motion to reconsider the listing of tetrachloroethylene and
trichloroethylene as toxic air contaminants.
The Illinois
Chapter of the Sierra Club filed a response on December 5,
1991;
DENR on December
16,
1991.
The Agency filed its response on
March 27,
1992.
HSIA requested that the Agency reconsider the
listing of these two chemicals.
Tetrachioroethylene, HSIA
stated,
should be deleted from the list because it did
no.t meet
the scoring procedure of Section 232.320.
However, the Agency’s
review of tetrachloroethylene showed this contention to be
erroneous.
(PC 55.)
Tetrachloroethylene has been identified as
an IARC 2B and as an National Toxicological Program NTP
“Anticipated Human Carcinogen”.
Tetrachloroethylene was deleted
from the USEPA
—
classified Group B2 list of carcinogens.
It was
not, however, reclassified as a IRIS Group C carcinogen.
The
classification is still pending.
Therefore, we find no reason to
delist tetrachloroethylene at this time.
HSIA also argues for the delisting of trichloroethylene
based upon its carcinogen classification.
However, as the Agency
pointed out, trichloroethylene is not listed as a toxic air
contaminant due to its carcinogenicity,
but due to its toxicity
score of 4.
Because of its toxicity score, trichloroethylene
should remain listed as a toxic air contaminant.
Styrene
In the second first notice opinion, the Board responded
to a request by the Styrene Information and Research Center
(SIRC)
to delist styrene and styrene oxide.
The Board proposed
to delist styrene because of the significance of a final
rulemaking of the Department of Labor Occupational Health and
134—129
14
Safety Administration
(OSH.A)
in which OSHA determined that “the
current evidence on styrene’s carcinogenicity does not support
its classification in the final rule as a carcinogen.”
(Second
First Notice Opinion,
pp.
17-18.)
The Board declined to delist
styrene oxide because no significant additional data were
provided to the Board by SIRC to give the Board reason to believe
that styrene oxide does not qualify as a toxic air contaminant.
At hearing and in post—hearing comments,
the Agency
expressed opposition to the delisting of styrene stating that the
Board has misinterpreted the actions of OSHA.
(PC 62,
p. 4)
The
Agency disputes SIRC’s assertion that OSHA,
like USEPA, uses a
“weight—of—evidence” approach to assess the carcinogenic
potential of chemical substances.
After
a careful re—reading of
the proposed and final OSHA rule, the Board
is persuaded to agree
with the Agency.
OSHA presents only limited comments regarding
the weakness of some animal and human studies and does not
discuss any other data concerning styrene carcinogenicity.
If
OSHA utilized a “weight-of-evidence” approach,
it is not spelled
out
in either the proposed or final rule and absent evidence to
the contrary, the Board must assume that it was not used.
However, due to the degree of attention this issue has
received at hearing and in comments, the Board will re—review the
data on record regarding styrene to determine whether styrene
meets the definition of a toxic air contaminant.
Pursuant to Section 232.500 of,the seconcT first notice
proposal for R90-1,
a substance may be delisted from the toxic
air contaminant
(TAC)
list if the petitioner brings to the Board
evidence that shows that the compound does not “cause or
significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an
increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible
illness,
or
~
pose a significant threat to human health or the
environment”.
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1991,
ch.
111 1/2, par.
1009.5(c).)
In the case of styrene, the Board has the following
information on record.
The Agency gave styrene an acute
lethality score of “1” and did not have the data to calculate a
chronic toxicity score.
This results in a toxicity score of “1”;
a score of “3”
is necessary to “list”
a compound as a TAC.
SIRC
did not submit any information regarding the toxicity scoring
procedure so the Board must assume that SIRC does not dispute
this scoring.
The Agency listed styrene as a TAC on the basis of the IARC
“2B” carcinogen classification.
IARC uses three schemes for
classification within the “2B” category:
1.
limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans with less
than sufficient evidence in experimental animals; or
134—130
15
2.
inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans or no
human data with sufficient evidence in animals; or
3.
inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans or no
evidence in humans with limited evidence in animals,
together with supporting evidence based on other
relevant data.
IARC classified styrene as a “2B” carcinogen based on the third
criteria.
IARC determined that the evidence was inadeguate to name
styrene as a human carcinogen.
Three studies suggest an
association between leukemia and lymphomas and exposure to
styrene.
However, those developing leukemia had also been
exposed to other agents,
like colorants, benzene, ethylene oxide,
and 1,3—butadiene.
Another study showed no excess mortality from
cancer.
Four other studies were considered uninformative based
on the study design.
(IEPA Exh.
8.)
lARd
considered that the evidence was limited with regard to
animal carcinogenicity.
In rats, no statistically significant
increase in tumor incidence was observed when styrene was
ingested.
In an ingestion study with mice and rats of both
sexes,
an increase of lung tumors was observed only in male mice.
Another study indicated
a small,
nonstatistically significant
increase in brain tumors in rats for both ingestion and
inhalation exposure.
(IEPA Exh.
8.)
IARC also considered’data that showed genotoxic and
mutagenic effects of styrene exposure (chromosomal aberrations,
DNA strand breaks, chromatid exchanges in humans and animals) and
because of this other relevant data placed styrene in the “2B”
category.
(IEPA Exh.
8.)
At hearing, SIRC disputed the use of genotoxic data in the
IARC determination.
In testimony,
Dr. Daniel
P. Boyd described
the history of the “28” ranking:
“For styrene, the 1987 working group concluded that the
evidence for carcinogenicity in humans was inadequate
and that the evidence for carcinogenicity in animals
was limited.
These conclusions were consistent with
previous IARC evaluations of styrene, since there was
no new human or animal carcinogenicity data to be
considered between supplement
4 and supplement 7.”
