Transcript Document

Ambient Monitoring Update
NACAA Fall Meeting
Chet Wayland, AQAD Division Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
October 3-5, 2011
Cleveland, OH
1
Ambient Monitoring Revisions
Strategic Overview
• EPA has updated ambient monitoring requirements to
support long overdue revisions to the NAAQS
• These revisions directly support key public health related
objectives:
– Characterizing peak concentrations where people are exposed
– Providing support for air quality index notifications
– Providing information to inform control measures that lead to
compliance
• EPA has embraced a flexible and efficient monitoring
approach that emphasizes multi-pollutant monitoring,
extended deployment timelines, adequate equipment
funding, and the discontinuation of low-value monitors.
2
New Monitoring Requirements
3
Near-Road Monitoring – Protecting Public Health
In 2010, EPA strengthened the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) by adding a new 1-hour standard. The new NO2 standard protects public health by limiting short-term
exposures to NO2 concentrations that could worsen the control of asthma and that have been linked to hospital
admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory illnesses, particularly in at-risk populations such as children,
the elderly, and asthmatics.
The revised NAAQS defines the maximum allowable NO2 concentration anywhere in an area. Therefore, the degree
of public health protection envisioned under this revised standard will only be achieved if attainment/non-attainment
classifications are based on monitoring of peak 1-hour NO2 concentrations.
In considering the locations where such peak NO2 concentrations are likely to occur, we note that NO2
concentrations in many urban areas are likely to be highest around major roads. Specifically, monitoring studies and
modeling efforts indicate that NO2 concentrations in heavy traffic or near major roadways can be twice as high as
concentrations measured away from such roads, increasing exposures to ambient NO 2 for people who live, work, or
attend school near major roads and for people who spend time commuting on major roads.
Given the elevated NO2 concentrations near major roads and the potential for peak human exposures to occur on or
near such roads, and given that the public health protection envisioned under the revised NO 2 NAAQS depends on
States monitoring peak 1-hour NO2 concentrations, the final NO2 NAAQS requires monitors near major roadways in
large urban areas. Only with these near-road monitors in place will the revised NO2 NAAQS lead to the degree of
public health protection envisioned in the final rule.
4
NO2 - Near-road Monitoring Plan
• EPA and NACAA have developed the Build and Hold plan
to initially deploy near-road NO2 monitors in areas >1M
population (subset of original requirements).
– Monitors to be deployed over two years (2013 and 2014)
– Section 103 funding to cover establishment costs such as
planning, construction, permits, shelters, monitors, etc.
• $5M in FY11 funds to be distributed this fall for phase 1
• $5M in FY12 funds requested for phase 2
– Resulting ambient data will inform further network decisions
– Detailed siting Technical Assistance Document and Build and
Hold Q&A’s have been developed
– Consistent with CASAC advice to deploy in stages
• Near-road network critical aspect of NAAQS revision since
level was chosen to represent peak exposure locations
5
CO - Near-road Monitoring Plan
• EPA recently finalized revisions to CO monitoring
requirements as part of NAAQS review. Near-road CO
monitors (total = 52) required at NO2 sites as follows:
– CBSA’s of >2.5M population by January 1, 2015
– CBSA’s of >1M population by January 1, 2017
• EPA expects existing CO monitors will be relocated
to near-road sites, noting:
– There are no requirements for other CO monitors except for ~80
NCore stations that are already operating (total of 313 CO monitors
in operation during 2011)
– Hundreds of low reading CO monitors are being operated
nationally (slide 12)
– EPA regional office experience has demonstrated that CO monitors
can be discontinued even if referenced in maintenance plans and
6
SIP’s
Summary:
EPA’s Adjustments to NO2/CO Requirements to Address
Burden Concerns
 Downsized NO2 network with Build and Hold plan; staggered
deployment as recommended by NACAA and CASAC; paid for by
§103 funds
 Future network build-out based on resulting data
 Modest CO network that leverages multi-pollutant concept and
acknowledges opportunities for legacy monitor divestment and
relocation; extended timelines to 2017
 EPA support for review of existing NO2 sites to satisfy area-wide
and 40 “Sensitive and Vulnerable population” monitor
requirements (next slide)
7
Meeting the NO2 Sensitive & Vulnerable
Population Monitoring Requirement
Overview:
40 “additional”
monitors are required
in areas with sensitive
and vulnerable
populations
Using a prototype
EPA tool to identify
“Areas of Concern”,
EPA has identified
128 NO2 monitors
being operated in
such areas
We recommend that
RA’s work with states
to identify which
monitors will be used
to meet requirements
Document in Annual
Monitoring Network
Plans due July 1,
2012
8
Legacy Monitoring Requirements
Question:
What opportunities for divestment exist
across the country?
