Air Quality Group G li t l M Ai Q i E Air Quality Group Team - - PDF document

Ai Q li G Air Quality Group

E i t l M t 461/ 561 Environmental Management 461/ 561

Air Quality Group Team

• Katrin – Managing Auto Emissions and Fuel
• Katrin – Managing Auto Emissions and Fuel

Efficiency

• David

Policies and Legislation for the

• David – Policies and Legislation for the

Management of GHGs

St l

Th Eff t f th Oil I d t Ai

• Starla - The Effect of the Oil Industry on Air

Quality in Texas

Desbah Desert Rock Energy Project

• Desbah – Desert Rock Energy Project

2

Com m on Them es

• http:/ / envmgmtunm pbworks com/ Air-Quality-
• http:/ / envmgmtunm.pbworks.com/ Air-Quality-

Group

3

4

Managing autom obile em issions Managing autom obile em issions and fuel efficiency in the US

http://www.abendblatt.de/multimedia/archive/00005/167623v1_jpg_

5377c.jpg

The United States has the highest rate of carbon em issions in the world, with close to 1,60 0 m illion m etric tons of carbon released annually (or about 25 percent of the world’s total). Our country’s total output is double that of the next largest polluter, China.

Controlling CO2 emissions from personal vehicles is key to addressing global warming addressing global warming

What is the science behind greenhouse gas em issions? g g

• Carbon dioxide is the dom inant
• Carbon dioxide is the dom inant

greenhouse gas that causes global warm ing. Burning fossil fuels – coal, oil warm ing. Burning fossil fuels coal, oil and natural gas – is the m ain source of hum an-produced CO2 em issions.

• The CO2 emitted by a motor vehicle is the product
• f the amount of driving, how much fuel the

vehicle burns, and how much CO2 is associated with the particular fuel.

How m uch do autom obiles contribute to global warm ing? contribute to global warm ing?

• Automobiles are America's biggest reason for oil

Automobiles are America s biggest reason for oil dependence, and therefore represent the single biggest piece of our global warming problem. A ll f li i h d b h gallon of gasoline weighs 6 pounds but when burned and combined with oxygen in the air, the resulting com pound weighs nearly 20 resulting com pound weighs nearly 20

• pounds. Chrysler’s Jeep Grand Cherokee,

which weighs just under two tons, em its

• ver three tim es its body weight in CO2 per

year.

• Technology implemented in the late 1970s and

early '80s was able to dramatically improve fuel early 80s was able to dramatically improve fuel economy over 1970 figures. By 1986, im proved vehicle efficiency was yielding savings of 1.7 e c e e c e cy as y e d g sa gs o 7 m illion barrels per day (the equivalent of Iraq's total oil production that year). That fuel savings translates to avoiding 63 m illion tons of carbon in the air.

• SUV fuel efficiency has rem ained virtually
• SUV fuel efficiency has rem ained virtually

unchanged over the last decade; the typical SUV has a rated fuel econom y of 20 m .p.g. SUV has a rated fuel econom y of 20 m .p.g. (29 percent lower than that of the average car), and a consequent CO2 em issions rate

• f 6.2 m etric tons per year (40 percent

higher than passenger cars).

What is “carbon burden”?

• A carbon burden is the amount of CO2 emitted from a

A carbon burden is the amount of CO emitted from a group of motor vehicles, computed from a statistically predictable rate of fuel use once a vehicle leaves the showroom and is put on the road Fuel consum ption showroom and is put on the road. Fuel consum ption, fuel efficiency, and vehicle m iles traveled all affect the collective carbon burden.

• The total carbon burden of vehicles in the United States

for the year 2000 was 30 2 m illion m etric tons y 3 (MMTc). That's m ore carbon than is em itted by all

• f India, for exam ple, and m ore than three tim es

as m uch as Brazil. as m uch as Brazil.

How do autom akers fare when it com es to carbon burden? com es to carbon burden?

• The carbon burdens of all m ajor autom akers

The carbon burdens of all m ajor autom akers have been worsening, partly because of a shift toward SUVs, but m ainly because of the failure to im prove fuel econom y of all types of to im prove fuel econom y of all types of vehicles.

• At 6.7 MMTc, General Motors’ model year 2000 sales

At 6.7 MMTc, General Motors model year 2000 sales accounted for the largest portion (30 %) of the total new fleet carbon burden that year. Over the past decade GM’s sales of SUVs increased the past decade, GM’s sales of SUVs increased fourfold and the com pany’s average fuel econom y dropped by 2%.

