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? Part 50 – National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards Includes: PM NAAQS PM 2.5 Primary and Secondary PM 10 (daily) Primary and Secondary Revocation of PM 10 annual NAAQS PM 2.5 FRM PM FRM Interpretation of NAAQS for PM 2.5 Interpretation of NAAQS for PM 10 Removing proposed Interpretation of NAAQS for PM Part 53 – Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods Includes: Approval of FRMs and FEMs PM 2.5 PM 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 PM NAAQS Final Rule Monitoring Final Rule PM NAAQS and Ambient Air Monitoring Final Rules

Coarse Particle Protection through PM 10, not PM Finalized only some of the PM proposalsFinalized only some of the PM proposals PM Federal Reference Method. PM Federal Reference Method. Procedures for designating PM Federal Equivalent Methods (e.g., continuous samplers). Procedures for designating PM Federal Equivalent Methods (e.g., continuous samplers). PM monitoring only at about 75 NCore sites, including PM speciation (more sites than proposed). PM monitoring only at about 75 NCore sites, including PM speciation (more sites than proposed). Quality assurance procedures. Quality assurance procedures. Retained existing PM 10 network requirements.Retained existing PM 10 network requirements. Finalized monitor discontinuation criteria for criteria pollutants, including PM 10.Finalized monitor discontinuation criteria for criteria pollutants, including PM 10. Deleted 5-part suitability test and minimum network requirements beyond NCoreDeleted 5-part suitability test and minimum network requirements beyond NCore

July 1, 2009 Plan for required NCore stations Plan for required NCore stations PM10-2.5: 1:3 mass and 1:3 speciationPM10-2.5: 1:3 mass and 1:3 speciation PM2.5: 1:3 filter mass, continuous mass, and 1:3 speciationPM2.5: 1:3 filter mass, continuous mass, and 1:3 speciation Trace-level SO2, NO, NO2, NOy, COTrace-level SO2, NO, NO2, NOy, CO Meteorology: WS, WD, RH, TMeteorology: WS, WD, RH, T One in 41 states, DC, VI, and PROne in 41 states, DC, VI, and PR Two or three in 9 states: CA, FL, Il, MI, NY, NC, OH, PA, TX.Two or three in 9 states: CA, FL, Il, MI, NY, NC, OH, PA, TX. Mostly urbanMostly urban “Alternatives” can be approved.“Alternatives” can be approved.

PM2.5 FRM/FEM Monitoring Sites 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)Area Difference in number of required sites Albany, NY -1 (csa would require 2 new sites; msa 1) Greensboro, NC 1 Raleigh, NC 1 San Jose, CA 1 (342 of 749 req. in areas < 200K)

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

PM2.5 Daily Standard § 50.13(c) § 50.13(c) ‘The 24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the 98 th percentile 24-hour concentration,…, is less than or equal to 35 μg/m3.’‘The 24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the 98 th percentile 24-hour concentration,…, is less than or equal to 35 μg/m3.’ Effective standard = 35.5μg/m3Effective standard = 35.5μg/m3 Average over 3 yearsAverage over 3 years

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

What do the new siting requirements tell us? Gaseous pollutants (SO 2,NO 2, & CO) no longer considered a NAAQS problem Gaseous pollutants (SO 2,NO 2, & CO) no longer considered a NAAQS problem Focus shifted to trace level PM 2.5 researchFocus shifted to trace level PM 2.5 research PM 10 and Pb still a concern, to a lesser extent PM 10 and Pb still a concern, to a lesser extent More detailed O 3 network siting criteria established More detailed O 3 network siting criteria established likely based on projected changes to the NAAQS.likely based on projected changes to the NAAQS. PM 2.5 sites reduced due to shrinking funds. PM 2.5 sites reduced due to shrinking funds. Focus now on metropolitan areas (NCore) at the expense of rural areasFocus now on metropolitan areas (NCore) at the expense of rural areas

PM10 areas of concern Expected No. of Exceedences Expected No. of Exceedences Quarterly calculation for each yearQuarterly calculation for each year 3 year average3 year average If EE above 1, then site exceeds standardIf EE above 1, then site exceeds standard Fort Hall and Mat-Su valley above 1 Fort Hall and Mat-Su valley above 1 Mat-Su flagged as Natural Event by ADECMat-Su flagged as Natural Event by ADEC Colville and Kennewick at or below 1 Colville and Kennewick at or below 1 Road dust issues in AK NVs Road dust issues in AK NVs Exceedences have been recordedExceedences have been recorded

