San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)
2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard 

# Appendix F

Attainment	Demonstration (Provided	by	ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard SJVUAPCDSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)
2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard This page intentionally blank.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-1 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard 

### Appendix F: Attainment Demonstration (Provided by ARB)

F.1 OVERVIEW

The 2008 San Joaquin Valley (SJV o r Valley) State Implementatio n Plan (SIP or Plan)

reflected an attainment deadli ne of April 5, 2015 for the 15 μg /m 3 annual and 65 μg/m 3

24-hour PM 2.5 standards. Through ongoing implement ation of the control strat egy contained in the Plan, t he Valley met the 65 μg/m 3 24-hour standard in 2010, and only a few locations remained above the 15 μg/m 3 annual standard as of 2012. However, meteorological conditions asso ciated with the current drought r esulted in unusually high

PM 2.5 levels during the winter of 2013/2014. Due to nearly two mont hs without rainfall, a majority of days during De cember 2013 and January 2014 record ed PM 2.5 concentrations greater than 35 μg/m 3 , a nearly threefold increas e over the prior winter.

These elevated wintertime conc entrations affected both 24-hour and annual average design values, especially in t he central and southern Valley. As a result, the Valley will

not meet the Moderate nonattainmen t area April 2015 attainment deadline.

This updated attainment demonstr ation provides for expeditious attainment of the standards under the assumption tha t these adverse meteorologica l conditions occur again in the future. T he new attainment demonstration uses the fundamental chemistry and associated response of different PM 2.5 constituents to emission controls reflected in the approved mode ling in the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP. This modeling scien ce is coupled with air quality data reflecting the dr ought impacts, 2013 design values and PM 2.5 chemical composition, along with emissi on reductions expected through 20 18 (24-hour standard) and 2020 (annual standard).

The attainment demonstration includes the benefit s of ARB and D istrict control programs that provide ongoing em ission reductions. Continued i mplementation of these control programs provides new e mission reductions each year, re sulting in a forecasted 38 percent decrease in NO
x emissions and an eight percent decrease in PM 2.5 emissions between 2012 and 2020.

The NO
x reductions result from ongoing imp lementation of both new vehi cle standards for passenger and heavy-duty dies el vehicles and equipment, as well as rules accelerating the turnover of l egacy diesel fleets. Implementat ion of stringent requirements for new off-road en gines and in-use off road equip ment lead to further

NO
x reductions, along with District r ules addressing stationary so urce NO
x emissions.

PM 2.5 emission reductions result from ongoing implementation of diese l on- and off-road equipment measures as well as the District’s recently strengthe ned rule for woodburning fireplaces and heaters. T hese measures, along with add itional reductions from

enhancements to the District’s comme rcial charbroiling rule sla ted for adoption in 2016 provide the necessary control st rategy to bring the entire Vall ey into attainment of the 24-hour standard by 2018, and t he annual standard by 2020 (Tabl e 1 in Section D).San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-2 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard F.2 MODELING APPROACH

The attainment demonstration appr oach for the current SIP is ba sed on modeling

conducted for the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, which addressed bo th the annual and 24-hour PM 2.5 standards. The atmospheric dynam ics and associated response t o emission reductions represented in this m odeling, coupled with 2013 desi gn values (DV) and chemical composition, was used to project future (2020 for the annual standard and 2018 for the 24-hour standard) des ign values. Photochemical mo deling for the 2008

PM 2.5 SIP was conducted following the U.S. EPA guidance (2007 U.S. EP A) 1 and was approved by U.S. EPA in 2011 (76 FR 69896, 76 FR 41338). While subsequent modeling was conducted for the a ttainment demonstration for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 standard of 35 μg/m 3 , this effort was based on mode ling conducted only for the firs t and fourth quarters of the year. T hus it was not suitable for addr essing the annual average standard as part of the current SIP update.

The 2008 SIP modeling simulations used the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System, a “one-atmospher e” system that treats major at mospheric and land processes, plus a range of emi ssions species in a comprehensive framework. The
version of CMAQ used in the 2008 Plan included California-speci fic updates as described in Liang and Kaduwela (2005) 2 . The meteorological inputs to CMAQ were generated using the Penn sylvania State Univer sity/National Cent er for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model (MM5) . MM5 is designed to simulate or predict atmospheric motions at small scale.

