ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
19,
1982
IN THE MATTER
OF:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER
2:
)
R80--i1
AIR POLLUTION RULES
309, 312 AND 405,
NON—METHANE HYDROCARBON AND
OZONE STANDARDS, OZONE EPISODE CRITERIA
PROPOSED RULE.
SECOND
NOTICE.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
This Opinion
is
being proposed to support the proposed rules
as adopted for second notice by the Board’s Order of March 19,
1982.
The proposal before tne Board,
submitted by
the
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency), involves three rules.
Rule 309, which establishes an air quality standard for non--
methane hydrocarbons,
is to be deleted in its entirety.
Rule
312 “Photochemical Oxidants” is to be amended throughout to refer
to a)
“Ozone” and b) its air quality standard raised from the
0.08 ppm
(160 micrograms per cubic meter)
to 0.12 ppm
(235
micrograms per cubic meter).
Rule 405 “Criteria For Declaring
Episode Stages”
is to be modified
a)
to provide for an “advisory”
at an ozone level of 0,12 ppm, rather than at the current
.07
level, and b)
to provide for a “yellow alert” at an ozone
level
of 0.20 ppm, rather than at the current 0.17 level.
Each of these
amendments is being proposed in order to bring the Board’s rules
into conformance with the now—existing federal standards.
This rulemaking was initiated upon the Agencyvs June 17,
1980 proposal.
This original proposal, which appeared in the
Illinois Register Vol.
4,
No,
39
(September 26,
1980), proposed
to amend only Rules 312, and 405.
On September 15,
the
proposal
was amended to include deletion of Rule 309, and the amended
proposal was published in the Environmental Register #224
(September 29,
1980),
Merit hearings were held on the amended proposal
(IEPA
Ex.
1)
on September 26 and October
8,
1980,
On April
17, 1981 the
Illinois Institute of Natural
Resources, now named the Department
of Energy and Natural Resources
(ENR)
filed its
“Economic Impact
Analysis of Proposed Changes
in IPCB Rules and Regulations,
Chapter
2,
Rules 312 and 405, Ozone and Episode Criteria, R80—11”
IINR Doc.
No.
81/17
(Ec1S).
Economic impact hearings were held
June
2 and 17,
1981.
45—S7q
2
As the Agen~ys arended proposal was again slightly amended
at the last hearJr~j albeit in a non—substantive way, and the
amended proposal
in
ith
entirety had not been published in the
Illinois Registe~. d~eBoard ic-noticed the proposal
to ieceive
written comments or~ly(Illinois Register, Vol.
5,
#33, August 14,
1981),
Since the
itiation of this rulemaking, the Board has
received no comire~tson repeal of Rule 309.
The four comments
received conceining Rules 312 and 405 involved two general
objections to relaxation of the ozone
standard,
a comment in
support of the revi~io~s,aiid a comment drawing the Board~s
attention to scientific articles relating to the effects of
ozone on agricultural production.
THE TECHNICAL EVIDENCE
As the Board noted
in its Opinion adopting the existing
Rules 312 and 405 ambient air quality standards (AAQS),
the Board
adopted standards consistent with the federal AAQS
(In the Matter
of Proposed Air Quality Standards,
R72-7,
18 PCB 89-92, July 10,
1975).
In its most recent amendment to the ozone episode criteria,
the Board also recognized and adverted
to advances in federal
research and practices concerning episodes
(In the Matter of
Amendments
to Air Pol1~tionEpisode Regulations,
R75—4,
21 PCB
169,
170,
173).
Tne Agency~sposition at hearing in this matter,
simply stated,
is that the Board should continue to rely on
federal
research in the ozone area, and based
on
research advances,
should
relax and revise its standards in generally the same ways as has
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
The
Agency presented
3 witnesses at hearing,
Transportation arid
Bnergy
Unit Supervisor,
Frank Sherman,
Health Specialist Rick Lanham,
and
Ambient Air Monitoring Section Manager David Kolaz,
Sherman
out-
lined the Agency~sjustifications for the rules generally,
Lanham
spoke primarily con~er~iing
the health effects of AAQS changes
based on federal research, while Kolaz relayed the Agency~s
experience with and findings resulting from air monitoring.
