ENVE 460/560 Fundamentals of Air Pollution Controlpfd33/ENVE460_560/lectures/02_AP_Effects... ·...

ENVE 460/560Fundamentals of Air Pollution Control

Professor [email protected]

1

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Lecture Outline

• Air Pollution Effects

• Health

• Material/property/ecosystem damage

• Visibility effects

• Regulatory Framework and Philosophies

2

Health Effects• Which ones are damaging?

• Criteria Air Pollutants vs Hazardous Air Pollutants

• Criteria pollutants are pollutants that have been identified as being both common and detrimental to human welfare and are found over all the United States (ubiquitous pollutants) - NAAQS

• Hazardous air pollutants are those pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental effects.

3

Exposure Thresholds

• What type of threshold do you think air pollutants have?

• Are they all the same?

~

" ," o" o""M"0""

;!,e5

QZ-l

~~-

4

Is it a threshold, or detection limit?\~

~.*!,

J

~,) ,,

___

I

r-_'

~!

-'

2

"" cE" .:J

E":t

".,'"

•

• What are some problems with detection?

• What is being detected?

• How confident are we with cause and effect?

5

Movie time

• It’s not “air” but it illustrates the concept

• http://movieclips.com/FXbZ-the-princess-bride-movie-never-go-in-against-a-sicilian-when-death-is-on-the-line/

• Question: Threshold vs non-threshold for iocane powder?

6

http://movieclips.com/FXbZ-the-princess-bride-movie-never-go-in-against-a-sicilian-when-death-is-on-the-line/






Real world data

• ?: What is the O3 standard in the NAAQS?

o

[

o~6zl

oo

I'=-J

10

o°

C~

00°

w",

""

'""1'

%'~~!W

IOJ]U('.'plJ\'

JUOlO

UJJ,\\j::>

'i.{lIjVlJOlLtLt,~OU~J~JJ'U

'e~o;-:"c,""2'"0

o

o

[

o~6zl

oo

I'=-J

10

o°

C~

00°

w",

""

'""1'

%'~~!W

IOJ]U('.'plJ\'

JUOlO

UJJ,\\j::>

'i.{lIjVlJOlLtLt,~OU~J~JJ'U

'e~o;-:"c,""2'"0

o

7

Laboratory exposure studies1. Experiments with living things is difficult in

comparison in inanimate objects (reproducibility).

2. O3 exposure above 100 ppb clearly impacts health.

3. Indirect effect of Ozone (air pollution). From this study alone it is difficult to understand the mechanism.

4. Data scatter in inevitable. The mice are specifically bred for these tests. Spread in human tests would be far greater (I’m not advocating for human exposures)

5. These test provide “estimates” but variability in response from species to species remains a question.

8

See book

Laboratory exposure studies6. These tests only measure acute effects. Chronic

exposure, is very important to understand for humans.

7. This experiment was rather “easy”. Small numbers of mice, and the effect in question (death) was easily detected. What about cancer? or cardiopulmanary disease?

8. Complications in interpretation. Threshold vs no Threshold.

9. Pathogen exposure is extreme, how reasonable is it to project these results to human populations and to base recommendations for ambient pollution on them?

9

See book

Human populations - Epi studies

• Difficulties in designing an appropriate study

• CHESS Study - cities at varying distances from a copper smelter (SO2 emissions)

• Neighborhoods were chosen based on similar socio-economic makeup

• Health of the populace was monitored, and focus was on effects which were thought to be associated with SO2 exposure (respiratory - chronic bronchitis, asthma, lower respiratory disease)

10

Results from CHESS study

/\•

oo

n;:;,{U~Alil{m

;UIPJA

[V,\Ut

lI;lJplHjJ

JO%'SJ:1U

~P!~UIJSrJSlp

,<;OlUJIU\'Jjj~,"()!

6'if

• Observations

1. Health effect is not 0 from 0 exposure.

2. Threshold vs no-Threshold? uncertain!

3. Is SO2 or acid aerosol the important species?

4. Unique isolated result or generally applicable? SO2 and particles are typically correlated.

11

See book

Acute effects - London Dec 1952

• Questions:

1. What is the PM standard?

2. Lag time?

3. Other pollutants also elevated, why PM?

4. Who died?

rVl

,~co,~SE5"

co"

,c,8".2g

o

1M

'JjBLIOJUIjE'l)

0)J)rJ

qlr~p

[enullu

JOQ11Ul::!

o~

Ca

8~

~~

8_"

~';''-----------,-;_----------_;'------------'"';-'-----------:;ov

§

oCc:EE

E"~

"~[/jtl

ER

'!)

