&EPA
United S*i6
EiKviraimenlal Protection
Agency
2005 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program
(UATMP)
December 2006
Final Report
-------
EPA-454/R-07-001
December 2006
2005 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP)
Prepared By:
Eastern Research Group
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Margaret Dougherty and Mike Jones
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Contract No. 68-D-03-049
Delivery Orders 03 and 04
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
2005 Urban Air Toxics
Monitoring Program (UATMP)
Final Report
EPA Contract No. 68-D-03-049
Delivery Order 03
Delivery Order 04
Prepared for:
Margaret Dougherty and Mike Jones
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared by:
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
1600 Perimeter Park
Morrisville, NC 27560
December 2006
-------
DISCLAIMER
Through its Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency funded and managed the research described in this report under EPA Contract
No. 68-D-03-049 to Eastern Research Group, Inc. This report has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for their use.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures xvi
List of Tables xxiii
List of Acronyms xxxii
Abstract xxxv
1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 The 2005 UATMP 2-1
2.1 Monitoring Locations 2-1
2.2 Pollutants Selected for Monitoring 2-3
2.3 Sampling Schedules 2-3
2.4 Completeness 2-6
2.5 Sampling and Analytical Methods 2-7
2.5.1 VOC Sampling and Analytical Method 2-8
2.5.2 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Method 2-10
2.5.3 Semivolatile Sampling and Analytical Method 2-11
2.5.4 Metals Sampling and Analytical Data 2-12
3.0 Summary of the 2005 UATMP Data 3-1
3.1 Data Summary Parameters 3-2
3.1.1 Number of Sampling Detects 3-2
3.1.2 Concentration Range 3-3
3.1.3 Statistics 3-3
3.1.4 Compounds of Interest 3-4
3.1.5 Non Chronic Risk 3-6
3.1.6 Pearson Correlations 3-7
3.1.6.1 Maximum and Average Temperature 3-8
3.1.6.2 Moisture 3-9
3.1.6.3 Wind and Pressure Information 3-9
3.2 Additional Analyses of the 2005 UATMP 3-11
3.2.1 The Impact of Motor Vehicle Emissions and Spatial Variations 3-11
3.2.1.1 Motor Vehicle Ownership Data 3-11
3.2.1.2 Estimated Traffic Data 3-12
3.2.1.3 Mobile Source Tracer Analysis 3-13
3.2.1.4 BETX Concentration Profiles 3-14
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
3.2.2 Variability Analysis 3-15
3.2.2.1 Coefficient of Variation 3-15
3.2.2.2 Seasonal Variability Analysis 3-15
3.3 Additional Site-Specific Analyses 3-16
3.3.1 Emission Tracer Analysis 3-16
3.3.2 Back Trajectory Analysis 3-17
3.3.3 Wind Rose Analysis 3-17
3.3.4 Site Trends Analysis 3-18
3.3.5 1999 NAT A Data Risk Assessment 3-19
4.0 Sites in Alabama 4-1
4.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Alabama Monitoring Sites 4-2
4.2 Concentration Averages at the Alabama Monitoring Sites 4-2
4.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Alabama Monitoring Sites 4-4
4.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Alabama Sites 4-5
4.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 4-5
4.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 4-7
4.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 4-8
4.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 4-9
4.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Volume Comparison 4-9
4.5.2 BTEX Analysis 4-9
4.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 4-10
4.6.1 1999 NAT A Summary 4-11
4.6.2 Annual Average Comparison 4-11
5.0 Site in Colorado 5-1
5.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Colorado Monitoring Site 5-1
5.2 Concentration Averages at the Colorado Monitoring Site 5-2
5.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Colorado Monitoring Site 5-3
5.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Colorado Monitoring Site.... 5-4
5.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 5-4
5.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 5-5
5.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 5-5
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
5.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 5-6
5.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Volume Comparison 5-6
5.5.2 BTEX Analysis 5-6
5.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 5-7
5.6.1 1999 NAT A Data Risk Assessment 5-7
5.6.2 Annual Average Comparison 5-7
6.0 Sites in Florida 6-1
6.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Florida Monitoring Sites 6-2
6.2 Concentration Averages at the Florida Monitoring Sites 6-2
6.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Florida Monitoring Sites 6-4
6.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Florida Monitoring Sites 6-5
6.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 6-5
6.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 6-6
6.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 6-7
6.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 6-8
6.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison 6-8
6.5.2 BTEX Analysis 6-9
6.6 Site-Specific Trends Analysis 6-9
6.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 6-10
6.7.1 1999 NAT A Summary 6-11
6.7.2 Annual Average Comparison 6-11
7.0 Sites in Illinois 7-1
7.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Illinois Monitoring Sites 7-2
7.2 Concentration Averages at the Illinois Monitoring Sites 7-2
7.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Illinois Monitoring Sites 7-3
7.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Illinois Monitoring Sites 7-5
7.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 7-5
7.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 7-6
7.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 7-7
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
7.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 7-7
7.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison 7-7
7.5.2 BTEX Analysis 7-8
7.5.3 Mobile Tracer Analysis 7-8
7.6 Trends Analysis 7-9
7.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 7-9
7.7.1 1999 NAT A Summary 7-10
7.7.2 Annual Average Comparison 7-10
8.0 Site in Indiana 8-1
Pollutants of Interest at the Indiana Monitoring Site 8-2
Concentration Averages at the Indiana Monitoring Site 8-2
8.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Indiana Monitoring Site 8-3
8.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Indiana Site 8-4
8.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 8-4
8.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 8-4
8.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 8-5
8.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 8-5
8.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Volume Comparison 8-5
8.5.2 BTEX Analysis 8-6
8.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 8-6
8.6.1 1999 NAT A Summary 8-6
8.6.2 Annual Average Comparison 8-6
9.0 Site in Massachusetts 9-1
9.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Massachusetts Monitoring Site 9-2
9.2 Concentration Averages at the Massachusetts Monitoring Site 9-2
9.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Massachusetts Monitoring Site 9-3
9.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Massachusetts Site 9-3
9.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 9-3
9.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 9-4
9.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 9-4
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
9.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 9-4
9.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison 9-5
9.5.2 BTEX Analysis 9-5
9.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 9-5
9.6.1 1999 NAT A Summary 9-6
9.6.2 Annual Average Comparison 9-6
10.0 Sites in Michigan 10-1
10.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Michigan Monitoring Sites 10-2
10.2 Concentration Averages at the Michigan Monitoring Sites 10-2
10.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Michigan Monitoring Sites 10-4
10.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Michigan Sites 10-6
10.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 10-6
10.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 10-7
10.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 10-9
10.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 10-10
10.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison 10-10
10.5.2 BTEX Analysis 10-10
10.6 Site-Specific Trends Analysis 10-11
10.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 10-12
10.7.1 1999 NAT A Summary 10-12
10.7.2 Annual Average Comparison 10-13
11.0 Site in Minnesota 11-1
11.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Minnesota Monitoring Site 11-1
11.2 Concentration Averages at the Minnesota Monitoring Site 11-2
11.3 Non-Chronic Risk Evaluation at the Minnesota Monitoring Site 11-3
11.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at Minnesota Monitoring Site 11-4
11.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 11-4
11.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 11-5
11.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 11-5
vn
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
11.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 11-5
11.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison 11-6
11.5.2 BTEX Analysis 11-6
11.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 11-7
11.6.1 1999 NAT A Summary 11-7
11.6.2 Annual Average Comparison 11-7
12.0 Sites in Mississippi 12-1
12.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Mississippi Monitoring Sites 12-2
12.2 Concentration Averages at the Mississippi Monitoring Sites 12-3
12.3 Non-Chronic Risk Evaluation at the Mississippi Monitoring Sites 12-4
12.4 Meteorological and Concentrations Analysis at the Mississippi Sites 12-5
12.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 12-5
12.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 12-7
12.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 12-8
12.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 12-9
12.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Volume Comparison.... 12-9
12.5.2 BTEX Analysis 12-9
12.5.3 Mobile Tracer Analysis 12-10
12.6 Trends Analysis 12-10
12.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 12-11
12.7.1 1999 NAT A Summary 12-12
12.7.2 Annual Average Comparison 12-12
12.8 Post-Katrina Analysis 12-13
12.8.1 Pollutants of Interest 12-13
12.8.2 Concentration Averages 12-15
12.8.3 Non-Chronic Risk 12-16
13.0 Site in Missouri 13-1
13.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Missouri Monitoring Site 13-1
13.2 Concentration Averages at the Missouri Monitoring Site 13-2
13.3 Non-Chronic Risk Evaluation at the Missouri Monitoring Site 13-3
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
13.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Missouri Site 13-4
13.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 13-4
13.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 13-4
13.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 13-5
13.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 13-5
13.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison 13-5
13.5.2 BTEX Analysis 13-6
13.6 Site-Specific Trends Analysis 13-6
13.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 13-7
13.7.1 1999 NAT A Summary 13-7
13.7.2 Annual Average Comparison 13-7
14.0 Sites in New Jersey 14-1
14.1 Pollutants of Interest at the New Jersey Monitoring Sites 14-2
14.2 Concentration Averages at the New Jersey Monitoring Sites 14-2
14.3 Non-Chronic Risk Evaluation at the New Jersey Monitoring Sites 14-4
14.4 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the New Jersey Sites 14-6
14.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 14-6
14.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 14-7
14.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 14-8
14.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 14-9
14.5.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 14-9
14.5.2 BTEX Analysis 14-10
14.6 Trends Analysis 14-11
14.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 14-11
14.7.1 1999 NAT A Summary 14-12
14.7.2 Annual Average Comparison 14-12
15.0 Sites in North Carolina 15-1
15.1 Pollutants of Interest at the North Carolina Monitoring Sites 15-2
15.2 Concentration Averages at the North Carolina Monitoring Sites 15-2
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
15.3 Non-Chronic Risk Evaluation at the North Carolina Monitoring Sites 15-3
15.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the North Carolina Monitoring
Sites 15-3
15.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 15-3
15.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 15-4
15.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 15-4
15.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 15-5
15.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison 15-5
15.5.2 BTEX Analysis 15-6
15.6 Site-Specific Trends Analysis 15-6
15.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 15-6
15.7.1 1999 NAT A Data Risk Assessment 15-6
15.7.2 Annual Average Comparison 15-7
16.0 Sites in Oklahoma 16-1
16.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites 16-2
16.2 Concentration Averages at the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites 16-2
16.3 Non-Chronic Risk Evaluation at the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites 16-3
16.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Oklahoma
Monitoring Sites 16-4
16.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 16-4
16.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 16-5
16.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 16-6
16.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 16-6
16.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison 16-6
16.5.2 BTEX Analysis 16-7
16.5.3 Mobile Tracer Analysis 16-7
16.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 16-8
16.6.1 1999 NAT A Summary 16-8
16.6.2 Annual Average Comparison 16-9
17.0 Sites in Puerto Rico 17-1
17.1 Pollutants of Interest of the Puerto Rico Monitoring Sites 17-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
17.2 Concentration Averages at the Puerto Rico Monitoring Sites 17-2
17.3 Non-Chronic Risk Evaluation at the Puerto Rico Monitoring Sites 17-3
17.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Puerto Rico
Monitoring Sites 17-5
17.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 17-5
17.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 17-5
17.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 17-6
17.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 17-7
17.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison 17-7
17.5.2 BTEX Analysis 17-8
17.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 17-8
17.6.1 1999 NAT A Summary 17-9
17.6.2 Annual Average Comparison 17-9
18.0 Sites in South Dakota 18-1
18.1 Pollutants of Interest at the South Dakota Monitoring Sites 18-2
18.2 Concentration Averages at the South Dakota Monitoring Sites 18-2
18.3 Non-Chronic Risk Evaluation at the South Dakota Monitoring Sites 18-3
18.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the South Dakota
Monitoring Sites 18-5
18.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 18-5
18.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 18-5
18.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 18-6
18.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 18-7
18.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison 18-7
18.5.2 BTEX Analysis 18-7
18.5.3 Mobile Tracer Analysis 18-8
18.6 Trends Analysis 18-8
18.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 18-9
18.7.1 1999 NAT A Summary 18-10
18.7.2 Annual Average Comparison 18-10
XI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
19.0 Sites in Tennessee 19-1
19.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Tennessee Monitoring Sites 19-2
19.2 Concentration Averages at the Tennessee Monitoring Sites 19-2
19.3 Non-Chronic Risk Evaluation at the Tennessee Monitoring Sites 19-3
19.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Tennessee
Monitoring Sites 19-5
19.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 19-5
19.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 19-6
19.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 19-7
