Recent field hearings in five major U.S. cities highlighted the debate over the need to write a more stringent air quality standard for ozone. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is under court order to issue an updated standard by March 2008. Industry representatives used two familiar arguments to urge EPA to leave the existing ten-year old ozone standard untouched, while public health experts and citizens argued the health impacts under the current standard are potentially devastating.

On June 21, EPA announced a proposed rule revising the national standard for ground-level ozone. EPA proposed a range, 0.070 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm, from which it will choose a final standard. The current standard is 0.08 ppm. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson called the current standard inadequate and recognizes the need for a more stringent regulation. However, Johnson will not endorse a standard within the 0.060-0.070 range proposed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), EPA's premier scientific panel on air quality issues. Other EPA internal reports call for a standard no less than 0.070.

The EPA field hearings were designed to collect comments on what the appropriate standard should be. Two hearings were held Aug. 30 in Philadelphia and Los Angeles. Three more were held on Sept. 5 in Chicago, Atlanta and Houston.

The Clean Air Act instructs EPA to put public safety above economic factors in setting its standard for ozone. The law orders EPA to protect public health within "an adequate margin of safety" (42 U.S.C. 7408, Sec. 109(b)(1)) regardless of economic costs or benefits. Nevertheless, industry representatives from organizations like the California Manufacturers & Technology Association and the National Association of Manufacturers consistently argued that the costs of implementing a more stringent standard would harm the economy, according to articles in the Los Angeles Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer.

At the Houston hearing, some industry representatives questioned the connection between asthma and ground-level ozone exposure, according to an article in the Houston Chronicle. "We do not believe that the current scientific evidence clearly supports the lowering of the ozone standard at this time," said David DiMarcello of the BASF Corporation. "The EPA's existing ozone standard ... will continue to provide ample protection for public health," the paper reported.

This issue of questioning the science behind regulation was the other argument industry consistently used at the hearings. A BNA story ($) on the Chicago hearing, for example, reported the statement of the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA):

"The science of ozone health effects does not provide sufficient evidence to justify tightening of the ozone standard from its current level," said Joseph Suchecki, director of public affairs for the EMA. "EMA believes it is more important for the EPA and states to concentrate their efforts on achieving compliance with the current ozone standard rather than to adopt a stricter standard based on questionable scientific evidence."

Scientists, local air quality officials, local elected officials and citizens suffering from asthma and respiratory problems testified for the strong need for a stricter ozone standard. Critics maligned EPA for proposing too weak a standard. An American Lung Association (ALA) environmental health expert was quoted in a BNA story on the Philadelphia hearing as arguing that EPA's proposal "only grudgingly touches the review panel's weakest recommendation, and even worse, contemplates retaining the current inadequate standard." And he argued that there is a "truly immense body of evidence" establishing the adverse impacts of ozone pollution, especially on the most vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly and those with existing respiratory problems.

To counter industry arguments about the costs of a stricter standard, some public health advocates had their own cost-benefit arguments. The LA Times story reported that Linda Weiner, director of air advocacy for the ALA in California, argued, "The human toll from air pollution is huge in terms of illness, emergency room visits, asthma attacks and even premature death....Total benefits of EPA's air pollution regulations outweigh the costs by as much as 40 to 1."

Many environmental and health advocates urged EPA to adopt a standard of 0.060 ppm, the strictest option within CASAC's recommended range. BNA reported that at the Chicago hearing, Joel Africk, president of the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago, testified that a majority of the nation's public health organizations back the 0.060 standard. The article quoted Africk as saying. "We urge the EPA to listen to its own advisers and independent experts who recommended a tighter ozone health standard than the agency proposes … Public health professionals and organizations such as the American Thoracic Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, and the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago all endorse a much tighter standard."