The Environmental Protection Agency is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

The Environmental Protection Agency is headquartered in Washington, D.C. Adam Parent/

Featured eBooks
Life After Government
Securing the Government Cloud
The Cybersecurity Challenge
Upcoming Ozone Rules Don't Have Many Fans

Environmentalists are ready to be disappointed by the EPA’s new standards, but manufacturing groups won’t be happy either.

En­vir­on­ment­al­ists have been burned by the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion be­fore on smog reg­u­la­tions. Now they’re wor­ried that it’s about to hap­pen again.

The En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency is un­der a court or­der to fi­nal­ize a rule tight­en­ing stand­ards for ground-level ozone by Oct. 1. That’s the same air-qual­ity rule that was pulled by the White House in 2011 over eco­nom­ic con­cerns, a move that left the en­vir­on­ment­al com­munity in­censed.

Deep in­to a second term where Pres­id­ent Obama has been ag­gress­ive on en­vir­on­ment­al is­sues, the ozone rule won’t be yanked again. But en­vir­on­ment­al­ists are now gird­ing them­selves for an­oth­er dis­ap­point­ment: that the stand­ard won’t be tight enough.

Sources fa­mil­i­ar with the dis­cus­sions say that the EPA is push­ing to lower the ozone stand­ard of 75 parts per bil­lion to 70 ppb, the high end of the 65-70 ppb range that the agency pro­posed last fall.

The White House could lower the fi­nal stand­ard down to 68 ppb, a seem­ingly minor tweak, but one that could re­quire dra­mat­ic­ally more pol­lu­tion con­trol. With days to go be­fore a de­cision comes out, en­vir­on­ment­al­ists are mak­ing the case that 70 ppb just won’t be enough, even as they pre­pare for it.

A 70 ppb stand­ard “would be a be­tray­al of the Clean Air Act’s prom­ise of healthy air and a be­tray­al of the mil­lions of kids and seni­ors and asth­mat­ics who will not re­ceive the pro­tec­tion that doc­tors say they need by such a stand­ard,” said Dav­id Bar­on, a man­aging at­tor­ney for Earthjustice.

Bar­on said there was a “good like­li­hood” that his group could sue the EPA if such a stand­ard was is­sued.

The ozone stand­ard sets the lim­it for ozone pol­lu­tion, or smog, and re­quires states that vi­ol­ate the level to craft com­pli­ance plans. Ozone has been linked to asthma, res­pir­at­ory dam­age and a host of oth­er health im­pacts.

Busi­ness and in­dustry groups have long op­posed any bid to lower the stand­ard, say­ing that it would plunge too many areas of the coun­try in­to non­at­tain­ment status. Com­ply­ing with the rule would re­quire states to craft plans that cut down on pol­lu­tion from cars and in­dus­tri­al sources, adding up to a rule that op­pon­ents say would be the most ex­pens­ive in his­tory.

Ross Eis­en­berg, vice pres­id­ent of en­ergy at the Na­tion­al As­so­ci­ation of Man­u­fac­tur­ers, said that his group had not done an ana­lys­is of what would hap­pen un­der a 70 ppb stand­ard, but that any­thing be­low the cur­rent stand­ard would be a blow to its mem­bers. He did not say wheth­er NAM would con­sider a chal­lenge over a 70 ppb level, but ad­ded, “we’d have to do a lot of work to fig­ure out what this means for our mem­bers and what the costs would be.”

“What I do know is that 68 ppb is markedly worse than 70 [ppb],” Eis­en­berg said. That seem­ingly small dif­fer­ence, he said, would re­quire new tech­no­logy to be ad­ded to man­u­fac­tur­ing sites and that more areas of the coun­try would be out of at­tain­ment.

Op­pon­ents have pushed hard on purple states and mod­er­ate politi­cians in a bid to turn them against the stand­ard.

But pub­lic-health groups say that the coun­try has too long been stuck on a 75 ppb stand­ard that’s in­suf­fi­cient for pub­lic health (it was first set un­der the George W. Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion, and greens sued be­cause they felt it was not tough enough). The EPA’s sci­entif­ic ad­vis­ory board, which ana­lyzes sci­entif­ic lit­er­at­ure on pol­lu­tion, said last year that 75 ppb was in­suf­fi­cient for pub­lic health, and that vul­ner­able groups such as chil­dren or the eld­erly would see pro­tec­tion only at 60 ppb.

That’s the level where most of the mes­saging and lob­by­ing from the Left has centered, even after the EPA didn’t in­clude it in the pro­posed range that the agency was con­sid­er­ing.

They’re used to dis­ap­point­ment on this. Ahead of the 2012 elec­tions, the White House yanked its last re­view of the ozone stand­ard over con­cerns that it would dam­age the eco­nomy. The move drove a deep wedge between en­vir­on­ment­al­ists and the White House, and has left them frus­trated on ozone.

John Walke, clean air dir­ect­or for the Nat­ur­al Re­sources De­fense Coun­cil, said that there’s still hope that, with a few days to go, the White House will lower the pro­pos­al, say­ing it would be “be­wil­der­ing that ad­min­is­tra­tion would set an un­pro­tect­ive level … after hav­ing so many years to get this right.”

“The mes­sage,” he ad­ded, “is that Pres­id­ent Obama should do bet­ter than EPA’s worst.”