0.068

DV % of 35 (in reg) DV Conc (μg/m3) (not in reg) SLAMS Requirement (Pt 58, App. D, §4.7) <85%<30(29.75) 2* FRM/FEM in MSA if pop ≥ 1 mil 1 FRM/FEM in MSA if pop ≥ 500K ≥85%≥30 3* FRM/FEM if pop ≥ 1 million 2* FRM/FEM if pop ≥ 500K 1 FRM/FEM if pop ≥ 50 K and MSA 90% to <95% 32 to 33 (31.5 to < 33.25) 1 in 3 sampling required (FRM/FEM) 95%-105% 34 to 36 (33.25 to 36.75) 1 in 1 sampling required (FRM/FEM) >105% to 110% 37 to 38 ( >36.75 to 38.5) 1 in 3 sampling required (FRM/FEM) 110% 110% Manual sampler may be on 1 in 6 schedule if site has a continuous sampler and DV is outside 10% of std or has not exceeded daily standard for 3 years. *1 site must be pop-oriented/max concentration and 1 site in area of poor air quality PM2.5 Criteria

Daily PM 2.5 Idaho data – 2003 to 2005 Idaho data – 2003 to sites ≥ 85% of standard2 sites ≥ 85% of standard Nampa (μg/m3) Nampa (μg/m3) Fort Hall (μg/m3) Fort Hall (μg/m3) Salmon & Franklin Co. ≥ 85% but < 3 years of data. Salmon & Franklin Co. ≥ 85% but < 3 years of data. 2 sites > 100% of standard2 sites > 100% of standard Pinehurst (μg/m3) Pinehurst (μg/m3) St. Maries (μg/m3) St. Maries (μg/m3) These sites are not in an MSA These sites are not in an MSA

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?

Daily PM 2.5 Washington – 2003 to 2005 Washington – 2003 to site ≥ 85% of standard1 site ≥ 85% of standard Spokane (29.87 μg/m3) Spokane (29.87 μg/m3) 3 sites ≥ 100% of standard3 sites ≥ 100% of standard Marysville (35 μg/m3) Marysville (35 μg/m3) Tacoma (40 μg/m3) Tacoma (40 μg/m3) Vancouver (35 μg/m3) Vancouver (35 μg/m3) Yakima for 2002 to 2004 (38.3 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. Darrington is a sight of concern based on continuous data. FRM monitoring has just begun.

Daily PM 2.5 Oregon – 2003 to 2005 Oregon – 2003 to sites ≥ 85% of standard2 sites ≥ 85% of standard Eugene (31.4 μg/m3) Eugene (31.4 μg/m3) Medford (34.3 μg/m3) Medford (34.3 μg/m3) Both in MSAs Both in MSAs 2 sites > 100% of standard2 sites > 100% of standard Klamath Falls (41 μg/m3) Klamath Falls (41 μg/m3) Oakridge (53 μg/m3) Oakridge (53 μg/m3) Both in MSAs Both in MSAs

Daily PM2.5 Alaska – 2003 to 2005 Alaska – 2003 to site ≥ 85% of standard1 site ≥ 85% of standard Juneau (30.07 μg/m3) Juneau (30.07 μg/m3) Wasilla site is close (29.53 μg/m3) Wasilla site is close (29.53 μg/m3) 1 site ≥ 100% of standard1 site ≥ 100% of standard Fairbanks (43 μg/m3) Fairbanks (43 μg/m3)

Approved Regional Methods Allows Regions to approve and designate PM 2.5 monitors as Class III FEMs. Allows Regions to approve and designate PM 2.5 monitors as Class III FEMs. Continuous monitors such as the TEOM nephelometer, and the BAM. Continuous monitors such as the TEOM nephelometer, and the BAM. 1 year minimum 1 year minimum May provide needed assistance to S/L/Ts May provide needed assistance to S/L/Ts e.g., prescribed burnse.g., prescribed burns

NCore Network Approximately 75 sites nationwide Approximately 75 sites nationwide Primarily urbanPrimarily urban Hopefully Cheeka PeakHopefully Cheeka Peak PM, SO 2, NO/NO 2 /NOx/NOy, CO, O 3, Met PM, SO 2, NO/NO 2 /NOx/NOy, CO, O 3, Met Includes PM monitorsIncludes PM monitors Pb monitoring at 1 site per regionPb monitoring at 1 site per region

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

4 th high

3 rd high