NASA ROSES08: Applying NASA Observations, Models and IT for Air Quality Proposal

Air Quality Cluster > Applying NASA Observations, Models and IT for Air Quality Main Page > Proposal | NASA ROSES Solicitation | Context | Resources | Schedule | Forum | Participating Groups

Proposal Cover Page incl.

Proposals submitted electronically through NSPIRES will use the NSPIRES Proposal Cover Page that is available through the World Wide Web at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/. Access for application to a given NRA is provided through a menu entitled "Solicitations" then accessing the link "Open Solicitations." Once completed by the PI, the Proposal Cover Page must be accessed in the NSPIRES system and submitted electronically by the AOR.

If a hard copy submittal is also required, the submitted cover page should then be printed and signed by the AOR. As directed in the solicitation, the signed copy must be submitted with the original copy of the proposal on or before the proposal due date. In addition, reproductions of the signed Proposal Cover Page are used to preface the required printed copies of the proposal.

NSPIRES automatically assigns a unique proposal number to each proposal only after it has been successfully submitted. NASA uses this NSPIRES number throughout the proposal review and selection process to uniquely identify the proposal and its associated electronic data. If no NSPIRES number appears on the Proposal Cover Page, then it has not been properly submitted through the NSPIRES system.

Proposal Summary 300 words

The objective of this project is to develop a decision-support system (DSS) for the implementation of the new Exceptional Event (EE) Rule, which permits States to flag air quality data caused by exceptional air pollution, such as forest fires and dust storms. The flags are considered in establishing the compliance with the National Air Quality Standards. The Rule requires States to document and quantify the exceptional source contributions. Based on the evidence, EPA decides if the EE flag is justified. Preparing and evaluating the EE evidence is a tedious and technically challenging task for the State and EPA offices.

In the proposed approach, a wide range of distributed data relevant to EE's will be integrated using the NASA-supported, federated data system, DataFed, which is built on GEOSS interoperability principles and architecture. Multi-sensory data (including MODIS, OMI, TOMS, GOCART) will be accessed through GIOVANNI and other data providers (EPA-AQS, VIEWS, AirNow, NAAPS, BlueSky, BAMS). The data processing for analysis will be through DataFed applications orchestrated from reusable, web service components.

The DataFed tools will allow the States and EPA users to explore and analyze data for specific EEs. Furthermore, a dedicated EE DSS tool will consist of a software package that facilitates the Preparation of EE reports by the States; Examination of the submitted reports by the Regional offices; Final verification and approval of EE flags by EPA.

The DSS tools for EEs will provide a formal venue for the incorporation of NASA Earth Science observations and models into AQ regulatory processes. For the States, the powerful EE tools will make the Event documentation easy and efficient. For EPA, the standardized DSS tools will make the decisions more consistent and robust. The data flow infrastructure for the EE DSS will also have broader benefits for the implementation of other SOA-based DSSs.

Table of Contents

Offerors should include a one-page Table of Contents that provides a guide to the organization and contents of the proposal. This item may also incorporate customized formats of the Proposer’s own choosing, e.g., identification of the submitting organization through use of letterhead stationary, project logos, etc. The electronic system chosen may provide some assistance in preparing the Table of Contents, but Proposers are responsible for the accuracy of proposals submitted.

Decision-making Activities and Baseline Performance

The quality of ambient air is regulated by the setting and compliance with National Ambient air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Federal EPA sets and periodically revises the NAAQS for key criteria pollutants such as PM2.5 and Ozone. In 1996, the NAAQS for PM2.5 was significantly revised thus reducing the daily standard for PM2.5 from 65 to 35 ug/m3 and for ozone from 85 to 75 ppb. Furthermore, both of these pollutants are subject to the new Exceptional Event (EE) Rule. The tightening of the short-term standards and the EE Rule shifts the AQ management from the yearly average to the short-term, episodic pattern and control of air pollution. EPA determines compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) based upon measurements using Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitors. The 2006 ammendments to the NAAQS, the Exceptional Event Rule provides for the exclusion of data strongly influenced by impacts from "exceptional events," such as smoke from a wildfire or dust from abnormally high winds. States "flag" data for those days that they believe to be impacted by exceptional events. Such flagged days, if concurred with by EPA, may be given special consideration in the compliance calculations.

