1 / 30

Northwest Airquest Annual Meeting NAAQS Update December, 2006

Northwest Airquest Annual Meeting NAAQS Update December, 2006. Bruce Louks, Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality. All slides in this presentation are taken from EPA OAQPS and EPA R10 presentations. How do the PM NAAQS and Ambient Air Monitoring Packages fit together?.

lana
Download Presentation

Northwest Airquest Annual Meeting NAAQS Update December, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Northwest Airquest Annual MeetingNAAQS UpdateDecember, 2006 Bruce Louks, Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality All slides in this presentation are taken from EPA OAQPS and EPA R10 presentations.

  2. How do the PM NAAQS and Ambient Air Monitoring Packages fit together? PM NAAQS and Ambient Air Monitoring Final Rules Monitoring Final Rule Part 53 – Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods Includes: Approval of FRMs and FEMs PM2.5 PM10-2.5 PM NAAQS Final Rule Part 50 – National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards Includes: PM NAAQS PM2.5 Primary and Secondary PM10 (daily) Primary and Secondary Revocation of PM10 annual NAAQS PM2.5 FRM PM10-2.5 FRM Interpretation of NAAQS for PM2.5 Interpretation of NAAQS for PM10 Removing proposed Interpretation of NAAQS for PM10-2.5 Part 58 – Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Includes: Network Description Periodic Assessments Operating Schedule Data Certification Special Purpose Monitoring Quality Assurance Methodology Network Design Probe and Siting Criteria

  3. Coarse Particle Protection through PM10, not PM10-2.5 • Finalized only some of the PM10-2.5 proposals • PM10-2.5 Federal Reference Method. • Procedures for designating PM10-2.5 Federal Equivalent Methods (e.g., continuous samplers). • PM10-2.5 monitoring only at about 75 NCore sites, including PM10-2.5 speciation (more sites than proposed). • Quality assurance procedures. • Retained existing PM10 network requirements. • Finalized monitor discontinuation criteria for criteria pollutants, including PM10. • Deleted 5-part suitability test and minimum network requirements beyond NCore

  4. July 1, 2009 • Plan for required NCore stations • PM10-2.5: 1:3 mass and 1:3 speciation • PM2.5: 1:3 filter mass, continuous mass, and 1:3 speciation • Trace-level SO2, NO, NO2, NOy, CO • Meteorology: WS, WD, RH, T • One in 41 states, DC, VI, and PR • Two or three in 9 states: CA, FL, Il, MI, NY, NC, OH, PA, TX. • Mostly urban • “Alternatives” can be approved.

  5. PM2.5 FRM/FEM Monitoring Sites (342 of 749 req. in areas < 200K) Areas where using MSA instead of CSA results in a change in the required number of new sites – (based on utilizing remaining two columns in proposal)

  6. National Core (NCore) Multi-pollutant Sites • NCore Multi-Pollutant Network • Network plans due July 1, 2009 • Full network operational by January 1, 2011 • ~75 Sites Nationally • ~55 Urban Sites at Neighborhood to Urban Scale • ~20 Rural Sites at Regional Scale • 1-3 sites per State • 50 States, plus, DC, VI, and PR • States with 2-3 sites – CA, FL, IL, MI, NY, NC, OH, PA, TX. • Additional rural sites negotiated with States, NPS, Tribes, CASTNET • Pollutants • Particles • PM2.5 filter-based and continuous, speciated PM2.5, PM10-2.5 FRM/FEM at 1:3 or continuous PM10-2.5 FEM • PM10-2.5 speciation • Gases • O3; high-sensitivity - CO, SO2, NO/NOy • Waivers for NOy in urban areas until NO2 method improves so that NOy and NOy differences are meaningful • Meteorology • Amb. Temp, WS, WD, RH Working Draft of NCore Multi-pollutant Sites

  7. PM2.5 Daily Standard • § 50.13(c) • ‘The 24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration,…, is less than or equal to 35 μg/m3.’ • Effective standard = 35.5μg/m3 • Average over 3 years

