1. PM 2.5 in the Upper Midwest Michael Koerber Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium

2. Cite: The Health Effects of Air Pollution on Children, Dr. Michael Kleinman, UC-Irvine, September 19, 2000

3. PM 2.5 particles are so small that 30 of them side-by- side would barely equal the width of a human hair (graphic courtesy of U.S. Department of Energy)

4. PM 2.5 v. PM 10 v. TSP Cite: NARSTO Fine Particle Assessment Review Draft, August 15, 2001

5. PM NAAQS TSP (1971): Annual = 75 ug/m 3 24-hour = 260/150 ug/m 3 PM 10 (July 1987): Annual = 50 ug/m 3 24-hour = 150 ug/m 3 PM 2.5 (July 1997): Annual = 15 ug/m 3 24-hour = 65 ug/m 3 (98th percentile)

6. Regulatory Schedule 2002: 3 years data available (‘99 - ’01) Dec 2003: Finalize review of PM NAAQS 2003-4: State recommendations for designating nonattainment areas 2004-5: EPA designates areas (per TEA-21 legislation) 2007-8: States submit SIPs with control strategies for PM 2.5 and haze

7. PM 2.5 Monitoring Data State Monitors FRMs (filter-based), continuous, speciation IMPROVE (rural) Special Studies Upper Ohio River Valley Study (DOE) Midwestern Aerosol Characterization Study (EPRI)

9. IMPROVE (rural sites)

10. Seney NWR, Michigan

11. Key Points Compliance with NAAQS: –nonattainment of annual standard likely over broad region of eastern U.S. (and CA), including across IL-IN-OH-SE MI Data analyses show… –Temporally: (1) concentrations relatively consistent throughout the year, with some seasonal variation (higher levels during winter [urban] and summer; and (2) daily concentrations present public health issues –Spatially: regional contributions dominate –Chemically: (1) sulfates and organics (urban) dominate, and (2) nitrates important during winter PM 2.5 - regional haze - ozone related, which suggests need for integrated SIP planning

12. Annual Average Concentrations FRM Data (1999 - 2000)

14. 24-Hour Average Concentrations FRM Data (1999 - 2000)

15. Number of Sites > NAAQS 1999 - 2000

16. Conceptual Model of PM 2.5 Spatial Variations Temporal Variations Chemical Variations Meteorological Conditions Multi-Pollutant Relationships (PM 2.5 -haze- ozone)

17. Annual Average Concentrations IMPROVE/CASTNet Data (1997 - 1999)

18. Urban v. Rural (Annual Average Concentrations)

19. Urban v. Rural (DOE Upper Ohio River Valley Study) Cite: Semi-Annual Technical Progress Report, ATS, Oct. 31, 2001

22. Urban v. Rural

23. Air Quality Index Category PM 2.5 O 3 (8-hour) Good 0 - 15ug/m 3 0 - 64ppb Moderate 15 - 40 65 - 84 Unhealthy for sensitive groups 40 - 65 85 - 104 Unhealthy 65 - 150105 -124 Very unhealthy 150 - 250125 - 374

24. High Daily Concentrations Effect on Public Health

25. Ozone v. PM 2.5 AQI Days 1/1/99 - 9/30/01

26. Chemical Composition - Rural Sites IMPROVE/CASTNet Data (1997 - 1999)

27. Chemical Composition - Rural

29. Chemical Composition - Rural/Urban

30. Meteorological Conditions (Back Trajectories)

31. Contoured Trajectories: Cincinnati

32. Regression Trees (met only): Cincinnati northerly winds, low wind speed southerly winds northerly winds, high wind speed

33. PM 2.5 v. Visibility Ozone v. Visibility

34. Wrap-Up Summary of Key Points Future Issues

35. Key Points Compliance with NAAQS: –nonattainment of annual standard likely over broad region of eastern U.S. (and CA), including across IL-IN-OH-SE MI Data analyses show… –Temporally: (1) concentrations relatively consistent throughout the year, with some seasonal variation (higher levels during winter [urban] and summer; and (2) daily concentrations present public health issues –Spatially: regional contributions dominate –Chemically: (1) sulfates and organics (urban) dominate, and (2) nitrates important during winter PM 2.5 - regional haze - ozone related, which suggests need for integrated SIP planning

36. Future Issues Technical –More data analysis (source apportionment) –Understanding response to emission reductions Programmatic –Public outreach (PM2.5 and ozone) –Nonattainment designations –PM-coarse