1 / 17

Approved Regional Method (ARM) Demonstration

Approved Regional Method (ARM) Demonstration. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Mike Gilroy, Erik Saganic. Overview. Definition of the ARM Sites and Instruments that may apply ARM Tools Preliminary Results. What is the “ARM”?. The Approved Regional Method

makya
Download Presentation

Approved Regional Method (ARM) Demonstration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Approved Regional Method (ARM) Demonstration Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Mike Gilroy, Erik Saganic

  2. Overview • Definition of the ARM • Sites and Instruments that may apply • ARM Tools • Preliminary Results

  3. What is the “ARM”? • The Approved Regional Method • EPA established in 40 CFR 58, Appendix C, Section 2.4 • Defined in CFR as “Approved regional method (ARM) means a continuous PM2.5 method that has been approved specifically within a State or local air monitoring network for purposes of comparison to the NAAQS and to meet other monitoring objectives. ”

  4. Pertinent Information (Source: 40 CFR 58, Appendix C, Section 2.4) • Applications can be accepted as of 09/28/06 to EPA-ORD. • Must meet Class III FEM guidelines. However, if low levels are typical, may approve large bias. • 30% collocation of “required FRM/FEM/ARM sites” rounded up with 1 in 6 collocated frequency • ≥ 7.5% of sites for the comparison requires a collocated candidate ARM for Coefficient of Variation (CV) calculations.

  5. Pertinent Information (Source: 40 CFR 58, Appendix C, Section 2.4) • Data can be recalculated in non-linear fashion • Details must be included in Agency QAPP and ARM application to ORD. • Section “2.4.2.4 The ARM must be capable of providing for flow audits, unless by its inherent measurement principle, measured flow is not required.” • Need: 1-2 FRMs and 1-2 candidate monitors for each ARM. Validate periodically with changing aerosols and instrument performance.

  6. Pertinent Information (Source: 40 CFR 58, Appendix C, Section 2.4) • Yearly assessments • Network assessments every 5 years • Data Duration: 1 year (seasons) • ≥ 90 sample sets required • ≥ 20 per season required • Up to 2 CBSA/CSA & 1 Rural or MSA, 1 of each in areas already approved • If WA DoE already accepted, than can go straight to Region X office for approval • External audits are required as an FEM.

  7. Our Objectives • Collect 1-year of precision collocated data for all perspective ARM samplers • To package all our applicable data for analysis • Determine if the data meets regulations • To compile all the necessary QAPP’s • Submit the data package for approval if all the data meets regulations

  8. PSCAA Sites with Recent FRM Data • Snohomish County (Possibly non-attainment): • Marysville (Wood Smoke Aerosol) • Darrington (Wood Smoke Aerosol) • Lynnwood (Wood Smoke Aerosol) – Analysis no longer on-going • Pierce County (Will be non-attainment): • South Tacoma (Wood Smoke Aerosol) • King County (Attainment): • Lake Forest Park (Wood Smoke Aerosol) • Seattle – Duwamish (Industrial Aerosol)

  9. Other Recent FRM Data Available in Washington • Clark County • Vancouver – (Urban Residential Aerosol – Wood smoke) • Data good only through 2004 • King County • Seattle – Beacon Hill (Urban Residential Aerosol) • Okanogan • Twisp – Rural site (Wood smoke/Forest fire Aerosol?) • Data good only through 2004 • Spokane County • Spokane – Ferry Street (Aerosol type - Industrial?) • Yakima County • Yakima (Aerosol type – Industrial/Agricultural?) • Data good only through 2004

  10. Sites in WA since 2004 with FRM data that does not meet ARM requirements • Benton County • Kennewick (Discontinued after 2005, ran only 1/6 sampling) • Spokane County • Spokane – Monroe Street (Discontinued after 2005, ran only 1/6 sampling)

  11. PSCAA Potential Candidate ARMs by Site • Darrington • Nephelometer (ongoing) • Lake Forest Park • Nephelometer (ongoing) • TEOM (ongoing) • Lynnwood • Nephelometer (Old Data) • FDMS-TEOM (Old Data) • TEOM (Old Data) • Marysville • Nephelometer (ongoing) • TEOM (ongoing) • Seattle – Duwamish • Nephelometer (ongoing) • FDMS-TEOM (after a year of data completion) • TEOM (older data) • South Tacoma • Nephelometer (ongoing) • TEOM (ongoing)

  12. Other WA Potential Candidate ARMs by Site • Beacon Hill • Nephelometer (ongoing) • TEOM (ongoing) • Spokane – Ferry Street • Nephelometer (ongoing) • TEOM (ongoing) • Vancouver • TEOM (2004 only) • Yakima • Nephelometer (2004 only) • Twisp • Nephelometer (2004 only)

  13. Tools for the ARM • Templates are available that contain all the details necessary to apply for the application • Excel file with calculations built in • Word Document to describe the sites, methods, descriptions, QA procedures, etc.

  14. Example of Excel Summary Tab – Marysville Nephelometer

  15. Will any instruments be approved? • Preliminary correlations indicate yes. • However, as aerosols change overtime, there may be difficulty for surrogate analyzers (like the nephelometer). • There is a 30% collocated FRM requirement in the network that would monitor this issue.

  16. Word Document Example

  17. Summary • In Washington state, we have a few analyzers that we will aim to achieve ARM status: • Nephelometer • TEOM • TEOM-FDMS • Preliminary analysis indicates the data fits the criteria, but we are at the mercy of EPA-ORD • Evolving aerosols are still of some concern and sites may loose ARM status

More Related