UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
January 28, 1999
i-CASAC-ADV-99-002
Honorable Carol M. Browner
Administrator
Li's. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
Subject:
Dear Ms. Browner:
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Advisory on the PM15
Monitoring Program
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) of EPA's Science Advisory
Board reconstituted its Technical Subcommittee on Fine Particle Monitoring (the
"Subcommittee"), at the Agency's request, to provide advice and commentary on the Agency's
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) monitoring program. The Subcommittee, chaired by Dr. Phil
Hopke of CASAC, met with Agency staff on November 30, 1998 for the first of what is
envisioned as a continuing series of discussions as the monitoring program is designed and
implemented. The attached Subcommittee report has been reviewed and approved by the full
CASAC.
The Subcommittee report conveys CASAC's view that the most appropriate role for the
Subcommittee is to respond to questions posed by the Agency and provide additional advice and
commentary in a continuing, participatory, and pro-active manner. It also describes the working
relationship between CASAC and the NAS/NRC Committee on Research Priorities for Airborne
Particulate Matter. The optimal nature of this relationship has been discussed thoroughly among
and between the two groups, and relationship portrayed in the Subcommittee report represents a
consensus view.
The attached report summarizes the Subcommittee's technical advice regarding two
specific issues posed by the Agency, and provides additional comments on related issues.
The CASAC is pleased to establish an interactive advisory relationship with the Agency
through this Subcommittee, and looks forward to assisting the Agency in optimizing the design
and implementation of its fine particle monitoring system and the utility of the information that
system will provide.
Sincerely,
U.S. Environment^ Protection A|tnc»
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
11 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Ftaf
Chicago, tL 60604-3590
Dr. Joe L. Mauderly, Chair
Clean Air Scientific Advisoi
ommittee
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
Chair
Dr. Joe Mauderly, Director of External Affairs, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute,
Albuquerque, NM
. '
Members
Mr. John Elston, Administrator, Office of Air Quality Management, State of New Jersey,
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Trenton, NJ
Dr. Philip K. Hopke, Dean of the graduate School, and R.A. Plane Professor of Chemistry,
Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY
Dr. Eva J. Pell,, Steimer Professor of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA
Dr. Arthur C. Upton, M.D., Director, Independent Peer Review, CRESP, Environmental and
Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Piscataway, NJ
Dr. Sverre Vedal, M.D., Professor of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada
Dr. Warren White, Senior Research Associate, Washington University, Chemistry Department,
St. Louis, MO
Science Advisory Board Staff
Mr. Robert Flaak, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) and Team Leader, Committee Operations
Staff, US Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC
Ms. Diana Pozun, Management Assistant, US Environmental Protection Agency, Science
Advisory Board, Washington, DC
-------
NOTICE
This report has been written as a part of the activities of the Science Advisory Board, a
public advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice to the Administrator
and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Board is structured to provide
balanced expert assessment of scientific matters related to problems faced by the Agency. This
report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency; and hence, the contents of this report
do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency or
other agencies in the Federal government Mention of trade names or commercial products does
not constitute a recommendation for use.
-------
.--T
-------
Report of the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
Technical Subcommittee on Fine Particle Monitoring
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
January 27, 1999
Dr Joe Mauderty Chair
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee SCCNCE ADVISORY BOARD
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
* •
Subject: Advisory on the Agency's PM13 Monitoring Program
Dear Dr. Mauderly:
The Technical Subcommittee on Fine Particle Monitoring (hereafter, the "Subcommittee")
of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CAS AC) met in Research Triangle Park, NC on
November 30, 1998 at the request of the Agency's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS). OAQPS requested that the Subcommittee provide advice and commentary on two
major components of the Agency's PMZ5 Monitoring Program, namely, the chemical speciation
program, and the "supersites" program. The materials provided to the Subcommittee for review
are listed in Appendix A.
1. Background and Development of the Charge
In April 1996, this Subcommittee (with different membership) reviewed and commented
on the Agency's Federal Reference Method (FRM) and guidance to the States on the location and
number of monitors (CAS AC, 1996). Among the recommendations presented by the
Subcommittee were that national networks include measurements that go beyond the FRM, to
include chemical composition and continuous instruments. These measurements are embodied in
the two major components of the PMXj measurement program mentioned above.
