The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to tighten the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone, aka "smog." Specifically, the EPA is proposing to lower the ozone NAAQS from 0.08ppm to somewhere between 0.070ppm and 0.075ppm, though it will also consider tightening the standard to 0.060ppm and leaving the standard as is. EPA has posted background material on the proposed rule change here.
There was an all out political and legal brawl the last time the EPA tightened the ozone standard. In 1997 the Clinton Administration dropped the standard from 0.12ppm (measured as a one-hour average) to the current standard of 0.08ppm (measured as an eight-hour average). The EPA tightened the NAAQS for fine particulate matter at the same time. Industry groups and a handful of states fought the standards to the Supreme Court and back, but were ultimately unsuccessful. As the Washington Post reports, this proposal could prompt an equally fierce fight.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to periodically reevaluate existing standards in light of new scientific evidence, and propose changes if the agency concludes that existing standards are insufficient to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. The EPA's decision to reevaluate the ozone NAAQS was prompted by a lawsuit filed by several environmental groups, alleging that the agency had failed to conduct the required periodic review. Interestingly enough, litigation over the 1997 standard has continued through to this year, and the EPA has yet to finalize all the regulations necessary to implement the 1997 rule.
Could you be more specific about the studies to which you refer, and exactly how they are flawed? Thanks.
Dan
The interesting and unusual aspect of this particular EPA proposal is to extend the comment period, specifically to provide more opportunity for industry and states to object. Meanwhile, it drags out the process, increasingly the likelihood that a new final rule will not be issued before the end of the Bush Administration, regardless of court orders.
It's also interesting to note that, even though the EPA cannot "consider" costs in revising air quality standards, it did prepare CBAs the last time it revised the standards for ozone and particulate matter. I seem to recall that at least one of the standards was expected to generate net social benefits. The question of why EPA would perform CBAs that it could not consider in establishing or revising air quality standards is interesting in itself. No doubt it has a lot to do with public choice theory. Presumably, EPA believes that a positive CBA would help deflect political criticism of tighter standards. I believe that was the case back in the late 1990s, when EPA revised the standards for ozone and PM. It's also worth wondering whether EPA, throughout its history, would have revised air quality standards upwards more often, if it had been authorized to consider costs. Certainly, the history of EPA revisions to air quality standards is short.
Best.
Dan
Ummmm...100 parts per million of ozone would be immediately dangerous to human life and health. In fact, 100 ppm is a factor of 20 above the 5 ppm that OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) considers Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH). A 100 ppm concentration would eat your lungs and eyeballs to nonfunctioning status within an hour.
100 ppm of ozone is extremely deadly
If you actually meant that the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone could be as high a 100 parts per BILLION (i.e., 0.1 ppm) and still be safe...well, that's a matter of debate.