19.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 19-7
19.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison 19-7
19.5.2 BTEX Analysis 19-8
19.6 Site-Specific Trends Analysis 19-8
19.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 19-9
19.7.1 1999 NATA Summary 19-9
19.7.2 Annual Average Comparison 19-10
20.0 Sites in Texas 20-1
20.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Texas Monitoring Sites 20-2
20.2 Concentration Averages at the Texas Monitoring Sites 20-3
20.3 Non-Chronic Risk Evaluation at the Texas Monitoring Sites 20-4
20.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Texas
Monitoring Sites 20-7
20.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 20-7
20.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 20-9
20.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 20-10
20.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 20-12
20.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison 20-12
20.5.2 BTEX Analysis 20-13
20.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 20-13
20.6.1 1999 NATA Summary 20-14
20.6.2 Annual Average Comparison 20-15
xii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
21.0 Site in Utah 21-1
21.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Utah Monitoring Site 21-1
21.2 Concentration Averages at the Utah Monitoring Site 21-2
21.3 Non-Chronic Risk Evaluation at the Utah Monitoring Site 21-3
21.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Utah Monitoring Site 21-4
21.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 21-4
21.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 21-4
21.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 21-5
21.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 21-5
21.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison 21-5
21.5.2 BTEX Analysis 21-6
21.5.3 Mobile Tracer Analysis 21-6
21.6 Trends Analysis 21-7
21.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 21-7
21.7.1 1999 NAT A Summary 21-7
21.7.2 Annual Average Comparison 21-8
22.0 Site in Wisconsin 22-1
22.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Wisconsin Monitoring Site 22-2
22.2 Concentration Averages at the Wisconsin Monitoring Site 22-2
22.3 Non-Chronic Risk Evaluation at the Wisconsin Monitoring Site 22-3
22.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Wisconsin Monitoring
Site 22-4
22.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis 22-4
22.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 22-4
22.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis 22-5
22.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis 22-5
22.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison 22-5
22.5.2 BTEX Analysis 22-6
22.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment 22-6
22.6.1 1999 NAT A Summary 22-7
22.6.2 Annual Average Comparison 22-7
xiii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
23.0 Data Quality 23-1
23.1 Precision 23-2
23.1.1 Analytical Precision 23-2
23.1.2 VOC Analytical Precision 23-4
23.1.3 SNMOC Analytical Precision 23-5
23.1.4 Carbonyl Analytical Precision 23-6
23.2 Sampling and Analytical Precision 23-7
23.2.1 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision 23-8
23.2.2 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision 23-9
23.2.3 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision 23-10
23.2.4 Metals Sampling and Analytical Precision 23-11
23.3 Bias 23-12
23.3.1 Proficiency Test (PT) Studies 23-12
24.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 24-1
24.1 Conclusions 24-1
24.1.1 National-level Conclusions 24-1
24.1.2 State-level Conclusions 24-2
24.1.3 Additional National-Level Observations 24-20
24.1.4 Data Quality 24-21
24.2 Recommendations 24-21
25.0 References 25-1
xiv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Appendix K
Appendix L
Appendix M
AIRS Site Descriptions for the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Stations ... A-l
2005 Summary of Invalidated UATMP Samples by Site B-l
2005 Summary Tables for VOC Monitoring C-l
2005 Summary Tables for SNMOC Monitoring D-l
2005 Summary Tables of Carbonyl Monitoring E-l
2005 Summary Tables for SVOC Monitoring F-l
2005 Summary Tables for Metals Monitoring G-l
2005 VOC Raw Monitoring Data H-l
2005 SNMOC/TNMOC Raw Monitoring Data 1-1
2005 Carbonyl Raw Monitoring Data J-l
2005 SVOC Raw Monitoring Data K-l
2005 Metal Raw Monitoring Data L-l
2005 Range of Detect!on Limits M-l
xv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
2-1 Monitoring Sites and Associated MSAs for the 2005 UATMP 2-13
3-1 Comparison of Average Hydrocarbon Concentration vs. 10-Mile Vehicle Registration 3-20
3-2 Comparison of Average Hydrocarbon Concentration vs. Daily Traffic Counts 3-21
3-3 Comparison of Average Acetylene Concentration vs. Daily Traffic Counts 3-22
3-4 Comparison of Concentration Ratios for BTEX Compounds vs. Roadside Study 3-23
3-5 Coefficient of Variation Analysis of 1,3-Butadiene Across 35 Sites 3-27
3-6 Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Acetaldehyde Across 41 Sites 3-28
3-7 Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Acetonitrile Across 35 Sites 3-29
3-8 Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Benzene Across 36 Sites 3-30
3-9 Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Carbon Tetrachloride Across 36 Sites 3-31
3-10 Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Formaldehyde Across 41 Sites 3-32
3-11 Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Hexachloro-l,3-Butadiene Across 31 Sites 3-33
3-12 Coefficient of Variation Analysis ofp-Dichlorobenzene Across 35 Sites 3-34
3-13 Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Tetrachloroethylene Across 35 Sites 3-35
3-14 Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Xylenes Across 36 Sites 3-36
3-15 Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Arsenic-PMio Across 8 Sites 3-37
3-16 Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Manganese-PMio Across 8 Sites 3-38
3-17 Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Nickel-PMio Across 8 Sites 3-39
3-18 Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Arsenic-TSP Across 8 Sites 3-40
3-19 Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Manganese-TSP Across 8 Sites 3-41
3-20 Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Nickel-TSP Across 8 Sites 3-42
3-21a Comparison of Average Seasonal 1,3-Butadiene Concentration by Season 3-43
3-21b Comparison of Average Seasonal 1,3-Butadiene Concentration by Season 3-44
3-22a Comparison of Average Seasonal Acetaldehyde Concentration by Season 3-45
3-22b Comparison of Average Seasonal Acetaldehyde Concentration by Season 3-46
3-23 Comparison of Average Seasonal Acrolein Concentration by Season 3-47
3-24 Average Seasonal Arsenic PMi0 Concentration Comparison by Season 3-48
3-25 Comparison of Average Seasonal Arsenic TSP Concentration by Season 3-49
3-26a Comparison of Average Seasonal Benzene Concentration by Season 3-50
3-26b Comparison of Average Seasonal Benzene Concentration by Season 3-51
3-27a Comparison of Average Seasonal Carbon Tetrachloride Concentration by Season 3-52
3-27b Comparison of Average Seasonal Carbon Tetrachloride Concentration by Season 3-53
3-28a Comparison of Average Seasonal Formaldehyde Concentration by Season 3-54
3-28b Comparison of Average Seasonal Formaldehyde Concentration by Season 3-55
3-29 Comparison of Average Seasonal Hexachloro-1,3 Butadiene Concentration
by Season 3-56
3-30 Comparison of Average Seasonal Manganese PMio Concentration by Season 3-57
3-31 Comparison of Average Seasonal Manganese TSP Concentration by Season 3-58
3-32 Comparison of Average Seasonal Nickel PMio Concentration by Season 3-59
3-33 Comparison of Average Seasonal Nickel TSP Concentration by Season 3-60
3-34a Comparison of Average Seasonal /?-Dichlorobenzene Concentration by Season 3-61
3-34b Comparison of Average Seasonal />-Dichlorobenzene Concentration by Season 3-62
xvi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
3-35a Comparison of Average Seasonal Tetrachloroethylene Concentration by Season 3-63
3-35b Comparison of Average Seasonal Tetrachloroethylene Concentration by Season 3-64
3-36a Comparison of Average Seasonal Xylenes Concentration by Season 3-65
3-36b Comparison of Average Seasonal Xylenes Concentration by Season 3-66
4-1 Birmingham, Alabama (ETAL) Monitoring Site 4-13
4-2 Birmingham, Alabama (NBAL) Monitoring Site 4-14
4-3 Birmingham, Alabama (PVAL) Monitoring Site 4-15
4-4 Birmingham, Alabama (SIAL) Monitoring Site 4-16
4-5 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of Birmingham, Alabama Sites ETAL, NBAL, and
SIAL 4-17
4-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of PVAL 4-18
4-7 Acrolein Pollution Rose at ETAL 4-19
4-8 Acrolein Pollution Rose at NBAL 4-20
4-9 Acrolein Pollution Rose for PVAL 4-21
4-10 Acrolein Pollution Rose for SIAL 4-22
4-11 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ETAL 4-23
4-12 Composite Back Trajectory Map for NBAL 4-24
4-13 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PVAL 4-25
4-14 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SIAL 4-26
4-15 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the ETAL Monitoring Site 4-27
4-16 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the NBAL Monitoring Site 4-28
4-17 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the PVAL Monitoring Site 4-29
4-18 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the SIAL Monitoring Site 4-30
5-1 Grand Junction, Colorado (GPCO) Monitoring Site 5-9
5-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of GPCO 5-10
5-3 Acrolein Pollution Rose at GPCO 5-11
5-4 Composite Back Trajectory Map for GPCO 5-12
5-5 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the GPCO Monitoring Site 5-13
6-1 Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida (AZFL) Monitoring Site 6-13
6-2 Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida (GAFL) Monitoring Site 6-14
6-3 Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida (SKFL) Monitoring Site 6-15
6-4 Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida (SMFL) Monitoring Site 6-16
6-5 Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida (SYFL) Monitoring Site 6-17
6-6 Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida (FLFL) Monitoring Site 6-18
6-7 Orlando, Florida (ORFL) Monitoring Site 6-19
6-8 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of the Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida
Monitoring Sites 6-20
6-9 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of FLFL 6-21
6-10 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ORFL 6-22
6-11 Formaldehyde Pollution Rose at GAFL 6-23
6-12 Formaldehyde Pollution Rose at SKFL 6-24
6-13 Formaldehyde Pollution Rose at SMFL 6-25
xvii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
6-14 Composite Back Trajectory Map for AZFL 6-26
6-15 Composite Back Trajectory Map for GAFL 6-27
6-16 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SKFL 6-28
6-17 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SMFL 6-29
6-18 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SYFL 6-30
6-19 Composite Back Trajectory Map for FLFL 6-31
6-20 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ORFL 6-32
6-21 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the AZFL Monitoring Site 6-33
6-22 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the GAFL Monitoring Site 6-34
6-23 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the SKFL Monitoring Site 6-35
6-24 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the SMFL Monitoring Site 6-36
6-25 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the SYFL Monitoring Site 6-37
6-26 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the FLFL Monitoring Site 6-38
6-27 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the ORFL Monitoring Site 6-39
6-28 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the AZFL Monitoring Site 6-40
6-29 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the GAFL Monitoring Site 6-41
6-30 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the ORFL Monitoring Site 6-42
7-1 Chicago, Illinois (NBIL) Monitoring Site 7-12
7-2 Chicago, Illinois (SPIL) Monitoring Site 7-13
7-3 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of NBIL and SPIL 7-14
7-4 Acrolein Pollution Rose at NBIL 7-15
7-5 Acrolein Pollution Rose at SPIL 7-16
7-6 Formaldehyde Pollution Rose at SPIL 7-17
7-7 Composite Back Trajectory Map for NBIL 7-18
7-8 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SPIL 7-19
7-9 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the NBIL Monitoring Site 7-20
7-10 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the SPIL Monitoring Site 7-21
7-11 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the NBIL Monitoring Site 7-22
7-12 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the SPIL Monitoring Site 7-23
8-1 Gary, Indiana (INDEM) Monitoring Site 8-8
8-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of INDEM 8-9
8-3 Formaldehyde Pollution Rose at INDEM 8-10
8-4 Composite Back Trajectory Map for INDEM 8-11
8-5 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the INDEM Monitoring Site 8-12
9-1 Boston, Massachusetts (BOMA) Monitoring Site 9-7
9-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BOMA 9-8
9-3 Composite Back Trajectory Map for BOMA 9-9
9-4 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the BOMA Monitoring Site 9-10
10-1 Detroit, Michigan (APMI) Monitoring Site 10-14
10-2 Detroit, Michigan (DEMI) Monitoring Site 10-15
10-3 Detroit, Michigan (YFMI) Monitoring Site 10-16
xviii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
10-4 Sault Saint Marie, Michigan (ITCMI) Monitoring Site 10-17
10-5 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of the Detroit, Michigan Monitoring Sites (APMI,
DEMI, and YFMI) 10-18
10-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ITCMI 10-19
10-7 Acrolein Pollution Rose at APMI 10-20
10-8 Acrolein Pollution Rose at DEMI 10-21
10-9 Acrolein Pollution Rose at ITCMI 10-22
10-10 Acrolein Pollution Rose at YFMI 10-23
10-11 Benzene Pollution Rose at YFMI 10-24
10-12 Composite Back Trajectory Map for APMI 10-25
10-13 Composite Back Trajectory Map for DEMI 10-26
10-14 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ITCMI 10-27
10-15 Composite Back Trajectory Map for YFMI 10-28
10-16 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the APMI Monitoring Site 10-29
10-17 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the DEMI Monitoring Site 10-30
10-18 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the ITCMI Monitoring Site 10-31
10-19 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the YFMI Monitoring Site 10-32
10-20 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the APMI Monitoring Site 10-33
10-21 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the DEMI Monitoring Site 10-34
10-22 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the ITCMI Monitoring Site 10-35
11-1 Minneapolis, Minnesota (MIMN) Monitoring Site 11-9
11-2 Facilities Located Within lOMiles of MIMN 11-10
11-3 Acrolein Pollution Rose at MIMN 11-11
11-4 Composite Back Trajectory Map for MIMN 11-12
11-5 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the MIMN Monitoring Site 11-13
12-1 Grenada, Mississippi (GRMS) Monitoring Site 12-17
12-2 Pascagoula, Mississippi (PGMS) Monitoring Site 12-18
12-3 Tupelo, Mississippi (TUMS) Monitoring Site 12-19
12-4 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of GRMS 12-20
12-5 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of PGMS 12-21
12-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of TUMS 12-22
12-7 Acrolein Pollution Rose at PGMS 12-23
12-8 Acrolein Pollution Rose at TUMS 12-24
12-9 Composite Back Trajectory Map for GRMS 12-25
12-10 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PGMS 12-26
12-11 Composite Back Trajectory Map for TUMS 12-27
12-12 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the GRMS Monitoring Site 12-28
12-13 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the PGMS Monitoring Site 12-29
12-14 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the TUMS Monitoring Site 12-30
12-15 Comparison of Yearly Averages for the GRMS Monitoring Site 12-31
12-16 Comparison of Yearly Averages for the PGMS Monitoring Site 12-32
12-17 Comparison of Yearly Averages for the TUMS Monitoring Site 12-33
xix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