The decisions related to the Exceptional Event flagging and exclusion are performed at three organizations in three organizations: States, Regional EPA Offices and Federal EPA, as shown in the schematic Fig. 1. The States need to decide whether a particular sample is to be flagged or not. The EPA Regional Offices need to evaluate the submitted flagged requests and decide the approval/disapproval of the flag. The role of the federal EPA is to ensure regional consistency of the evaluations, resolution of difficult cases and to provide general help interpreting the EE Rule.

The EE Rule is intentionally vague on the types of evidence and analyzes. The guidelines for preparing the flag justifications do not exist. Neither are operational tools for accessing and analyzing data. As a consequence, the submissions are highly variable; some are very detailed and technical while others are brief and descriptive. The EPA Regional Offices currently use ad hoc methods to understand the events, to evaluate the claims, and to make their recommendation. The lack of formal procedures and tools makes evaluation difficult and uneven.

The main scientific, technical challenge arises from the fact that many different source types contribute to PM2.5 concentrations. Some sources are anthropogenic, others are natural; some are located nearby, others can be located far away. Emissions from natural and 'extra-jurisdictional' sources, such as biomass fires and windblown dust or intercontinental pollution transport can contribute to severe episodic PM events, i.e. short-term concentration spikes. However, accounting for the contributions of these extra jurisdictional events in the implementation of the NAAQS is still under development.

Real-time continuous PM monitoring provides the record for short term event detection. Time-integrated and less frequent speciated PM samples provide the chemical signatures for specific aerosol types, such as smoke or dust. Satellite images delineate both the synoptic-scale as well as fine-scale features of PM events under cloudfree conditions. The full integration of these diverse PM data arising from a variety of measurements is still a major challenge for the data analyst. Air quality models that assimilate the various observations could serve as effective data integration platform. Unfortunately, the science and technology of such data assimilation is not yet available for the modeling and data analysis communities.

Preparing and evaluating the evidence for flagged data is a technically challenging task both for the State and the Regulatory offices. It requires:

• Access to a diverse array of data sources illustrating various aspects of the exceptional event
• Integration of the heterogeneous data sources, frequently incomplete and incompatible
• Demanding data analysis and to establish "clear causal relationship" between the EE and the exceedance
• Finally, the Rule requires a demonstration that the exceedance would not have occurred but for the presence of the EE.

Flagging procedure has to be in accordance with section 40 CFR 50.14 (c)(3)(iii) of the EE rule. The above requirements place high demand on the resources and skills of the analysts at the State, Region and Federal level. Many State and Regional AQ management offices lack the means for detecting, flagging and documenting exceptional events. The EE Rule identifes different categories of uncontrollable events: (a) Exceedances Due to Transported Pollution (Transported African, Asian Dust; Smoke from Mexican fires; Smoke & Dust from Mining, Agricultural Emissions) (b) Natural Events (Nat. Disasters.; High Wind Events; Wildland Fires; Stratospheric Ozone; Prescribed Fires) and (c) Chemical Spills and Industrial Accidents; Structural Fires; Terrorist Attack (Fig. X).

In the past, the EPA evaluation of the State-provided data did not benefit from tools and sources of information which are now available. Fortunately, there are now outstanding opportunities to develop executable, credible and reasonably simple methods for PM2.5 Exceptional Event analysis. The purpose of the Excepitonal Event DSS (EE DSS) for the preparation of technical documantation and supporting information for EE flag claims. The flags and the flag justification reports are prepared by the individual States hence, the primary users of the DSS are the States. However, since the EE flag claims are evaluated by Regional and Federal EPA offices, they also represent users of EE DSS. Another role of the EPA is to develop guidelines and templates as well as the supporting information system that the states can use in preparing their EE submissions. In other words, EPA is supporting the development of the EE DSS.

