WelcomeWelcome
Information Sharing SessionInformation Sharing SessionSouth County Particulate Matter StudySouth County Particulate Matter Study
BackgroundBackground
•• Historical PM Levels on the MesaHistorical PM Levels on the Mesa
•• Particulate Matter Health ConcernsParticulate Matter Health Concerns
•• Phase 1 PM StudyPhase 1 PM Study
•• Purpose and Goals of Phase 2 StudyPurpose and Goals of Phase 2 Study
•• Goals for this WorkshopGoals for this Workshop
SLIDE 6
South County Phase 2South County Phase 2Particulate Matter StudyParticulate Matter Study
Study DesignStudy Design
SLIDE 7
Study Design ElementsStudy Design Elements
•• Input on design from State Parks, GreatInput on design from State Parks, GreatBasin Unified APCD, Delta Group, andBasin Unified APCD, Delta Group, andSanta Barbara County APCD.Santa Barbara County APCD.
•• Main concept of design is to compareMain concept of design is to comparedunes at the SVRA to dunes without OHVdunes at the SVRA to dunes without OHVactivity.activity.
•• Three independent investigations by threeThree independent investigations by threegroups using different technologies.groups using different technologies.
SLIDE 8
Three groups investigationsThree groups investigations
•• SLO APCDSLO APCD –– Measure particulate levelsMeasure particulate levelsand winds to see where high levels comeand winds to see where high levels comefrom.from.
•• Delta GroupDelta Group –– Measure composition andMeasure composition andsize of airborne particles.size of airborne particles.
•• GBUAPCD/CARBGBUAPCD/CARB –– Measure the physicsMeasure the physicsof sand movement to understand emissionof sand movement to understand emissionmechanism.mechanism.
SLIDE 9
SLO APCD, Delta, and Sand Flux Measurement LocationsSLO APCD, Delta, and Sand Flux Measurement Locations
SLIDE 12
SLOSLO APCDAPCD ResultsResultsGrover PM10 Vs. Wind Direction and Wind Speed
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
Wind Direction (Deg)
Ho
url
yP
M1
0(u
g/m
3)
Mesa2 PM10 Vs. Wind Direction and Wind Speed
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
Hourly Wind Direction (Deg)
Ho
url
yP
M1
0(u
g/m
3)
Oso PM10 Vs. Wind Direction and Wind Speed
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
Hourly Wind Direction (Deg)
Ho
url
yP
M1
0(u
g/m
3)
calm - 5 mph
5-10 mph
10-15 mph
15-20 mph
> 20 mph
CDF PM10 Vs. Wind Direction and Wind Speed
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
Hourly Wind Direction (Deg)
Ho
url
yP
M1
0(u
g/m
3)
SLIDE 14
SLO APCD ResultsSLO APCD Results
Average Wind Speed During Episodes
0
5
10
15
20
25
CDF Mesa Oso
Site
Ave
rag
eW
ind
Sp
ee
d
(mp
h)
Average PM10 Concentration During Episodes
0
50
100
150
200
250
CDF Mesa Oso
Site
Ave
rag
eP
M1
0(u
g/m
3)
Average PM10 Concentrations During EpisodesWhen the Dune Center Site was Operational
0
50
100
150
200
250
CDF Mesa Oso Dune Center
Site
Ave
rag
eP
M1
0
(ug
/m3
)
SLIDE 15
Delta Group ResultsDelta Group Results
•• Composition of particulate during wind episodes mostly sand.Composition of particulate during wind episodes mostly sand.
•• About 10% of composition is sea salt.About 10% of composition is sea salt.
•• Elemental analysis confirms very little particulate from combustElemental analysis confirms very little particulate from combustion.ion.
•• Elemental tracers for petroleum coke showed no impact from theElemental tracers for petroleum coke showed no impact from thecoke piles.coke piles.
•• Confirmed little to no impact from agricultural fields.Confirmed little to no impact from agricultural fields.
0.09 to 0.26
0.26 to 0.34
0.34 to 0.56
0.56 to 0.75
0.75 to 1.15
1.15 to 2.5
2.5 to 5.0
5.0 to 10.0
Particle diameter in micrometers
0
100
200
300
400
Nan
ogra
ms/m
3
Silicon
Aluminum
Potassium
Calcium
Iron
SLO AQMD Mesa 2 SiteJanuary - February, 2008
SLIDE 16
Delta Group ResultsDelta Group Results
Grover BeachPier Ave
Silver SpurBluff
CDFConoc Ph
Mesa 2Oso Flaco
North to south transect
0
10
20
30
40
50
Mic
rogra
ms/
m3
Aerosols from 2.5 to 1.15 micrometer
Aerosol Episodes of April 29, 30, and May 1
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
September October November
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Mic
rogra
ms/m
3
Mesa 2 Guadalupe Dunes
Aerosol mass from 5.0 to 0.75 microns
1011
1213
1415
1617
1819
2021
2223
2425
2627
2829
301
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
September October
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mic
rogra
ms/m
3
Mesa 2 Guadalupe Dunes
Mesa 2 - Guadalupe Dunes Intercomparison, Fall, 2008Silicon 5.0 to 0.75 microns (for soil, x ~ 4)
SLIDE 17
GBUAPCD ResultsGBUAPCD Results
•• No sand movement in vegetated areas.No sand movement in vegetated areas.