Rule 312:
“Ozone”
On February
8,
1979 USEPA revised its AAQS for photochemical
oxidants.
The chemical designation was changed to ozone, both
the primary and secondary standards were raised from O~O8ppm
to
0,12,
and the form of measurement of the standard was changed
from
a deterministic to statistical form 44 Fed,
Reg.
8207—8237
(IEPA
Ex.
6).
In making these changes, USEPA relied on a criteria
document entitled “Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Other Photo-
chemical Oxidants”,
EPA 600/18—78—004,
April,
1978
(IEPA Ex,
14),
This document superseded
“Air Quality Criteria for Photochemical
Oxidants”,
US Dept~of HEW, No, AP—3, March 1970,
(IEPA Ex.
2)
upon which USEPA and the Board had relied
in setting the first
AAQS,
45—580
3
ChemicalDesignation
In
brief, photochemical oxidants are not emitted directly
into the atmosphere.
They are the product of a series of chemical
reactions taking place
in
sunlight between precursors.
These
precursors are
nitrogen
oxides
(e.g. emitted by gas and oil fired
engines)
and organic compounds
(e.g. hydrocarbon emissions
from
auto and truck exhausts, open burning, evaporation of gasoline
and solvents).
The class of oxidizing agents can be divided into the groups
ozone
(65 to 100),
peroxyacetyl nitrate
(PAN), nitrogen oxides,
and other compounds,
Ozone is the only member of
the
class which
can be satisfactorily measured;
aside from PAN, non—ozone oxidants
remain largely unidentified, and have not been associated with
ozone’s adverse health effects.
Because of the measurement
difficulties
as to other class members, the photochemical oxidant
standard has, practically speaking, regulated only ozone,
The
proposed re—designation then would
serve only to recognize this
fact.
However, strategies developed to control ozone production
indirectly control production of PAN, which is an eye irritant.
Smog chamber tests indicate that reductions of the ozone
precursors nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbons have a greater impact
on lessening PAN than ozone.
The Primary Standard
As
in establishing any AAQS,
in order to determine a primary
standard
(which
is designed to protect the health of the sensitive
population and the general public against inquiry with a margin of
safety),
the threshold concentration for ozone must be determined.
This threshold concentration is one between a no—effect level and
the lowest at which a health effect is demonstrated.
Needless to
say,
a precision or lack thereof in determining the threshold
concentration affects the margin of safety question.
USEPA has been unable to identify the adverse health effect
concentration with certainty.
Lanham testified that:
“Biological reactions to pollutants are not
characterized by sharp discontinuities in dose--
response relationships, and that demonstration of
no—effect levels is dependent upon the sensitivity of
the measurement of effects and exposure,
as well
as
the selection of the most sensitive groups and reaction
systems.
Most experimental studies of human
subjects
are performed on small numbers of relatively health
persons who do not fully reflect the range of human
sensitivity.
Furthermore,
an additive effect could
result from the addition of other chemicals to ozone,
causing adverse health effects at lower levels
than
ozone alone would cause
(R.
114).”
45—58 1
4
The 1978 USEPA criteria document contained an evaluation of
new health studies as well as a reevaluation of the studies upon
which the 1970 criteria document was based.
A summary of results
in human studies is included in IEPA Ex.
6,
44 Fed.
Reg.
8214.
some human studies however deserve brief mention here.
First,
it is important to note that the 1961 Schoetlin and
Landau study of the effects of ozone on asthmatics, which served
as a primary basis
for establishing the 0.08 ppm primary AAQS,
has been re-evaluated,
The study had originally concluded that
a level of 0.10 ppm caused adverse health in this sensitive group.
