nvironmental regulations and programs have evolved significantly over the past 25 years, and voters in the United States have consistently ranked "environmental stewardship" in the top ten issues influencing their decisions at the polls. Earlier environmental regulations—established in the 70s and 80s—primarily addressed adverse impacts from industrial contaminants discharged into the atmosphere, waterways, and landfills. These include, for instance, the application of toxic substances such as pesticides, lead paints, and asbestos.  In other words, earlier regulations focused on major sources of pollution and on products with clear, direct human and ecological health ill effects.

There has been a long history of scientists, environmental professionals, and planners warning us that, while we have made significant advances in cleaning-up and protecting our environment by focusing on those obvious sources of pollution, the cumulative effects of the relatively smaller impacts of pollutants that each of us produce in our daily activities are just as significant.  Such adverse impacts, for example, include disposal of domestic waste that could otherwise be recycled to protect the environment and conserve our natural resources, and toxic emissions and harmful wastes produced by our use of petroleum products to fuel our vehicles and other common types of equipment (e.g., for lawn maintenance and recreation).

There have been noteworthy improvements over the last 25 years in reducing our waste generation and toxic emissions from fossil fuels, and there have been measurable advances in the recycling of the masses of products and product packaging that our consumer society produces.  However, the overwhelming consensus among environmental professionals and many informed politicians has been that, despite our progress in environmental stewardship, our rate of environmental degradation, which is strongly influenced by the rate of global population growth, will eventually cause large-scale regional and global impacts on public health, the sustainability of our natural resources, and the maintenance of the natural processes supporting the health of our planet.  In recent years, this consensus has resulted in the generation of national policies and regulations in developed countries, and to an increasing degree in developing nations, that potentially will have sweeping effects on the way we conduct our daily lives.  Additionally, the recognition of the need for such global environmental reform has resulted in the formation of multinational alliances and programs such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

One of these regulations that should have positive effects on our society, at many levels, is a recent change in the Clean Air Act that requires states to control substances released into the atmosphere that combine to produce harmful ground-level ozone.  Before discussing this regulation, some explanation of the types of ozone is required. 

We have heard much about protecting the ozone layer that shields us from overexposure to harmful ultraviolet radiation produced by the sun.  This type of naturally occurring, “good” ozone resides in the stratosphere 10 to 35 miles above the earth’s surface.  Stratospheric ozone is being degraded by anthropogenic (human-made) emissions of chlorofluorocarbons, halons, and other ozone depleting compounds used in coolants, foaming agents, fire extinguishers, and solvents.  These ozone-depleting compounds remain intact for years as they migrate into the stratosphere.  Once there, they are broken down by intense ultraviolet rays from the sun releasing chlorine and bromine molecules.  These molecules destroy “good” ozone molecules.  One chlorine or bromine molecule can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules.  This rate of destruction is faster than natural processes can replace the ozone.

Ground-level ozone, on the other hand, is “bad” ozone.  Ground-level ozone is formed by a chemical reaction between nitrogen oxides (NO_x) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of heat and sunlight (ultraviolet light).  Motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, industrial emissions and chemical solvents are some of the major anthropogenic sources of NO_x and VOCs.  Because of the heat and sunlight requirements, higher concentrations usually form in the summer months, giving ozone its reputation as the summertime pollutant.   Ground-level ozone has the same chemical structure as stratospheric ozone.  However, ground-level ozone is "bad" because of the harmful effects of exposure to animals and plants.  That is, inhalation of ozone can cause permanent damage to the lungs, and can result in chest pains, coughing, nausea, throat irritation and congestion.  Ozone also can worsen heart disease, bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma; and can result in reduced lung capacity.  Difficulty breathing in the presence of ozone even can affect the most healthy person during hot weather when ozone concentration is at its highest.  In plants, ozone reduces the ability to produce and store food and can damage foliage, resulting in an increased vulnerability to disease.  The economic consequences of these effects are likewise substantial.  Ground-level ozone is responsible for approximately $500 million in reduced crop production each year in the United States. (See www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/gooduphigh, retrieved March 28, 2003, for a detailed discussion).

To address these health and economic problems caused by ground-level ozone, on July 18, 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the national standard for ground-level ozone from a 0.12 parts-per-million, one-hour maximum standard to a 0.08 parts-per-million, eight-hour average standard. This new standard is commonly referred to as the “eight-hour ozone standard.” While all areas of South Carolina have met the current national air quality standards, including the one-hour ozone standard, numerous areas of the state will have difficulty meeting the new, more stringent eight-hour ozone standard. In fact, several areas currently exceed the new eight-hour standard in the more urbanized regions of the Midlands and northwestern Piedmont.

Once the new standard officially goes into effect on December 31, 2007, areas that do not meet the new standard will be designated as “non-attainment” for ground-level ozone. When a non-attainment designation occurs, a state must submit a plan to the EPA that demonstrates how those areas will come back into attainment. Moreover, special regulatory consequences, which are the “teeth” of the Clean Air Act, go into effect when non-attainment designations occur (i.e., areas are subject to General and Transportation Conformity and non-attainment New Source Review requirements). 