•• If the sand is not moving it can’t be a source.If the sand is not moving it can’t be a source.
SLIDE 18
GBUAPCD ResultsGBUAPCD Results
13.3 mph13.3 mphNatural AreaNatural Area ––OsoOso
10.6 mph10.6 mphSVRASVRA –– InteriorInteriorDunesDunes
7.7 mph7.7 mphSVRASVRA –– BeachBeachDunesDunes
Threshold WindThreshold WindSpeed at 10Speed at 10MetersMeters
LocationLocation
SLIDE 19
Finding #1Finding #1
Neither the petroleum coke piles at theNeither the petroleum coke piles at theConocoPhilipsConocoPhilips facility nor agricultural fields orfacility nor agricultural fields oractivities in and around the area are aactivities in and around the area are asignificant source of ambient PM on the Nipomosignificant source of ambient PM on the NipomoMesa.Mesa.
Delta Group elemental analysis downwind from theDelta Group elemental analysis downwind from thecoke piles did not detect the tracers of petroleum cokecoke piles did not detect the tracers of petroleum cokein the coarse fraction of particulate.in the coarse fraction of particulate.
Delta Group measurements at the Bluff site showedDelta Group measurements at the Bluff site showedlow levels of PM.low levels of PM.
SLIDE 23
Finding #2Finding #2
•• Vegetated areas do not emit wind blownVegetated areas do not emit wind blownparticles.particles.
–– Essentially no sand was collected in sandEssentially no sand was collected in sandcatchers in vegetated areas for the entirecatchers in vegetated areas for the entiresand flux study.sand flux study.
–– No high concentrations were measured underNo high concentrations were measured underhigh wind speeds passing over onlyhigh wind speeds passing over onlyvegetated areas.vegetated areas.
–– This is significant because State ParksThis is significant because State Parksresearch shows that vegetation can notresearch shows that vegetation can not
survive in areas with OHV activitysurvive in areas with OHV activity..
SLIDE 24
Finding #3Finding #3
•• The airborne particulate matter impacting theThe airborne particulate matter impacting theNipomo Mesa on high episode daysNipomo Mesa on high episode dayspredominantly consists of sand type materialpredominantly consists of sand type materialtransported to the Mesa from upwind areastransported to the Mesa from upwind areasunder high wind conditions.under high wind conditions.
–– Data from both Phase 1 and 2 studies show theData from both Phase 1 and 2 studies show thecomposition during episodes is largely earth crustalcomposition during episodes is largely earth crustalelements and a small amount of sea salt and a strongelements and a small amount of sea salt and a strongrelationship between high wind speeds and high PM.relationship between high wind speeds and high PM.
–– Sand flux measurements showed a strong correlationSand flux measurements showed a strong correlationbetween sand movement and high PM downwind.between sand movement and high PM downwind.
SLIDE 25
Finding #4Finding #4•• Sand sheets with OHV activity emitSand sheets with OHV activity emit
greater amounts of particulates thangreater amounts of particulates thansimilar sand sheets without OHV activitysimilar sand sheets without OHV activityunder the same wind conditions.under the same wind conditions.
–– SLO APCD and Delta measurements showed that theSLO APCD and Delta measurements showed that theaverage PM concentrations downwind from the SVRAaverage PM concentrations downwind from the SVRAare 2are 2 –– 3 times higher than downwind from the control3 times higher than downwind from the controlsites.sites.
–– Sand Flux measurements showed that the thresholdSand Flux measurements showed that the thresholdfor sand movement was much greater and the amountfor sand movement was much greater and the amountof sand movement less in the control areas asof sand movement less in the control areas ascompared to the SVRA.compared to the SVRA.
SLIDE 26
Primary ConclusionPrimary Conclusion
•• OHV activity in the SVRA is a majorOHV activity in the SVRA is a majorcontributing factor to the high PMcontributing factor to the high PMconcentrations observed on theconcentrations observed on theNipomo Mesa.Nipomo Mesa.
SLIDE 27
Summary & Next StepsSummary & Next Steps
•• Present to APCD BoardPresent to APCD Board –– March 24March 24
–– 9 a.m. at the SLO County Board Chambers9 a.m. at the SLO County Board Chambers
–– Questions and comments from the workshopQuestions and comments from the workshopwill be summarized and included in the staffwill be summarized and included in the staffreport to Boardreport to Board
•• Implement Board DirectivesImplement Board Directives
SLIDE 32