Written updates were provided by CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, RI, and NESCAUM (NAMAC members can be contacted for copies)
NY highlighted its NYC asthma study. Surprised by level of community interest (often skeptical) in monitor location and operation. NJ doing similar, smaller study. Other monitoring-related asthma studies noted to be underway in the eastern U.S.
MA distributed copies of its annual air quality report

AIRS Re-Engineering (Jake Summers and Chuck Isbell, OAQPS):

There will be two identical but separate databases, one for public access, one for registered users
Relational Oracle database
AIRS-WEB replacing AIRS-EXEC
Fixed format reports and browse tools
http://www.epa.gov/airsweb
Project timeline:
6/97 Functional specs
9/97 Interim database
4/98 Operational

PM_2.5 Monitoring Resource Allocation (discussion lead by Norm Beloin, EPA-NE):

Allocation mechanism to be published in Federal Register
A memo is expected from John Seits outlining the 103 grant process (not subject to PPA)
EPA expects to deliver 50 "early-use" monitors toto the regions during winter of 98, slated for PAMS sites
EPA budgeting $1,000 per site for data analysis
Delivery of most monitors would not begin until summer of 98, which leaves about 6 months to set up 1100 monitors. Other timing issues discussed.
$10.9M may be available in FY-98 (6.4 reprogrammed + 4.5 new). An additional $10-25M should be available from Congress. These funds would support operation of about 510 monitors, including equipment purchase, O&M, characterization studies, and speciation. About $35.9M would be needed for 1100 monitors.
Allocation of supplemental monitors (700) – (1) three per state, (2) Class I areas currently without monitoring, and (3) give most to states with top 20% of the counties based on emissions and/or population.

Roundtable Discussion on PM_2.5 Monitoring: The following issues were identified as critical to state implementation of the PM_2.5 network and were noted for further and ongoing discussion:

National contract for equipment purchase (freedom of choice, timing of delivery, levels of participation [e.g., opting in/out])
Establishing new sites within alloted time frame
Sheer number of proposed sites will be very difficult to establish and operate
EPA expects majority of monitors to be deployed in 98, minority in 99. States would prefer more flexibility over the two-year phase-in
Opportunities for regional-level activities to save resources, especailly wrt QA and speciation.
Explore areas where flexibility exists – e.g., not all 1500 sites have to be SLAMS, supplemental sites may only have to sample 1/6 days, extend from 4 to 5 the maximum number of days a filter can reside in a monitor after sample collection.
Some concern about how to move the data from the monitor to the lab to AIRS – capabilities of portable computers in the field, compatability among different monitor types, etc.

Manpower was noted as a major hurdle to PM_2.5 implementation. Three options exist where states can not acquire enough FTEs in-house:

State assignee program (EPA employees assigned to state offices) – doubtful option
Contractor hired by the state to operate monitors
Contractor hired by multi-state organization (e.g., NESCAUM) on behalf of states

VT noted guidance (e.g., network design) as key hurdle to implementation, not manpower.

Norm Beloin is taping the October 14 broadcast of regional haze and PM_2.5 monitoring rules

Chralie Pietarinen (NJ DEP) presented some data on collocated ozone and continuous PM_2.5 measurements, including their spatial correlation and airmass origins.

Alan VanArsdale (EPA-NE) presented information on Hg and ion precipitation concentrations at various sites in the Northeast.

Continued Discussion of PM_2.5 Monitoring:

Neil Frank (OAQPS) made available a report on FRM field study results and a draft version of the network design guidance document
Norm Beloin summarized QA requirements and resources they will entail
All NESCAUM states prefer (or at least endorse) a regionally centrallized auditing program
Many QA activities not reqiured until 1/99; need 6-9 months to set up regional contract
Vast majority of NESCAUM states expect (or prefer) to outsource site operation or gravimetric analysis, perhaps with exception of year 1. CT uncertain. Decisions frequently rest on availability/capability of health departments.
EPA-NE considering a blanket statement allowing for 1/6 day sampling at PM-10 monitors
States would like a workshop to discuss experiences operating various types and brands of instruments. Particularly interested in how various FRM prototypes compare under various environmental conditions.

PAMS Operation Issues:

Al Leston (CT DEP) noted possible biocantamination in Nafion dryer. Moisture responsive. Living on HC debris? Acetic acid (byproduct) affecting results at far end of chromatogram.
Al Leston also noted that Perkin Elmer increased max temp to the point where it exceeds column specs. This was done as part of pre-season service and may have sensitized column to acetic acid contamination. Observing a large rise in baseline before final compounds eluted – referred to as the "creeping crud."
Alan Oi (EPA-NE) reviewed PAMS QA results.

Training:

Don Steele (MA DEP) summarized some of the discussions among EPA and state representatives concerning training for PM_2.5 monitoring. Don will continue to monitor this progress and provide input where needed.
Rich Poirot (VT DEC) summarized EPA’s plans for enhancing state data analysis capabilities. Funds are available from NESCAUM to support training in this area. Several options were presented by Rich and feedback was solicited from the Committee and other interested persons. A survey form was distributed by Rich to facilitate feedback.