This work included two gridded m odeling domains (Figure F-1). The first modeling domain (“CCAQS”) covers the Cent ral Valley and its surroundings with 63 x 63 lateral 12 km grid cells (CCAQS domain) for each vertical layer. This domain extends from the

Pacific Ocean in the west to the Mojave Desert and Western Neva da in the East and

runs from the northern Sacrament o Valley to the Tehachapi Mount ains in the south. The second domain (“SJV’) is nes ted within the CCAQS domain cov ers the SJV with 80 x 89 lateral 4 km grid cells . Vertically, both domains incl ude 15 layers of varying thicknesses up to the top of the meteorological domain (100 mil libar (mb)). The CCAQS domain provided the in itial and boundary cond itions for the SJV domain.

MM5 was set up for a 14-month simulation (December 1999 - Janua ry 2001) with three nested gridded domains. Vertica lly, the domains i ncluded 30 la yers and extended up to

100 mb. The two outer domains def ined the atmospheric initial and boundary

conditions for the area at lar ge scale, while the innermost gri d resolved the fine details of atmospheric motions within the SJV domain.

Photochemical modeling was conduc ted for an entire year. Gridd ed, hourly, chemically speciated emissions of combined stationary, mobile, area, and b iogenic sources were developed as inputs to CMAQ for the 2005 base year and the 2014 future year. The

1 U.S. EPA, 2007, Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analys es for Demonstrating A ttainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA-454/B07-002.

2 Liang, J. and A. Kaduwela, 2005 : Microdevelopment of CMAQ for California Regional Particulate-Matter Air Quality Study. Proceedings of the 4th A nnual CMAS Models-3 Users’ Conf erence; September 26-28, 2005, Chapel-Hill, NC.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-3 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard 2014 inventory included expected emission reductions from the S tate and local controls proposed in the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP. The resulting modeled relative response factors (RRFs) for each PM 2.5 species between 2005 and 2014 were then used to project 2006 design values and chemical compos ition to 2014 using U.S. EPA’s Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT).

Further description of the photoc hemical modeling conducted for the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP is provided in the “Regional Air Q uality Modeling to the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan” Appendix to the Plan: ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/planni ng/sip/sjvpm25/Appendix%20ASJV%20Modeling.pdf ), and ARB Modeling Do cuments posted at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/planni ng/sip/sjvpm25/sjvpm25.htm

.

Figure F-1 Modeling Domains

CCAQS domain has 63x63 12 km gri d cells and the SJV domain has 80x89 4 km grid cells. Both domains have telescopic vertical g rid structure with 15 layers extending to 100 mb.

F.3 MODELING METHODOLOGY

To assess the representativeness of the 2008 SIP m odeling for c apturing the dynamics and response to emission reducti ons for the updated attainment demonstration, ARB

staff evaluated both th e meteorological char acteristics, as wel l as the chemical composition used in the two model ing efforts. The types of met eorological conditions

conducive to PM 2.5 formation in 2013/2014 were simila r to the 2000/2001 meteorolog ical

conditions simulated in the 2008 SIP. These factors include th e presence of persistent ridges that result in warm air aloft and strong stability with limited mixing, cool morningSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-4 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard temperatures, and low wind spee ds. Although the persistence of these meteorological

conditions in 2013/2014 resulted in an increased number of days with high concentrations, the underlying met eorological factors driving e levated PM 2.5 concentrations were similar to 2000/2001. In addition, as desc ribed in Attachment A to this Appendix, the PM 2.5 chemical compositi on used in the 2008 PM 2.5 modeling was very similar to 2013, indicating common atmospheric chemistry r egimes. Therefore, the

2008 PM 2.5 SIP modeling response to emissi on reduction, applied to 2013 DV s, provides a suitable basis for the updated attainment demonstrat ion.

To ensure consistency with the approved 2008 PM 2.5 SIP modeling, the current effort uses a single DV representing 2013 based on ambient measurement s during 2011- 2013. The base emission year is the middle year of 2012, with future emission years of

2020 for the annual standard attain ment demonstration, and 2018 for the 24-hour

standard demonstration.

