“round up the usual suspects.” why we are losing the air quality war in the san joaquin valley a...

“Round up the Usual Suspects.” Why we are losing the air quality war in the

San Joaquin Valley

A presentation forThe San Joaquin Valley Town Hall

March 17, 2004

Thomas A. CahillProfessor, Atmospheric Sciences/Physics and

Head, UC Davis DELTA Group

Summary of the Presentation• Air quality in California

– California has expended enormous resources with bi-partisan support for the past 35 years.

• Was it worth doing? Need we continue?– Health– Welfare

• How are we doing?– California – Los Angeles, Bay Area

• Ozone and precursors, ROG and NOx; ,CO, SO2

• Particles – Lead, mass– Central Valley – Fresno, Sacramento

• Ozone and its precursors, ROG and NOx; CO, ,SO2

• Particles - Lead, mass• Yosemite and Sequoia NP and the Sierra Nevada

• Where do we go next?

Informational Resources for this Talk

• San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Quality Management District– http://www.valleyair.org

• California Air Resources Board - Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality and http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/aqe&m.htm

– Routine monitoring – ADAM http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam– Special Studies - CRAPAQS, FACES, ….

• US Environmental Protection Agency– Routine monitoring – AIRS data base – Special studies – Fresno Super-site,

• US Interagency Monitoring for Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) – Yosemite and Sequoia NP

– Routine monitoring – http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/– Special studies – Yosemite Study, summer, 2002

• Research Projects – – Universities – UC Davis http://delta.ucdavis.edu (I’ll post this talk) FACES, UN

Reno Desert Research Inst., CORE http://nurseweb.ucsf.edu/iha/core.htm– Non Governmental Organizations – ALASET HETF, Valley Health Study and

Sacramento/I-5 Transect Study; HEI www.healtheffects.org• Federal resources NOAA HYSPLIT http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html

http://www.healtheffects.org/

http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html

Clean Air Act 109 b.1• National primary ambient air quality standards,

prescribed, under subsection (a) shall be ambient air quality standards the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on such criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health. Such primary standards may be revised in the same manner as promulgated.

– Question: Does “Requisite to protect public health” mean no harm to anyone? If not, which “anyones” don’t we protect?

– Question: How does “Adequate margin of safety” handle pollutants in which any amount produces some harm?

– Question: What should California's position be to this federal mandate?

Global Perspective• Despite using 1/5 of the world’s energy and about 1/3 of

the worlds VMT, the US has much better air quality than most of the developed or developing countries• Air quality in major international cities outside of Western Europe

is usually appalling!

• California leads the nation in cleaning up smog• In 1965, Los Angeles was worse than Mexico City in 1995

• The Central Valley lags but still is not bad by global standards • There is no way that Fresno is really the 4th most polluted

urbanized area in the US (Sacramento is listed the 7th) since most forms of “pollution” are not considered in the ranking.

• Blue skies and good visibility in the Sacramento Valley each Fall (rice stubble burning suppressed); Bakersfield (oil improvement)

How are we doing?

• We have spent a gazillion bucks since 1970– Great successes

• ozone reduction in Southern California, improvement elsewhere

• Carbon monoxide vastly reduced, sulfur dioxide.. Much better

• Lead (and some other toxics) gone!• Less smoke in Sacramento Valley from rice straw burning,

– Modest improvements – • Numerous, including particulate matter, most sites • improved air quality in Kern County from better oil facilities• Most ozone precursors sharply reduced• Reduction of many toxic substances

– Stalemate in most of the Central Valley• 20% increase in population and a 50% increase in vehicle

miles traveled (VMT) since 1990• Ozone at Fresno now worse than Los Angeles• Particulate matter much worse than Los Angeles and not

improving• Bay Area pollution and Bay Area commuters are and will

make things worse

• And here come the feds! • Geography, topography and meteorology make the Central

Valley and foothills an ozone machine • The new EPA PM2.5 particle standard will push almost the

entire Central Valley from Sacramento south into massive violation.

• The CAA amendments of 1977 and 1997 require visibility at Class 1 areas (like Yosemite NP) be protected

Why success or failure ?The tale of 4 pollutants: 1. Carbon Monoxide • Single chemical• Well accepted prompt

health effects, • Single major source• Effective control

techniques• California pioneered,

US follows• Effect on air

• CO, gas• Reduced respiration

via CO in blood• Automobiles• CO → CO2 in catalytic

converters• Auto manufacture

required for sale• Victory! (So then why are

we paying $1 b/year for MTBE?)