  8. Key Part 58 Dates • By Dec 31, 2006 – redesignate SLAMS to SPMs w/o public comment requirement (§58.10 and 58.20) • July 1, 2007 – first annual network plans due (§58.10) • Jan 1, 2008 – start operation of newly required monitors • Jan 1, 2009 – App. A QA required for FRM/FEM/ARM at SPM sites (§58.11) • July 1, 2009 – NCore plans due (§58.10) • May 1, 2010 – New date for data certification letter (§58.15) • July 1, 2010 – first 5-yr AQSS assessment due (§58.10) • Jan 1, 2011 – NCore sites operational (§58.10)

  9. What do the new siting requirements tell us? • Gaseous pollutants (SO2,NO2, & CO) no longer considered a NAAQS problem • Focus shifted to trace level PM2.5 research • PM10 and Pb still a concern, to a lesser extent • More detailed O3 network siting criteria established • likely based on projected changes to the NAAQS. • PM2.5 sites reduced due to shrinking funds. • Focus now on metropolitan areas (NCore) at the expense of rural areas

  10. PM10 areas of concern • Expected No. of Exceedences • Quarterly calculation for each year • 3 year average • If EE above 1, then site exceeds standard • Fort Hall and Mat-Su valley above 1 • Mat-Su flagged as Natural Event by ADEC • Colville and Kennewick at or below 1 • Road dust issues in AK NVs • Exceedences have been recorded

  11. 0.068

  12. 0.068

  13. 0.068

  14. PM2.5 Criteria *1 site must be pop-oriented/max concentration and 1 site in area of poor air quality

  15. Daily PM2.5 • Idaho data – 2003 to 2005 • 2 sites ≥ 85% of standard • Nampa (μg/m3) • Fort Hall (μg/m3) • Salmon & Franklin Co. ≥ 85% but < 3 years of data. • 2 sites > 100% of standard • Pinehurst (μg/m3) • St. Maries (μg/m3) • These sites are not in an MSA

  16. Pinehurst, St. Maries and Salmon are not in MSAs, thus sampling not required by new regulation IDEQ and EPA can agree to designate these sites as SPM or SLAMS sites and add to Network Plan (may be done already). Will EPA fund sites outside MSAs but included in the Network Plan?

  17. Daily PM2.5 • Washington – 2003 to 2005 • 1 site ≥ 85% of standard • Spokane (29.87 μg/m3) • 3 sites ≥ 100% of standard • Marysville (35 μg/m3) • Tacoma (40 μg/m3) • Vancouver (35 μg/m3) • Yakima for 2002 to 2004 (38.3 μg/m3) • Darrington is a sight of concern based on continuous data. FRM monitoring has just begun.

  18. Daily PM2.5 • Oregon – 2003 to 2005 • 2 sites ≥ 85% of standard • Eugene (31.4 μg/m3) • Medford (34.3 μg/m3) • Both in MSAs • 2 sites > 100% of standard • Klamath Falls (41 μg/m3) • Oakridge (53 μg/m3) • Both in MSAs

  19. Daily PM2.5 • Alaska – 2003 to 2005 • 1 site ≥ 85% of standard • Juneau (30.07 μg/m3) • Wasilla site is close (29.53 μg/m3) • 1 site ≥ 100% of standard • Fairbanks (43 μg/m3)

  20. Approved Regional Methods • Allows Regions to approve and designate PM2.5 monitors as Class III FEMs. • Continuous monitors such as the TEOM nephelometer, and the BAM. • 1 year minimum • May provide needed assistance to S/L/Ts • e.g., prescribed burns

  21. NCore Network • Approximately 75 sites nationwide • Primarily urban • Hopefully Cheeka Peak • PM, SO2, NO/NO2/NOx/NOy, CO, O3, Met • Includes PM10-2.5 monitors • Pb monitoring at 1 site per region

  22. Ozone update • CASAC sent letter to Administrator on Oct 24, 2006, recommending 8 hour primary standard be lowered to 0.060 – 0.070 ppm range. • Review of EPA 2nd draft Ozone Staff Paper. • Requirement to review NAAQS standards every 5 years.

  23. 4th high

  24. 3rd high

More Related