EPA Strengthens Ozone Standard To Protect Public Health 

EPA Sets Standard For Ground-Level Ozone At 70 Parts Per Billion. On November 25, 2014, the EPA proposed updating the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone, which had last been adjusted in 2008. The EPA proposed strengthening the ozone standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to between 60 and 70 ppb; the final rule adopted by the EPA on October 1, 2015 set the new standard at 70 ppb. Ground-level ozone is the primary component of smog, and research shows that ozone exposure can trigger asthma attacks and increase the risk of premature death from heart or lung disease. [EPA.gov, accessed 10/8/15; EPA.gov, accessed 10/8/15] 

Industry Group Cites National Parks In Misleading Ad Attacking EPA Ozone Standard

NAM Ad: Under New EPA Ozone Standard, National Parks Would “Violate Clean Air Laws.” A July ad by the National Association of Manufacturers attacked the EPA's then-proposed ozone revision. The ad stated: “Our national parks. Vast. Untouched. Pristine. No industrial activity for miles. But under new ozone rules out of Washington, these national treasures would actually violate clean air laws.” [National Association of Manufacturers, 7/28/15]

Conservative Media Echo Deceptive Industry Frame

Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Falsely Claims EPA Is Trying To “Drive Ozone Down To Or Below” Background Levels, Citing Grand Canyon And Yellowstone. In an October 1 editorial, The Wall Street Journal claimed that the EPA is “attempting to drive ozone down to or below the 'background' level where it naturally occurs from sources like forest fires and plant life,” and then added: “The Grand Canyon and Yellowstone will likely become 'non-attainment areas' under the new standard.” [The Wall Street Journal, 10/1/15]

Las Vegas Review-Journal Mocks EPA For Trying To Regulate “The Poisoned Air Of ... Great Basin National Park.” The Las Vegas Review-Journal asserted in an October 6 editorial that Nevada is “all but guaranteed to fall short” of meeting the EPA's ozone standard because “Nevada has some of the highest background ozone levels the country.” The Review-Journal then pointed to the high ozone level in the county that contains Great Basin National Park as supposed proof that the EPA's new standard is “absurd”:

How absurd is the EPA's new standard? White Pine County, which is nowhere close to ever becoming a polluted industrial wasteland, is out of compliance. We'd better start turning people away from the poisoned air of ... Great Basin National Park.

[Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/6/15; American Lung Association, State of the Air 2015, accessed 10/8/15]

Cornwall Alliance's Megan Toombs Claims “Some National Parks” Wouldn't Comply With EPA Standard Because Of Naturally-Occurring Ozone. In an October 3 Patriot Post op-ed, EarthRisingBlog.com editor Megan Toombs declared: “Areas that wouldn't comply with the new [EPA ozone] regulation aren't just most urban areas ... but even some national parks, where high ozone concentrations occur naturally!” In an October 1 op-ed published by CNSNews.com, Toombs similarly stated: “Included in the areas that would be out of compliance with the regulation are most urban areas as well as some national parks. (In many areas high ozone concentrations occur naturally).” Toombs is also the communications and outreach coordinator for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, which runs the Earth Rising blog and has “deep ties to the oil industry,” according to ThinkProgress. [Patriot Post, 10/3/15; CNSNews.com, 10/1/15; Earth Rising Blog, accessed 10/8/15;  ThinkProgress, 6/15/10]

Daily Caller's Bastasch: Many National Parks That “Aren't Exactly Centers Of Industry” Can't Meet New Ozone Standard. In an October 1 Daily Caller article, Michael Bastasch stated that a 2014 study by the conservative American Action Forum “found that more than 100 state and national parks would be out of compliance with a 70 parts per billion ozone standard,” and added, “these areas aren't exactly centers of industry.” [Daily Caller, 10/1/15]

PJ Media Column: EPA Ozone Rules Would “Declare National Parks 'Toxic.'” In a September 26 post on PJMedia.com, conservative commentator Tyler O'Neil asserted that the EPA's ozone standard would “declare nationals parks 'toxic,'” and added: “Ozone is a natural by-product of the environment, and many of our national parks have levels of ozone above the proposed levels. ... With the allowable standard dropped to near naturally occurring levels, it would be almost impossible for Americans to comply with this absurd regulation.” [PJMedia.com, 9/26/15]

Cincinnati.com Op-Ed Writer: “Even Some National Parks Would Fail To Meet” EPA's New Standard. In a September 29 op-ed published on Cincinnati.com, 1851 Center for Constitutional Law Executive Director Maurice Thompson stated: “The [EPA's] new standard would be so strict that even some national parks would fail to meet it.” The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law describes itself as an organization that is “dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse.”  [Cincinnati.com, 9/29/15; ohioconstitution.org, accessed 10/8/15]

But Background Ozone Will Not Prevent States From Meeting EPA's New Ozone Standard

EPA: Background Ozone Levels Are “Expected To Be Much Lower” Than Standard On Most Days And At Most Locations. According to an EPA fact sheet on background ozone, seasonal mean background ozone levels “range from 25-50 ppb across the U.S.,” meaning that “on most days and at most U.S. locations, the background influence on observed ozone concentrations is expected to be much lower than the NAAQS levels that EPA proposed.” The fact sheet also stated that “days with higher ozone levels generally have smaller fractional contributions from background than low ozone days,” which indicates that “domestic manmade emission sources are a substantial, and generally the dominant contributor, to the majority of U.S. ozone exceedances.”