13-1 St. Louis, Missouri (S4MO) Monitoring Site 13-9
13-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of S4MO 13-10
13-3 Acrolein Pollution Rose at S4MO 13-11
13-4 Composite Back Trajectory Map for S4MO 13-12
13-5 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the S4MO Monitoring Site 13-13
13-6 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the S4MO Monitoring Site 13-14
14-1 Camden, New Jersey (CANJ) Monitoring Site 14-14
14-2 Chester, New Jersey (CHNJ) Monitoring Site 14-15
14-3 Elizabeth, New Jersey (ELNJ) Monitoring Site 14-16
14-4 New Brunswick, New Jersey (NBNJ) Monitoring Site 14-17
14-5 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CANJ 14-18
14-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CHNJ 14-19
14-7 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ELNJ and NBNJ 14-20
14-8 Acrolein Pollution Rose at CANJ 14-21
14-9 Acrolein Pollution Rose at CHNJ 14-22
14-10 Acrolein Pollution Rose at ELNJ 14-23
14-11 Acrolein Pollution Rose at NBNJ 14-24
14-12 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CANJ 14-25
14-13 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CFINJ 14-26
14-14 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ELNJ 14-27
14-15 Composite Back Trajectory Map for NBNJ 14-28
14-16 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the CANJ Monitoring Site 14-29
14-17 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the CFINJ Monitoring Site 14-30
14-18 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the ELNJ Monitoring Site 14-31
14-19 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the NBNJ Monitoring Site 14-32
14-20 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the CANJ Monitoring Site 14-33
14-21 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the CFINJ Monitoring Site 14-34
14-22 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the ELNJ Monitoring Site 14-35
14-23 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the NBNJ Monitoring Site 14-36
15-1 Candor, North Carolina (CANC) Monitoring Site 15-8
15-2 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (RTPNC) Monitoring Site 15-9
15-3 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CANC 15-10
15-4 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of RTPNC 15-11
15-5 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CANC 15-12
15-6 Composite Back Trajectory Map for RTPNC 15-13
15-7 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the CANC Monitoring Site 15-14
15-8 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the RTPNC Monitoring Site 15-15
15-9 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the CANC Monitoring Site 15-16
16-1 Ponca City, Oklahoma (PCOK) Monitoring Site 16-10
16-2 Ponca City, Oklahoma (POOK) Monitoring Site 16-11
16-3 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of PCOK and POOK 16-12
xx
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
16-4 Acrolein Pollution Rose at PCOK 16-13
16-5 Acrolein Pollution Rose at POOK 16-14
16-6 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PCOK 16-15
16-7 Composite Back Trajectory Map for POOK 16-16
16-8 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the PCOK Monitoring Site 16-17
16-9 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the POOK Monitoring Site 16-18
17-1 Barceloneta, Puerto Rico (BAPR) Monitoring Site 17-11
17-2 San Juan, Puerto Rico (SJPR) Monitoring Site 17-12
17-3 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BAPR 17-13
17-4 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SJPR 17-14
17-5 Acrolein Pollution Rose at BAPR 17-15
17-6 Acrolein Pollution Rose at SJPR 17-16
17-7 Composite Back Traj ectory Map for Barceloneta, Puerto Rico (BAPR) 17-17
17-8 Composite Back Trajectory Map for San Juan, Puerto Rico (SJPR) 17-18
17-9 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the BAPR Monitoring Site 17-19
17-10 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the SJPR Monitoring Site 17-20
18-1 Custer, South Dakota (CUSD) Monitoring Site 18-12
18-2 Sioux Falls, South Dakota (SFSD) Monitoring Site 18-13
18-3 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CUSD 18-14
18-4 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SFSD 18-15
18-5 Acrolein Pollution Rose at CUSD 18-16
18-6 Acrolein Pollution Rose at SFSD 18-17
18-7 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CUSD 18-18
18-8 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SFSD 18-19
18-9 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the CUSD Monitoring Site 18-20
18-10 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the SFSD Monitoring Site 18-21
18-11 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the CUSD Monitoring Site 18-22
18-12 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the SFSD Monitoring Site 18-23
19-1 Dickson, Tennessee (DITN) Monitoring Site 19-12
19-2 Loudon, Tennessee (LDTN) Monitoring Site 19-13
19-3 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DITN 19-14
19-4 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of LDTN 19-15
19-5 Acrolein Pollution Rose at DITN 19-16
19-6 Acrolein Pollution Rose at LDTN 19-17
19-7 Composite Back Traj ectory Map for DITN 19-18
19-8 Composite Back Traj ectory Map for LDTN 19-19
19-9 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the DITN Monitoring Site 19-20
19-10 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the LDTN Monitoring Site 19-21
19-11 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the DITN Monitoring Site 19-22
19-12 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the LDTN Monitoring Site 19-23
xxi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
20-1 Austin, Texas (MUTX) Monitoring Site 20-16
20-2 Austin, Texas (PITX) Monitoring Site 20-17
20-3 Austin, Texas (RRTX) Monitoring Site 20-18
20-4 Austin, Texas (TRTX) Monitoring Site 20-19
20-5 Austin, Texas (WETX) Monitoring Site 20-20
20-6 El Paso, Texas (YDSP) Monitoring Site 20-21
20-7 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of the Austin, Texas Monitoring Sites
(MUTX, PITX, RRTX, TRTX, and WETX) 20-22
20-8 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of YDSP 20-23
20-9 Acrolein Pollution Rose at MUTX 20-24
20-10 Acrolein Pollution Rose at PITX 20-25
20-11 Acrolein Pollution Rose at RRTX 20-26
20-12 Acrolein Pollution Rose at TRTX 20-27
20-13 Acrolein Pollution Rose at WETX 20-28
20-14 Acrolein Pollution Rose at YDSP 20-29
20-15 Composite Back Trajectory Map for MUTX 20-30
20-16 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PITX 20-31
20-17 Composite Back Trajectory Map for RRTX 20-32
20-18 Composite Back Trajectory Map for TRTX 20-33
20-19 Composite Back Trajectory Map for WETX 20-34
20-20 Composite Back Trajectory Map for YDSP 20-35
20-21 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the MUTX Monitoring Site 20-36
20-22 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the PITX Monitoring Site 20-37
20-23 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the RRTX Monitoring Site 20-38
20-24 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the TRTX Monitoring Site 20-39
20-25 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the WETX Monitoring Site 20-40
20-26 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the YDSP Monitoring Site 20-41
21-1 Bountiful, (BTUT) Monitoring Site 21-9
21-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BTUT 21-10
21-3 Acrolein Pollution Rose at BTUT 21-11
21-4 Composite Back Trajectory Map for BTUT 21-12
21-5 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the BTUT Monitoring Site 21-13
21-6 Comparison of Yearly Averages of the BTUT Monitoring Site 21-14
22-1 Madison, Wisconsin (MAWI) Monitoring Site 22-8
22-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of MAWI 22-9
22-3 Acrolein Pollution Rose at MAWI 22-10
22-4 Composite Back Trajectory Map for MAWI 22-11
22-5 Wind Rose of Sample Days for the MAWI Monitoring Site 22-12
xxn
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1-1 Organization of the 2005 UATMP Report 1-4
2-1 Text Descriptions of the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites 2-14
2-2 Site Descriptions for the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites 2-27
2-3 Current UATMP Monitoring Sites with Past Participation 2-31
2-4 VOC Method Detection Limits 2-34
2-5 SNMOC Method Detection Limits 2-36
2-6 Carbonyl Method Detection Limits 2-38
2-7 Semivolatile Organic Compound Average Method Detection Limits 2-39
2-8 Metals Method Detection Limits 2-40
2-9 Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Carbonyl, VOC, Metals,
SNMOC, and SVOC 2-41
3-1 Target Pollutant Detection Statistical Summaries of the VOC Concentrations 3-67
3-2 Target Pollutant Detection Statistical Summaries of the Carbonyl Compound
Concentrations 3-70
3-3 Target Pollutant Detection Statistical Summaries of the SVOC Concentrations 3-71
3-4 Target Pollutant Detection Statistical Summaries of the SNMOC Concentrations 3-72
3-5 Target Pollutant Detection Statistical Summaries of the Metals Concentrations 3-75
3-6 Program-Wide Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening
Values 3-76
3-7 Program-Wide Non-Chronic Risk Summary 3-78
3-8 Summary of Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Selected Meteorological Parameters
and Compounds of Interest 3-79
3-9 Summary of Mobile Information by Site 3-80
3-10 Average Ethylene to Acetylene Ratios for Sites that Sampled SNMOC 3-82
3-11 Comparison of Concentration Ratios for BTEX Compounds vs. Roadside Study 3-83
4-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Alabama 4-31
4-2 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the Alabama
Monitoring Sites 4-32
4-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Compounds of Interest at the Alabama
Monitoring Sites 4-34
4-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Alabama Monitoring Sites 4-37
4-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Alabama Monitoring Sites 4-38
4-6 Motor Vehicle Information for the Alabama Monitoring Sites 4-41
4-7 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in Alabama 4-42
xxin
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
5-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for the Monitoring Site in Colorado 5-14
5-2 Comparison of Measured Concentration and EPA Screening Values at the Colorado
Monitoring Site 5-15
5-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Compounds of Interest at the Colorado Monitoring
Site 5-16
5-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Colorado Monitoring Site 5-17
5-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Colorado Monitoring Site 5-18
5-6 Motor Vehicle Information for the Colorado Monitoring Site 5-19
5-7 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Site in Colorado 5-20
6-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Florida 6-43
6-2 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the Florida
Monitoring Sites 6-44
6-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Compounds of Interest at the Florida
Monitoring Sites 6-45
6-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Florida Monitoring Sites 6-46
6-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Florida Monitoring Sites 6-47
6-6 Motor Vehicle Information for the Florida Monitoring Sites 6-48
6-7 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in Florida 6-49
7-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Illinois 7-24
7-2 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the Illinois
Monitoring Sites 7-25
7-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Illinois
Monitoring Sites 7-26
7-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Illinois Monitoring Sites 7-27
7-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Illinois Monitoring Sites 7-28
7-6 Motor Vehicle Information for the Illinois Monitoring Sites 7-29
7-7 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in Illinois 7-30
8-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Site in Indiana 8-13
8-2 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the Indiana
Monitoring 8-14
8-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Compounds of Interest at the Indiana
Monitoring Site 8-15
8-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Indiana Monitoring Site 8-16
8-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Indiana Monitoring Site 8-17
8-6 Motor Vehicle Information for the Indiana Monitoring Site 8-18
8-7 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary of the Monitoring Site in Indiana 8-19
xxiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
9-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Site in Massachusetts 9-11
9-2 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the
Massachusetts Monitoring Site 9-12
9-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Massachusetts
Monitoring Site 9-13
9-4 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Massachusetts Monitoring Site 9-14
9-5 Motor Vehicle Information for Massachusetts Monitoring Site 9-15
9-6 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Site in Massachusetts.. 9-16
10-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Michigan 10-36
10-2 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the Michigan
Monitoring Sites 10-37
10-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Michigan
Monitoring Sites 10-39
10-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Michigan Monitoring Sites 10-41
10-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Michigan Monitoring Sites 10-42
10-6 Motor Vehicle Information for the Michigan Monitoring Sites 10-44
10-7 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in Michigan 10-45
11-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Site in Minnesota 11-14
11-2 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the Minnesota
Monitoring Site 11-15
11-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Minnesota
Monitoring Site 11-16
11-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Minnesota Monitoring Site 11-17
11-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Minnesota Monitoring Site 11-18
11-6 Motor Vehicle Information for Minnesota Monitoring Site 11-19
11-7 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary of the Monitoring Site in Minnesota 11-20
12-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Mississippi 12-34
12-2 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the Mississippi
Monitoring Sites 12-35
12-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Mississippi
Monitoring Sites 12-36
12-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Mississippi Monitoring Sites 12-37
12-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Mississippi Monitoring Sites 12-38
12-6 Motor Vehicle Information for the Mississippi Monitoring Sites 12-39
12-7 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in Mississippi... 12-40
12-8 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the Post-Katrina
Mississippi Monitoring Sites 12-41
xxv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
12-9 Daily and Intermediate-term Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Post-Katrina
Mississippi Monitoring Sites 12-43
12-10 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Post-Katrina Mississippi Monitoring Sites 12-44
13-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Site in Missouri 13-15
13-2 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the Missouri
Monitoring Site 13-16
13-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Missouri
Monitoring Site 13-17
13-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Missouri Monitoring Site 13-18
13-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Missouri Monitoring Site 13-19
13-6 Motor Vehicle Information for the Missouri Monitoring Site 13-20
13-7 1999 NAT A Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Site in Missouri 13-21
14-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in New Jersey 14-37
14-2 Comparison of Measured Concentration and EPA Screening Values at the New Jersey
Monitoring Sites 14-38
14-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the New Jersey Monitoring
Sites 14-40
14-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the New Jersey Monitoring Sites 14-42
14-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at the New Jersey Monitoring Sites 14-43
14-6 Motor Vehicle Information for the New Jersey Monitoring Sites 14-45
