1. Ozone and Lead Monitoring Issues Under Revised NAAQS Monitoring Steering Committee June 21-22, 2007 Washington, DC Phil Lorang, OAQPS

2. 2 The Ozone NAAQS NPRM… Gives background facts on ozone monitoring. Current network, method, etc. What will automatically happen to monitoring network requirements. Identifies monitoring issues under revised NAAQS. Says that EPA may make specific proposals regarding monitoring requirements later. Invites comment.

3. 3 Non-Issues Criteria and procedures for approval of reference and equivalent methods. QA goals and QA requirements for ozone monitoring.

6. 6 What Will Automatically Happen To Monitoring Network Requirements? About 100 MSAs <350,000 population now without any monitor to provide a design value will continue to not be required to monitor. Unless we break some new ground on how to estimate a design values for purposes of network requirements. Assuming a NAAQS of 0.070 ppm, about 70 more areas’ design values would fall on the “high” side of 85%. Only about 5 new monitors would be needed overall. The other 65 newly required monitors are already there. Ozone seasons would stay the same. Regional Administrators can approve a shorter season, but cannot impose a longer season without rulemaking.

7. 7 What about Rural Areas and the Secondary NAAQS? Secondary NAAQS would be mostly aimed at reducing forest and crop damage. Virtually every part of the U.S. has sensitive species. Rural SLAMS, NPS and possibly CASTNET ozone monitors could support designations in the near term, but only in spots. NPRM will propose a range of both primary and secondary NAAQS, with widely varying implications for overlap of nonattainment.

8. “Raw” CMAQ Results

9. 9 Coming Next: Lead NAAQS Final rule due Sept. 1, 2008. NAAQS may be revised enough to make 10-30% of existing monitors show violations. Monitoring Rule Issues: Existing network is very spotty. How many more monitors are needed? Where? Keep high vol TSP or move to low vol TSP or PM10? How? Current FEM approval criteria require field testing in a high-Pb atmosphere; not feasible now. Revising FRM to specify low vol sampler risking without a field demonstration first. Sampling frequency. QA – collocation, flow checks, etc. Meanwhile: Go slower on Pb monitor removals? Make sure data in AQS has correct method code, if actually FRM/FEM. Know any States interested in a low vol TSP sampler field study?

10. Existing TSP Pb Monitors (Reference/Equivalent and non-Reference/Equivalent)