“However, the overall evaluation of styrene was changed
at the
‘87 meeting from group
3, not classifiable as to
its carcinogenicity in humans,
to group 2B, possibly
carcinogenic to humans as a result of the changes in
the structure and criteria for the classifications,
134- 131
16
which formalized the use of genotoxicity data for
upgrading the classification.
The evidence for
activity in genotoxicity tests was considered to be
sufficient by IARC, and hence the classification for
styrene was upgraded...even though there was no new
human and no new animal carcinogenicity data that
warranted the upgrade on the genotoxicitytoxicity
(sic
issue.”
(IR. at 835—7.)
The above comments indicate that the argument in listing
styrene as a carcinogen,
and thus as a TAd, centers on styrene’s
reported genotoxicity/mutagenicity rather than the evidence on
carcinogenicity.
Although mutagenicity
is not directly addressed
in the methodology proposed by the Agency, the statute and
testimony by the Agency indicate that mutagenic properties may
qualify a compound as a TAd.
Section 9.5(a) (1)
of ‘the Act states:
The General Assembly finds that:
1.
The public health and welfare may be
endangered by the release of toxic
contaminants into the air which are
carcinogenic. teratogenic, mutagenic or
otherwise injurious to humans or the
environment.
(Emphasis added)
Dr. Thomas Hornshaw, speaking of behalf of the Agency,
commented
at hearing on how the proposed methodology addresses mutagens:
“We haven’t really addressed the mutagens.
Nutagenicity is considered by the national and
international authorities which develop the carcinogen
rankings and it’s addressed through them.
We don’t
address it our own selves.”
(1R. at 162.)
Thus,
it appears that the Agency has relied upon the
expertise of the cancer research institutions, like IARC,
to
determine whether mutagenicity data warrants classification of a
compound among carcinogens.
We believe this to be reasonable
procedure for proposing a chemical for listing given the Agency’s
available resources and expertise.
No specific objection to the
results of IARC studies of styrene’s mutagenicity was submitted.
Therefore,
upon further review we find that SIRC has not
provided enough scientific evidence to disqualify styrene from
the definition of a toxic air contaminant and that styrene should
be listed as such in Section ‘232.Appendix A.
Ammonia
On February 20,
1992,
the Illinois Environmental
Regulatory Group
(IERG)
filed its post-hearing comments.
(PC 60.)
134—132
17
The IERG questioned the acute lethality score for ammonia and
attached the comments of Dr. Joseph A.
Scimeca, Senior Research
Scientist,
Kraft General Foods,
Inc.,
in support.
CF Industries
Inc.’s post—hearing comment
(PC 61) also called for re-
calculation of ammonia acute lethality score and attached several
studies in support.
Dr. Scimeca questioned the Agency’s acute
lethality score of “2” regarding ammonia, concluding that the
Agency’s use of a study by Weedon ~
~
was inappropriate.
First,
the exposure period used in the study exceeded the maximum
exposure time defined in the Agency proposal.
Second, an LC5O
value was impossible to determine based on data from a study in
which the sole exposure resulted in the death of only 12.5
of
the tested animal population.
Dr. Scimeca concluded that a
review of the scientific literature in this area reveals data
which would result in an acute lethality score of “1” for
ammonia.
The scientific literature supplied by CF Industries
supports this view.
These studies each document that the LC5O
for ammonia is greater than 5,000 mg/m3.
Accordingly, the
Agency’s scoring system to the new data, results in an
application of the acute lethality score for ammonia of “1” not
“2”.
The Agency, after review, agreed.
(PC 62.)
The Agency
rescored the acute lethality score for ammonia as “1” admitting
that the sole study used in its original scoring was
inappropriate.
The Agency stated that its “reliance upon
computerized databases such as ‘the Registry for Toxic Effects of
Chemical Substances and secondary literature sources occasionally
results in the use of an inappropriate data point for scoring
purposes.
...Additionally,
this effort demonstrates the way in
which the proposed narrative standard amendment operates in the
proposal and review of the listing of a TAC.”
The Board has removed ammonia from the list of toxic air
contaminants based upon the public comments and the Agency’s
conclusion that its scoring was inappropriate and therefore
ammonia’s inclusion was erroneous.
Xylene and 1,
1,
1- Trichloroethane
In its second first notice
opinion and order, the Board inadvertently omitted a discussion
regarding the Coalition of Consumer Right’s request that xylene
and 1,
1,
1- trichloroethane be added to the list of toxic air
contaminants.
The Agency has testified that they had reviewed
these two chemicals and found them to not meet the basis for
listing as a toxic air contaminant.
Our review of the
information contained in the record confirms the Agency’s
position.
Therefore xylene and 1,
1,
1— trichioroethane will not
be added to the list of toxic air contaminants at this time.
Inclusion of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants
The public comments filed by the Sierra Club Coalition for
Consumer Rights, and Chicago Lung Association
(PC 56) and Ford
Motor Company
(PC 48) recommended adding the Clean Air Act
134—133
18
Amendments hazardous air, pollutants
(HAP5)
list to the Illinois
TAd list.
Recognizing that inclusion of some contaminants would
necessarily mean additional time to receive comments and perhaps
hearings on the contaminants, the Sierra Club offered the
alternative that the HAPs could be included in subdocket B.
The
Board also recognizes that additional delay in the promulgation.
of these rules would be counterproductive, and therefore chooses
to revisit this issue at a latei~time.
134—134
19
ORDER
The following rules are hereby proposed for second notice.
‘The Board directs the Clerk of the Board to submit these rules to
the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules for second notice
review.
