Current and Future Challenges in Air-Related Programs

1. Current and Future Challenges in Air-Related Programs Community Modeling and Analysis System 2004 Models-3 Conference October 20, 2004 Rich Scheffe Leader (or, HPSLFPS), Monitoring and Quality Assurance Group Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

2. Acknowledge • V. Rao • N. Frank • D. Doll • N. Possiel • B. Timin • D. Lueken • J. Bachmann • T. Keating • J. Szykeman • M. Schmidt • D. Mintz • J. Hemby

3. Topics • Air program progress • New challenges • Multiple scales of influence • Integration • Pollutants • Media • Tools • Non traditional disciplines

4. Characterization: our mission • In space, time, composition (physical/chemical)

5. Air Pollution Scales of Influence • Global – e.g. climate change, stratospheric ozone, persistent-bioaccumulative toxic pollutants (Hg, dioxins) • Regional – e.g. ozone, fine particles health, acid rain, visibility, nutrient loadings • Local –e.g. ozone, PM health, air toxics • Personal – indoor air/outdoor penetration, asthma NYC

6. Air Quality National Trends Show Progress • 1-hour ozone levels decreased ~29% since ‘80 and ~16% since ’90. • 8-hour ozone levels decreased ~21% since ’80 and ~9% since ’90.

8. Pm Fine/Ozone PM 10 Most criteria measurements (except O3, PM) well below NAAQS

9. What is the extent of the PM2.5 mass/components problem? Have changes have occurred recently? What is the cause?...continued SO2 reductions, mobile source rules, economic trends, other?

10. Wet Sulfate Deposition 2000-2002 1989-1991 Scale: Regional

11. Addressing Regional Transport • EPA is pursuing two mechanisms to address transport in the future: • Clear Skies Act • Legislation that addresses transported air pollution from power plants in addition to other environmental concerns (e.g., mercury). • Clean Air Interstate Rule • Regulatory approach that uses existing CAA mechanisms to address transported air pollution from all potential transport sources. • Regional Haze long-term strategies

12. Looking Toward the Future: O3 274 Counties > 8-hr Std Remaining (34) Counties > 8-hr Std under Base Case • Major improvements over next 10-15 years: • By 2015, NOx reduced by 5.6M tons/yr; VOC by 2.2M tons/yr (from 2003 levels). • Expected improvements due to mobile source programs and NOx SIP Call. • Expected additional improvement from CAIR 2000-02 2015

13. Estimated Reduction in number of counties not meeting PM2.5 Standards from 2001 to 2015 Estimated PM2.5 (1999-2001) 99 Counties In red are counties with estimated annual average PM2.5 > 15 ug/m3 Estimated PM2.5 (2015) 13 Counties

14. Regional 2003 Annual Urban PM2.5 Speciation Patterns

15. Local and Regional Contribution to Urban PM2.5 and its Constituents PM2.5 MASS CARBON NITRATES SULFATES

16. Data from LA Supersite show how chemical components of PM differ as a function of size fraction

17. What’s worked? The CAA1970 vs 2000 emissions for criteria pollutants

18. Progress Toward Clean Air 1970-2001Pollution Down While Growth Continues 300 GDP (+158%) 250 VMT (+143%) 200 Percent of 1970 Value 150 U.S. Population(+36%) 100 Criteria Pollutants(aggregate)(-29%) baseline 50 1970 75 80 85 90 95 00 Year

19. Program Accountability Demonstrated

20. What have we learned about International Transport? While many air quality problems are due to local or regional sources, the U.S. is both an importer and exporter of air pollution. But, our improvements elevate importance of Continental and Global interactions

21. Transboundary Flows with Canada & Mexico What do we know? Transboundary flow can be important during exceedances of the NAAQS, as well as during exceedances of Canadian & Mexican policy objectives. Major emissions sources have been located along both borders, and new sources continue to be built. SO2 Ann Emiss, BRAVO

22. What do we know? Some of the most dramatic examples of international transport are not anthropogenic. On July 8, 2002, forest fires in Quebec created a smoke plume that blanketed the U.S. East Coast. [NASA MODIS image]

23. Imports from Central America What do we know? Flows from Central America carry smoke, as well as other pollutants, including pesticides. Pesticide use per acre in Central America exceeds the US by a factor of 10. In May 1998, fires in Central America create a smoke plume across the central U.S. GOES-8 Satellite Image, CIMSS Univ of Wisconsin

24. Imports from Asia What do we know? Dust from Chinese Deserts, fossil fuel emissions, and other pollutants travel across the Pacific and impact the Western U.S. [Aerosol Index, NASA TOMS] Emissions in Asia are expected to grow with further economic development, offsetting emissions decreases in the United States. World Energy Use [EIA, 2002]

25. African Dust Transport: NASA TOMS IMAGE 9/12/02

26. Exports to Europe What do we know? The U.S. exports ozone precursors, mercury, and other pollutants to the North Atlantic. The impact on attainment of European policy objectives may be significant. Days predicted to exceed the EU ozone standard that would not exceed the standard in the absence of North American emissions. [Li et al. , 2001]

27. What do we know? Imports to Alaska & Arctic Mercury, POPs, and other pollutants are carried into the Arctic, and trapped by circulation patterns Arctic Air Mass InSummerandWinter Air Transport Pathways [Crane & Galasso, 1999]

