“Round up the Usual Suspects.” Why we are losing the air quality war in the San Joaquin Valley

1. “Round up the Usual Suspects.”Why we are losing the air quality war in the San Joaquin Valley A presentation for The San Joaquin Valley Town Hall March 17, 2004 Thomas A. Cahill Professor, Atmospheric Sciences/Physics and Head, UC Davis DELTA Group

2. Summary of the Presentation • Air quality in California • California has expended enormous resources with bi-partisan support for the past 35 years. • Was it worth doing? Need we continue? • Health • Welfare • How are we doing? • California – Los Angeles, Bay Area • Ozone and precursors, ROG and NOx; ,CO, SO2 • Particles – Lead, mass • Central Valley – Fresno, Sacramento • Ozone and its precursors, ROG and NOx; CO, ,SO2 • Particles - Lead, mass • Yosemite and Sequoia NP and the Sierra Nevada • Where do we go next?

3. Informational Resources for this Talk • San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Quality Management District • http://www.valleyair.org • California Air Resources Board - Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality and http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/aqe&m.htm • Routine monitoring – ADAM http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam • Special Studies - CRAPAQS, FACES, …. • US Environmental Protection Agency • Routine monitoring – AIRS data base • Special studies – Fresno Super-site, • US Interagency Monitoring for Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) – Yosemite and Sequoia NP • Routine monitoring – http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ • Special studies – Yosemite Study, summer, 2002 • Research Projects – • Universities – UC Davis http://delta.ucdavis.edu(I’ll post this talk) FACES, UN Reno Desert Research Inst., CORE http://nurseweb.ucsf.edu/iha/core.htm • Non Governmental Organizations – ALASET HETF, Valley Health Study and Sacramento/I-5 Transect Study; HEI www.healtheffects.org • Federal resources NOAA HYSPLIThttp://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html

4. Clean Air Act 109 b.1 • National primary ambient air quality standards, prescribed, under subsection (a) shall be ambient air quality standards the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on such criteria and allowing anadequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health. Such primary standards may be revised in the same manner as promulgated. • Question: Does “Requisite to protect public health” mean no harm to anyone? If not, which “anyones” don’t we protect? • Question: How does “Adequate margin of safety” handle pollutants in which any amount produces some harm? • Question: What should California's position be to this federal mandate?

5. Global Perspective • Despite using 1/5 of the world’s energy and about 1/3 of the worlds VMT, the US has much better air quality than most of the developed or developing countries • Air quality in major international cities outside of Western Europe is usually appalling! • California leads the nation in cleaning up smog • In 1965, Los Angeles was worse than Mexico City in 1995 • The Central Valley lags but still is not bad by global standards • There is no way that Fresno is really the 4th most polluted urbanized area in the US (Sacramento is listed the 7th) since most forms of “pollution” are not considered in the ranking. • Blue skies and good visibility in the Sacramento Valley each Fall (rice stubble burning suppressed); Bakersfield (oil improvement)

6. How are we doing? • We have spent a gazillion bucks since 1970 • Great successes • ozone reduction in Southern California, improvement elsewhere • Carbon monoxide vastly reduced, sulfur dioxide.. Much better • Lead (and some other toxics) gone! • Less smoke in Sacramento Valley from rice straw burning, • Modest improvements – • Numerous, including particulate matter, most sites • improved air quality in Kern County from better oil facilities • Most ozone precursors sharply reduced • Reduction of many toxic substances

7. Stalemate in most of the Central Valley • 20% increase in population and a 50% increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) since 1990 • Ozone at Fresno now worse than Los Angeles • Particulate matter much worse than Los Angeles and not improving • Bay Area pollution and Bay Area commuters are and will make things worse • And here come the feds! • Geography, topography and meteorology make the Central Valley and foothills an ozone machine • The new EPA PM2.5 particle standard will push almost the entire Central Valley from Sacramento south into massive violation. • The CAA amendments of 1977 and 1997 require visibility at Class 1 areas (like Yosemite NP) be protected

8. Single chemical Well accepted prompt health effects, Single major source Effective control techniques California pioneered, US follows Effect on air CO, gas Reduced respiration via CO in blood Automobiles CO → CO2 in catalytic converters Auto manufacture required for sale Victory! (So then why are we paying $1 b/year for MTBE?) Why success or failure ?The tale of 4 pollutants: 1. Carbon Monoxide

9. Single chemical Well accepted delayed health effects Two major sources Effective control techniques ? California pioneered, US follows Effect on air Pb, particles Persistent poison, nervous system Automobiles, old paint Remove lead from gasoline, old paint ? Lead free gasoline required for sale Great victory Why success or failure ?The tale of 4 pollutants: 2. Lead

10. Single chemical Prompt health and welfare impacts, delayed effects on health ? Single major source, LA, uncertain SJV Effective control in LA, ineffective SJV California pioneered, US follows Effect on air O3, gas Eyes, lungs, etc.; effects on Sierra forests; aging of human membranes Automobiles LA, many sources in SJV ROG, NO in cars, LA; complex in SJV Auto manufacture required for sale Victory in LA, stalemate in the SJV Why success or failure ?The tale of 4 pollutants: 3. Ozone