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
B:
AIR POLLUTION
CHAPTER I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SUBCHAPTER f:
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
PART 232
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
SUBPART A:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section
232.100
Introduction
232.110
Incorporations by Reference
232.120
Definitions
232.130
Applicability
SUBPART B:
DETERMINATION OF A TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT
Section
232.200
Characteristics for Determining a Toxic Air Contaminant
SUBPART C:
PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING CHARACTERISTICS
OF A TOXIC AIR ‘CONTAMINANT
Section
232.300
Purpose
232.310
Procedures for Determining the Toxicity Score
232.320
Carcinogen Classification
SUBPART E:
LISTING
AND
DELISTING
Section
232.500
Procedures for Listing and Delisting Toxic Air
Contaminants
APPENDIX A:
List of Toxic Air Contaminants
APPENDIX B:
Additional Procedures for Calculating the Chronic
Toxicity Score
APPENDIX C:
Carcinogens
(Categories A,
81, and 82)
listed on
the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS)
as
of December 31,
1989 (United States Environmental
Protection Acserr’y, Office of Health and
134—135
20
Environmental Assessment)
AUTHORITY:
Implementing Section 9.5 and authorized by Section 27
of the Environmental Protection Act
(Ill. ‘Rev.
Stat.
1991,
ch.
111 1/2,
pars. 1009.5 and 1027).
SOURCE:
Adopted in R90—l at 16 Ill.
Reg.
effective
SUBPART A:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 232.100
Introduction
This Part establishes a program to identify toxic air
contaminants.
This Part includes a list of toxic air
contaminants (Appendix A), the procedures to determine a toxic
air contaminant and the procedures to amend the list.
Section 232.110
Incorporations by Reference
a)
The following materials are incorporated by reference:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists
(ACGIH).
Threshold Limit Values and
Biological Exposure Indices for 1989-90
(1989).
Document can be obtained from:
6500 Glenway Avenue,
Building D-7, Cincinnati, Ohio
45211-4438.
Good Laboratory Practice Standards,
21 CFR 58
(1990).
Good Laboratory Practice Standards,
40 CFR 160
(1989).
Good Laboratory Practice Standards,
40 CFR 792
(1990).
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD).
OECD Guidelines For Testing of Chemicals,
Appendix:
Good Laboratory Practice (c(81) 30 (Final)
(November,
1989).
Document can be obtained from:
OECD
Publications and Information dentre,
2001
L Street,
N.W.,
Suite 700, Washington,
D.C. 20036—4095.
United States Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service, National Toxicological Program
(NTP).
Fifth Annual Report on Carcinogens
(1989).
Document can be obtained from:
National Technical
Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield,
Virginia
22161.
World Health Organization,
International Agency for
Research on Cancer
(IARC).
Monographs on the
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans,
Overall
Evaluations
of darcinogenicity: An Updating of IARC
134—136
21
Monographs Volumes
1 to 42, Supplement
7
(1987).
Document can be obtained from:
WHO
Publications Centre
USA,
49 Sheridan Avenue, Albany, New York
12210.
b)
This Section incorporates no future editions or
amendments.
Section 232.120
Definitions
The definitions of 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 201.102,
211.122 and 215.104
apply to this Part,
as well as the definitions contained in this
Section.
Where a definition contained in this Section is more
specific than those found in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.102, 211.122
and 215.104.
it must take precedence in application of this Part.
“ACGIH” means the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
“Adverse health effect” means a health injury or
disease that may be produced by exposure to a
contaminant.
This includes any decrement in the
function of an organ or organ system or any subclinical
organ lesion that is likely to lead to a decrement in
an organ or organ system function.
“Critical gestation days” means the days during which
the formation and differentiation of organs and organ
systems occurs during embryonic development.
“Emits” or “Emission” or “Emitted” means any non—
accidental release into the atmosphere from an emission
source or air pollution control equipment,
or fugitive
emissions defined according to 35
Ill.
Adm. Code
203.124.
“IARC” means the World Health Organization’s
International Agency for Research on dancer.
“IRIS” means the tJSEPA’s Integrated Risk
Information System.
“LCSO” means the concentration in the air of a
contaminant that kills, or is estimated to kill,
50 per
cent of a population of laboratory animals where the
exposure is brief
(8 hours or less)
and where the route
of exposure is inhalation.
“LDSO” means the dose of a contaminant that kills, or
is estimated to kill,
50 percent of a population of
laboratory animals where the route of exposure is
ingestion.
134—137
22
“Lowest observed adverse effect level” means the lowest
experimentally determined dose at which a statistically
or biologically significant indication of the toxic
effect of concern is observed.
“NTP” means the United State Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health
Services’ National Toxicological Program.
“New emission source” means an emission source or air
pollution control equipment for which a construction
permit is required by 35
Ill.
Adin.
Code 201 after
(the
effective date of these rules);
or an emission sOurce
or air pollution control equipment for which an
operating permit is required by 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 201,
where the owner or operator failed to apply for a
construction permit and applies for the first operating
permit.
“No observed effect” means the condition where no
adverse health effect has been detected.
“Toxic air contaminant” means a contaminant identified
pursuant to Section 232.200 and listed in Appendix A.
Section 232.130
Applicability
The requirements of this Part do not apply to the following:
a)
RETAIL DRY CLEANING OPERATIONS;
b)
RETAIL
AND
NONCOMMERCIAL STORAGE
AND
HANDLING OF MOTOR
FUELS;
c)
COMBUSTION PROCESSES USING ONLY COMMERCIAL FUEL,
INCLUDING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES;
AND
d)
INCIDENTAL OR MINOR SOURCES INCLUDING LABORATORY-SCALE
OPERATIONS,
AND
SUCH OTHER SOURCES OR CATEGORIES OF
SOURCES
WHICH
ARE
DETERMINED
BY
THE
BOARD
TO
BE
OF
MINOR
SIGNIFICANCE.