Due to the differences in base years (2005 vs. 2012) and future years (2014 vs. 2018 or 2020), the RRFs calculated for t he 2008 modeling ca nnot be used directly in the current Plan. Thus, the updated m odeling uses scal ed RRFs presented in the following equation.

ܴܴܨ ଵଶିଶ଴ ൌ ൤1 െ ሺ 1 െ ܴܴܨ ଴ହିଵସ ሻ ൈ %∆ܧ ଵଶିଶ଴ %∆ܧ ଴ହିଵସ ൨

Here,

%∆ܧ ଵଶିଶ଴ ൌ ܧ ଵଶ െ ܧ ଶ଴
ܧ ଵଶ ൈ 100%	ܽ݊݀	%∆ܧ ଴ହିଵସ ൌ ܧ ଴ହ െ ܧ ଵସ
ܧ ହ଴ ൈ 100%,

where, E j is the total emissions for a gi ven emissions component for yea r j ( = 2005, 2012, 2014, and 2020). That is, quantities in the above equat ion represent percent emissions changes for the curr ent and 2008 Plans. Similarly, R RF i-k represents RRF values for the current (2012- 2020) and 2008 Plans (2005-2014).

In the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP, 2004-2006 concentrations of ammonium ion, nitrate ion, sul fate ion, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and geologic material we re calculated using the Sulfate, Adjusted Nitrate, Der ived Water, Inferred Carbonaceous Material Balance Approach (SANDWICH) m ethod. The current pl an uses the same SAN DWICH method to calculate these components for 2011-2013 speciation measurem ents made at Bakersfield (California Street), Visalia (North Church Street), Fresno (1 st Street and Garland), and Modesto (14 th Street). The particle bound wa ter (PBW) was calculated using the e-AIM method that is more accurate than the parameter ized equation for PBW. These components (except for PBW) were then projected to the future using the

scaled RRFs. PBW is calculated again for the future concentrat ions.

For those PM 2.5 monitors that were not collocat ed with speciation monitors, the composition measured at one of the four spe ciation sites was as signed (Table F-1). In

the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP, analysis of CRPAQS field st udy data was used to identifyin g which sites had similar chemical compos ition profiles. In the curren t study, proximity and similarity between sites were a lso considered. Based on these criteria, the composition

at Bakersfield-California was used to represent Bakersfield-Pla nz. Similarly, Fresno-San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-5 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard Garland composition was used to r epresent Fresno-Hamilton, Clov is, and Tranquility. Visalia composition was used fo r Hanford, and Modesto compositi on was used for sites at Stockton, Manteca, Turlock, and Merced.

Planning inventories were used to calculate the scaling factors for RRFs (viz. %ΔE 12-

20 /%ΔE 05-14 ). Nitrate and ammonium ion RRFs were scaled using NO
x emission reductions, and sulfate ion RRFs were scaled using SO
x emission reductions. The justification for using NO
x for both the ammonium and nitrat e ions relies on the fact that

sulfate ion concentrations are m inor and therefore ammonium ion scales mainly with the

nitrate ion. Source-level emi ssions profiles were applied to t he PM2.5 planning inventory to calculate the PM2. 5 chemical constituents of organ ic carbon, elemental carbon, and geologic material.

F.4 MODELING RESULTS

Eight of the fifteen sites in t he SJV recorded 2013 DVs over th e annual PM 2.5 standard of 15 μg/m 3 (Table F-1). The higher DVs occu rred in the Valley’s southern region (including the Bakersfield and Vi salia as well as Hanford) and the central region (around

the Fresno urban area and Madera). Only one site in the northe rn region (Turlock)

measured a 2013 DV over the standar d. All sites in the SJV rec orded 2013 DVs at or below the 24-hour standard of 65 μg/m 3

.

Table F-1 lists the project ed 2020 annual and 2018 24-hr DVs de termined through the previously described modeling methodology. In 2020, all sites in the Valley are projected to attain the annual st andard. For those sites that exceeded the standard, the projected 2020 DVs r ange from 12.5 μg/m 3 to 15.0 μg/m 3

.