F d h l d d i h f l f i SUV fl % b i i lf

• Ford has pledged to increase the fuel economy of its SUV fleet 25% by 2005, in itself a

notable development, but its effectiveness could be undercut if the company continues its shift toward light truck sales.

• DaimlerChrysler has the highest per vehicle carbon em issions am ong autom akers.

DaimlerChrysler has the highest per vehicle carbon em issions am ong autom akers. The Dodge Durango’s CO2 em issions are 45% higher than the overall light vehicle average.

• Toyota’s carbon burden grew 72% over 1990 -20 0 0 , faster than that of any other

fi d t it id th i k t h d i i li ht t k firm , due to its rapid growth in m arket share and an increase in light truck sales.

• Nissan’s rising truck dependence pushed its carbon burden up in spite of

sagging m arket share. sagging m arket share.

• Light trucks account for only 16% of Honda’s sales, so their new fleet carbon burden

increased 20 % over the decade, com pared to 30 % for the m arket as a whole.

Looking forward – what can be done to reduce auto em issions of greenhouse gases? g g

• The most important step is making the political

p p g p commitment to put a cap on oil dem and and global warm ing pollution, using im proved technology to cut fossil fuel use without tec

• ogy to cut oss

ue use t out shifting the size or perform ance of the vehicles we drive.

• California’s landm ark law to regulate
• California s landm ark law to regulate

greenhouse gases from cars and light trucks is a crucial start. Extending this approach to

• ther states and the nation would be the single
• ther states and the nation would be the single

biggest advance Am ericans can take to stop global warm ing.

16

Ai Q li G Air Quality Group

P li i d L i l ti f th Policies and Legislation for the Management of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) (GHGs)

Direction

• Greenhouse Gases
• Greenhouse Gases
• Overview of the GHG problem

Definitions – Definitions

• History

A E l f C t P l

• An Example of a Current Proposal

18

The Culprits (Greenhouse Gases) (Greenhouse Gases)

• Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include
• Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include

water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous

• xide, and ozone.
• xide, and ozone.
• Anthropogenic gases:

– Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide – Methane – Nitrous Oxide – Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) – Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) – Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)

19

What is the Greenhouse Effect? Effect?

• Solar radiation powers the climate system
• Solar radiation powers the climate system.
• Some of the absorbed energy is radiated back into

the atmosphere the atmosphere.

• This radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and

reradiated back to earth reradiated back to earth.

• Although there is a bad reputation for the

Greenhouse effect our survival depends on it Greenhouse effect our survival depends on it.

20

Clim ate System

21

Greenhouse Effect

22

Greenhouse Effect Greenhouse Effect

Equilibrium Equilibrium

23

Greenhouse Effect Greenhouse Effect

Equilibrium Non Equilibrium Equilibrium Non-Equilibrium

24

Com ponents of the Clim ate System

25

Com ponents of the Clim ate System

26

Overview of the GHG Problem

Greenhouse Effect Greenhouse Effect

• Previous Policies and Initiatives

Qualities of a Good Polic

• Qualities of a Good Policy
• An Example of a Current Proposal

27

PREVIOUS INITIATIVES

28

Previous Initiatives

• Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
• Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles

(PNGV) (1993)

• Clinton administration British thermal unit (BTU)
• Clinton administration British thermal unit (BTU)

(1993)

• Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) (1975)
• Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) (1975)

29

Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles Generation of Vehicles

• Encouraged collaboration between government
• Encouraged collaboration between government

and industry in the development of fuel-efficient vehicles. vehicles.

• Aim was to fund R&D to produce a fleet of highly

efficient cars by the year 2004. by y 004

30

Concept Cars

31

PNGV Mixed Results

• Failure to meet its most ambitious target: the
• Failure to meet its most ambitious target: the

development of vehicles with 70 mpg fuel efficiency. efficiency.

• Concept cars did emerge but there were no

marketable prototypes. b p o o yp

• PNGV also failed because it did not take EPA

emission standards into account.

32

British Therm al Unit Tax

• 1993 economic plan would tax different energy
• 1993 economic plan would tax different energy

sources based on their heat content as measured in BTUs. in BTUs.

• Promoted as a means of energy efficiency,

minimizing environmental effects, and limiting g

• ,

g dependency on foreign fuel.