14-7 1999 NAT A Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in New Jersey... 14-46
15-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for the Monitoring Sites in North Carolina 15-17
15-2 Comparison Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the North Carolina
Monitoring Sites 15-18
15-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the North Carolina
Monitoring Sites 15-19
15-4 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the North Carolina Monitoring Sites 15-20
15-5 Motor Vehicle Information for the North Carolina Monitoring Sites 15-21
15-6 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in North
Carolina 15-22
16-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Oklahoma 16-19
16-2 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the Oklahoma
Monitoring Sites 16-20
16-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Oklahoma
Monitoring Sites 16-21
16-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites 16-22
xxvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
16-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites 16-23
16-6 Motor Vehicle Information for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites 16-24
16-7 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in Oklahoma 16-25
17-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Puerto Rico 17-21
17-2 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the Puerto Rico
Monitoring Sites 17-22
17-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Puerto Rico
Monitoring Sites 17-23
17-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Puerto Rico Monitoring Sites 17-24
17-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Puerto Rico Monitoring Sites 17-25
17-6 Motor Vehicle Information for the Puerto Rico Monitoring Sites 17-26
17-7 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in Puerto Rico... 17-27
18-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in South Dakota 18-24
18-2 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the
South Dakota Monitoring Sites 18-25
18-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the South Dakota
Monitoring Sites 18-26
18-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the South Dakota Monitoring Sites 18-27
18-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the South Dakota Monitoring Sites 18-28
18-6 Motor Vehicle Information for the South Dakota Monitoring Sites 18-29
18-7 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in South Dakota 18-30
19-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Tennessee 19-24
19-2 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the Tennessee
Monitoring Sites 19-25
19-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Tennessee
Monitoring Sites 19-26
19-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Tennessee Monitoring Sites 19-27
19-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Tennessee Monitoring Sites 19-28
19-6 Motor Vehicle Information for the Tennessee Monitoring Sites 19-29
19-7 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in Tennessee 19-30
20-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Texas 20-42
20-2 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the Texas
Monitoring Sites 20-43
20-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Texas
Monitoring Sites 20-46
20-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Texas Monitoring Sites 20-49
xxvn
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
20-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Texas Monitoring Sites 20-50
20-6 Motor Vehicle Information for the Texas Monitoring Sites 20-53
20-7 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in Texas 20-54
21-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Site in Utah 21-15
21-2 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the Utah
Monitoring Site 21-16
21-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Utah
Monitoring Site 21-17
21-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Utah Monitoring Site 21-18
21-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Utah Monitoring Site 21-19
21-6 Motor Vehicle Information for the Utah Monitoring Site 21-20
21-7 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Site in Utah 21-21
22-1 Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Site in Wisconsin 22-13
22-2 Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the Wisconsin
Monitoring Site 22-14
22-3 Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Wisconsin
Monitoring Site 22-15
22-4 Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Wisconsin Monitoring Site 22-16
22-5 Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Wisconsin Monitoring Site 22-17
22-6 Motor Vehicle Information for the Wisconsin Monitoring Site 22-18
22-7 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Site in Wisconsin 22-19
23-1 VOC Analytical Precision: 540 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate and Collocated
Samples 23-13
23-2 VOC Analytical Precision: 122 Replicate Analyses for all Collocated Samples 23-15
23-3 VOC Analytical Precision: 418 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples, Including
all Post-Katrina Data 23-17
23-4 VOC Analytical Precision: 32 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in
Bountiful, UT (BTUT) 23-19
23-5 VOC Analytical Precision: 18 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Grand
Detroit, MI (DEMI) 23-21
23-6 VOC Analytical Precision: 30 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in Grand
Junction, CO (GPCO) 23-23
23-7 VOC Analytical Precision: 16 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in North
Brook, IL (NBIL) 23-25
23-8 VOC Analytical Precision: 24 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples
St. Louis, MO (S4MO) 23-27
23-9 VOC Analytical Precision: 342 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples 23-29
23-10 VOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses,
All Sites 23-31
xxviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
23-11 SNMOC Analytical Precision: 136 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples,
Including all Post-Katrina Data 23-40
23-12 SNMOC Analytical Precision: 32 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in
Bountiful, UT (BTUT) 23-43
23-13 SNMOC Analytical Precision: 16 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in
North Brook, IL (NBIL) 23-46
23-14 SNMOC Analytical Precision: 88 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples Only.. 23-49
23-15 SNMOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses,
All Sites 23-52
23-16 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 708 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate and
Collocated Samples 23-55
23-17 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 224 Replicate Analyses for all Collocated Samples... 23-55
23-18 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 484 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples,
Including All Post-Katrina Data 23-56
23-19 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 26 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in
Bountiful, UT (BTUT) 23-56
23-20 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 80 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in
Detroit, MI (DEMI) 23-57
23-21 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 30 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in Grand
Junction, CO (GPCO) 23-57
23-22 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 8 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in
Northbrook, IL (NBIL) 23-58
23-23 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 30 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in
St. Louis, MO (S4MO) 23-58
23-24 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 16 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in
Tampa, FL (SKFL) 23-59
23-25 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 20 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in
Tampa, FL (SYFL) 23-59
23-26 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 408 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples
Only 23-60
23-27 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Analyses,
All Sites 23-61
23-28 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 272 Duplicate and Collocated Samples 23-65
23-29 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 58 Collocated Samples 23-67
23-30 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 214 Duplicate Samples, Including all Post-
Katrina Data 23-69
23-31 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 16 Duplicate Samples in
Bountiful, UT (BTUT) 23-71
23-32 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 6 Collocated Samples in
Detroit, MI (DEMI) 23-73
23-33 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 16 Duplicate Samples in Grand
Junction, CO (GPCO) 23-75
23-34 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 10 Collocated Samples in North Brook,
IL(NBIL) 23-77
xxix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
23-35 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Two Duplicate Samples in St. Louis,
MO(S4MO) 23-79
23-36 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 176 Duplicate Samples 23-81
23-37 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate
Samples, All Sites 23-83
23-38 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 70 Duplicate Samples, Including all Post-
KatrinaData 23-92
23-39 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 16 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT
(BTUT) 23-95
23-40 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 10 Duplicate Samples in North Brook,
IL(NBIL) 23-98
23-41 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 44 Duplicate Samples Only 23-101
23-42 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate
Analyses, All Sites 23-104
23-43 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 320 Duplicate and Collocated
Samples 23-107
23-44 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 74 Collocated Samples 23-107
23-45 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 246 Duplicate Samples, Including all Post-
KatrinaData 23-108
23-46 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 14 Duplicate Samples in
Bountiful, UT (BTUT) 23-108
23-47 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 2 Collocated Samples in
Detroit, MI (DEMI) 23-109
23-48 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 16 Duplicate Samples in
Grand Junction, CO (GPCO) 23-109
23-49 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 4 Duplicate Samples in
Northbrook, IL (NBIL) 23-110
23-50 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 16 Duplicate Samples in
St. Louis, MO (S4MO) 23-110
23-51 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 8 Duplicate Samples in
Tampa, FL (SKFL) 23-111
23-52 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 10 Duplicate Samples in
St. Louis, MO (SYFL) 23-111
23-53 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 210 Duplicate Samples Only 23-112
23-54 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all
Duplicate Analyses, All Sites 23-113
23-55 Metal Sampling and Analytical Precision: 98 Collocated Samples, Including all Post-
KatrinaData 23-117
23-56 Metal Sampling and Analytical Precision: 60 Collocated Samples in
Boston, MA (BOMA) 23-117
23-57 Metal Sampling and Analytical Precision: 96 Collocated Samples Only 23-118
23-58 Metal Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Collocated
Samples, All Sites 23-119
23-59 Accuracy VOC NATTS Audit Samples - Percent Difference from True (Acceptable
Difference is 25%) 23-120
XXX
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
23-60 Carbonyl NATTS Audit Samples - Percent Difference from True
(Acceptable Difference is 25%) 23-120
23-61 Metals NATTS Audit Samples - Percent Difference from True
(Acceptable Difference is 25%) 23-120
XXXI
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AIRS Aerometric Information and Retrieval System
AQS Air Quality Subsystem (of the Aerometric Information and Retrieval System)
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (o-, TO-, and/?-xylene)
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CV coefficient of variation
DNPH 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FID flame ionization detection
GC gas chromatography
GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HPLC high-performance liquid chromatography
HYSPLIT Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory
MEK methyl ethyl ketone
MDL method detection limit
MTBE methyl tert-butyl ether
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NATTS National Air Toxics Trends Site
NA not applicable
ND Nondetect
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NMOC Nonmethane Organic Compounds
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOX oxides of nitrogen
ppbC parts per billion carbon
ppbv parts per billion (by volume)
PM particulate matter
RfC Reference Concentration
RPD relative percent difference
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SNMOC Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compound
SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compounds
UATMP Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program
VOC Volatile Organic Compound(s)
TNMOC Total Nonmethane Organic Compound(s)
tpy tons per year
TSP Total Suspended Particulate
xxxn
-------
URE Unit Risk Estimate
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WB AN Weather Bureau/Army/Navy ID
Monitoring Stations
APMI Allen Park in Detroit, Michigan
AZFL Azalea Park in St. Petersburg, Florida
BAPR Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
BOMA Boston, Massachusetts
BTUT Bountiful, Utah
CANC Candor, North Carolina
CANJ Camden, New Jersey
CHNJ Chester, New Jersey
CUSD Custer, South Dakota
DEMI Dearborn in Detroit, Michigan
DITN Dickson, Tennessee
ELNJ Elizabeth, New Jersey
ETAL East Thomas in Birmingham, Alabama
FLFL Davie, Florida
GAFL Gandy in Tampa, Florida
GPCO Grand Junction, Colorado
GPMS Gulfport, Mississippi
GRMS Grenada, Mississippi
INDEM Gary, Indiana
ITCMI Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan
LDTN Loudon, Tennessee
MAWI Madison, Wisconsin
MIMN Minneapolis, Minnesota
MUTX Murchison Middle School in Austin, Texas
NBAL North Birmigham, Alabama
NBIL Northbrook in Chicago, Illinois
NBNJ New Brunswick, New Jersey
ORFL Orlando, Florida
PCOK Site 1 in Ponca City, Oklahoma
PGMS Pascagoula, Mississippi
PITX Pickle Research Center in Austin, Texas
POOK Site 2 in Ponca City, Oklahoma
PVAL Providence, Alabama
RRTX Round Rock, Texas
RTPNC Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
S4MO St. Louis, Missouri (Site #4)
SFSD Sioux Falls, South Dakota
xxxiii
-------
SIAL Sloss Industries in Birmingham, Alabama
SJPR San Juan, Puerto Rico
SKFL Pinellas Park, Florida
SMFL Simmons Park in Tampa, Florida
SPIL Schiller Park in Chicago, Illinois
SYFL Plant City, Florida
TRTX Travis High School in Austin, Texas
TUMS Tupelo, Mississippi
WETX Webberville Road in Austin, Texas
YDSP El Paso, Texas
YFMI Yellow Freight in Detroit, Michigan
xxxiv
-------
Abstract
This report presents the results and conclusions from the ambient air monitoring conducted
as part of the 2005 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP)a program designed to
characterize the magnitude and composition of potentially toxic air pollution in, or near, urban
locations. The 2005 UATMP included 47 monitoring stations that collected 24-hour air samples,
typically on a 6- or 12-day schedule plus special monitoring in the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina. Forty-six sites analyzed ambient air samples for concentrations of 60 volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and/or 15 carbonyl compounds. Thirteen sites also analyzed for 80 speciated
nonmethane organic compounds (SNMOC). Six sites analyzed for 19 semivolatile compounds
(SVOC) while fifteen sites analyzed 11 metal compounds. Overall, nearly 170,000 ambient air
concentrations were measured during the 2005 UATMP. An additional 34,000 ambient air
concentrations were added due to Hurricane Katrina sampling. The summary presented in this
report uses various graphical, numerical, and statistical analyses to put the vast amount of
ambient air monitoring data collected into perspective.
