The US Environmental Protection Agency on Mar. 12 signed its most stringent standard for ground-level ozone, revising the standards for the first time in more than a decade.
As widely anticipated, the new National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) is 0.075 ppm. That compares with the previous standard of 0.08 ppm.
EPA said the change was based on the most recent scientific evidence about the effects of ozone, the primary component of smog.
The American Petroleum Institute said it was disappointed with the EPA decision.
“The uncertainty in the latest science does not support tightening the standards,” API said. “Changing the ozone standards (NAAQS) will not, by itself, improve air quality, but will result in unnecessary negative economic consequences for the American people.”
The National Petrochemical and Refiners Association said the change was unnecessary and could have a negative impact on some communities.
Charles T. Drevna, NPRA president, said, “At a time when analysts are warning of an impending recession, the last thing the federal government should do is impose a standard that would reduce growth and result in higher costs for consumers without requisite health benefits.”
EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson announced the decision from Washington, DC. “By meeting the requirement of the Clean Air Act and strengthening the national standard for ozone, EPA is keeping our clean air progress moving forward,” he said.
Johnson also recommended four principles for the CAA and the NAAQS:
- They must protect the public health and improve the overall well-being of citizens.
- They should allow decision-makers to consider benefits, costs, risk tradeoffs, and feasibility in making decisions about how to clean the air.
- They should provide greater accountability and effective enforcement to ensure that not only paper requirements but also air quality requirements are met, especially in areas with the furthest to go in meeting these standards.
- They should allow the schedule for addressing NAAQS standards to be driven by the available science and the prioritization of health and environmental concerns, taking into account the multipollutant nature of air pollution.
Various public health organizations argued for a 0.060 ppm, based on scientific studies of ozone and its impact on health.