EPA Proposes Stricter Ground-Ozone Level Standards

by Cameron Aubernon

December 4th, 2014 9:26 AM

epa proposes stricter ground ozone level standards

Six years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency set the acceptable level of ground-level ozone to 75 parts per billion. That level is about to come down.

The EPA is proposing a new acceptable level between 70 pbb and 65 pbb, and is accepting comments about dropping the level to 60 pbb. The proposal is in line with requirements by the Clean Air Act, mandating the agency review the standards every five years, and is meant to better improve air quality.

Per its analysis, the agency expects the new standard to provide “significantly better protection for children… and adults,” with as many as 320,000 to 960,000 asthma attacks, 750 to 4,300 premature deaths, and 65,000 to 180,000 missed workdays prevented. The economic benefits derived from the finalized standard and resulting health improvements would also outweigh any government investment:

These large health benefits will be gained from avoiding asthma attacks, heart attacks, missed school days and premature deaths, among other health effects valued at $6.4 to $13 billion annually in 2025 for a standard of 70 ppb, and $19 to $38 billion annually in 2025 for a standard of 65 ppb. Annual costs are estimated at $3.9 billion in 2025 for a standard of 70 ppb, and $15 billion for a standard at 65 ppb.

The act would give states time to meet the new standards based on severity, with the worse expected to conform by 2020, to 2037 for lesser-affected areas. The final ozone standards are set to be finalized by October 1, 2015.

#AirQuality #ClearAirAct #EnvironmentalProtectionAgency #EPA #Ground-levelOzone #Revisions #Standards

Comments

Join the conversation

16 of 64 comments

Haroldingpatrick on Dec 04, 2014

Let me preface this by saying i voted for Gary Johnson (libertarian) last time and believe that for the most part that this is America and consenting adults should live how they want to live. What's wrong with cleaner air regardless of the cost? I can't defend me and mine from pollution, but my government can and is doing so. Things are much cleaner now than when I was born in 1972 and not because of free markets. A lot of middle class people around the world (we're all connected in the economic and spiritual sense) will be kept productively employed devising ways to meet this standard. Who cares about a nominal increase in the cost of a new vehicle. Vehicles are like food, when something costs more, you just buy something less expensive. It's a mean old world and you gotta live in it.

Like Reply
- See 6 previous
- Drzhivago138 on Dec 04, 2014
  
  And less-expensive cars are no longer the penalty boxes they used to be (for the most part). You can buy a stripped-out subcompact hatchback and actually make it down the interstate without posing a hazard to other drivers.
  
  Like
- Master Baiter on Dec 04, 2014
  
  "What’s wrong with cleaner air regardless of the cost?" Seriously? Even the jack booted thugs at the EPA recognize they need to perform a cost-benefit analysis, even though the numbers are clearly cooked to justify whatever action they've already decided they want to take. "Things are much cleaner now than when I was born in 1972 and not because of free markets." Because we free market types always argue that the only alternative to over-regulation is....no regulation at all. Brilliant analysis.
  
  Like
- Petezeiss on Dec 04, 2014
  
  @Master Baiter "the jack booted thugs at the EPA" I think you need to meet some real jack-booted thugs. I live in northern Wisconsin; I can find you some.
  
  Like
- Highdesertcat on Dec 04, 2014
  
  "What’s wrong with cleaner air regardless of the cost?" The question asked by someone with an uber-left, greenweenie agenda. BTW, I have never had to buy less of anything that was required for life sustenance, and that includes gasoline if the only mode of transportation is a motorized vehicle to get us where we're going, and back. At $5+ a gallon of gas, people who needed it didn't buy any less of it. They bought fewer, non-essential things instead and gas stayed at the top of their pyramid of needs. BTW, I voted for Gary Johnson as well. My wife and his wife have known each other for many decades.
  
  Like
- Drzhivago138 on Dec 04, 2014
  
  @petezeiss Fun fact: the most common groups used as insults are most often used by those who have never met one of those groups.
  
  Like
- VoGo on Dec 04, 2014
  
  @highdesertcat Desert Cat, You claim to be independent, but every time you discuss politics, you can't help but label the people you oppose as greenieweenie liberals. You seem to have forgotten that the EPA was enacted under a Republican president and that the rules being considered are the result of laws enacted by a bipartisan congress. You don't have to be liberal to want to be able to breathe.
  
  Like
- Landcrusher on Dec 05, 2014
  
  @VoGo There is nothing inconsistent about claiming to be an independent and labeling other people based on their posts. There are not just two sides in this country as much as establishment types keep trying to insist there is (except when it's inconvenient anyway). The labeling thing gets me frustrated though. It's practically necessary for discourse, but just because one shares a view with a group he isn't necessarily part of the group or share any of their other values. Then you have the fact that one side virtually controls the labels. How wonderful.
  
  Like
Psarhjinian on Dec 04, 2014

Did our discussion of ad-blockers get moderated out of existence?

Like Reply
- Drzhivago138 on Dec 04, 2014
  
  I didn't know there was one on this thread, only on the "Aluminum Mainstreaming..." one. Was it here and I arrived too late, or did you post in this one by mistake. Either way, no harm, no foul.
  
  Like
Flybrian on Dec 04, 2014

Every time I see a SULEV decal on a car, I also think of a guy who owns that car riding a lawn mower to cut his 1/8-acre suburban lawn and I think, "Yes. This all makes sense."

Like Reply
- See 3 previous
- Drzhivago138 on Dec 04, 2014
  
  I...don't follow. If one guy drives a SULEV, that makes no difference. If ten thousand guys drive SULEVs, that makes a big difference. If everyone who could drive a SULEV did (as in, it met all their needs as a DD), well...that'd solve the problem right there.
  
  Like
- SCE to AUX on Dec 04, 2014
  
  I have an ICE, a hybrid SULEV, and an EV. You wouldn't believe what I do with the oil from the first two vehicles when I change it. Maybe some SULEV drivers vote "R" like me. I don't know the science behind this study, but I do know asthma sufferers. If the linkage is as strong as the study suggests, tightening the ozone limits seems like a reasonable and affordable move.
  
  Like
- Flybrian on Dec 04, 2014
  
  @Drzhivago138 I find it funny that cars have gotten very, very clean in relation to anything, not just older unsmogged cars. Small 2-cycle motors? No so much.
  
  Like
- Drzhivago138 on Dec 05, 2014
  
  @Flybrian Oh yeah. I get what you're saying now. Yeah, it makes no sense why even from an engineering standpoint 2-strokes have remained almost completely unchanged for ...how many years now? I swear the engine my dad put into his homebuilt go-cart in, like, 1975 is construction-wise nearly identical to the one in a brand-new $3000 lawn mower.
  
  Like
Truckducken on Dec 04, 2014

I seem to recall the existing standard getting a lot of flak a couple decades ago for being ridiculously close to, or in some regions lower than, naturally occurring ozone levels. But like the man above said, regulators gotta regulate.

Like Reply