AG 2007 10 15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CASAC Ozone Review Panel Teleconference Meeting, March 5, 2007 Final: 04/17/2007 small error in the exposure analysis relating to a slight consistent overestimation of ozone exposures, stating that OAQPS staff would re-run this analysis and provide it to the CASAC by the end of the month. Dr. Martin reiterated the schedule found in the consent decree that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has entered-into with respect to the litigation between the plaintiffs (American Lung Association et al.) and the defendants (collectively, the U.S. EPA) that the Agency issue the notice of proposed rulemaking for ozone no later than June 20, 2007, and a final rulemaking notice by March 12, 2008. Public Comment Period Ten speakers gave three-minute oral statements during the public comment period (see Appendix C). The statements from these public commenters are posted on the CASAC Ozone Review Panel's page on the SAB Web site at URL: htto://www.epa.gov/sab/nanels/casacorpanel.html, and are also found in hard-copy in the associated FACA file for this teleconference. Ozone Panel members asked follow-up questions of several of the public commenters after they had finished delivering their oral public statement. Summary of the CASAC Discussion on the Primary 03 NAAOS found in Chapter 6 of the Final Ozone Staff Patter Ozone Panel members were generally complimentary towazd EPA staff on the revisions to the portion of the Final Ozone Staff Paper relating to the primary 03 NAAQS. Specific conclusions and other key points raised during this discussion include the following: • The CASAC's unanimous recommendation for the primary Ozone NAAQS was that it should remain the same, i.e., not to exceed 0.070 ppm. Merely reducing the primary standard from 0.08 ppm (which, due to rounding, is effectively 0.085 ppm) to 0.080 ppm is not adequate to address the associated public health concerns. • Several members were perplexed by, or otherwise took exception to, the recommendation in the Final Ozone Staff Paper that "consideration be given to a standazd level within the range of somewhat below 0.080 ppm to 0.060 ppm." • The issue of "margin of safety" as specifically mandated in the Clean Air Act is not addressed in the Final Ozone Staff Paper and should be emphasized. • Substantial populations are affected outside of the twelve urban "Metropolitan Statistical Areas" (MBAs). While the exposure calculations pertaining to these 12 MBAs are fine, the Final Ozone Staff Paper seriously underestimates the affected population outside of these azeas. • The Agency needs to give additional consideration to the adverse health effects of other photochemical oxidants - i. e., the oxidant mixture -rather than simply pure ozone. • Further research recommendations aze needed with respect to susceptibility from the genetic, nutritional and environmental perspectives. In addition, other recommendations for research should be explicitly highlighted, e.g., adverse health impacts of low levels of ambient ozone and other photochemical oxidants (i. e., the oxidant mixture) exposure on ... `i¢.