PM 10-2.5 Methods Update and Network Design Presentation for WESTAR San Diego, CA September 2005 Peter Tsirigotis Director Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
PM NAAQS Review Update Joseph Paisie Air Quality Strategies & Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, EPA WESTAR Fall Business.
Advertisements

1 PM NAAQS: Update on Coarse Particle Monitoring and Research Efforts Lydia Wegman, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, EPA Presentation at the.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule & 40 CFR Parts 53 and 58 Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations;
Northwest Airquest Annual Meeting NAAQS Update December, 2006 Bruce Louks, Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality All slides in this presentation are taken.
U.S. EPA Region 9’s New Response Action Levels 02 October 2014 Derral Van Winkle, P.G. NAVFAC Southwest, Environmental Restoration Program Manager.
Ambient Air Monitoring for the Revised Lead NAAQS Daniel Garver US EPA Region 4.
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards Review Process and Status Tom Moore WESTAR Council Meeting September 29, 2010 Portland, OR.
Perspectives in Designing and Operating a Regional Ammonia Monitoring Network Gary Lear USEPA Clean Air Markets Division.
PM 2.5 in the Upper Midwest Michael Koerber Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium.
EPA PM2.5 Modeling Guidance for Attainment Demonstrations Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS February 20, 2007.
U.S. EPA Office of Research & Development October 30, 2013 Prakash V. Bhave, Mary K. McCabe, Valerie C. Garcia Atmospheric Modeling & Analysis Division.
EPA’s Lead Modeling Study at the Santa Monica Airport Kim Hoang, PhD, MPH EPA Region 9.
Assessing PM 2.5 Background Levels and Local Add-On Prepared by Bryan Lambeth, PE Field Operations Support Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Working together for clean air Approved Regional Method (ARM) Demonstration Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Mike Gilroy, Erik Saganic Puget Sound Clean Air.
Personal Monitoring for Air Pollution Exposure Philip M. Fine, Ph.D. Atmospheric Measurements Manager South Coast Air Quality Management District CAPCOA.
September 2006 Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter Overview
NAAQS UPDATE SIP Steering Committee January 13, 2011.
Missouri Air Quality Issues Stephen Hall Air Quality Analysis Section Air Pollution Control Program Air Quality Applied Sciences Team (AQAST) 9 th Semi-Annual.
Division of Air Quality -- Ambient Monitoring -- EMC Member Continuing Education Session Donnie Redmond Section Chief March 7, 2012.
NACAA FALL MEMBERSHIP MEETING - SEPTEMBER 21-23, Overview of NAAQS Monitoring Issues Lewis Weinstock NACAA Fall Meeting Boston, MA September 22,
Overview and Status of Lead NAAQS Review and Overview of Agency Technical Documents on Lead NAAQS Monitoring Issues Kevin Cavender and Joann Rice Presented.
Air Quality Impact Analysis 1.Establish a relationship between emissions and air quality. AQ past = a EM past + b 2.A change in emissions results in an.
1 Key Monitoring Issues Status of PM 2.5 monitoring methodologies Criteria for acceptance of monitors and sites Special considerations for comparing ambient.
ATSDR’s approach to site assessment and epidemiologic considerations for multisite studies Steve Dearwent, PhD, MPH Chief, Health Investigations Branch.
Elfego Felix Air Quality Analysis Office EPA Region 9 1-Hour NO 2 Near Roadway Monitoring April 12, 2011.
Timely Policy-Related Monitoring Issues 2013 NACAA Spring Meeting May 6-8, 2013 Richard A. “Chet” Wayland Air Quality Assessment Division U.S. EPA OAQPS.
MODELS3 – IMPROVE – PM/FRM: Comparison of Time-Averaged Concentrations R. B. Husar S. R. Falke 1 and B. S. Schichtel 2 Center for Air Pollution Impact.
Proposed Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations, and Proposed FY2007 Air Monitoring Guidance WESTAR Spring Business Meeting March 28, 2006.
Forging Partnerships on Emerging Contaminants November 2, 2005 John Vandenberg Associate Director for Health National Center for Environmental Assessment.
Ideas on a Network Evaluation and Design System Prepared for EPA OAQPS Richard Scheffe by Rudolf B. Husar and Stefan R. Falke Center for Air Pollution.
The Use of Source Apportionment for Air Quality Management and Health Assessments Philip K. Hopke Clarkson University Center for Air Resources Engineering.
Overview and Status of Lead NAAQS Review and Overview of Agency Technical Documents on Lead NAAQS Monitoring Issues Kevin Cavender and Joann Rice Presented.
Measurement of Airborne Particulates around Sand Mines and Processing Plants Jeron Jacobson  Zachary Kroening  Kimberly Shermo Dr. Crispin Pierce  Department.
Ambient Air Monitoring Networks 2010 CMAS Conference Chapel Hill, NC October 13, 2010 Rich Scheffe, Sharon Phillips, Wyatt Appel, Lew Weinstock, Tim Hanley,
ANPR: Transition to New or Revised PM NAAQS WESTAR Business Meeting March 2006.
Presumptive MACT For Municipal Solid Waste Landfills July 1999 Emission Standards Division US Environmental Protection Agency.
Conceptual Design of an Enhanced Multipurpose Aerometric Monitoring Network in Central California NOV. 15, 2002 AWMA SYMPOSIUM ON AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENT.
PM 2.5 Continuous FEMs; Update and Assessments For AMTAC April 12, 2011 Kate Hoag – US EPA, Region 9.
National Ambient Air and Emissions Monitoring Strategy Presentation for WESTAR San Diego, CA September 2005 Peter Tsirigotis Director Emissions, Monitoring,
EPA’s Proposed PM NAAQS and Monitoring Regulations  NTAA Perspective for Reg. 8 RTOC  Bill Grantham  Denver, February 23, 2006.
OAR Perspective on Air Sensors Kristen Benedict National Tribal Forum on Air Quality 5/13/14.
Measuring Particle Pollution ITEP Air Quality Training Kodiak 2015
Model Evaluation Comparing Model Output to Ambient Data Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, California.
WESTAR National Air Monitoring Steering Committee Update Spring Business Meeting 2010 Denver, CO Bruce Louks, Idaho DEQ.
1 Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. 2 Particulate Matter a Community Concern Other sources include: road dust, construction sites, and the train.
CALIFORNIA’S AIR TOXICS PROGRAM: IMPROVEMENTS TO ASSESS HEALTH RISK Update to the Air Resources Board July 24, 2014 California Environmental Protection.
Lisa K. Baxter, Kathie L. Dionisio, Janet Burke, and Halûk Özkaynak National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA Modeling as an exposure estimation.
Janice Lam Snyder, SMAQMD December 11, 2015
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS Air Quality Update Regional Council February 28, 2007.
1 Agricultural Programs for Controlling Particulate Matter Pollution Ira Domsky, Deputy Director Air Quality Division presented to Western State Air Resources.
1 Special Information Session on USEPA’s Carbon Rules & Clean Air Act Section 111 North Carolina Division of Air Quality Special Information Session on.
Fresno NCore Monitoring Deployment Status Presentation April 12, 2011 by: Joe Cruz Air Pollution Specialist, CARB.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule January 17, 2006.
Phoenix Metropolitan Area Urban Nephelometer Program Mike Sundblom Arizona Department of Environmental Quality April 13, 2005.
NJDEP Air Toxics Program Olga Boyko NJDEP Division of Air Quality Health Effects of Air Pollution Workshop Bordentown, NJ July 30, 2008.
Final Meeting of the CAPACT project, 4-6 July 2007, Almaty, Kazakhstan M. Krzyzanowski and Kubanychbek Monolbaev WHO Regional Office for Europe EECCA participation.
Joint thematic session on B(a)P pollution: main activities and results
WESTAR Recommendations Exceptional Events EPA response
Which method is most appropriate for assessing exposure?
How Can TEMPO Contribute to Air Pollution Health Effects Research
National Monitoring Steering Committee Report
Proposed Ozone Monitoring Revisions Ozone Season and Methods
PMcoarse , Monitoring Budgets, and AQI
Proposal to Revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution WESTAR Meeting March 2006.
Exceptional and Natural Events Rulemaking
A New Tool for Evaluating Candidate PM FEM and PM2.5 ARM Monitors
PM2.5 Annual primary standard currently 15 ug/m3
Status of the PM NAAQS Review
Colleen McKaughan, EPA Region 9 December 14, 2005
EPA FY2008 Air Monitoring Budget Guidance
Presentation transcript:

PM Methods Update and Network Design Presentation for WESTAR San Diego, CA September 2005 Peter Tsirigotis Director Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division; U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards

PM Methods Update Multi-city field study of commercially available PM technologies completed and reviewed by CASAC Technical Subcommittee in 2004 –Included continuous methods for hourly data and filter-based methods to obtain integrated daily samples Additional field study in Phoenix completed spring 2005 –Several technologies modified to improve performance prior to this study New field study being deployed in Birmingham, AL Upcoming meeting of the CASAC scheduled for September 21-22, 2005 to provide: –Peer review on a PM Federal Reference Method (FRM) –Consultations on the evaluation of PM field studies, optimization of the PM 2.5 FRM, equivalency criteria for PM 2.5 and PM , and data quality objectives for PM –Materials available at:

PM Methods Update Take Home Messages: Filter-based difference method (separate low-volume FRMs for PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) has better data quality compared to other commercially available methods –Not expected to be widely deployed, but will serve as basis of comparison for approving continuous methods Continuous method evaluations have demonstrated high sample completeness, and good precision and correlation between methods –Biases do exist between methods; however, new studies may address this Samplers potentially usable for speciation –Coarse channel of filter-based dichotomous sampler –Analysis of PM 10 filter and subtraction of Speciation Trends Network PM 2.5 data –Customized samplers specially designed for this purpose Data Quality Objectives demonstrate the value of continuous methods to reduce uncertainty in support of a potential daily PM standard

Available epidemiological evidence is being considered in designing the coarse particle monitoring network. –Greatest health concern in urban areas where particles become enriched with contaminants from road dust and industrial sources –Less concern for exposure to natural materials of geologic origin –Lack of evidence limits conclusions on toxicity of agricultural and mining sources CASAC concluded that available evidence from health studies suggests focus on urban, not rural coarse particles. More narrowly defined indicator (UPM ) proposed to characterize risk from urban sources such as re- suspended road dust typical of high traffic-density areas and emissions from industrial sources PM Network Design

Proposed design similar in concept to PM 2.5 monitoring for the daily standard –Focus on areas of high population density and proximity to primary industrial sources of urban particles –Rural monitoring as part of NCore Level 2 multi- pollutant sites –Speciation requirements under consideration Minimum EPA monitoring requirements based on criteria including population size and estimated UPM concentrations Draft changes to 40 CFR 58, Appendix D and E must be signed for NPRM by December 20, 2005 PM Network Design