Before it tightens standards for ozone pollution, perhaps unnecessarily, the US government should fix programs that make current standards difficult to meet.
The Environmental Protection Agency proposes to lower the 8-hr primary ozone standard to 70-75 ppb from the current level, set in 1997, of 80 ppb. The primary standard is designed to protect human health. The agency further proposes to tighten its secondary standard, which is designed to protect “welfare,” such as vegetation and crops.
Damage to health
In a fact sheet, EPA says “new scientific evidence” indicates that damage to health can occur after exposure to ozone at levels below the current standards, “particularly in those with respiratory illnesses.” Ozone can reduce lung function. Exposure to it has been associated with indicators of health problems such as increases in susceptibility to respiratory infections, use of medicine by asthmatics, doctor and emergency-room visits, and hospital admissions. “Ozone exposure also may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease,” EPA says. The new scientific evidence also suggests that repeated exposure to low levels of ozone damages vegetation, trees, and crops.
If nothing were being done to reduce ozone pollution, those would be compelling reasons to act. But the US has been fighting ozone pollution for decades under the Clean Air Act. Nationwide, the effort has produced impressive results. During 1980-2006, air quality by the 8-hr ozone standard improved by 21%, according to EPA. The improvement during 1990-2006 was 9%. Emissions of ozone precursors also have fallen: of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 33% in 1980-2006 and by 28% in 1990-2006 and of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by 51% since 1980 and by 37% since 1990.
The main ozone problem now is nonattainment of the federal standards in urban areas with heavy vehicle traffic and plentiful sunlight. In most such areas, ozone pollution is diminishing, but attainment remains elusive, especially where vehicle traffic is growing.
Lowering the ozone limit would drag areas now barely meeting the standard into noncompliance, forcing motorists and businesses to incur new costs for emissions control. This might yield some health gains in whichever of such areas managed themselves back into compliance.
In the really troublesome ozone areas, however, the large cities that can’t meet current standards, lower ozone limits would just push goals further out of reach and wouldn’t affect health at all. In fact, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association argues that scientific ambiguity raises doubt that compliance with toughened ozone standards would improve health anywhere. NPRA further notes that compliance through measures now at hand may not be possible in many areas.
EPA makes this new ozone move while another federal program renders current targets increasingly difficult for chronic problem areas to hit. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is boosting emissions of ozone precursors with growing mandates for sales of ethanol in vehicle fuel. When it issued RFS regulations last April, EPA estimated that raising ethanol use would lift NOx emissions in areas not previously using large amounts of ethanol by 6-7% during 2004-12 and VOC emissions by 4-5%.
The ozone and RFS programs work against each other. In one program, EPA feels compelled by statute to lower the ozone threshold because new science, according to its interpretation, shows health to come under threat at exposure levels below the current standard. In the other, the agency administers the forced sale of a heavily subsidized fuel additive that aggravates ozone formation in some of the worst nonattainment areas.
Tough question
EPA didn’t create this conflict. Congress did by passing laws without considering all the consequences, such as rising food costs and the potential health hazards of a fuel whose core appeal is that it makes corn growers and distillers rich. Congress can resolve the mess by injecting flexibility into the Clean Air Act and by repealing the ethanol mandate, the costs of which are only beginning to be obvious.
Early in an election season, EPA’s initiative should force attention to a tough question: What’s more important to lawmakers, farm-state votes or human health?