Using SO2, NO2, and CO as examples to
compare actual network size to current
federal requirements
9
SO2 Monitors – Active in 2011
SO2 by the
Numbers:
Active = 424
Required by
CFR = 129
Excess in CBSA
areas = 112
Additional
excess = 183
A few of these
monitors are for
the NCore network
Objectives for
remaining
monitors should
be reviewed
10
NO2 Monitors – Active in 2011
NO2 by the
Numbers:
Active = 364
Required by CFR
= 52
Excess in CBSA
areas = 126
Additional
excess = 186
Objectives for
remaining
should be
reviewed
Some monitors
can be used
to
11
meet “RA 40”
CO Monitors – Active in 2011
CO by the
Numbers:
Active = 313
Required by CFR
NCore = 81
near-road = 52
(2015/2017)
Excess = 180
Objectives for
excess monitors
should be
reviewed
12
Recommendations
 States are running far more SO2, NO2, and CO
monitors than required by current federal requirements
 These networks, along with PM10, should be closely
reviewed for redundancy and value on a monitor-bymonitor basis
 Work with your EPA Regional Office to develop plans for
monitor divestment and/or relocation
 Resulting burden reduction in monitor operations,
quality assurance, and data validation and reporting can
partially offset new requirements such as near-road and
lead monitoring
13
Additional Monitoring Burden Reductions
• Status of ozone monitoring final rule under review
– No new monitors
– Ozone monitoring seasons may be expanded as appropriate to
support NAAQS if rule goes forward
• Proposed secondary NOx/SOx monitoring framework
will not require new state/local operated monitors
– Plan is to leverage existing CASTNET framework in 3-5
sensitive eco-regions
• EPA not currently envisioning network expansion for
PM2.5 or to support characterization of urban visibility
• Final lead monitoring plan eliminated separate nonsource network and reduced airport monitoring from ~70
locations with > 0.5 TPY emissions to only 15 airports
with higher NAAQS risk (next slide)
14
Lead Monitoring Requirements
• Section 105 funding for ½ TPY lead sources
distributed last spring
– Additional sites to be operational by December 27, 2011
– Network size smaller than anticipated due to waiver
provisions and reduced emissions in updated NEI
• Section 103 funding for 15 airport sites was
distributed to affected regions in August
– All sites are on schedule to commence their 1-year of
monitoring by December 27, 2011
– Monitors readings > 50% of NAAQS will become
permanent
15
Key Monitoring Issues For Your Staff
Network Investments
• Build and Hold (NO2) states should be reviewing near-road
Technical Assistance Document and starting dialogue with
Regions regarding funding and siting
– http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/nearroad.html
• States should be reviewing existing NO2 and SO2 monitors
to assess compliance with NO2 area-wide requirement
(CBSA’s > 1M), EJ requirement, and PWEI minimums (SO2)
– EPA supports use of existing monitors to meet requirements where
appropriate
• Fully implement NCore multi-pollutant sites and focus on data
quality and reporting issues for newer measurements such as
high-sensitivity gases and PM10-2.5 mass.
16
Key Monitoring Issues For Your Staff
Network Efficiencies
• States should be implementing 2010 network assessment
recommendations and discontinue legacy CO, SO2, NO2, and
PM10 monitors not needed for federal requirements, overarching
state/local needs, or national heath studies
– Commence discussions with regions to prioritize and discontinue these
monitors utilizing annual network monitoring plan process
– Determine necessary steps for revising maintenance plans that reference
monitors
• Review continuous PM2.5 FEM operating procedures and conduct
data quality comparisons with FRM’s to evaluate method
performance and identify areas for improvement
– Supports potential divestment of some manual FRM’s
• Consider replacing archaic state data systems with newer data
management products that support automated control of monitor
calibrations, monitor diagnostics, and data screening, flagging, and
reporting actions
– http://www.epa.gov/networkg/
17
PM2.5 FEM Data Quality Issues
• Issue
– Continuous FEMs do not achieve the same performance in the
field, and generate data that are biased high (compared to FRM) in
areas with high humidity, high nitrates, and urban aerosol.
– Positive bias of continuous FEMs is an issue for areas near the
NAAQS as possible risk of non-attainment
• What is EPA doing to enable State/local Monitoring agencies to
be successful with PM2.5 continuous FEMs?
– Technical note on PM2.5 FEM data reporting provides for use of FEM for up
to 24 months as an SPM without comparison to NAAQS.
– Developed consensus SOP’s for the most widely used continuous PM
methods
– Working closely with multiple stakeholders such as the NACAA monitoring
steering committee, ORD, and the instrument companies.
– Implementing recommendations from NACAA monitoring steering
committee:
•
•
•
Tool for monitoring agencies to quickly assess their continuous FEM data quality
Providing flexibility for monitoring agencies to determine if their continuous FEM provides data
of sufficient comparability to collocated FRM for comparison to the NAAQS - planned for
inclusion in PM NAAQS/monitoring proposal.
Troubleshooting/Best practices document for each of the major deployed continuous FEMs to 18
assist monitoring agencies with improving data quality
Questions?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
19