&EPA
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4-90-008
May 1990
             Air
                IMPROVE

            PROGRESS REPORT

-------
                                  EPA-450/4-90-008
       IMPROVE
PROGRESS REPORT
               By
           Marc Pitchford
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Las Vegas, NV 93478

              And

           David Joseph
          Air Quality Office
        National Park Service
         Denver, CO 80228

        U.S. Environmental Protection
        Region 5,  Library  (5PL-16)
        230 S. Dearborn Street, Eoorn 1670
        feioago, IL  60604
Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
      Office Of Air And Radiation
  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Research Tnnngie Pone. NC  27711
            Mav 1990

-------
This report has been reviewed by the Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and has been approved for publication. Any mention of trade names or commercial
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                      EPA-450/4-90-008

-------
                        Table of Contents
Introduction 	    5
     Objectives of the IMPROVE Program 	    6

Background Visibility Monitoring Network 	    7
     Introduction  	    7
     Site Selection	    7
     Monitoring Techniques 	    8
     Quality Assurance 	   17
     Data Processing, Reporting, and Status  	   17

Process to Identify and Document Suspected Visibility
     Impairment	   30
     Voyageurs National Park 	   31
     Petrified Forest National Park  	   31
     Saguaro Wilderness  	   31
     Canyonlands National Park 	   32
     Grand Canyon National Park	   32
     Moosehorn Wilderness Area 	   32
     Roosevelt Campobello International Park 	   33

-------
                        Figures  and  Tables


Item           Title                                      Page(s)

Figure 1       IMPROVE Background Visibility                    9
               Monitoring Network site map.

Figure 2       Particle analysis lower detection               14
               limits.

Figure 3       Particle and optical  monitoring              23-25
               seasonal data summary.

Table 1        IMPROVE "look-alike"  sites.                   10-12

Table 2        Transmissometer deployment schedule.            15

Table 3        Related parameters evaluated for                18
               Quality Assurance

Table 4        Independent crosschecks.                        19

Table 5        Data processing steps.                       20-21

Table 6        Particle data status.                           26

Table 7        Optical data status.                             27

Table 8        Photography archive status.                      28

-------
                           Appendices
Appendix A


       A-l

       A-2

       A-3

       A-4

       A-5

       A-6

       A-7

Appendix B


Appendix C



Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F


Appendix G


Appendix H
Standard Operating Procedures for IMPROVE
Particulate Monitoring Network

Logsheets Used in Sample Handling

IMPROVE Sample Manual

Gravimetric Mass Startup Procedures

LIPM Startup Procedures

PIXE/PESA Procedures

Ion Contractor Procedures (RTI)

Carbon Contractor Procedures (DRI)

Transmissometer standard Operating Procedures
Manual

Visibility Monitoring and Data Analysis Using
Automatic Camera Systems - Satndard Operating
Procedures and Quality Assurance Document

Transmissometer Systems Field Operator's Manual

Transmissometer Data Collection and Processing

Status of IMPROVE and National Park Service
IMPROVE Protocol Optical Monitoring Networks

Monthly Technical Progress Report Visibility
Monitoring and Data Analysis Program

Monitoring for Reasonably Attributable Impact of
Local Sources at '/oyageurs National Park,
Petrified Forest National Park and Moosehorn
Wilderness

-------
                     IMPROVE Progress Report

I.  Introduction

    In Section 169A of  the  Clean Air Act As Amended August 1977,
Congress declared as a national goal "the prevention of  any future,
and the  remedying of any  existing,  impairment  of visibility in
mandatory  class  I Federal  areas  which impairment  results from
manmade  air  pollution."    Mandatory class  I Federal  areas  are
national parks greater  in size  than  6000 acres,  wilderness areas
greater in size than 5000 acres and international parks that were
in  existence on  August  7,  1977.    This  section  required  the
Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA)  to  promulgate regulations
requiring States to develop  programs  in  their  State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) providing  for  visibility protection in these areas.
EPA promulgated these regulations on December 2,  1980.

    Section  51.305 of  the  1980  regulations  required  States  to
develop  a  monitoring  strategy  for evaluating visibility  in  the
mandatory class I  areas and to  provide  a mechanism for using any
available data in decisions required by the visibility protection
program.   On July 12,  1985, EPA  promulgated  federal regulations
for, among other things, a visibility monitoring strategy for those
states that did not submit revisions to their SIPs for visibility
protection.  The federal effort to develop the entire Section 169A
visibility program is  described in more  detail  by Metsa . )   The
federally promulgated visibility monitoring strategy called for the
establishment of a cooperative visibility monitoring effort between
the EPA and several federal land management agencies:  the National
Park Service (NFS), the Fish  and Wildlife  Service (FWS)  and  the
Bureau  of Land  Management  (BLM)  of   the  U. S.  Department  of
Interior; and the  Forest Service  (FS) of the  U.  S. Department of
Agriculture.      Interagency  Monitoring  of  PROtected   Visual
Snvironraents, or  IMPROVE, is  the name  given  to  this new federal
monitoring program to  address  the  specific  data  needs of  the
Section 169A visibility protection program.

    In  consideration  of  the  requirements of the  Section  169A
regulatory program, the objectives of the IMPROVE program are:

    1.   To establish the background visibility levels necessary to
         assess impacts  of potential  new sources,

    2.   To   determine   the  sources   and  levels  of  reasonably
         attributable visibility impairment,

    3.   To collect data useful  for assessing  progress toward  the
         national visibility goal,  and

-------
    4.  To   promote  the  development   of   improved  visibility
        monitoring  technology and  the collection  of comparable
        visibility  data.

    In  order to  meet these  objectives  two  distinct monitoring
activities were developed and initiated.   A background visibility
monitoring network  was  established to meet  the  first objective.
Impairment attribution  studies  are conducted to  meet the second
objective.  Long-term operation of this network would allow trends
analysis  required  to  meet  the  third  objective.    The  fourth
objective is addressed by  the  documentation  of  the design and
operations of the monitoring network and attribution studies along
with the preparation of several guidance documents.

    To accomplish these activities,  a technical steering committee
was formed with representation from the EPA, NFS,  FWS, FS and the
BLM.     The  committee's  responsibilities   include  designing,
deploying, and operating the entire monitoring program;  selecting
tile sites for the various background stations and  special studies;
developing guidance documents for States and  other parties that
must  monitor  visibility;   providing  some  data  analysis  and
interpretation;  establishing  a  database  that can be  accessed by
outside parties and writing periodic status reports to inform the
public  of  the   status  of  these  monitoring  initiatives.    The
committee has hirad  contractors, as needed, to accomplish the above
tasks.

    This report summarizes the progress made to date in developing
and  implementing the  IMPROVE monitoring network.   Section  II
addresses the background monitoring network and Section III reviews
the impairment attribution monitoring efforts.
         42 U.S.C.  7491.

         Section  162(a)  of the Clean Air Act  as  amended 1977, 42
         U.S.C. 7472(a).  A complete list of all the mandatory class
         I Federal  areas  appears  at 40  CFR  81.400-437.

