Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Western Air Quality - Critical Infrastructure
Spring 2005 WESTAR Business Meeting
May 5, 2005
2
Emissions Factors – What are the problems? Inventory developers and modelers have told us:
EFs gaps for new source types and pollutants (e.g., HAPs)
EF development process too slow and wasteful
Need data quality values for accuracy assessments
Regulatory authorities and sources have told us: Annual EFs inequitable and inaccurate for threshold determinations
(e.g., NSR, PSD, SIP control strategies)
Need tools and guidance for daily/hourly compliance and enforcement applications (i.e., current AP-42 and other guidance inadequate for title V, MACT)
3
What is the State of the EF Development Program?
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05
$ M
illio
ns
Exp
en
ded
(C
on
sta
nt
20
04)
Year
Em
iss
ion
s F
ac
tor D
eman
ds
RegionalModeling
RegionalInventories
Federal
Program
Industrial
Year
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05
$ M
illio
ns
Exp
en
ded
(C
on
sta
nt
20
04)
Em
iss
ion
s F
ac
tor D
eman
ds
RegionalModeling
RegionalInventories
PSD/NSR
Federal
Program
Industrial
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05
$ M
illio
ns
Exp
en
ded
(C
on
sta
nt
20
04)
Year
Em
iss
ion
s F
ac
tor D
eman
ds
RegionalModeling
RegionalInventories
PSD/NSR Risk(NESHAP)
Federal
Program
Industrial
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05
$ M
illio
ns
Exp
en
ded
(C
on
sta
nt
20
04)
Year
Em
iss
ion
s F
ac
tor D
eman
ds
RegionalModeling
RegionalInventories
PSD/NSR
Title VPermits
ResidualRisk
Federal
Program
Industrial
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05
$ M
illio
ns
Exp
en
ded
(C
on
sta
nt
20
04)
Year
Em
iss
ion
s F
ac
tor D
eman
dsRegional
Modeling
RegionalInventories
PSD/NSR
Title VPermits
ResidualRisk
Federal
Program
Industrial
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05
$ M
illio
ns
Exp
en
ded
(C
on
sta
nt
20
04)
Year
Em
iss
ion
s F
ac
tor D
eman
ds
RegionalModeling
RegionalInventories
Federal
Program
Industrial
Year
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05
$ M
illio
ns
Exp
en
ded
(C
on
sta
nt
20
04)
Em
iss
ion
s F
ac
tor D
eman
ds
RegionalModeling
RegionalInventories
PSD/NSR
Federal
Program
Industrial
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05
$ M
illio
ns
Exp
en
ded
(C
on
sta
nt
20
04)
Year
Em
iss
ion
s F
ac
tor D
eman
ds
RegionalModeling
RegionalInventories
PSD/NSR Risk(NESHAP)
Federal
Program
Industrial
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05
$ M
illio
ns
Exp
en
ded
(C
on
sta
nt
20
04)
Year
Em
iss
ion
s F
ac
tor D
eman
ds
RegionalModeling
RegionalInventories
PSD/NSR
Title VPermits
ResidualRisk
Federal
Program
Industrial
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05
$ M
illio
ns
Exp
en
ded
(C
on
sta
nt
20
04)
Year
Em
iss
ion
s F
ac
tor D
eman
dsRegional
Modeling
RegionalInventories
PSD/NSR
Title VPermits
ResidualRisk
Federal
Program
Industrial
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-00 00-05
$ M
illio
ns
Exp
en
ded
(C
on
sta
nt
20
04)
Year
Em
iss
ion
s F
ac
tor D
eman
ds
Federal
Program
Industrial
RegionalModeling
RegionalInventories
MACT NSPS
PSDNSR
Title Vpermits
Hourly
Annual
4
What do we plan for revamping EF development program?
New EF development program based on partnerships Producing data of known quality Using standardized procedures Ready access to data
5
What do we plan for revamping EF development program? EPA leveraged partnership role
Provide oversight and guidance for data collection, analysis, and management
Catalyst for new EF development projects Emission Factor Program Contact:
Fred Thompson, 919-541-2707 ([email protected])
6
New Emission Factor Products
• Producing data of known quality
• Draft Source Test Assessment Options Paper
• Draft Adjustments for Non-Inventory Applications Options Paper
Standardized procedures Draft Electronic Automated Reporting Options Paper
Ready access to information and data Monitoring Knowledge Base Website EFPAC Information Website
Partnership products Printers Technical Support Document New chapters in AP-42 (petroleum refineries, DoE, steel)
7
Target Dates for Additional Emission Factor Products
Producing data of known quality Draft Source Test Assessment
Procedures Pilot Assessment of Adjustments for Non-
Inventory Applications Producing EFs of known quality
Standardizing procedures Draft EF Development Procedure Draft Electronic Data Automation Tools
Ready access to information & data Cold Fusion replacement for FIRE/AP-42
May 2005 August 2005
Ongoing
May 2005 June 2005
September 2005
8
The Air Toxics Ambient Monitoring Programs
NATTS (Section 103)• 23 trend sites• Measure long term program progress
Local-Scale Monitoring Projects (Section 103)
• Competitively awarded• Limited duration • Specific local-scale issues
NATTS
Local-Scale Monitoring Projects
Other Local programs (Section 105)
•S/L agency discretion
Other Local Programs
9
Air Toxics Monitoring
$6.5 million in 105 STAG, nominally $10 million in 103 STAG
Not enough for a geographically complete monitoring network like in NAAQS programs.