In January 1998, the National Research Council (NRC) established its Committee oh
Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter. This Committee was established in response
to a request from Congress in the Fiscal 1998 appropriation to EPA, and is charged to identify the
most important research priorities relevant to setting paniculate matter standards, to develop a
conceptual plan for particulate matter research, and, over five years, to monitor research progress
toward improved understanding of the-relationship between particulate matter and public health.
The Committee has issued one report to date (NRC, 1998) with a second due shortly. Three
members of the NRC Committee serve on the CAS AC Subcommittee.
In May 1998, OAQPS obtained the advice of a Speciation Network Expert Panel on
EPA's PM15 Chemical Speciation Network (hem A-7 listed in Appendix A). The Chair of that
expert panel also serves on the CAS AC Subcommittee to provide continuity and to convey
recommendations of the expert panel.
t IMMI 7S% racyctod few
-------
In the FY1999 VA-HUD and independent agencies appropriation bill that addresses the
roles of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the CAS AC in reviewing the PM
monitoring program (Cong. Record - House, H9428, October 5, 1998), Congress stated the
following:
s
...with respect to the speciation component of the Agency's PM monitoring plan, the
conferees request that the NAS assist the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) by providing recommendations regarding the number and location of monitors
and specific objectives and operating conditions for the various types of speciation
monitors in EPA's plan. Also, NAS should evaluate the adequacy of the speciation
component of the monitoring plan to characterize those constituents ofPM that are
biologically active. The NAS is expected to facilitate a thorough peer review of the
speciation component of EPA's n^.J taring plan by CASAC.
During its November 1998 public meeting (held under the provisions of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act), the Subcommittee was briefed by OAQPS staff on various aspects of
the monitoring program including regulatory time lines, components and objectives, of the
program, implementation of the chemical speciation program, supersite concept plan, and PMi5
data analysis plans. The Subcommittee also was briefed by the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) on the Agency's PM research program and linkages with monitoring. The
Subcommittee also received public comments from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and
the National Stone Association (NSA).
The first area of discussion at the meeting was the development and refinement of the
charge to the Subcommittee. The highlights of that discussion are captured below. A formal
charge will be prepared based on these discussions and be available by the time of the next
Subcommittee meeting in the Spring of 1999.
2. General Discussion
a) Role of the Subcommittee - In order to facilitate communications between
CASAC and the NRC Committee on Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate
Matter, three of the NRC committee members are members of the Subcommittee.
Discussions within the NRC committee have made it clear that they do not want
responsibility for providing advice or oversight of the PM monitoring program.
Given the Congressional mandate to CASAC with respect to the speciation
network, it seems that CASAC will be the body with the major responsibility for
reviewing the science going into the PM monitoring networks. Thus, the
discussion focused on how the Subcommittee could facilitate this review.
Among the materials presented to the Subcommittee, the Draft Supersites
Conceptual Plan outlined a management scheme proposed by the Agency for the
supersites program (see Figure 1). This scheme stimulated discussion in two areas.
-------
First, there was concern that although there was a clearly defined management
scheme for the supersites program, there are no comparable schemes for the
speciation and mass monitoring programs and no overall scheme that coordinates
the entire monitoring program. Although much of the speciation and mass
monitoring network will be implemented and operated by State and Local air
quality management organizations, there is still a need for coordination and
management at the national level. There are important interrelationships among
the three parts of the monitoring program. A management scheme that provides
for communications and coordination throughout the program is essential if the
maximum information is to be derived. The Subcommittee thus suggests that the
Project Organization outlined in Figure 1 be expanded to become the Fine PM
Monitoring Program Organization.
Project Organization
(Sponsors (Superettes and relevant
*tude»)) EPA (OAGPS, ORO); DOE,
State/Locate; Industry
CENR; NARSTO/HEI;
NAS/CASAC
Executive Leads
EPA OAR and ORO AA designates
..