         45 FR  80084,  codified at 40  CFR  51.300 et seq.

         50 FR  28544,  codified at 40  CFR Sections 52.21  (amended)
         and  52.26-52.28.

         J.   C.   Metsa,   "Visibility   Protection  Plans  -  EPA's
         Regulatory Program",   Transactions  of the  Air  Pollution
         Control  Association  Specialty. Conference  on  Visibility
         Protection:   Research and Policy Aspects, September 7-10,
         1986,  Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming.

-------
II.  Background Visibility Monitoring Network


Introduction

     The design  of  the  background visibility monitoring  network
was  constrained  by  several  factors:  insufficient  resources  to
monitor at all of the visibility protected  areas,  and  the  lack  of
an officially  accepted  approach for  visibility monitoring.  The
response  by  the steering group  to  these  constraints  was  to
establish and  use site  selection criteria  to determine which  of
the  visibility protected  areas  to  monitor,   and to  develop  a
quality  monitoring  approach  applied uniformly  at  each  of the
selected  locations.   The  steering  committee  felt  that  it was
better  to compromise  on the  number of monitoring locations  than
on the ultimate quality  and utility of the  information  gathered.


Site Selection

     The steering committee employed  site selection criteria  in a
review  of each of the 156 visibility protected class  I areas  to
determine which would be a part  of the network.   There  were  four
criteria: anticipated changes to  the  area's visibility, existing
visibility  problems,   scenic  sensitivity  and  value, and  the
representativeness  of  the  data  to   other  visibility  protected
areas.

     Representatives of the NFS,  FS,  and  FWS researched  each  of
their  visibility protected areas  for information  pertinent  to
the   four   selection  criteria.    The  areas   were   discussed
individually at  a steering committee meeting and were  separated
into  four  divisions  by  the   majority  vote   of  the   IMPROVE
participants (one vote  per agency) using  the selection criteria
as a  guide.   Since  the  best  estimates at  the time were that the
resources  for  the   program  would support  about  20   monitoring
sites,  the  first  division  was  restricted  to that number.   Areas
grouped  into  division   I  were  reasonably  assured   monitoring.
There were  16  areas  selected  for division  II which would  be the
next to receive monitoring if  cost were lower  than anticipated  or
if  additional  funds  became  available.    Divisions  III  and  IV
contained areas  with even  lower priority  for  inclusion  in the
network.

     Of  the   20  areas  originally  selected   for   background
visibility monitoring (division  I), 19 are  a  part of the network.
One  of  the 20  selected  sites,  Superstition  Wilderness  near
Phoenix, Arizona, had a chronic  and  determined vandalism  problem
that  prevented  siting a  monitoring station   there.    Tonto
National Monument (not  a visibility  protected area),  a  few miles
north  of  the  Superstitions  Wilderness,  was   selected  as  a
substitute.  It is representative of  regional  air quality  in the

-------
Superstitions and has adequate security for the instrumentation.
IMPROVE resources have  not  allowed  the  establishment of more than
the originally anticipated  20 sites.   The names and locations of
these are indicated on  the  map shown  in  figure  1.

     Subsequent  to  the development  of the  monitoring protocol
used in  the  IMPROVE visibility background monitoring  network, a
number  of  IMPROVE  "look-a-like"   sites  were  established  by
individual government  agencies.   Though  these sites   are  not a
part  of  the  IMPROVE  program,   the  steering  committee  has
encouraged   their   establishment  by  sharing  information  and
providing advice as requested.  As a result, the same  monitoring
systems, procedures, and instrument  siting criteria are employed
at most  of  these locations.   These  site locations can  also be
seen in  figure 1.   The  sponsors  of  these  sites  have  agreed to
exchange data with the IMPROVE program, so that in an  importance
sense  these  sites  can be  thought  of  as  an  extension  of   the
background visibility  monitoring  network.   Table la  lists   the
monitoring systems  in  use  at the IMPROVE  "look-a-like"   sites.
Site identification, location and elevation for both IMPROVE  and
IMPROVE "look-a-like"  sites are listed  in  Table  Ib.
Monitoring Techniques

     The  background  visibility  monitoring  approach  involves
aerosol,   optical,  and  view  monitoring.    View  monitoring
documents  the  appearance  of  the  scene,  optical  monitoring
measures  the  scene-independent  optical   condition  of  the
atmosphere, and aerosol  monitoring  determines  the nature of the
air  pollutants  responsible  for  visual  impairments.    In the
opinion  of  the  steering  committee,  each  of  these  types  of
monitoring are  required  for  visibility 'monitoring  of  protected
areas.

     Aerosol monitoring in the IMPROVE  network  is  accomplished by
a  combination  of  particle  sampling and  sample   analysis.   The
sampler employed  was  designed specifically  for the  program.  It
collects four  simultaneous  samples:  one PM-10 sample  (particles
less than 10 micron diameter)  on a teflon  filter  and three PM-2.5
samples  (particles less  than  2.5  micron diameter)  on  teflon,
nylon, and quartz filters.  Each of  the four  samples is  collected
by a separate subsystem (or  module)  including  everything from the
inlet  to   the  pump  with   only  the  support   structure  and
controller/timer  in  common.   The particle  size   segregation for
the  PM-10  module  is accomplished  by  a  wind  insensitive  inlet
with a 10 micron cutoff, while the PM-2.5  segregation is produced
by passing the sampled air through a cyclone  separator.   Constant
sample flow (18.9 liters per minute  for the  PM-10  module and 21.7
liters per minute  for each  of the PM-2.5 modules)  is  maintained
by  a critical  orifice  in each  module.   The  IMPROVE sampler is
programed to automatically collect two  24-hour  duration  samples

-------
Sit*
ACAD
3IBE
3RCA
3RID
CANY
CH:H
CHLA
DENA
GLAC
GHCA
GRSM
JARB
NEVE
MORA
ROMO
SASO
SHEN
TONT
WENI
toss

Site Ham*
Acadia
Big Send
3ryce Canyon
Bridget Wilderness
Canyonlands
Chiricahua
Cratar Lake
Oenali
Glacier
Grand Canyon
Great Smoky Mountains
Jacbidge Wilderness
Mesa Verde
Mount Rainier
Rocky Mountain
San Gorgonio wilderness
State
ME
TX
UT
WY
UT
AZ
OR
AK
MT
AZ
TN
NV
CO
WA
CO
CA
Shenandoan ! 7A
Tonto national Monument
Weninucne Wilderness
'fosemite

AZ
CO
CA

                                            a
                                                       HALC
                                                        \
                                                        »VD-
Figure 1.  IMPROVE background visibility monitoring network

          including IMPROVE "look-a-like" sites.  IMPROVE

          sites are listed on this figure.

