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

    Back to top