The implementation of new reduc tions from California’s on-going emission control programs will provide the major portion of e mission reductions needed to attain the

annual PM 2.5 standard by 2020. Further emissi on reductions from the Distric t’s recently tightened residential wood combus tion rule coupled with further control from commercial cooking operations slated for adoption in 2016, complement the PM 2.5 emission

reductions needed for the SJV to attain the annual standard in 2020.

As shown on Table F-1, modeling re sults indicate these control programs will result in 2018 24-hour design values ranging between 24 μg/m 3 and 52 μg/m 3 . For sites with 2013 design values over 60 μg/m 3 , the modeled 2018 design values range between 46 μg/m 3 and 52 μg/m 3 (71-80 percent of the standard).

F.5 CONSIDERATION OF 2014 AIR QUALITY

The drought-related me teorological condition s that affected PM2 .5 concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley during 2013 continued into 2014. Although c omplete data for 2014 is not yet available, this secti on provides a preliminary asses sment of 2014 air quality

data in relation to the a ttainment demonstration.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-6 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard Despite the ongoing persistence of the drought, air quality con ditions in 2014 generally improved at most locations, parti cularly in the northern and ce ntral portions of the Valley. This is an indicati on that although drought conditions are continuing, progress is resuming as a result of ongoing em ission reductions. However, because 2014 design values will reflect the impact of multiple years of drought, a comparison to the 2013 design values used in the attain ment demonstration is expected to be mixed, with some locations recording design valu es that are slightly lower, and other locations recording design values that are slight ly higher. Based on an assessment of the PM2.5 levels predicted for 2020 as well as ongoing trends and analyses, cons ideration of 2014 design values is expected to rem ain consistent with the current attainment demonstration. However, ARB and the District will continue to monitor the impacts of the drought and its relationship to future PM2.5 attainment nee ds.

F.6 UNMONITORED AREAS

A screening analysis designed to a ssess the possibility of unmo nitored violations of the

annual PM 2.5 NAAQS was presen ted in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. An annual-averaged

modeled PM 2.5 field was generated for the enti re modeling domain. This fiel d was then

scrutinized to see if there woul d be gradients in the field tha t would give rise to higher values away from monitors if th is field were to be used to adju st the interpolated annualaveraged design value field. T he analysis found t here are no a reas with steep gradients that would result in hi gher design values than those measured at monitors.

This section intentionally blank.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control DistrictApril 16, 2015F-7Appendix F: Attainment Demonstration (Provided by ARB)2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 StandardTable F-1 Projected 2020 Annual and 2018 24-hour Design ValuesMonitoring SiteAQS SiteIDTypeSpeciation2013 Ann.DV32020 Ann.DV withRules42013 24-hr DV52018 24-hr DVwithRules6Bakersfield - California Street 060290014 FRMBakersfield-California16.4 13.7 64.6 51.6Bakersfield - 410 E Planz 060290016 FRMBakersfield-California17.0314.3 55.8344.9Clovis - N Villa Avenue 060195001 FRM Fresno-1st16.4413.3 57.6445.3Fresno - 1st Street/Garland7FRM Fresno-1st15.4512.5 62.0549.3Fresno - Hamilton and Winery 060195025 FRM Fresno-1st14.7 12.0 63.5 50.3Hanford-S Irwin Street 060311004 FEM-BAM Visalia- N Church 17.0 13.9 60.2 45.8Madera 060392010 FEM-BAMFresno-1st18.1 15.0 52.3 41.4Manteca-530 Fishback Rd 060772010 FEM-BAM Modesto 14th10.2 8.7 36.7 32.1Merced - 2334 M Street 060472510 FRM Modesto 14th11.1 9.2 49.2 40.3Merced – S Coffee Ave 060470003 FEM Modesto 14th13.3 11.0 41.8 34.8Modesto - 14thStreet 060990005 FRM Modesto 14th13.6 11.5 50.6 42.2Stockton - Hazelton Street 060771002 FRM Modesto 14th13.8 12.0 45.0 39.0Tranquility 060192009 FEM-BAM Fresno-1st7.9 6.6 30.0 23.9Turlock-S Minaret Street 060990006 FEM-BAM Modesto 14th15.7 13.2 52.7 43.8Visalia - N Church Street 061072002 FRM Visalia - N Church 16.613.5 55.7 42.53Design values equal toor less than 15.0 μg/m3attain the annual PM2.5standard4Design values equal toor less than 65.4 μg/m3attain the 24-hour PM2.5standard5Does not include 167.3 μg/m3measured on May 05, 2013 (supporting documentation provided inAttachment B)6Clovis 2013 DV is based on combined FRM/FEM BAM data72013 DV is based on 2011data for Fresno-1st(060190011) and 2012/2013 datafor Fresno-Garland (060190008)San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-8 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard Attachment A: Trends in PM2.5 Composition