(Section
9.5(e)
of
theAct)
SUBPART B:
DETERMINATION OF A TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT
Section 232.200
Determination of
a Toxic Air Contaminant
a)
Contaminants found by the Board to be Toxic Air
Contaminants pursuant tO subsections
(b) or
(c),
below,
shall be listed in Appendix A.
b)
A TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT IS A CONTAMINANT WHICH the
Board finds
MAY
CAUSE OR SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE
134—138
23
TO AN INCREASE IN MORTALITY OR AN INCREASE IN
SERIOUS IRREVERSIBLE OR INCAPACITATING REVERSIBLE
ILLNESS, OR
MAY
POSE A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO
HUMAN
HEALTH (Section 9.5(c)
of the Act)
C)
The Board shall find that a contaminant is a Toxic
Air Contaminant upon a determination that:
1)
The contaminant has a Toxicity Score of
3 or
greater using the procedures for determining
the Toxicity Score described in Section
232.310,
or
2)
The contaminant is classified as a carcinogen
according to Section 232.320; and
3)
The contaminant meets the statutory
definition set forth in subsection
(b),
above.
d)
Any person can petition the Board to list or
delist
a toxic air contaminant pursuant to the
requirei~.entsof Section 232.500.
The Board will
consider such a petition a proposal for rulemaking
subject to the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code
Part 102.
SUBPART C:
PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING
CHARACTERISTICS OF A TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT
Section 232.300
Purpose
This Subpart identifies the procedures used to evaluate the
characteristics of a toxic air contaminant.
The Agency will use
these procedures in proposing to list or delist toxic air
contaminants in Appendix A.
Section 232.310
Procedures for Determining the Toxicity Score
The Toxicity Score is the sum of the Acute Lethality Score and
the Chronic Toxicity Score.
The Acute Lethality Score
is a
number which indicates a contaminant’s potential to cause death
The Chronic Toxicity Score
is a number which indicates a
contaminant’s potential to cause adverse health effects after
chronic exposure.
a)
Procedure for Determining the Acute Lethality Score
1)
The Acute Lethality Score is derived from
toxicological studies using laboratory rats.
One
of two routes of exposure is used:
inhalation or
ingestion.
Values derived from inhalation are
13 4—139
24
used in preference to values derived from
ingestion.
2)
The Acute Lethality Score is derived from the
following table:
Inhalation donce~tration(LC5O)
Acute
Lethality
Score
Less than: 500 mg/cu. m
3
500—4,999 mg/cu. m
2
5,000—50,000 mg/cu. m
1
Greater than: 50,000 mg/cu. m
0
or,
if the above data are not available:
Ingestion Dose
(LD5O)
Acute Lethality
Score
Less than: 50 mg/kg
3
50—499 mg/kg
2
500—5,000 mg/kg
1
Greater than:
5,000 mg/kg
0
b)
Procedure for Determining the Chronic Toxicity Score
The Chronic Toxicity Score is the product of the Lowest
Toxic Dose Score and the Severity of Effects Score.
1)
Procedure for Determining the Lowest Toxic Dose Score
The Lowest Toxic Dose Score
is a number based upon
the lowest dose of a contaminant that causes an
observable adverse health effect.
The Lowest
Toxic Dose Score is derived from the following
table:
Dose
Lowest Toxic Dose Score
Less than:
5 mg/kg/day
I
5-50 mg/kg/day
2/3
Greater than:
50 mg/kg/day
1/3
2)
Procedure for Determining the Severity of Effects
Score
The Severity of Effects Score is a number based upon
the category of organ(s) affected and the level of
effect upon the organ(s).
A)
Organ Categories
134—140
25
There are three categories of organs or organ
systems which are identified as follows:
i)
Category I includes: organs, the impairment
or loss of which
is fatal or usually cannot
be compensated for by the body; gonads, the
loss of which prevents the transmission of
genetic material; and, adverse reproductive
outcome including stillbirth, miscarriage, or
reduced litter size
(animal studies).
The
Category I organs are: Lungs, Heart,
Brain,
Spinal Cord, Kidneys, Liver, Bone Marrow, and
Gonads.
ii)
Category II includes: organs, the impairment
or loss of which may be fatal, but which can
be compensated for by drug or replacement
therapy; adverse effect on an immune function
which may be life threatening; changes in the
composition or function of blood constituents
which may be life threatening; and, certain
fetotoxic effects including premature birth,
reduced birth weight, and reduced
morphometric parameters.
The Category II
organs are: Adrenals, Thyroids, Parathyroids,
Pituitary,
Pancreas,
Esophagus,
Stomach,
Small
Intestine,
Large Intestine,
Lymph
Nodes, Thymus,
Trachea.
iii)
Category III includes:
organs,
the impairment Or loss of which is not life
threatening but may result in functional or
emotional handicaps;
adverse effect on an
immune function which is not life
threatening; changes in the composition or
function of blood which are not life
threatening but may result in functional
handicaps.
Category III organs include, but
are not limited to: Oviducts, Epididymides,
Uterus,
Prostrate,
Seminal Vesicles, Ductus
Deferens,
Penis, Vagina,
Eyes, Bone,
Nose,
Peripheral Nerves, Muscles, Urinary Bladder,
Blood Vessels,
Ears, Gallbladder, Larynx,
Mammary Glands,Salivary Glands,
Skin,
Spleen,
Tongue, Teeth,
Ureter, Urethra, Pharynx.
B)
Levels of Effect
There are four levels of effect:
Serious
Irreversible
(SI);
Serious Reversible
(SR);
Non—serious Irreversible (NI);
and Non—serious
Reversible
(NR).