Why success or failure ?The tale of 4 pollutants: 2. Lead

• Single chemical• Well accepted

delayed health effects• Two major sources• Effective control

techniques ?• California pioneered,

US follows• Effect on air

• Pb, particles• Persistent poison,

nervous system• Automobiles, old paint• Remove lead from

gasoline, old paint ? • Lead free gasoline

required for sale• Great victory

Why success or failure ?The tale of 4 pollutants: 3. Ozone

• Single chemical• Prompt health and

welfare impacts, delayed effects on health ?

• Single major source, LA, uncertain SJV

• Effective control in LA, ineffective SJV

• California pioneered, US follows

• Effect on air

• O3, gas• Eyes, lungs, etc.; effects

on Sierra forests; aging of human membranes

• Automobiles LA, many sources in SJV

• ROG, NO in cars, LA; complex in SJV

• Auto manufacture required for sale

• Victory in LA, stalemate in the SJV

Why success or failure ?The tale of 4 pollutants: 4. Particulates

• Many chemicals, size and shape (asbestos) vital

• Prompt health impacts, high levels; low levels ?; delayed health effects ?

• Multiple sources, natural and man made

• Some control in LA, ineffective SJV

• US pioneered, California in a quandary

• Effect on air

• Dust, sulfates, nitrates, organics , salt, metals, …TSP, PM10, PM2.5, very fine, ultra fine

• Mortality at high levels, good statistical association at low levels; toxics and carcinogens causal reasons ???

• Automobiles, industry, LA, many sources in SJV

• Cars, industry, LA; many complex area in SJV

• Western particles not the same as eastern US particles

• Improvement in LA, stalemate in the SJV

First, let’s make sure we are fighting the right war in the SJV!

• Summer Ozone – Ages all the biological membranes it touches

– Ozone peak values in the Central Valley occur in summer days in foot hill locations at times of very high temperatures

• Consequence: person dose-days reduced versus Los Angeles, as many get indoors

• Air conditioning greatly reduces ozone, and thus tends to protect sensitive populations - the young, the sick, and the old

– Major impact on agriculture and Sierra forests

First, let’s make sure we are fighting the right war in the SJV!

• Winter Fine (PM2.5) and very fine Particles – Age the heart and lung; carry carcinogens– PM2.5 mass peak values in the Central Valley occur in

late Fall and Winter and are valley wide– Peak values occur in low wind, stable conditions,

identified by a hazy “dry fog”

• Summer Fine (PM2.5) Particles– Scatter and absorb light; Valley summer haze– Transport efficiently into the Sierra Nevada almost

every day, May - October– Major impact on visibility at national parks

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Valu

es

Rela

tive t

o B

utt

e a

nd

Sh

asta

Ischemic Heart Mortality Annual PM10 Childhhod Asthma

Health and Aerosols in the Central Valley of CaliforniaData Relative to Shasta and Butte counties

70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Ischemic Heart Disease (% of state average)

0

50

100

150

200

An

nu

al V

alle

y P

M10

(u

g/m

3)

PM10 mass and Ischemic Heart DiseaseCalifornia Central Valley

r2 = 0.56

70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140


0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Ozo

ne

Ave

rag

e To

p 3

0 h

rs (

pp

m)

Ozone and Ischemic Heart DiseaseCalifornia Central Valley

r2 = 0.18

How can we explain these results?

• The data on particles and health– closely match extensive statistical studies in the US

and elsewhere – Are consistent with laboratory and animal studies

• The lack of response to ozone– The heart not a target of reactive ozone– Ozone dose day relationships skewed by ozone-high

temperature-foothill factors In SJV

• Note: No impact on stroke frequency seen; no impact by carbon monoxide observed

Los Angeles 1 hr Ozone Maximum

Fresno Ozone 1 hr Maximum

Los Angeles Ozone 8 hr 4th Highest 3 yr Average

Alameda County Ozone 8 hr 4th Highest 3 yr Average

Fresno Ozone 8 hr 4th Highest 3 yr Average

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Tons

/day

Fresno

Kern

Santa Clara

Contra Costa

Sacramento

NOx Emissions by County

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Tons

/day

Stationary

Area wide

On-road Cars

On road diesels

Mobile other

NOx Emission Trends in the San Joaquin Valley

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Tons

/day

Stationary

Area wide

On-road Cars

On road diesels

Mobile other

ROG Emission Trends in the San Joaquin Valley

Fresno Ozone 8 hr 4th Highest 3 yr Average

2002

20012000

19991998

19971996

19951994

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

ppm

Yreka

Redding

Red Bluff

Chico

Sacr

Fresno

Visalia

Bakersfield

Ozone Trends in the Central Valley8 hr Average - Average 4th highest day

Est. Global ozone background

EPA standard

Valley natural background?