-------
                            TABLE la
                Non-IMPROVE sites  to be operated
                     under IMPROVE protocol
Site Name

State

IMPROVE
Sampler
Camera
Auto 35 mm
Transmis-
someter
NFS CRITERIA SITES
Arches
Badlands
Bandelier
Carlsbad Caverns
Great Sand Dunes
Guadalupe Mountains
Haleakala
Hawaii Volcanoes
Isle Royale
Lassen Volcanic
Petrified Forest
Pinnacles
Point Reyes
Redwood
Virgin Islands
Voyageurs
Yellowstone
UT
SD
NM
NM
CO
TX
HI
HI
MI
CA
AZ
CA
CA
CA
VI
MN
WY
S02
S02
S02

S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
302
S02
S02
S02
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+
+

+








+
+



+

NOAA/IMPROVE
Mauna Loa
HI
(1)
i



NESCAUMA
Bridgeton
Mt Sunapee
Underhill
Whiteface Mtn
Quabbin Reservoir
Mohawk Mtn
Ringwood
i
ME
NH
VT
NY
MA
CT
NJ
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
i
















i
TERPA
North Shore
South Shore
CA
CA
+
+
+
+


Modifications to IMPROVE samplers:
S02-Impregnated quartz filter  following  teflon  in PMlO module.
(l)-Two fine teflon modules, one continuous, one downslope
    winds only.
(2)-One fine teflon module, two sites with fine quartz module
    additional sample on national 1 day-in-6 cycle.
  A-Not ooeraced under I.MPHOVE

-------
         Table  Ib
Monitoring Site Locations
         IMPROVE
ID
ACAD
BIBE
BRCA
BRID
CANY
CHIR
CRLA
DENA
GLAC
GRCA
GRSM
JARB
MEVE
MORA
ROMO
SASO
SHEN
TONT
WEMI
YOSE
i
Site Name
Acadia
Big Bend
Bryce Canyon
Bridger Wilderness
Canyonlands
Chiricahua
Crater Lake
Denali
Glacier
Grand Canyon
Great Smoky Mountains
Jarbidge Wilderness
Mesa Verde
Mount Rainier
Rocky Mountain
San Gorgonio Wilderness
Shenandoah
Tonto National Monument
Weminuche Wilderness
Yosemite
Lat
44.22
29.30
37.57
43.05
38.45
32.00
42.88
63.45
48.50
36.07
35.75
41.53
37.12
46.47
40.37
34.12
38.48
33.63
107.48
37.45
Lon
68.16
103.18
112.18
109.48
109.82
109.21
122.70
149.30
113.99
112.17
83.50
115.24
108.29
121.45
105.57
116.56
. 78.12
111.13
37.39
119.35
Elev(ft)
420
3500
8000
8000
5925
5400
6500
2100
4500
6800
2500
6200
7210
5140
7900
5618
3600
2600
8410
5300
    NFS CRITERIA SITES
ARCH
BADL
BAND
EVER
GRSA
GUMO
HALE
HAVO
ISRO
LAVO
PEFO
FINN
PORE
REDW
SAGU
VIIS
VOYA
WASH
YELL
Arches
Badlands
Bandelier
Everglades
Great Sands
Guadalupe Mountains
Haleakala
Hawaii Volcanoes
Isle Royale
Lassen Volcanic
Petrified Forest
Pinnacles
Point Reyes
Redwood
Saguaro
virgin Islands
Voyageurs
Washington DC
Yellowstone
38.49
43.45
35.83
25.28
37.45
31.86
20.50
19.26
47.54
40.32
35.00
36.29
38.07
41.33
37.10
48.35
38.55
44.33
109.37
101.56
106.33
30.30
105.30
104.66
156.16
155.16
89.08
121.34
109.30
121.09
122.53
124.05
110.44
93.10
77.00
110.24
5650
2493
6500
0
8200
5400
3800
4100
700
5900
5500
1040
125
760
3080
1140
30
7744

-------
     Table Ib, cont.
Nonitoring Site Locations
         NESCAUM
ID
BRMA
MOMO
UNDE
QURE
RING
SUMO
WHMO
Site Name
Bridgeton ME
Mohawk Mountain CT
Underbill VT
Quabbin Res. MA
Ringwood St. Park NJ
Sunapee Mtn NH
whiteface Mountain NY
Lat
44.10
41.83
44.53
42.30
41.12
43.32
44.38
Lon
70.73
73.30
72.87
72.33
74.23
72.07
73.85
Elev(ft)
728
1500
1300
1020
605
2700
2100
      NOAA/IMPROVE
MALO
Mauna Loa
19.32
155.35
11150

-------
per week. Appendix A-2,  the  "IMPROVE Sampler Manual" contains a
much more detailed description of  the sampler and  its operation.

     Mass  and  elemental  analyses  are  conducted  on  the PM-10
samples.   The  PM-2.5  samples  are analyzed  for  mass,  elements,
ions (including particulate nitrates sampled through a denuder),
organic and elemental  carbon,  and optical  absorption.   Figure 2
indicates the lower detection limits of  the various analyses  for
typical  IMPROVE samples.   Appendix  A,  the  "Standard  Operating
Procedures for IMPROVE Particulate Monitoring Network," describes
the analysis methodology including quality  assurance procedures.

     The IMPROVE network employs a long  path transmissometer  for
optical  measurements.   These instruments  measure  the  amount of
light  transmitted  through  the  atmosphere over  a known distance.
Transmission  measurements  are converted  to  the path-averaged
extinction  coefficient  by  the  digital  electronics   of   the
instrument.  The light  source  (transmitter) and light monitoring
(receiver)  components  of the  instrument are  separated  by a
distance  of   from  one  to   fifteen  kilometers  depending  on
conditions at the  monitoring location.   To facilitate deployment
in  remote  areas where commercial  electric power availability is
sparse, the transmitter is typically solar powered.  Appendix B,
"Transmissometer Standard Operating  Procedures Manual," contains
a more detailed description of the instrument and  its use.

     The transmissometers are a relatively new instrument having
been  employed  at  a  few locations  in  field   comparison   and
instrument  evaluation  studies  prior to  their  selection  for  the
IMPROVE network.    Though  they  performed  well  under  these
circumstances,  it  was  felt  that experience in long term  routine
operations at a few  sites would be advantageous in order  to work
out any unforseen difficulties in  hardware  or procedures prior to
deploying  at  all   20  sites.   In  addition,  manpower  and  funding
resources  were  not  available  to  deploy all  of  the transmisso-
meters  in a single year.   For  these  reasons, the  transmissometsr
deployment  was  distributed over  a  two year period  as  shown in
table  2.