To assess the representativeness of the atmospheric chemistry r egime included in the 2008 SIP modeling for simulating conditions experienced in 2013 , ARB staff compared the chemical composition of amb ient PM2.5 collected during the periods represented by the two SIPs. The 2008 modeling reflected speciation for 2004- 2006 while the current plan reflects 2011-2013. Speciati on data is available for four sites in the Valley: Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, and Visalia. In this analysis, o rganic and elemental

carbon are combined with “other ” because the measurement techni que for the organic and elemental carbon components have changed between the two th ree-year windows. The relative composition for eac h site during these two periods is shown in Figure F-2

below.

Figure F-2 Average PM2.5 Per cent Composition During 2004-2006 Compared to

2011-2013

Ammoniu

m Nitrate

41%

Ammoniu

m Sulfate

13% Geological
6% Elements
2% Other
38% Bakersfield 2004-2006 Average CompositionSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-9 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard Ammonium

Nitrate
37%

Ammonium

Sulfate

12% Geological
4% Elements
2% Other
45% Fresno 2004-2006 Average Composition

Ammonium

Nitrate
35%

Ammonium

Sulfate

12% Geological
5% Elements
4% Other
44% Modesto 2004-2006 Average CompositionSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-10 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard At all sites, ammonium nitrate and organic/elemental carbon as represented in the “other” category are the larges t constituents in both periods. For Modesto and Visalia, the relative composition is near ly identical for the two three- year periods shown. At Bakersfield and Fresno, ammonium n itrate has decreased slightly , with a corresponding increase in other and geological . However, at both sites, the overall composition between the two three-year peri ods is very similar and therefor e supports a conclusion that there have not been any maj or shifts in atmospheric chemis try regimes in SJV.

This section intentionally blank. Ammonium

Nitrate
44%

Ammonium

Sulfate

12% Geological
7% Elements
3% Other
34% Visalia

2004-2006 Average CompositionSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-11 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard Attachment B: Assessment of the Representativeness of the PM2.5 Value

Recorded at the Bakersfield-Pla nz Monitoring Site on May 5, 201 3

A. Overview

On May 5, 2013, a PM 2.5 concentration of 167.3 μg/m 3 was measured at the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring si te. A concentration of this mag nitude is extremely unusual, especially during the spring/summer when PM 2.5 concentrations are typically low. Further, all other Bakersfield PM 2.5 monitors recorded concentrations that were substantially lower, consistent with levels typical for the Val ley during this time of year. Meteorological analysis shows that high winds on May 5, 2013 ma y have resulted in

microscale PM 2.5 impacts at Bakersfield-Planz t hat are atypical from measured

concentrations at the Bakersfiel d-Planz site and other nearby s ites during similar events. Elemental analysis of particula tes collected on the filter indi cated an extraordinarily high

concentration of elements associ ated with windblown dust. This unusual measured

concentration indicates that the sample collected on May 5, 20 13 was not representative of the broader spatial scale the Bakersfield-Planz monitor is i ntended to capture.

Based on the following analysis, A RB staff is therefore excludi ng the value of 167.3 μg/m 3
from use in the modeling analysis for the SJV 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. ARB and the District are also pursuing further analysis of this event by engaging the De partment of Public Health to conduct a more thorough examinat ion of the filter media. Th e results of this analysis will be closely evaluated and aide in future planning efforts.

