|
|||||
 | |||||
|
Marketing and University Communication UW-Green Bay, CL 815 2420 Nicolet Drive Green Bay, WI 54311-7001 (920) 465-2626 E-mail: hildebrs@uwgb.edu Last update: 12/3/07 |
|
|
In
the News Archive - Year:
November 24, 2007 Get tough, crack down on ozone By Michael E. Kraft
Created when sunlight interacts with chemicals emitted from vehicles, power plants, chemical facilities, refineries and other sources, ozone is a long-recognized major health hazard. For that reason, public health and environmental organizations welcomed the new standards while many industry groups opposed them as too costly.
New scientific evidence makes clear that repeated exposure to even low levels of ozone can adversely affect human health. Even at moderate levels, ozone is dangerous to those with asthma or other conditions such as emphysema and bronchitis, and it can contribute to premature death in people with heart or lung disease.
The EPA's proposed new standards represent a distinct improvement over those adopted in 1997. They aim for an acceptable level of ozone between 0.070 to 0.075 parts per million in contrast to the current level of 0.084 ppm for the so-called primary (human health) standard. Over time, with sufficient enforcement and appropriate action, the air might become cleaner and healthier.
But the agency could have adopted more stringent standards. The EPA's own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, a panel of independent experts that included industry scientists, actually recommended unanimously that stronger standards be accepted.
Those who think cleaner air is just around the corner might be surprised to learn that it will be a while in coming. The new rule calls for state implementation plans only by 2013. Moreover, the states do not have to achieve the new ozone standard until sometime between 2013 and 2030.
Much of the debate on this proposed regulation turns on the expected costs and benefits. Yet in writing the Clean Air Act, Congress explicitly instructed the agency to base its decisions on public health and not on economic costs.
Realistically, calculations of costs and benefits are hard to ignore, and the EPA understandably conducted elaborate economic studies for this rule. It found a wide range of uncertainties over both the costs and benefits of differing ozone standards, making direct comparisons difficult. However, given the language of the Clean Air Act, the agency should favor achievement of real benefits over questionable economic costs.
In 1997, when the ozone standards were last changed by the Clinton administration, industry challenged the new rules in court in part based on their anticipated costs. They lost that battle.
This year, many of the same industries — electric utilities, chemical manufacturers, oil companies and automakers — are again opposed to the new EPA standards. We can be sure they are pressing their case hard.
Let's hope that the agency adopts a tough ozone standard that can really improve public health. We'll know the answer by March 2008.
| |
