UT's Energy, Environment
and Resources Center Presents
Smoky Mountain
Resource Issues in Great Smoky Mountains National Park
SIGHTLINE
FALL/WINTER 2002
Vol. 3 No. 2
***
Editor: David Brill; Assistant Editor: Constance Griffith; Writers: Kris Christen, Lisa Byerley Gary, Elise LeQuire, Dennis McCarthy, and Becky Nichols. Graphic Designer: Lisa Byerley Gary.
SIGHTLINE is published on behalf of
Great Smoky Mountains National
Park
by the
Energy, Environment and Resources
Center (EERC)
at the
University of Tennessee.
EERC conducts research designed to promote real-world solutions to problems in the fields of energy, environment, technology, and economic development.
For additional information, write EERC, 311 Conference Center Building, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-4134, call 865-974-4251, or visit our Web site at http://eerc.ra.utk.edu.
SIGHTLINE is sponsored by:
and
The No Zone
If
ozone causes visible damage to many species of plants in the Park,
what’s it doing to the lungs of visitors who come to hike in the great
outdoors?
by Elise LeQuire
Long considered an urban plague, air pollution from multiple sources is now a serious threat to many of our National Parks, and Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP) is one of the most endangered Parks.
In fact, from 1991 to 2001, GSMNP experienced the highest levels of haze, acid precipitation, and ozone of 10 National Parks with similar monitoring programs, according to a report issued in October 2002 by the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and the nonprofit groups Appalachian Voices and Our Children’s Earth.
By October 2002, the official end of the ozone season, ozone levels in the Park averaged 85 parts per billion (ppb) or greater for an eight-hour period on 43 days. “When ozone levels rise to unhealthy levels, the National Park Service (NPS) issues alerts to Park employees, visitors, and the media, just as a city would do,” says Jim Renfro, an air resource specialist with the Park Service. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers levels of ozone between 85 and 104 ppb a code orange and advises that active children and adults and people with respiratory diseases should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.
That’s not good news for hikers and others who come to the Park to enjoy a breath of fresh air and some healthy outdoor recreation. “In the short term, ozone is like a sunburn on your lungs. It makes you more susceptible to infection, and it contributes to or causes asthma attacks,” says Janice Nolen, director of national policy with the American Lung Association (ALA). It also makes breathing more difficult for children, the elderly, and those with lung diseases such as emphysema.
Moreover, fine particles that contribute to haze—that is, particulate matter of 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) or less—kill people. “These are extremely tiny particles. By comparison, a human hair is 70 microns in diameter. When inhaled deeply, these very fine particles are linked to death from lung cancer and cardiopulmonary problems. The tiniest of them can even enter the bloodstream. These problems are serious because there are so many people at risk,” Nolen says.
Studies on young adults, like West Point Cadets and other military trainees exercising during summer, show that even healthy people in high ozone areas may wind up with reduced lung capacity that lasts a long time. “As you exercise, you breathe more oxygen and breathe it in deeper, so the impact is greater,” Nolen says. The short-term effects are well documented, but evidence of significant adverse effects over the long term is mounting.
Hiker Health
“We’ve known for years that ground-level ozone damages the foliage of at least 30 species of plants native to the Park, and research is underway at several sites in the Park to determine the effects of ozone on the growth, genetics, foliar health, and uptake of ozone on native herbaceous plants and woody species,” Renfro says. For ozone-sensitive species such as black cherry and tall milkweed, the visible effects are more pronounced at higher elevations. “In general, the higher the elevation, the higher the ozone levels, and the more foliar damage or stippling.” Moreover, at higher elevations, ozone levels remain high overnight, while at lower elevations they fall at night, giving some relief from exposure.
But health data on human exposure to ambient ozone at high elevations has been scarce. A new study hopes to fill that gap by quantifying the effects of air pollution, particularly ozone and fine particles, on pulmonary function of more than 1,000 volunteers undertaking a popular eight-mile round-trip hike along the Appalachian Trail to Charlies Bunyon in the Park. In late summer and fall of 2002, and again in early spring and summer of 2003, hiker volunteers will be asked to breathe into a spirometer, a device that measures lung capacity, before and after the eight-mile round-trip hike. They will also fill out a questionnaire about their respiratory history and report any unusual events upon their return to the trailhead at Newfound Gap, elevation 5,050 feet.
The study replicates research conducted in 1991 and 1992 on Mount Washington in White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire, where researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital at Harvard Medical School found that ambient ozone, fine particulate matter, and airborne acidity caused significant decreases in pulmonary function among adult hikers. Those with pre-existing pulmonary problems were most affected.
In the current study, portable monitors at the parking lot at Newfound Gap and along the trail will measure levels of ozone and PM2.5. When all the data are collected, the numbers will be analyzed to determine whether there is a positive correlation between high levels of pollutants and decreased lung function and increased reports of adverse respiratory events. The University of Tennessee, Western Carolina University, and Emory University are conducting this research, which is made possible by a $750,000 grant from EPA.