CA standard

Valley Ozone Profiles vs. Time

11

12

23

34

45

56

67

77

88

99

1010

1111

1212

12

Month, 2002

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

ppm

Ozone at the Fresno 1st Street Super-siteDaily maximum 1 hr

Prior EPA 1 hr standard

Annual ozone profile

121

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

Hour

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

pp

m

Ozone

NO x 5

CO/10

NO2 x 5

Gaseous pollutants at the Fresno 1st Street Super-SiteHourly Averages - worst ozone day of the year, 2002

Prior EPA 1 hr standard

New EPA 8 hr standard

Hourly ozone - July 12, 2002 High temperature, 108 F

121

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

Time of Day

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

pp

m

Visalia Lower Kaweah Ash Mountain Lookout Point

Ozone Transect - Visalia to Sequoia NPJuly 3, 2002 (90th quartile-summer)

EPA 8 hr standard

Valley ozone transport into the Sierra

Particulate Matter in the Atmospheric – the Atmospheric Aerosol

• Total Suspended Particulate mass TSP– < 35 μm

• Inhalable Aerosols PM10 – < 10 μm

• Fine Aerosols PM2.5 – < 2.5 μm

• Very fine aerosols, < 0.25 μm, ultra fine aerosols, < 0.10 μm

• 35 to 10 μm, mostly natural– Dust, sea salt, pollen, …

• 10 to 2.5 μm, largely natural– Dust, sea spray, some nitrates

• 2.5 to 0.25 μm, mostly man made– Fine dust, nitrates, sulfates,

organics, smoke• 0.25 to circa 0.01 μm, almost

entirely man made; – high temperature combustion,

heavy organics, soot, metals

J ournal of Inhalation Research (1995).

Particle Size versus Persent Deposition

This figure shows the relationship between particle size and what percent is deposited in different parts of the respiratory

tract.

Fine particles – age the lung and heart

Statistically, excellent connection between fine particles and health, including mortality

Causally, most of fine particle mass is totally harmless even in massive

doses….• EPA’s current thinking: health effects caused by

1. Biological agents (fungi, bacteria, viruses, spores..)

2. Acidic aerosols

3. Fine metals such as iron in the lung

4. Insoluble very fine and ultra fine particles

5. High temperature organic matter

• Fine particles – age the lung and heart• In the Central Valley

• Biological agents –allergies, Valley Fever, agricultural agents…

• Acidic aerosols – not a problem.

Thank the cows.• Fine metals such as iron in the lung – very fine soils,

transportation, industry? • Insoluble very fine and ultra fine particles –

high temperature combustion, diesels, (4th of July)

• High temperature organic matter –

diesels, smoking cars (cigarettes)

Making of the EPA Fine Particle Standard

“Those who like law or sausage should never watch either one being made”

• CAASAC – 8 of the scientists said no new PM2.5 annual average standard was justified

• Of the 13 who wanted a standard, 6 said science could not support a numerical standard

• Of the 7 who supported a numerical standard, the choices ranged from 15 to 30 μg/m3 (average 22 μg/m3)

• The EPA staff recommended a standard in the range from 20 μg/m3 to 12.5 μg/m3

• The EPA Administrator (in a room with 11 others, none of whom were scientists) chose 15 μg/m3

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Valu

es

Rela

tive t

o B

utt

e a

nd

Sh

asta

Ischemic Heart Mortality Annual PM10 Childhhod Asthma

Health and Aerosols in the Central Valley of CaliforniaData Relative to Shasta and Butte counties

70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140


0

50

100

150

200

An

nu

al V

alle

y P

M10

(u

g/m

3)

PM10 mass and Ischemic Heart DiseaseCalifornia Central Valley

r2 = 0.56

EPA annual fine particle standard

Health Impacts of Valley Aerosols

For winter, 120 ug/m3, r2 = 0.69

Los Angeles PM10 Highest

Fresno PM10 Highest

Valley PM10 Trends Versus Time

2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994

0

50

100

150

200

250

Mic

rogra

ms/

m3

ReddingRed BluffChico

SacramentoStocktonModesto

FresnoVisaliaCorcoran

Bakersfield GSBakersfield CA

PM10 24 hr High Nat'l Average

EPA standard

Questions, and Tools to Find Answers,

about Fine Particles • Where did they come from?