134—14 1
26
i)
A serious effect is an incapacitating
condition or a condition which significantly
contributes to an increase in mortality.
ii)
A non—serious effect is a non—incapacitating
condition or
a condition which is unlikely to
contribute to an increase in mortality.
iii)
An irreversible effect is one that is
permanent or would require medical treatment
to correct.
iv)
A reversible effect is a temporary effect.
C)
Table of Severity of Effects Scores
The Severity of Effects Score for any level of
effect
observed in an organ belonging to a
specified organ category is derived from the
following table:
Organ Category
I
II
III
SI
6
5
4
Levelof
SR
5
4
3
Effect
NI
4
3
2
NR
3
2
1
No
Observed
0
0
0
Effect
D)
When a study identifies an adverse health effect
on multiple organs within the same category at the
lowest observed adverse effect level,
the Severity
of Effects Score is increased by a value of
1.
In
no event can the Severity of Effects Score be
greater than 6.
3)
Additional procedures for calculating the Chronic
Toxicity Score are described in Appendix B.
Section 232.320
carcinogen Classification
a)
For purposes of this Part, the Agency will consider a
contaminant to be a carcinogen if it is classified in the
following manner:
1)
A Category Al or A2 Carcinogen by AGCIH; or
2)
A Category
1 or 2A/2B Carcinogen by lARd;
or
3)
A “Human Carcinogen” or “Anticipated Human Carcinogen”
134—142
27
by NTP; or
4)
A Category A or B1/B2 Carcinogen by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA)
in IRIS or a
Final Rule issued in a Federal Register notice by the
USEPA as of the effective date of this regulation.
b)
The references ACGIH,
IARC,
and NTP are incorporated by
reference in Section 232.110.
The reference IRIS is the
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment,
Integrated Risk
Information System.
The categories A,
Bl, and B2
carcinogens of IRIS as of December 31,
1989,
are listed in
Appendix C.
SUBPART E:
LISTING
AND
DELISTING
Section 232.500
Procedures for Listing and Delisting Toxic
Air Contaminants
a)
Any person may submit a regulatory proposal to the Board
to list or delist a toxic air contaminant.
b)
The proposal to list a contaminant as a toxic air
contaminant, or to delist a toxic air contaminant, must
include, at a minimum, the following:
1)
The contaminant or toxic air contaminant name and
Chemical Abstract Service Number where applicable;
2)
The basis for listing or delisting pursuant to Section
232.200
(b)
or
(c).
This shall include but is not
limited to,
a showing of one of the following:
A)
The toxicity score or carcinogen classification is
correctly determined pursuant to the Subpart d
procedures;
B)
The Subpart C procedure for determining a toxicity
score or carcinogen classification is not
appropriate for the contaminant;
C)
The Subpart C procedure for determining a toxicity
score or carcinogen classification is incorrectly
applied for the contaminant;
D)
The studies used are inadequate for the purposes
of the Subpart C procedure; or
E)
Additional or new studies should be consjdered in
a determination to list or delist a contaminant.
134—143
28
3)
A copy of each study or report used to justify the
proposal.
c)
The Agency shall participate in each proposal to list or
delist a toxic air contaminant and must provide the Board
with a recommendation as to advisability of listing or
delisting.
Such recommendation must include a toxicity
scoring pursuant to Section 232.300 and a carcinogen
classification pursuant to Section 232.310.
d)
The Agency will propose an update of the list of toxic air
contaminants to the Board no less frequently than once
every
2 years.
Section 232.APPENDIX A:
List of Toxic Air Contaminants
Chemical
Abstract
Chemical Name
Service Number
Acetaidhyde
75-07-0
Acetamide
60—35—5
Acetonitrile
75—05—8
Acetophenone
98—86—2
Acrolein.
.
107—02—8
Acrylamide
79-06-1
Acrylic acid
79—10—7
Acrylonitrile
107—13-1
Aldrin
309—00—2
Allyl chloride
107-05-1
2-Aminoanthraquinone
117-79—3
4—Aminoazobenzene
60—09—3
o-Aminoazotoluene
93—56—3
4-Aminobiphenyl
92-67-1
l—Amino-2-methylanthraquinone
82—28-0
Amitrole
61—82—5
Aniline
62—53—3
o-Anisidine
90-04—0
o—Anisidine hydrochloride
134—29-2
Antimony
7440-36-0
Arsenic
7440—38—2
Asbestos
(friable)
1332—21—4
Azobenzene
103—33—3
Benz (a) anthracene
56—55—3
Benzene
71—43—2
Benzidine
92—87.—S
Benzo(a)pyrene
50—32—8
Benzo(b) fluoranthene
205-99-2
Benzo(j)fluoranthene
205—82—3
Benzo
(k) fluoranthene
207—08-9
Benzotrichloride
98—07-7
Benzyl chloride
100—44—7
134—144
29
Benzyl violet
1694—09—3
Beryllium
7440—41—7
Beryllium oxide
1304—56-9
Biphenyl
92-52—4
Boron trifluoride
7637—07-2
Bromoform
75—25-2
1, 3-Butadiene
106-99—0
Butyl benzyl phthalate
85-68-7
beta—Butyrolacetone
3068-88—0
CI. Basic Red 9 monohydrochloride
569-61-9
Cadmium
7440—43—9
Cadmium oxide
1306-19-0
Caprolactam
105-60-2
Carbaryl
63—25-2
Carbofuran
1563-66-2
Carbon black
1333—86—4
Carbon disulfide
75—15—0
Carbon tetrachloride
56-23—S
Carbosulfan