Not surprisingly, the ambient air concentrations measured during the program varied
significantly from city to city and from season to season. This report describes and interprets
these spatial and temporal variations separately for halogenated hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons,
polar compounds, and carbonyls.
The ambient air monitoring data collected during the 2005 UATMP serve a wide range of
purposes. Not only do these data characterize the nature and extent of urban air pollution close to
the 47 monitoring stations participating in this study, but they also indicate some trends and
patterns that may be common to all urban environments. Therefore, this report presents some
results that are specific to particular monitoring locations and presents other results that are
apparently common to urban environments. These results should ultimately provide additional
insight into the complex nature of urban air pollution. The final data are also included in the
appendices to this report.
xxxv
-------
1.0 Introduction
Air pollution in urban locations incorporates many components that originate from a
wide range of stationary, mobile, and natural emissions sources. Because some of these
components include toxic compounds known or suspected to be carcinogenic, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to encourage state, local, and tribal
agencies to understand and appreciate the nature and extent of potentially toxic air pollution in
urban locations. To achieve this goal, EPA sponsors the Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program
(UATMP) to characterize the composition and magnitude of urban air pollution through
extensive ambient air monitoring. Since the inception of the UATMP in 1987, many
environmental and health agencies have participated in the program to assess the causes and
effects of air pollution within their jurisdictions. This report summarizes and interprets the 2005
UATMP monitoring effort, which includes up to twelve months of l-in-6 and l-in-12 day
measurements of ambient air quality at 47 monitoring sites in or near 28 urban/rural locations
including 22 metropolitan statistical areas (MS As). Much of the analysis and data interpretation
in this report focuses on pollutant-specific data trends.
The contents of this report provide both a qualitative overview of air pollution at selected
urban and rural locations and a quantitative analysis of the factors that appear to affect urban and
rural air quality most significantly. This report also focuses on data trends at each of the 47
different air sampling locations, a site-specific approach that allows for much more detailed
analyses of the factors (e.g., stationary sources, mobile sources, natural sources) that affect air
quality differently from one location to the next.
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's devastation to the Gulf Coast in late August 2005,
EPA, state, and local agencies in Mississippi and Louisiana developed and implemented an
intensive sampling initiative to evaluate air, water, and sediment quality during the clean-up and
recovery process. To evaluate air quality, a network of nearly 30 ambient monitoring sites was
instituted in Louisiana and Mississippi. Two of those sites participated in the 2005 UATMP
prior to Hurricane Katrina's landfall. At the request of the State of Mississippi, post-Katrina
1-1
-------
data from the Pascagoula, MS and Gulfport, MS are also presented and compared to pre-Katrina
data in a special analysis section in the Mississippi state analysis (Chapter 12).
The contents of this report offer participating agencies useful insights into important air
quality issues. For example, participating agencies can use trends and patterns in the UATMP
monitoring data to determine whether levels of air pollution present public health concerns, to
identify which emissions sources contribute most to air pollution, or to forecast whether
proposed pollution control initiatives might significantly improve air quality. Since 2001, EPA
has been actively conducting the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA), which uses air toxics
emissions to model ambient monitoring concentrations across the nation. UATMP monitoring
data may be used to compare modeling results, such as NATA. Policy-relevant questions may
include:
Which pollutants contribute the greatest risk on a short-term, intermediate-term,
and long-term basis?
Have pollutant concentrations decreased as a result of regulations?
What anthropogenic sources contribute to air quality?
The data analyses in this report are applied at every participating UATMP monitoring
site, where applicable, and present a comprehensive account of urban air pollution. However,
state and local environmental agencies are encouraged to perform additional analyses of the
monitoring data so that the many factors that affect their specific ambient air quality can be
understood fully.
To facilitate examination of the 2005 UATMP monitoring data, the complete set of
measured concentrations is presented in appendices of this report. In addition, these data are
publicly available in electronic format from the Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) of EPA's
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/.
1-2
-------
The remainder of this report is organized into 25 text sections and 12 appendices.
Table 1-1 highlights the contents of each section. As with previous UATMP annual reports, all
figures and tables in this report appear at the end of their respective sections (figures first,
followed by tables).
1-3
-------
Table 1-1. Organization of the 2005 UATMP Report
Report
Section
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Section Title
Introduction
The 2005 UATMP
Summary of the 2005 UATMP
Sites in Alabama
Site in Colorado
Sites in Florida
Sites in Illinois
Site in Indiana
Site in Massachusetts
Sites in Michigan
Site in Minnesota
Sites in Mississippi
Overview of Contents
Introduction to the history and scope of the UATMP.
This section provides background information on the scope of the 2005 UATMP and
includes information about the:
Monitoring locations
Pollutants selected for monitoring
Sampling and analytical methods
Sampling schedules
Completeness of the air monitoring program.
This section, which presents and discusses significant trends and relationships in the
UATMP data, characterizes how ambient air concentrations varied with monitoring
location and with time, then presents an interpretation of the significance of the
observed spatial and temporal variations.
Monitoring results for Birmingham, AL MSA (ETAL, NBAL, PVAL, and SIAL)
Monitoring results for Grand Junction, CO MSA (GPCO)
Monitoring results for Orlando, FL MSA (ORFL), Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-Miami
Beach, FL MSA (FLFL), and Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA (AZFL,
GAFL, SKFL, SMFL, and SYFL)
Monitoring results for Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI MSA (NBIL and SPIL)
Monitoring results for Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI MSA (INDEM)
Monitoring results for Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH MSA (BOMA)
Monitoring results for Detroit- Warren-Livonia, MI MSA (APMI, DEMI, and YFMI),
and Sault Sainte Marie, MI (ITCMI)
Monitoring results for Minneapolis-St.Paul-Bloomington, MN MSA (MIMN)
Monitoring results for Grenada, MS (GRMS), Pascagoula, MS MSA (PGMS), and
Tupelo, MS (TUMS). Post-Katrina monitoring results for Gulfport-Biloxi, MS MSA
(GPMS) and Pascagoula, MS MSA (PGMS)
-------
Table 1-1. Organization of the 2005 UATMP Report (Continued)
Report
Section
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Section Title
Site in Missouri
Sites in New Jersey
Sites in North Carolina
Sites in Oklahoma
Sites in Puerto Rico
Sites in South Dakota
Sites in Tennessee
Sites in Texas
Site in Utah
Site in Wisconsin
Data Quality
Conclusions and Recommendations
References
Overview of Contents
Monitoring results for St. Louis, MO-IL MSA (S4MO)
Monitoring results for New York-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA MSA (CHNJ, ELNJ,
and NBNJ) and Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-ND MSA (CANJ)
Monitoring results for Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA (RTPNC) and Candor, NC
(CANC)
Monitoring results for Ponca City, OK (PCOK and POOK)
Monitoring results for San Juan-Caguas-Guaynabo, PR MSA (BAPR and SJPR)
Monitoring results for Custer, SD (CUSD) and Sioux Falls, SD MSA (SFSD)
Monitoring results for Knoxville, TN MSA (LDTN) and Nashville-Davidson-
Murfreesboro, TN MSA (DITN)
Monitoring results for Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA (MUTX, PITX, RRTX, TRTX,
and WETX) and El Paso, TX MSA (YDSP)
Monitoring results for Ogden-Clearfield, UT MSA (BTUT)
Monitoring results for Madison, WI MSA (MAWI)
This section defines and discusses the concepts of precision and accuracy. Based on
quantitative and qualitative analyses, this section comments on the precision and
accuracy of the 2005 UATMP ambient air monitoring data.
This section summarizes the most significant findings of the report and makes several
recommendations for future projects that will involve ambient air monitoring in urban
locations.
This section lists the references cited throughout the report.
-------
2.0 The 2005 UATMP
The 2005 UATMP included 47 monitoring sites that collected 24-hour integrated
ambient air samples for up to 12 months, at six or twelve day sampling intervals. Section 2.5
provides further details on each of the sampling methodologies. All UATMP samples were
analyzed in a central laboratory for concentrations of selected hydrocarbons, halogenated
hydrocarbons, and polar compounds from canister samples (TO-15), carbonyl compounds from
cartridge samples (TO-11 A), semivolatile organic compounds from XAD-2S thimbles (TO-13),
and metals from filters (IO-3.5). The following discussion reviews the monitoring locations,
pollutants selected for monitoring, sampling schedules, sampling and analytical methods, and
completeness of the 2005 UATMP dataset.
2.1 Monitoring Locations
Although EPA sponsors the UATMP, EPA does not dictate the location of its monitoring
stations. Rather, representatives from the state, local, and tribal agencies that voluntarily
participate in the program and contribute to the overall monitoring costs select the monitoring
locations based on specific siting criteria. Some monitors were placed near the centers of
heavily populated cities (e.g., Chicago, IL and Philadelphia, PA), while others were placed in
moderately populated areas (e.g., Candor, NC and Custer, SD).
Figure 2-1 shows the 28 urban and rural areas participating in the 2005 program. The
site descriptions in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 and in Appendix A provide detailed information on the
surroundings near the 2005 UATMP monitoring locations. Monitoring sites that are designated
as part of EPA's National Air Toxic Trend Station (NATTS) network are indicated by bold type
in Table 2-1. The NATTS network, consisting of 23 monitoring sites located in different
geographical areas with varying population densities, was designed to allow EPA to evaluate the
current state of air toxics, reduce emissions of these toxics, which will reduce the risk of cancer
and other health effects, and to evaluate concentrations trends over time. The monitoring sites
participating in previous UATMP programs are listed in Table 2-3, and are discussed further in
Section 3.3.4, Site Trends Analysis. Sections 4 through 22 are state-specific breakdowns of the
data analysis, and each contains topographic maps for each of the sites. Stationary source
facilities within 10 miles of the monitoring sites are provided in these sections as well. The
2-1
-------
location and category descriptions of these emissions sources were retrieved from the 2002
National Emission Inventory (NEI) (US EPA, 2006a).
As Figure 2-1 shows, the 2005 UATMP monitoring sites are distributed across the
country. The monitoring data from these sites may indicate certain air quality trends that are
common to all urban environments, but may also show distinct geographic trends. The analyses
in this report differentiate those trends that appear to be site-specific from those that appear to be
common to most urban environments.
Chemical concentrations measured during the 2005 UATMP varied significantly from
monitoring site to monitoring site. As discussed throughout this report, the proximity of the
monitoring locations to different emissions sources, especially industrial facilities and heavily
traveled roadways, often explains the observed spatial variations in ambient air quality. To
provide a first approximation of the contributions of stationary source emissions on ambient air
quality at each site, Table 2-2 lists the number of people living within 10 miles of each
monitoring location, as well as the stationary source emissions in the monitor's residing county,
according to the 2002 NEI.
At every UATMP monitoring site, the air sampling equipment was installed in a
temperature-controlled enclosure (usually a trailer or a shed) with the sampling inlet probe
exposed to the ambient air. With this common setup, every UATMP monitoring site sampled
ambient air at heights approximately 5 to 20 feet above local ground level.
For record keeping and reporting purposes, each of these sites was assigned:
A unique UATMP site code - used to track samples from the monitoring sites to
the laboratory; and
A unique nine-digit AQS site code - used to index monitoring results in the AQS
database.
This report often cites these codes when presenting selected monitoring results.
2-2
-------
2.2 Pollutants Selected for Monitoring
Urban air pollution typically contains hundreds of components, including, but not limited
to, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbonyl compounds, metals, and particulate matter.
Because the sampling and analysis required to monitor for every component of air pollution has
been prohibitively expensive, the UATMP instead focuses on measuring ambient levels of 60
VOCs (14 hydrocarbons, 37 halogenated hydrocarbons, and 9 polar compounds), 80 Speciated
Nonmethane Organic Compounds (SNMOC), 15 carbonyl compounds, 19 Semivolatile Organic
Compounds (SVOC), and 11 metals. Tables 2-4 through 2-8 identify the specific target
pollutants and their corresponding experimentally-determined average method detection limits
(MDL).
