Read on Twitter
Thread: @EPA just released its decision to keep the ambient air quality standard for ozone (smog) at 70 parts per billion. In less technical terms, this means more children will get asthma, more ppl will get sick, more ppl will die, bc the Trump EPA rejects expert conclusions. /1
Today's EPA decision, linked here, doesn't provide this context: Trump EPA mgmt sabotaged the scientific review of the standards by unlawfully blowing up its expert review panel, & improperly failed to provide a scientific foundation for its policy. /2 https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/final-decision-retain-ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards
Together w/ @41shen, I filed a comment in October on the draft decision on behalf of 40 legal scholars. We took issue w/the gutting of EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) & the shortcutting of science in the development of the standard. /3 https://legal-planet.org/2020/10/08/40-legal-scholars-urge-epa-to-withdraw-proposed-ozone-naaqs/
Here's a summary of our technical concerns. In plainer language: EPA cut almost all the scientists off its advisory committee (unlawfully, as a court found), eliminated its usual consulting review panel, and skipped key parts of the science before making policy decisions. /4
Scientist @H_C_Frey, who used to chair the scientific advisory committee that reviews these standards, details EPA's process failures—"failures" in the sense that EPA failed to protect public health as Congress has prescribed, but also: on purpose. /5 https://twitter.com/H_C_Frey/status/1341753517413961730?s=20
The process short-cutting and removal of experts by @EPA were in service of a decision that harms ppl. As @billingspg says, 19 leading health, medical, nursing and patient advocacy organizations called for a stricter standard, to protect public health. /6 https://twitter.com/billingspg/status/1341713580115324929?s=20
This thread and the media linked in it explain further the health impacts of ozone. As @billingspg says, "Inhaling #ozone is like getting a bad sunburn in your lungs." /7 https://twitter.com/billingspg/status/1281610204329771008?s=20
Trump EPA's decision here didn't follow Congress's mandate: air quality standards must be set at a level "requisite to protect public health" with an "adequate margin of safety." EPA has a lot of policy discretion, but not so much that it can ignore scientific data & advice. /8
Standard must “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of such pollutant in the ambient air.” 42 U.S.C.§ 7408(a)(2). It doesn't. /9
Advocates for clean air & public health will challenge this decision in court. But that's small comfort, since the agency's scientific expertise has been gutted by the dismantling of expert advisory committees, & this process has to be rebooted to set an adequate standard. /10
But throughout, EPA career staff have been working hard to maintain the agency's science-based mission. There is an opportunity, in the new administration, to rebuild and ensure that everyone in this country gets the benefit of Congress's vision of healthy air for all. /11
The work to rebuild the agency will be difficult—but between the career staff that have stuck it out over the past 4 years, new leadership, the anticipated restoration of proper science advisory panels, & new focus on environmental justice, I'm optimistic. /12
We all have to keep up our advocacy to ensure EPA will once again protect public health—hopefully, better than before. The health of so many depends on it. But at least—I believe—we will have partners in the federal government again for this work. /end