After resolution of an averaging time co~itroversy, the data is
now interpreted as reflecting adverse effects at a 0.25 level.
The study most heavily relied on in establishing the current
0.12 AAQS was the 1977 DeLucia and Adams study.
In this study,
the effects of exercise on the lung function and blood biochemistry
of six men were determined after exposure to ozone via mouthpiece
for one hour at 0,15 ppm and 0.30 ppm ozone.
Two
sensitive
subjects showed markedly impaired respiratory functions after one
hour exposure at each level.
This study,
along with a 1973
Hazucha study,
further indicates that healthy subjects also
demonstrate effects of pulmonary function impairment at levels
as low as 0.15 ppm under more strenuous exercise protocol.
In addition to various animal studies which will not be here
described,
USEPA considered the limited data available concerning
the effect of ozone on chromosomal structures and the effects
of
long term oxidant exposure.
However,
few or no inferences can be
drawn
from the
few epidemiological and experimental studies which
had
been performed.
Based on all the evidence before
it, USEPA had originally
proposed adoption of
a 0.10 ppm AAQS for ozone 43
Fed.
Reg.
26962—26986, June
22,
1978
(IEPA Ex.
5).
Following its comments
period however, USEPA adopted the 0.12 standard.
Its conclusions were that:
“EPA remains convinced that at levels in the range
of 0.15—0.25 ppm, adverse health effects will almost
certainly be experienced by significant numbers of sen-
sitive persons.
,,.There is no collection of facts or
medical evidence that permits selecting an undisputed
value for the standard.
EPA proposed a standard of
0.10 ppm taking several factors into account in
providing a margin of safety... Based on its current
understanding of these
several
disputed epidemiological
and animal
studies, EPA has concluded that they do not
dictate as wide a margin of safety as was established
in the proposal.
EPA does believe however that these
studies do suggest the real possibility of significant
human adverse health effects below 0.15 ppm.
Con-
sequently,
the Administrator has determined that
a
standard of 0.12 ppm is necessary”
(IEPA Ex.
6,
p.
8217).
45—582
5
The_Se~2~4~~taI1dard
The secondary AAQS is established to protection vegetation,
materials, and property.
The secondary ozone standard was
also
set
by
USEPA
at 0.12 ppm.
As
it has been determined that any
level
of
ozone in the ambient air will contribute to the
deterioration of materials such as rubber,
textile dyes and fibers
and
some types of paints and coatings, USEPA was principally
concerned
with the air quality required to protect vegetation
from
growth
and
yield effects.
USEPA
had
originally proposed a
revised
0.08
ppm
standard,
based
on a mathematical model developed
to
predict
folial
inquiry
using chamber
studies
(which utilize
the most
susceptible
varieties
of a given
species), and seeking to limit leaf injury to 3
or
less as a
result of short-term
peak ozone exposures.
During
the
comment
period,
the model was
questioned
as
not
being based
on
field
studies.
The effects of short—term ozone dosage were
also
said
to be questionable except during the critical stages of
the
plant’s life cycle.
Based on the information available
concerning
growth and yield reduction in crops and indigenous vegetation
exposed to ozone under field conditions,
USEPA concluded that:
“there is currently no evidence indicating that a
significant decrease in growth or yield or commercially
important crops or indigenous
flora will result from
the long—term mean of the
daily
maximum
7—hour average
ozone concentration”
(IEPA Ex.
6,
p.
8217).
Inte~~~~
i9rlOf
the Standard
USEPA changed the form of its standard from a statistical
one to
a deterministic one, allowing an excursion on one day
per
year, rather than
one
excursion of one hour per year.
The
Agency
supports the philosophy of this change.
As the duration excur-
sions are
in large measure tied to uncontrollable meterological
conditions, retention of the one hour exceedance measurement
would not alleviate any adverse health effects aggravated by
the
duration of an event.
