ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
September 29,
1975
IN THE MATTER OF
)
PROPOSED OXIDANT EPISODE
)
R75—4
REGULATION
ANENLIMENTS
)
INTERIM
OPINION
OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
On
August
14,
1975,
the
proposed
oxidant
episode
regula-
tion
amendments
were
remanded
by
the
Board
to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
for further study
with respect to testimony and comment from the hearings held
and any subsequeit information received by the Agency.
In
addition,
the Ag~iicywas ordered to resubmit the amendments
by November 15,
1975.
It is the intention of the Board in this Opinion to
elaborate on the rea3ons for the Order remanding the pro-
posed amendments
a-id to comment upon the response of the
various persons affected as shown by testimony and exhibits
presented and public comments submitted pursuant to the
hearings held in this matter.
The purpose fo2 remanding the proposed amendments
revolves around three conclusions determined by the Board:
1)
It appears
tJ-~atthe proposed regulations cannot be
promulgated in ti~ieto reasonably affect the 1975 oxidant
season due to the regulatory time constraints.
Indeed,
the
very earliest date upon which the regulation could be effec-
tive would be about the second week in September,
1975,
which would have
a very minimal effect upon oxidant episodes
in 1975.
2)
There was no evidence introduced at the hear-
ings which would inôicate that the existing regulations are
not protecting the citizens of the State of Illinois in a
reasonable manner at this time.
3)
The data available from
the 1975 oxidant season will be more than twice that pre-
viously available due to the increase in number of monitors
available to the Agency.
As it appeared from the evidence
presented at the hearings that the data base for these
proposed regulatory amendments was somewhat limited,
it
would seem pruden~to assess the additional data gained
during the 1975 episode season before determining whether
new regulations should be promulgated.
It is the intention of the Board that the Agency review
and revise the proposed regulations in light of both the
evidence and testimony introduced at the R75-4 hearings and
the additional monitoring data supplied by the 1975 oxidant
18
—
729
—2—
season.
The November 15,
1975,
date
for resubmission of the
proposal was chosen in order to allow sufficient time to
consider and promulgate the regulations and establish any
strategy plans that might be needed for the 1976 oxidant
season.
Considerations
A major cha.~igeproposed by the amendments concerns the
flexibility
allos..ed the Agency with respect to the deter-
mination of atmospheric conditions, Rule 402(c),
(R.76).
Dr.
R.A. Wadden, University of Illinois Medical Center,
expressed his concern with this flexibility indicating that
the National Weather Service forecasts,
coming from a third
party,
should be retained.
The Board feels that the flex-
ibility proposed by the amendments,
with respect to ozone
levels,
is reasonabie,
that the Agency’s techniques for
predicting ozone l-~velsare at least as good as those of the
National Weather Service, and that the Agency is closer to
the problem (R.l~?i).
The testimony of Richard Kates and others indicated
misunderstanding with respect to the ability of other agen-
cies to develop their own limits and strategies.
It is the
Board’s opinion that the amendments,
as they are now consti-
tuted, do promote .~nisunderstandingin this area and that
they should be re-evaluated to make the Agency’s position on
alternate
limits an’~strategies clear
(R.198).
Although a considerable amount of doubt was cast upon
the basis for the selection of a precise number correspond-
ing to the Emergency Level for ozone
at 0.5 ppm, the Board
feels
that
the
0.5
ppm
level
is
reasonable
in
the
face
of
two important fa’~bors:
1)
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency has proposed 0.5 ppm as the reco~nmended
level for ozone concentrations at the Emergency Level.
The
weight of this evidence is based both upon the expertise of
the USEPA, and the need for some sort of common target level
between the states ~qithrespect to action plans in an emer-
gency situation.
2~
It is generally accepted that a level
of 0.6 ppm of ozone will severely affect most persons,
i.e.,
0.6 ppm of ozone would be expected to cause significant
harm.
Since the level of 0.6 ppm of ozone is expected to
cause significant harm,
it is prudent to put the fullest
measure of abaten,c~nt into effect prior to that level.
The
precise level
at which this maximum effort should be ex-
pended is not apparent from the record.
Since there is no
precise level,
it would appear reasonable to accept USEPA’S
proposed level of 0.5 ppm of ozone
as the Emergency Level.
Should further information become available concerning this
Emergency Level prier to the Board’s consideration of the
proposed amendments,
such information should of course be
brought before the Board immediately
(R.760).
18—
730
—3—
Concerning aircraft flights
in the Cook County area,
the Board feels that,
unless the hydrocarbon emission reduc-
tion is expected to be significantly higher that the 0.5
estimated at the present time,
forbidding all aircraft
flight departures
is not a reasonable strategy for a Red
Alert.
If the total
reduction amounts to only 0.5,
it
would appear prudent to put this strategy into the Emergency
Level.
A showing
that such a strategy would reduce the
hydrocarbon levels in Cook County to a significantly lower
level would justify the strategy at the Red Alert Stage
(R.581)
The major question addressed by the proposed amendments
is the effect of ozone on the health of the population and
at what level certain strategies should be implemented with
the object of reducing this ozone concentration.
Ozone has
been determined to be a serious pollutant,
indeed Dr. Bertram
W.
Carnow (Director of the Environmental Health
Resource
Center of IEQ and Medical Director of the Chicago Lung
Association), states that “ozone is certainly the most
serious of all p~1lutants” (R.106).
Ozone affects the human
mucus linings and lung tissue,
causes chromosal breaks,
is
an occular irritant and causes red blood cell fragility as
well as enzyme modifications
(Ex.