33

Failure of the BTU tax

• Greater economic impacts for petroleum
• Greater economic impacts for petroleum

companies.

• Companies that would consume large amounts of
• Companies that would consume large amounts of

petroleum-based fuel would have a difficult time passing the cost to consumers. p g

• o
• Lower income families would spend a larger

fraction of their income on basic services (electricity, heating, gas)

34

CAFE

• Mandated an average mpg that each automaker
• Mandated an average mpg that each automaker

would be required to meet.

• Standards for model year 2007 were 27 5 mpg for
• Standards for model year 2007 were 27.5 mpg for

cars and 22.2 for light-duty trucks.

• Economic Crisis - In 1973 there were severe gas
• Economic Crisis In 1973 there were severe gas

shortages and high inflation

35

Oil Crisis of the 70 ’s

36

Overview of the GHG Problem

Greenhouse Effect Greenhouse Effect Previous Policies and Initiatives Qualities of a Viable Polic

• Qualities of a Viable Policy
• An Example of a Current Proposal

37

Qualities of a Viable Policy

• Cost-Effectiveness
• Cost-Effectiveness
• Fairness of Distributional Impacts

Incenti es for Inno ation

• Incentives for Innovation
• Adaptability of Policy Framework

38

Cost-Effectiveness

• Broad consistent coverage of emission sources
• Broad consistent coverage of emission sources
• Relatively low cost of implementing regulation

Predictable rules and procedures to reduce

• Predictable rules and procedures to reduce

uncertainties with the regulations

39

Fairness

• Reflect broader societal judgments about fair
• Reflect broader societal judgments about fair

burden sharing of costs

• Alleviating economic adjustment costs through
• Alleviating economic adjustment costs through

temporary compensation packages

• System that targets more of compliance burden
• System that targets more of compliance burden

with those that produce GHG emissions

40

Incentives

• Offer significant economic rewards
• Offer significant economic rewards
• Drive innovation

41

Adaptability

• Facilitate changing emissions targets
• Facilitate changing emissions targets
• Allow the ability to reset environmental goals

Easil replace polic ithout starting o er

• Easily replace policy without starting over

42

Overview of the GHG Problem

Greenhouse Effect Greenhouse Effect Previous Policies and Initiatives Qualities of a Good Polic Qualities of a Good Policy

• An Example of a Current Proposal

43

A MAJOR CURRENT A MAJOR CURRENT POLICY PROPOSAL

44

Clean Energy Jobs and Am erican Power Act Am erican Power Act

• Senator John Kerry [D – MA]
• Senator John Kerry [D – MA]

– Sen. Barbara Boxer [D – CA] – Sen Paul Kirk [D – MA]

• Sen. Paul Kirk [D

MA]

• Introduced on October 9, 2009
• Hybrid Cap & Trade
• Hybrid Cap & Trade

45

Bibliography

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Bulletin, S. (2009). Getting U.S. climate policy right. [Article]. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 65(3), 1-3. Burger, N., Ecola, L., Light, T., & Toman, M. (2009). In Search of Effective and Viable Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gases. [Article]. Environment, 51(3), 8-18. Dipeso, J. (2004). Climate Change and the States. [Article]. Environmental Quality Management, 13(3), 111- 116. Driesen, D. M. (2004). THE ECONOMIC DYNAMICS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, EMISSIONS TRADING, AND PRIORITY-SETTING. [Article]. Boston College Environmental Aff i L R i 31(3) 501 528 Affairs Law Review, 31(3), 501-528. Harris, P. G. (2009). Beyond Bush: Environmental politics and prospects for US climate policy. [Article]. Energy Policy, 37(3), 966-971. Leaf D (2001) Managing Global Atmospheric Change: A U S Policy Perspective [Article] Human &

46

Leaf, D. (2001). Managing Global Atmospheric Change: A U.S. Policy Perspective. [Article]. Human & Ecological Risk Assessment, 7(5), 1211.

Cont.

Leaf, D., Verolme, H. J. H., & Hunt Jr, W. F. (2003). Overview of regulatory/policy/economic issues related to carbon

• dioxide. [Article]. Environment International, 29(2/3), 303.

