Round up the Usual Suspects Why we

“Round up the Usual Suspects. ” Why we are losing the air quality war in the San Joaquin Valley A presentation for The San Joaquin Valley Town Hall March 17, 2004 Thomas A. Cahill Professor, 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, SO 2 • Particles – Lead, mass – Central Valley – Fresno, Sacramento • Ozone and its precursors, ROG and NOx; CO, , SO 2 • 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 • US Environmental Protection Agency http: //www. arb. ca. gov/html/aqe&m. htm – Routine monitoring – ADAM http: //www. arb. ca. gov/adam – Special Studies - CRAPAQS, FACES, …. – 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/hysplit 4. 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 4 th most polluted urbanized area in the US (Sacramento is listed the 7 th) 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 PM 2. 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 → CO 2 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 • O 3, 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, PM 10, PM 2. 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 (PM 2. 5) and very fine Particles – Age the heart and lung; carry carcinogens – PM 2. 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 (PM 2. 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

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 4 th Highest 3 yr Average

Alameda County Ozone 8 hr 4 th Highest 3 yr Average

Fresno Ozone 8 hr 4 th Highest 3 yr Average

Fresno Ozone 8 hr 4 th Highest 3 yr Average

Valley Ozone Profiles vs. Time

Annual ozone profile

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

Valley ozone transport into the Sierra

Particulate Matter in the Atmospheric – the Atmospheric Aerosol • Total Suspended Particulate mass TSP – < 35 μm • Inhalable Aerosols PM 10 – < 10 μm • 35 to 10 μm, mostly natural – Dust, sea salt, pollen, … • 10 to 2. 5 μm, largely natural – Dust, sea spray, some nitrates • Fine Aerosols PM 2. 5 • 2. 5 to 0. 25 μm, mostly man made • Very fine aerosols, < 0. 25 μm, ultra fine aerosols, < 0. 10 μm • 0. 25 to circa 0. 01 μm, almost entirely man made; – < 2. 5 μm – Fine dust, nitrates, sulfates, organics, smoke – high temperature combustion, heavy organics, soot, metals

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. 2. 3. 4. 5. Biological agents (fungi, bacteria, viruses, spores. . ) Acidic aerosols Fine metals such as iron in the lung Insoluble very fine and ultra fine particles 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, (4 th 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 PM 2. 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/m 3 (average 22 μg/m 3) • The EPA staff recommended a standard in the range from 20 μg/m 3 to 12. 5 μg/m 3 • The EPA Administrator (in a room with 11 others, none of whom were scientists) chose 15 μg/m 3

Health Impacts of Valley Aerosols For winter, 120 ug/m 3, r 2 = 0. 69

Los Angeles PM 10 Highest

Fresno PM 10 Highest

Valley PM 10 Trends Versus Time 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?

Where do all the nitrates come from? A clue!

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

A Similar Result at Sacramento (and even Red Bluff reached PM 10 of 55 μg/m 3 on 12/11)

Transport of Aerosols to Sacramento from the SJV

Month of the year, 2001

Fine Aerosols at Fresno in Fall

San Francisco Bay Area Diesel Particulates (tons/year, 2000) Sacramento Valley Diesel Particulates (tons/year, 2000) San Joaquin Valley Diesel Particulates (tons/year, 2000) Napa 110 Shasta 227 San Joaquin 675 Marin 157 Tehama 113 Stanislaus 462 Solano 174 (part) Butte 232 Merced 297 Contra Costa 656 Yuba 78 Madera 200 San Francisco 652 Sutter 151 Fresno 1071 Alameda 947 Glenn 90 Tulare 566 San Mateo 360 Colusa 75 Kings 175 Santa Clara 873 Yolo 216 Kern 693 Placer 166 Sacramento 793 Solano 108 (part) Sum of Counties (Sac. Valley) 2249 Sum of Counties (SJ Valley) 8637 Sum of Counties (Bay Area) 3929 (tons/year, 2000)

PM 0. 25 ? PM 10 PM 2. 5

Very fine aerosols characteristic of diesels/smoking cars

Aerosol Information from Particle Size

Aerosol Information from Particle Size

Comparisons of trucks and cars from the Tuscarora Tunnel study Parameter Diesel Trucks (mg/km) Cars (mg/km) Ratio PM 2. 5 mass 135 + 18 14 + 13 10 Mass? Truck PM 10 = 181 PM 2. 5 OC 112 + 43 2. 8 + 1. 1 40 2 nd biggest ratio PM 2. 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 PM 2. 5 NH 3, S < 0. 8 1999; Some S in gasoline Roughly fuel mileage Gasses (g/km) CO 2 748 + 73 156 + 15 4. 8 CO < 0. 6 1. 9 + 0. 7 < 0. 3 NO (as NO 2) 11. 9 + 1. 9 0. 4 + 0. 07 28 THC 1. 5 + 0. 8 0. 4 + 0. 2 3. 7 Comment 3 rd biggest ratio

A rough estimate…. • Using the values measured in Fall, 2001, we can estimate that – Diesel/smoking car smoke contributed roughly 7 times the PM 2. 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

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

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 downwind Yosemite NP – Visibility at 90 th percentile

Yosemite NP – Visibility at 10 th percentile

A Tale of Two Sampling Sites • IMPROVE Sequoia – Visibility – Gasses ozone – Particles PM 10 mass # data PM 2. 5 mass 3 Organic carbon 9 Elemental carbon 3 Nitrates, Sulfates 2 Soil, sea salt, smoke 10 Trace elements 20 • Visalia SJVAQMD – Gasses hourly ozone, CO NO, NO 2, NOx Note: hourly ozone at Sequoia NP (3 sites) – Particles PM 10 mass PM 2. 5 mass

Oregon forest fires

Sulfates from the Bay Area Dust from the San Joaquin Valley Wood smoke from Oregon

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 PM 2. 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 1970 s 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 SJVUAPCD ACTION: 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 O 3, Fine mass, …

What can we do now? 4. Strong local NGOs with a focus on Valley air, respiratory health, and the Sierra Nevada ACTION: CUVAQ – Citizens United for Valley Air Quality; ALA-SET, Fresno; Health Effects Task Force 5. Get involved with your legislators There 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!); Cal. Trans 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 PM 0. 25 standard to zero in on the harmful combustion component of Valley aerosols from diesels and smoking cars , b. Modify PM 2. 5 standard (perhaps to PM 1. 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 • Particles Great success Removed lead, some other success – Central Valley – Fresno, Sacramento • Ozone • Particles Reduced precursors, but no change in ozone Uncertain sources, unclear causality to health, Little progress Exception: rice straw smoke – Yosemite and Sequoia NP and the Sierra Nevada Still 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 • US Environmental Protection Agency http: //www. arb. ca. gov/html/aqe&m. htm – Routine monitoring – ADAM http: //www. arb. ca. gov/adam – Special Studies - CRAPAQS, FACES, …. Soon? – 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/hysplit 4. html

Sequoia, Yosemite NP Fresno