Without going into the technical details of these requirements, the primary consequences are that non-attainment areas must prove that long-range transportation plans (road building and widening, mass transit projects, vehicle and fueling facility emissions reduction programs, etc.) will not result in increased pollution.  When areas cannot sufficiently demonstrate transportation conformity, they may become ineligible to use or acquire new federal highway funds, resulting in direct negative effects on development and state and municipal improvement programs.

The New Source Review requirements for non-attainment areas would place strict constraints (greater than in areas meeting the air standards) on any industry that wishes to locate in the non-attainment area and produces air emissions requiring an air quality permit.  Additionally, these requirements would apply to existing industries that have expansion plans requiring air permitting.  In such cases, industries might have to install the strictest (usually more expensive) available pollution controls, and purchase pollution offset credits from other industries in the area.  In other words, potentially new industries would likely seek to locate in others areas, and existing industries might be prevented from expanding.  It is clear that such consequences could have significant adverse impacts on the state’s employment and property values, creating regional economic hardships.

Finally, South Carolina must submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to EPA demonstrating how the state plans to reduce pollution in order to comply with the standard.  The SIP must address transportation conformity plans and a wide range of pollution prevention measures including:

Thus, beyond falling short of providing needed protection from the harmful health effects of air pollution, it is clear that the negative consequences of non-attainment designation could significantly hinder the state’s ability to provide the needed infrastructure for our future (i.e., roadways, power plants), and could cause economic hardships, including loss of prospective employment from new and expanding industry.  To prevent these negative consequences, state and regional governments and planning groups in cooperation with businesses, industry and citizens will have to make changes in the way we plan our future development, the types of technology and equipment we use in our daily lives, and the manner in which we conduct common activities like commuting to work, mowing our lawns, and burning wastes.

Areas like those in South Carolina that attain the one-hour ozone standard but may be approaching or exceeding the eight-hour ozone standard have been encouraged by the EPA to implement early measures to reduce emissions of ozone-forming air pollutants in advance of federal requirements. The EPA has established a process for areas to submit an Early Action State Implementation Plan to address ozone pollution sooner than required. While areas not meeting the ozone standard still will be designated as non-attainment, the effective date of the designation will be deferred and conformity and non-attainment New Source Review will not apply as normally would be required.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) has seized the opportunity to participate in this EPA program, and with stakeholder and citizen cooperation, this program will hopefully prevent the state from suffering the negative consequences of non-attainment. On August 23, 2002, DHEC published a Notice of Drafting in the State Register for the development of an Early Action Plan for implementing measures to attain the eight-hour ozone standard prior to federal requirements. This notice allows stakeholders the opportunity to comment and participate in the development of an Early Action Plan.            

To participate in the ozone early action process, an area of potential non-attainment must enter into an Early Action Compact and establish milestones that must be met. However, areas that enter into an Early Action Compact, but do not meet all of the terms of the Early Action Compact, including established milestones, will forfeit participation and be subject to EPA’s eight-hour ozone implementation rules requiring Transportation Conformity and non-attainment New Source Review. Milestones in the Early Action Compact include the completion of emissions inventories and modeling; adoption of control strategies that demonstrate attainment; completion and adoption of the early action State Implementation Plan revision before December 31, 2004; attainment of the eight-hour ozone standard not later than December 31, 2007; and post-attainment demonstration and plan updates.

The first milestone that had to be met to participate was the signing of the Early Action Compact before December 31, 2002. Signatories to the Early Action Compact had to include municipal and regional representatives, DHEC, and the EPA. On December 31, 2002, South Carolina had Early Action Compacts from 45 of 46 counties. These counties have been grouped into ten areas using the Council of Government boundaries. To put this into a regional perspective, the Southeast has 22 of the 35 compacts in the country, representing 101 counties. In addition to South Carolina, states with compacts in EPA Region 4 include Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi.

DHEC currently is working with federal, state, and local governments, industry, environmental groups, and other interested parties to develop the plans to implement the measures that will help reduce the precursors of ground-level ozone and improve public health and the environment.  The success of these plans will depend on the collaborative leadership of our elected officials, our collective willingness to change the way we build our communities, and an increased public awareness of how our lifestyles affect the health of our environment.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jeffery L. Beacham, Ph.D., earned a Bachelor and a Master of Science in Zoology from Clemson University, and a Ph.D. in Biological Sciences from the State University of New York at Albany. He has served on the faculties of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and the Biology Departments of Baruch College of the City University of New York and the State University of New York at Farmingdale. Prior to arriving at the Institute, he served over 12 years as a senior scientist at two major environmental consulting firms. In addition to his position as the Institute's Director of the Environmental Research and Service unit, Dr. Beacham is an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Clemson University. He can be contacted at beachamj@sc.edu.