Montague, P. (2008). A BIG PROBLEM FOR CAP AND TRADE. [Article]. Rachel's Democracy & Health News(974), 1- 1. Rabe, B. G. (2009). Governing the Climate. (cover story). [Article]. Environmental Forum, 26(5), 36-42. Schmidt, C. (2003). United States' greenhouse gas reduction scheme. [Article]. Environmental Science & Technology, 37(7), 123. Staple, G. C. (2009). Legislating Carbon Caps: Five Unresolved Issues for the New Administration. [Article]. Environmental Law Reporter: News & Analysis, 39(1), 10051-10060. Tollefson, J. (2009). US climate legislation advances. [Article]. Nature, 459(7246), 492-492.

47

48

The Effect of the Oil Industry on The Effect of the Oil Industry on Ai Q lit i T A R i f Ai Q lit i T A R i f Air Quality in Texas: A Review of Air Quality in Texas: A Review of Managem ent and Policies Managem ent and Policies

http://insightbridge.com/images/Oil-Refinery-Pump-Image.jpg

The History of Oil in Texas The History of Oil in Texas

• Oil production in Texas erupted

i i h h L N i in 1901 with the Lucas No. 1 in Beaumont.

• Oil development lead Texas away

from its more agriculturally based from its more agriculturally based economy and began to focus more on oil and industry.

• In 1902, it was common for a

single well to produce over 17 million barrels of oil for 3 cents each. A il h d b d t

• As oil was cheap and abundant,

people began to utilize cars, machines, and switched from coal to oil power (Texas Almanac, 2009). p

http://www.texasalmanac.com/history/highlights/oil/

What is the Situation Now? What is the Situation Now?

• Of about 23 surveyed points

T ll f h f ll

• Four large areas fall under the

f “ i ” across Texas, all of them fell drastically below the national standard for CO, SO2, and NO2 quality. category of “non-attainment” under ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matters.

• If Texas were to be considered a

quality.

• Texas facilities release more than

102 million pounds of toxic products, making it third in the

• If Texas were to be considered a

nation, it would rank 7th in the world as a top carbon emissions producer (Public Citizen, 2009). nation behind Ohio and North Carolina.

• The majority of these chemicals

come from petroleum refining come from petroleum refining industries.

• None of these statistics cover

what is called “upset” emissions. p

(Texasep.org, 2008).

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/siptexas.html#naas

(http://www.epa.gov/cgi- bin/broker?_service=data&_debug=0&_program=dataprog.maptest_08.sas&parm=42101&stfips=48)

What is the Situation Now?

• The State Summary of Emissions

reports 100 facilities in Texas are emitting 38,000 tons of particulate matter, 794,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 497 000 tons of dioxide, and 497,000 tons of nitrogen oxides (Texasep.org, 2008) .

• After WWII, the need for oil

production has only grown year by year as people rely on it for many uses (Mather, 1947).

• Most of the worst offenders in

d t f iliti d th 19 2 regards to facilities escaped the 1972 Texas Clean Air Act through being “grandfather” facilities.

(Texasep.org, 2008).

Texas Politician, Ann Richards Texas Politician, Ann Richards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbz2X0s5v2c

http://images.chron.com/blogs/txpotomac/AnnRichar d j

Why is it a Problem ? Why is it a Problem ?

• When air pollution is up, so are

h i l i i d f hospital visits and occurrences of respiratory illness.

• More than 50,000 premature

deaths occur each year due to deaths occur each year due to heart disease, lung cancer, asthma, and bronchitis.

• Air pollution causes damage to

p g private and public property, including the erosion of buildings. S tl d i ibilit

• Smog can greatly reduce visibility

for drivers, planes, and astronomical observatories

(Texasep.org, 2008).

• Ground ozone is particularly bad,

which can effect the health of even healthy adults (Pendleton, 1995).

Why is it a problem ? Why is it a problem ?

• Double crested cormorants

analyzed near Houston were found to have high concentrations of petroleum contaminants in their bodies. This area in particular has many

• This area in particular has many
• il refineries and it is thought air

pollution off of these refineries are the cause of such high numbers (Kirke, 1987).

• The scenic view of Big Bend

National Park is often filled with a hazy smog thought to have a hazy smog, thought to have been caused by refining pollution from nearby regions.

• Birds are often drawn to oil pits,

p , believing it to be water, and are killed by the resulting fumes

(Flinkenger, 1987).

What has been done? What has been done?

• Organizations such as Clean Air
• Amendments were made to the

T Cl Ai A i Force of Central Texas, consisting

• f citizens, the government, and

businesses are coordinating air quality themselves (Clean Air Force 2009) Texas Clean Air Act in 1971, which allowed them the ability to issue air quality permits.