– Location of sources– Emission source by types

• Primary – emitted as particles• Secondary – gas to particle transformation

– Meteorological conditions for dilution, transformation and transport

– Removal rates• Why are the concentrations so high?• What are their characteristics?

– Size– Composition– Behavior in Time

• Where do they go?

11

22

34

45

56

77

88

99

1011

1112

121

Month of the year 2002

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Mic

rog

ram

s/m

3

Aerosols at Fresno 1st Street SupersitePM10, 2002EPA standard

150 ug/m3

CA standard 50 ug/m3

1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month, 2002

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Mic

rogr

ams/

m3

Potassium x 50 Nitrates Sulfates x 5

PM10 Aerosols at the Fresno 1st Street Super-Site

Where do all the nitrates come from? A clue!

29 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9

August September October November December

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

ppm

NO at Fresno 1st Street Supersite2001

11

12

23

34

45

56

66

77

88

99

1010

1111

1112

12

Month of the Year 2002

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Mic

rog

ram

s/m

3

PM 2.5 24 hr avg

Fresno fine aerosol mass, 1st Street "Supersite"

Smoke from Oregon forest fires

SJVUAPCD fine aerosol source inventories: Summer, 170 tons/day; Winter, 137 tons/day

Why are the winter concentrations so high?• Emissions

– Primary – emitted as a particle – lower than summer– Secondary – gas to particle conversion in fogs - higher

• Dilution– Height of inversion – low in winter– Wind velocity – low in winter

• Removal– Settling – very fine particles (i.e. diesel) don’t settle– Coagulation and scavenging – if they don’t pick up water, they

last a long time in the air and can build up to high concentrations

– Transport away – poor in winter except in storms• You must know all these parameters to connect

emission sources to atmospheric concentrations!

Transport of Aerosols to Fresno – 4 day trajectory

121

12

23

34

45

56

66

77

88

99

1010

1111

1212

12

Month of the Year by week

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Mic

rogr

ams/

m3

Fine PM2.5 Aerosols at 13th and T Street, Sacramento2002


EPA 24 hr standard

EPA annual standard

A Similar Result at Sacramento (and even Red Bluff reached PM10 of 55 μg/m3 on 12/11)

Transport of Aerosols to Sacramento from the SJV

11

11

22

22

33

33

44

44

45

55

56

66

67

77

77

88

88

99

99

910

1010

1011

1111

1112

1212

1212

Month of the year, 2002

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Mic

rorg

am

s/m

3

PM2.5 Mass, 2001

Aerosols at the Fresno 1st Street Supersite

EPA 24 hr standard

EPA annual standard

Month of the year, 2001

1014

1923

2731

48

1216

2024

293

711

1519

2327

15

913

1721

2529

37

11

March April May June July, 2001

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Na

no

gra

m/m

3

PM10 PM2.5

Silicon Aerosols at Fresno during the FACES StudyDRUM Impactor, S-XRF Analysis Data, 6 hr resolution

1216

2024

281

59

1317

2125

292

610

1418

2226

304

812

1620

2428

15

913

1721

2428

26

1014

18

July August September October November December, 2001

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Na

no

gra

m/m

3

PM10 PM2.5

DRUM Impactor, S-XRF Analysis Data, 3 hr resolution

1014

1923

2731

48

1216

2024

293

711

1519

2327

15

913

1721

2529

37

11


0

10

20

30

Na

no

gra

m/m

3

PM10 PM2.5

Strontium Aerosols at Fresno during the FACES StudyDRUM Impactor, S-XRF Analysis Data, 6 hr resolution

1216

2024

281

59

1317

2125

292

610

1418

2226

304

812

1620

2428

15

913

1721

2428

26

1014

18


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Na

no

gra

m/m

3

PM10 PM2.5


1014

1923

2731

48

1216

2024

293

711

1519

2327

15

913

1721

2529

37

11


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Na

no

gra

m/m

3

PM10 PM2.5

Potassium Aerosols at Fresno during the FACES StudyDRUM Impactor, S-XRF Analysis Data, 6 hr resolution

1216

2024

281

59

1317

2125

292

610

1418

2226

304

812

1620

2428

15

913

1721

2428

26

1014

18


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Na

no

gra

m/m

3

PM10 PM2.5


1014

1923

2731

48

1216

2024

293

711

1519

2327

15

913

1721

2529

37

11


0

50

100

150

Na

no

gra

m/m

3

PM10 PM2.5

Copper Aerosols at Fresno during the FACES StudyDRUM Impactor, S-XRF Analysis Data, 6 hr resolution