55285-14—8
Chlorarnben
133-90-4
Chlordane
57-74-9
Chlorinated dibenzodioxins
Chlorinated dibenzofurans
——
Chlorendic acid
115-28—6
Alpha-Chlorinated toluenes
Chlorinated paraffins (dl2,
60
chlorine)
108171—26—2
Chlorine
7782-50-5
Chloroacetic acid
79—11-8
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
Chloroform
67—66-3
dhloromethyl methyl ether
107-30-2
4-Chloro-2—methylpropene
563-47-3
4-dhloro-o-phenylenediamine
95-83-0
p-Chloro-o-toluidine
95-69-2
dhloroprene
126-99—8
Chromium
7440-47-3
Chromium VI
18540—29—9
Chrysene
218—01—9
Coal tar (pitch) volatiles
65996—93—2
Cobalt
7440—48—4
Coke Oven Emissions
—-
copper
7440-50-8
p—Cresidine
120—71—8
Creosote
(Coal)
8001—58-9
Cresol
(mixed isomers)
1319—77—3
Cyanazine
21725—46—2
Cyclohexanone
108-94-1
DDD
72—54—8
DDE
72—55—9
DDT
50—29—3
2,4—Diaminoanisole
615—05—4
2, 4—Diaminoanisole sulfate
39156—41—7
134—145
30
4,4’
—Diaminodiphenyl
ether
101—80—4
2, 4-Diaminotoluene
95-80-7
Dibenzo(a,h)acridine
226-36-8
Dibenzo(a,j)acridine
224-42—0
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene
192-65—4
Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene
189—64—0
Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene
189—55—9
Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene
191-30-0
Dibutyl phthalate
84-74-2
1, 2—Dibromo—3-chloropropane
96-12—8
1,2—Dibromoethane
(Ethylene dibromide
106-93-4
3,3‘—Dichlorobenzidine
9
1-94—1
3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine dihydrochloride
612—83—9
Dichloroethyl ether
111—44-4
2,4—Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
2,
4-D
94-75-7
1, 2—Dichloropropane
78-87-5
1, 3—Dichloropropylene
542—75-6
Dichlorvos
.
62-73-7
Dieldrin
60—57—1
Diepoxybutane
1464-53—5
1, 2—Diethylhydrazine
1615—80—1
Di (2—ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
Diethyl sulfate
64-67-5
Diglycidyl resorcinol ether
101-90-6
3,3’—Dimethoxybenzidine
119—90—4
Dimethyl acetamide
127-19-5
4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
60-11-7
3,3’—Dimethylbenzidine
o-Tolidine
119-93-7
Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride
79-44-7
Dimethyl formamide
68-12-2
1, l-Dimethylhydrazine
57-14-7
l,2—Dimethylhydrazine
540-73-8
Dimethyl sulfate
77-78-1
Dinitrocresol
534-52-1
2,4—Dinitrophenol
51—28—S
2,4—Dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
1,4—Dioxane
123—91—1
1, 2—Diphenylhydrazine
122—66—7
Disulfoton
298—04—4
Endothall
145-73—3
Epichlorohydrin
106-89-8
2—Ethoxyethanol
110-80-S
Ethyl
acrylate
140-88-5
Ethylene
dichloride
107-06-2
Ethylene
oxide
75-21-8
Ethylene
thiourea
96-45-7
Etridiazole
2593—15—9
FMC—67825
95465—99—9
Fluorine
7782—41—4
Folpet
133—07—3
Formaldehyde
so-oo-o
134—146
31
Furmecyclox
60568-05-0
Heptachlor
76-44-8
Heptachlor epoxide
1024—57-3
Hexachlorobenzene
118-74-1
Hexachloro—1,3—butadiene
87—68—3
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
77—47—4
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
19408—74-3
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
Hexamethylphosphoramide
680-31-9
Hydrazine
302—01—2
Hydrazine sulfate
10034—93—2
Hydrogen cyanide
74-90-8
Indeno(1, 2,3-cd)pyrene
193—39-S
Isophorone
diisocyanate
4098—71-9
Lead
7439—92—1
Lindane
(alpha)
319—84—6
Lindane
(beta)
319—85—7
Lindane
(gamma)
58-89-9
Lindane (mixed isomers)
608-73-1
Linuron
330-55-2
Malathion
121-75—5
Manganese
7439—96—5
Mercury
7439—97—6
2—Methoxyethanol
109-86-4
2-Methoxyethanol acetate
110-49-6
5-Methylchrysene
3697-24-3
4,4’-Methylenebis(2—chloroaniline)
101—14—4
Methylenebis (phenylisocyanate)
101-68-8
4,4’-Methylenebis(N,N’-dimethyl)
benzenamine
101—61-1
Methylene chloride
75-09-2
4,4‘—Methylenedianiline
101—77—9
4,4‘-Methylenedianiline dihydrochloride
13552-44-8
Methyl hydrazine
60—34—4
Methyl iodide
74—88—4
Methyl mercaptan
74-93-1
N-Methyl-N’
-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine
70-25-7
Metolachlor
S12l8—4S-2
Michler’s Ketone
90-94—8
Mirex
238585S
Monoethanolamine
141—43-5
beta-Naphthylamide
91—59—8
Nickel
7440—02—0
Nitric acid
7697—37—2
Nitrilotriacetic acid
139—13—9
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
5-Nitro-o-anisidine
99—59-2
2—Nitropropane
79—46-9
N—Nitroso—n-butyl-N—(3-carboxypropyl)
amine
38252—74-3
N-Nitroso-n-butyl-N-(4-hydroxybutyl) amine
3817-11-6
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
924-16-3
N—Nitrosodiethanolamine
1116—54-7
N—Nitrosodiethylamine
55-18—5
134—147
32
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
62-75—9
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30—6
N-Nitrosodi—n-propylamine
621—64-7
N-Nitroso—N—ethylurea
759—73-9
3-(N-Mitrosomethylamino) propionitrile
60153-49-3
N—Nitrosomethylethylamine
10595-95-6
N-Nitroso-N—methylurea
684-93-5
N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine
4549-40-0
N-Nitrosomorpholine
59-89-2
N-Nitrosonornicotine
16543—55-8
M-Nitrosopiperidine
100-75-4
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
930-55-2
N-Nitrososarcosine
13256—22-9
Nitrofen
1836—75—5