The fact sheet noted that the “highest background influence [is] at locations in the intermountain western U.S.,” and included the following map depicting model estimates of average U.S. background ozone levels at monitoring stations across the U.S. in 2007:

[EPA.gov, accessed 10/8/15] 

Environmental Defense Fund Comment Letter: Average Background Ozone Levels Are “Considerably Lower” Than EPA Ozone Standard. In a March 17 comment letter to the EPA on behalf of a collection of organizations that supported updating the ozone standard, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Senior Energy Policy Manager Jon Goldstein and consultant Elizabeth Paranhos noted that average U.S. background ozone levels are “considerably lower than [even] the most rigorous ozone standard” of 60 ppb that EPA was considering at the time:

EPA estimates that when ozone levels are in the 60-75 ppb range, average U.S. background levels of ozone--ozone that would exist in the absence of any manmade emissions inside the U.S.--is around 35 ppb. When ozone levels are in the range of 60-75 ppb the fractional contribution of background ozone is therefore about 40-60 percent. Though Western states may encounter higher average background ozone levels, these levels are still considerably lower than the most rigorous ozone standard EPA is considering. [EDF.org, 3/17/15] 

And EPA Accounts For Rare Instances Where Background Ozone Is Largely Responsible For States Exceeding Ozone Limit

NASA Study: Background Ozone Levels In Northern California And Nevada “Leave Little Room For Local Ozone Production.” In a post on NASA.gov published shortly before the EPA announced its final rule, Alan Buis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory noted that a NASA-led study found that levels of background ozone “are high enough in Northern California and Nevada that they leave little room for local ozone production under proposed stricter U.S. ground-level ozone standards.” Buis added that the study found “on average, background ozone sources generated about 48.3 ppb, or 77 percent, of the total ozone in the study region of California and Nevada,” and can sometimes exceed 60 ppb. However, he also explained that "[t]he Clean Air Act allows states to request an exemption to the ozone standard if they can show that the cause of an air-quality violation is due to ozone from outside the country or from natural causes."

The NASA article also provided a map showing estimates from NASA's Aura spacecraft of monthly-mean maximum daily 8-hour average background ozone concentrations in California and Nevada:

[NASA.gov, 9/29/15; NASA.gov, 3/25/15]

EPA Provides States With Tools To Account For “Relatively Infrequent Situations” In Which They Exceed Standards Largely Due To Background Ozone. As the EPA fact sheet on background ozone noted, “The Clean Air Act provides mechanisms to help states address background ozone as they develop and implement clean air plans.” The EPA document outlined these scenarios, which include excluding data from “exceptional events” such as severe wildfires, providing exemptions from certain requirements if violations are due to international emissions, and helping states take action to address ozone pollution from other states:

Exceptional events - Under specific circumstances that constitute an “exceptional event,” (CAA section 319) a state can request and EPA can agree to exclude data associated with event-driven exceedances of a NAAQS. The exclusion of exceptional event-driven data could help some areas avoid an unintended designation as a nonattainment area.

[...]

International transport - The CAA (section 179B) allows EPA to approve state-submitted attainment demonstrations that demonstrate the area would have met the ozone NAAQS by the attainment date if not for international emissions contributing to the area. Such an approval could help eligible areas avoid adopting more than reasonably available control measures.

[...]

Rural transport areas - The CAA (section 182(h)) also allows EPA to identify certain ozone nonattainment areas as rural transport areas if the area does not contain emissions sources that significantly contribute to ozone concentrations in the area, or in other areas. This identification may help eligible areas avoid more stringent nonattainment requirements.

[...]

An area also may be affected by ozone formed from domestic manmade sources outside its jurisdiction. Two sections for the CAA can be used to help states address such cross-state ozone impacts:

1. Section 110(a)(2)(D), commonly referred to as the “good neighbor” provision, requires each state to prohibit transported emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, in a downwind state; and

2. Section 126 allows downwind states to petition EPA to take action against a major stationary source, or group of stationary sources, that significantly contribute to nonattainment in the downwind state(s). [EPA.gov, accessed 10/8/15]

Conservative Media Have Also Peddled Debunked Claims That Ozone Standard Will Harm Economy, Fail To Improve Public Health 

Conservative Media Attacked Ozone Standard By Misleading About Its Cost And Denying It Will Benefit Public Health. Conservative media have cited a thoroughly debunked study by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) to wrongly claim the EPA's new ozone standard will be harmful to the economy, and also denied that reducing ozone pollution will result in public health benefits -- a claim thoroughly rejected by medical and environmental experts. According to the EPA, “The public health benefits of the updated standards, estimated at $2.9 to $5.9 billion annually in 2025, outweigh the estimated annual costs of $1.4 billion.” [Media Matters, 8/20/14; Media Matters, 8/31/15; Media Matters, 9/4/15; EPA.gov, 10/1/15]