1216

2024

281

59

1317

2125

292

610

1418

2226

304

812

1620

2428

15

913

1721

2428

26

1014

18


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Na

no

gra

m/m

3

PM10 PM2.5


1014

1923

2731

48

1216

2024

293

711

1519

2327

15

913

1721

2529

37

11


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Na

no

gra

m/m

3

PM10 PM2.5

Zinc Aerosols at Fresno during the FACES StudyDRUM Impactor, S-XRF Analysis Data, 6 hr resolution

1216

2024

281

59

1317

2125

292

610

1418

2226

304

812

1620

2428

15

913

1721

2428

26

1014

18


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Na

no

gra

m/m

3

PM10 PM2.5


1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

2526

2728

2930

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

21

November December

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Nan

ogra

ms/

m3

Silicon Sulfur Potassium

Aerosols at the Fresno First Street Super-sitePM2.5 elemental concentrations for FACES, CARB

S-XRF analyses via DELTA Group, UC Davis

Fine Aerosols at Fresno in Fall

San Francisco San Francisco Bay AreaBay Area

Diesel Particulates Diesel Particulates (tons/year, (tons/year,

2000)2000)

Sacramento Sacramento ValleyValley

Diesel ParticulatesDiesel Particulates(tons/year, 2000)(tons/year, 2000)

San Joaquin San Joaquin ValleyValley

Diesel Diesel ParticulatesParticulates

(tons/year, 2000)(tons/year, 2000)

NapaNapa 110110 ShastaShasta 227227 San JoaquinSan Joaquin 675675

MarinMarin 157157 TehamaTehama 113113 StanislausStanislaus 462462

SolanoSolano 174 (part)174 (part) ButteButte 232232 MercedMerced 297297

Contra CostaContra Costa 656656 YubaYuba 7878 MaderaMadera 200200

San FranciscoSan Francisco 652652 SutterSutter 151151 FresnoFresno 10711071

AlamedaAlameda 947947 GlennGlenn 9090 TulareTulare 566566

San MateoSan Mateo 360360 ColusaColusa 7575 KingsKings 175175

Santa ClaraSanta Clara 873873 YoloYolo 216216 KernKern 693693

PlacerPlacer 166166

SacramentoSacramento 793793

SolanoSolano 108 (part)108 (part)

Sum of CountiesSum of Counties(Bay Area)(Bay Area)

39293929(tons/year, 2000)(tons/year, 2000)

Sum of CountiesSum of Counties(Sac. Valley)(Sac. Valley)


Sum of Sum of CountiesCounties

(SJ Valley)(SJ Valley)


1810

5.623.2

1.81

0.560.32

0.180.1

0.0560.032

0.0180.01

Coarse MOUDI Stage Diameter (micrometers) Ultra- Fine

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

Mic

rog

ram

s/cm

2

Mass/200Sulfur

LeadZinc x 10

Calcium Phosphorus

For micrograms/m3, times 8.7DELTA Group, S-XRF, UC Davis

Diesel Particles by MOUDI Impactor and S-XRFSample Run # 4, CA Fuel; no grease

PM 2.5

PM 0.25 ?

PM 10

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

2526

2728

2930

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

21

November December

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Nan

ogra

ms/

m3

Phosphorus x 10 Sulfur Potassium Zinc x 10

Aerosols at the Fresno First Street Super-siteVery fine (0.26 > Dp > 0.09 micron) elemental concentrations for FACES, CARB


Very fine aerosols characteristic of diesels/smoking cars

Aerosol Information from Particle Size

0.09 to 0.260.26 to 0.34

0.34 to 0.560.56 to 0.75

0.75 to 1.151.15 to 2.5

2.5 to 5.05.0 to 10.0

Particle aerodynamic diameter in micrometers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Nanogra

ms/

m3

Calcium

Potassium

Sulfur

Aerosol size distributions at the Fresno Super-siteNovember 15 - December 22, 2001

Soil, biomass, and diesel/smoking car elements derived elements

Fine particle PM2.5 cut

K soil

K biomass smoke

K diesel and smoking cars

Ca soil

Very fine aerosols

Aerosol Information from Particle Size

0.09 to 0.260.26 to 0.34

0.34 to 0.560.56 to 0.75

0.75 to 1.151.15 to 2.5

2.5 to 5.05.0 to 10.0

Particle aerodynamic diameter in micrometers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Nan

ogra

ms/

m3

Zinc x 10

Potassium

Copper x 10

Aerosol size distributions at the Fresno Super-siteNovember 15 - December 22, 2001