The mechanism for dealing with this
properly is suggested to be actions based on the Rule 405 episode
criteria,
In determining
a) whether an exceedance and b) attainment
has
occurred, the Agency~sproposal specifically
does
not include the
federal method of determining compliance as specified in Appendix
H to 40 CFR 50.9.
The Appendix H procedure requires that the
number of exceedances in a calendar year be adjusted
for
missing
data and a three—year runfling average of exceedances be computed.
Attainment is reached when the expected number of exceedances,
based on this three—year average,
is less than or equal
to one
day.
45—583
6
The
Agency believes
that
the
USEPA
method of
compensating
for
missing
data
is
overly
simplistic
and
limiting,
and
may
be
inappropriate.
In
this
method,
the
number
of
exceedances
is
divided
by
the
number
of
sampling
days
to
determine
the
ratio
at
which
exceedances
occur,
and
the
ratio
is
then
multiplied
by
the
number
of
missing
days
not
bracketed
by
days
with
measured
ozone values of less
than
0.09
ppm.
Following
this
procedure,
if an ozone monitor is operated for only
one
day in a year, and
measures an exceedance, the estimated number of exceedances would
be 365, since the ratio would be 1 to 1.
Such a result ignores
the fact
that
the likelihood of an exceedance is dependent on
meteriological factors as well as emissions.
The three—year running average attainment measurement is
questioned
because
USEPA
has
provided
that
less than three years
of data
may
be
averaged if
three
years
are
not
available.
Thus,
if only
one
year of data is available,
4 exceedances
are
required
before the standard is violated.
On the other hand,
if
three
years
of
data
are
available,
and
4
exceedances
occur
in
the
first
year,
but
emission
reductions
occur
so
that
no
exceedances
are
measured
in
the
next
two years, an area is classified as
non—attainment.
Accordingly,
under
the
rule
as
proposed
by
the
Agency
the
federal
statistical
methods
are
rejected.
If
two
days
are
found
in
which
a
maximum
hourly
value
of
ozone
in
excess
of
0.12
ppm
is
measured, the standard will be considered to have been violated.
Ozone
Air
Quality Levels (1975—1980)
For
purposes
of information only, and not in justification
of
the
proposed
changes,
the
Agency
relayed
to
the
Board
the
results
of
its
monitoring
to
determine
compliance
with
the
present
standard.
Ozone is currently monitored at 37 fixed sites, 68
of which
are located in the Illinois portion of the Chicago and St. Louis
Major Metropolitan Areas.
Supplemental sites have also been used
to define ozone levels in rural areas.
Information concerning
number of hours of exceedance and ozone levels was introduced in
table form
(IEPA ~c. 13).
In summary, all sites exceed the 0.08 ppm standard, and most
do so frequently (Table 2).
A significant number of sites would
be in compliance
with
a 0.12 ppm standard (Table 3).
In this
context, it should be noted
that
data from the nine sites for
which
data
exists
from
1977
through
1980
show
a
total
number
of
days of exceedance of 0.12
ppm
of 93
in
1977
as
compared
to
30
in 1980.
Ozone levels have been improving on the whole, although
Chicago
and
St.
Louis remain principal areas of concern.
In 1975
through 1978, one or more sites recorded ozone levels
above
0.20
ppm.
In contrast, the highest value in 1979 was 0.186
ppm
and
in 1980 was 0.170 ppm.
45—584
7
Rule 405 ~~e~t~ia
The Agency proposes that the ozone advisory level
be raised
from
.07 to
.12 ppm, and that the yellow alert level be raised
from 0,17 to 0.20,
The purpose of the advisory is, of course, to set the levels
at which persons susceptible to lung ailments and heart problems
a~ewarned through the news media to restrict their activity.
Currently,
the
advisory is given at
0.07
ppm,
a
level below
that
at which the 0.08 ppm standard is reached,
The Agency proposes
to establish the advisory level at the level of the standard
itself to avoid several problems experienced under the current
system.