Curently, a formal decision support system to aid the States in preparing the flag justification report does not exist. States are using various ad hoc methods at their disposal, including scanning their monitoring data for anomolous patterns, media reports of fires, dust storms and other EEs. The impact of exceptional sources on the violating monitor site is justified in a qualitative sense. Comparison to historical values are generally permited in current EE justification reports. Because of the complexity of the required analyzes even the preparation of the qualitative reports is currently time consuming. One rough estimate provided by an officer of the Federal EPA is that currently it takes about a week of State analyst's time to prepare an EE report. Currently there are hundreds (?) of flagged data samples, which results in several person-years of effort. As the implementation of the EE Rule proceeds it is anticipated that the number of flagged samples will increase dramatically to thousands of flags per year as the States get more familiar with data exclusion procedures.

The proposed NEDS System is anticipated to reduce the report preparation time from a week to less than four hours per flag. This is about a factor of 10 time-savings that can be used more prudently on analyzing and understanding the State's air quality pattern or exploring mitigation options. More importantly, the quality of decisions will be more objective and uniform.

Earth Science Research Results (1page)

The EE Rule offers outstanding opportunity to infuse NASA data products and information technologies deep into EPA's operational activities on managing air quality. In fact, the EE Rule is the only air quality regulation that we are aware of, where the use of satellites is explicitly encouraged in the Federal Register:

Information demonstrating the occurrence of the event.. ... satellite-derived pixels (portions of digital images) indicating the presence of fires; satellite images of the dispersing smoke and smoke plume transport or trajectory calculations...connecting fires with the receptors.

Identification of the spatial pattern of the affected area (the size, shape, and area of geographic coverage). This could include, for instance, the use of satellite or surface measurement data.

The simplest demonstrations could consist of newspaper accounts or satellite images to demonstrate that an event occurred together with daily and seasonal average ambient concentrations ...to demonstrate an unusually high ambient concentration level, which is clearly indicative of an exceptional impact.

From the point of view of the proposed work, it is also important that NASA-supported IT is directly applicable to the development and implementation of a broadly usable decision support system. The outcome of this work can markedly improve the quality of EE flagging decisions,

Satellites are particularly suitable for detecting and quantifying air pollution events....intense signal, regular global scale monitoring,easy data accesss. GOES..AVHRR .. SeaWiFS...MODIS-...OMI

This section must identify the array of Earth science research results (Section 1.2 of this appendix) that the proposal will utilize. Proposals must be specific:

• For spacecraft observations, proposals should include the spacecraft, sensor, data product, and other specific information.
• For proposals involving Earth science models, this section should identify the inputs to the models as well as the predictions, forecast products, or other products from the models.
• For proposals involving NASA Earth science research results produced with commercial remote sensing data and geospatial information, proposals must identify the commercial inputs and sources.
• For proposals blending commercial products with NASA products, proposals should identify all the data and products.

Most of the AQ related impact that satelliotes have is on evaluating emission inventories. While much of the work has focusesd on third world countries that have virtually no bottom up data, there is quite a bit of active effort in improving domestic NOx, biogenic VOC and particulate inventories based on satellites. We have used satellites to improve fire emissions, one of the big three (egu's, transporation, fires) in our recent inventories and satellites play a role analogous to Mobile model and IPM to generating annual (with sub annual resolution) inventories. So, satellites are a big deal in AQ management efforts. I've attached a link to a recent release giving NASA and DOE a ton of credit on characterizing domestic CO2 emissions. While the example does not use satellite data, it sets up the case for bringing in NASA's carbon observatory (CO2 satellite mission - scheduled launch 12/08). It might be a wise idea to build on our partnership with NASA and ORD now to demonstrate support for NASA satellite missions, using the momentum and interest in the greenhouse gas rule and related events. If we don't, no doubt that OAP and/or ORD will start to exhibit a perceived leadership role. NASA and DOE, and to some extent NOAA...but more on ambient condiitons... will be looked at as leaders in greenhosue gas emissions characterizations. This is a logical area for us to engage in and take advantage of NASA's expertise and blend our own bottom up emissions expertise.

Part of the reason I'm writing this is that I'm getting word that NASA increasingly is being frustrated by EPA. NASA has put quite a bit into boundary layer air quality work (applications as well as research), yet EPA appears as only occasionally interested. ... I'm not suggesting we put $ toward NASA projects; but, rather, actively engage in partnering with them, in a manner analogous to what Tom has accomplished...but ramping it up a bit as part of our GHG effort.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008a/080407GurneyVulcan.html

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11820 The next NASA atmospheric composition (and coastal ocean color) mission as outlined in the report is called GEO-CAPE. NASA has begun to plan for GEO CAPE, and intends to host a community wide workshop to initiate a science definition study pertaining to the NRC Decadal Survey Geostationary Coastal and Air Pollution Events (GEO-CAPE) mission. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the science questions that can and should be addressed by future geostationary measurements to monitor coastal ocean biology and air quality, discuss the types of observations that potentially could be used to directly address the appropriate science questions, and spell out the scientific and technical activities required to insure that such a mission would be successful.