Soil, biomass, and diesel/smoking car elements derived elements

Fine particle PM2.5 cut

K soil

K biomass smoke

K diesel and smoking cars

Very fine aerosols

Comparisons of trucks and cars from the Tuscarora Tunnel study

Parameter Diesel Trucks(mg/km)

Cars(mg/km)

Ratio Comment

PM2.5 mass 135 + 18 14 + 13 10 Mass? Truck PM10 = 181

PM2.5 OC 112 + 43 2.8 + 1.1 40 2nd biggest ratio

PM2.5 EC 185 + 66 3.3 + 1.2 55 biggest ratio

PM 0.25 Zn na na 10 < 0.25 μm

PM 0.25 Cu na na 10 < 0.25 μm

Heavy organics large A few out of 92

PM2.5 NH3, S < 0.8 1999; Some S in gasoline

Gasses (g/km) (g/km)

CO2 748 + 73 156 + 15 4.8 Roughly fuel mileage

CO < 0.6 1.9 + 0.7 < 0.3

NO (as NO2) 11.9 + 1.9 0.4 + 0.07 28 3rd biggest ratio

THC 1.5 + 0.8 0.4 + 0.2 3.7

Table 1 Comparison to heavy duty and light duty PM10 and PM2.5 emission rates form the Gertler at al 2002 Tuscarora Tunnel studies and other studies. Parameter Heavy duty

(mg/km) Light duty (mg/km)

Mixed (mg/km)

PM10 mass Gertler 2002 Tuscarora 181 + 13 10 + 11 87 + 54 PM2.5 mass Gertler 2002 Tuscarora 135 + 18 14 + 13 62 + 42 PM10 mass Gillies 2001 Sepulveda na Na 69 + 30 PM2.5 mass Gillies 2001 Sepulveda na Na 53 + 27 PM2.5 mass Norbeck 1998 In-use (med) 18 + 9 PM2.5 mass Norbeck 1998 In-use (high) 185 + 50 PM10 mass Sagebiel 1997 High CO, HC 346 smoke PM10 mass Sagebiel 1997 High CO, HC 32 no smoke From these results, we see that diesel is about 18 times worse than light duty vehicles for PM10 emissions and 10 times worse than light duty vehicles for PM2.5 emissions, and that the worst case smoking car is about the same as the average diesel. Incidentally, these emission values are sharply lower than occurred only a decade ago.

A rough estimate….

• Using the values measured in Fall, 2001, we can estimate that– Diesel/smoking car smoke contributed roughly 7

times the PM2.5 mass via organic matter and elemental carbon than did wood smoke via organic matter.

» Turn et al, J. Geophysical research (1997)

» Gertler et al, Final Report to the Health Effects Institute (2001) on the Tuscarora Tunnel study

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

2627

2829

3031

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

December, 2002 January, 2003

0102030

405060

70

Nan

ogra

ms/

m3

Sulfur Zinc x 10 Phosphorus x 10

ALASET HETF Sacramento I-5 Transect StudyDELTA DRUM very fine particles (0.26 > Dp > 0.09microns) , S-XRF analysis

Possible tracers of diesel exhaust

Very fine aerosols characteristic of diesels/smoking cars – Sacramento I-5

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

2526

2728

2930

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

21

November December

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Nan

ogra

ms/

m3

Phosphorus x 10 Sulfur Potassium Zinc x 10

Aerosols at the Fresno First Street Super-siteVery fine (0.26 > Dp > 0.09 micron) elemental concentrations for FACES, CARB


Very fine aerosols characteristic of diesels/smoking cars

So what if Fresno in winter is Impacted by diesels and smoking cars ?

“It is important to note that the estimated health risk from diesel particulate matter is higher than the risk from all other toxic air contaminants combined….

“In fact, the ARB estimates that 70 percent of the known statewide cancer risk from outdoor air toxics is attributable to diesel particulate matter”.

“The ARB does not routinely monitor diesel particulate matter concentrations”.