PAUL EFIRD, KNOXVILLE NEWS-SENTINEL
University of Tennessee researchers check an air-quality monitor in Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Smoke and Mirrors
A third of the nitrogen oxides emitted in the Southern Appalachian region comes from mobile sources, chiefly vehicles; nitrogen oxides are significant precursors of ozone. The regional data, however, may not provide a true picture of actual conditions in the Park and its gateway communities, especially the heavily traveled corridors through Pigeon Forge and Gatlinburg, Tennessee.
In another phase of the EPA-funded study, researchers are evaluating traffic patterns in and around the Park to determine the number, types, and speeds of vehicles, and under different driving conditions, since emissions vary when the vehicle is under load going uphill, coasting downhill, or idling in traffic. “This study will provide a more accurate and finer scale of emissions data,” Renfro says.
ALA is also trying to provide a better snapshot of actual vehicle emissions in and around the Park. It is funding a joint project with the NPS, NPCA, and M.J. Bradley & Associates, an environmental consulting firm. For six days around the Labor Day weekend of 2002, environmental engineers and experts from Environmental Systems Products (ESP) deployed state-of-the-art remote sensing equipment to determine pollutants emitted from the tailpipes of about 12,000 vehicles.
The target emissions included three of the six criteria pollutants subject to EPA regulations—nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter—as well as hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide. “This technology allows a noninvasive emissions check,” says Paul Moynihan, project manager for the ALA study. The mobile units, developed by ESP for use in state inspection and maintenance programs, allow monitoring without interrupting the flow of traffic.
“This laser technology uses a mirror on one side of the road. The analyzer on one side projects a light beam across to the mirror, which returns it to the analyzer, closing the loop. When the vehicle breaks the beam, it signals the unit to sample. The amount of light absorbed by the pollutants in the exhaust stream of the passing vehicle tells us how much is present,” Moynihan says. The infrared beam takes the tailpipe emission measurements in less than a second for each car.
The system was deployed at six locations in and around the Park, including two sites along the popular, and often congested, Cades Cove Loop Road. “These monitors can characterize emissions when vehicles are traveling as slow as five miles per hour.” Moynihan says.
In addition, stationary monitors near the vehicle test sites measured the ambient atmosphere for about 50 other toxic air pollutants, including several known carcinogens such as benzene, prevalent in gasoline, and some probable carcinogens.
Forecast: Hazy
In August 2002, the Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI) issued its final report on a 10-year study of air quality in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. SAMI, established in 1992, is a voluntary, multi-organizational, state-driven initiative that seeks to address current and future adverse effects of air pollution on the Southern Appalachians. SAMI primarily targets Class I areas—large National Parks and wilderness areas granted special protection of air-quality-related values by the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Federal land managers have an affirmative responsibility to protect air quality in Class I areas.
SAMI found that coal-fired power plants are the source of most of the sulfur dioxide emitted in the region, on-road vehicles and utilities the major sources of nitrogen oxides, highway vehicles the most important source of volatile organic compounds, and agricultural operations the major contributor to ammonia emissions.
The report also revealed that local mobile and stationary sources, rather than distant sources in the Midwest or Northeast, contribute most of the pollutants that affect regional haze, ozone, and acid rain. “The percentage that is local is larger than previously thought,” says Don Barger, southeast regional director for NPCA. Barger represented the public interest on SAMI’s operations committee. “We recognize that there is long-distant transport of pollutants, but the data showed pretty clearly that the biggest bang for the buck is to clean up locally.”
Though each of the eight states in the SAMI region can determine where reductions in pollutants are needed most, SAMI underscores the absolute necessity of strong federal legislation to set limits on criteria pollutants.
One proposal for amending the Clean Air Act now under debate in the current administration and Congress is the Clear Skies Initiative (CSI), which would effect significant reductions in sulfur dioxide but not prevent hotspots from developing in ares that might include GSMNP. “The current proposal will not protect the National Parks,” Barger says.
CSI aims to cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent and nitrogen oxides by 67 percent from the nation’s power plants. However, under the proposed initiative, new sources of pollutants 50 kilometers, or 31 miles, away from a Class I region would no longer be required to analyze their potential impacts on National Parks such as GSMNP. “To ignore impacts beyond 50 kilometers is contrary to the scientific information about where the pollution is currently coming from,” Barger says.
While alternative proposals are debated in Congress, the fate of Class I regions remains unclear. NPS supports a strong, national multi-pollutant strategy to protect Park resources. NPS maintains that new emissions permits should be granted only when “best available control technology” is planned and when offsets are implemented to prevent any net increase in pollutants.
Meanwhile, NPS will continue to work with state and local regulatory programs, EPA, environmental groups, and industrial interests to develop a comprehensive plan that remedies existing impacts and prevents future damage through such measures as improved technology, stringent state emissions caps, and cleaner and renewable energies.
