Ozone Health
Concerns, EPA Regulatory Actions Underscore Nuclear Power's
Importance for Hudson Valley and New York City
By:
Norris McDonald
President
- African American Environmentalist Association and Spokesman
for New York AREA
May 26, 2004 — Summer is
the time of year when ozone pollution becomes an important
public health and environmental concern, as it should be.
And starting this summer, policy makers throughout New York
will be facing intense scrutiny to develop and implement a
comprehensive plan that significantly reduces ground-level
ozone emissions.
On April 15, 2004, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) designated counties that make up the
lower Hudson Valley (Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange,
and Dutchess) and the five counties of New York City (Bronx,
Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond) as being in "nonattainment"
of EPA ozone standards.
The non-attainment classification
formally takes effect on June 15, 2004. By June 2010, the
counties must comply with the new standards.
Ozone forms when emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are heated
in the sun. As the primary ingredient in smog, ozone is unhealthy.
During outdoor physical activity ozone penetrates into lung
area that are more vulnerable to injury. Ozone is particularly
harmful for those with respiratory diseases as well as adults
and children who are active outdoors.
Children with asthma, especially those
in the inner city, are most vulnerable. As the EPA notes,
"When ozone levels are high, more people with asthma have
attacks that require a doctor's attention or use of medication.
One reason this happens is that ozone makes people more sensitive
to allergens, the most common triggers of asthma attacks."1
There are other dire effects from ozone.
The EPA also recently reminded us that, "Breathing ozone can
irritate air passages, reduce lung function, aggravate asthma,
and inflame and damage the cells lining the lungs. It also
may aggravate chronic lung diseases like emphysema and bronchitis…"2
For policy makers, there is no turning
back when it comes to reducing ozone pollution. After a prolonged
court fight, and much scientific study, the EPA has prevailed
in being able to adopt much tougher, and healthier, ozone
standards that it first sought to put in place in 1997. The
amount of permitted harmful ozone is being reduced by more
than a third.
The big targets for ozone pollution
reduction are cars, trucks, refineries, power plants, and
diesel engines. So what can policy makers at the state and
local level do to reduce air pollution?
The broad brush of solutions includes
reducing emissions from industrial facilities, better transportation
planning (to avoid traffic tie-ups and higher pollution),
and gasoline vapor controls. To be sure, this is a tall order
that will increase energy costs and other business costs as
well.
The EPA, however, wields a big stick
when it comes to compliance. Together with other federal government
agencies it can impose significant sanctions by reducing highway
funds and curtailing industrial development in an area if
it does not comply with the new standards. While the EPA is
quick to point out that this has occurred very rarely in the
past, today's standards are much more rigorous than the previous
ones.
As policy makers in the lower Hudson
Valley and New York City come up with a gameplan for reducing
pollution they should keep in mind the maxim, "First, do no
harm." In fact, the challenging situation at hand would be
compounded greatly by closing the Indian Point Nuclear Energy
Center in Buchanan, New York that provides 20-30 percent of
the electricity used downstate and in New York City.
Indian Point does not produce ozone
pollution or harmful greenhouse gases. In fact, a study by
the TRC Environmental Corporation, a Fortune 100 company,
found that closing Indian Point would be a "significant setback
in the area's efforts to meet progress goals toward ozone
attainment status in the near future."
If Indian Point were to be closed and
its power could be replaced by existing generating plants
in New York State, air pollution would be increased by more
than 14 million tons annually, including nitrogen dioxide
(a main component of harmful ground-level ozone), carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and other particulate matter.
Longer term, policy makers and environmental
activists should have a greater appreciation of the environmental
benefits that nuclear power provides, particularly as the
tougher ozone standards come online and there continues to
be concern about greenhouse gases.
In fact, the air quality standards
established by the Clean Air Act have been calculated on the
assumption that 20 percent of the nation's electricity will
continue to be produced by nuclear energy. Many states, such
as New York, that are in "non-attainment" of the EPA's ground
level ozone standards are important beneficiaries of nuclear
power.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT), together with a team of researchers from Harvard, has
also weighed in on the environmental benefits of nuclear power.
In a July 2003, MIT issued The Future of Nuclear Power, described
by John Deutch, former Central Intelligence Agency Director
and co-chair of the study as, "the most comprehensive, interdisciplinary
study ever conducted on the future of nuclear energy."
The report makes clear that nuclear
power plays an important role as a carbon-free source of power.
"Fossil fuel-based electricity is projected
to account for more than 40 percent of global greenhouse gas
emissions by 2020," said Deutch. "In the U.S., 90 percent
of the carbon emissions from electricity generation come from
coal-fired generation, even though this accounts for only
52 percent of the electricity produced. Taking nuclear power
off the table as a viable alternative will prevent the global
community from achieving long-term gains in the control of
carbon dioxide emissions."3
Indian Point and nuclear power is integral
to having a cleaner, safer New York. Keeping the plant online,
as it has been for nearly 30 years, makes it more economically
feasible for the region to meet the EPA's new regulations.
But more importantly, Indian Point and its emission free power
makes sense for the environment - as well as for adults and
children who suffer the effects of elevated ozone and who
do not want to live in a world that is significantly impacted
by global warming.
About the Author: Norris
McDonald is President of the African American Environmentalist
Association, which promotes the efficient use of natural resources,
and a member of the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity
Alliance (http://www.area-alliance.org).
1 U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 8-Hour Ground-level Ozone Designations,
p. 3 ("What are the health effects of ozone?"), May 6, 2004,
see: http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations.faq.htm
2 U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Fact Sheet: Clean Air Ozone Rules of 2004,
p. 4 ("About the 8-Hour Ozone Standard,"), April 15, 2004.
The document can be found on the EPA's website at: http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/finrulesfs.htm
3 Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, MIT News Office, "MIT releases study on nuclear
energy's future," July 29, 2003, see: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2003/nuclear.html
|