B. Representativeness of Bakersfield-Planz PM 2.5 Data

Air quality planning b egins with evaluating pollutant concentra tions measured at air monitoring stations and compari ng those measurements to establi shed air quality standards. In practice, monitors are only capable of sampling a relatively small portion of the atmosphere in the immedi ate vicinity around the inlet. However, the samples are intended to be represent ative of concentrations over a larger a rea as defined by the spatial scale of the monitoring site.

The Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site is identified as neighbor hood scale, meaning that

PM 2.5 measurements are expec ted to be representat ive of air quality w ithin an area that has relatively homogenous land us e ranging from 0.5 to 4.0 kilo meters around the

monitor. If measurem ents at the site are overwhelmed by local dust sources and driven by unusual meteorological event s atypical of the area, the meas urements may no longer be considered representativ e of air quality within the b roader area around the

monitor.

San Joaquin Valley Seasonal PM 2.5 Concentrations

PM 2.5 concentrations throughout the Vall ey follow the same seasonal p attern. During the low concentration season (p rimarily April through September ), concentrations are generally below 25 to 30 μg/m 3 Valley-wide. A measured concentration of 167.3 μg/m 3San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-12 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard in May is therefore extraordinar ily unusual. Evaluating days w here wind speeds were similar in magnitude shows tha t PM2.5 values measured during th ose days were much lower than the 167.3 μg/m 3 measured on May 5, 2013.

Data presented in Table 1 illus trates the typical observed patt ern and shows the highest

PM 2.5 concentrations recorded between Ap ril and September in the Vall ey over the last 14 years. Apart from the May 5, 2013 value, flagged data, and an anomalous reading in April 2010, other recorded PM 2.5 values are consistently l ow during the April to September time period.

Table F-2 Highest SJV PM 2.5 Concentrations - April thru September 2000-2013 (μg/m 3 )

Year April May June July August September

2000 31.4 20 27.1 28.1 23 33

2001 27.3 21.6 19.3 43 17.3 18.5

2002 40 20.7 25.4 25.5 49 19.6

2003 15 18 20.3 25.3 23.2 31.5

2004 28 18.6 15.4 63.1 19 20.7

2005 30.6 18 21.7 31 24 19.4

2006 23 23.7 23.7 32 22.6 42.5

2007 28 30.5 21.3 103.8 20.5 52

2008 32.3 36 99.3 60.8 28.3 36.5

2009 31.3 24.4 26.5 25.8 31.9 28

2010 107.8* 21 23.2 92.2 25.8 37.8

2011 33.2 23.6 38.4 33.2 20 29.3

2012 29.7 21.9 23.4 31 19.7 29.4

2013 24.9 167.3 28.3 40.1 39.1 26.8

On May 5, 2013 all other monitoring sites in the Valley measured PM 2.5 typical of the low

concentration season. Measurem ents ranged from 9.9 μg/m 3 to 24 μg/m 3 (Table 2).

The Bakersfield-California moni toring site recorded 24, 23, and 26 μg/m 3 on the PM 2.5 Federal Reference Method monito r, and primary and collocated Be ta Attenuation Monitors, respectively. As seen in Table 2, the Bakersfield-Pl anz site recorded the highest 24-hour average PM 2.5 concentration in the Valley on May 5, 2013, with levels an order of magnitude higher than any other site. Fireworks (Data flagged in AQS)

Fires (Data flagged in AQS)

Highest Concentrations at Planz *Bakersfield-California BAM recorded a 26.9 μg/m 3 daily average; FRM value not availableSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-13 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard Table F-3 PM 2.5 FRM and FEM Concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley on May 5, 2013

Site Name Avg. 24-Hr PM 2.5 Concentration (μg/m 3 )

Fresno-Garland 10.3
Tranquility-32650 West Adams Avenue 10.3

Clovis-North Villa Avenue 10.8

Bakersfield-410 E Planz Road 167.3

Bakersfield-5558 California Avenue 24

Hanford-South Irwin Street 9.9

Madera-28261 Avenue 14 16.2

Merced-South Coffee Avenue 10

Manteca-530 Fishback Road 12.7

Stockton-Hazelton Street 15.9

Turlock-South Minaret Street 10.4

Modesto-14th Street 11.4

Elemental Species Composition To further evaluate the repres entativeness of the May 5, 2013 s ample, ARB’s Monitoring and Laboratory Division analyzed the FRM filter usin g X-Ray Fluorescent Spectroscopy (XRF). The analysis revealed that the PM 2.5 mass was heavily dominated by fugitive dust. In order to est imate the fugitive dust contr ibution to the total PM 2.5 mass, ARB staff used t he IMPROVE formula:

(2.2 x Al) + (2.49 x Si) + (1.63 x Ca) + (2.42 x Fe) + (1.94 x Ti)

The fugitive dust concentrati on, estimated at 107.7 μg/m 3 , far exceeded the values typically seen in the PM 2.5 size fraction. The recorded value of 107.7 μg/m 3 was over four times higher than the next h ighest value of 26.2 μg/m 3 observed in the entire California network based on 14 years of ava ilable data. The PM2.5 fractio n of fugitive dust is generally low, and PM2.5 concentra tions during high wind events are thus typically not nearly as high as the Ma y 5, 2013 reading.

Concentrations of total elemental species were also unusually h igh, about 6.6 μg/m 3

. Some of these species, such as cobalt, manganese, phosphorus, a nd rubidium, reached levels not previously m easured in the State. These unu sual concentration levels suggest that, along with fugitive dust, elemental specie s in the soil, combined with other chemical species, were depos ited onto the f ilter. Figure 1 below compares average and maximum concentrations for select species historica lly measured at

Bakersfield-California to what w as measured at Bakersfield-Plan z on May 5, 2013.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-14 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard Figure F-3 Comparison of Concentr ations of Select Soil Elements : BakersfieldCalifornia & Bakersfield-Planz

C. Potential Fugitive Dust Sources Impacting the Bakersfield-Pl anz Site

To evaluate the potential influe nce of local fugitive dust sour ces on the Bakersfield-Planz monitor on May 5, 2013, the lo cation of open soil areas, statio nary sources, and known dust-generating activities were re viewed relative to the monito ring site. This information, coupled with observations of pot ential dust sources made by Dis trict enforcement staff on December 18, 2014, i s summarized below.

The Bakersfield-Planz monitor is located on the grounds of the Bakersfield Municipal Airport, a city-owned airport used for private, civil aviation. The airport also includes a helicopter landing area near the m onitor and helicopters are kn own to periodically use the airport. As shown in Figur es 2 and 3 below, the monitor is closely surrounded on several sides by open areas wit h the potential of emitting dust during high wind events. These open parcels of land are located to the east, west, and s outh of the monitor and include the airport infield ar eas between taxiways and runways. Dust sources located

nearest to the monitor have the greatest potential impact becau se dust particles do not remain suspended and deposit quickl y. Additionally, as discuss ed above, the PM2.5 fraction of fugitive dust is generally low; therefore, the abno rmally high value of 167.3 μg/m 3 measured on May 5, 2013 is unus ual. ARB and the District are pursuing further analysis of this value through a more thorough examination of t he filter media. 0.0000 0.0500 0.1000 0.1500 0.2000 0.2500 0.3000 0.3500 0.4000

Avg Max 5/5/2013Concentrations(μg/m3) Comparison of Concentrations of Select Soil Elements:

Bakersfield

‐ California & Bakersfield

‐ Planz

Phosphorus (P)

Manganese (Mn)

Cobalt (Co)

Rubidium (Rb)

Bakersfield

‐ California Bakersfield

‐ PlanzSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-15 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard Figure F-4 Bakersfield-Planz PM 2.5 FRM Monitor 8

Figure F-5 Aerial Photo of Bakersfield Municipal Airport 9

8 Photo taken looking west

9 Red marker indicates monitor location N

Open areas (dust, silt) Infield areas (open soil,

partial vegetation)San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-16 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard Additional potential sources o f fugitive dust in the broader ar ea surrounding the airport were also evaluated through field investigation by District enf orcement staff. A review of aerial photos, combined with field investigations, indicate tha t additional potential dustemitting sources in the area ar e present to the east and southe ast of the Bakersfield Municipal Airport (Figure 4). T hese sources are subject to Dis trict rules for controlling fugitive dust from constructi on and demolition activities; hand ling, storage and transport of storage of bulk materials ; disturbed open areas; paved and u npaved roads; and offfield agricultural sources.