ARB Almanac 2001, pg. 346

Winter aerosols at Fresno

• Local and down valley, not Bay Area• Dominated by nitrates and organic matter, with

sulfates, soot, and considerable bound water– Enhanced gas-particle conversion in humid conditions– Long lifetimes for diesel and smoking car aerosols– Low inversion heights, weak winds

• Major sources:– Vehicles, both on road and off road diesels and

smoking cars– Area sources, including agriculture– Wood smoke, some from foothills– Not yet determined industrial sources

Summer Fine Aerosols downwindYosemite NP – Visibility at 90th percentile

Yosemite NP – Visibility at 10th percentile

A Tale of Two Sampling Sites• IMPROVE Sequoia

– Visibility – Gasses

ozone– Particles PM10 mass

# data

PM2.5 mass 3Organic carbon 9Elemental carbon 3Nitrates, Sulfates 2Soil, sea salt, smoke 10Trace elements 20

• Visalia SJVAQMD– Gasses hourly

ozone, CO NO, NO2, NOx

Note: hourly ozone at Sequoia NP (3 sites)

– Particles PM10 mass

PM2.5 mass

121

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

Time of Day

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

ppm

Visalia Lower Kaweah Ash Mountain Lookout Point

Ozone Transect - Visalia to Sequoia NPJuly 3, 2002 (90th quartile-summer)

EPA 8 hr standard

11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

November December January February

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Mic

rogr

ams/

m3

PM 2.5 mass PM 2.5 mass (sum of species)

Fine aerosols at the Sequoia NP IMPROVE site

11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

November, 2002 December, 2002 January, 2003 February, 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Mic

rogr

ams/

m3

Elemental carbon

Soil

Organic aerosols

Ammonium nitrate

Ammonium sulfate


6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8

June, 2002 July, 2002 August, 2002

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Mic

rog

ram

s/m

3

PM 2.5 mass PM 2.5 mass (sum of species)


6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8

June, 2002 July, 2002 August, 2002

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mic

rog

ram

s/m

3

Elemental carbonSoil

Organic aerosolsAmmonium nitrate

Ammonium sulfate


Oregon forest fires

1212

1212

11

12

22

33

334

44

55

56

66

67

77

88

88

99

910

1010

1111

1111

1212

12

Month of the Year 2001 - 2002

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

22.22.4

Mic

rogra

ms/

m3

Sulfate (Bay Area oil) Potassium x 10 (soil/smoke) Iron x 10 (soil)

Fine Aerosols at Yosemite National ParkIMPROVE site at Turtleback Dome

Forest fires inOregonValley dust

11

12

23

34

45

56

66

77

88

99

1010

1111

1112

12

Month of the Year 2002

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Mic

rog

ram

s/m

3

PM 2.5 24 hr avg

Fresno fine aerosol mass, 1st Street "Supersite"


0.09 - 0.260.26 - 0.34

0.34 - 0.560.56 - 0.75

0.75 - 1.151.15 - 2.5

2.5 - 5.05.0 - 10.0

Particle Diameter in Micrometers

0

10

20

30

40

Nan

ogra

ms/

m3 Potassium

Sulfur/2

Calcium

Size Distributions of Aerosols at Yosemite NP, Summer, 2002UCD DELTA Group slotted DRUM, S-XRF Analysis

Wood smoke from Oregon

Sulfates from the Bay Area

Dust from the San Joaquin

Valley

Summary• We are losing the air quality war in the San

Joaquin Valley because– We are putting a lot of resources into responding to

“’the usual suspects” – the federal EPA parameters crafted in the 1960’s for eastern US cities and only rarely and modestly modified since then

– We do not understand adequately the sources of the major valley problems – summer ozone and winter and summer fine particles – and why they have not responded better to prior control efforts

– We are not measuring adequately those parameters most likely to cause the observed Valley health effects in from fine, very fine, and ultra fine particles

– We are not protecting the Sierra Nevada

What can we do? • Spending another gazillion dollars will not help unless we

understand the problem, such as ……– Summer control measures will not fix winter problems, and vice

versa– Oxygenates like MTBE are a useless and costly scandal!– Making 2/3 of all cars in California electric or very low emission

would barely change air quality at all• 1% of cars (smokers/gross emitters) contribute about 30% of all

automobile highway emissions, • The 10% of worse cars contribute 2/3 of all automobile highway

emissions• 2/3 of cars (your cars!) contribute only about 10% of all automobile

highway emissions

– Paving every dirt road in the valley would not change PM2.5 violations

– Emission factors are almost useless without removal factors

Where do we go now? • We must accept that the California Central Valley is

unique, just as California did in the 1970s vs. US EPA– Summer – winter differences– Terrain considerations

• We must acknowledge that measures crafted for coastal sites do not work well here

• Need to better learn the sources of our problems– Upgrade air monitoring with integral analysis; add visibility– Continuous adaptive research projects – (Fresno Super-site)

• We must craft valley-wide responses – Seasonally dependent control measures– Transport from upwind sites needs upwind controls