     In  order  to  gather  optical  data  prior  to  the  scheduled
installation   of  its  transmissometer,  most  sites  employed
automated  35mm camera  systems  to document  contrast  of  distant
terrain  features.     Color  transparencies  (slides)  of suitable
targets are analyzed by a scanning microdensitometer  to determine
apparent  contrast.   An estimate of  the  path-averaged  extinction
coefficient can be calculated from the  apparent contrast in  the
same   manner  as   with  contrast  data  from  teleradiometers.
Extinction coefficient data determined in this  way are  subject to
a   greater   uncertainty   than  those  available   from   the
transmissometer.    However,  the  ability  to  initiate   optical
monitoring  concurrent  with the  other measurements  was  considered
worth  the additional analysis and data'processing  effort.   [As

                                13

-------
       188 a0
91 55
33 99

74 «4
SO 18
57 73
49 27
40 32
32 30
23 91

UC
_
Li
-
c -
-
EC
Be
_
8
N03 304 N
1 1 / 93
197 78
97 75

37 81
77 80
37 91
S7 97
48 32
38 37
28 '3 ®
—
C 'S «|- ' 0 J ,8 ,8 '
- 1 T-
i..
7,90
"
3 00
Z 33
.J
•"%
1 78J

| -42

j
. !3j.
1

9 35 .

a 57^.
1
1
a 28L
9 30

H -

No
a.
a 24
3 S3
3 99
-V.
J Z 99
In Cd Ac, 1
M Sn i
Ma
Sb 9
Cs Z
Ce La Ba
u Al
Sm P .
F Si
o ri Mo Tb E-
Hf Nb K 3 H
W Sc Pt Zr Au Ta Hg Ca ^ ?b Tp j
- P M Cr Rb 3r Y _
P a Mn _
Zn Go Cu As Se N! 8r Co



1 87

1 33

1 90

a 67
9 33
9 90
Figure 2. Lower detectable limits  for  IMPROVE  sampler in

-------
                   TABLE  2

      Transmissometer deployment schedule.
Site
ACAD
BIBE
BRID
BRCN
CANY
CHIR
CRLA
DENA
GLAT
GRCT
GRSM
JARB
MEVE
MORA
ROMM
SAGO
SHEN
TONM
WEMI
YOSW
Site Name
Acadia National Park
Big Bend National Park
Bridger Wilderness
Bryce Canyon National Park
Canyonlands National Park
Chiricahua National Monument
Crater Lake National Park
Denali National Park
Glacier National Park
Grand Canyon National Park
Great Smokey Mountains NP
Jarbidge Wilderness
Mesa Verde National Park
Mount Rainier National Park
Rocky Mountain National Park
San Gorgonio Wilderness
Shenandoah National Park
Tonto National Monument
Weminuche Wilderness
Yosemite National Park
State
Maine
Texas
Wyoming
Utah
Utah
Arizona
Oregon
Alaska
Montana
Arizona
Tennessee
Nevada
Colorado
Washington
Colorado
California
Virginia
Arizona
Colorado
California
Deployment
Date
11/12/87
12/01/88
7/19/88
*
12/19/86
12/17/88
9/01/88
*
1/20/89
12/18/86
**
*
9/14/88
it * *
12/01/87
n/a
3/09/88
4/19/89
*
9/01/88
i
      These  sites   are  scheduled  for  transmissometsr
      deployment  but dates  have  not been  set.

      Transmissometer  may  not  be   installed.  A
      nephelometer  installation  is being  considered.
*** _
Approval has been
a nephelometer.
received for the installation of
                      15

-------
indicated  below,  all  sites  have  camera  systems   for  view
monitoring  thus  the  deployment and  operation  of camera  systems
required no additional effort.]

     The primary purpose of the automated 35mm camera  systems  is
for view monitoring.   Three color  transparencies  per  day document
the  appearance of a  selected  scene  at  each  of  the  IMPROVE sites.
Except  for their  interim  use  to  estimate  the  extinction
coefficient  (as  indicated  above), the  slides  are  not  routinely
used for quantitative analysis.  However, they   are  considered  a
valuable source  of information for  interpretation of  concurrent
measurements,  to  communicate  perceived visual  conditions,  and
for future  qualitative and quantitative  investigations.   To aide
in  the  use of  the photography,  a  computer  index  is  maintained
which contains  qualitative  information  on  the  appearance of the
scene,  meteorology,  and  air quality,  as well  as  identification
information for each  color  slide.  Procedures for the collection,
archival,   and  documentation of the  transparencies are  contained
in  Appendix C,  Visibility Monitoring  and  Data Analysis Using
Automatic  Camera  Systems; Standard  Operating  Procedures  and
Quality Assurance Document".

     Temperature and  relative  humidity  are also monitored at each
location to aid in the interpretation of the optical  and particle
measurements.    Liquid  water  is  a  labile   component  of  .the
particles  which is  dependent  on  the   particle  composition  and
ambient  relative  humid'ity.    The  liquid water  content  of  the
particles   can  have  a  significant  affect  on their  optical
property.   Existing measurement techniques are  unable to directly
characterize this  important component of the particles.   Thus  to
estimate   the  role  of  the  water  it  is   necessary  to employ
empirical  methods  that  relate   extinction  coefficient  to  the
relative  humidity  and particle composition.   Relative  humidity
and temperature  are  also  valuable  for   distinguishing
precipitation  and  fog event  from air  quality   related  impacts.
Installation of  the temperature and  relative humidity  sensors  is
conducted on the same schedule  as  the transmissometers  since both
require automatic data logging  equipment.

     Data  from  continuous  monitoring equipment (transmissometer,
temperature, and relative humidity sensors)  are radio-transmitted
from the  data  logger  at each  of the  sites  to  a 'communications
satellite  every  three  hours.   The  satellite in  turn  relays the
data  to  a  computer   at  a  ground   receiving  station.   Daily
retrievals  of  the  data,  made,  possible  by this approach,  promote
greater  feedback  on  monitoring  system  performance.   Hence
malfunctions  are  more quickly  discovered  and  remedied.   The
Transmissometer  Systems  Field  Operator's  Manual,  Appendix   D
provides  more  information  concerning  the  temperature,  relative
humidity,  and satellite data systems.
                               j. 0

-------
Quality Assurance

     The IMPROVE  Steering  Committee is  responsible  for overall
quality assurance.  This includes  the  obligation to ensure that
quality  assurance and  standard operating  procedures  are  well
conceived and documented, that  they  are updated as necessary, and
that they  are followed.   Ideally   the steering  committee  would
exercise this  responsibility  by enlisting the assistance  of an
independent  quality  assurance  auditor   (ie.  one not otherwise
involved in the program).   This  group or  individual would conduct
a complete system audit annually by  reviewing documents, visiting
sites  and analysis  laboratories,   challenging  the   system  with
standards and  other   audit   materials,  and  reporting  their
observations  and conclusions.   However, limited IMPROVE resources
have not  allowed contracting  for  an independent  system audit.
Until an  independent audit  program  is  established,  the function
of system auditor rests with the IMPROVE  Steering Committee.

     Quality assurance  principals are employed in each component
of  the  monitoring program.    All aspects of  the  monitoring are
documented  including  site  selection,  instrument  siting,
operations,   calibration,  maintenance,  data  processing  and
reporting.  The details of  these are contained  in the  appropriate
standard operating procedures  manuals  (appendices A  through D)

     A  number  of  the  measured  or  derived parameters  from the
monitoring program are  interrelated  (see  table  3).   This allows
data intercomparisons as a method to evaluate system  performance
and  to  check  for outliers.   In addition, various aspects of the
program are  subject  to third  party review and cross  comparisons
with independent monitoring,  sample  analysis,  or  research
efforts.  Table 4 summarizes activities of  that nature.

