waqa washington air quality advisory presented to the 2007 national air quality conference by sean...

WAQA Washington Air Quality Advisory

Presented to the 2007 National Air Quality Conferenceby Sean Lundblad

Washington State Department of EcologyAir Quality Program February 13, 2007

Orlando, FL

What is WAQA?

• The Washington Air Quality Advisory (WAQA) is Washington’s “AQI-like” public information tool

• WAQA is not AQI

• Our website will state WAQA is not AQI

• Why we wanted an alternative to the AQI

• What options we looked at

• How we came up with the options

• What the final choice was

• Implementation (fingers crossed)

What you will hear

Policy Implications• The Good

– New 24-hour standard of 35 ug/m3 is more protective– Ecology has an air quality goal of 20 ug/m3 – The public is familiar with AQI

• The Bad– New standard at the highest end of range of what

CASAC recommended– EPA did not revise the annual standard

• The Ugly – EPA has not updated the PM2.5 AQI– Current AQI is misleading in that it downplays health

risks– Washington State has winter PM problems

Policy Drivers

• Health concerns should drive our actions

• Providing accurate near-real-time information to the public is critical for the health of the citizens

The Policy Choice:

Washington wants a way to inform the public of PM2.5 health effects at lower

levels than EPA

How we got to WAQA

• Examined logic behind current AQI breakpoints

• Created new breakpoints based on CFR logic

• Factored in results of health studies

• Air Quality Program weighed policy issues and selected an option

Examined logic behind current PM2.5 AQI Breakpoints

AQI Category

Estimated mid-point 24-hour

concentration Breakpoints

AQI Score

Good 0 to 15.4 ug/m3 0 to 50

Moderate 15.5 to 40.4 ug/m3 51 to 100

Unhealthy for sensitive groups

40.5 to 65.4 ug/m3 101 to 150

Unhealthy 65.5 to 150.4 ug/m3 151 to 200

Very unhealthy 150.5 to 250.4 ug/m3 201 to 300

Hazardous > 250.4 301 - 500

Annual standard

Old 24-hr standard

Examined breakpoints

• As % of old standard• As % change between categories• Tried to deviate as little as possible

WAQA Options

• Option 1: “Classic” interpretation of CFRs that is more protective than AQI

• Options 2 & 3: Increasingly protective scenarios that reflect research indicating health effects; implement program goal

• Option 4: Very protective scenario

How did these options compare graphically?

Nephelometer/Correlated PM2.5 Monitoring Sites

Nephelometer Sites w/correlated PM2.5Nephelometer Sites

2005

Seattle

Lacey

Nephelometer/Correlated PM2.5 Monitoring Sites

Nephelometer Sites w/correlated PM2.5

Nephelometer Sites

2005

Nephelometer/Correlated PM2.5 Monitoring Sites

Nephelometer Sites w/correlated PM2.5

Nephelometer Sites

2005

Cheeka Peak

Lacey

Seattle

Twisp

Twisp (9/4/06 - 9/10/06) Wildfires - very "dirty" air

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

11:00PM

2:00PM

5:00AM

8:00PM

11:00AM

2:00AM

5:00PM

8:00AM

11:00PM

2:00PM

5:00AM

8:00PM

Time

AQ

I

Current AQI

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

=3.5 ug/m3Estimated mid-point 24-hr concentration = 126.6 ug/m3

Lacey (10/21/06 - 10/24/06) "typical" impaired air

0

50

100

150

200

2:00PM

12:00AM

10:00AM

8:00PM

6:00AM

4:00PM

2:00AM

12:00PM

10:00PM

8:00AM

6:00PM

Time

AQ

I

Current AQI

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Estimated mid-point 24-hr concentration = 24.2 ug/m3 = 11.6 ug/m3

Cheeka Peak (10/21/06 - 10/24/06) "clean" site

0

50

100

150

200

2:00PM

12:00AM

10:00AM

8:00PM

6:00AM

4:00PM

2:00AM

12:00PM

10:00PM

8:00AM

6:00PM

Time

AQ

I

Current AQI

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Estimated mid-point 24-hour concentration = 6.5 ug/m3

=36.7 ug/m3

Would we ever be in the green (Good) with any of these

options?

YES!

# days per option for continuous PM2.5 monitors in 2005

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Good Moderate USG Unhealthy VeryUnhealthy

Hazardous

Category

Cou

nt o

f Day

s Current AQI

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

What Ecology elected to do

• Combination of Option 3 and Option 2

Why combine Options 3 & 2?

• Option 4 harder to defend scientifically

• Breakpoints of Option 3 more defensible except for Good/Mod breakpoint

• CASAC-recommended annual standard (13 ug/m3 ) of Option 2 as Good/Mod breakpoint protective and defensible

• Program goal of 20 ug/m3 for Mod/USG breakpoint

When will it happen? SOON!!!

• Decided to tie it to our new data acquisition system and website coming online very soon and– We have been letting our many partners know

of the change – Ironing out how we will present WAQA on

website

Thank you:

• Phyllis Baas – Ecology Air Quality Program Technical Services Section Manager

• Sarah Rees – Ecology Air Quality Program Program Development Section Manager

• Stan Rauh – SWRO & Air Quality Operations Unit Supervisor• Ecology Air Quality Program Leadership Team• Mike Dubois – Airshed Coordinator, Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality• Rachel Sakata - Air Quality Planner, Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality• 2007 National Air Quality Conference Planning Committee• Darby Veeck – Ecology GIS – Photos

Questions?

• slun461@ecy.wa.gov

• 360-407-6843