Transcript Protecting Ecosystems from S and N Emissions – EPA’s

Protecting Ecosystems:
An EPA Perspective on What
Critical Loads Can Offer
Presentation for WESTAR “Understanding the CL Approach” Workshop
By
Richard Haeuber, Ph.D.
Office of Air and Radiation, EPA
November 16, 2005
Protecting Ecosystems – Where We’ve
Been, Where We’re Headed
• Current mechanisms under the Clean Air Act to
protect ecosystems
• New emissions reduction programs
• Ecosystem-related accountability drivers
• NAS report on air quality management
• Exploring critical loads
Acid Deposition Control Program (Title IV of 1990 CAAA)
• Overall program goal: Reduce ecological effects of acid rain and protect
public health, visibility through large-scale regional reductions
• SO2 emissions goal: Reduce SO2 emissions from electric generators by 8.5
million tons (50% below 1980 levels)
• In 2003, SO2 emissions from all power generation were 10.6 million tons, 5.1
million tons (32%) below 1990 levels
• Eastern states have experienced significant decreases in sulfate deposition -almost 30 percent -- since the Acid Rain Program took effect in 1995.
Monitored Reductions in Wet Sulfur Deposition in the Eastern U.S.
Average 1989 - 1991
Average 2002 – 2004
Acid Deposition Control Program (Title IV of 1990 CAAA)
• NOX emissions goal: lower annual NOX emissions from electric power
plants to 2 million tons below the forecasted level for 2000
• In 2003, NOX emissions from all power generation were 4.2 million tons, 2.5
million tons (or 37 %) below 1990 levels
• Eastern states have experienced some decreases in nitrogen deposition
• Nitrogen deposition has not significantly decreased since the Acid Rain
Program took effect in 1995
Monitored Reductions in Wet Nitrogen Deposition in the Eastern U.S.
Average 1989-1991
Average 2002-2004
Title I: Secondary NAAQS
• Sec. 109 (CAA) “Any national secondary ambient air
quality standard…shall specify a level of air quality the
attainment and maintenance of which…is requisite to
protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated
adverse effects associated with the presence of such air
pollutant in the ambient air.”
• Sec. 302(h): “All language referring to effects on welfare
includes but is not limited to, effects on soils, water,
wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate,…, whether
caused by transformation, conversion, or combination
with other air pollutants.”
Title I: PSD/NOX Increment Rule
• 1988 - EPA was sued on NOX Increment Rule
• 1990 - Court remanded case to EPA to develop interpretation
of Sec.166 that “considers both subsections (c) and (d), and if
necessary to take new evidence and modify the regulations.”
– Sec. 166 CAA:
• (c) Such regulations [for new increments, e.g., NOx] shall provide specific
numerical measures against which permit applications may be evaluated, a
framework for stimulating improved control technology, protection of air
quality values, and fulfill the goals and purposes set forth in section 101 and
section 160.
• (d) The regulations…shall provide specific measures at least as effective as
the [statutory increments for SO2/PM] to fulfill such goals and purposes,
and may contain air quality increments, emission density requirements, or
other measures.
• 2003 - Environmental Defense petitioned court for EPA to take
action on earlier remand
• 2005 - EPA proposed rule on February 14 seeking comment
on alternatives to increment approach (including critical loads).
• Final rule signed September 30, 2005.
Final NOX Increment Rule & Critical Loads
• Final rule text: “EPA will work with
interested States, tribes, Federal land
management agencies and others to
identify the components needed to
develop and implement cooperative
projects to explore the feasibility and
usefulness of a critical loads approach.”
– Opportunity to evaluate utility of critical loads
as tool in policy/program assessment,
evaluation, and development
Clean Air Interstate Rule….the Next Big Step
Affected Region and Emission Caps
Emission Caps*
(million tons)
2009/2010
2015
Annual SO2
(2010)
3.6
2.5
Annual NOx
(2009)
1.5
1.3
Seasonal NOx
(2009)
.58
.48
*For the affected region.
States controlled for fine particles (annual SO2 and NOx)
States controlled for ozone (ozone season NOx)
States controlled for both fine particles (annual SO2 and NOx) and ozone (ozone season NOx)
States not covered by CAIR
Regional Haze Is a Major Concern for Our National Parks
Above: Acadia National Park on a day
with poor visibility
Below: Acadia National Park on a day
with good visibility
Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR)
•
Covers 26 industrial sectors, including the power industry.
•
CAIR determined better than Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
controls of CAVR in the CAIR region; therefore, States are allowed to use
CAIR in lieu of source-specific BART requirements in the CAIR region.