     An important quality assurance  activity is the  assessment of
parameter specific accuracy and  precision.  This is generally an
ongoing process which has not been  fully implemented at the  time
this report  was  prepared.   The  approaches  employed to estimate
data uncertainty include error propagation  methodology  applied to
component  uncertainties  (e.g.  sampler  flow,  sample  blank,  and
compositional  analyses uncertainties)   or  direct  uncertainty
calculations based upon differences  in  redundant  measurements.

Data Processing, Reporting,  and Status

     Measurements  from  the  IMPROVE  Background  Visibility
Monitoring Network are  converted to  calibrated engineering units
prior  to their  availability.    Table  5  indicates  the types of
processes applied  to  IMPROVE sampler data  and  Appendix   E
describes  the  processes applied to  the  transmissometer.  A  more
complete description  of  the  application of   calibration  and
correction factors  to  the  data  is  specified  in the  appropriate
standard operating manuals  (appendices  A  to  E)

-------
                          TABLE 3

               Quality Assurance Comparisons
       1.  Fine sulfur*  vs.  fine sulfateb

       2.  Fine sulfur8  vs.  PMlO sulfur*

       3.  Fine hydrogen vs.  fine mass

       4.  PMlO hydrogen vs.  PMlO mass

       5.  Sum of fine components0  vs. fine mass

       6.  Sum of PMlO components0  vs. PMlO mass

       7.  Elemental carbond  vs. optical  absorption9

       8.  Organic carbon vs. nonsulfate  hydrogen*

       9.  Fine mass vs. extinction

      10.  PMlO mass vs. extinction

      11.  Fine mass components0 vs.  extinction

      12.  PMlO mass components0 vs.  extinction
a Sample collected on teflon filter and analyzed using PIXE.

b Sample  collected  on  nylon  filter  and  analyzed using  ion
  chromatography.

c Fine  components are  defined  as sulfate,  soil,  elemental
  carbon and organic  carbon.

d .Sample  collected  on  quartz  filter   and  analyzed  using
  thermal optical  techniques.

* Sample collected on teflon filter and analyzed using LIPM.

f Non-sulfate  hydrogen  is  defined  as   total  fine  hydrogen
  minus sulfur/4.

-------
                            TABLE 4a

        Intercomparison Tests of  IMPROVE Instrumentation

Optical1

Comparison                                   Location
Two Transmissometers with different
path lengths plus a Nephelometer
Grand Canyon, AZ
One Transmissometer,  Black Box,
and a Nephelometer
Meteor Crater,AZ
One Transmissometer, Nephelometer,
particle measurements for
extinction budget
Page, AZ
One Transmissometer, Rotating
Disk, and Radiance difference with
natural targets
Grand Canyon, AZ
  1 W.C. Malm,  G.  Persha,  R. Tree, H.  Iyer,  E.  Law-Evans, "The
    Relative  Accuracy  of  Transmissometer  Derived  Extinction
    Coefficients."

-------
                        TABLE 4b, cont.

        Intercomparison  Tests  of  IMPROVE  Instrumentation

Aerosol1

Comparison                                   Location
Mass; Absorption; Sulfur and other
elements; Carbon; Compared against
SFU, VI, Hi-Vols over 30 participants
Glendora, CA
(ARE CSMCS)
Mass; Sulfur and other elements;
Carbon Species; Sulfates and Ions
Compared against SCISAS
Page, AZ
(WHITEX)
Mass; Sulfur and other elements;
Carbon Species; Sulfates and Ions
Compared against SCISAS
Grand Canyon NP
(WHITEX)
Mass; Absorption; Sulfur and other
elements; Carbon Species
Four unit comparison plus SFU
Davis, CA
Mass; Sulfur and other elements
Compared against SCAQS sampler
Los Angeles, CA
(SCAQS)
Individual module field comparisons
at IMPROVE sites
many locations
    R.A.  Eldred,  T.A.  Cahill,   M.  Pitchford  and  W.C.  Malm,
    "IMPROVE— A  New Remote Area  Particulate  Monitoring System
    for "'isibili-v Studies'1.

-------
                          TABLE 5

                   Data Processing Steps
              for IMPROVE Particle Sampler
  Flow Rate  Calculation1
       Average  Flow
                        )  (T/280)*
  Volume Calculation

       Volume
             V - Q * D * 60/1000
  Concentration Calculation

       Mass

       Optical Absorption

       PIXE

       PESA
             MC
              abs
(PST-PRE-O/V

 -  A * log(PRE/PST)/V
       Carbon and
       analysis
Ion
  where:
            T
            V
            D
            MC
            PRE
            PST
            C
            b
             abs
  Average Flow (1/min)
  Flow before collection (1/min)
  Average flow after collection (1/min)
  Temperature (°K)
  Volume (m3)
  Duration (hours)
  Mass concentration (//g/m3)
  Filter mass before collection (/vg)
  Filter mass after collection (//g)
  Control mass (x/g)
  absorption coefficient (Mm'1)
1  Flow  rate  measurement  and  flow   rate  calculations
  discussed in detail in appendix A, pages 24, 25 and 26.
                                         are
  Insignificant  elemental  contamination  in  teflon  filters.
  Typical blank used to estimate spectral background due to x--
  rays produced  by filter.  Subtraction  handled  internally by
  spectral analysis program, producing elemental areal density
  (pt) in ng/cm2. Use collection area in cm2.

-------
                      TABLE 5, cont.
                   Data  Processing  Steps
               for IMPROVE Particle Sampler
3  Small  hydrogen  contamination  in  teflon  filter  estimated
  from series  of analysis of  clean  filters at  beginning of
  analytical  sessions.  Method determines areal density (pt) in
  ng/cm2.

       hydrogen concentration = area x  (pt-blank)/V

4  Subtracted  from contamination  in  filter  (based on field and
  laboratory  blanks)   and from  artifact   plus  contamination
  (based  on   backup  filters  in tandem  arrangement).  Blank
  values determined  by  UC  Davis  in  consultation  with
  cooperating contractors. Carbon  analyses  assume collection
  area of 3.8 cm2 on quartz filters.

       concentration =  (measured-blank)/Volume

-------
     Computer compatible  tapes  or  floppy disks  will  be used  to
transmit large  data  records on an  annual  basis to participants
and others  who  submit  written  request to  the program  steering
committee.   Figures 3 (a,b,c and d)  are examples of  site  specific
seasonal  data  summaries  (also see   appendix  F}.    These  are
prepared and  distributed to participants to  provide  more  rapid
feedback concerning the results  of  the  monitoring.

