Jan Willem Erisman, ECN/VU for:

Reactive Nitrogen in the United States; An analysis of inputs, flows, consequences, and management options: A Draft report of the EPA Science Advisory Board 1 Jan Willem Erisman, ECN/VU for: James N. Galloway, University of Virginia Thomas L. Theis, University of Illinois at Chicago Otto Doering, Purdue University for the Integrated Nitrogen Committee of the USEPA Science Advisory Board 1 Final report awaits formal approval 27-05- 2010 1

Integrated Nitrogen Commi/ee A self-initiated project of the Science Advisory Board begun 1/2007 Cross representation from universities, industries, government, and NGOs Based on the need to develop better strategies to manage Nr http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/web/index?opendocument 27-05- 2010 2

Integrated Nitrogen Panel Galloway, James Chair (<2009) University of Virginia Charlottesville VA Aneja, Viney North Carolina State University Raleigh NC Boyer, Elizabeth Pennsylvania State University University Park PA Cassman, Kenneth G. University of Nebraska Lincoln NE Cowling, Ellis B. North Carolina State University Raleigh NC Dickerson, Russell R. The University of Maryland College Park MD Doering III, Otto C. Purdue University W. Lafayette IN, current Chair Herz, William The Fertilizer Institute Washington DC Hey, Donald L. Wetlands Research, Inc Chicago IL Kohn, Richard University of Maryland College Park MD Lighty, JoAnn S. University of Utah Salt Lake City UT Mitsch, WilliamT he Ohio State University Columbus OH Moomaw, William Tufts University Medford MA Mosier, Arvin University of Florida Mount Pleasant SC Paerl, Hans University of North Carolina -Chapel Hill Morehead City NC Shaw, Bryan Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Austin TX Stacey, Paul Connecticut DEP Hartford CT Theis, Thomas L. University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago IL (Co-Chair) Jan Willem 27-05- 2010 3

Overview of Talk Reactive Nitrogen (Nr) and the N Cascade Sources and Fate of Nr in the US. Consequences, Impacts and Metrics. Selected Recommendations 27-05- 2010 4

Reactive Nitrogen and human needs Reactive Nitrogen: All chemical forms of nitrogen, except N 2 Human dietary Nr requirement: 4.3 kg/cap/yr, or for the US = World = 1.4 Tg/yr, with a total production of 30 Tg/yr 28 Tg/yr, with a total production of 185 Tg/yr 27-05- 2010 5

Nr Introduction into the US Fossil fuel combustion stationary sources transportation sources Haber Bosch Nr produced in US imported from other countries Import of N-containing commodities grain and meat Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) managed lands unmanaged lands 27-05- 2010 6

The Nitrogen Cascade The concept of the nitrogen cascade emphasizes that once a new Nr molecule is created, it can be sequentially transformed and travel throughout the environment and contribute to a series of major environmental problems. 27-05- 2010 7

Overview of Talk Reactive Nitrogen (Nr) and the Nr Cascade Sources and Fate of Nr in the US. Consequences, Impacts and Metrics. Selected Recommendations 27-05- 2010 8

Nr Introduc2on into the US Tg N/yr NOx transportation Natural BNF NOx stationary HB-N Industry Cultivation BNF Natural, 6.5 Tg N/yr HB-N Fertilizer Anthropogenic, 29 Tg Nr/yr 27-05- 2010 9

Fate of Introduced Nr Lost as Nr from US via rivers via atmospheric advection via exports Stored as Nr in soils & vegetation In groundwater Denitrified to N 2 There are two aspects to the fate of Nr: how much goes where? what is the uncertainty? 27-05- 2010 10

US Nitrogen Budget Tg N yr -1 N 2 Lightning, 0.1 Fossil fuel, 5.4 NO y NH x N 2 O BNF, 6.4 C-BNF, 7.7 United States Fert. prod., 9.4 Import, 6.0 27-05- 2010 11

US Nitrogen Budget Tg N yr -1 N 2 Lightning, 0.1 Fossil fuel, 5.4 NO y 0.8 3.1 NH x N 2 O 0.8 2.7 2.1 BNF, 6.4 C-BNF, 7.7 United States Fert. prod., 9.4 Import, 6.0 27-05- 2010 12

