Adam N. Pasch 1, Ashley R. Russell 1, Leo Tidd 2, Douglas S. Eisinger 1, Daniel M. Alrick 1, Hilary R. Hafner 1, and Song Bai 1 1 Sonoma Technology, Inc.,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ambient Air Monitoring for the Revised Lead NAAQS Daniel Garver US EPA Region 4.
Advertisements

Exceptional Events Elements of an Effective Demonstration Darren Palmer US EPA Region 4.
How Will Georgia-Florida Wildfires Affect Regional Air Quality Planning? Wes Younger Georgia Environmental Protection Division.
Available Analytical Approaches for Estimating Fire Impacts on Ozone Formation Hilary Hafner Stephen Reid Clinton MacDonald Sonoma Technology, Inc. Petaluma,
EPA PM2.5 Modeling Guidance for Attainment Demonstrations Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS February 20, 2007.
TCEQ Air Permits Division Justin Cherry, P.E. Ahmed Omar Stephen F. Austin State University February 28, 2013.
EPA’s Lead Modeling Study at the Santa Monica Airport Kim Hoang, PhD, MPH EPA Region 9.
Maricopa County Air Quality Department 1001 North Central Ave. Phoenix, Arizona Maricopa County Air Quality Department Protecting and improving our.
Modeling Guidance and Examples for Commonly Asked Questions (Part 1) Rachel Melton and Matthew Kovar Air Permits Division Texas Commission on Environmental.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for NO 2 and SO 2 – New Modeling Challenges August 4, 2011 Air & Waste Management Association – Southern Section.
ADEQ Uses of ICF Modeling Analysis Tony Davis, Branch Manager – Air Planning Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Criteria Pollutant Modeling Analysis.
How Ozone is Regulated under the Clean Air Act Darcy J. Anderson AZ Dept. of Environmental Quality.
Exceptional Events: Lessons Learned Eric C. Massey, Director Air Quality Division Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Phoenix, AZ July 5, 2011Credit:
Prepared by Hilary Hafner, Daniel Alrick, ShihMing Huang, and Adam Pasch Sonoma Technology, Inc. Petaluma, CA Presented at the 2010 National Air Quality.
OTAG Air Quality Analysis Workgroup Volume I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Dave Guinnup and Bob Collom, Workgroup co-chair “Telling the ozone story with data”
Department of the Environment The State Implementation Plan Process – Our Next Steps Brian Hug Division Chief, Air Quality Planning and Policy Division.
1 An Update on EPA Attainment Modeling Guidance for the 8- Hour Ozone NAAQS Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS/EMAD/AQMG November 16, 2005.
Presenting Evidence to Justify Data Exclusion as an Exceptional Event Ideas based on how EPA has recently documented events to support regulatory decisions.
CAPITA CAPITA PM and Ozone Analysis A. PM2.5 National Maps B. Visibility (PM2.5) trends C. Natural (out of EPA jurisdiction) Events D. US-Canada Ozone.
Developing a High Spatial Resolution Aerosol Optical Depth Product Using MODIS Data to Evaluate Aerosol During Large Wildfire Events STI-5701 Jennifer.
11 Exceptional Event Case Studies Clark County, Nevada WESTAR-EPA Meeting San Francisco, CA February 25, 2009.
Available Analytical Approaches for Estimating Fire Impacts on Ozone Formation Stephen Reid Sean Raffuse Hilary Hafner Sonoma Technology, Inc. Petaluma,
Clinton MacDonald 1, Kenneth Craig 1, Jennifer DeWinter 1, Adam Pasch 1, Brigette Tollstrup 2, and Aleta Kennard 2 1 Sonoma Technology, Inc., Petaluma,
Technical Support for Exceptional Event Analysis for Volcano Impacts on PM2.5 in Hawaii using the Exceptional Event Decision Support System (EE DSS)EE.
Exceptional Event Decision Support System (EE DSS) Illustration for PM2.5 Exceedances The EE DSS is a screening tool for EE flagging. It uses the regulatory.
Recent Developments in Transportation Conformity Beverly Chenausky Multimodal Planning Division – Air Quality Breakout Session: Transportation Conformity/Air.
EER Workgroup Conference Call August 27, 2009 Call Outline 1.Review prior discussions on process and goal (10 min) 2.Overview of draft recommendations.
Treatment of Natural Events WESTAR Planning Committee & WESTAR NEP Workgroup March 28, 2006.
Causes of Haze Update Prepared by Marc Pitchford for the 5/24/05 AoH conference call.
Use of Photochemical Grid Modeling to Quantify Ozone Impacts from Fires in Support of Exceptional Event Demonstrations STI-5704 Kenneth Craig, Daniel Alrick,
Presenting Evidence to Justify Data Exclusion as an Exceptional Event Ideas based on how EPA has recently documented events to support regulatory decisions.