Figure F-6 Aerial Photo of Bakersfield Municipal Airport - Potential nearb y Fugitive

Dust

Sources* (Red marker indicates monitor location)

No violations of District fugiti ve dust rules were documented a t any nearby dust emitting facilities in Figure 4 on May 5, 2013. Based on this assessmen t of fugitive dust sources surrounding the monitor, the likel y source of total particulate mass is from the open areas immediately adjacent to the monitor, reflecting a localiz ed microscale impact. However, due to the significanc e difference in readings from ne arby monitors, other factors may have contributed to the unusually hi gh reading at P lanz.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-17 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard D. Meteorology at the Bakersfield-Planz Monitoring Site

An evaluation of Bakersfield ar ea meteorology indicates that hi gh winds measured at the airport are the expected c ause of the localized dust impact on May 5. Wind speed data for the Bakersfield-Municipa l Airport monitoring site was used to assess winds at

Bakersfield-Planz. The Bakersfi eld-Municipal Airport meteorolo gical site is located on the northern edge of the airport p roperty, approximately one-ha lf mile from the Bakersfield-Planz monitor. Strong winds on May 5, 2013 include d 9 hours (including eight consecutive hours) exceeding 25 miles per hour (mph), in excess of U.S. EPA’s Interim Exceptional Events Gu idelines threshold of 25 mph, 10 and far in excess of the San Joaquin Valley’s Exceptional Event threshold of 17 mph as e stablished in prior EPA-approved Exceptional Event subm issions. Figure 5 illustrat es the difference between wind speeds on May 5, 2013 and a typical day in May of 2013. By contrast, wind speeds were not ably lower at the Bakersfield- California monitoring station, located about 4 miles from Bakersfield-Planz.

Figure F-7 May 2013 Wind Speeds at Bakersfield-Planz by Hour

To evaluate wind speeds on May 5, 2013, relative to other signi ficant wind event days at Bakersfield-Planz, wind speed data were reviewed from the first day meteorological

10 Page, Stephen D. (May 10, 2013). Interim Guidance to Impl ement Requirements for the Treatment of Air Quality Monitoring Data Influenced by Exceptional Events [Memorandum]. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-18 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard data were collected at the Bakers field-Municipal Airport site o n September 11, 2012, through December 31, 2014. Duri ng that 2 year and 3 month peri od, there were 3 days

that included sustained winds o ver 25 mph (Figure 7). Among th ese high wind days, May 5, 2013, had over 8 hours wi th winds in excess of 25 mph, a significantly greater

amount of time than the next highest day of December 11, 2014, with about 4 hours of sustained winds over 25 mph.

It should be noted that May 5, 2013 was the only high wind day during the dry season in the San Joaquin Valley. The othe r high wind days occurred duri ng winter months, when moisture in the ground would mini mize the potential for fugitiv e dust to become

airborne. PM 2.5 concentrations were measured only on one of these winter days, January 23, 2014, and reached 49.7 μg/m 3 , which is fairly typical for PM2.5 concentrations during wi nter in the Valley.

Figure F-8 Days with High Wind Speeds at Bakersfield-Planz by Hour

The available meteorological data indicate that May 5, 2013 was highly unusual in terms of wind speed and the duration o f high winds as compared with o ther days in which wind speed was measured at the airport.

E. Conclusion

In summary, comparison of the 167.3 μg/m 3 concentration measured on May 5, 2013, to values typical for this season as well as comparison to values measured throughout the Valley on the same day, combined with the record high fugitive dust and elemental species concentrations, indicate that the monitor was impacted by microscale sources High Winds Threshold = 25 mphSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-19 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard that are not representative of t he neighborhood s patial scale t he monitor is intended to represent. Therefore, this val ue is not included in modeling a nalysis for the San Joaquin Valley 2015 PM 2.5 Plan. ARB and the District are pursui ng further analysis of this even t in order to conduct a more thorough ex amination of the filter medi a. The results of this analysis will be closely eval uated and aide in future planning efforts.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 16, 2015

F-20 Appendix F: Attainment Demons tration (Provided by ARB)

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard This page intentionally blank.