In the years from 1976 to August
31,
1980,
the number of
advisories issued has been respectively 381,
794,
506,
426,
and
615.
Some of these advisories would have been unnecessary had
the advisory level been set at the level of the primary health
standard.
Some members of the public have become confused,
thinking that the advisory level
is in fact the health standard,
and therefore unnecessarily alarmed.
Others, who are not
confused in this manner, pay less attention to the numerous
advisories
since they do not reflect the health standard.
If
the proposed rule were to be adopted,
the average yearly number
of advisories would decrease from 554 to 108.
In light of
a recent new federal requirement, retention of
the existing rule would multiply the potential for public
confusion.
USEPA has adopted a uniform air
quality
reporting
scheme, to be implemented without variation, called the Pollution
Standards Index
(PSI)
codified at 40 CFR 58, Appendix G.
The PSI
is required to be implemented
in the Chicago and
St.
Louis areas
by January 1,
1981 and in the Rockford and Quad Cities areas by
January 1,
1983.
The PSI
is prepared by comparing real-time monitoring data
against cut off levels
for each pollutant,
which levels then
define an Index range and corresponding descriptor category,
Descriptor words are Good,
Moderate,
Healthy, Unhealthy, Very
Unhealthy, and Hazardous,
By way of example, ozone values of
0.0 to 0,06 would correspond to
a PSI value of
0 to 50, and the
Good descriptor, while ozone values of 0.12 ppm to 0.2 ppm have
a PSI value of 100 to 200,
and the Unhealthy descriptor.
Thus,
the PSI is calculated to switch from a Moderate
to Unhealthy
level at the 0,12 AAQS level,
If present Rule 405
is retained, the Agency would be
required
to issue a state ozone advisory, while transmitting
the
federal
PSI noting that ozone was
moderate.
The Agency believes
that issuance of such seemingly contradictory information by the
same Agency would not be in the public’s best interests
45--585
8
The rationale behind raising the Yellow Alert
level
from
0.17 ppm is much the same.
A 0,20 ppm ozone level corresponds
to the PSI value where the Descriptor category switches from
tlnhealthful
to Very Unhealthful.
This,
again, would allow for
integration of the Illinois episode system with the federal
PSI system.
Rule 309:
Non-Metha~~~arbons
In the criteria document which served as the basis for USEPA
and subsequent Board adoption of this standard,
it was explicitly
noted
that
“It is important to recognize that the criteria
for
hydrocarbons rest almost entirely on their role as
precursors of other compounds formed in the atmospheric
photochemical system and not upon the direct effects
of the hydrocarbons themselves.”
(Air Quality Criteria
for Hydrocarbons, US Dept.
HEW, AP—64,
March,
1970,
IEPA Ex,
7)
USEPA does not require the states to monitor for non—methane
hydrocarbons, as they do for other pollutants.
The Agency did
such monitoring in the Chicago and Springfield areas
from 1975—
1979, producing data showing that the standard was violated 90
of
the
time
in Chicago and 44
of the time in Springfield.
The
Agency
ceased
monitoring due to data uncertainties arising
from
recurring
instrumental problems and reports that the monitors
were unreliable.
USEPA itself is of the opinion that there is “doubt that
the present design generation can provide reliable NMHC data,
particularly in the lower ranges near the EPA air quality
standard”
(“Evaluation of the EPA Reference Method for the
Measurement
of Non—Methane Hydrocarbons—-Final Report”,
EPA—
600/4—77—003, June,
1977, IEPA Ex.
12, Sec.
2,
p.
10),
USEPA
has not designated an acceptable reference or equivalent device
for monitoring non—methane hydrocarbon.
In short, in that this hydrocarbon standard was not based
on adverse health effects
caused
by
hydrocarbons
in
and
of them-
selves, that monitoring methods are unreliable, and that USEPA
has determined that attainment of the hydrocarbon standard can be
achieved by the degree of emission reductions necessary to achieve
the ozone AAQS
(40 CFR 51.14,
IEPA Ex.
