Draft conclusions and key recommendations of the CAFE Position Paper on PM

1
Draft conclusions and key recommendations of the
CAFE Position Paper on PM

• Martin Meadows and Bernd Seifert
• CAFE Workshop, 20 21 October 2003

Web link www.itm.su.se Click on newsboard
2
Terms of reference

• With the aim of supporting the European
  Commissions review of the First Daughter
  Directive (DD) 1999/30/EC the group should
• assess the air quality situation with regard to
  the PM limit values set in the DD
• review the content of the Position Paper on PM
  published in 1997 with regard to information
  obtained since
• collect together information on predictive
  studies on the attainability of the limit values,
  considering at the same time contributions from
  long-range transport and local sources.

3
Terms of reference

• With the aim of supporting the production of the
  CAFE thematic strategy the group should
• consider the WHO work on health effects of PM
  with the aim of giving recommendations for
  targets for integrated assessment 
• review the results of the integrated assessment
  modelling work on PM.

4
WHO conclusions

• There is strong evidence to conclude that fine
  particles (PM2.5) are more hazardous than larger
  ones (coarse particles) in terms of mortality and
  cardiovascular and respiratory endpoints in panel
  studies.
• This does not imply that the coarse fraction of
  PM10 is innocuous

5
WHO conclusions

• Epidemiological studies on large populations have
  been unable to identify a threshold concentration
  below which ambient PM has no effect on health.

6
Information availability

• Greatly improved information since the first
  Position Paper in 1997 on PM10 characteristics,
  ambient concentrations, historic trends and
  projections
• Comparatively little information on PM2.5

7
Trends

• Primary PM10 emissions reduced by 18 across
  Europe between 1990 and 2000
• Precursor emissions also decreased significantly
• Annual average PM10 concentrations decreased by
  15 to 20 on average since 1998. Not uniform.

8
Attainability

• Less stringent Stage 1 annual average limit value
  likely to be attained in 2005 in most MS with
  some exceptions at urban background and hotspots
• With current policies, PM levels at many
  locations across the EU likely to exceed the
  Stage 1 24h limit value in 2005

9
Attainability

• Even with ambitious measures, indicative limit
  values seem unattainable in the most polluted
  locations by 2010
• Attainability at all locations largely outside
  control of MS because of transboundary nature of
  PM10 pollution. Europe-wide action needed.
• Attainability difficulties at hotspots should not
  not prevent MS implementing measures to reduce
  possible non-compliance

10
PM metric

• Recommends the use of PM2.5 rather than PM10 as
  the principal metric for assessing exposure to
  PM.
• Reclassify indicative Stage 2 PM10 limit values
  as non-mandatory target values with the aim to
  help control the coarse fraction, PM2.5-10.
• Continue monitoring PM10 at a lower intensity

11
Targets

• Recommends that the Commission consider the use
  of alternative approaches, such as gap closure or
  targets, to supplement the use of limit values.

12
Annual average limit value

• Recommends a range of values (12 to 20 µg/m³ -
  derived from current Stage 1 LV) for the
  integrated assessment procedure to identify an
  appropriate PM2.5 annual average limit value.
  Position Paper provides rationale.

13
24-h average limit

• Recommends a value for PM2.5 around 35 µg/m³ (not
  to be exceeded more than 10 of the days of the
  year) as a starting point for consideration.

14
Other recommendations

• 34 other recommendations from individual chapters
• Research
• Measurement
• Important to address contradiction between
  reference method and daily reporting requirements
• Characterisation
• Modelling
• Abatement strategies
• Attainability
• Strategy for setting targets

15
CAFE Workshop on PMpreliminary outcomesand
conclusions

• Dick van den Hout, TNO

16
General introduction session

• Richmond Parallel developments in USA
  similarities and differences
• PM10 standard resulted in disproportionate effort
  to mitigate coarse fraction
• PM2.5 proposals USA and WG PM are fairly similar
• PM10 proposals are more different
• PM10-2.5 ?? PM10
• Higher ?? lower range of value
• Will explore further cost benefit for mitigating
  fine or coarse fractions, projections, spatial
  issues.