US Nitrogen Budget Tg N yr -1 N 2 Atm advection, 4.6 Lightning, 0.1 Fossil fuel, 5.4 NO y 0.8 3.1 NH x N 2 O 0.8 Atm advection, 0.8 2.7 2.1 BNF, 6.4 C-BNF, 7.7 United States Export, 4.3 Fert. prod., 9.4 Import, 6.0 River, 4.8 Nr Inputs: 35 Tg N Nr Outputs: 14 Tg N Nr Missing: 21 Tg N 27-05- 2010 13

US Nitrogen Budget Tg N yr -1 N 2 Atm advection, 4.6 Lightning, 0.1 Fossil fuel, 5.4 NO y 0.8 3.1 NH x N 2 O 0.8 Atm advection, 0.8 2.7 2.1 BNF, 6.4 C-BNF, 7.7 Fert. prod., 9.4 Import, 6.0 United States Export, 4.3 River, 4.8 Nr Inputs: 35 Tg N Nr Outputs: 14 Tg N Nr Missing: 21 Tg N Nr Storage: 5 Tg N ~ 2 Tg soils&vegetation ~ 3 Tg groundwater 27-05- 2010 14

US Nitrogen Budget Tg N yr -1 N 2 Lightning, 0.1 Fossil fuel, 5.4 NO y NH x 0.8 3.1 2.7 2.1 N 2 O Atm advection, 4.6 Atm advection, 0.8 How certain is our knowledge about these fluxes? 0.8 BNF, 6.4 C-BNF, 7.7 United States Export, 4.3 Fert. prod., 9.4 Import, 6.0 good or poor River, 4.8 Nr Inputs: 35 Tg N Nr Outputs: 14 Tg N Nr Missing: 21 Tg N Nr Storage: 5 Tg N ~ 2 Tg soils&vegetation ~ 3 Tg groundwater Nr Denitrified to N 2 : 21 Tg N - 5 Tg N = 16 Tg N 27-05- 2010 16

good US Nitrogen Budget Tg N yr -1 N 2 Atm advection, 4.6 Lightning, 0.1 Fossil fuel, 5.4 NO y 0.8 3.1 NH x N 2 O 0.8 Atm advection, 0.8 2.7 2.1 BNF, 6.4 C-BNF, 7.7 Fert. prod., 9.4 Import, 6.0 United States Export, 4.3 River, 4.8 Nr Inputs: 35 Tg N Nr Outputs: 14 Tg N Nr Missing: 21 Tg N Nr Storage: 5 Tg N ~ 2 Tg soils&vegetation ~ 3 Tg groundwater Nr Denitrified to N 2 : 21 Tg N - 5 Tg N = 16 Tg N 27-05- 2010 17

good US Nitrogen Budget Tg N yr -1 poor N 2 Atm advection, 4.6 Lightning, 0.1 Fossil fuel, 5.4 NO y 0.8 3.1 NH x N 2 O 0.8 Atm advection, 0.8 2.7 2.1 BNF, 6.4 C-BNF, 7.7 Fert. prod., 9.4 Import, 6.0 United States Export, 4.3 River, 4.8 Nr Inputs: 35 Tg N Nr Outputs: 14 Tg N Nr Missing: 21 Tg N Nr Storage: 5 Tg N ~ 2 Tg soils&vegetation ~ 3 Tg groundwater Nr Denitrified to N 2 : 21 Tg N - 5 Tg N = 16 Tg N 27-05- 2010 18

Overview of Talk Reactive Nitrogen (Nr) and the Nr Cascade Sources and Fate of Nr in the US. Consequences, Impacts and Metrics. Selected Recommendations 27-05- 2010 19

Impacts of manufactured Nr Positive Protein requirements for ~3 billion humans Fertilization of forests Negative Air quality impairment Eutrophication/hypoxia Loss of biodiversity Global warming Acid rain Ozone depletion Drinking water contamination 27-05- 2010 20