2.3 Sampling Schedules
Table 2-9 presents the dates on which sampling began and ended for each monitoring
location. The UATMP monitoring locations started sampling in January 2005 and stopped
sampling in December 2005, with the following exceptions. Sixteen sites began sampling after
January 2005:
Barceloneta and San Juan, PR sites (BAPR and SJPR) started in February 2005;
Birmingham, AL sites (ETAL, NBAL, PVAL, SIAL) started in July 2005;
Davie, FL site (FLFL) started in October 2005;
Minnesota, MN site (MIMN) started in March 2005;
Austin, TX sites (MUTX, PITX, RRTX, and WETX) started in June 2005;
Travis High School in Austin, TX site (TRTX) started in July 2005;
Ponca City, OK sites (PCOK and POOK) started in May 2005;
El Paso, TX site (YDSP) started in March 2005;
Northbrook, IL site (NBIL) started carbonyl sampling in March 2005 and Schiller
Park, IL site (SPIL) started carbonyl sampling in February 2005;
2-3
-------
Six sites ended sampling before December 2005:
Allen Park in Detroit, MI site (APMI) ended in November 2005;
Grenada, MS site (GRMS) ended in May 2005;
Sault St. Marie, MI site (ITCMI) ended VOC sampling in August 2005 and
SVOC sampling in September 2005;
Ponca City, OK site (PCOK and POOK) ended in July 2005;
Yellow Freight in Detroit, MI site (YFMI) ended in October 2005;
According to the UATMP schedule, 24-hour integrated samples were to be collected at
every monitoring site approximately once every 6- or 12-days (dependent upon location) and
each sample collection began and ended at midnight, local standard time. At each site, VOC and
carbonyl samples were collected concurrently, except for the following sites:
North Carolina sites (CANC and RTPNC) - carbonyls only;
El Paso, TX (YDSP) - VOC only;
Florida sites (AZFL, FLFL, GAFL, ORFL, SKFL, SMFL, and SYFL) - carbonyls
only;
Gary, IN (INDEM) - carbonyls only;
Intertribal Council site in Sault Sainte Marie, MI (ITCMI) - VOC only;
Ponca City sites (PCOK & POOK) - VOC only; and
Yellow Freight site in Detroit, MI (YFMI) - VOC only.
Of the 47 sites, only one did not sample for VOCs and/or carbonyls - BOMA in Boston,
MA. The following six sites sampled SVOCs:
2-4
-------
Birmingham, AL sites (ETAL, NBAL, PVAL, and SIAL);
Intertribal Council site in Sault Sainte Marie, MI (ITCMI);
Yellow Freight site in Detroit, MI (YFMI).
The following thirteen sites also collected SNMOC samples:
Austin, TX (MUTX, PITX, RRTX, TRTX, and WETX) - Total NMOC only;
Bountiful, UT (BTUT);
Custer, SD (CUSD);
Northbrook site in Chicago, IL (NBIL);
Pascagoula, MS (PGMS);
Ponca City, OK (PCOK & POOK);
Sioux Falls, SD (SFSD); and
St. Louis, MO (S4MO).
Finally, fifteen sites collected metal samples:
Austin, TX (MUTX, PITX, RRTX, TRTX, and WETX);
Birmingham, AL (ETAL, NBAL, PVAL, and SIAL);
Boston, MA (BOMA);
Bountiful, UT (BTUT);
Madison, WI (MAWI);
Minneapolis, MN (MIMN);
Northbrook in Chicago, IL (NBIL); and
St. Louis, MO site 4 (S4MO).
2-5
-------
As part of the sampling schedule, site operators were instructed to collect duplicate
samples on roughly 10% of the sampling days. Sampling calendars were distributed to help site
operators schedule the collection of samples, duplicates, and field blanks. In cases where
monitors failed to collect valid samples on a scheduled sampling day, site operators sometimes
rescheduled samples for other days. This practice explains why some monitoring locations
periodically strayed from the 6- or 12-day sampling schedule. The State of Michigan prepared a
schedule that allowed Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality's laboratory to share
samples with ERG's laboratory.
The 6- or 12-day sampling schedule permits cost-effective data collection for trends
characterization (annual-average concentrations) of toxic compounds in ambient air and ensures
that sampling days are evenly distributed among the seven days of the week to allow
weekday/weekend comparison of air quality.
2.4 Completeness
Completeness refers to the number of valid samples collected compared to the number of
samples expected from a 6- or 12-day sampling cycle. Monitoring programs that consistently
generate valid results have higher completeness than programs that consistently invalidate
samples. The completeness of an air monitoring program, therefore, can be a qualitative
measure of the reliability of air sampling equipment and laboratory analytical equipment and a
measure of the efficiency with which the program was managed. Appendix B identifies samples
that were invalidated and lists the specific reasons why the samples were invalidated.
Table 2-9 summarizes the completeness of the monitoring data sets collected during the
2005 UATMP:
For VOC sampling, the completeness ranged from 68 to 100%, with an overall
completeness of 92%;
For carbonyl sampling, the completeness ranged from 68 to 100% with an overall
completeness of 95%;
2-6
-------
For SNMOC sampling, the completeness ranged from 50 to 100% with an overall
completeness of 92% for all sites;
For SVOC sampling, the completeness was 88 to 100% with an overall
completeness of 93% for all sites; and
For metals sampling, the completeness for all sites and the overall completeness
was 100%.
The UATMP data quality objectives are based on the 2005 EPA-approved Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), where 85-100% of samples collected at a given monitoring
station must be analyzed successfully to be considered sufficient for data trends analysis. The
data in Table 2-9 shows that 11 data sets (from a total of 110 data sets) for the 2005 UATMP
monitoring stations did not meet this data quality objective. These data sets were lower than the
85% criteria for a number of reasons. One site did not meet the objective because sampling
ended before they made up their required make-up samples (APMI). Other sites were having
sampling issues that would not allow make-up samples to be performed (CHNJ, MUTX, SIAL,
SJPR, WETX). One hundred percent completeness was achieved for five carbonyl monitoring
sites, six VOC monitoring sites, three SNMOC monitoring sites, one SVOC monitoring site, and
fifteen metals monitoring sites.
2.5 Sampling and Analytical Methods
During the 2005 UATMP, four EPA-approved methods were used to characterize urban
air pollution:
Compendium Method TO-15 was used to measure ambient air concentrations of
60 VOC and 80 SNMOC;
Compendium Method TO-11A was used to measure ambient air concentrations of
15 carbonyl compounds;
Compendium Method TO-13A was used to collect ambient air concentrations of
19 SVOC; and
Compendium MethodIO-3.5 was used to collect ambient concentration of
11 metals.
2-7
-------
The following discussion presents an overview of these sampling and analytical methods.
For detailed descriptions of the methods, readers should refer to EPA's original documentation of
the Compendium Methods (US EPA, 1998b; US EPA, 1999a; US EPA, 1999b; US EPA, 1999c;
US EPA, 1999d).
2.5.1 VOC Sampling and Analytical Method
As specified in the EPA method, ambient air samples for VOC analysis were collected in
passivated stainless steel canisters. The central laboratory distributed the prepared canisters
(i.e., cleaned and evacuated) to the UATMP monitoring sites before each scheduled sampling
event, and site operators connected the canisters to air sampling equipment prior to each
sampling day. Before their use in the field, the passivated canisters had internal pressures much
lower than atmospheric pressure. Because of this pressure differential, ambient air naturally
flowed into the canisters once they were opened, and pumps were not needed to collect ambient
air for VOC analysis. A flow controller on the sampling device ensured that ambient air entered
the canister at a constant rate across the collection period. At the end of the 24-hour sampling
period, a solenoid valve automatically stopped ambient air from flowing into the canister, and
site operators returned the canisters to the central laboratory for analysis.
By analyzing each sample with gas chromatography incorporating mass selective
detection and flame ionization detection (GC/MS-FID), laboratory staff determined ambient air
concentrations of 60 VOC (14 hydrocarbons, 37 halogenated hydrocarbons, and nine polar
compounds), 80 SNMOC, and total NMOC (TNMOC), which is the sum of all hydrocarbon
concentrations within the sample. Because isobutene and 1-butene elute from the GC column at
the same time, the VOC analytical method reports only the sum of the concentrations for these
compounds, and not the separate concentrations for each compound. The same situation applies
to m-xylene and/>-xylene.
A note regarding samples of acetonitrile: laboratory analysts indicated that the values
may be artificially high (or nonexistent) due to site conditions and potential cross-contamination
with concurrent sampling of carbonyl compounds. At the time of the report, studies are being
2-8
-------
conducted to determine the validity of these values, and readers must exercise caution when
interpreting acetonitrile monitoring data.
Table 2-4 summarizes the MDLs for the laboratory analysis of the VOC samples and
Table 2-5 summarizes the MDLs for the SNMOC samples. Although the sensitivity of the
analytical method varies from pollutant to pollutant, the detection limit for VOC reported for
every pollutant is lower than 0.25 parts per billion by volume (ppbv). Speciated Nonmethane
Organic Compound (SNMOC) detection limits are expressed in parts per billion carbon (ppbC).
All of the detection limits were less than 0.82 ppbC.
Due to analytical technique modifications to incorporate acrolein to the VOC analyses,
detection limits were improved and the following pollutants were detected at higher frequencies:
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane, vinyl chloride, 1,3-butadiene, bromomethane, chloroethane,
acetonitrile, acrolein, acrylonitrile, methy tert-butyl ether, methyl ethyl ketone,
bromodichloromethane, trichloroethyelene, methyl isobutyl ketone, dibromochloromethane, n-
octane, chlorobenzene,/>-dichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, and hexachloro-1,3-
butadiene.
Appreciating Detection Limits
All detection limits of the analytical methods must be considered carefully when interpreting
the corresponding ambient air monitoring data. By definition, detection limits represent the
lowest concentrations at which laboratory equipment have been experimentally determined
to reliably quantify concentrations of selected pollutants to a specific confidence level. If a
chemical concentration in ambient air does not exceed the method sensitivity (as gauged by
the detection limit), the analytical method might not differentiate the pollutant from other
pollutants in the sample or from the random "noise "inherent in laboratory analyses.
Therefore, when samples contain concentrations at levels below their respective detection
limits, multiple analyses of the same sample may lead to a wide range of results, including
highly variable concentrations or "nondetect"observations. Data analysts must exercise
caution when interpreting monitoring data with many reported concentrations at levels near
or below the corresponding detection limits.
MDLs are determined at the ERG analytical laboratory using 40 CFR, Part 136
Appendix B procedures. This procedure involves analyzing at least seven replicate standards
prepared on/in the appropriate sampling media (per analytical method). Instrument detection
2-9
-------
limits are not determined (replicates of standards only) because sample preparation procedures
are not considered.
Because nondetect results significantly limit the range of data interpretations for ambient
air monitoring programs, participating agencies should note that the approach for treating
nondetects may slightly affect the magnitude of the calculated central tendency concentrations,
especially for compounds with a low detection rate. The nondetect is treated as a valid data
point that can be used, in conjunction with back trajectories, for validation of nearby emission
sources. For calculations of seasonal and annual averages, nondetects were substituted with one-
half of the MDL per pollutant.
Similar to 2005, the reportable SNMOC analysis option was combined with the standard
VOC sampling. These data are presented in Appendix H and I.
2.5.2 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Method
Following the specifications of EPA Compendium Method TO-11 A, ambient air samples
for carbonyl analysis were collected by passing ambient air over silica gel cartridges coated with
2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH), a compound known to react selectively and reversibly with
many aldehydes and ketones. Carbonyl compounds in ambient air remain within the sampling
cartridge, while other compounds pass through the cartridge without reacting with the DNPH-
coated matrix. As with the VOC sampling, the central laboratory distributed the silica gel
cartridges to the monitoring sites, and site operators connected the cartridges to the air sampling
equipment. After each 24-hour sampling period, site operators returned the cartridges to the
central laboratory for chemical analysis.
To quantify concentrations of carbonyls in the sampled ambient air, laboratory analysts
eluted the exposed silica gel cartridges with acetonitrile. This solvent elution liberated a solution
of DNPH derivatives of the aldehydes and ketones collected from the ambient air. High-
performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis and ultraviolet detection of these solutions
determined the relative amounts of individual carbonyls present in the original air sample.
Because butyraldehyde/isobutyraldehyde elute from the HPLC column at the same time, the
2-10
-------
carbonyl analytical method can report only the sum of the concentrations for these compounds,
and not the separate concentrations for each compound. For the same reason, the analytical
method reports only the sum of the concentrations for the three tolualdehydes isomers, as
opposed to reporting separate concentrations for the three individual compounds.