28. Global fine particle emissions Natural (tg/year)Human(tg/year) Sulfates from black carbon 13 biological gases 130 sulfate from S02 190 Vulcanic Sulfates 20 organic carbon- Nitrates 60 biomass +fossil burning 70 Biogenics (terpenes)13-60 VOCs 10 Kamens (personal communication, 2003); Jacobson, JGR, 2000, Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998, Kiehl and Rodhe, 1995 Griffin,, JGR, 1999

29. New findings on roadway pollution High exposure to ultrafine particles, CO, other pollution near roadway Increased risk near and on roadways

30. Extreme exposure in near highway environment Relative Particle Number, Mass, Black Carbon, CO Concentration near a major LA freeway

31. 24-h Average PM10 Mass and Chemical Composition in Downey (Source Site) 14 Metals OC MMD ~ 0.35 um EC 12 (NH4)2OS4 NH4NO3 10 g/m3) m 8 Concentration ( 6 4 2 0 < 0.1 0.1 - 0.35 0.35 - 1.0 1 - 2.5 2.5 - 10 Particle Size Range, microns Singh et al Atmospheric Environment, 36(10): 1675-168, 2002

32. MMD ~ 0.7 um

33. Respiratory Symptoms and trafficWeiland, Ann Epidemiol 1994;4:243 Bochum, GER Frequency of Truck Traffic

34. Demonstrating benefits of pollution reductions Dublin, Ireland Ban on bituminous coal: 9/1/90 -5.7% -10.3% Clancy et al. Lancet 2002; 360: 1210-1214

35. Technical Challenges • Prevailing Integration Theme • Scales…Global, Continental, Regional, urban/local • Tools • Merging AQ models and observations such that AQ characterizations follow the FDDA model • Merging satellite and land based measurements • Pollutants • Media • Cultural/societal • Reinforced by the NAS: Air Quality Management in the U.S

36. Integrate New Information • Advanced measurements • Satellites

37. Results for Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (~250 miles apart) for July 2, 2001 Pittsburgh Clean, cool air mass from Canada Philadelphia

38. NASA Satellite Tropospheric Column Data Products O3 PM (aerosol) NO2 SO2 HCHO CO

39. Integrate • Across pollutants and media

40. Annual Concentrations: Formaldehyde and Benzene Formaldehyde and benzene concentrations are distributed differently throughout the U.S. Formaldehyde is largest in the Southeast and central California, while benzene is largest in urban areas where direct emissions are greatest.

41. How do inter-pollutant interactions impact pollutant/component specific strategies?

42. Median Risk Level <1 in a Million 1 - 25 in a Million 25 - 50 in a Million 50 - 75 in a Million 75 - 100 in a Million >100 in a Million NATA - National Scale Assessment 1996 Predicted County Level Carcinogenic Risk Relative to criteria, non-cancer?

44. Mercury Advisories by Type Advisories for specific waterbodies only Statewide freshwater advisory only Statewide freshwater advisory + advisories for specific waterbodies Statewide coastal advisory No mercury advisory Persistent Toxics: Mercury Contamination in Fish Currently 44 states have issue fish consumption advisories for some or all of their waters due to contamination from mercury.* States with Fish Advisories Due to Mercury *Note: For more information about the relationship between fish advisories and human exposure to mercury, see the EPA Report “America's Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses”available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/publications.htm

45. PMcoarse ?

46. PM COARSE: --PM10 – PM2.5 --No current standards for PM Coarse --Levels of PM Coarse are generally higher in the West and Southwest --In 2003, levels of PM Coarse were highest in the Southwest and Southern CA. --In 2003, the lowest levels of PM Coarse were seen in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic States, areas where PM2.5 levels are relatively high.

47. Integrating • Across tools

48. Challenge: Analyzing Across Scales Geo-stationary -Regional Coverage (high spatial and temporal resolution) Polar orbit – Global Coverage (high spatial and low temporal resolution) Satellites (troposphere) Airplanes (field campaigns: i.e., SOS99, TEXAS 2000, Trace-P, NEAQ & INTEX-NA) 1 - 1000s kmStudy Areas ~ kmto represent county or MSA In-situ monitors (ground) Strategy Needed to address Air Quality and Climate Change across Scales

49. Air Quality Management Will Require Use of Global and Regional Chemical Transport Models Public Impact Regional Prediction Global Assimilation Scientific Understanding In Situ and Satellite Observations Eventual Requirement: Capability of nested global- to regional-scale meteorological and chemical modeling for assimilating and predicting the chemical state of the atmosphere (air quality)

50. L2 Level 3 NCore Measurements Level 1. 3-10 Master Sites Comprehensive Measurements, Advance Methods Serving Science and Technology Transfer Needs Level 2: ~ 75Multi-pollutant (MP) Sites,“Core Species” Plus Leveraging From PAMS, Speciation Program, Air Toxics L1 Level 3: Single Pollutant Sites (e.g.> 500 sites each for O3 and PM2.5 Mapping Support Minimum “Core” Level 2 Measurements Continuous N,SO2,CO, PM2.5, PM10, O3; PM2.5 FRM, HNO3, NH3, Meteorology (T,RH,WS,WD)