AG 2007 10 15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1) To recommend, once again, that identical primary and secondary standazds be established for ozone in 1997, as was done in 1970-71 and in 1977-79, albeit, an 8-hour primary standard for which CASAC already has prepared a closure letter; or, alternatively, 2) To recommend that a secondary standard clearly different in form from the primary standard be established - an 8-hour primary standard of simple form, and a separate 3-month-long standard of cumulative form as recommended in the EPA Staff Paper. I hope CASAC will reflect very carefully on the extent and thoroughness of rethinking of the ozone problem that will occur under these two alternative choices. How differently will the thinking and nature of communications be -both between and among the following kinds of expert- and non-expert persons who are interested in or have responsibilities for reseazch and management decisions about ozone pollution: - air pollution biologists, - atmospheric chemists and physicists, - air pollution meteorologists, - air quality modelers, - state and federal air-quality officials, - air-quality leaders in industry and commerce including those in: - the utility industry, - the automobile industry, - the petroleum industry, - the printing, painting, solvents, and forest products industries, etc. and, perhaps most important of all, - the public at large who will ultimately pay the bills for whatever decisions are made about ozone management during the years ahead? In Summary: Promulgation of a secondary standard for ozone that is clearly distinct in form from the primary standard will accomplish five important things: 1) It will provide an addition measure of protection against the harmful effects of ozone on the many different species of crop plants, forest trees, shade trees, ornamental plants, and the thousands of other plant, animal, insect, and microbial species that make up the living components of all the natural and managed ecosystems on which the quality of American life depends. 2) It will accelerate and improve the processes of public education about many aspects of the tropospheric ozone problem and its management. 3) It will enhance and improve the nature, quality, and policy relevancy of the scientific reseazch that will be undertaken during 1997 and beyond. 4) It will enhance the quality and intensity of interactions that will occur between air pollution biologists concerned with the impact of ozone on crops and forests and atmospheric scientists CS' ° I '7 C-10