Table 2-6 lists the MDLs reported by the analytical laboratory for measuring
concentrations of 15 carbonyl compounds. Although the sensitivity of the analytical method
varies from pollutant to pollutant and from site to site, the detection limit reported by the
analytical laboratory for every pollutant is less than or equal to 0.02 ppbv with a 1000L sample
volume. The treatment of nondetects for carbonyl compounds is similar to the procedure
described for VOCs, with the substitution of a zero for calculating seasonal and annual averages.
2.5.3 Semivolatile Sampling and Analytical Method
Semivolatile sampling was performed by the sites in accordance with EPA Compendium
Method TO-13 A. ERG supplies prepared sampling media and receives the samples from the
sites for analysis only. Semivolatile sampling modules containing polyurethane foam (PUF) and
petri dishes containing filters, together with Chain of Custody forms and all associated
documentation, were shipped to the ERG laboratory from the field. Upon receipt at the
laboratory, sample preparation and analysis procedures are based on Compendium Method TO-
13A.
Table 2-7 lists the MDLs for the laboratory analysis of the SVOC samples. MDLs for
Semivolatile organic compounds ranged from 0.08 to 0.49 pg/m3, in an average sample volume
of 200 m3. The treatment of nondetects for semi-volatile organic compounds is similar to the
procedure described for VOCs and carbonyls, with the substitution of a zero for calculating
seasonal and annual averages.
2-11
-------
2.5.4 Metals Sampling and Analytical Data
Metals sampling was performed by the sites in accordance with EPA Compendium
Method IO-3.5 for inorganic compounds (metals). Metals filters, together with Chain of
Custody forms and all associated documentation, were shipped to the ERG laboratory from the
field. Upon receipt, filters were analyzed by the ERG laboratory.
Table 2-8 lists the MDLs for the laboratory analysis of the metal samples. Two types of
filters were utilized. The BTUT sites used a small round 47mm filter (assuming a 20 m3 volume)
while the remaining sites used a large 8X10 inch Quartz filter (assuming a 2000 m3 volume).
Therefore, there are two sets of MDLs listed in Table 2-8. The MDLs ranged from 0.101 to 1.03
ng/m3 for the 47mm filters and from 0.0172 to 1.26 ng/m3 for the 8X10 filters. The treatment
of nondetects for metals is similar to the procedure described for VOCs, carbonyls, and
semivolatiles, with the substitution of a zero for calculating seasonal and annual averages.
2-12
-------
Figure 2-1. Monitoring Sites and Associated MSAs for the 2005 UATMP
to
<2 Boston, MA MSA
New York City, NY MSA
ifc'/Philadelphia, PA
Sault Sainte Marie. Ml
MinneapoIis.SWaui, MN MSA
^vMadisont.WI.MSA
UT
Sioux FaiisrSD MSA
Chicago, If MSA
Detroit, Ml MSA
Jynction, CO MSA
St. Loyis, MO MSA;
Ponca City, OK
El TX
Birmingham, AC MSA
Tarnpa-St, Petersburg, FL MSA
iPฐxvJlle'"IN MSA \* Durham^ NC MSA
Candor.
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites
UATMP
Code
APMI
AZFL
BAPR
BOMA
Monitoring Site
Allen Park, Detroit,
MI
Azalea Park, St.
Petersburg, FL
Barceloneta, PR
Boston, MA
Land Use
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Location
Setting
Suburban
Suburban
Rural
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
60,000
51,000
10
27,287
Traffic Year
Estimate
Unknown
Unknown
1994
2000
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The Allen Park site is an intermediate site located in a
residential neighborhood 300 feet away from 1-75.
Historically, this site has been used to detect impacts from
mobile sources. There are no major industrial sources within
a half-mile of the site. Of all the population-oriented sites in
the Detroit MSA, Allen Park has the highest PM10 levels.
Therefore, Allen Park has been selected as the PM2 5 trend
speciation site and the collocated site for the federal reference
method (FRM) monitors. Other criteria pollutant
measurements that are collected at Allen Park include CO, O3,
SO2, and PM10
A neighborhood spatial scale of representativeness
characterizes this monitoring site selected for the Tampa Bay
pilot project. This monitor is sited in an area of high
population density with uniform mixed land use, consisting of
residential, commercial, and industrial properties. Major
point sources are located approximately 2 to 10 miles from the
monitoring site. In addition, this site is at least 150 meters
from major roadways. However, given the proximity of motor
vehicle traffic it is expected that mobile sources will
contribute appreciably to the measured samples.
The Barceloneta site is a residential area surrounded by 5
pharmaceutical plants. The greater area outside the city is
rural in character and the city itself is within 2 miles of the
Atlantic Ocean.
The Boston site is located in a residential neighborhood on
Harrison Avenue in Dudley Square. Its purpose is to measure
population exposure for a city bus terminal which is located
across the street from the monitor and other urban sources.
to
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
BTUT
CANC
CANJ
CHNJ
Monitoring Site
Bountiful, UT
Candor, NC
Camden, NJ
Chester, NJ
Land Use
Residential
Forest
Residential
Agricultural
Location
Setting
Suburban
Rural
Suburban
Rural
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
33,310
100
62,000
12,623
Traffic Year
Estimate
2002
1999
1986
1995
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The Bountiful Viewmont site is located in a suburban area of
the Ogden-Clearfield MSA, at 171 West 1370 North in
Bountiful, Utah. This site is a relocation of the BOUT site,
which was about 1.1 miles south of the new site. The site is
located on the grounds of Viewmont High School, adjacent to
a parking lot, tennis courts, and a football field. The
surrounding neighborhood is made up of residential
properties. BTUT is a SLAMS neighborhood-scale site for
monitoring population exposure to SO2, CO, NO2, and PM2 5;
and a NAMS neighborhood-scale site for monitoring
maximum ozone concentrations. Speciated PM2 5 sampling,
meteorological monitoring, and NATTS air toxics sampling
are also done at the Bountiful Viewmont site. Several
petroleum refineries are located two to five miles away from
the site, as are several sand and gravel mining operations.
The Candor, NC, site is in rural Montgomery Co., at the end
of a private dead end road named Perry Dr. The site sits
approximately 1.5 miles off a main road (McCallumRd.).
There is not a pollution source within 5 miles of the site. EPA
also monitors next to this site.
Although this monitoring site in Camden, NJ, is in a
residential area, numerous industrial facilities and busy
roadways are located within a 10 mile radius. The monitors
are situated in a parking lot of a business complex.
The Chester, NJ, site is located in a rural-agricultural,
residential section and is topographically rolling. The site is
located near Lucent Laboratory Building #1. There is
potential population exposure to ozone, NO2, and SO2.
to
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
CUSD
DEMI
DITN
ELNJ
Monitoring Site
Custer, SD
Dearborn in Detroit,
MI
Dickson, TN
Elizabeth, NJ
Land Use
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Industrial
Location
Setting
Suburban
Suburban
Urban
Suburban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
1,940
12,791
4,420
170,000
Traffic Year
Estimate
2002
1990
2003
Unknown
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The site is located on the edge of an urban area, in a pasture
across the road from the last housing development on the east
side of the City of Custer. The city has a population of 1,860
and is the largest city in the county. The city is located in a
river valley in the Black Hills with pine covered hills on the
north and south sides of the valley. The site is located in the
center of the valley on the east side of the city. Major sources
near the site include vehicles (highest traffic counts from May
through September), forest fires (mainly during July through
September), wood burning for heat, and wildland heath fires
(during the winter months). The main industries in the area
include tourism, logging, and mining of feldspar/quartz.
The Dearborn, MI site is located in a residential neighborhood
with industrial impacts. An auto and steel manufacturing plant
is located in close proximity to the monitoring site. Previous
violations of the PM10 standard have also occurred at this site.
The site lies between 1-75 and 1-94. This site is expected to
show some of the highest levels of air toxics in the Detroit
Pilot program area. The SO2 and PM10 measurements are also
made there.
The Dickson, TN site was set up due to public concern about
air emissions from several sources in an industrial park.
Among these sources is one that cast aluminum engine blocks,
one that reclaims scrap metal, and a large printing company.
The Elizabeth site is located in Union County, NJ, at an
urban-industrial site where the topography is relatively
smooth. The monitoring site is located 75 yards away from the
Toll Plaza and about one mile from Bayway Refinery. The
neighborhood scale is at maximum concentration. The
location has a PM10 filter analyzer for sulfates and nitrates as
well as the UATMP site.
to
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
Monitoring Site
Land Use
Location
Setting
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
Traffic Year
Estimate
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
ETAL
East Thomas,
Birmingham, AL
Residenital
Suburban
30,000
Unknown
This SLAMS microscale roadway site (located at the
intersection of Finley Avenue and Arkadelphia Road) has a
thirty-five year history of ambient air monitoring. This site is
used mainly to monitor vehicle emissions. It is also an
environmental justice site in that most of the residences in the
area are owned and occupied by minorities. It is also located
in a valley that is heavily industrialized. This site has also
yielded some of the county's highest reported paniculate
levels. There have been several special roadway emission
studies performed at this site over the past few years, the latest
of which was pertaining to the contribution of PM2 5 particles
from roadway emissions.
to
FLFL
Davie, FL
Commercial
Suburban
8000
Unknown
The site is located on the campus of the University of Florida,
Agricultural Research Center in Davie, Florida. It is located
in a generally residential area that is surrounded by 4 major
thoroughfares in the county (~1 mile from 1-595, ~2 miles
from the Florida Turnpike, ~6 miles from 1-95, and ~6 miles
from 1-75). It is located ~ 6 miles from the Ft. Lauderdale-
Hollywood International Airport and ~9 miles from Port
Everglades. It is in an area generally representative of the
ambient air conditions experienced throughout the county. It
is expected that this site will become an NCORE type II site in
the near future.
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
Monitoring Site
Land Use
Location
Setting
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
Traffic Year
Estimate
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
GAFL
Gandy in Tampa, FL
Commercial
Suburban
81,460
Unknown
to
oo
A neighborhood spatial scale of representativeness
characterizes this monitoring site selected for the Tampa Bay
Region Air Toxics Study Monitoring Stations (TBRATS)
pilot project. This monitor is sited in an area of high
population density with uniform mixed land use, consisting of
residential, commercial, and industrial properties. Major
point sources are located greater than one mile from the
monitoring site. Since the emission points from these sources
are elevated and not proximate to the monitor, concentrations
measured during this study should not be dominated by a
single source. In addition, this site is at least 150 meters from
major roadways. However, given the proximity of motor
vehicle traffic, mobile sources are expected to contribute
appreciably to the measured samples.
GPCO
Grand Junction, CO
Commercial
Urban
19,572
2000-2002
This site is a small 1-story shelter that houses the
VOC/carbonyl sampler. The inlet for this sampler is 13' above
the ground and 35' south of Pitkin Avenue. This site also has
meteorological sensors (WS, WD, T, RH) on a 10 meter
tower, a carbon monoxide sampler and a continuous PM10
sampler. Monitoring is being conducted on the southeast side
of the downtown area. The area is very mixed usage, with
commercial business to the west, northwest and north,
residential to the northeast and east, and industrial to the
southeast, south and southwest. The location is next to one of
the major east-west roads in Grand Junction.
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
Monitoring Site
Land Use
Location
Setting
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
Traffic Year
Estimate
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
GRMS
Grenada, MS
Agricultural
Rural
1,100
2000
The Grenada County monitoring site was established because
it was identified by Region IV's Air Toxics Monitoring
Network planning effort as a county where toxic emissions
concentrations were expected to be higher and pose a higher
than normal risk to residents. There are several major
industries in the area that are primarily involved in the surface
coating industry. The area is moderately populated but the
area itself would be considered rural.
to
INDEM
Gary, IN
Industrial
Urban
42,950
1990
This site is located on property now owned by the Dunes
National Lakeshore. It is approximately one-half to three-
quarters of a mile south west of the USX coking battery for
their mill. The site is part of the Chicago PAMS network. It
is considered a Type 2 or source site. Monitoring for ozone,
NO/NOX, ozone precursors, and carbonyls began in 1995 as
the network was deployed in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and
Michigan. Other parameters monitored at this location are
SO2, PMio, PM25, speciated PM25, and several meteorological
parameters.
ITCMI
Sault Sainte Marie, MI
Residential
Rural
100,000
1990
Tribal members had issued complaints arising from the smell
and clouds being produced from a steel plant and paper mill
located on the other side of the Saint Mary's River. The site is
located on Lake Superior State University campus, which is a
residential area. This site includes two sequential PM2 5 filter
based FRM monitors (primary and a collocated), a PM2 5
speciation monitor, a PM2 5 TEOM monitor, an AVOCS
monitor, a PAH monitor, a meteorological station, and a large
paniculate matter collector (dustfall monitor).