Metrics for Nr Quantity: Mass, concentration, flux, loading Impacts: Category and ecosystem services Policy: Adverse risk Economic: Price of benefits and costs Regulatory: Criteria, Standards & Thresholds 27-05- 2010 21

Metrics Case Study: Chesapeake Bay Image from Chesapeake Bay Foundation Moomaw and Birch, 2005 27-05- 2010 22

Share of Nitrogen (Mass) to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed by Source 27-05- 2010 23 Modified from Moomaw and Birch, 2005

Nr to Chesapeake Using Different Metrics 27-05- 2010 24 Modified from Moomaw and Birch, 2005

Overview of Talk Reactive Nitrogen (Nr) and the Nr Cascade Sources and Fate of Nr in the US. Consequences, Impacts and Metrics. Selected Recommendations 27-05- 2010 25

Control Points The overarching objective is to maintain the benefits of nitrogen while minimizing the losses to the environment. For control points are of N in the cascade we set the following priorities: 1. Where is Nr creation not needed? 2. Where can Nr use be made more efficient? 3. Where can Nr wastes be managed? 27-05- 2010 26

First Priority: Nr not Needed Energy Production 5.4 Atmosphere smog PM-2.5 greenhouse effect strat. ozone depletion Terrestrial Biodiversity loss Natural BNF 6.4 Vegetated Acidification Food Production + 22.8 Agricultural Populated Aquatic Biodiversity loss Acidification Eutrophication By using existing technology, EPA can expand its NOx control efforts to include 90% decreases of emissions from heavy-duty on-road, all off-road mobile sources and currently uncontrolled electricity generation and industrial processes. This would decrease Nr formation by 2 Tg N/ yr. 27-05- 2010 27 INC, 2008

Second Priority: Increase Nr Use Efficiency Energy Production 5.4 Atmosphere smog PM-2.5 greenhouse effect strat. ozone depletion Terrestrial Biodiversity loss Natural BNF 6.4 Vegetated Acidification Food Production + 22.8 Agricultural Populated Aquatic Biodiversity loss Acidification Eutrophication By using currently available technology crop and animal N-uptake efficiencies can be increased through a combination of knowledge-based practices and advances in fertilizer and feeding technologies. This would decrease the amount of Nr applications to crop lands by ~3 Tg N/yr. 27-05- 2010 28 INC, 2008

Third Priority: Manage Nr Wastes Energy Production 5.4 Atmosphere smog PM-2.5 greenhouse effect strat. ozone depletion Terrestrial Biodiversity loss Natural BNF 6.4 Vegetated Acidification Food Production + 22.8 Agricultural Populated Aquatic Biodiversity loss Acidification Eutrophication By improving human waste treatment practices using existing technology we would decrease Nr losses by 0.5 to 0.8 Tg N/yr. The same technologies could be used to treat animal waste. 27-05- 2010 29 INC, 2008

Recommendations to EPA Use available technology to decrease by 25% the total amount of reaceve nitrogen entering the U.S. environment. Further examine ways to expand the naeonal ambient air quality standard for nitrogen, which regulates oxides of nitrogen as a criteria pollutant and which uses NO 2 as the indicator, to the use of total oxidized nitrogen, using NOy as the indicator. In addieon, expand the category of reaceve nitrogen criteria pollutants to include chemically reduced forms of nitrogen and establish new thresholds that will likely be required to adequately manage them. Develop a long- term strategy for data colleceon on reaceve nitrogen use that provides adequate informaeon about where and how it is used. Develop an integrated, muleple- metrics, mule- media approach (uelizing the ecosystem services concept) to set prioriees and to manage reaceve nitrogen that recognizes the associated complexiees and tradeoffs as it moves through the environment. 27-05- 2010 30

Integrated Nitrogen Committee Summary of Findings Human action controls Nr introduction into the US. Added Nr has positive impacts for human health-- food production. Added Nr increases the risk to both human and ecosystem health--n cascade. Challenge is how do we achieve positive benefits at acceptable risk. And how do we do this in an integrated fashion? 27-05- 2010 31

Thank you for your a/en2on 27-05- 2010 32