•
Mandatory BART guidance for power plants >750 megawatt (MW)
– Guidelines contain presumptive control levels for coal-fired electric
generation units > 200 MW (about 50 units in non-CAIR states)
– For electric generating units >200 MW at plants 750 MW or less (about
20 units in non-CAIR region) - encourage use of presumptive controls
– Guidance only for all other source categories
•
Presumptive control levels:
– SO2: 95% control or 0.15 lbs/MMBtu for uncontrolled units.
(Recommend States consider upgrades to existing controls if removal
rate is 50% or greater. Recommend States consider replacement if
removal rate is less than 50%. Recommend oil-fired units have 1%
sulfur limit for fuel).
– NOx: Current combustion controls on all coal-fired units except
cyclones which require SCR, and annual operation of existing SCR
and SNCRs.
Projected 2020 Emissions for Power Plants under
CAIR/CAMR and CAVR
SO2 Emissions
NOX Emissions
Total Sulfur Deposition
Baseline
2001
Legend
Total S
(kg/ha)
Base Case
2020
CAIR/CAMR/CAVR
2020
Total Nitrogen Deposition
Baseline
2001
Legend
Total N
(kg/ha)
Base Case
2020
CAIR/CAMR/CAVR
2020
Tracking Progress - “Accountability” Drivers
• Reporting requirements under Clean Air Act
• Performance Measures
- GPRA (Government Performance and Results Act)
- PART (Program Assessment Rating Tool)
• Tracking and Reporting through Program Progress Reports
(e.g. Acid Rain and NOx Budget Program Progress Report)
• EPA State of the Environment Report
• A new driver: National Academy of Sciences 2004 Report
Recommendations on Air Quality Management
NAS Report on Air Quality Management
• January 2004 -- NAS Committee on Air Quality
Management in United States releases report
• Comprehensive assessment of effectiveness of US air
quality management system
• Core conclusions:
– Over past 30 years, Clean Air Act has substantially reduced
pollution emissions
– Despite progress, Committee identified scientific and technical
limitations that will hinder future progress
• Report intended as blueprint to address limitations,
enhance air quality management, and chart path toward
more productive and efficient system
• Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) reviewed
report and developed plan to prioritize and focus NAS
recommendations
– CAAAC developed 38 separate recommendations based on the
NAS Report
CAAAC Ecosystem-Related Recommendations
• 1.5 Framework for accountability
• Develop benchmarks/measures to assess
ecological impacts of air pollution and improve
ability to track/evaluate progress
– Improve tracking/assessing ecosystem effects of
multiple pollutants
– Conduct/facilitate integrated assessments & research
to develop/implement measurements to detect
ecosystem response
– Facilitate/pursue collaboration on integrated
assessments
– Examine possibility of using critical loads & thresholds
CAAAC Ecosystem-Related Recommendations
• 5.1 Program review to improve ecosystem
protection
• Examine current policies and programs to
develop approaches advancing ecosystem
protection from air pollution impacts
• Evaluate potential alternative approaches for
protecting ecosystems from air pollution impacts
– critical loads emphasized
One conceptual
model for
developing critical
loads
Critical Loads Issues – Some Examples
• What resources do we care about?
– Science/policy dialogue on resources, systems, indicators
• Do we have the right models?
– Evaluation and comparison of models, including pilot
applications (e.g., steady-state vs. dynamic models)
• Do we have the data?
– Broad set of data needed to drive dynamic models
• How best to communicate data and results?
– Data presentation and aggregation from site-specific to
regional/national
• How do we know if projected loads are protecting
ecosystems?
– Deposition and environmental monitoring in relation to modeled
loads
• How do we accommodate system change?
– Understanding the consequences of disturbance, land use
change, climate change, etc.
EPA Projects Exploring CL Issues
•
Compare/evaluate models for characterizing site to
regional response to changes in emissions and
deposition (2006-2007)
•
•
•
•
Develop Maine CL map to complete NE critical loads
mapping project – w/ USFS (2006)
Convene inter-agency critical loads workshop (2006)
•
•
•
•
•
Eastern project –100 Adirondack region sites (w/USFS)
Western project – LTER Network sites (w/USGS)
Co-organized by EPA, NPS, USFS, USGS
Tentatively set for May 23-24 at University of Virginia
Details TBA
Develop critical loads pilot projects – follow-on from
Final NO2 Increment Rule
Synthesize state of science on indicators and
monitoring eco response to air pollution – w/Heinz
Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment
To Learn More…..
Clean Air Markets Division
www.epa.gov/airmarkets
Clean Air Interstate Rule
www.epa.gov/cleanairinterstaterule
Clean Air Mercury Rule
www.epa.gov/mercury
Clean Air Visibility Rule
http://www.epa.gov/visibility/actions.html#bart1