PM-2.5 Data Analysis Workgroup: Proposed Workbook Re-Organization
(suggested revisions from Rich Poirot, VT DEC)
One Action Item form the July 9, 1998 PM-2.5 Data Analysis Workgroup meeting/conference call was consideration of options for a possible re-organization of the PM-2.5 Data Analysis Workbook. Shelly Eberly, Mark Pitchford and I were tasked with developing some ideas for discussion at the next call (Thursday, July 30, 1998). Here are my suggestions:
A. There are 3 versions of a workbook outline (which need to be coordinated):
I. Basic outline on the website, which is:
Introduction:
Resources:
Compliance Analysis:
Exploratory Analysis:
Related Activities:
Reporting Requirements:
II. More detailed draft outline of # I from Shelly & Micki Wayland, filling in some details for # I and including some specific questions which analysis might address.
III. Table for Divvying up Sections of Workbook, which is composed primarily of 6 specific questions taken from # II, (and assigning sections to specific workgroup "subgroup" members):
1. Am I meeting the PM2.5 NAAQS?
2. Are my PM2.5 concentrations getting better or worse?
3. Who is causing my problem?
4. How much control is needed to fix my problem?
5. Did I fix my PM2.5 problem?
6. Have I monitored such that I can find/understand my PM2.5 problem?
7. Resources, including related guidance, maps, databases, publications
8. Reporting requirements
B. Problems with # III
While I think the above questions in # III are all good ones, I don't think they represent a very logical or efficient outline structure for:
- Meeting intended goal of workbook "how to" guidance for State/Local data analysts,
- Completing useful workbook sections in a timely manner (for workbook users),
- Dividing labor feasibly and efficiently among the workgroup members (workbook writers).
- Representing the full range of desired/needed data analysis activities
For example, given that the annual and 24-hr PM2.5 standards are both based on 3-year averaging periods, for which official monitoring begins 1/1/99 (and assuming the term "problem" is taken to mean "non-attainment"), questions 1, 3, and 4 can't be answered until after 1/1/2002 (before which no one's attainment status can be known, and after which the standards may be revised). Question 5 can't be answered for several years beyond that (until after the suspected non-attainment cause(s) is (are) identified, control strategies implemented, and additional monitoring year(s) are completed. Question 2 (trends) also seems like a relatively distant future activity - requiring at least 3 years of "official" data - probably a few more. Among the questions, this leaves possibly only #6, which is presumably a "data-based" (rather than a "model-based") evaluation of the adequacy of monitoring networks, as the only one that might be addressed prior to mid-2002. Even here, a year or 2 of data seem necessary before "holes" can become apparent.
From the perspective of intended workbook "users", I don't see a pressing need for "how to" guidance on data analysis methods (techniques, formulae, computer tools, etc.) which can't possibly be exercised before 4-5 years in the future. From the perspective of workbook "developers" it likewise doesn't make sense to rush to provide early illumination on analysis methods which aren't yet needed, and which, in the absence of data, would need to be developed in a purely hypothetical or speculative manner. This approach runs directly against the grain of the basic nature of data analysis, which should begin with the data.
Rather, it seems more logical to focus early workgroup efforts primarily on those PM-2.5 analysis approaches which can be exercised in advance of 2002+ compliance determinations, and which provide the necessary foundation/user skills for asking and answering more complex questions as sufficient data become available. For example, a major focus of early "how to" guidance could/should be focused on the identification of currently available or soon-to-be-available "Resources" for PM-fine data analysis (the New AIRS, historical, surrogate, and evolving new data sets; statistical methods; computer software with "how to" macros and/or examples). "How do I get the data - all the relevant data, from multiple repositories, in useful formats?" is a (The) key entry-level question, and represents one of the largest obstacles in any data analysis effort. "How do I use this (or that) data analysis tool with my data?" is another key question, for which much useful early guidance could be provided (SAS, Voyager, Excel, S-Plus/PAMSDAS, VOCDAT, CMB, SPECIATE, UNMIX, new-AIRS, etc.) Armed with some relevant data and analysis tools, a secondary early focus on "Exploratory Analysis" would help users better understand their "early data", and also develop familiarity and experience with many of the data, data repositories, formats and analysis tools that will be needed later on to address the more specific compliance-related questions.
Another concern with the # III questions is that all are "compliance-based" and all focus on/ are asked from the perspective of the individual analyst, dealing with the individual non-attainment problem ("my problem", etc.). While this is clearly a useful perspective, it does not encourage or support the concept of "Regional Analysis", which I believe will be:
- useful to many individual analysts trying to understand their own unique problems
- the best way of evaluating regional transport - conducted more efficiently in a regional group context than from/by the individual non-attainment area, looking outward
- essential for conducting regional haze-related analyses (which might as well be included here, as much of the same data, tools and individual analysts will be involved),
- conducive to analysis methods which can be initiated prior to compliance determinations (for example various spatial pattern analyses, based on early batches of the new data, or regional treatment of historical surrogate data (like PM-10, IMPROVE, visibility, emissions)
C. Proposed Workbook (& Work Assignment) Reorganization. For the above reasons, I suggest:
1. Dismantle the current # III workgroup/subgroup assignments (a hassle, but its early yet and a more efficient working structure will be worth the effort).