     The status of the  data archives  are indicated in tables  6,
7, and 8 (also  see appendix G)  which contain  the start dates  and
rate  of  data  recovered  for  the  particle   sampling,  optical
monitoring,  and  photography, respectively.
                                23

-------

case
four
H 2!
Mi
2
81
8
Cl
1C
ca
tt
r*
Nl
cu
Zn
As
B*
nt
Pb
OC
we
804
N03
IBSS
Nil
racon
aeithwtic man concentrations distribution of concentrations
d 8«p Cct NOV Mason mininu* mtdian maxinui
> 110 141 41 115 21 37 247













,


B
. ,
9 4
* •
5 2200 2400 1400 2000 500 1800 4200
, ,
• •
Figure 3a.
    Sample  distribution on concentrations in
    nanograms/cubic  meter  for  particles  smaller
    than 2.5 ^/m  except for PM10 mass.
     MOT
     9/03
     9/VI
     9/10
     9/14
     9/17
     9/21
     U/30
     DKIZ
      9/03
      9/07
      9/10
      9/U
      9/17
      9/21
     U/30 ...
2942  119.1  121.5  14.2  182.0  269.4  298.5  2.4* 43.2  59.6
                                         Ti   f*
                                         4.3   47.9
Ml
0.6*
CU
1.3
Zn
4.2
A*
1.1
Sa
2.4
ac   ?b
3.1  10.4
OC
394
IfC
124
304  ND3  FH10
994  126  5510
           analytical minium dctactobl* limit) actual concentration is la«s than this Mount
Figure 3b.
    Sample  24 hour average concentrations in
    nanograms/cubic meter  for  particles  smaller  than
    2.5 //m  except for  PM10 mass.

-------
          FINE MASS
                                          AMMONIUM SULFATE
                                           AMMONIUM NITRATE
        33)
Figure  3c.
Sample  data summary of  seasonal  particulate
spatial patterns.
                              25

-------




< 250 -
'ft
> ,50 ,












o

* -so-
3
~ 50 -
3 -




GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK
Transmissomecer Data Summary — 6 Hour Averages
March 1, 1988 - May 31, 1988

I 111 I ^ U 012
i HI fi i n °r^


11 	 i 	 1| 	 rTrq 	 6 	 fVf^'fe f*^ f"-025|
i 1 * I I 378
' 	 1 1 	 1 	 I ^
	 	 	 L L . 1 	 i! 	 L „. ,00
10 20 31 !0 20 30 10 20 31
MARCH APRIL MAY
JL 	 . . All jjil *L 	 i..

fy|ftt W J*\ Kl r ' rtii JIl/l '"jjjll -vj I « '
JW (ft JL. ^VKJ!/ JU*l*w ' Mil 'W._vW' '•VLw""Aw ^
,^*" ^»y ""VAnv^/ « ^w^1 vvtf
STANDARD VISUAL RANGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE * 0 , SVR
'0 0+5 35
|_ ni i 50 02+ '58
90 012 309
' FOR A GIVEN
X — THE SVR IS
•C * = EOUAL TO THE
X L n?' '4 CORRESPONDING
X " M 3VR VALUE.
V I X
-, - - • 	 - 338 -
	 - 	 - 378
•0 20 3D iO 50 50 70 30 30
CUMULATIVE TREOUENCY '%)
'RANSMISSOMETER OATA RECOVERY STATISTICS
CATEGORY IUM " j
TOTAL POSSIBLE S-^OUR AVERAGES IN THE TIME PERIOD 353 ;oo
USABLE 5-HOUR AVERAGES IN THE TIME PERIOD 3+5 93

Figure 3d.
Sample optical data quarterly summary.  Site
specific example for hypothetical monitoring
location.

-------
              TABLE 6

        Particle Data Status

Sample Inventory for IMPROVE Network
     2 March 1988 to 7 May 1988
site


Acadia
Big Bend
Bryce Canyon
Bridger
Canyonlands
Chiricahua
Crater Lake
Denali
Glacier
Grand Canyon
Great Smokey
Jarbidge
Mesa Verde
Mount Rainier.
Rocky Mountain
San Gorgonio
Shenandoah
Weminuche
Yosemite
average
samples
possible

80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
samples
valid

72 ( 90%)
80 (100%)
78 ( 98%)
51 ( 64%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
70 ( 88%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
64 ( 80%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
80 (100%)
76 ( 95%)
invalid samples


sampler
8
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o -
. 0
0
0
0
0
0.5 (1%)

Methods
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
16
0
0
0
3.3 (4%)

-------
           TABLE  7

Optical  Data  Status
            Preml (Mliiary
  Transit siaaeter Oau Collection Statistics
      far Pre-Operat tonal Test Period
   IMPROVE tat UPS IMPROVE Protocol Slt«»
Sltt
1. Acadta HP
2. Badlands NP
3. 3anOeller NM
i. 3tg Send NP
S. Srtdaer v
6. Canyon lands HP
7 Chincanua NM
3. Crater LjKe NP
3. alaeier IP
10. Grand Canyon HP
11. Suadaluoe HP
12. HaMii Volcanoes NP
13. Xesa Veroe «P
Sei-
ner*
I
P
P
[
I
!
Date
Installed
11/12/87
01/14/88
10/05/38
-12/01/88
07/19/88
12/19/86
I «/ 17/89
'
1
I
P
P
!
39/01/88
01/20/89
12/13/86
12/01/88
'
09/14/88
'.4. 'etriHed forest »P! P 04/17/87
j !
15. Pinnacles NX p ] 03/23/88
16. Rocky Hountam Np i [
12/01/87
rear
1987
1988
1989
1988
1989
1988
1989
1989
1988
1989
1987
1988
1389
Test Period Data Collection Statistics ay Season
5-Hour Averaoino Periods
Winter
M. No. Percent
Possible Usable Usafile
364 49 13
360 2S3 70
187 182 48
350 244 57
380 320 38
360 322 39
360 196 54
287 259 90
364 266 73
:60 4 1
19891
1388
1989
1989
1987
1988
1989
1988
1989

1988
1989
—
156 105 67
291 185 S3
364 196 53
360 317 38
360 144 JO

360 311 36
1987)
13881 364 :19 37
19891 360 353 38
i
1388 1
1989 1 360 .93 S3
1988
1989
17. ian uoroonio w [ 34/J9/87
18. Shenanaoan NP
19. Tonto UN
20. Voyaqeurs IP

!
'
!
1
21. Yellowstone NP a
22. rosexits HP ! :
Q3/09/88
04/19/89
36/18/88
09/01/88
1388
1989
1989
1988
364 397 31
360 226 55
Sorino 1 5uimer
M. Ho. Percent
Possible Usiale Usable
368 35 23
368 100 27



368 342 92
368 357 97



368 5 1
368 34S 93



No. Mo. Percent
Possible Usable Usable
388 98 26
368 00


174 30 45
368 358 97
368 193 32



36S 142 38
368 220 59



179 160 99 i 368 270 73
368 365 39 368 356 96
I
278 272 97 I 368 340 32
368 291 79 j 368 59 18
i srsre* ^ e M o v e o
360 118 32


	


1989 — - — —
;988I
13391 360 110 30
	

—

rail
No. No. Percent
Possible Usable Usable
74 53
364 139 38
364 183 SO
226 160 70

364 180 *9
364 320 97
364 :51 39

	

3S4 320 37
364 358 98
— 	

310 277 39
364 302 32
364 356 37
364 123 33
364 181 49

	

«.


n — 	
— Systea not aoeratlnq
• Trans* Issomter not >« installed
1 • IMPROVE
P • IMPROVE Protocol