Science Questions: Defining Anomaly, Exceptional Behavior; Applications

Transition Approach (1p)

Since 1998, the PI and his co-workers have facilitated or participated in dozens of air pollution event analyzes, through ad-hoc virtual groups. Notable exceptional events include the "Asian Dust Events of April 1998", which documented exceptional impacts of Asian dust on Western North America. The ??? analyzes of Central American Smoke of May 1998 caused record PM2.5 concentrations over much of Eastern U.S. and prompted EPA to issue the first set of guidelines (precursor to the EE Rule) on the treatment of EEs in compliance calculations. Recent EE analysis examples include the impact of Georgia Smoke on sites in the Eastern U.S. 2007, [ Nitrate Event, Quebec Smoke, CA Smoke?]

Following the EPA's request the CAPITA group has actively during 2005-2006? participated in the development of EE analysis methods and contributed through exploratory illustrations of the candidate EE analysis methods. These were included in the Docket as supporting documentation for the EE Rule.

After the formal publication of the EE Rule in the Federal Register (ref, ) the CAPITA group was again asked to provide further illustrations of the methods that satisfy the EE Rule (wiki).

The experience from both projects has clearly demonstrated that satisfying the regulatory requirements of the EE Rule can be supported by a suitable DSS information system (NASA ReASON). The need for such a support system has been strongly voiced by the supervising EPA officer and seconded by regionald and State analysts who have seen the tools.

End to End idea about involvement from the beginning of the Rule development through operational implementaion of the Rule.   

In the future... Event occurs, in real time analysts are notified AQ monitoring consoles as well as by news, blog and media reports; Analysts choose tools and data and do further analysis; Evidence (higher quality integrated data) produced by the analysts is published with description in near-realtime as event characterization to be used by other applications including EE DSS; When the EE DSS is triggered and the state analyst chooses to flag the station for a given date then further analysis needs to be done using both EE-specific and generic. Analysts chooses tools to provide specific evidence; When the EE DSS is triggered and the state analyst chooses to flag the station for a given date then further analysis needs to be done using both EE-specific and generic. Analysts chooses tools to provide specific evidence

This section should articulate the transition plan, including specific activities to enable the end-users to adopt the enhancements to the decision support activity (or new decision support activity) and sustain their use of the Earth science products within the timeframe of the project.

• Currently ad hoc, divergent, stovepipe
• Future networked, Convergence ...needed

Need user instructions, examples of applications, Feds help in process of organizing regional office sessions

Currently, the States are on their own for what they do and how do they prepare, flagging etc. Region 1 talks to States 
Future, other Regions could do this as well using FASTNet to alert affected States. 

Instructions/applications/hand-holding have to be based on practical application (relevant types of flags/region specifics)

Performance Measures (1p)

This section must articulate the measures (both quantitative and qualitative) the team will use to determine the outcomes, results, and value of the project. The measures should establish the potential improved performance achieved through integration of the Earth science research results. The measures should include those that the decision makers employ, as well as those used to establish the baseline performance.

How many flags have been performed so far 
Each flag costing week before and then new DSS tools would be hours

Tools allow States to evaluate their own performance better
States can learn from each other using common tools and comparing notes

Anticipated Results (1p)

This section must describe the expected results from the project. This section must state the team’s hypothesis for the expected quantitative improvement(s) over the "baseline" performance. This section should estimate the expected improvement(s) in decision-making enabled from the enhanced (new) decision-making activity and the associated socioeconomic benefits from the improved decision-making. This section should be as specific and quantitative as possible. This section should identify how the expected results will contribute to the specific goals and objectives of the related application area(s).