17
Themes (1)

• Uncertainty
• Uncertainties tend to be larger for PM2.5 than
  for PM10 (levels, trends, projections and
  attainability)
• Natural sources not well quantified
• Inconsistencies in modelling, source
  apportionnement
• Health effects

18
Themes (contd)

• Shortcomings in European-wide assessment of PM
  levels
• Measuring methods (non-)equivalence, Correction
  Factors
• Station coverage/representativeness/station type
  mix
• Modelling shortcomings

19
Themes (contd)

• Attainability broad confirmation of the analysis
  in the Position Paper- there will be large
  attainment problems - with existing LVs - more
  so with the new proposals

20
Themes (contd)

• How to reduce? (1)
• Balance between sectors to be targetted
• Aim at sectors that have not yet done much?
• Aim at sectors that are most relevant for health
  risks?
• Should one aim to reduce also hot spot and/or
  short term exposure? This awaits the 2nd round of
  WHO answers.
• Local measures are often not sufficient large
  background (inter)national measures needed.
• Information on measures (what is
  possible/impossible) in Member States is badly
  needed.

21
Themes (contd)

• How to reduce? (2)
• Time lag between the setting of emission
  standards for cars and the actual emission
  reduction of the existing fleet in considerable
  fuel composition measures enter more rapidly in
  effect. Retrofitting?
• Industry prefers targets for emissions or air
  quality instead of prescriptions for how to
  achieve this.
• Potential synergies with Climate Change for
  warming PM components (Black Carbon). Opposing
  effects as well (e.g. sulphate, nitrate).

22
Themes (contd)

• Health issues
• Importance of fine versus coarse fraction
• Should we care more about Black Smoke?
• Traffic related hot spot exposure is of concern
• There may be an effect threshold for PM2.5. take
  into account in uncertainty analysis take into
  account in Risk Assessment.
• Not only elderly people, also children are being
  affected.

23
Examples from cities (1)

• Attainability problem of especially- 2005 daily
  Limit Value- 2010 both daily and annual
  indicative Limit Value
• Main focus on traffic sources, but not always.
  Other major sources- long range transport-
  wood burningContribution of industry is limited
  in most cases.

24
Examples from cities (contd)

• Specific local conditions may aggrevate the PM
  situation- Meteorological geographical
  conditions (mountains near Milan)- African
  dust outbreaks (Madrid)- Wood burning use
  studded tyres/road surface wear (Stockholm)-
  High background (Berlin)

25
Examples from cities (contd)

• Traffic receives most attention for local action,
  due to both exhaust and non-exhaust PM.
• Analyses indicate limited impact of reducing PM10
  by local measures- better regulate exhaust
  emissions at EU level- impact of traffic flow
  reduction is limited, unless significant
  traffic reduction- cleaning roads has no
  impact- reduction use studded tyres effective to
  decrease PM10 concentration.

26
Themes (contd)

• PM AQ thresholds proposed (1)
• Why not stick to PM10 in view of
  uncertainties,and correlations with PM2.5?
• Include Black Smoke in some way?EC and OC
  fraction of PM will increase over time
• Do we need a daily LV in addition to an annual
  LV?

27
Themes (contd)

• PM AQ thresholds proposed (2)
• Proposed values of AQ thresholds are preliminary
  and starting values for Integrated Assessment.
• Do metrics proposed drive the correct policies?
• Proposal to supplement LVs with additional
  approach. E.g. change focus of enforcement then
  create target values and then develop gap
  closure.
• WHO associates the most serious health effects
  with the fine fraction.

28
Themes (contd)

• PM AQ thresholds proposed (3)
• Take the USA example and regulate PM2.5 and
  PM2.5-10 separately. Coarse fraction can be
  addresses by local action.
• Measurements of PM2.5 are less accurate than of
  PM10.

29
Themes (contd)

• PM AQ thresholds proposed (4)
• For WG members to think about in the next weeks
• PM2.5-10 instead of PM10?
• Include Black Smoke in some way?