Actual uses have been decided by OAQPS-chaired steering committee. 22 Trends sites. 16 limited-duration local projects. OAQPS-managed projects on methods, QA, and data analysis.
STAPPA/ALAPCO was critical in FY2004 and FY2005, but for FY2006 has made specific suggestions up front.
Awaiting STAPPA/ALAPCO reaction to EMAD’s proposal on exactly how to incorporate those suggestions.
Coordinating on specifics of current round of data analysis. New staff lead in EMAD – Mike Jones Coordination within OAQPS is good Regions have issues, which are being discussed at staff and APM levels
10
11
National Air Toxics Trend Station Network (NATTS)
103 Grant funds (no matching required / greater accountability)
23 national air toxics trends sites; 17 urban / 6 rural Colocated with PM2.5 speciation samplers Focused on six priority pollutants (formaldehyde,
arsenic, chromium, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, acrolein) + light absorbing carbon
Provide core accountability measurements over time All sites follow QA program for sampling / sighting Periodic refinement of pollutants / sampling Evaluate every 6 years
12
Local-Scale Monitoring Projects
103 Grant Funds Middle and Neighborhood scale (.5km to 4 km) air quality
impacts from toxics that are not adequately detected at NATTS 10 to 20 projects are expected to be funded each year in
different locations Selected through open competition process FY2004 – $6.2 Million
16 sites recommended for award from 49 proposals Open competition following set criteria, also project types and
regional considerations in selection process All projects underway as of Jan 2005
FY2005 ~ $6.0 Million Solicitation anticipated late April 05
13
Other Local Programs
Currently $6.5 Million Local / highly flexible monitoring that enables
State / local agencies to address specific concerns Hot spots EJ Public complaints
Flexibility accompanied by matching funding requirements
Funds disbursed to States by EPA Regions
14
Air Toxics Monitoring Contacts
National Air Toxics Monitoring Program Mike Jones
(919) 541-0528
Quality Assurance Dennis Mikel
(919) 541-5511
Methods Jim Homolya
(919) 541-4039
Data Analysis Joe Touma
(919) 541-5381
15
National Monitoring Strategy - Current Events Current Air Monitoring Network National Ambient Air Strategy Involving AQ planners & S/L Air Directors NPRM on Air Monitoring Rule NCore level 2 program CASTNet role and vision IMPROVE & PM2.5 Speciation Networks Tribal Air Monitoring
16
Ozone Monitoring
17
PM2.5 Monitoring
18
Air Monitoring NetworkPollutant Number of Monitors
Ozone 1,144
Carbon Monoxide 379
Sulfur Dioxide 486
Nitrogen Dioxide 393
Lead 147
Total Suspended Particulate 120
PM10 1,027
PM2.5 (FRM) 1,182
PM2.5 (Continuous) 398
PM2.5 (Speciation) 270
19
National Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy (NAAMS)
Key Reasons for Change Monitoring programs have not had a thorough rationalization in 30 years. Time to
Recognize there is one multi-pollutant atmosphere. Re-balance priorities among purposes for ambient monitoring. Take advantage of newer technologies for resolution, efficiency, and timeliness of data. Eliminate redundant and low-value monitoring.
Process for Development Timeframe: Started in 2000. Drafts issued Sept. 2002 and April 2004. National Monitoring Strategy Steering Committee. Three topical working groups of monitoring specialists in EPA and state/local
agencies. CASAC reviews. OD and AA briefings.
Current Status – “Final Draft” Implementation
State buy-in. Rule changes. Funding shifts. Technical guidance and outreach.
20
Involving AQ Planners and S/L Air Directors Strategic vision in the NAAMS most reflects the input
from atmospheric sciences and health effects communities. The practical quality management perspective was more lightly
represented.
Now that we are on the verge of specific shifts, we will be involving state/local SIP planners and S/L Air Directors more. Actions on specific sites. Pace-of-change issues. Regional offices always make final decisions within rule provisions and
resource constraints.