For more information, contact Jim Renfro, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 1314 Cherokee Orchard Rd., Gatlinburg, TN 37738 or call 865-436-1200.
* * *
Driving into the Future
With around 230 conventional cars and trucks, and a sizeable inventory of tractors, mowers, dump trucks, chainsaws, and weed whackers, Great Smoky Mountains National Park personnel would like to take the lead in getting cleaner vehicles on its roads and cleaner fuel in its tanks.
In the 21st century, a wide array of alternative fuels and alternative vehicles is hitting the market, spurred by the carrot of incentives and the stick of regulations. Park managers, however, want to know what’s best overall for the environment. And Park staff, from maintenance personnel to emergency responders, want to know how soon alternatives will be available, what they will cost, and how they will perform. “We are wide open to finding something that works. It’s a question of cost and logistics, getting the products here, and getting the infrastructure. Everybody knows it’s the right thing to do,” says Mark Schotters, roads foreman with the Park’s North District, which includes the area around Gatlinburg, Tennessee.
Though it’s not feasible to replace an entire fleet overnight, the Park has already taken steps toward reducing its environmental footprint. In summer 2002, for example, the Park purchased two new Toyota Prius hybrid-electric sedans, which get more than 50 miles to the gallon and perform well in the range of driving conditions typical of the Park, with its meandering two-lane roads, frequent congestion, and steep inclines.
In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has loaned the Park about a dozen electric vehicles, including small utility vehicles, a tractor, bicycles, and a 1999 Ford Ranger pickup, the Elec-Truck. “While serving as part of a demonstration project, these electric vehicles provide the Park with a glimpse of available technology as well as the ability of this technology to meet existing Park needs,” says DeJim Lowe, project manager with TVA’s Public Power Institute. “We have learned over time that on-road electric vehicles, because of distance limitations, are not going to fit a majority of society’s needs and applications. However, there are select niche applications these vehicles do fit. For instance, off-road electric vehicles provide an excellent match for Park applications such as refuse removal, campground patrol, operation and maintenance, and educational awareness programs.”
For one thing, electric vehicles are quiet, which makes them desirable in a natural setting, and they don’t release tailpipe emissions into the Park’s immediate environment. The down side is that they plug into the electric grid. “Trying electric cars to see how they work is a very good idea,” says John Sheffield, director of the University of Tennessee’s Joint Institute for Energy and Environment (JIEE). “However, if you were to introduce them massively in this area, you would want to make sure they weren’t increasing emissions of concern on a regional basis. If the energy comes from nuclear power or wind power, it would be an improvement, but if it comes from a coal-fired plant, that would not be an improvement.”
In December 2001, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, JIEE, and other partners released a report evaluating alternative transportation options in the Park and surrounding gateway communities. The report stressed the need to consider the entire fuel cycle, from extraction of natural resources to tailpipe emissions. There are also practical concerns, such as the availability of infrastructure. In addition to alternative fuels, the group is considering public transit systems that must be tailored to each situation to achieve reductions in emissions.
To better outline the life-cycle impact of alternative fuels, Argonne National Laboratory modeled the energy consumption and emissions from conventional and alternative gasoline and diesel fuels. Though not definitive, these well-to-wheel studies help assess the pros and cons of conventional and alternative fuels. E85, for example, which is composed of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, produces more nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and sulfur dioxide emissions over the entire fuel cycle than conventional gasoline. The increased emissions result from the energy-intensive nature of ethanol production and the high inputs of fertilizer and conventional fuel utilized to work the crops, primarily corn, grown to create the fuel.
Of all the alternative fuels the model tracks, liquefied propane gas (LPG) was the only one to achieve reductions in all categories of emissions across the entire life cycle of the fuel. In addition, LPG is already widely distributed, and it’s not that hard to convert a conventional vehicle to LPG. Bi-fuel trucks are already available, though they cost from $2,000 to $6,000 more than conventional gasoline trucks.
Since many of the Park’s larger maintenance vehicles such as tractors and big trucks run on diesel and remain in the fleet a long time, the Park has also begun testing ultra-low-sulfur diesel, which is not readily available in this region. Nationwide, however, the transition to ultra-low sulfur diesel is in progress, and by 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s new regulations will require ultra-low-sulfur diesel in all diesel engines. “We tried it in our tractors, and it worked,” says Schotters. The Park is also switching from a petroleum-based to a vegetable-based hydraulic fluid. “If we have a spill on the road, the impact is negligible.”
Schotters would like to determine the practicality of the available alternatives in the North District. The information will eventually help decide the best use, Parkwide, of these new technologies. “From a practical standpoint, a maintenance standpoint, I’m all for doing something,” Schotters says. “We know there’s not a perfect solution to this problem; however, the Park is continuing its research of available products in an effort to find one that best meets the needs of the Park and starts the ball rolling in the surrounding communities.”
—Elise LeQuire
For more information, contact Bob Miller, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 107 Park Headquarters Road, Gatlinburg, TN 37738, or call 865-436-1207.