11. Many chemicals, size and shape (asbestos) vital Prompt health impacts, high levels; low levels ?; delayed health effects ? Multiple sources, natural and man made Some control in LA, ineffective SJV US pioneered, California in a quandary Effect on air Dust, sulfates, nitrates, organics , salt, metals, …TSP, PM10, PM2.5, very fine, ultra fine Mortality at high levels, good statistical association at low levels; toxics and carcinogens causal reasons ??? Automobiles, industry, LA, many sources in SJV Cars, industry, LA; many complex area in SJV Western particles not the same as eastern US particles Improvement in LA, stalemate in the SJV Why success or failure ?The tale of 4 pollutants: 4. Particulates

12. First, let’s make sure we are fighting the right war in the SJV! • Summer Ozone • Ages all the biological membranes it touches • Ozone peak values in the Central Valley occur in summer days in foot hill locations at times of very high temperatures • Consequence: person dose-days reduced versus Los Angeles, as many get indoors • Air conditioning greatly reduces ozone, and thus tends to protect sensitive populations - the young, the sick, and the old • Major impact on agriculture and Sierra forests

13. First, let’s make sure we are fighting the right war in the SJV! • Winter Fine (PM2.5) and very fine Particles • Age the heart and lung; carry carcinogens • PM2.5 mass peak values in the Central Valley occur in late Fall and Winter and are valley wide • Peak values occur in low wind, stable conditions, identified by a hazy “dry fog” • Summer Fine (PM2.5) Particles • Scatter and absorb light; Valley summer haze • Transport efficiently into the Sierra Nevada almost every day, May - October • Major impact on visibility at national parks

19. How can we explain these results? • The data on particles and health • closely match extensive statistical studies in the US and elsewhere • Are consistent with laboratory and animal studies • The lack of response to ozone • The heart not a target of reactive ozone • Ozone dose day relationships skewed by ozone-high temperature-foothill factors In SJV • Note: No impact on stroke frequency seen; no impact by carbon monoxide observed

20. Los Angeles 1 hr Ozone Maximum

21. Fresno Ozone 1 hr Maximum

22. Los Angeles Ozone 8 hr 4th Highest 3 yr Average

23. Alameda County Ozone 8 hr 4th Highest 3 yr Average

24. Fresno Ozone 8 hr 4th Highest 3 yr Average

29. Fresno Ozone 8 hr 4th Highest 3 yr Average

30. Valley Ozone Profiles vs. Time

31. Annual ozone profile

32. Hourly ozone - July 12, 2002 High temperature, 108 F

33. Valley ozone transport into the Sierra

34. Total Suspended Particulate mass TSP < 35 μm Inhalable Aerosols PM10 < 10 μm Fine Aerosols PM2.5 < 2.5 μm Very fine aerosols, < 0.25 μm, ultra fine aerosols, < 0.10 μm 35 to 10 μm, mostly natural Dust, sea salt, pollen, … 10 to 2.5 μm, largely natural Dust, sea spray, some nitrates 2.5 to 0.25 μm, mostly man made Fine dust, nitrates, sulfates, organics, smoke 0.25 to circa 0.01 μm, almost entirely man made; high temperature combustion, heavy organics, soot, metals Particulate Matter in the Atmospheric – the Atmospheric Aerosol

36. Fine particles – age the lung and heart Statistically, excellent connection between fine particles and health, including mortality Causally, most of fine particle mass is totally harmless even in massive doses…. • EPA’s current thinking: health effects caused by • Biological agents (fungi, bacteria, viruses, spores..) • Acidic aerosols • Fine metals such as iron in the lung • Insoluble very fine and ultra fine particles • High temperature organic matter

37. Fine particles – age the lung and heart • In the Central Valley • Biological agents –allergies, Valley Fever, agricultural agents… • Acidic aerosols – not a problem. Thank the cows. • Fine metals such as iron in the lung – very fine soils, transportation, industry? • Insoluble very fine and ultra fine particles – high temperature combustion, diesels, (4th of July) • High temperature organic matter – diesels, smoking cars (cigarettes)

38. Making of the EPA Fine Particle Standard “Those who like law or sausage should never watch either one being made” • CAASAC – 8 of the scientists said no new PM2.5 annual average standard was justified • Of the 13 who wanted a standard, 6 said science could not support a numerical standard • Of the 7 who supported a numerical standard, the choices ranged from 15 to 30 μg/m3 (average 22 μg/m3) • The EPA staff recommended a standard in the range from 20 μg/m3 to 12.5 μg/m3 • The EPA Administrator (in a room with 11 others, none of whom were scientists) chose 15 μg/m3

40. Health Impacts of Valley Aerosols For winter, 120 ug/m3, r2 = 0.69

41. Los Angeles PM10 Highest

42. Fresno PM10 Highest

43. Valley PM10 Trends Versus Time EPA standard

44. Questions, and Tools to Find Answers, about Fine Particles • Where did they come from? • Location of sources • Emission source by types • Primary – emitted as particles • Secondary – gas to particle transformation • Meteorological conditions for dilution, transformation and transport • Removal rates • Why are the concentrations so high? • What are their characteristics? • Size • Composition • Behavior in Time • Where do they go?

48. Where do all the nitrates come from? A clue!

49. SJVUAPCD fine aerosol source inventories: Summer, 170 tons/day; Winter, 137 tons/day

50. Why are the winter concentrations so high? • Emissions • Primary – emitted as a particle – lower than summer • Secondary – gas to particle conversion in fogs - higher • Dilution • Height of inversion – low in winter • Wind velocity – low in winter • Removal • Settling – very fine particles (i.e. diesel) don’t settle • Coagulation and scavenging – if they don’t pick up water, they last a long time in the air and can build up to high concentrations • Transport away – poor in winter except in storms • You must know all these parameters to connect emission sources to atmospheric concentrations!