5A).
During the hearings on the proposed amendments to the
episode regu1ation~,medical testimony was received from Dr.
Carnow,
Dr. Edward
.
Calabrese (Assistant Professor of
Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois Medical
School and Assistant Director of Environmental Health Re-
source Center of IEQ),
Dr. Kent K. Knock
(Illinois EPA
Toxicologist),
R.A.
Wadden, PhD.
(University of Illinois
Medical Center) and J.W. Masterson
(Chief Statistician,
Chicago Board of Health).
The witnesses and their supporting exhibits stressed
the importance of the fact that most research in the area
involved healthy,
low risk, members of the population.
Therefore,
the res’.~dtsof the research may not adequately
reflect the danger to that portion of the population in the
high risk categories.
High risk categories would include
young people,
those carrying on heavy physical activity,
people with asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, heart
disease,
smokers, g’ucose-6—phosphate dehydrogenose
(G—6 PD)
deficient persons, and persons with dietary deficiencies
with respect to vitamins C and E, protein, and selenium (Ex.
5A).
Human exposure to 0.5 ppm of ozone for three hours per
day,
six days a week for twelve weeks, resulted in a de-
crease in lung capacity for as long as six weeks after
exposure.
Two hour exposure to 0.37 ppm resulted in a
significant decrease in lung capacity for over 90
of the
people tested
(Ex.
5A and
7).
18
—
731
—4—
In a study of Los Angeles student nurses, daily
eye
discomfort increa3ed
as daily maximum photochemical oxidant
levels exceeded 0.15 to 0.19 ppm.
Cough and chest dis-
comfort remained relatively constant until 0.30 to 0.39 ppm,
at which time the rates of both symptoms increased markedly.
Headache without fever began a slight but constant increase
at levels of 0.1 to 0.14 ppm and marked acceleration oc-
curred at 0.30 t
0.39 ppm.
(Ex.
25)
The American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists concluded that ozone
is
a “highly injurious and
lethal gas at relatively low concentration
(a few ppm)
and
at short exposure periods
(a few hours).”
At lower concen-
trations, ozone may “initiate,
accelerate or exacerbate
respiratory tra~tdisease of bacterial origin.”
Although
there is no man!’~estinjury at concentrations of 0.1 ppm,
this level may rEsult in premature aging similar to con-
tinued exposure to ionizing radiation
(Ex.
21).
In
a
study
cf athletic performance in the Los Angeles
area,
the only correlation shown between poor performance
and poLlution levels was in connection with oxidant levels
one hour before the race
(Ex.
21).
It has been shown that ozone affects red blood cor-
puscles
and the release of oxygen hemoglobin
(Ex.
5A),
and
that it also re~u1tsin chromosome breakage at a very high
rate
(Ex.
5A,
R. d6)
It
has
also
been shown that ozone and sulfur dioxide
act synergisticElly.
Using maximal expiratory flow rate
(MEFR)
at 50
vi-Lal capacity as an index, it was found that,
at 0.37 ppm ozone,
a two hour period was needed to show a
significant efi~ectof MEFR.
However, when 0.37 ppm ~
was
also present, only
30 minutes passed before substantially
similar effects occurred.
(Exs.
5A,
25,
and R.150).
In
addition,
as mentioned previously, persons with
a G—6 PD
deficiency would have an acute hemolytic response when
exposed to 0.3 cr 0.4 ppm ozone for not more than
3 hours.
It
is
significant
that
thirteen
percent
of
the
black
popula-
tion in Cook Councy or 240,000 persons
in the Chicago Area
have this deficiency
(R155—6).
From the foregoing review of the record, the Board must
conclude that czone
is a dangerous pollutant,
not only at
high concentracions
(that is, above 0.37 ppm)
but also at
lower concentrations where symptoms are less pronounced.
Based on this record,
the Board suggests that the level for
a Yellow Alert and Red Alert be reviewed for possible change
consistant
with this
record.
For instance,
a 0.15 ppm ozone
level
may
be representative of one of the dangerous “plateaus”
as indicated
in this
record,
and a level of
0.35 or 0.37 ppm
of
ozone
may
be
ar.other
such
dangerous
“plateau.”
18
—
732
—5—
With repect to the proposed strategies at the Yellow
Alert Level, the Board feels that there
is insufficient
evidence upon which to base the assumption that such strate-
gies will indeed result in a lowering of the ozone
level.
Such strategies may be appropriate at a Red Alert or Emer-
gency Level, where imminent damage to the population in
general would promote the use of any strategy that might
conceivably be effective in lowering the ozone level.
The
equities at the lower Yellow Alert Level, however, would
seem to lie with the proposition that a questionable set of
strategies which are likely to cause considerable disruption
to
the
communities
upon
which they are imposed is not a
viable solution to the problem.
At the Yellow Alert Level,
suitable regulations calling for voluntary reductions in
certain
areas,
along
with
mandatory
reductions
in
areas
least likely to
cause
community
disruption,
should
be
con-
sidered by the Agency.
The Board urges the Agency to re—evaluate their pro-
posed amendments in light of the very latest information
available (inclu&~ngany update of Federal information) and
the
data
accrued
during
the
ozone
season
of
1975.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board4
hereby certify the above Opinion was adopted
on the
~q
_____
day ~
,
1975 by a vote
_
I~4)42~
Christan
L.
Moff~4.1Clerk
Illinois Pollutio~ontrol Board
18
—733