Project Management (1p)

This section should articulate the management approach and structure; plan of work; partnership arrangements; and the expected contribution, roles, and responsibilities of the team members. Project schedule and milestones must be included. Note: Meetings (number of, frequency of, etc.) do not qualify as project management milestones.

Statements of Commitment – Co-Is (as needed)

Every Co-Investigator and Collaborator (ref. definitions in Section 1.4.2) identified as a participant on the proposal’s cover page and/or in the proposal’s Scientific/Technical/Management Section must submit a brief, signed statement of commitment that acknowledges his/her intended participation in the proposed effort. In the case of more than one Co-I or Collaborator, a single statement signed by all participants may be submitted. In any case, each statement must be addressed to the PI, may be a facsimile of an original statement or the copy of an email (the latter must have sufficient information to unambiguously identify the sender), and is required even if the Co-I or Collaborator is from the proposing organization. An example of such a statement follows:

"I (we) acknowledge that I (we) am (are) identified by name as Co-Investigator(s) [and/or Collaborator(s)] to the investigation, entitled <name of proposal>, that is submitted by <name of Principal Investigator> to the NASA Research Announcement <alpha-numeric identifier>, and that I (we) intend to carry out all responsibilities identified for me (us) in this proposal. I (we) understand that the extent and justification of my (our) participation as stated in this proposal will be considered during peer review in determining in part the merits of this proposal. I (we) have read the entire proposal, including the management plan and budget, and I (we) agree that the proposal correctly describes my (our) commitment to the proposed investigation."

Why Should You Participate?

• Technically Challenging
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Combination of the NASA qualitative as well as quantitative
• Societal Significance
  • Better AQ management
  • 2
  • 3
• Fun
  • Collaboration & Competion
  • Use new web-based collaboration tools

Primary Decision-Support Systems

• DataFed - Husar - Exceptional Events

Other Decision-Support Systems

• VIEWS - Brett/Shawn - Regional Haze
• BlueSky - Sean - Smoke
• BAMS - McHenry - Air Quality Forecasting for the public
• HTAP - Keating - Hemispheric Transport Policy

Data Providers/Value-Adding Mediators

• GIOVANNI - Leptouch
• NAAPS - Westphal
• AQS - Mangus
• Airnow - Dye

Letters from End-User Organizations (4 1page letters)

In addition to the brief statements from Co-Is required per Section 2.3.10 of the NASA Guidebook for Proposers, this section may include up to 4, one-page letters from the end-user organizations that will benefit from the proposed project. The letters may include input from the community and beneficiaries served by the end user organizations. All statements or letters must be addressed to the PI and included in the proposal.

• Potential End Users
  • Tom Moore, CIRA
  • Southeast/Chat?
  • Other State/Regional participants.

Current/Pending Support

Information must be provided for all ongoing and pending projects and proposals that involve the proposing PI. This information is also required for any Co-Is who are proposed to perform a significant share (>10 percent) of the proposed work.

All current project support from whatever source (e.g., Federal, State, local or foreign government agencies, public or private foundations, industrial or other commercial organizations) must be listed. This information must also be provided for all pending proposals already submitted or submitted concurrently to other possible sponsors. Do not include the current proposal on the list of pending proposals unless it has been submitted to another possible sponsor.

All projects or activities requiring a portion of the investigators’ time during the period of the proposed effort must be included, even if they receive no salary support from the project(s). The total award amount for the entire award period covered (including indirect costs) must be shown, as well as the number of person-months per year to be devoted to the project for each year, regardless of source of support.

Specifically, for the PI and any Co-Is who are proposed to perform a significant share (>10%) of the proposed work, provide the following information:

• Title of award or project title;
• Name of PI on award;
• Program name (if appropriate) and sponsoring agency or organization, including a point of contact with his/her telephone number and email address;
• Performance period;
• Total budget; and
• Commitment by PI or Co-I in terms of person-months per year for each year.

For pending research proposals involving substantially the same kind of research as that being proposed to NASA in this proposal, the proposing PI must notify the NASA Program Officer identified for the NRA immediately of any successful proposals that are awarded any time after the proposal due date and until the time that NASA’s selections are announced.

References and citations

All references and citations given in the Scientific/Technical/Management Section must be provided using easily understood, standard abbreviations for journals and complete names for books. It is highly preferred but not required that these references include the full title of the cited paper or report.