States were asked by NESCAUM to consider the possibility of making ozone data collected by the ozone map publicly available in a database format that could be querried on line for basic information such as how many exceedances have occurred at sites A and B this month.

Paul Sanborn (NH DES) was selected as the Committee chair for the next year. The Committee decided that it is preferable to have a single chairperson, rather than two co-chairs. In the future, the chairperson will be selected annually according to the alphabetical order of the states.

Action Items

Draft a memo to Bill Hunt (OAQPS-EMAD Director) describing our main concerns at this time with the implementation process.
Try to set up a workwhop to share experiences operating various types of monitors under various environmental conditions. Invite MARAMA (and other?) regions to attend.
NESCAUM to distribute copies of reports brought by Neil Frank.
Provide feedback to Rich Poirot on data analysis training.
Provide feedback to NESCAUM on a proposal to let a contract for analyzing ozone, PAMS, and met data to characterize days dominated by 8-hr rather than 1-hr exceedances.

NESCAUM Update

Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Committee Meeting

September 29 – 30, 1997

Ozone

· Exceedances of the 1-hr ozone standard were tracked this summer throughout the U.S. A summary of exceedances in the OTR is attached. Additional information is available on the NEARDAT web site (capita.wustl.edu/NEARDAT). The ozone mapping system was extremely helpful in tracking exceedances.

· A "rapid response database" of 1-hr ozone exceedances in the NESCAUM region was assembled from AIRS. A sample of this database for the state of CT is attached. The database should provide NESCAUM and others with a useful historical and regional context for responding to public inquiries during and shortly after high ozone events.

· EPA-NE and NESCAUM coordinated regional carbonyl sampling on non-routine, intensive episode days. A summary of results are attached.

Ozone Mapping

· Maps were made publicly available on Aug. 7, 1997.

· An aggressive outreach campaign coordinated press releases, obtained TV news coverage, and produced printed material and public service announcements. The campaign also resulted in a partnership with WSI, the largest distributor of TV weather maps in the Northeast.

· After the map debuted on Aug. 7, the number of visits to EPA-NE’s web server sky-rocketed. Following an initial burst of activity, the number of visits remained at twice the normal level on the weekdays and four times the normal level on weekends.

· EPA-NE was instrumental in establishing the mapping system, producing maps on a daily basis, and hosting the ozone map web site.

· Data capture remains a serious problem. On average, the EPA receives data from only 16 out of 19 agencies during any given polling cycle. Polling failures rarely occur at EPA. Rather, they usually result from flaws in the data acquisition software, limited internet access, or network problems. Data loss from individual monitors is rarely a problem.

· Future efforts will be directed at improving data capture, enhancing the flexibility and aesthetics of the map, promoting the map in other regions, and developing partnerships with individual TV stations.

PM-2.5 Monitoring

· Coordinating implementation of the PM-2.5 monitoring network remains a top priority. A summary of PM-2.5 monitoring activities in the NESCAUM region is attached.

· At their June 97 meeting, the NESCAUM Directors expressed interest in a PM-2.5 pilot study to gain field experience prior to full-scale implementation.

· Preliminary results are available from speciated PM-2.5 samples taken in the Boston and Rochester areas in 1995. See Lee Alter or Praveen Amar for a summary.

Data Analysis

· NEARDAT continues to attract users and undergo refinement as a forum for air quality-related information in the Northeast. The web address is http://capita.wustl.edu/NEARDAT.

· At their June 97 meeting, the NESCAUM Directors expressed interest in data analysis pertaining to 8-hr ozone exceedances, PM trends, and evidence that air pollution control programs are having a positive impact, especially with respect to ozone, ozone precursors, and air toxics.

· NESCAUM is considering letting a contract in support of data analysis activities. NESCAUM is proposing that this work assess the spatial and temporal patterns of 8-hr exceedances in the NESCAUM region, drawing upon PAMS and meteorological databases to characterize days with significant numbers of 8-hr exceedances but few, if any, 1-hr exceedances. A summary of this proposal is attached.

REMAP (Mercury Deposition Monitoring)

· Five of the six REMAP sites were in operation by the end of June.

· The site at Laconia, NH, should be operational in about a month.

· No serious operational issues have been reported, although supplies have run short on occasion and the difficulty of winter operations remains uncertain at some sites.

· Limited data are available upon request.

· Additional mercury monitoring is slated for locations at Great Bay, NH, and Casco Bay, ME. Sampling continues at several sites in CT; prospects exist in NJ.

Other

· A preliminary list of upcoming meetings pertinent to monitoring and assessment is attached. Please review, edit, and inform Lee Alter of other meeting so that a more complete calendar can be compiled and distributed.

· NESCAUM’s Mercury Study is currently under inter review by workgroup members. External review will commence in October. Copies are available from the NESCAUM office.

· NESCAUM has become increasingly involved in issues relating simultaneously to ambient monitoring and public outreach. Examples include the 1997 Public Health Conference, the AirCurrents project, the ozone mapping project, and community-oriented PM-2.5 monitor siting. The Committee should bear this trend in mind and raise any opportunities and concerns to Lee Alter.