-------
                          TABLE  8

                Photography Archive Status
Site
ACAD
BIBE
BRID
BRCN
CANY
CHIR
CRLA
^^ C*XT A
I_J ^i\x*
GLAT
GRCT
GRSM '
JARB
MEVE
MORA
ROMM
SAGO
SHEN
TONM
WEMI
YOSW
Camera
Instal .
Date
04/20/85
06/13/86
09/22/86
04/10/84
01/21/87
06/17/86
07/01/86
i
06/14/85
11/23/83
01/04/84
09/08/86
07/15/86
06/21/85
10/25/85
08/13/86
10/29/86
05/09/86
08/12/86
09/07/84
Winter
87
c u
75 54
70 58
71 46
80 5
26 11
88 53
51 33

53 14
78 51
69 31
33 — 3
34 18
79 28
37 25
41 23
73 50
69 61
47 10
80 57
Spring
87
c u
90 56
66 62
34 23
42 25
90 *
80 68
65 49

26 9
98 *
68 51
51 7
97 59
44 17
79 63
• 53 27
48 30
37 36
73 43
75 67
Summer
87
c u
93 61
46 44
75 68
94 79
91 *
96 88
99 91

89 76
99 *
38 21
98 92
80 75
78 42
73 66
99 85
70 55
86 86
85 78
78 76
Fall
87
c u
74 45
91 87
94 56
92 60
93 *
97 91
95 76

90 60
100 *
96 67
79 60
52 41
63 37
84 73
95 53
98 75
58 58
94 66
96 66
Winter
88
c u
41 *
95 85
79 52
99 45
85 *
99 79
85 38

75 *2
98 *
100 59
98 19
95 67
79 23
88 *
36 25
86 64
	 4 	
96 57
58 33
  c - % of total photographs  possible  for  scene  monitoring,
  u - % of photographs appropriate  for path-averaged
      extinction coefficient  calculation.
  * - No SVR calculations  obtained  from photographic  data
      following transmissometer  installations.
1  Denali  National  Park  has  not  yet  installed  visibility
  monitoring equipment mailed Summer of  1986.

2  Teakettle  vista  was  primary  target  for   analysis  until
  transmissometer installed.  Winter 88  collection  statistics
  are not for the Scenic Garden Wall vista.

3  Insufficient data to calculate any Standard  Visual  Range.

4  The  Superstitions  camera  system  was  stolen  11/12/87.   No
  reinstallation followed.

-------
III. Process  to  Identify  and  Document  Suspected  Visibility
     Impairment

     In 1985 and  1986,  the  Department of the Interior  responded
to  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency's  (EPA)  request  for
information on existing visibility  impairment in those  mandatory
class I areas managed by the National  Park  Service  (NFS)  and  Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS).1

     The Department  of the  Interior  indicated  that  there  were
five NFS class  I  areas with existing visibility impairment  that
was  suspected  of  being  reasonably  attributable to a  source or
small group of sources.  These areas  are:  Grand Canyon  National
Park,  Petrified Forest National  Park and  Saguaro  Wilderness in
Arizona; Voyageurs  National  Park in  Minnesota; and Canyonlands
National Park in Utah.  The Department also certified that there
were   four  FWS  class  I  areas   with   suspected  reasonably
attributable impairment:  Tuxedni  Wilderness  in  Alaska;  Moosehorn
Wilderness   in  Maine;  Brigantine  Wilderness  in  New  Jersey;  and
Cape Remain  Wilderness  in  South  Carolina.   The State  of Alaska
has  an  approved  visibility  State   Implementation  Plan  and is
responsible  for  addressing  the  visibility  impairment  in  the
Tuxedni  Wilderness.    EPA  subsequently   decided  that  only  the
Moosehorn Wilderness of the remaining three areas had visibility
impairment  that was  probably  caused by  a single source  or small
group of sources.

     The Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission  also
certified  to the  EPA  that visibility  was  impaired  within  the
integral   vistas   associated  with  the  Roosevelt  Campobello
International Park located  in  Maine  and New Brunswick, Canada.

     Various  monitoring  efforts were   initiated,   beginning in
1986,  to  attempt  to document the  existing  impairment  and  the
responsible  air  pollution  sources  (see  Appendix  H).   These
studies were  funded by  the  NFS, FWS,  and the  EPA  through  the
interagency IMPROVE  monitoring program.   A summary of the initial
findings of these  monitoring efforts  at  each of  the above  listed
class I areas is presented  below:
     November 14,  1985,  letter from  Susan  Recce,  Department of
     the  Interior  Acting  Assistant  Secretary  for  Fish  and
     Wildlife and  Parks  to  Charles  Elkins,  EPA Acting Assistant
     Administrator for  Air  and  Radiation;  and  March  24,  1986,
     letter  from  Richard Briceland,  NFS  Associate Director for
     Natural  Resources   to  EPA  Central  Docket  Section,  Docket
     Number      A-85-26.

                               20

-------
Voyageurs National Park

     The  IMPROVE  program funded Air  Resource Specialists,  Inc.
(ARS), the NPS's visibility monitoring contractor,  to set up 35mm
still and 8mm time-lapse movie cameras at Voyageurs National Park
to  assess impacts on  the park's  visual air  quality caused  by
nearby sources.   The cameras  were  in operation between  October
1986 and  April  1988.   The resulting color slides  and time-lapse
films were reviewed  by  ARS,  NFS staff, and  the  IMPROVE  steering
committee.  No  distinct,  easily  identifiable plumes were  visible
in  the  slides  or  the movies.   ARS  documented this  finding  in a
May 5, 1988,  report  to  the EPA chairman  of  the  IMPROVE  steering
committee entitled "Monitoring For  Reasonably Attributable Impact
of  Local  Sources At  Voyageurs National  Park,  Petrified  Forest
National  Park  and  Moosehorn  Wilderness."    The  NFS  and  the
Department of the Interior believe  that the  photographic  evidence
available  at  this time  does  not  support the  development  of  a
revision  to  the  federal  implementation  plan  for  Minnesota  to
include  Best  Available  Retrofit  Technology   (BART)  requirements
and other control measures.

Petrified Forest National Park

     The  NFS  and IMPROVE  steering  committee  directed  ARS  to
install  35mm  and  8mm cameras  in  Petrified   Forest  National  Park
during March 1987.  The photographic systems  operated until March
1988.  An examination  of the photographic data  by  ARS,  NFS, and
IMPROVE  indicated no visible  plumes within   the  park.  There was
an  occasional  discoloration  visible on  the  horizon, but  it was
not readily attributable  to  any  specific  source.  ARS documented
this  finding  in  the above  referenced report.   The NFS  and the
Department of the Interior acknowledge that   the evidence  does not
support   development  of  BART  requirements  or  other   control
measures  for  remedying  visibility  impairment at  Petrified Forest
National  Park.     If   future  monitoring  programs  provide
documentation   of  visibility  impairment  caused  by a  specific
source,  the  Department  of the Interior will  certify  that  to the
SPA and  request the commencament of a BART review.