6), the Agency believes
that repeal
of the rule will not impact the public health and will.
serve to remove a rule which has through time lost its original
significance.
45—586
9
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The brief
EelS prepared concerning this proposal concludes
that “adoption of R80-11 will privide some modest positive
net
benefit to the State of Illinois”
(ENR Ex.
1,
p.
16).
Neither
the costs nor the benefits of this proposal were quantified and
assigned
a dollar value
in this EelS.
The general
findings in the EelS were supplemented at hearing
by the EelS’
author,
Dr. Donald Bumpass, of William J.
Stanley
and
Assoc.,
Inc.
As to costs, reference was made to a previous
ENR
EelS
authored by John Yates entitled “The Economic Impact of
Incorporating
RACT—1 Guidelines
for
VOC
Emissions into the
Illinois
Air
Pollution Control
Regulations
R78-3
and 78-4”,
IINR
Doe. No.
79/01.
RACT-1 air modeling
was
done
assuming an
ozone
standard
of 0.12 and the regulations adopted by the Board
reflect
this.
Modification of Rule 312 to a 0,12 standard would therefore
impose
no
additional control costs on industry, in Dr. Bumpass
opinion
(R.
222),
Based on the Yates
EcIS,
it was also believed
that relaxation of the standard would have no incremental cost
effect on production of Illinois’ three leading cash crops:
corn,
soy
beans,
and wheat,
(R.
201—202),
or incremental cost effect
on
maintenance of the public health
(R,
212),
Revisions
of the Rule 405 episode criteria was said to
carry with it no incremental cost, but instead some unquantifiable
benefits by virtue of maintenance of public confidence in air
regulations as fostered by the uniformity of state and federal
episode criteria.
Finally,
as to deletion of Rule 309,
the testimony was that
it would have no adverse impact on health
CR.
224),
THE ADOPTED RULES
The
evidence presented in this rulemaking was uncontroverted.
Participation
at
hearing
and
though
comments
by
the
industrial,
agricultural, health care and general communities was virtually
non-existent.
Based on the record before it,
the Board is
adopting the Agency’s proposal as drafted,
finding that this
regulatory change will have no adverse health or economic
impact.
There is one change between the rule as
it is being sent to
second
notice,
and the rule as published in Illinois Register
Vol.
5
#33.
As
published,
Rule 312(b) provided that ozone was
to be
“measured
by the ozone—ethylene reaction method as
described
in 36 Federal Register,
pp.
22392—22393,
November
25,
1971 or by an equivalent method approved
by
the
Agency”.
45—587
10
The Agency’s September 15 proposal, as published in
Environmental Register
#224, proposed that the Federal Register
reference and page numbers be deleted, to be replaced by
reference
to the codified version of this measurement method “4OCFR5O~
As this does not involve a substantive
change to this rule, and references the more accessible source,
the Board will adopt the rule utilizing the CFR reference,
rectifying
the clerical omission,
Finally,
the Board wishes to observe that a recent study
concerning
the effect of ozone,
alone and in combination with
other pollutants,
upon agricultural crops was introduced
into
this
record
without comment (“Economic Assessment of Air
Pollution
Damage
to
Agricultural and Silvicultural Crops
in Minnesota”,
Prelim.
Report,
April
27, 1981, IPCB Ex.
1, and public comment
#4).
The
study
raises
questions
concerning
ozone
effects,
including
interstate
effects,
that
may
not
be
fully
addressed
in the
present
state/federal
control
strategy.
However, a question of this
nature
is
more
appropriately
addressed
in
a
separate
proceeding.
Board Chairman
J.
Dumelle concurred.
I, Christan
L, Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion was
adopted
on the
~Jj
day of
~
1982 by a vote of
p
~tanL.M,Clerk
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
45—588
