Transcript Protecting Ecosystems from S and N Emissions – EPA’s Perspective Presentation for Riverside Critical Loads Workshop By Richard Haeuber and Vicki Sandiford Office of Air and.

Protecting Ecosystems from S
and N Emissions – EPA’s
Perspective
Presentation for Riverside Critical Loads Workshop
By
Richard Haeuber and Vicki Sandiford
Office of Air and Radiation, EPA
February 16, 2005
Protecting Ecosystems – Where We’ve
Been, Where We’re Headed
• Current mechanisms under the Clean Air Act to
protect ecosystems
– PSD/NOX increment rule proposal
– National Ambient Air Quality Standards – welfare
effects
– Acid Rain Program
• Potential future emissions reduction programs
– Clean Air Interstate Rule
– Clear Skies Act
• Ecosystem-related accountability drivers
• NAS report on air quality management – an
opportunity for creative thinking
PSD/NOX Increment Rule
• 1988 EPA was sued on NOX Increment Rule
• 1990 Court remanded case to EPA “to develop
an interpretation of sec. 166 that considers both
subsections (c) and (d), and if necessary to take
new evidence and modify the regulations.”
• 2003 – Environmental Defense petitioned court
for EPA to take action on earlier remand
• Settlement to issue proposal Sept. 30, 2004
• ED and EPA agreed to delay to Feb. 14, 2005 to
allow EPA time to consider alternatives to
increment approach (including critical loads).
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.”
NAAQS: Definition of Welfare
• 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.”
Current PM NAAQS Review
• 01/31/05 -PM 2nd Draft Staff Paper stated:
– “Though these current activities hold promise
for using CLs approach in environmental
assessments…insufficient data are available
at this time to quantify the contribution of
ambient PM to total reactive nitrogen or acidic
deposition…”
– www.epa.gov/ttn/NAAQS
Review Process for NAAQS
Scientific studies on
health and
environmental effects
Scientific peer review
of published studies
Final
decision on
standards
EPA Criteria Document
– extensive assessment
of scientific studies
Reviews by CASAC
and the public
Public hearings and
comments on
proposals
EPA Staff Paper – interprets
scientific data and identifies
factors to consider in setting
standards including staff
recommendations for
standards
Reviews by CASAC
and the public
Proposed
decision
on
standards
Acid Rain Damages Lakes, Streams, and Forests
•
Acid deposition occurs when emissions of
Wet Sulfate Deposition (2000-2002) and Acid-Sensitive
Surface Waters
SO2 and NOx react in the atmosphere to
create acidic gases and particles which
reach the Earth in wet and dry forms.
•
The greatest sulfur and nitrogen
deposition occurs in areas of the Midwest
and northeastern United States which are
downwind of the highest SO2 and NOx
emission areas.
•
Impacts occur in both the eastern U.S.
and mountainous areas of the West.
•
Effects of acid deposition include:
•
Acidification of lakes and streams,
making them unable to support fish
and other aquatic life;
•
Damage to forests through
•
Despite substantial emissions reductions over the last 20 years, high levels
acidification of soil, depletion of
of sulfur and nitrogen deposition still enter acid-sensitive lakes and streams,
soil nutrients, and direct injury to
leading to high levels of acidity.
sensitive tree leaves and needles;
Nitrogen Deposition in the High Elevation West
•
•
•
•
Points on map represent only those forested areas
surveyed for these purposes
Under current emissions rates,
nitrogen saturation is expected
to get worse
Nitrogen deposition is a
significant problem in many
western areas, including the
Colorado Front Range, the San
Gabriel Mountains,the Klamath
Mountains, and the San
Bernadino Mountains
This is leading to high nitrogen
levels in streams in several
areas and changing the
ecological structure of some
alpine lakes and tundras
Nitrogen saturation contributes
to greater forest and grassland
susceptibility to fire
Impacts to Coastal Ecosystems
Estuaries with Highly Eutrophic Conditions
Note: Conditions are not
necessarily related in
whole to human-related
eutrophication; to
various degrees natural
causes and other human
disturbances may also
play a role. For instance,
some estuaries in Maine
are typified by natural
occurrences of toxic
algae, which drift in from
the open ocean. Once in
the estuary, however,
these blooms may be
sustained by human
nutrient inputs.
• 44 estuaries along all of the nation’s coasts are highly eutrophic
• Estuaries in the Mid-Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are particularly sensitive
• An additional 40 estuaries (not shown) have moderate levels of eutrophic conditions
Source: NOAA, National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment 1999
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.
Wet Sulfate Deposition
Average 1989 - 1991
Wet Sulfate Deposition
Average 2001 – 2003
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.
