Ozone and Lead Monitoring Issues Under Revised NAAQS

1
Ozone and Lead Monitoring Issues Under Revised
NAAQS

• Monitoring Steering Committee
• June 21-22, 2007
• Washington, DC
• Phil Lorang, OAQPS

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
Non-Issues

• Criteria and procedures for approval of reference
  and equivalent methods.
• QA goals and QA requirements for ozone monitoring.

4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
What Will Automatically Happen To Monitoring
Network Requirements?

• About 100 MSAs lt350,000 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
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
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)