Last Wednesday the Obama administration
announces a regulation, released under the authority of the Clean Air Act, to
curb ozone emission. This regulation,
predicted to be fully in force by 2050,
aims to reduce the smog causing pollutant from the current 75 parts per billion
standard, set in 2008 by the Bush administration, to anywhere from 65 to 70 part per billion. According to the NY Times’ Coral Davenport, on
one end it is hailed as a “powerful environmental legacy” by environmentalists
and public health advocated, while at the other a “costly government overreach”
by manufactures and industry. While the
new 65 to 70 part per billion proposed standard is estimated to cost industry $3.9
billion to $15 billion in 2050, it is also estimated to prevent 320,000 to
960,000 asthma attacks in children, 330,000 to 1 million missed school days,
750 to 4,300 premature deaths, 1,400 to 4,300 asthma related emergency room
visits, and 65,000 to 180,000 missed work days by 2050. The EPA estimated that the latter economic
benefits would outweigh the former by anywhere from $6.4 billion to $38 billion
in 2025 depending on what standard is chosen.
This new standard
proposal is finally being pushed forward after it was halted in 2011. The EPA originally planned to release it that
year but with powerful opposition from Republicans and industry, and the
approaching 2012 election, Obama decided to release the delay on the grounds of
the distressed economy. But little has
changed; the Republican majority Congress, led by majority leader Senator Mitch
McConnell, plan to block or overturn the rule, and others like it. Directory of regulatory affairs for the
American Petroleum Institutes, lobbying for the oil industry, said that “the
current review of health studies has not identified compelling evidence for
more stringent standards, and current standards are protective of public
health.” While EPA Administrator Gina
McCarthy wrote in an op-ed for CNN "Critics play a dangerous game when they denounce
the science and law EPA has used to defend clean air for more than 40 year. The
American people know better."
As this battle takes full force,
how do these standards get set? According
to The Clean Air Act, the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
sets the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for harmful
pollutants and makes sure these standards are met by various monitoring
programs, such as the Ambient Air Monitoring Program, Enhanced Ozone
Monitoring, and Air Pollution Monitoring. There are two types of standards set, primary,
which protects against adverse health effects, and secondary, which protects against
welfare effects. There are six criteria pollutants
that the NAAQS addresses and the Air Pollution Monitoring program monitors,
which are carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, and ozone, the one being addressed by the recent smog reduction
regulation.
When an area is found to contain high levels of any of the
six criteria pollutants, it is considered a “nonattainment” area. Levels are measured and reported in
accordance to the standards and testing methods developed by the EPA’s Emissions
Measurement Center. States containing nonattainment areas are
required by the OAQPS to develop a written state implementation plan in which
they outline the efforts they will make to reduce air pollutant levels and
reach “attainment”. But what will this
mean for smog ridden states like California, which might end up with many “nonattainment”
areas under the new proposal? According
to Scientific American’s Valerie Volcovici, the EPA has “cited flexibility to allow for ‘unique’ situations,
such as in California, a massive state with a varied environment.” But states have up to 20 years to meet the
standard before the federal government cracks down.
http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cleanair.html
No comments:
Post a Comment