Letter to Bill Hunt

October 8, 1997

Director, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
4201 Alexander Drive, MD-14
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Dear Mr. Hunt:

The purpose of this letter is to provide the EPA with Northeast state input as it develops policies and procedures for implementing the national PM_2.5 monitoring network.

NESCAUM strongly endorses the EPA's plan to distribute 50 early-use monitors to the states. These monitors will serve as important training vehicles for implementing the full network. Without early access to this hardware, the states will have only limited opportunities to gain the hands-on familiarity with the instrumentation and sampling procedures needed to develop effective monitoring plans. These instruments also provide an opportunity to collect preliminary data on ambient PM_2.5 concentrations. However, their greatest value at this time rests in their worth as training and experimental devices. We therefore recommend that the EPA deliver these monitors as soon as possible and with minimal if any requirements concerning their near-term use and application. The Northeast states would also like to choose the type of monitor provided to them.

NESCAUM also endorses the use of the 103(b) grant mechanism for funding the purchase of equipment and the operation of the PM_2.5 network. These grants should cover the costs associated with the purchase, siting, operation, and maintenance of monitors, including meteorological sensors; balance room development; gravimetric and chemical analysis of filter samples; training; data reporting; data analysis; and quality assurance. One of the earliest uses of 103(b) funds will be for the purchase of PM_2.5 monitoring equipment, and to that extent, NESCAUM looks forward to clear guidance from the EPA as to how these funds can be used in conjunction with (and independent of) a national contract for purchasing PM_2.5 monitoring equipment.

At the last meeting of the Standing Air Monitoring Workgroup (SAMWG), NESCAUM supported the EPA's proposal to develop a national contract for purchasing PM_2.5 monitoring equipment. As discussed at the time, a national contract has the potential to lower equipment costs, reduce the volume of paper work, and provide further assurances that equipment is duly purchased and delivered to state monitoring programs in a timely fashion. NESCAUM realizes that this contract involves many sensitive issues at the Agency and is concerned that the contract, as it is negotiated, may eventually be subject to terms and conditions that limit its advantages to the states. For this reason, NESCAUM would like to identify some important issues from a state perspective that may help the EPA develop a viable contract.

First, it is very important that the NESCAUM states be able to choose the exact types of monitors that they will operate and the relative number of each within the mature network. This includes non-federal reference monitors needed for special studies, real-time measurements, and chemical analysis. To the extent that the national contract may limit a state's choice of monitoring equipment, the states may wish to opt out of the national contract (at least partially) and be permitted to exercise an independent means of monitor acquisition.

There is also some uncertainty as to who will actually own the equipment purchased through a national contract. Since the equipment will be purchased with state grant funds, NESCAUM anticipates that titles will belong to the states. Ownership will give the states the leverage they need to work directly with manufacturers to resolve equipment defects and delivery issues. NESCAUM is also concerned about provisions for spare parts, warranties, and training. Vendors typically recommend an inventory of spare parts for their equipment, and these parts are often purchased up front by the states to minimize equipment downtime and data loss. The EPA and the states need to agree on how the spare part inventory will be managed. In addition, contracts with equipment vendors have often provided for initial training of state operators. It is unclear if such a provision can or will be included in the national contract. These are a few of the issues that typify state/vendor relationships, and the NESCAUM states are somewhat concerned about how these issues will be addressed in a national contract. Members of NESCAUM's Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Committee are familiar with these issues and can provide further input if desired by the EPA.

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask that the EPA remain flexible and consider approving alternative monitoring plans for PM_2.5 in the Northeast. The alternative monitoring plan approach was extremely successful in implementing the PAMS network. It eliminated duplicative monitoring efforts, facilitated enhanced carbonyl sampling during high ozone days this summer, provided for a regional quality assurance program, and led to data analyses that provided early results and demonstrated the value of and potential applications for the network's data. An alternative monitoring plan for PM_2.5 might seek a balance between the demands for numerous federal reference monitors (especially in calendar year 1998) with the need for real-time monitoring, chemical speciation, and data analysis. Whereas the EPA's national strategy would lead to an excellent understanding of where violations occur, an alternative monitoring plan, especially one that incorporates data analysis, would help understand the causes of high PM_2.5 concentrations. This, in conjunction with an adequate number of continuous PM_2.5 monitors, would actually accelerate our progress towards protecting public health.

Finally, several NESCAUM states expect to reduce the number of PM₁₀ monitors currently in operation. These monitors will be identified according to the re-engineering guidance issued by OAQPS. Several of these monitors are likely to be located at NAMS, and their removal will require OAQPS approval. Historically, removal of NAMS monitors has been treated very cautiously by OAQPS because of their value for providing national trends information. However, many NESCAUM states have seen PM₁₀ concentrations bottom out well below the PM₁₀ standards. In light of this and other factors, it is my hope that OAQPS moves quickly to review state requests to remove certain PM₁₀ NAMS and take into account the resources urgently needed for the PM_2.5 monitoring program.

NESCAUM appreciates your attention to these matters. If you have any questions on the issues discussed above or would like further clarification, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jason Grumet
Executive Director

cc: NESCAUM Monitoring and Assessment Committee
NESCAUM Air Directors