2. Reconsider the Basic Workbook Outline (#1). I suggest (with rationale below):
Contents:
Resources:
Exploratory Analysis:
Compliance Analysis:
Regional Analysis:
Related Activities:
Reports:
3. Quick, Moderated, Group Review and Revision to Basic Outline. By this I mean all workgroup members submit comments on the basic outline structure within say 2 weeks (lets get this right, up front). Providing brief rationale and example subsections will help clarify intent. Final decisions are made by the "Moderator(s) - Shelly & Micki.
4. Reassemble Subgroup "assignments" to be consistent with the Basic Outline. I like a basic structure whereby everyone (outsiders included) is encouraged to submit ideas/contributions to any section. However, also having specific assignments & group leaders will help assure some useful content is provided in all key areas.
5. Start filling in the Details (beginning with general subsections under each major outline section)
D. Rationale for proposed Basic Outline:
Introduction (while needed) is not a major workbook section.
Contents a web page with links to the workbook content, periodically revised by the moderator - is the Basic Outline with more detailed subsections, for example:
Resources (include, wherever feasible, direct web-links to the resources themselves)
Data (repositories, format, new PM-2.5, historical, surrogate, emissions...)
Analysis Tools (data extraction, software, macros, visualization, receptor model..)
Contacts (EPA, contractual, user-groups, web-help, etc.)
Exploratory Analysis suggested methods for exploring the above identified data with above mentioned tools - ways to learn something about the data and analysis techniques. I see this, after "Resources" as a key early action area, where early guidance is both useful and feasible.
Compliance Analysis - analyses specifically related to non-attainment, and focused from the perspective of the individual, local monitoring area (the SIP writer with authority, responsibility & interest in her/his specific problem). This would include a majority of the old # III questions. For example, under old III.1 (attainment - yes/no?), the somewhat complex details of the standards could be translated into spreadsheet or other software macros - plug in your data, get the answer. Also, could be some interesting/useful statistical approaches to "projecting" attainment status based on less than 3 years of data. Part of the # III.2 (Trend) analysis (my trend) would fall here (as it may be specific to projecting future attainment - after 3 years of data); while there would also be a "Regional Patterns & Trends" subsection under "Regional Analysis". For old question # III.3 (who done it?), the local analyst needs to know how much of his problem is "beyond jurisdictional control" to develop efficient local strategies, but doesn't necessarily need to know (nor will it do any good to know) exactly what locally uncontrollable, upwind sources are contributing. This more quantitative understanding of regional source-receptor relationships is more efficiently conducted through:
Regional Analysis - multi-state or national collaborative efforts where some early work is feasible/useful (for example various forms of "Regional Pattern and/or Regional Trend" analysis might be initiated with historical surrogate data, IMPROVE data, and early batches of "official data". Analysis of large "natural" events (Mexican fires, Sahara or Gobi dust, etc.) can/will be conducted from the local perspective, but evaluation of regional patterns will always provide useful perspectives. Quantitative estimates of inter-state/ inter-regional and international transport effects and regional source-attribution are highly complex (and controversial) areas which will benefit from (& ultimately require) regional approaches. They just don't work at the Local level (trust me on this one: I'm from VT). Regional Haze strategies will clearly require regional analysis efforts, and should be included here (conversely, techniques developed for regional haze analysis can be useful in addressing Local non-attainment issues.
Related Issues - Same as before, interrelationships with ozone, other pollutants, toxics, health & ecological effects, etc.
Reports - the former "Reporting Requirements" sounded too much like "Regulatory Requirements" (which I don't thing was the intent). I could envision Here (at least) 2 subsections:
Technical Reports - which might be a subset of the larger Technical Reports section for the whole website. In this section, only technical reports which were based on/could be linked to specific data sets and/or analysis tools in the Workbook Resources section would be included. Might include both web reports and non-web literature citations. For the Lit cites, would be useful to include name and contact link "from whom reprints might be requested".
Summary Report Periodically, and with assistance form contractors & group comment, the moderator(s) prepare a summary report of the workbook content (with links to the more detailed workbook sections, data sets, tech reports, etc. Over time and as the workbook matures, this summary may also come to include information about "what's been learned about" (rather than just "how to learn about") PMFine. Since Rudy's out of town and can't complain and probably won't read this far, I propose we make him head of the new "Reports" subgroup.
That's my pitch. Eh?