Wet Nitrate Deposition
Average 1989-1991
Wet Nitrate Deposition
Average 2001-2003
Acid Rain Program Results
Surface Water Response to Emissions Reductions
TIME/LTM (Surface Water Monitoring)
• Regional declines in surface water sulfate
can be directly linked to declines in
emissions and deposition of sulfur
• In three regions monitored, one-quarter to
one-third of lakes and streams previously
affected by acid rain are no longer acidic
Regional Trends in Lakes and Streams Acidity, 1990-2000
• Regional Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC), a key
indicator of recovery, did not change significantly
in New England or in Blue Ridge streams
• Surface water nitrate concentrations are largely
unchanged except in Adirondacks and Northern
Appalachian Plateau
CAIR: The Next Big Step
• Reducing interstate transport is critical to solving the problems of ozone, fine
particles, and regional haze
• Emissions have declined under the Acid Rain Program and the environment is
beginning to improve, but full environmental recovery from acid deposition will not
happen without additional emission reductions
• Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which is focused mainly on the electric power
industry, would use cap and trade programs to further reduce emissions of SO2 and
NOx in the eastern U.S.
12
10.6
10
8
6.1
5.4
6
4
3.9*
2
2.7*
0
2003
2010
(million tons)
NOEmissions
NOx
tons)
x Emissions (million
SO2
Emissions(million
(milliontons)
tons)
SO2 Emissions
Projected national SO2 emissions
from power generation
5
Projected national NOx emissions
from power generation
4.2
4
3
2.4
2.1
2
1.6*
1
1.3*
0
2015
Columns indicate projected nationwide emissions for the December 2003 CAIR proposal
* Yellow bars indicate level of caps for the CAIR region only (eastern U.S.)
2003
2010
2015
Projected Sulfur Deposition Improvements in 2010 and
2015 under CAIR
Projected Sulfur Deposition Changes with CAIR
compared to the Base Case in 2010
Legend
Projected Sulfur Deposition Changes with
CAIR compared to the Base Case in 2015
100thParallel
Percent Reduction
-1 - 0
1-3
4-6
7-9
10 - 12
13 - 15
16 - 18
19 - 21
22 - 24
25 - 27
28 - 30
31 - 33
34 - 36
37 - 39
40 - 42
43 - 45
46 - 48
49 - 51
52 - 54
55 - 57
58 - 60
61 - 63
64 - 66
• By 2010, CAIR would significantly
reduce sulfur deposition in some areas
by over 60% beyond levels expected
without the implementation of the rule
• Estimates for 2015
show even more
reductions in the 60%
range in the east.
Note: this modeling represents the CAIR
proposal, not the final regulation
Projected Nitrogen Deposition Improvements in 2010 and
2015 under CAIR
Projected Nitrogen Deposition Changes with
CAIR compared to the Base Case in 2010
Projected Nitrogen Deposition Changes with
CAIR compared to the Base Case in 2015
Legend
100thParallel
Percent Reduction
-4 to 0
0
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9 - 10
11 - 12
13 - 14
15 - 16
17 - 18
19 - 20
21 - 22
23 - 24
25 - 26
27 - 28
29 - 30
31 - 32
• By 2010, CAIR would significantly reduce
nitrogen deposition by up to 21% beyond
levels expected without the
implementation of the rule.
• Estimates for 2015 show even more
reductions in the eastern U.S., with
reductions reaching as much as 31% in
some areas of Florida.
Note: this modeling represents the CAIR
proposal, not the final regulation
The Clear Skies Act 2003 – SO2 and NOX Emissions
Caps and Timing for the Electric Power Sector
2004: The NOx SIP call (summertime
NOx cap in 19 Eastern States + D.C.)
2008: Clear Skies NOx Phase I (2.1
million ton annual cap assigned to
two Zones with trading programs)
2004
2008
2012
2018: Clear Skies NOx Phase II (1.7
million ton annual cap assigned to
two Zones with trading programs)
2010: Clear Skies SO2 Phase I (4.5
million ton annual cap with a
national trading program)
2016
2020
2018: Clear Skies SO2 Phase II (3.0
million ton annual cap with a national
trading program)
Sulfur Deposition Improvements in 2020 under Clear Skies Act 2003
Projected Changes in Sulfur Deposition with the
Base Case in 2020 Compared to 2001
• The top map demonstrates the effect of existing
programs (Base Case) in comparison to current
deposition levels.
• The bottom map demonstrates the effects of Clear Skies
in combination with the Base Case in comparison to
current deposition levels.
• Clear Skies, in combination with the Base Case,
would reduce sulfur deposition up to 60% from
current levels throughout much of the Eastern U.S.
