WAQA Washington Air Quality Advisory Presented to the 2007 National Air Quality Conference by Sean Lundblad Washington State Department of Ecology Air Quality Program February 13, 2007 Orlando, FL

What is WAQA? The Washington Air Quality Advisory (WAQA) is Washington’s “AQI-like” public information tool WAQA is not AQI Our website will state WAQA is not AQI

Why we wanted an alternative to the AQI What options we looked at How we came up with the options What the final choice was Implementation (fingers crossed) What you will hear

Policy Implications The Good –New 24-hour standard of 35 ug/m 3 is more protective –Ecology has an air quality goal of 20 ug/m 3 –The public is familiar with AQI The Bad –New standard at the highest end of range of what CASAC recommended –EPA did not revise the annual standard The Ugly –EPA has not updated the PM 2.5 AQI –Current AQI is misleading in that it downplays health risks –Washington State has winter PM problems

Policy Drivers Health concerns should drive our actions Providing accurate near-real-time information to the public is critical for the health of the citizens

The Policy Choice: Washington wants a way to inform the public of PM 2.5 health effects at lower levels than EPA

How we got to WAQA Examined logic behind current AQI breakpoints Created new breakpoints based on CFR logic Factored in results of health studies Air Quality Program weighed policy issues and selected an option

Examined logic behind current PM 2.5 AQI Breakpoints AQI Category Estimated mid-point 24-hour concentration Breakpoints AQI Score Good0 to 15.4 ug/m30 to 50 Moderate15.5 to 40.4 ug/m351 to 100 Unhealthy for sensitive groups 40.5 to 65.4 ug/m3101 to 150 Unhealthy65.5 to ug/m3151 to 200 Very unhealthy150.5 to ug/m3201 to 300 Hazardous> Annual standard Old 24-hr standard

Examined breakpoints As % of old standard As % change between categories Tried to deviate as little as possible

WAQA Options Option 1: “Classic” interpretation of CFRs that is more protective than AQI Options 2 & 3: Increasingly protective scenarios that reflect research indicating health effects; implement program goal Option 4: Very protective scenario

How did these options compare graphically?

Nephelometer/Correlated PM 2.5 Monitoring Sites Nephelometer Sites w/correlated PM 2.5 Nephelometer Sites 2005 Seattle Lacey Nephelometer/Correlated PM 2.5 Monitoring Sites Nephelometer Sites w/correlated PM 2.5 Nephelometer Sites 2005 Nephelometer/Correlated PM 2.5 Monitoring Sites Nephelometer Sites w/correlated PM 2.5 Nephelometer Sites 2005 Cheeka Peak Lacey Seattle Twisp

Would we ever be in the green (Good) with any of these options? YES!

What Ecology elected to do Combination of Option 3 and Option 2

Why combine Options 3 & 2? Option 4 harder to defend scientifically Breakpoints of Option 3 more defensible except for Good/Mod breakpoint CASAC-recommended annual standard (13 ug/m 3 ) of Option 2 as Good/Mod breakpoint protective and defensible Program goal of 20 ug/m 3 for Mod/USG breakpoint

When will it happen? SOON!!! Decided to tie it to our new data acquisition system and website coming online very soon and –We have been letting our many partners know of the change –Ironing out how we will present WAQA on website

Thank you: Phyllis Baas – Ecology Air Quality Program Technical Services Section Manager Sarah Rees – Ecology Air Quality Program Program Development Section Manager Stan Rauh – SWRO & Air Quality Operations Unit Supervisor Ecology Air Quality Program Leadership Team Mike Dubois – Airshed Coordinator, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Rachel Sakata - Air Quality Planner, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2007 National Air Quality Conference Planning Committee Darby Veeck – Ecology GIS – Photos

Questions?