~

'l.l.s:i

,"'0

.

12

What about chronic exposure?

• The London episode indicated the effect of extreme pollution levels in a short period of time.

• What about long-term exposure and health?

• The six city study:

• 1200-1600 participants per city

• 14-16 year tracking of health and survival

• ratio of cities to city with lowest death rate, and plotted by different pollutants

13

All Results

• What correlates?

• What doesn’t?

The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from nejm.org on January 12, 2012. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

Copyright © 1993 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

14

Total Particles and Ozone

• Different particle types?

• Ozone concentrations?





15

Fine and SO4 Particles

• What do you think the correlation is between SO4 and fine particles?

• What does this say about sources?





16

Causes of Death

• What has the highest association with mortality?

• Ambient Air Pollution?

• Smoking?

• Formerly smoker?



17

Property/Material Effects

• Air Pollution damages materials and property in addition to health effects

• Ecosystems and cropland exposure to acid rain and ozone cause harmful effects

• Corrosion due to SO2 -> H2SO4 is also a pervasive problem

18

Acid rain from SO2 and NOx• Bridges/Cultural artifacts

• Sensitive ecosystems

• Damage to vehicles

• $5 per vehicle for acid resistant paint: $61M yr-1

• EPA’s acid rain program limits SO2 emissions

19http://www.dec.ny.gov/education/77189.htmlhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/69717/

Branches-from-a-tree-in-Germanys-Black-Forest-show-needle

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/index.html



http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/69717/Branches-from-a-tree-in-Germanys-Black-Forest-show-needle




Crop damage from ozone• NASA study estimating $2B

loss due to ozone damage to crops.

• 2050 estimates 25% increase to O3 concentrations

• Question: Is this an example of threshold or no-threshold?

• How does background concentrations play a role?

20

"In the 19th and early 20th century, background surface ozone concentrations were relatively low so that an increase of 25 percent, (5 to 10 parts per billion), didn’t affect living organisms," said Jack Fishman, a research scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center. "But now, we’ve crossed the line where you can expect to see modest increases in surface ozone result in crop growth being stunted."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/soybeans.html



Visibility Effects

• Air pollution in particular particulates or aerosols impact visibility.

• Scattering and absorption of light

• Direct path

• Indirect path

21

1101-

--'FWffi'V

w'fSMi5ar0'00"0

fTTIWRM

(-~ii~Od(U

llI~H~(]J~

JlUi"q~'-)"IP

J1S:li\\

::ll{lUIOJJUC"SSHLU~d'fl'"

[l~llJll,hi!)'r<;:(;]

SlI'J,'

[9j~,\O

~nl"l~"'lI.1')

[IUPP

;}lllJc)

I$O("JO

-"0]~\jl""0'1s

'1i'l6[U!1I~~1;1'<)10'10

11[8;);llLL")J!lSod,,~J0

\'l\lJ'\90l

JJ1.lUnnu!

')j~""l''''''Ilq

gLl

pun~JqJl[l

JO

ISOWI""

'PU"~

lPI"~l

JOS,CI[

Jl[lrue

"'!"l"~H!("$,",0

'1"-S061

'""~*"'uj0\jd

1.1"[~q.L',\uew

J"Cl'u~'m,~gU!I'P

~'-!lU~!J'U~lJ~HI"~!lS"Jdql.10

.JURJllI:J

;);11JO~1'lB

8~ql}O

IJrcl,'p

(.()[[U'PJlC

JJJ,CM

':JlIO!,I'"~<;

~~nJodJO

"IWlU

",'nl"n"Y.L-~nW

IS,'OODlfIO

lI~01"gE

UL;;P

U<J')l'l[fiD

J,IdPOBJO

~Idlll~x~lfV

6'Z'in:lfl:)

L~

.

Types of Scattering

• Rayleigh scattering - molecular scattering

• Blue Sky - Red/Orange Sunsets

• Mie Scattering - when the scattering material is approximately the same size as the wavelength of light

• What is the wavelength of visible light?

• How does that compare with PM2.5 and PM10?

22

Regional Haze rule - visibility in national parks

23

Visibility in National Parks

24

Visibility Impairment from Air PollutionDolly Sods Wilderness - West Virginia

Visibility Impairment from Air PollutionRocky Mountain National Park

http://www.epa.gov/visibility/monitor.html



Urban areas

• Haze - Flying into cities and looking out the window as the plane descends

• Skylines of cities are not quite as clear.