Saguaro Wilderness

     The  NFS  through its  contractor ARS,  is  now deploying one of
che  two   time-lapse  movie cameras   used  at   Petrified  Forest and
Voyageurs  National  Park  at  Saguaro  National Monument.   The NFS
will  operate  this 8mm  camera  for  approximately one  year.   Part
way  through  this  monitoring period, the  San Manuel smelter near
Tucson,   Arizona  will  comply  with  new more   stringent  sulfur
dioxide  emission  limitations that  are  required by  the  terms of
the  consent  decree.   IMPROVE will  investigate if  the time-lapse
movies will  reflect  an  improvement  in visual air quality because
of  this  reduction  in   the  region's  sulfur  dioxide  emissions.
Because  the  monitoring  at Saguaro  has only   recently begun,  there

                                31

-------
is no  specific  photographic  evidence of  reasonably  attributable
impairment  at  this  time.    If  this new  monitoring  initiative
provides  documentation  of  visibility  impairment   caused  by  a
specific source,  the Department of the Interior  will  certify that
to the EPA and request the  commencement  of a  BART review.

Canyonlands National Park

     The NPS,  the Salt River  Project, the Electric Power Research
Institute, and others conducted the  Winter Haze  Intensive  Tracer
Experiment  (WHITEX)  during a  six  week  period  in the winter  of
1987.   The  objective of  this  study was  to quantify  the  air
pollution  impact  of  a  specific source  (Navajo  Power Plant)  on
specific receptors (such as Canyonlands  and Grand Canyon National
Parks).  During the  short  duration of the  study,  it  appears that
a Navajo Power Plant contribution was not measured at Canyonlands
National  Park.    The  six  week  monitoring period  may have  been
characterized  by  unusually  good   meterological   dispersion
conditions and fewer haze episodes, which is  somewhat atypical of
the usual winter  time conditions  of  the  Colorado  Plateau  region.
The  park  still  continues to  experience  episodes  of  haze,  and  a
second intensive monitoring effort may be  undertaken in  the next
year  or  two to  monitor  the  haze and attribute  it   to  specific
sources.  As with the above  mentioned cases, if  new Canyonlands
monitoring initiatives  provide  documentation of visibility
impairment  caused  by a  specific  source,  the  Department of  the
Interior  will  certify  that  to  the  EPA  and   request  the
commencement of a BART review at that time.

Grand Canyon National Park

     One of the  objectives of the above  referenced  WHITEX  study
was  to  sample  the  haze  at  Grand  Canyon  National  Park  and
attribute it to specific sources,  such as the Navajo  Power  Plant.
The  analysis  of  all the  data collected  during this  intensive
monitoring effort is not complete.  The  NPS and  the Department of
the  Interior  requested  the SPA to defer,  by twelve  months,  its
proposed  decision on  the  necessity  of  BART and other  control
measures for the Arizona federal  implementation  plan pending the
completion of  the  data  analysis and  interpretation  of  the  Grand
Canyon data.

Moosehorn Wilderness Area-

     The FWS  identified  the  Georgia-Pacific  pulp and  paper mill
as  the  probable  source  of  existing visibility impairment  in
Moosehorn  Wilderness Area.    FWS and  IMPROVE   directed  ARS  to
install an  8mm time-lapse  camera at  Moosehorn.   The  camera  was
installed  in  October 1987.   The camera  has recorded a  visible
plume from the mill  nearly every  day.  Under certain conditions,
the plume appears  to  cross the  boundary  and  enter the wilderness
area.

-------
     Georgia-Pacific has applied for a Prevention  of  Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit  modification  from the  State  of  Maine
for a  new recovery boiler  at  the existing  mill.   The  existing
visibility impairment may be reduced if  additional air  pollution
controls are required by this permit.  Consequently,  the FWS  and
the  Department  requested   that   the  EPA  defer   its   decision
concerning  the  necessity of BART  controls  for  Georgia-Pacific
pending the completion of the PSD  permit  process.   The time-lapse
movie  camera  system  will  continue  to  operate  throughout  the
permit review.

Roosevelt Campobello International Park

     Because of  the  proximity  of the  above mentioned  Georgia-
Pacific mill to the International  Park,  the  Commission  requested
the  NPS  to  study  potential  impacts  of  the   proposed  mill
modification on the International  Park.  The NPS  study  concluded
that  the  reductions  in  emissions associated  with the  proposed
modification would  result in no impairment of visibility in  the
International Park or its integral vistas.   No  IMPROVE monitoring
effort was undertaken at this park.


     Following this initial  Federal Land Manager  certification of
existing  visibility  impairment  in  class  I areas,   the  IMPROVE
steering  committee  and  the  NPS  retained  the  contractor Desert
Research Institute  (DRI) to  prepare  a  report.  The objectives of
this  report are to  identify, describe,  and  evaluate measurements
and data interpretation methods to:


     1.   Document  the  intensity,  duration,  frequency,  and
          spatial  extent of  existing visibility   impairment  in
          class I areas,

     2.   Attribute visibility impairment to natural and manmade,
          local and distant  emissions sources,  and

     3.   Relate emissions reductions to visibility improvement.

     DRI has completed a draft of this report,  entitled "Guidance
on  Methods  to  Investigate  Existing  Visibility   Impairment  and
Attribute  it  to  Sources", and  is  being reviewed  by  the IMPROVE
committee.   This draft  addresses  the documentation  of  existing
visibility  impairment;  and  summarizes visibility  and  aerosol
measurement methods,  existing  data  bases,   and  receptor  modeling
methods  of visibility  source  apportionment.   The  final  report
will be made available to the public and interested groups by the
end of 1989.
                                33

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing/
1. REPORT NO.
 EPA-450/4-90-008
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  IMPROVE Progress  Report
                                                            5. REPORT DATE
                                                              May  1990
                                                            6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
  Marc Pitchford
  David Joseph
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
  U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency
  Las Vegas, Nevada  93478
                                                            10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                            13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
  Office of Air Quality  Planning and Standards
  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
  Research Triangle  Park,  North Carolina  27711
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
       In Section 169A  of the Clean Air Act as  amended August 1977, Congress  declared
  as a national goal  ''the prevention of any future,  and the remedying of  any  existing,
  impairment of visibility in mandatory class  I  Federal  areas which impairment results
  from manmade air pollution."'   Mandatory class  I  Federal  areas are national  parks
  greater in size than  6000 acres, wilderness  areas  greater in size than  5000  acres and
  international parks that were  in existence on  August 7,  1977.   This  section required
  the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to  promulgate  regulations requiring States
  to develop programs in  their State Implementation  Plans  (SIPs) providing  for visi-
  bility protection in  these areas.  EPA promulgated these  regulations  on Decemoer 2,
  <980.J

       This report summarizes the progress made  to  date  in  developing and implementing
  the interagency monitoring network which supports  the  effort, Interagency Monitorinq
  of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE).
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                :OSATI Field/Group
     Visibility monitoring
     State Implementation Plans  (SIP)
     Class I Federal  Areas
IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
                                               19 SECURirv CL^SS . /Vuv t\enorr<
                                              , 20. SECURITY CLASS , This page;
                                                                         22
 EPA Form 2220-1 (Rav. 4T77)    PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE

-------