The phrase "ambient standards" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts related to environmental regulations, quality benchmarks, or general conditions in a given setting.
Example: "The company is committed to adhering to ambient standards to ensure a safe and healthy workplace for all employees."
Alternatives: "environmental standards" or "surrounding standards".
The standards imposed on actual discharges generally come in two forms: (1) environmental-quality, or ambient, standards, which fix the maximum amount of the regulated pollutant or pollutants tolerated in the receiving body of air or water, and (2) emission, or discharge, standards, which regulate the amount of the pollutant or pollutants that any "source" may discharge into the environment.
The alternative to market mechanisms is the more traditional command and control approach which includes ambient standards, source-specific emission limits, or technology requirements.
A review of the basis for current ambient standards is given.
In the European Union, ambient standards for NO2 have recently been tightened, and along with the World Health Organization (WHO), guidelines of a 40 μg/m3 annual average and a 200 μg/m3 1-hour maximum [ 3] were established.
The senate report states that the CAA will address "particularly sensitive citizens such as bronchial asthmatics and emphysematics," through the development of "ambient standards necessary to protect... sensitive group[s] rather than a single person in such a group".
States are required to submit implementation plans to achieve compliance with the new ambient standards; as part of these plans, state and local governments pass rules and regulations requiring industry and consumers to change their operations (C6) and reduce emissions (C7).
The U.S. EPA revised its regulations to include an annual ambient standard for PM2.5 (A8), conducting multiple stages of staff and public review of the new standard from the mid-1990s through 2006 (e.g., U.S. EPA 2004).
Equal treatment of all particles that contribute to mass, irrespective of composition, may be leading to less-optimal control strategies to avoid the adverse human health effects of PM, potentially causing the present PM ambient standard to be less protective of health in some areas of the nation than in others.
Daily PM10 values at some locations met and approached the US 24-h ambient PM10 standard value of 150 μg m−3.
Fugitive road dust concentrations calculated for the VT area substantially exceed the 2008 Federal ambient air standard of 0.15 μg m−3 for Pb.
Indoor PM2.5 levels in the hospitals were significantly higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ambient PM2.5 standard.
