Skip to main content

View Diary: In Major Decision to Benefit Climate Change Mitigation;SCOTUS Rejects Challenge to EPA Authority (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  CONFUSED (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dansk47, elwior, Just Bob

    the diary says new standard is 100ppb, old standard was 53 ppb, it sounds like the standard was relaxed, not tightened ?

    •  From the ThinkProgress story (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, Just Bob
      ” This new standard is 100 parts per billion for one hour, compared to the previous annual standard of 53 parts per billion dating back to 1971.'"
      That one missing word does make a difference

      -6.25 -5.3 If I ever leave this world alive The madness that you feel will soon subside...

      by dansk47 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:31:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  oopps, read it wrong (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior

        I thought it was missing from the diary. My bad.

        -6.25 -5.3 If I ever leave this world alive The madness that you feel will soon subside...

        by dansk47 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:43:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You're missing an important part of the (0+ / 0-)

        statement of what the standard does.   Not every excursion above the 100 ppm NO2 NAAQS standard actually constitutes a legal violation of the NO2 NAAQS.

        Compliance with this standard is measured on the basis of the 3 year average of daily maximum 1 hour concentrations occurring at the 99% percentile level.

        In other words, the standard is not legally violated unless  a running 3 year average determined for the 99% percentile value of all daily 1 hour maximum concentrations determined on a calender block year basis exceed the 100 ppb level of the standard.    Single excursions over the 100 ppb level of the standard, per se, do not constitute legal violations of the NAAQS.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site