Exceptional Events Meredith Kurpius US EPA Region 9.
Exceptional Events and Fire Matthew Lakin, Ph.D. Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office U.S. EPA, Region 9 Interagency Air and Smoke Council Meeting May.
EPA’s DRAFT SIP and MODELING GUIDANCE Ian Cohen EPA Region 1 December 8, 2011.
Project Outline: Technical Support to EPA and RPOs Estimation of Natural Visibility Conditions over the US Project Period: June May 2008 Reports:
Pesticide Spray Drift Conference September 5 and 6, 2001 AgDRIFT® Dave Esterly Environmental Focus, Inc
Techniques for Evaluating Wildfire Smoke Impact on Ozone for Possible Exceptional Events Daniel Alrick 1, Clinton MacDonald 1, Brigette Tollstrup 2, Charles.
1 Emission and Air Quality Trends Review Central States May 2013.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Carolina Environmental Programs Models-3 Adel Hanna Carolina Environmental Program University of North Carolina.
Indiana Department of Environmental Management 2009 Fine Particles (PM 2.5 ) Summary Report Office of Air Quality.
Current and Future Air Quality Issues Facing the States Bart Sponseller Air Management Bureau Director Joseph Hoch Regional Pollutants Section Chief NASA.
1 Exceptional Events Rulemaking Proposal General Overview March 1, 2006 US EPA.
August 1999PM Data Analysis Workbook: Characterizing PM23 Spatial Patterns Urban spatial patterns: explore PM concentrations in urban settings. Urban/Rural.
1 Modeling Under PSD Air quality models (screening and refined) are used in various ways under the PSD program. Step 1: Significant Impact Analysis –Use.
Role of AIRNow during Air Emergency Response Prepared by: Timothy S. Dye, Alan C. Chan, and Stephanie A. Bratek AIRNow Data Management Center Sonoma Technology,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS Air Quality Update Regional Council February 28, 2007.
Exceptional Events and Fire Policy Presented by Don Hodge, U.S. EPA Region 9 Interagency Air and Smoke Council meeting May 2, 2012 Disclaimer: Positions.
1 The Exceptional Events Rule (EER) Overview Tom Link EPA – OAQPS Geographic Strategies Group Westar Meeting, San Francisco, February 25, 2009.
Concepts on Aerosol Characterization R.B. Husar Washington University in St. Louis Presented at EPA – OAQPS Seminar Research Triangle Park, NC, April 4,
August 1999PM Data Analysis Workbook: Characterizing PM23 Spatial Patterns Urban spatial patterns: explore PM concentrations in urban settings. Urban/Rural.
Exceptional Air Pollution Events: Exceedances due to Natural/Non-recurring Events R. B. Husar, Washington U.; R.L Poirot, Vermont Dep. Env. Cons.; N. Frank,
Integration of Satellite and Surface Observations during Exceptional Air Quality Events R.B. Husar, Washinton University N. Frank, US EPA R. Poroit, State.
AoH Work Group Weight of Evidence Framework WRAP Meeting – Tucson, AZ January 10/11, 2006 Joe Adlhoch - Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
Stephen F. Austin State University February 27, 2014 Justin Cherry, P.E. Reece Parker TCEQ Air Permits Division.
Response to the Bohnecamp memo Rudy Husar Kari Hoijarvi, Washington University, St. EE Detection – Which monitors.
Concepts on Aerosol Characterization R.B. Husar Washington University in St. Louis Presented at EPA – OAQPS Seminar Research Triangle Park, NC, April 4,
Fire impacts – Natural event data exclusions/ozone monitoring Colleen Delaney, Utah Division of Air Quality March 11, 2004.
Analysis of RRF and Exceptional Events Source: Robert Elleman EPA Region 10.
Regulatory background How these standards could impact the permitting process How is compliance with the standards assessed.
Implementation of Exceptional and Natural Events Policies and Rules in Arizona Ira Domsky, Deputy Director February 25, 2009.
Department of Air Quality Exceptional Event Streamlining, Standardization & Coordination CDAWG November, 2015 Clark County.
Exceptional Events Rule
Predicting PM2.5 Concentrations that Result from Compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) James T. Kelly, Adam Reff, and Brett Gantt.
High Wind Blowing Dust April 29, 2011 Exceptional Event
Daily Screening for Wildfire Impacts on Ozone using a Photochemical Model A Proposal to the Texas Near-Nonattainment Areas Greg Yarwood
WESTAR Recommendations Exceptional Events EPA response
Exceptional Events Rulemaking Proposal
Exceptional and Natural Events Rulemaking
Workshop Technical and Policy Studies to Support the Annex
Presentation transcript:

Adam N. Pasch 1, Ashley R. Russell 1, Leo Tidd 2, Douglas S. Eisinger 1, Daniel M. Alrick 1, Hilary R. Hafner 1, and Song Bai 1 1 Sonoma Technology, Inc., Petaluma, CA 2 The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Morristown, NJ for National Cooperative Highway Research Program AASHTO Standing Committee on the Environment NCHRP 25-25/Task 89 August 20, 2014 Establishing Representative Background Concentrations for Quantitative Hot-Spot Analyses for Particulate Matter STI-6051

2 NCHRP Background PM Study Overview –Project motivation –Research purpose EPA guidance NCHRP study (focus of this presentation) –Ambient data use Four-step method Phoenix, AZ examples –CTM use Future research needs

Project Motivation Background concentrations are required for PM hot-spot analysis Determination of representative background concentrations is critical (especially when the project increment is small) Current guidance is limited on how to assess representativeness 3 Overview

Research Purpose NCHRP Task 89 –Support PM hot-spot analyses –Develop step-by-step methods –Create illustrative examples and template Key technical issues –Selection of representative monitor(s) –Identification of exceptional or exceptional-type events 4 Overview

1.Estimate background PM concentrations using ambient data (three years) –Single representative monitor –Interpolation among representative monitors 2.Calculate background PM concentrations using chemical transport modeling (CTM) outputs (not discussed in this talk) Interagency consultation is required. 5 EPA Guidance: Two Methods EPA Guidance

Exceptional events: unusual or naturally occurring events that affect air quality but are not reasonably controllable (NAAQS violation). –Require a detailed demonstration to be submitted and approval by EPA to remove data –Regulatory impact Exceptional-type events (no NAAQS violation or no demonstration packet submitted). Handled as research only at this time. 6 EPA Guidance: Exceptional Events (EEs) EPA Guidance

1.Select representative PM monitoring site(s). 2.Acquire and process PM concentration data. 3.Assess data quality and representativeness. 4.Calculate background PM concentrations, following EPA requirements. Determine data impacted by an exceptional-type or air transport event and document and remove these data from consideration (research purposes only). 7 NCHRP Study Using Ambient Data: Major Steps

Considerations include Distance from project site Wind patterns (upwind of project preferred) Land use/density/mix of sources Monitor height and elevation Monitor type and purpose Data availability and completeness Interagency consultation 8 Step 1: Select Representative Monitor Site NCHRP Study

9 Identify Candidate Monitors and Data Example: PM 10 monitor sites and data acquisition from EPA AirData website. Hypothetical Project Location NCHRP Study

10 Assess Meteorology and Land Use Example above: wind rose created using the AirNow-Tech website. Example below: Map of land use types based on USGS data. NCHRP Study

Sources include AirData (replaces AirExplorer – linked to AQS) – recommended by EPA guidance AirNow-Tech (backfilled with AQS data) AQS Data Mart AQS Web Application Local air quality agency 11 Step 2: Acquire and Process PM Data NCHRP Study

12 Example of PM Data Acquisition Methods Example below: data acquisition from the AirNow-Tech website. Example above: data acquisition from the AirData website. NCHRP Study

Identify and remove concurred EEs Cautionary notes for AirData users –AirData flags data as Exceptional, but not Exceptional and concurred –Analysts need to manually identify and exclude concurred EEs within AirData Check data completeness (75% by quarter, over three years minimum) Identify exceptional-type events (research) 13 Step 3: Assess Quality, Representativeness NCHRP Study

Considerations Temperature (was residential wood burning likely?) Visibility Wind (i.e., wind speeds greater than 25 mph) Smoke or haze reported (or smoke plumes evident from satellite observations) Transport (i.e., trajectories from a source region) 14 Screen Anomalous PM Data Exceptional-type events Air transport events Research only: NCHRP Study

15 Data obtained from AirNow backfilled with AQS data. Phoenix PM 10 Data: Exceptional Event NCHRP Study

16 Met. Data: Blowing Dust All Quadrants BLDU ALQDS = Blowing Dust All Quadrants Haze NCHRP Study

17 Visibility Photos: August 3, :00 a.m.3:00 a.m. Source of images: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) NCHRP Study

18 Step 4: Calculate Background PM PM 10 design value –24-hr maximum over three years PM 2.5 design value –Annual average: average for each quarter, then average for each year over three years –24-hr Tier 1 – simpler, more conservative design values Tier 2 – more complex NCHRP Study

Using 2010–2012 data –Before= 341 µg/m 3 Removing PM 10 data –All exceptional events 144 µg/m 3 –Exceptional-type events 129 µg/m 3 (research) (24-hr PM 10 NAAQS = 150 µg/m 3 ) 19 Step 4: Calculate Background PM 2010 to 2012 maximum daily PM 10 concentrations for the Central Phoenix Monitor (based on data obtained from AirData). NCHRP Study

Using CTM Data: Considerations Reviewed CTM information available from EPA rulemakings and SIP submissions Limited utility of this method because of –Limited future-year emissions data (estimates out of date) –Documentation of CTM may be inadequate –May require extensive interagency consultation to understand CTM setup and applicability 20 NCHRP Study

21 Future Research Needs EPA-approvable data exclusion methods to handle exceptional-type events. Help to obtain CTM outputs for use in forecasting future background PM concentrations. Best practices and lessons learned from real-world PM hot-spot analyses. Processes to encourage SIP development to support background PM estimation.

22 Conclusions Monitor site selection will be influenced by many practical considerations ; multiple sites may be needed for large, spatially complex projects. Project analysts should budget analyses to cover complex data processing such as exceptional event removal and multi-year data assessments. Exceptional-type events can substantially impact background concentrations.