21
Air Monitoring NPRM History of development
Flows logically from the NAAMS. EPA/State/Local workgroup active in 2001-2004, reviewed and provided input to
regulations in detail. Separate workgroups on QA aspects and continuous PM2.5 equivalency.
Provisions NCore level 2 requirements. Revised minimum network requirements for O3 and PM2.5 sites. Equivalency criteria for approval of PM2.5 continuous monitors. Changes in QA requirements. Requirement for 5-year cycle of network assessment.
Timing – Needs to be final to allow funding shifts to fully take place Next Steps
Group leader review/polish. Educate newly assigned OGC staff. Share key content with state/locals to foster good relations and avoid
misinformation. Start formal process to submit to OMB.
22
National Monitoring StrategyLeading Through Rules and Funding
National Monitoring StrategyRequired Monitoring
ActivitiesBy Regulation
Non-regulated Activities,but provided for as part of NMS
PM2.5 Monitoring Programs PM2.5 Monitoring Programs
PM10
NCore Level II
Ozone Monitoring Programs
Criteria Gases – CO, SO2, NO2
FRM/FEM
STN
Continuous
QA - PEP
New Measurements
Supp. Spec. Sites
Continuous Speciation
IMPROVE
Air Toxics Monitoring
NATTS
Community Projects
S/L AT monitoring
Class 1 Areas
State Protocol Sites
Pb
Ozone Monitoring
PAMS
Trace gases CO, SO2, NOy
Met: Ta, WS, WD, RH
Meteorology
Ozone Precursors NCore Level 1 Research Sites
Ammonia
Nitric Acid
CASTNet
National Performance Audit Program
Blue - 103 FundedYellow – 105 FundedYellow – 105 FundedGreen – Mixed 103, 105 and/or OAQPS FundingPurple – Not FundedGold – Funded by OAP
23
NAAMS Schedule2005 2006 2007 2008
Propose Rule Changes
Identify PM speciation sites for likely shutdown
Some states plot NCore2 precursor gas (trace gas) equipment
Plan CASTNet changes
Decide specifics of moving PM speciaion network more towards IMPROVE methods
Finalize Rule Changes
Shut down about 30-40 lowest priority speciation sites
More states join NCore2 pilot
Enhanced CASTNet sites start up
Implement change in lab analysis of carbon
Re-think long term IMPROVE network design and/or funding approach
Reductions in single-pollutant and PAMS sites
Shut down about 30- 40 low priority speciation sites
Some states start up full NCore2 sites
Restore 3.5 million to state/local operations
Phase in field changes to PM speciation network, if any
Shift cost of independent QA to 105 budget
Establish 105-funded program for collaborative regional/national analysis of ambient data
Possible changes in IMPROVE network
More reductions in single-pollutant and PAMS sites
Shut down any remaining low priority speciation sites
Remaining states start up full NCore2 sites
States maintain and/or start up non-required monitoring of local interest.
24
NCore Level 2 Program Purpose and approach
Backbone of the new multi-pollutant monitoring network. Multiple objectives, but need to stay within constrained resources. Presumes and facilitates a larger role for air quality modeling in air quality management.
Capability All pollutants relevant to ozone and PM. Real time or at least hourly. Accurate at low scale “trace” concentrations.
55 urban sites, 22 rural. About XX tentatively identified so far. Incremental additions to current sites (usually)
Status No sites actually operating with all planned capabilities. Technology try outs in progress at 5 to 10 sites per technology, as technologies are ready. We are assembling a model site on the RTP campus for technology prove out, guidance
development, and training site. Identifying other sites, with states and Regional Offices. Identifying reductions in other monitoring in 2006-2008 timeframe to allow funding of staged
deployment.
25
Working with EPA Regions, State, and local agencies on first pass at NCore Level II site recommendations:
26
CASTNet Role and Vision
Background Aimed at showing effects of regional cap-and-trade programs on ozone and acid
deposition, and the need for more reductions. About 80 sites, contractor operated, CAMD-funded at about $4 million per year. Historically, not much linked to OAQPS and state/local monitoring programs,
procedures, and data systems. OAQPS use mostly limited to air quality model validation.
Vision Bring CASTNet and state/local programs into one collaborative strategic process
and plan. Use CASTNet to introduce and train state/local staff on best technologies. Use EPA-funded CASTNet technicians to support broader range of monitoring
operations at key sites. Reduce state monitoring requirements where CASTNet provides equivalent data. Increases the effective size of the overall monitoring pie.
27
IMPROVE
Purposes Understand contributors to haze Track long-term progress on visibility Class I areas, mostly. Western emphasis.