• We have to include Bay Area, the foothills and the Sierra Nevada as an integral part of the Valley system

What can we do now? 1. Closer cooperation between federal, state and (strengthened)

local agencies – SJVUAQMD, Sacramento, Yolo-Solano AQMDs At least talk to one another! Example Yosemite 2002 study, Fresno 2001 study, Clean Air Act amendments 1977

ACTION: Annual “State of the Valley Air” briefing SJVUAPCDACTION: NPS enlists EPA, sues California on Yosemite visibility

2. Leadership in valley educational institutions for teaching, research, and public service

A CSU or UC university department for air quality? In your dreams! ACTION: Annual Valley Air research Symposium; CSU Fresno,

then rotate Comm. Colleges, CSU (Valley), and UCD,UCM ACTION: Collaborative research projects (include high schools)

3. Upgrade air quality information in news outlets viz. the LA Time’s air quality page; TV weather: “The AQI is very good but we can’t see across the block – ha, ha!”

ACTION: Work with SJVUAPCD and academia; buy mass or visibility instrument; dedicated air quality pages, TV shows; dump AQI and go to specific pollutants O3, Fine mass, …

What can we do now? 4. Strong local NGOs with a focus on Valley air, respiratory

health, and the Sierra NevadaACTION: CUVAQ – Citizens United for Valley Air Quality; ALA-SET, Fresno; Health Effects Task Force

5. Get involved with your legislatorsThere have been some excellent recent initiatives ACTION: Work with your legislators, i.e. New PUC regulation of standby electric rates for water pumps; cell phone call in registry for smoking cars and trucks (with teeth!); CalTrans

6. Get involved with your executive – Arnold to the rescue! ACTION: Only California has the legal authority to challenge EPA to get the science right in the Valley!

But the Valley must lead! a. New PM0.25 standard to zero in on the harmful combustion component of Valley aerosols from diesels and smoking

cars ,

b. Modify PM2.5 standard (perhaps to PM1.0) to delete soil, c. Establish ozone background in the pre-historic Valley

Summary of the Presentation• Air quality in California 30 years of effort

• Was it worth doing? Need we continue?– Health Yes, documented health impacts of aerosols and ozone

– Welfare Yes, ozone damage to crops, haze from particles

• How are we doing?– California – Los Angeles, Bay Area

• Ozone Great success• Particles Removed lead, some other success

– Central Valley – Fresno, Sacramento• Ozone Reduced precursors, but no change

in ozone• Particles Uncertain sources, unclear causality to health,

Little progress Exception: rice straw smoke

– Yosemite and Sequoia NP and the Sierra NevadaStill haze at national parks

from aerosols, damage to trees from ozone

• Where do we go now? ACTION! to a cleaner future

Informational Resources for this Talk

• San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Management District– http://www.valleyair.org

• California Air Resources Board - Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality and http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/aqe&m.htm

– Routine monitoring – ADAM http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam– Special Studies - CRAPAQS, FACES, …. Soon?

• US Environmental Protection Agency– Routine monitoring – AIRS data base …hard to use;– Special studies – Fresno Super-site … terminated by EPA

• US Interagency Monitoring for Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) – Yosemite and Sequoia NP

– Routine monitoring – http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/– Special studies – Yosemite Study, summer, 2002

• Research Projects – – Universities – UC Davis http://delta.ucdavis.edu FACES, UN Reno Desert

Research Inst., CORE http://nurseweb.ucsf.edu/iha/core.htm– Non Governmental Organizations – ALASET HETF, Valley Health Study and

Sacramento/I-5 Transect Study; HEI www.healtheffects.org• Federal resources NOAA HYSPLIT http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html

http://www.healtheffects.org/

http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html

Fresno

Sequoia, Yosemite NP

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

January, 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25M

icro

gra

ms/m

3

Crocker Art ARB 13th & T Sacramento River

"Droplet" Mode Aerosol Mass1.15 > Dp > 0.75 microns

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

January, 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mic

rogra

ms/m

3

Crocker Art ARB 13th & T Sacramento River

Very Fine Mode Aerosol Mass0.26 > Dp > 0.09 microns

11

12

33

34

55

56

67

78

89

910

1011

1112

1213

Month of the Year, 2002

0

50

100

150

200

Mic

rogr

ams/

m3

Aerosols at the Clovis site, Fresno CountyPM10 mass, 2002

EPA standard150 ug/m3

CA standard 50 ug/m3

“round up the usual suspects.” why we are losing the air quality war in the san joaquin valley a...

Documents