Data Analysis/Monitoring Session OAQPS Updates Neil Frank RPO National Workgroup Meeting Dallas TX December 3-4, 2002

Topics Reconciliation of IMPROVE/STN data and 6 sites Study (5 minutes) Urban Excess and Elevation Adjustments (20 minutes) Status of Draft Guidance Documents (5 minutes) Access to Canadian Data (5 minutes) Discussion (10 minutes)

IMPROVE/STN Intercomparisons

The 6 Site Intercomparison Collocated sampling at 6 sites –12 months sampling completed Oct –To continue most sites through July 03 One additional site operated by NYS Data will be compared for all “common” analytes –1 st year data analyses ready in March 2003

Pinnacles St Park, NY R&P Sampler

IMPROVE = 0.89STN R 2 = 0.88 New York PM-2.5 Species Data (April – Nov 01: STN vs. IMPROVE (provided by Dirk Felton, NYSDEC)

What else will help us understand IMPROVE vs. STN? Inter-lab comparison of the same quartz filters –Carbon measurements associated with the different DRI and STN analytical procedures –Detailed analysis of data and the thermograms –With help from EPA/ORD, will look for Seasonal or site differences Potential effect of predominant emission sources ? Study of shipping procedures during spring/summer ’03 Study of blank filter corrections for STN –Current focus on carbon

Urban Excess and Elevation Adjustments

From: Latest Findings on National Air Quality, 2001 Status and Trends Ambient PM2.5 Composition in Rural Areas SO4 and associated NH4 are prevalent in Rural Eastern PM2.5 IMPROVE network, 1999

From: Latest Findings on National Air Quality, 2001 Status and Trends Ambient PM 2.5 Composition in Urban Areas More Carbon and Nitrates in Urban Areas vs. Rural Areas EPA STN network, 2001

What Data are Selected for Comparison of Urban STN and Rural IMPROVE Sites? Time Period: Mar 2001-Feb 2002 Air Quality: 12-month average concentrations Measurements to account for PM2.5 mass –Sulfates, Ammonium, Nitrates –Organic Carbon (OC), Elemental Carbon(EC) –Certain Elements: Al, Si Ca, Fe, Ti To estimate crustal component Required data completeness –For each calendar quarter 50% of observations (i.e. > 15)

Data Handling Protocols How did we treat Ammonium (NH 4 + ) ? Although STN measures NH 4 at all sites, NH 4 + for STN and IMPROVE are estimated –from sulfate (SO 4 - ) & nitrate (NO 3 - ) concentrations, assuming Sulfates are ammonium sulfate, (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 Nitrates are ammonium nitrate, NH 4 NO 3 For consistency with IMPROVE

Data Handling Protocols How did we treat carbon? OC and EC data are not separately presented IMPROVE and STN use different thermo-optical techniques to measure carbon Total Carbonaceous Mass is estimated as TCM = k* OC +EC, Range of TCM is considered, with k= 1.4 and 1.8 OC is blank corrected –for STN using network-wide estimates –IMPROVE data is already corrected

Preliminary OC Blank Correction for STN Derived from network average quartz filter field blanks Appropriate to adjust annual averages Varies by 24-hr sampler volume –MetOne (SASS): 9.6 m 3 –Anderson (RASS): 10.4 m 3 –R&P: 14.4 m 3 –URG (MASS): 24 m 3 –IMPROVE: 32.8 m 3 Avg OC blank, ug/m3

PM2.5 Mass Concentration, ug/m3 OC concentration, ug/m3 Evaluation of STN OC blank correction for 12-month averages using measured OC vs PM2.5 mass

Data Handling Protocols How did we estimate “crustal” component? Crustal (fine soil) = 2.2[Al]+2.49[Si]+1.63[Ca]+2.42[Fe]+1.94[Ti] –For consistency with IMPROVE

What sites are considered? Selected Urban Sites –From EPA’s PM2.5 Speciation Trends’ Network (STN) –13 of 35 sites with complete data Selected Rural Sites –From IMPROVE Network (including protocol sites) 98 sites to describe spatial patterns 16 sites paired with the urban sites for urban-rural comparisons

EPA Speciation Trends Network 35 complete sites initially selected for analysis 35 STN sites

