Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
What Is the Current State of Air Pollution?. Roy L. Smith, Ph.D. US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, NC [email protected]. Introduction. About me Topics covered by this presentation: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
What Is the Current State
of Air Pollution?
Roy L. Smith, Ph.D.US Environmental Protection
Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and
StandardsResearch Triangle Park, NC
Introduction• About me
• Topics covered by this presentation:− Fragmentation of air pollution programs and its
influence on how much we know (or don’t know)− Criteria air pollutants (“principal pollutants”)
• Sources of data• Trends• Projections
− Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs, or “air toxics”)• As above, but contrasted
− The aging of America• Demographic shifts• Migration• Mobility• As related to health risks associated with air
pollution
Subdividing Air Pollution: The Clean Air ActCriteria
pollutantsHAPs
6 Substances 188 Substances and categories
> 1000 Monitors 22 Monitors
Annual emission inventories since 1970
Triennial emission inventories since 1993
Subject to NAAQS Subject to industry-specific MACT standards
Ambient levels and exposures well-described
Ambient levels and exposures mostly poorly- or not-described
Dose-response intensely studied
Dose-response information varies from good to nonexistent
What We Know: Criteria Pollutants
www.epa.gov/airtrends
EPA Criteria Pollutant Monitoring Network
Pollutant
Locations
Frequency
O3 1167 Hourly (May-Sep)
PM2.5 1200 24-h avg.,Mixture of every 1, 3, or 6 days
PM10 1214
SO2 592 Hourly
NO2 437 Hourly
CO 498 Hourly
Pb 247 24-h avg. every 6th day
Clear Skies: Fine Particulate Projections
Clear Skies: O3 Projections
Clear Skies: Risk Projections• Reductions in fine particles and ozone1
under Clear Skies would improve public health. By 2020, Americans would annually experience approximately:
• 14,100 fewer premature deaths; (An alternative estimate projects 8,400 fewer premature deaths)
• 8,800 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis;
• 23,000 fewer non-fatal heart attacks;
• 30,000 fewer hospitalizations/emergency room visits for cardiovascular and respiratory symptoms;
− Included in this total are 15,000 fewer hospital and emergency room visits for asthma.
− Included in this total are hundreds of thousands fewer respiratory symptoms and illnesses for asthmatics, including approximately 180,000 fewer asthma attacks.
• 12.5 million fewer days with respiratory illnesses and symptoms, including work loss days, restricted activity days, and school absences.
What We Know: Hazardous Air Pollutants
HAP Contributions to Tox-Weighted Emissions for Cancer
1990 1996
2010 2020
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
M A & O F ON NON
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
M A & O F ON NON
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
M A & O F ON NON
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
M A & O F ON NON
Other HAPs
POM
Perchloroethylene
Naphthalene
Coke Oven Emissions
Chromium VI
Benzene
Arsenic
1,3-Butadiene
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
M A & O F ON NON
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
M A & O F ON NON
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
M A & O F ON NON
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
M A & O F ON NON
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
M A & O F ON NON
Other HAPs
POM
Perchloroethylene
Naphthalene
Coke Oven Emissions
Chromium VI
Benzene
Arsenic
1,3-Butadiene
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
M A & O F ON NON
1990
2010 2020
1999
Without CAA
HAP Contributions to Tox-Weighted Emissions for Noncancer Effects
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
M A & O F ON NON0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
M A & O F ON NON
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
M A & O F ON NON
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
M A & O F ON NON0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
M A & O F ON NON
Billion
s
Other HAPs
Hydrochloric Acid
HexamethyleneDiisocyanate
Chlorine
Acrolein
1990
2010 2020
1999
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
M A & O F ON NON0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
M A & O F ON NON
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
M A & O F ON NON
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
M A & O F ON NON0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
M A & O F ON NON
Billion
s
Other HAPs
Hydrochloric Acid
HexamethyleneDiisocyanate
Chlorine
Acrolein
1990
2010 2020
1999
1.3 ug/m3 = 1e-5 risk
Comparisonwith
Ambient Concentration
Monitoring
Emission Inventory
Development
Emission Processing
(EMS-HAP)
Air
Dispersion
Modeling
(ASPEN)
Inhalation
Exposure
Modeling
(HAPEM)
Risk
Assessment/
Characterization
Dose- Response
Assessment
Components of the NATANational-Scale Assessment
Can zoom in to area of concern
NATA Model to Monitor Comparisons
1.0=Agreement
Model overprediction
Model underprediction
75th percentile
25th percentile
Median
Benzene found very good agreement
Metals appear to be
underpredicted by NATA
What We Know: Demographics of Aging, and How They Influence Exposure to Air Pollution
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-10.pdf
Summary• State-of-the-art
−Air pollution programs fragmented by law and institutional history• Criteria pollutants separated from toxic
pollutants• Level of knowledge varies widely:
− Criteria > HAPs− Cancer > noncancer− Health > eco
• Analyses and projections tend to be specific to decisions rather than general to the entire program
Summary• Criteria Pollutants
−O3 and PM present most of the health risk
−Emissions and ambient levels:• Have improved substantially over the last 10-20
years…• …despite huge growth in population, GNP, and
energy use
−Information quality• Vast monitoring network, > 1000 stations for most
important• Annual emission inventories• Regular analyses of past AQ trends• Sporadic projection analyses that generally show
substantial further improvements are attainable
Summary• Hazardous Air Pollutants
−MACT program has decreased emissions…• ca. 3-fold by mass• ca. 2-fold by toxicity-adjusted mass• Made most gains in major and mobile sources• Emission projections show gains starting to erode
by 2010−NATA
• First analysis of entire air toxics universe• Identified most important HAPs nationally
(benzene, acrolein, POM, butadiene, Cr, naphthalene, chlorine, etc.)
• NATA too new to determine trends• NATA not yet used for projections
− First use due soon, however• Unlikely to overestimate actual exposures
Summary• Interaction of air pollution with aging
population−More people >65 than ever before; trend
continuing−Exposure to air pollution may differ because:
• Different behaviors− Relocation pattern & representation in population
• Tendency to live in areas of moderate air pollution− Less likely to relocate
• Longer exposure durations− Less likely to leave the house
• Exposure moderated less by daily activity patterns
• Different gender makeup• Potentially more susceptible to health effects