EPA Steering Committee
EPA Staff (OAR, NERL. NHEERL)
OAR Designate
ORQ designate^)
Participating Research Groups and Contractors
Figure 1 - Project Management Overview (Taken from Figure 3 of the Draft Supersites Conceptual Plan
Nov. 9,1998, pg. 7, November 9,1998)
-------
The second concern was the need for continuing scientific input into the design
and implementation of the monitoring program. There are provisions in Figure I
for Science Oversight and Research Coordination. However, the nature of the
group that will provide those functions is not yet defined. The NRC committee
has indicated that they do not envision their committee taking on this
responsibility. After discussion, it was unanimously agreed that the Subcommittee
would be willing to serve as the scientific advisory body to the PM monitoring
program. This role would require the Subcommittee to both react to materials
prepared by EPA as CASAC has traditionally done and to provide input to the
"lap A management team as scientific information relevant to the monitoring
program becomes available. Thus, a more proactive role is envisioned for the
Subcommittee as the monitoring program evolves.
b) Responses to Specific Questions - Thert were two specific questions on which
EPA desired more immediate comments:
(1) Speciation network - One question concerned the proposed plan for the initial
establishment of 53 sites in the speciation network that would serve as the trends
network sites. The same type of sampler would be deployed at each of these sites
and all of the samples would be analyzed by a single laboratory. The specific
choice of sampler will be made at the end of the intercomparison study that will be
initiated over December 1998 and January 1999 in 4 cities across the United
States. The Subcommittee expressed concern about problems with the
intercomparison study being conducted only during the winter when the full effect
of temperature on semivolatile components of PM may not be observable. It is
highly recommended that additional studies be conducted during the summer,
particularly in the Eastern United States, although there is also concern about loss
of nitrate in California. In addition, it is not clear what criteria will be used to
judge the results of the intercomparison study and how they will result in the
selection of the sampler to be deployed at the Trends Network sites. It is likely
that differences will be observed in performance among the proposed speciation
samplers and substantial differences in some cases with the FRM. Because there is
no absolute "gold" standard for the true value of the concentration of condensed
material in the atmosphere, the Subcommittee recommends development of a set
of evaluation criteria before any of the results of the intercomparison study are
obtained. An objective evaluation with well defined criteria performed on the
results can lead to a choice of sampler that can be accepted by all involved in the
process. The Subcommittee agrees that the plans for the initial deployment of the
trends network samplers are as scientifically sound as possible given the time
constraint that precludes summer tests of proposed samplers, and that it is
reasonable for the Agency to move ahead to implement the plans as outlined
although there remain concerns that the samplers will not have been fully tested.
-------
(2) Supersite Network - The second question involved the revised plans for
deployment of the supersite network. The plans now call for an initial deployment
at two sites, Fresno and Atlanta, with a subsequent phase-in of other sites at
locations to be determined as the plans for the PM research program develop. One
of the major uncertainties in locating additional sites is their possible relationship to
the new PM research centers that will be awarded during the first half of 1999.
Thus, the limited deployment of two sites permits testing of systems, assessing of
the operational problems and costs of these systems, and developing better plans
for the remaining sites to produce the maximal information from these limited
number of supersites. The Subcommittee again expressed the view that the plans
were very reasonable and presented good opportunities to learn the operational
difficulties of these systems and to be in the best position to utilize the resources
that are being provided to obtain detailed data characterizing urban fine PM.
c) Monitoring - Additional minor concerns were raised regarding the monitoring
activities:
(1) Availability of Data - First, while considerable work has been done in the
Agency to characterize the FRM monitor, the results have not yet been presented
in the peer-reviewed journal literature. The data that will come from the mass
monitoring network will be more useful to health and other studies if the
conditions by which particles are sampled and measured are well characterized and
reported to the broader research community. It will be easier to have an
appropriate scientific discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the current
method compared to alternatives if the calibration and intercomparison data on the
methods have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. Although some
detailed information on the sampler performance is appropriate for EPA reports,
the Subcommittee strongly urges the Agency to make publication of results a high
priority activity pf its research staff.
(2) Utilization of Data - The second concern is the provision for sufficient time and
resources to fully utilize the extensive quantity of data that will be collected as a
result of the Fine PM Monitoring Program. The Agency has often put far more
resources into obtaining high quality data to characterize environmental systems
than it has put into the extraction from the data of the information that would
really provide the depth of understanding needed to solve the complex health-
related issues associated with PM. Thus, although the initial plans for developing a
significant program of data analysis were encouraging, the Subcommittee will
certainly will be watching carefully to see that appropriate opportunities are being
provided to analyze and interpret the results of the monitoring data.
-------
3. Next Steps for the Subcommittee
The Subcommittee plans to hold several meetings over the next few years to respond to its
developing charge and to ensure that appropriate coordination is maintained with the NRC
Committee. The next Subcommittee meeting is planned for May 1999. One of the tasks will be
the development of a plan with respect to how often the Subcommittee should be providing
advice and what kind of reports would be most useful to the Agency and to the Congress.