IMPROVE Network, Sites with “complete” data, Mar 01-Feb 02

13 Selected Urban Sites are Paired with Rural Sites for “Urban PM2.5 Excess” Calculations Fresno Indy S.L. Tulsa Missoula SLC Bronx Charlotte Baltimore Atlanta Cleveland Richmond Birmingham 16 rural IMPROVE sites 13 urban STN sites

Are the Rural IMPROVE Sites Indicative of Regional Background for Comparison to Urban Sites? Let’s look at Spatial Patterns for SO4, NO3 and Carbon

Rural Sulfates: March 01 – Feb 02

Rural Nitrates : March 01 – Feb 02 ??

Rural Total Carbonaceous Mass: March 01 – Feb 02 TCM=1.8*OC+EC

Now, lets estimate urban excess First in terms of gravimetric mass Then, specific species

Urban PM2.5 is Higher than Nearby Rural Concentrations Top: Urban Bottom: Rural 12-month average PM2.5 mass with speciation samplers

Dolly Sods, WV Rural IMPROVE site (background) Baltimore MD STN urban site Rural Concentrations Superimposed on Urban Rural Concentrations Adjusted for Elevation differential “Urban Excess” = Urban – Rural concentrations Estimated Annual “Urban Excess” for Baltimore, MD Top bars are urban concentrations Bottom bars are nearby rural concentration

Elevation adjustment is a small technical correction to the “Urban Excess” calculation Urban excess after elevation adjustment Concentration, ug/m3 Estimated Annual “Urban Excess” for Baltimore, MD Concentration at 1158m (Dolly Sods) is 12% lower than sea level

Focus on Dolly Sods, WV Average Sulfate March 01 – Feb 02 Elevation adjustment increases average DOSO sulfate to 4.8 ug/m3

Examples of Other Urban-Rural Pairings

Range of TCM based on “k”= 1.4 to 1.8 (k=1.4) Ambient Urban Excess Concentrations for 13 example areas “Urban Excess” = urban concentration – regional background TCM (k=1.4): 10.5

TCM (k=1.8) TCM (k=1.4) Crustal Concentration, ug/m3 PM2.5 Urban Excess is Mostly Carbon 12-month average PM2.5 mass and components with speciation samplers

w. FRM mass w. STN mass Carbon Excess Percentage is even higher when FRM mass is used

Status of Draft RH Guidance Documents

Regional Haze Guidance Two guidance documents prepared to support States in preparing SIPs –Draft Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule –Draft Guidance for Estimating Natural Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule

Chronology of the Guidance Review Distributed for public review in October, 2001 Notice of availability in Federal Register in December 2001 to spur additional comments Distributed for technical peer review in April, 2002 Responses in preparation by EPA/State/RPO/NPS working group (contract related delays) Revised Guidance expected January 2003

Technical Peer Review Committee –Bruce Hill Clean Air Task Force –Rich Poirot Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation –Ivar Tombach Environmental Consultant –James Watson Desert Research Institute –Warren White Washington University

Response to Comments some key points Technical peer review and public comment addressing scientific issues –Substantial rewriting of several sections and new technical appendices for clarification (not new science) –Refinements to substitution procedures -- Sensitivity analyses with new f(RH) Many editorial changes and clarifications -- Revised monthly avg f(RH)

Access to Canadian Data

North American Particulate Matter Database North American Atmospheric Chemistry (NAAtChem) Database is under development –Collaboration of National Atmospheric Chemistry (NAtChem) Database and Analysis Facility (operated by Environment Canada) and Clean Air Markets Division (EPA) with full web-based data access likely to be completed in about 6 to 12 months. In the meantime, data available by request Contacts: –Bob Vet (EC) –Gary Lear (CAMD/EPA)

What data is in NATChem? NAtChem archives 3 types of data from regional scale networks in the USA and Canada: Precipitation Chemistry, Particulate Matter and Toxics data The NAtChem Particulate Matter Database consists of –a number of US and Canadian data sets

How network differences are treated? The differences between the networks/data are documented. NatChem has converted all data to 0 deg C, 760 mm Hg except those data at ambient conditions. –Methods to further harmonize STP/LTP units underway