Genencor Introduces Improved Enzyme for Ethanol/DDGS Production
Hydro To Participate in Mongstad CCS Project

US Environmental Protection Agency Proposes Stronger Ozone Rules

A map of counties EPA projects would be in violation of tougher ozone rules. Click to enlarge.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed that US air quality standards for ground-level ozone be strengthened by tightening the standards for the first time since 1997.

The new proposal recommends an ozone standard within a range of 0.070 to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). EPA also is taking comments on alternative standards within a range from 0.060 ppm up to 0.08 ppm, which is the level of the current 8-hour ozone standard.

In December 2006 in a unanimous decision, a Federal court of appeals struck down a 2004 EPA ruling that had loosened the existing 8-hour ozone standard. The court ruled that the EPA violated the Clean Air Act by relaxing those limits to levels in excess of 0.09 ppm. (Earlier post.)

In February 2007, EPA staff scientists published a final paper submitted as part of the current review of national air quality standards concluding that the current primary ozone standard is not adequate to protect public health. (Earlier post.)

Clinical studies show evidence of adverse respiratory responses in healthy adults from exposure to ozone at a level of 0.080 parts per million (ppm). New studies link ozone exposure to important new health effects, including mortality, increased asthma medication use, school absenteeism, and cardiac-related effects. Studies report effects at ozone levels well below the current standard. Furthermore, studies of people with asthma indicate that they experience larger and more serious responses to ozone that take longer to resolve.

The staff paper recommended a range of levels for the EPA administrator to consider in setting the primary ozone standard, extending from below 0.080 ppm down to 0.060 ppm. The final staff paper also recommends specifying the level of the standard to three decimal places. Ozone air quality measurements have advanced sufficiently to now reflect that level of precision.

EPA also is proposing to revise the secondary standard for ozone to improve protection for plants, trees and crops during the growing season. The secondary standard is based on scientific evidence indicating that exposure to even low levels of ozone can damage vegetation.

EPA is proposing two alternatives for this standard: a standard that would be identical to the primary standard to protect public health; and a cumulative standard aimed at protecting vegetation during the growing season.

EPA is estimating the health benefits of meeting a range of alternative ozone standards based on published scientific studies and the opinion of outside experts. These findings will be detailed in a Regulatory Impact Analysis to be released in the next few weeks, which will include both the estimated costs and benefits. EPA projects that health benefits of the proposed standard could be in the billions of dollars.

The agency will take public comment for 90 days following publication of the proposal in the Federal Register and will hold four public hearings. The hearings will be held in Los Angeles and Philadelphia on 30 Aug, and in Chicago and Houston on 5 Sep. The agency will issue a final rule by 12 March 2008.

Ground-level ozone (O3) is not emitted directly into the air, but is created through a reaction of NOx and volatile organic compound emissions in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities, electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are the major man-made sources of these ozone precursors.




What may not be clear to the outside observer is that adding a decimal place in practice already tightens the standard. At present the standard is "0.08 ppm" but everyone already measures the third decimal place. So you can measure 0.084 and be within the standard because they end up rounding to make the observed value fit within the number of decimal places allowed.

In practice then adding the third decimal place makes the proposed reduction larger than it would appear at first glance.

Stan Peterson

"Work increases to fill the time available".

An appropriate aphorism from the author of "The Peter Principle".

Just as occurred earlier. There was little indication from the southwestern states whose natural water supplies contain the heavy metal Arsenic in tiny trace amounts haven't dropped dead and died in the thousands.

Nonetheless the EPA decided that the appropriate dosage level, established several decades ago and never questioned, needed to be and was lowered below ambient background levels.

When you've essentially come close to completing your mission, you need to find new reasons to justify your existence. Who dares question being extra, extra, extra, ridiculously extra, cautious?

David Johansen

One should dare to be extra extra cautious. We need more people to be responsible. Speaking of which, I was on the Social Venture Network’s website today and came across this contest for socially responsible business leaders: It looks like a great way to reward new businesses for working toward the greater good.

Bill Milosch

It is great so many people on hear have been checking out the Social Venture Network. The contest will be a great way to reward people for the greater good. Thanks for the mention David!

Darren Diggs

I have heard of Social Venture Network. I saw that they are holding a contest to award socially responsible business leaders and help them further their endeavors! You can get all the rules and background on their site. It is a very awesome thing, more business leaders should follow suit.

My two cents,

Amy Davis

An additional creator of Ozone is ommitted. Research in India, using only sparklers confirmed that Ozone can be created without sunlight, by pyrotechnics. Thus, I believe stationary and repeated pyrotchnic displays should be added to the list of pollutors to be monitored.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)