The Subcommittee would like to complement Agency personnel for their positive
response to advice with respect to the speciation network and supersite plans from external
scientific advisory groups such as the NRC Committee, the Speciati6n Network Expert Panel, and
the North American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone (NARSTO) Supersite Workshop.
They have listened to the concerns, proposed changes, and made appropriate revisions to their
plans. These changes will result in the networks providing better dtf i for research purposes while
still meeting the implementation-related objectives for which the networks were originally
designed. We hope that the input of the CAS AC Technical Subcommittee on Fine PM
Monitoring will provide a continuing interaction that will permit the most effective use of the
monitoring network and the resulting data to help to resolve some of the uncertainties that remain
regarding airborne paniculate matter and adverse health effects.
Sincerely,
Dr. Phili/Hopke, Chair
Technical Subcommittee on Fine Particle Monitoring
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
-------
REFERENCES CITED
CAS AC. 1996. Report of CAS AC Technical Subcommittee for Fine Particle Monitoring. EPA-
SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-009, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, Science Advisory
Board, USEPA, Washington, DC
NRC. 1998. Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter. I - Immediate Priorities and a
Lnng-Rflnge Research Portfolio. National Research Council. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC. 19Sp.
R-l
-------
APPENDIX A
Review Documents provided to the Subcommittee
Attachment 1 - Overview of National PM^jMomtoring Networks
Attachment 2 - Chemical Speciation Guidance (Jufy 1998 draft)
„ *
Attachment 3 - Supersites Workshop Report: Report of the PM Measurements research
Workshop
Attachment 4 - EPA Supersites concept paper reflecting inputs from workshop Rrport and
September 24 NAS meeting: Draft Supersites Conceptual Paper
Attachment 5 - EPA Letter to 1996 CASAC Technical Subcommittee for Fine Particle
Monitoring
Attachment 6 - CASAC Summary letter report of 1996 CASAC Technical Subcommittee for Fine
Particle Monitoring
Attachment 7 - Recommendations of the Expert Panel on the EPA Speciation Network
Attachment 8 - Field program Plan for the PM13 Chemical Speciation Sampler Evaluation Study
Attachment 9 - Grant Guidance for Fine Particulate Ambient Air Monitoring Program
Attachment 10 - PM2J Monitoring Implementation Plan Executive Summary
Attachment 11 - July 1997 Federal Register Notice containing the Monitoring Regulation
Attachment 12 - EPA's PM Research Overview
Information on many of these documents can be found at'.
http://\vwv.epa.gav/ttn/amtic/amticpm.html
or
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmspec.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency A- 1
r J, 12th
Chicago, IL §0604-3590
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
CASAC Technical Subcommittee on
Fine Particle Monitoring
Chair
Dr. Phil Hopke, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY (Member of CASAC)
^ *
Members of CASAC
Dr. John Elston,. State of New Jersey, Dept Of Environmental Protection & Energy, Trenton, NJ (Member
of CAS AC)
Dr. Warren White, Washington University, St. Louis, MO (Member of CASAC)
Members of Other SAB Committees
Dr. JoAnn Lighty, University of Utah, College of Engineering, Salt Lake City, UT (Member and Liaison .
from SAB Environmental Engineering Committee)
Dr. Morton Lippmann, Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine, New York University, Tuxedo, NY
(Member of the SAB Executive Committee)
Consultants to CASAC
Dr. Petros Koutrakis, Harvard University, Boston, MA
Dr. Debra Laskin, Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Rutgers University,
Piscataway, NJ
•
Dr. Peter H. McMurry, University of Minnesota, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Minneapolis, MN
Dr. Kimberly A. Prather, Department of Chemistry, University of California-Riverside, Riverside, CA
Dr. Carl M. Shy, Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of
Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC
Dr. George T. Wolff, General Motors, Public Policy Center, Detroit, MI 48202
Mr. Mel Zeldin, Monitoring and Analysis Division, South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD), Diamond Bar, CA
Science Advisory Board Staff
Mr. A. Robert Flaak, Designated Federal Officer, US EPA, Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC
Ms. Diana Pozun, Management Assistant, US EPA, Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC
-------
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Assistant Administrators
EPA Regional Administrators
EPA Laboratory Directors
EPA Headquarters Library
EPA Regional Libraries
EPA Laboratory Libraries
Library of Congress
National Technical Information Service
Office of Technology Assessment
Congressional Research Service
------- |