Pentachloronitrobenzene
82—68—8
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
Peracetic acid
79-21-0
Phenol
108—95—2
Phenylhydrazine
100-63—0
Phorate
298—02—2
Phosphorus
7723-14-0
Phosphorus oxychloride
1002S-87-3
Phosphorus pentachloride
10026-13-8
Polybrominated biphenyls
--
Polychiorinated biphenyls
1336—36-3
Potassium bromate
7758-01-2
Propane sultone
1120-71-4
beta-Propiolactone
57-57—8
Propyleneimine
75-55—8
Propylene oxide
75-56-9
Pyrene
129—00—0
Quinoline
92—22—5
Selenium
7782—49—2
Sodium borate
1303-96-4
Styrene
100-42-S
Styrene oxide
96-09-3
Sulfallate
95—06—7
Sulfuric acid
7664—93—9
Terbufos
13071-79—9
1, 1,2,2—Tetrachloroethane
79—34—3
Tetrachloroethylene
127-18—4
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1746—01-6
4,4’—Thiodianiline
139—65—1
Thiophenol
108—98-S
Thiourea
62—56—6
Thorium dioxide
1314—20-1
Toluene
108—88—3
Toluene—2
,
4—dilsocyanate
584—84—9
Toluene—2, 6—diisocyanate
91-08—7
o—Toluidine
95—53—4
o—Toluidine hydrochloride
636—21-5
p—Toluidine
106—49—0
134—148
33
Toxaphene
8001-35-2
l,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
120-82-1
Trichloroethylene
79-01-6
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
88-06-2
Trimethyl benzene
25551—13-7
1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene
95—63—6
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
118—96—7
Tris(2, 3—dibromopropyl) phosphate
126-72—7
Trypan blue
72-57-1
Urethane Ethyl
carbamate
51-79—6
Vinyl bromide
593-60-2
Vinyl chloride
75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride
75—35-4
Antimony compounds
Includes any unique chemical
substance that contains antimony
as part of that chemical’s infrastructure
Arsenic compounds
Includes any unique chemical
substance that contains
arsenic as part of that chemical’s
infrastructure
Beryllium compounds
Includes any unique chemical
substance that contains
beryllium as part of that
chemicals infrastructure
Cadmium compounds
Includes any unique chemical substance
that contains cadmium as part of that
chemical
‘
s infrastructure
Chromium
compounds
Includes any unique chemical substance
that contains chromium as part of that
chemical’s infrastructure
Cobalt compounds
Includes any unique chemica.l substance
that contains cobalt as part of that
chemical’s infrastructure
cyanide compounds
x(pos) CN(neg) where X
=
H(pos)
or
any other group where a formal dissociation
can be made.
For example, KCN or Ca(CN)2
Lead compounds
134—149
34
Includes any unique chemical substance
that contains lead as part of that
chemical‘s infrastructure
Manganese
compounds
Includes any unique chemical substance
that contains manganese as part of that
chemical’s, infrastructure
Mercury compounds
Includes any unique chemical substance
that contains mercury as part of that
chemical’s infrastructure
Nickel compounds
Includes any unique chemical substance
that contains nickel as part of that
chemical’s infrastructure
Section 232.APPENDIX B
Additional Procedures for
calculating the Chronic Toxicity
Score
a)
Procedures to be used in selecting chronic toxicity
studies.
1)
Chronic toxicity studies in which all of the items
in
subsection
(a) (1) (A) of this appendix are identified
or measured with adequate specificity to use the
equations in subsection
(b)
of this appendix are to be
given first preference.
A)
Study items to be identified or measured:
i)
Test species;
ii)
Contaminant dose;
iii)
Duration of exposure must be at least
21 days,
except for developmental
studies in animals,
in which case the
duratiOn of exposure must be during
critical gestation days;
iv) Route of exposure; and
v)
Effect of exposure.
B)
In the event that two or more studies are
available in which the items
in subsection
(a) (1) (A)
are deemed to have been identified or
measured, but which give inconsistent results, the
134—150
35
study must be selected by the following
procedures:
i)
In the event that two or more studies are
laboratory animal toxicity studies, the study
that is conducted in accordance with or
consistent with Good Laboratory Practice
Standards must be used.
Good Laboratory
Practice Standards are incorporated by
reference
in
Section
232.110.
ii)
In the event that the application of the
procedure in subsection
(i)
fails to result
in the selection of one study, then the study
that results in the highest Chronic Toxicity
Score must be used.
2)
Studies that identify or measure. all of the items in
subsection
(a) (1) (A)
of this appendix, except for the
contaminant dose, must be given second preference.
A)
For a second preference study,
the Lowest Toxic
Dose Score for
a given species and a given route
of exposure must be determined according to the
following table:
Species
Route of
Lowest Toxic
Exposure
Dose Score
Human
Inhalation
1
Human
Non-inhalation
2/3
Non-human
Inhalation
2/3
Non-human
Non-inhalation
1/3
B)
In the event that two or more second preference
studies are available,
the study that results in
the highest Chronic Toxicity Score must be used.
