Presentation on theme: "Ch. 16 Stationary Source Local Air Pollution Introduction n in U.S.: 27,000 major stationary pollution sources; 100,000s of more minor sources n many."— Presentation transcript:
Ch. 16 Stationary Source Local Air Pollution
Introduction n in U.S.: 27,000 major stationary pollution sources; 100,000s of more minor sources n many different types of pollutants with damages ranging from minimal effects on plants and animals to potential modification of earth’s climate n not until 1967 did federal government begin to play a role; initially it tried to cajole states to clean up pollution, but most states did not for fear of losing jobs.
Introduction: cont. n thus in 1970, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 were passed and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created to oversee and implement control of air pollution. n EPA’s strategy depended on the type of pollutant: –1) ”conventional” –2) ”hazardous”
Conventional Pollutants n Conventional pollutants are relatively common substances and presumed dangerous only in high concentrations. n They are referred to as criteria pollutants because the Act requires the EPA to produce “criteria documents” to set acceptable standards. n Command and Control approach: –EPA’s historical approach was to set emission standards, otherwise known as a command-and- control (CAC) approach.
Command and Control approach : n We will outline the methods and compare to efficient and cost-effective methods. n Two standards are usually set in the U.S.: –1) primary standards: designed to protect human health. –2) secondary standards: designed to protect aesthetics (e.g. visibility in Grand Canyon), physical objects (monuments) and vegetation. Currently only sulfur oxides have separate secondary standards. See Table 16.1 n States are primarily responsible for ensuring standards are met, via a State Implementation Plan (SIP). n States are primarily responsible for ensuring standards are met, via a State Implementation Plan (SIP).
CAC approach (cont.) : n SIP defines the procedures and timetables for each region n By 1975 it became apparent that many regions would not attain these goals. n Therefore, the 1977 amendments extended the deadlines for all primary standards to 1982 and to 1987 for ozone and carbon dioxide. n EPA must designate all areas not meeting these goals as nonattainment regions. Congress gave EPA power to halt construction of new pollution sources and deny federal funding for sewage and transportation. n n n
CAC approach (cont.) : n Two conditions to get permits for new construction of large sources of pollution: –1) Must demonstrate that progress is being made to reach goals –2) All new or modified major sources must use lowest achievable emission rate (LAER). n Regions with air quality at least as high as the standards by original deadline were subject to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) policy. In 1972 EPA was successfully sued by Sierra Club for not ensuring PSD. Thus EPA devised a PSD policy with 3 classes.
CAC approach (cont.) : n PSD classes: –1) Class I: national parks and wilderness areas; no degradation of air quality allowed. –2) Class II: modest increment in pollution is allowed. –3)Class III:most pollution allowed; not over standard n New sources locating in PSD regions must secure permits and must install best available control technology (BACT). n Progress in attaining standards has been slow. n To deal with noncompliance, in 1977 Congress established the noncompliance penalty. Any gains from noncompliance are part of penalty!!!
Efficiency of CAC approach n To understand efficiency of CAC we must analyze five aspects of standard-setting process –1) threshold concept –2) level of standard –3) choice of uniform standards over standards more tailored to regional conditions. –4) timing of emission flows. –5) failure to incorporate the degree of human exposure
Efficiency of CAC approach n 1) threshold concept - inaccurate; any level of pollution is dangerous. Lave and Seskin (1977) showed that health is affected by levels of pollution in cities that met standards. n 2) level of ambient standard - costs are not allowed to be considered in setting standards as efficiency requires n 3) uniformity - no account is taken of the number of people exposed, the sensitivity of local ecology or costs of compliance in various areas. PSD policy is somewhat efficient
Efficiency of CAC approach n 4) timing of emission flows - reliance on a constant degree of control rather than allow intermittent controls, raises compliance costs substantially particularly when required degree of control is high. n 5) concentration vs. exposure - some would argue that indoor pollutants are more important.
Cost Effectiveness of CAC n Determining efficient ambient standards is very difficult. Thus cost-effectiveness is used to determine if we are attaining goals at lowest cost, even if we are not certain if the goal is efficient. n Theory in Ch. 15 clearly shows that CAC is not cost-effective. n Most empirical studies have found that CAC policy is more costly, from 78% more costly to 22 times more costly. See Table 16.2
Table 16.2 Empirical Studies of Air Pollution Control n Study/yearPollutantsAreaCACPollutantCAC/ benchmark typeleast cost n Atkinson/Lewis Particulates St. LouisSIP nonuniformly mixed 6.00 n Roach et al. Sulfur dioxide4 corners SIP nonuniformly mixed 4.25 UT, CO, AZ, NM n Hahn/NollSulfatesLos AngelesCA nonuniformly mixed 1.07 n KrupnickNitrogen dioxideBaltimoreRACT nonuniformly mixed 5.96 n Seskin, Anderson Nitrogen dioxideChicagoRACT nonuniformly mixed & Reid n McGartlandParticulatesBaltimoreSIP nonuniformly mixed 4.18 n SpoffordSulfur dixoidesLower Delawareuniform nonuniformly mixed 1.78 Valley% reduction n SpoffordParticulatesLower Delawareuniform nonuniformly mixed 22.0 Valley% reduction n MaloneyHydrocarbonsAll domesticuniform nonuniformly mixed 4.15 & YandleDupont plants% reduction n O’Ryan ParticulatesSantiago, Chileuniform nonuniformly mixed1.31 % reduction
Air Quality n Despite deficiencies the CAC approach has improved air quality in the U.S. See Table 16.3 for EPA data n n 1980 to 2006, carbon monoxide emissions were reduced by 50%, nitrogen dioxide emissions by 33%, sulfur dioxide by 47%, and lead emissions by 96%. Even in past 16 years ( ), significant reductions have occurred-- CO = -39%, NO X = -28, SO 2 = -40%, Pb = -40%. Particulate (dirt, dust, soot) levels decreased 31% from. n Ozone (O 3 ) has been more difficult to control: = -9% for 8 hour standard n What has happened in rest of world? –most industrialized nations have experienced similar improvements in air quality, particularly Japan and Norway. –but in developing countries pollution is worsening
Innovative Programs n The emissions trading program is implemented by 4 separate policies, based on emission reduction credits (ERC) n emission reduction credits must be 1) surplus, 2) enforceable, 3) permanent, and 4) quantifiable n 1) offset: new or expanding sources must get credits for usually 20% more than the new amount of pollution n 2) bubble policy: existing sources can trade credits within area n 3) netting: use within a plant n 4) banking: credits can be stored for later use
Effectiveness of Emissions Trading n Emissions trading has been extremely successful in reducing compliance costs with the Clean Air Act. n Estimates for capital savings alone are $10 billion; operating costs are lower too. n Approximately 7,000 to 12,000 trades have been consummated. Each was voluntary. n Trades have occurred mainly between large pollution sources. n Trades work best for uniformly mixed pollutants
Hazardous Pollutants n Hazardous pollutants: law requires the EPA to list them; once listed, EPA must rush (180 days) to regulate or remove it from list. EPA has reacted to this dilemma in 2 ways: 1) moved slowly to list and 2) balanced costs and risks. Only 8 listed so far: asbestos (1971), beryllium (1971), mercury (1971), vinyl chloride (1975), benzene (1977), radionuclides (1979), inorganic arsenic (1980), and radon-222 (1985).