• Good or bad?

• raises awareness...

• damaging to health, ecosystems, and materials.

25

How to regulate?

• Emission Standards

• Air Quality Standards

• Emission Taxes

• Cost Benefit Analysis

• Group activity...

26

US Law and AP control• AQ Standard

• NAAQS

• Visibility

• Emission Standard

• Vehicle emissions

• New Source Performance Standards

• National Emission Standards for HAPs

• Permitting for Major Facilities

• Legal framework for Permitting27

Permitting Flow Chart• Attainment vs Non-

attainment

• Mostly State Regulated

• Authority from National Law

• States are required to Permit facilities which have the “potential to emit” 100 tons/year of criteria pollutants or 25 tons per year of HAP

28

NAAQS Review Process

29

standard—all of which prompted inclusion of as muchinformation as possible. The entire set of the six originalHEW CDs is not as thick as the 1979 O3 document.

What evolved from early discussions with CASAC wasthe development of the OAQPS SP.156,157 This became anintegrated assessment of the most critical policy-relevantinformation that was intended to bridge the gap betweenthe CD and decisions required of the administrator.OAQPS science/policy staff integrated science and analy-ses from multiple disciplines to inform choices on theindicator, averaging time, form, and level of the NAAQS.By 1981, SPs included recommendations for all of theseNAAQS attributes, including a range of alternative levelsthat were supported by the science. The SP also provideda vehicle to summarize the implications of associated airquality, exposure, and/or risk analyses. OAQPS staff orga-nized the science assessment component as a series ofcritical elements to be addressed in the NAAQS; for exam-ple, mechanisms of toxicity, effects of concern, sensitivepopulations, and concentration-response information.Drafts of the SP were evaluated by CASAC and the public,helping to inform the process and sharpen the focus onwhat would be the most important issues. The papers alsoprovided a foil the CASAC could use in making its ownrecommendations to the administrator. Ultimately, por-tions of the final SP would form the basis for portions ofthe preamble language in Federal Register notices.

CASAC played an important role in the NAAQS pro-cess after 1978. As Greenbaum et al.158 noted, the panelhas served as a form of “referee,” reviewing the general

contributions of the scientific community and the specificcontributions of advocate-supported investigators, andhelping the EPA distinguish between the significant num-ber of useful contributions from the advocates and thesmaller number of more purely “attack” analyses. Theyprovide advice at every stage in the process, from initia-tion to development of CDs and SPs, recommendationson NAAQS, development of research agenda followingreviews, and in several cases, commenting on the pro-posed decisions. Although it is generally accepted thatCASAC’s inclusion in the process has increased the qual-ity of the materials in the NAAQS review, it is also clearthat the process itself has taken longer, despite repeatedattempts by the committee and EPA to shorten it.7

The chronology (Table 6) and specific aspects of in-terest in the CO, NO2, and HC reviews is detailed inSupplemental Tables 3, 5, and 6. The first two reviewsreaffirmed the original 1971 standards, whereas the thirddelisted HC as a criteria pollutant and revoked the HCNAAQS. What is notable for all is the time taken betweendevelopment of the CD, SP, proposal and final decision.Each of the actions began in 1977–1978. The final deci-sions were published in 1983 for HC and in 1985 for COand NO2. One cause for the delays was the long interreg-num between administrators after the presidential elec-tion in 1980, followed by two more changes in adminis-trators between 1983 and 1985. Little progress could bemade on major actions until new management arrivedand was brought up to speed. CO, which had been pro-posed in 1980, was further delayed by a reopening of the

Figure 9. Overview of the criteria and NAAQS Review Process (1979–2006).248 Details of the process changed over time, but the major stepsshown here remained essentially the same. Scientific peer reviews included workshops and formal meetings and comments by the CASAC. Insome cases, CASAC also provided comments on the proposal. ECAO later became the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA).OANR later became the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR).

Bachmann

680 Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Volume 57 June 2007

Future AQ concerns

• PM2.5 and Ozone

• Most places are in attainment for SO2, NO2, CO, Pb

• Climate change

• Precipitation changes

• Temperature Changes

• Other unforeseen impacts

• Absence of non-threshold effects

30

ENVE 460/560 Fundamentals of Air Pollution Controlpfd33/ENVE460_560/lectures/02_AP_Effects... ·...

Documents

Transcript of ENVE 460/560 Fundamentals of Air Pollution Controlpfd33/ENVE460_560/lectures/02_AP_Effects... ·...