3)
A contaminant for which there are insufficient data in
the study to identify the elements of either a first
or second preference study must be determined to have
no data and be assigned a Chronic Toxicity Score of
0.
b)
The following general equation must be used to obtain the
dose in units of milligram per kilogram per day for the
oral, gavage and inhalation routes of exposure: Dose
=
(I) (C) (TCF) /UF
1)
For the routes of exposure listed below, use the
following:
TCF= Time Correction Factor of
1,
unless the exposure
134—15 1
36
was intermittent,
in which case the fraction of
time during which exposure occurred is used
(e.g.,
5 days/week
=
5/7
=
0.71).
UF= Uncertainty Factor of 10, used only when data are
for exposure periods less than 90 days.
In the
case of fetotoxicity and teratogenicity studies,
an Uncertainty Factor of 1 must be used.
2)
Where the exposure is oral use the following:
A)
Oral Exposure via Food:
1=
Food Intake in kilogram of food ingested per
kilogram of body weight per day (kg/kg-d)
(refer to Chart
1 for standard values);
C=
Contaminant Concentration in food in units of
milligram per kilogram (mg/kg); or
B)
Oral Exposure via Water:
1=
Water Intake in liter of water ingested per
kilogram
of, body weight per day (L/kg-d)
(refer to Chart
1 for standard values);
C=
Contaminant Concentration in water in units
of milligram per liter
(mg/L);
3)
Where the exposure is via gavage use the following:
The product
(I XC)
in the above equation must be
replaced by Gavage Dose
(GD)
in units of milligram of
contaminant ingested per kilogram of body weight per
day (mg/kg-d);
or
4)
Where the exposure is via inhalation use the
following:
1=
Air intake in cubic meter of air inhaled per
kilogram of body weight per day (cu.m3/kg-d)
measured as the product of Ventilation Rate
(VR)
(refer to Chart
1 for standard values) and
Inhalation retention factor
(RF)
(assumed to be
0.5 for this procedure);
C=
Contaminant Concentration in air in units of
milligram per cubic meter (mg/cu.m).
Chart
1
Summary of Physiological Parameters
134—152
37
Species
Water Intake
L/kg/day
Food Intake
kg/kg/day
Ventilation
cu.m/kg/day
Carcinogens
(Categories A,
B1,
and B2) listed on the Integrated
Risk Information System
(IRIS)
as
of December 31,
1989
(United
States Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment)
Chemical
Name
CA~Number
Acetaldehyde
Acrylamide
Acrylonitrile
Aldr in
Aniline
Arsenic
Azobenzene
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzyl
chloride
Beryllium
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Bis(chloroethyl) ether
Bis (chioromethyl) ether
1, 3-Butadiene
Cadmium
Carbon
Tetrachioride
Chlordane
Chloroform
Chloromethyl Methyl Ether
Chromium(VI)
Coke Oven Emissions
Creosote
DDD
DDE
DDT
1, 2-Dichloroethane
Category
00007 5—07—0
000079—06—1
000107—13—1
000309—00—2
000062—53—3
007440—38—2
000103—33—3
000071—43—2
000092—87—5
000050—32—8
000100—44—7
007440—41—7
000117—81—7
000111—44—4
000542-‘88—1
000106—99—0
007440—43—9
0000S6—23—5
000057—74—9
000067—66—3
000107—30—2
18540—29—9
008007—45—2
008001—58—9
000072—54—8
000072—55—9
000050—29—3
000107—06—2
Cat
0.100
0.050
0.46
Dog
0.025
0.025
0.31
Guinea Pig
0.075
0.040
0.58
Human
0.029
0.025
0.26
Monkey
0.14
0.07
0.32
Mouse
0.2S
0.15
1.44
Rabbit
0.065
0.030
0.46
Rat
0.10
0.050
0.66
Section 232.APPENDIX C:
B2
B2
B1
B2
B2
A
B2
A
A
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
B2
Bl
B2
B2
B2
A
A
A
Bi
B2
B2
B2
B2
134—153
38
1, 3-Dichloropropene
000542-75-6
B2
Dichlorovos
000062—73—7
B2
Dieldrin
000060—57—1
B2
Dimethyl Sulfate
000077—78—1
B2
1,4—Dioxane
000123—91—1
B2
1, 2—Diphenylhydrazine
000122—66—7
B2
Epichlorohydrin
000106—89-8
B2
Ethylene Dibromide
000106—93-4
B2
Folpet
000133—07—3
B2
Formaldehyde
000050-00-0
Bi
Furmecyclox
060568—05—0
B2
HeptaOhlor
000076-44-8
B2
Heptachlor Epoxide
001024-57-3
B2
Hexachlorocyclohexane,
000608—73—1
B2
technical
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane
000319-84-6
B2
Hexachlorodibenzo—p—dioxin
019408-74-3
B2
Hydrazine,
Hydrazine Sulfate
B2
(mixture)
Lead and Compounds
B2
(Inorganic)
4,4’—Methylenebis(N,N’—
000101—61—1
B2
dimethyl) benzenamine
N-Nitroso—N-methylethylamine
010595-95-6
B2
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine
000924-16-3
B2
N-Nitrosodi-N-propylamine
000621-64-7
B2
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
001116—54—7
B2
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
000055-18-5
B2
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
000062—75-9
B2
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
000086—30-6
B2
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
000930—55-2
B2
Nickel Carbonyl
013463—39-3
B2
Nickel Refinery Dust
007440—02—0
A
Nickel Subsulfide
012035—72—2
A
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
001336—36—3
B2
Toxaphene
008001—35—2
B2
IT. IS SO ORDERED.
134—
154
39
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted
on
the
______________
day
of
__________________________
1992 by a vote of
________________.
~
~
/~
Dorothy M~Gunn, Clerk
Illinois pollution Control Board
134—155