Published on
The New York Times

EPA Proposes Strict New Smog Standards

Robin Bravender of Greenwire

The Los Angeles skyline seen through thick smog. (photo by flickr user Al Pavangkanan)

U.S. EPA today proposed significantly tougher smog standards after
reconsidering the George W. Bush administration's controversial 2008

The draft rule
(pdf) released by EPA proposes to revise the two standards aimed at
protecting public health and welfare to comply with recommendations
made by the agency's science advisers. The Bush administration had
rejected those suggestions when issuing the 2008 national air quality
standards for ground-level ozone, or smog, drawing criticism and legal
challenges from environmental and public health groups.

"EPA is stepping up to protect Americans from one of the most
persistent and widespread pollutants we face," EPA Administrator Lisa
Jackson said in a statement. "Using the best science to strengthen
these standards is a long overdue action that will help millions of
Americans breathe easier and live healthier."

Smog forms when a mixture of pollutants from industrial facilities,
power plants, motor vehicles and other sources react in sunlight. It
can cause respiratory problems, including coughing, wheezing, shortness
of breath and chest pain, and leads to increased risk of premature
death in people with heart or lung disease.

The agency proposed to set the health-based "primary" standard for
smog within a range of 60 to 70 parts per billion (ppb) when averaged
over an 8-hour period. The Bush administration tightened the ozone
limits from 84 ppb to 75 ppb in 2008, despite scientific advisers'
recommendations to issue a standard between 60 ppb and 70 ppb.

EPA is also proposing a separate "secondary" standard aimed at
protecting vegetation and ecosystems, including parks, wildlife refuges
and wilderness areas. The draft rule recommends setting that standard
within the range of 7 to 15 parts per million-hours. Such a standard
would be based on a cumulative, weighted total of daily 12-hour ozone
exposures to plants and crops over a three-month period. The agency's
science advisers recommended setting a separate secondary standard
prior to the release of the 2008 rule.

Former EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson was set to issue a more
protective secondary standard in 2008, but the agency rewrote the
regulations to include identical primary and secondary standards after
the White House intervened on the eve of the agency's court-ordered
deadline (Greenwire, May 20, 2008).

Enviro groups hail reversal

Environmental groups and Democratic lawmakers hailed today's
proposal, saying that tighter ozone standards are long overdue.
Industry groups, meanwhile, questioned the science behind the
reconsideration and potential economic effects.

Frank O'Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch,
said this reconsideration "may be the single most important
environmental decision that the EPA makes this year."

Earthjustice attorney David Baron, who represented environmental
groups in a lawsuit challenging the Bush standard, applauded EPA's
proposal, saying the current standards do not protect public health
with a margin of safety.

"We also welcome EPA's proposal of a separate standard to protect
forests from ozone damage," Baron said. "According to the National Park
Service, ozone pollution causes widespread tree damage and severely
impacts tree growth. Both the Park Service and EPA's science advisers
have called for a strong separate standard to protect our forests from
ozone pollution."

Former House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman
(D-Calif.), who probed allegations of White House interference
surrounding the 2008 standard, also welcomed the proposal.

"I am pleased that EPA is once again basing its clean air decisions
on the advice of independent scientists," Waxman said. "I applaud this
reversal of a Bush administration decision to ignore science."

Industry groups question science

Industry groups, however, expressed concern that the proposed
regulations are not needed to protect public health and welfare and
that they will impose undue economic burdens.

"This goes well beyond the statute requirement of requisite to
protect health and welfare," said Amy Chai, staff counsel for the
National Association of Home Builders.

"It places an impermissible burden on the industry," Chai added.
"Obviously our industry at this point is just not equipped to deal with
a burden that is not going to contribute positively to air quality."

The American Petroleum Institute said in a statement that the action
lacks scientific justification. "EPA acknowledges the newer studies on
ozone 'do not materially change any of the broad scientific conclusions
regarding the health effects of exposure,'" the group said in a
statement. "Given that conclusion, there is absolutely no basis for EPA
to propose changing the ozone standards promulgated by the EPA
Administrator in 2008."

Depending on the final standard, EPA said its proposal would yield
health benefits between $13 billion and $100 billion. The estimated
cost for implementing the draft rule range from $19 billion to $90

EPA will accept public comment on the rule for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
The agency plans to hold two public hearings on Feb. 2 in Arlington,
Va., and Houston and a third on Feb. 4 in Sacramento, Calif. EPA plans
to issue its final standards by Aug. 31.

The agency proposed an accelerated schedule for determining whether
areas are in compliance with the primary standard and is accepting
comments on whether to designate areas for a secondary standard on an
accelerated schedule.

Click here (pdf) to read EPA's draft rule.

Click here (pdf) to read EPA's fact sheet.

This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do.

Share This Article

More in: