New Health Standards for Ozone and Particulates

The status of the national health standards for ozone and particulates adopted in 1997 was called into question by a May 14, 1999 federal court ruling.

• The court ruling
• Status of the standards
• Description of the 1997 standards and areas of New Jersey that might meet them

The Court Ruling
New national health standards for ozone and particulate matter were adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in July, 1997. Subsequently, several states and associations petitioned the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review the standards. On May 14, 1999 the Court issued its ruling.

The Court said EPA did not adequately justify the levels it picked for the standards. These pollutants don't have a well-defined threshold at which health effects begin to occur; at lower levels the effects become less certain and less severe. The Court ruled that EPA didn't say how much uncertainty is too much, nor how severe the impact must be to justify picking a specific level. The Court said that EPA must have a principle to identify where to stop considering effects.

The Court didn't "vacate" the new ozone and fine particulate standards but sent them back to EPA, with the opportunity for EPA to respond with a clear set of criteria to justify the levels they pick.

The Court didn't question the underlying scientific basis for the health standards or the protection of public health they provide.

The Court found that any control requirements under the new ozone standard are unenforceable because of the specific classifications, dates and controls set forth by Congress for the old ozone standard in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

The Court did "vacate" the coarse particulate standard. This was based on PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter). The Court ruled that EPA was justified in controlling coarse (larger) particulates, but not in doing so by using a PM10 standard in combination with a fine particulate standard (PM2.5, for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter). The Court said that the level of the PM10 standard is arbitrary since PM10 contains everything smaller than 10 microns, including PM2.5. So areas with very little fine particulate would be allowed to have relatively high coarse particulates, while areas with higher fine particle levels would be required to have lower coarse particulates -- in effect, different standards for different areas.

Status of the Standards
EPA has responded to the Court's ruling by saying that it is reviewing all options to preserve the new standards, but intends to recommend an appeal to the Department of Justice. If that fails, EPA has said it will work with Congress to strengthen the primary public health provisions of the Clean Air Act.

The new standards may not be in effect until EPA satisfies the Court's requirement for criteria in setting the level of the standards.

You can read DEP's news release about the Court ruling. We'll update this page as more information becomes available.

The 1997 Standards
The federal Clean Air Act was signed into law in 1970, with major amendments made in 1977 and 1990. The Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to:

• Review public health standards for each pollutant for which a health standard has been set, every five years
• Update the standards, if necessary, to "protect public health with an adequate margin of safety," based on the latest, best-available scientific evidence
• Consider only public health, and not costs of compliance, when setting air quality standards -- and save cost considerations for the implementation phase of the standards process.

EPA adopted new health standards in 1997 for ozone and particulates (soot and dust) after a scientific review by EPA and the independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council determined that the existing standards were not adequately protective of public health:

• For ozone -- longer-term exposures at levels below the existing standard were found to cause significant health effects, including asthma attacks, breathing and respiratory problems, loss of lung function, and possible long-term lung damage and lowered immunity to disease.
• For particulates -- exposures to a subset of the particles that were being regulated by EPA were found to lodge deeply in the lungs and cause premature deaths and respiratory problems. The previous standard for "PM-10" regulated particles smaller than 10 microns (0.01 millimeter). The new standard for "PM-2.5" regulates particles smaller than 2.5 microns (0.0025 millimeter).

The new standards are more stringent than the previous ones:

• In 1998, there were 47 days that didn't meet the new 8-hour ozone standard in New Jersey, but only 4 that were over the old 1-hour standard
• There were no areas of New Jersey that failed to meet the old particulate matter standard, but much of the state will not be able to meet the new limit, if it stands

If the new standards are upheld, the old 1-hour ozone standard will still remain in effect for each area of the state until we meet it. Meeting it requires that there be no more than one day per year above the standard, averaged over a three-year period.

Following the 1998 ozone season, the only areas of New Jersey which met the 1-hour standard, and would no longer be subject to it, are Atlantic, Cape May and Warren counties. Although some of the remaining counties don't have ozone monitors, and although most of our monitoring locations meet the 1-hour standard when considered by themselves, all of the remaining counties in New Jersey are considered as not meeting the 1-hour ozone standard. This is because Congress grouped counties into metropolitan areas for the purposes of measuring and controlling ground-level ozone, and levels over the standard at even one location in a metropolitan area cause the entire area to be rated as not meeting the standard.

For more information about the new standards, check U.S. EPA's new air quality standards page.