National Park Service role Funding Issue
Much of the funding comes from the 103 PM monitoring budget and the 105 budget.
Rationale was the States’ responsibility to develop Haze SIPs and track progress. Because interstate transport is involved, not just a state-by-state decision. State Air Directors now may not all be happy with local implications of those
decisions. May prefer less on IMPROVE and more on urban problems.
28
PM2.5 Speciation Network (STN)
Purposes Crucial to telling what causes urban PM2.5 nonattainment. Crucial to air quality modeling. Useful for accountability. States/locals also view it as monitoring for diesel PM as a HAP.
54 “Trends” sites – EPA in the lead 162 “Supplemental” sites – States in the lead Original intention was to cut back Supplemental sites starting about now.
Phone calls with Regions have tentatively identified lower-value sites. Staged reduction plan: Cut about 25% SLAMS sites in FY2006 budget, about 25% more in FY2007 budget.
Keep virtually all NAMS sites. Makes resources available for NCore 2. State reactions:
Mixed reactions at monitoring expert/manager level. Some Air Directors want to go more slowly. EPA has not yet factored in diesel PM air toxics aspect of these sites.
Regions have final say on site-specific changes. Method issue
STN and IMPROVE use 2 different methods for separating carbon fractions. Other issues also. CASAC favors consistency, leans towards STN become more like IMPROVE to get there. EMAD tentatively planning on moving to IMPROVE methods, still studying how thoroughly and how quickly.
29
Tribal Air Monitoring
Up to now, little guidance from OAQPS that is specific to tribal monitoring. Regions handle project selection and funding. ORIA’s Tribal Air Monitoring Support (TAMS) center provides training on
equipment and procedures. ITEP provides training. Some Regions provide help in handling the data.
Outputs and outcomes of tribal monitoring to date are mixed and/or uncertain.
Now starting up an OAQPS & Regional project to define and develop more useful guidance document/chapter over the next year. Beth Craig request.
New IPA in EMAD – Annabelle Allison from ITEP – will be helping.
30
Ambient Air Monitoring Contacts
National Monitoring Strategy - Tim Hanley, 919-541-4417, [email protected], including: NCore level 2 program Planning Coordination NPRM on Air Monitoring Rule
IMPROVE Network, Marc Pitchford, 702-862-5432, [email protected] PM2.5 Speciation Network, Joann Rice, 919-541-3372, [email protected] CASTNet, Gary Lear, 202-343-9159, [email protected] Tribal Air Monitoring, David Lutz, 919-541-5476, [email protected] Ambient Monitoring QA, Mike Papp, 919-541-2408, [email protected]
31
Smoke Monitoring Objectives
Goal: Develop consistent, fine particulate air monitoring guidance and protocols to be used by EPA, State/Local agencies, and FLMS during wildfire emergency air monitoring episodes.
Purpose: Provide appropriate monitoring data to better protect public health from the effects of wildfire smoke.
32
Smoke Monitoring Strategy
Develop an interagency discussion group of stakeholders to share current approaches and build consensus on essential minimum needs and requirements for instrumentation, quality assurance, reporting, logistics, and staffing.
Establish a working group of State agency collaborators to work with EPA and FLMs and begin operation of portable smoke monitors for intercomparison with PM2.5 FRMs at national air monitoring sites.
Formulate a basic set of operational protocols for deploying the monitors during wildfire events and incorporate USFS remote data transmission technology experience through trial deployment during actual episodes
Address additional issues such as monitoring for other emissions constituents, public access to real time monitoring data (AIRNOW), interaction between States/EPA/FLMs during emergency actions.
Consolidate experience feedback from trial deployments and recommend draft final protocols for nationwide application.
33
Smoke Monitoring Investment
Partners: States: New Mexico, Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Montana, Colorado,
Nevada, and Idaho EPA: Regions 6,8,9,10, and OAQPS
Resources FY-04 OAQPS - purchase of one smoke monitor for each State participant and contractor
support. Fish and Wildlife-purchase two smoke monitors plus provide technical assistance for operational and logistics training from Forest Service Missoula Fire Research Laboratory. States provide study participants to collaborate and operate monitors
FY-05 OAQPS - purchase of remote data satellite transponders and contractor support for State collaborators. Forest Service-technical assistance on developing field deployment logistics and data reporting. States provide staff to test trial field deployments.
FY-06 OAQPS-provide contractor support to draft final recommended SOPs, QA guidance, data reporting, and field deployment logistics guidelines. Conduct 3 training seminars for State agencies, as appropriate.
Contact: James Homolya, 919-541-4039, [email protected]
34
This is the end – so …
Here’s the thoughts I’d like to leave you with …
Thanks for the opportunity to join your meeting.