Projected Changes in Sulfur Deposition with
Clear Skies and the Base Case in 2020
Compared to 2001
Note: Alaska and Hawaii are not included in the model domain
Source: 2003 EPA Analysis of the Clear Skies Act.
Projections based on latest data available at time of analysis.
• Sulfur deposition in the West is generally low, so the
large percentage increases correspond to relatively
small changes in actual deposition (less than 1 kg/ha).
These increases come from expected increases in
emissions primarily from sources not affected by Clear
Skies (e.g., metals processing, petroleum refining,
chemical and fertilizer manufacturing). A few power
plants are expected to increase emissions slightly
under existing programs.
Note: Alaska and Hawaii are not included in the model domain
Nitrogen Deposition Improvements in 2020 under Clear Skies Act 2003
Projected Changes in Nitrogen Deposition
with the Base Case in 2020 Compared to 2001
• The top map demonstrates the effect of existing programs
(Base Case) in comparison to current deposition levels.
• The bottom map demonstrates the effect of Clear Skies in
combination with the Base Case in comparison to current
deposition levels.
• Clear Skies and the Base Case together would reduce
nitrogen deposition across much of the country up to
35%, with larger reductions of up to 50% across most
of the East and large areas of the West.
Projected Changes in Nitrogen Deposition
with Clear Skies and the Base Case in 2020
Compared to 2001
Note: Alaska and Hawaii are not included in the model domain
Source: 2003 EPA Analysis of the Clear Skies Act.
Projections based on latest data available at time of analysis.
• The projected large reductions in nitrogen deposition on
the West coast are due to existing programs not yet
fully implemented, such as the Tier II and Diesel Rules.
• In the West, Clear Skies would prevent further
deterioration of air quality, including visibility.
• Clear Skies would allow growth to occur in the
West without increasing NOx emissions.
Note: Alaska and Hawaii are not included in the model domain
Note: The increases in nitrogen deposition in Louisiana and Washington state occur under both the Base Case and Clear Skies and are the result of increases
in emissions from manufacturing and refining sources.
Tracking Progress - “Accountability” Drivers
• Reporting requirements under Clean Air Act -- NAPAP
Report to Congress
• Performance Measures
- GPRA (Government Performance and Results Act)
- PART (Program Assessment Rating Tool)
• Self-imposed reporting requirements (e.g., Acid Rain
Program Progress Report, NOx Budget Program Progress
Report, etc.)
• 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
• Viewed as opportunity for EPA and to “step outside the
box” to achieve better environmental results
NAS Report on Air Quality Management
• NAS made 5 core recommendations to be implemented
through specific actions:
– Strengthen scientific and technical capacity to assess risk and
track progress
– Expand national and multi-state control strategies
– Transform the SIP process into dynamic and collaborative
multi-pollutant air quality management plan
– Develop integrated program for criteria pollutant and
hazardous air pollutants
– Enhance protection of ecosystems and public welfare through
better monitoring and tracking of ecosystem effects and
improving the science to support secondary or alternative
standards
Steps to Implement NAS Recommendations
-- Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Review
• NAS Committee recommended that EPA
convene implementation task force
• Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC)
reviewed report and developed plan to prioritize
and focus NAS recommendations
• CAAAC review structure
– Air Quality Management Work Group
– Science and Technology Work Group
– Policy and Planning Work Group
• CAAAC developed 38 separate
recommendations based on the NAS Report
Input to Developing CAAAC Recommendations
Ecosystem Focus Group
• Ad hoc Ecosystem Focus Group formed to provide input to
recommendations of Science and Technology workgroup
• Prioritized efforts to advance ecosystem protection and improve
understanding of air-ecosystem impacts near term, given current
state of science and assessment tools
• Ecosystem Focus Group members
– Paul Stacey, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (colead)
– Rona Birnbaum, EPA/OAR (co-lead)
– John Aber, University of New Hampshire
– Jill Baron, Colorado State University/USGS
– Charlie Driscoll, Syracuse University
– Jim Galloway, University of Virginia
– Bill Hogsett from EPA/ORD, NHEERL in Corvallis
– David Karnosky, Michigan Tech
– Hans Paerl, University of North Carolina
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 & alternative policies and programs to develop
approaches advancing ecosystem protection from air pollution
impacts
• Policy/program assessment features:
– Policy mandates, objectives, goals, definitions of ecosystem protection,
& historic/legal interpretation
– Characteristics of air pollutant regulated, and potential magnitudes of
impact
– Existing measures for reporting program progress and ecosystem
impacts
– Desirable modifications to existing tracking efforts to support application
to different regulatory programs
– Current & future opportunities/impediments to expanding the use of
ecological science in the policy context
– Policy innovations or revisions that would help translate ecosystem
science into effective ecosystem protection policies