• Several control boards in Texas

quality themselves (Clean Air Force, 2009).

• The State Bar of Texas has a law

section called the oil, gas, and energy law that helps promote

• Several control boards in Texas

including the Texas Air Control Board and the Water Commission merged for form the Texas gy p p lawful and ethical drilling practices (Oilgas.org, 2009).

• The Texas Air Control Board was

t d i 6 t h l t l Natural Resource Conversation Commission (TNRCC).

• This board met in 1994 to create a

SIP to bring El Paso Dallas Forth created in 1965 to help control emissions and air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. SIP to bring El Paso, Dallas-Forth Worth, Beaumont, and Houston

• ut of their nonattainment

listing.

(Texasep.org, 2008).

What has been done? What has been done?

• The EPA rejected a SIP from

D ll i 999 d th t d t Dallas in 1999 and threatened to hold back highway funds.

• Finally in 2001, Texas brings an

end to loopholes being used to end to loopholes being used to exploit “grandfathered” facilities by asking these facilities to apply for permits.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/2f0b9542/pols_capitol-9278.jpeg http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/comm_exec/pubs/pd/020/08-04/terp-pie.jpg

But is it enough? But is it enough?

http://healthandenergy.com/images/Clean%20Air%20Act%20trashed.gif

What can be im proved? What can be im proved?

• Stricter standards for what is

id d ' bl ' f

• Some monitoring is done now in

T b i i M i considered 'acceptable' rates of air pollution.

• The government taking a stronger

stance on bringing air quality in Texas, but it is sparse. More is needed to keep an accurate eye

• n the situation at hand.

stance on bringing air quality in unattainable areas up to the national standard.

• Looking into other energy

g gy resources, such as the planned wind farms for Texas (Public Citizen) .

• Place a stronger focus on

i i t h l t d improving technology to reduce pollution emissions.

http://www.markdroberts.com/images/texas-sky-clouds-evening-7.jpg

Gorman, Hugh. “Efficiency, Environmental Quality, and Oil Field Brines: The Success and Failure of Pollution Control by Self-Regulation. The Business History Review vol. 73: 1999. Eschenbacher, William. “Air Toxics and Asthma: Impacts and End Points.” Environmental Health Perspectives Vol 103: 1995. Olden, Kenneth.”Air Toxics Regulatory Issues Facing Urban Settings.” Environmental Health Perspectives Vol 104: 1996. Flickinger, Edward. “Number of Oil-Killed Birds and Fate of Bird Carcasses at Crude Oil Pits in Texas.” The Southwestern Naturalist Vol 32: 1987. Sexton, Ken. “Comparative Assessment of Air Pollution-Related Health Ricks in Houston.” Environmental Health Perspectives Vol 155: 2007. Whitworth, Kristina. “Childhood Lymphohematopoietic Cancer Incidence and Hazardous Air Pollutants in Southeast Texas, 1995-2004.” Environmental Health Perspectives Vol 116: 2008. Wetmore Clifford “Lichens and Air Quality in Big Bend National Park Texas ” The Bryologist Vol Wetmore, Clifford. Lichens and Air Quality in Big Bend National Park, Texas. The Bryologist Vol 84: 1981. Pendleton, Doyle. “Air Toxics: Sources and Monitoring in Texas.” Environmental Health Perspectives Vol 103: 1995. “Drive Clean Across Texas.” 2009: http://www.drivecleanacrosstexas.org/

• Cires. “Texas Air Quality Study.” 2008: http://cires.colorado.edu/science/divisions/eomf/features/texasAirQualityStudy.html

Public Citizen. “Air Quality in Texas.” http://www.citizen.org/texas/EnvProt/air_quality/ “Clean Air Force of Central Texas.” 2009: http://www.cleanairforce.org/ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 2009: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/ Texas Environmental Profiles. “Air Quality in Texas.” http://www.texasep.org/html/air/air2.html Environmental Protection Agency. “Local Air Trends.” 2009: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/where.html

64

D R k E P j Desert Rock Energy Project

Th i t h h lth The impacts on human health, air quality and the environment

(source: http://www.navajo.org)

Background Inform ation

• Reservation
• Reservation

Boundary

• Population
• Population
• Proposed

Project Project

• Partnership

Groups

(source:

Proposed Project

• Location: 30 miles SW of Farmington, NM

D i ti C l fi d l t i l

• Description: Coal-fired electrical power

plant. C it 1 500 tt (MW) f

• Capacity: 1,500 megawatts (MW) of power.
• Supporting Facilities: A well field that would

draw 4 500 acre feet per year from the draw 4,500 acre feet per year from the Morrison Aquifer, and additional 450 acre feet per year for local municipal use, a feet per year for local municipal use, a water supply pipeline , 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines and new access roads.

• Plant Construction: Approximately four

years

The Purpose of Proposed Project Project

• To support the Navajo Nation’s economic
• To support the Navajo Nation s economic

development by providing long-term employment

• pportunities

pp

• Use Navajo Nation coal to generate electricity
• Help meet demand for up to 1,500 MW of electrical

Help meet demand for up to 1,500 MW of electrical power in the rapidly growing Southwest

• Provide fuel diversity and a more economically

y y stable and predictable power supply for utilities in the Southwest

Desert Rock Energy Project (North) (North)

(Source: https://www.desert rockenergy project)

Desert Rock Energy Project (South)

(source: https://www.desertrock energyproject)

Affected Environm ent

• Risks to human health
• Risks to human health
• Air quality

Surface and ground ater resources

• Surface and ground water resources
• Land disturbances & vegetation removal

ildlif d i l i f

• Impact on wildlife and violations of
• Endangered Species Act

Possible Solutions

• Construct a smaller power plant
• Construct a smaller power plant
• Approach the design with the latest technology
• Select another site other than the four corners
• Select another site other than the four corners

region

• No construction at all
• No construction at all

(source: https://bing.com/images)

Analysis of Solutions

• Creating a smaller power plants would occupy less
• Creating a smaller power plants would occupy less

land, therefore, creating fewer disturbances to vegetation, wildlife and to the natural landscape g , p

• Less water and coal will be required
• Smaller power plants would reduce the amount of

Smaller power plants would reduce the amount of air pollutants

• Smaller power plants would limit the potential

p p p impacts to the surface and ground water resources

Analysis of Solutions (cont.)

• Applying the latest technology in pollution

controls

• Fabric filter (for particulate matter)
• The use of Scrubbers (for SO2) and
• Scrubbers (for NOX)
• (IGCC) An Integrated Gasification Combined

Cycle

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated)

Conclusion

• When the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990 EPA
• When the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, EPA

was given authority to control mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from major sources of p j emissions to the air.

• In 2000, the EPA found that regulation of

hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, from coal-fired power plants was appropriate and necessary.

• The Clean Air Act passed in 1970 and amendments
• The Clean Air Act passed in 1970 and amendments

in 1977 and 1990, addressed many challenges to the air pollution problem. p p

• The CAA requires that the following pollutants

(O3,NOx,CO,fine particles, SO2, as well as lead) not exceed uniform levels at any outside point to which the public has access.

• In the example of the Desert Rock Energy Project
• In the example of the Desert Rock Energy Project,

the Navajo Nation is equivalent to any state regulatory agency and must abide by EPA and g y g y y NAAQS.

• The Navajo Nation continues to confront the Issue

with the following dilemma: Whether to protect human health and sacrifice air quality or continue with the Desert Rock Energy f h Project for economic growth.

References

• Beltane. (2008). Doodah Desert Rock. Earth First Journal. Volume 28, Issue 4. 3-6.

Draper, E. (2006). Power Plant Project’s Future Hazy. Denver Post. B5. Desert Rock Energy Project. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.desertrockenergy.com/. Miller, Mark F. (1969) A Coal-Fired Power Plant for northern New Mexico. University

• f New Mexico. School of Architecture and Planning. 9.

Official Navajo Nation Website. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.navajo.org. Official Navajo Nation Website. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.navajo.org. Navajo Nation. Source-Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Four Corners Power Plant (2009) Retrieved http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/2006/September/Day- Tomas-Alonso, F. (2005). A New Prespective about Recovering SO sub(2) Offgas in Coal Power Plants: Energy Saving. Part 1, Redeemable Wet Methods. Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management. 1035-1041.

78

Cont.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, (2007) Draft Environmental Impact Statement. ES1–ES22. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. (1979).Federal Coal Management Program.

• Wikipedia. (2009). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo Nation.

79

(source: https://www.navajo.org.)