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
LDTN
MAWI
MIMN
MUTX
Monitoring Site
Loudon, TN
Madison, WI
Minneapolis, MN
Murchison MS in
Austin, TX
Land Use
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Urban
Urban
Suburban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
13,360
23,750
10,000
4,374
Traffic Year
Estimate
2003
1993
2000
2002
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The site was set up due to public concern about air emissions
from several sources in an industrial park. Among these
sources is a very large facility that processes corn to make
corn syrup, A.E. Staley, a sausage casing manufacturer, boat
manufacturer, paper products manufacturer, waste metal
reclamation, waste paper reclamation, and others.
The Madison monitoring site is located on the East High
School's Killiher Athletic field, near the corner of Hoard and
Fifth Street. The monitoring site was originally established in
1992 as an ozone monitoring site. Air toxics monitoring was
added in 2002 as part of the Region 5 State and Local
Regional Air Toxics Monitoring Strategy. The site was
selected to provide new monitoring data for a midsize city
experiencing urban growth.
This site is used to characterize urban air mass in
Minneapolis. The site resides in an urban business district,
primarily offices and retail shops, city government and
warehouses. Nearby sources (less than 1.5 miles from)
include Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC) (which
uses mass burn technology to convert 365,000 tons of garbage
a year into electricity), NRG Energy Center Minneapolis LLC
Steam and Air-Conditioning Supply, and Hennepin County
Medical Center. There is also a high density of mobile
sources and some light manufacturing industries.
This site is located between a parking lot and the athletic
fields at Murchison Middle School. The site is also located
fairly close to the roadway running in front of the school.
to
to
o
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
NBAL
NBIL
NBNJ
ORFL
Monitoring Site
North Birmingham,
AL
Northbrook in
Chicago, IL
New Brunswick, NJ
Winter Park, FL
Land Use
Commercial
Residential
Agricultural
Commercial
Location
Setting
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
2,000
29,600
63,000
59,000
Traffic Year
Estimate
1994
2001
Unknown
Unknown
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
This NAMS neighborhood scale site (located in North
Birmingham) is a super site with a thirty-five year history of
ambient air monitoring. It is an environmental justice site in
that most of the residences in the area are owned and occupied
by minorities. It is located in a valley that is heavily
industrialized. This site yields the one of county's highest
reported paniculate levels.
The village of Northbrook is located in northeast Cook
County. This monitoring site is located at the Northbrook
Water Filtration Station at 750 Dundee Road. A forest
preserve is located immediately south with residential areas
farther south (southeast to southwest). Residential areas are
also immediately to the west. Commercial areas are located
along Dundee Road and to the east. A major expressway (I-
94) is located 1 km to the east and north. O'Hare Airport is
located 18 km to the southwest and the Chicago Loop is
located 32 km to the southeast.
The New Brunswick site is located in a suburban-agricultural,
residential area and is topographically smooth. The actual site
location is in Rutgers University's Horticultural Farm.
The site is an Urban/Neighborhood spatial scale site to
determine the concentrations of the EPA Criteria pollutants
(and now Air Toxics) to which the area population may be
exposed. The primary emission source is motor vehicles with
some commercial businesses also in the area.
to
to
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
PCOK
PGMS
PITX
POOK
PVAL
Monitoring Site
Site 1 in Ponca City,
OK
Pascagoula, MS
Pickle Research
Center, Austin, TX
Site 2 in Ponca City,
OK
Providence, AL
Land Use
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Location
Setting
Urban
Urban
Suburban
Urban
Rural
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
8,100
8,600
33,936
3,800
Unknown
Traffic Year
Estimate
2004
2000
2005
2004
Unknown
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
Based on a joint OkDEQ and EPA Region 6 project using the
RAIMI (Regional Air Impact Modelling Initiative) techniques
to identify and map the cancer risks from inhalable pollutants
for Ponca City, OK, the highest risk not on the Conoco-
Phillips property was a narrow strip directly north of the
refinery. The PCOK site is located in this area, just across the
highway from the refinery. Possible influences would include
the refinery itself, and the highway (US 77) on the south side
of the site location.
The Pascagoula site is in a mostly commercial area in
proximity to perhaps the largest industrial area in Mississippi.
The industries near the Pascagoula site include chemical
processes, petroleum refining, and ship building.
The Pickle Research Center is located in close proximity to
MOP AC (Loop 1), a major Austin-specific north south
thoroughfare. It is also bounded on one side by Braker Lane,
a four to six lane east west road in Austin.
This site was established in 1995 in Ponca City. This source-
oriented site also operates SO2, PM2 5, and PM10 monitors.
This north-central Oklahoma site is used to monitor nearby
refineries.
This SLAMS urban scale general background site (located in
the western-most corner of Jefferson County) was established
in the fall of 1999 to monitor background levels of ozone and
PM25 in the county, to get a better idea of what concentrations
were entering the county, and to give better resolution at that
time for the ozone mapping program. It is a rural site in that
there are not many residences in the area and most of the land
use is agricultural. It is located on a rural mountaintop on the
edge of a field used for horse grazing. It is an excellent site for
a background air toxics monitor.
to
to
to
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
RRTX
RTPNC
S4MO
SFSD
Monitoring Site
Round Rock, TX
Research Triangle
Park, NC
St. Louis, MO
Sioux Falls, SD
Land Use
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Suburban
Urban
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
20,900
12,000
22,840
4,320
Traffic Year
Estimate
2004
2003
1995
1999
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The RRTX site is located in Round Rock, TX, north of
Austin. The site is located south of FM 3406 and east of the I-
35 corridor, at the deadend of Commerce Blvd. It was
selected for an emphasis on a variety of factors: upwind of
industrial facilities, population density (weighed heavily), and
mobile source traffic (this location is fairly close to 1-35, the
north south corridor through Austin into Round Rock).
The RTF site is located on the north side of the EPA campus.
It is approximately 600 meters south of interstate 1-40. There
are trees to the east of the site, sloping down from the site to
the trees. The height of the tallest tress (relative to the
sampling port) to the east is less than 2 times the distance to
the trees. The site has at least 270ซ -clearance around the site.
Blair Street has some industry around it and a fair amount of
industry to the east. The site is also only about 250 meters
from 1-70 (at its closest point).
The SFSD monitoring site is located in Sioux Falls, SD, the
largest city in the state, near two grade schools north of the
site and residential areas on the west, east, and south. The
area within 1 mile of the site is mostly residential with a few
retail businesses. The main industrial area of the city is about
3 miles northwest and 2 miles to the west of the site. The site
was selected because it represents population exposure to
chemical and paniculate emissions from the industrial parts of
the city. The predominant wind direction is northwest for
most of the year with southeast winds during the summer
months.
to
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
Monitoring Site
Land Use
Location
Setting
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
Traffic Year
Estimate
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
SIAL
Sloss Industries,
Birmingham, AL
Residential
Urban
2,700
1993
This SPM neighborhood scale site (located between North
Birmingham and Tarrant) has been in operation since 1994. It
was established as an environmental justice site to monitor the
emissions of a slag wool plant and a coke plant and is located
next door to several residences in a residential area directly
across the street from the plants.
SJPR
San Juan, PR
Industrial
Suburban
250
1992
to
to
The San Juan site is located at Bayamon Municipio, in the
Regional Jail. The San Juan Metropolitan Area (S JMA) is
affected by the emissions from stationary sources and by the
heavy daily traffic. This geographical area is one of the
Island's most polluted areas. The selected location is an open
area representing a neighborhood scale in which the industrial
area merges with the residential areas. The incidence of
respiratory diseases is one of the general concerns (for the
community and for the government). In general, the
concentrations for the criteria pollutants are under the
standards. But air toxics were not sampled for previously.
SKFL
Skyview in Pinellas
Park, FL
Residential
Suburban
50,500
2003
This air monitoring site is located in south central Pinellas
County at Skyview Elementary School, 8601 60th St. N.,
Pinellas Park, Florida. This site is a NATTS and samples for
all pollutants/parameters required by NATTS, including
VOCs, carbonyls, metals, PM-2.5 speciation, and black
carbon. In addition, measurements are made for wind speed,
wind direction, ambient pressure, and ambient temperature.
Site spatial scale is neighborhood. This is a population-
oriented site.
SMFL
Simmons Park in
Tampa, FL
Unknown
Unknown
18,700
Unknown
Neighborhood spatial scale of representativeness characterizes
this monitoring site selected for the Tampa Bay pilot project.
East Lake monitor is in an area of low population density and
it is representative of urban background concentrations for the
Tampa Bay metro area. Major point sources are located
approximately 8 to 15 km and at 150 m from major roadways.
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
SPIL
SYFL
TRTX
TUMS
WETX
Monitoring Site
Schiller Park in
Chicago, 1L
Sydney in Plant City,
FL
Travis HS in Austin,
TX
Tupelo, MS
Webberville Road in
Austin, TX
Land Use
Mobile
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Rural
Suburban
Suburban
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
214,900
5,142
27,114
4,900
5,733
Traffic Year
Estimate
2001
2002
2004
1995/1997
2003
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
This monitoring site is located on a trailer at 4743 Mannheim
Readjust south of Lawrence Ave. and between Mannheim
Road and 1-294. The closest runway at O'Hare Airport is 0.5
km to the northwest. The immediate vicinity is mostly
commercial. Residential areas are located east across 1-294.
The site in Sydney is a NATTS neighborhood/rural site.
Monitoring has been occurring at Sydney for 5 years as a
background site. Current development in the area warranted it
becoming a NATTS site. The Sydney site is also being used
for an intercomparison of the port of Tampa as compared to a
neighbor/rural site.
This site is wedged between a parking lot, tennis courts, and
the baseball field at Travis High School. The site was
selected for an emphasis on a variety of factors: upwind of
industrial facilities, population density (weighed heavily), and
mobile source traffic (this location is fairly close to 1-35
north south corridor through Austin into Round Rock). The
Travis High School site is approximately two miles south of
Town Lake/the Colorado River.
The Tupelo site is in a light commercial and residential area.
This site was selected because this area is believed to have
high ambient air toxic concentrations based upon information
from the NATA study and Mississippi's major source
emission inventories.
The WETX site is located in a parking lot near the
intersections of Webberville Rd and Northwestern Ave and
Webberville Rd and Pedermales St. Railroad tracks run
parallel with Northwestern Ave. The site was selected for an
emphasis on a variety of factors: upwind of industrial
facilities, population density (weighed heavily), and mobile
source traffic (this location is fairly close to 1-35 north south
corridor through Austin into Round Rock).
to
to
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
YDSP
YFMI
Monitoring Site
El Paso, TX
Yellow Freight in
Detroit, MI
Land Use
Residential
Industrial
Location
Setting
Suburban
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
12,400
500
Traffic Year
Estimate
2003
Unknown
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
This site is located in a vacant lot adjacent to the YDSP Tribal
Courthouse. According to a 2003 traffic count conducted by
TxDOT, this portion of Socorro Road averages 10,200
vehicles per work day. The site is approximately 50 meters
northwest of the Old Reservation subdivision.
The Yellow Freight site currently collects SO2 measurements
and is located in the center of a highly industrialized area.
The primary influence is from a nearby car battery plant. The
site is about 2.25 miles away from the Dearborn site. Its
inclusion in the study provides information about the degree
of heterogeneity of toxic air contaminants across a small scale.
BOLD = EPA-designated National Air Toxics Trend System (NATTS) site.
to
to
-------
Table 2-2. Site Descriptions for the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites
2005
UATMP
Code
APMI
AZFL
BAPR
BOMA
BTUT
CANC
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
DEMI
DITN
ELNJ
AQS Site Code
26-163-0001
12-103-0018
72-017-0003
25-025-0042
49-011-0004
37-123-0001
34-007-0003
34-027-3001
46-033-0003
26-163-0033
47-043-0010
34-039-0004
Location
Allen Park in Detroit, MI
Azalea Park in St.
Petersburg, FL
Barceloneta, PR
Boston, MA
Bountiful, UT
Candor, NC
Camden, NJ
Chester, NJ
Custer, SD
Dearborn in Detroit, MI
Dickson, TN
Elizabeth, NJ
Population
Residing Within 10
Miles of the
Monitoring Site a
964,194
572,722
Unknown
1,589,367
243,462
11,014
2,030,976
234,148
4,449
1,201,847
29,214
2,179,781
County-level Stationary Source
HAP Emissions in the 2002
NEIb
(tpy)
9,319
2,826
410
1,646
955
180
1,399
1,265
23
9,319
1,216
2,069
Closest National Weather
Service Station
Detroit/Metropolitan
Airport
St. Petersburg/Whitted
Airport
San Juan, PR, Luis Munoz
Marin Int'l Airport
General Logan Int'l.
Airport
Salt Lake City
International
Moore County Airport
Philadelphia International
Airport
Somerville, NJ,Somerset
Airport
Custer County Airport
Detroit Metropolitan
Airport
Outlaw Field Airport
Newark Int'l Airport
-------
Table 2-2. Site Descriptions for the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
2005
UATMP
Code
ETAL
FLFL
GAFL
GPCO
GRMS
INDEM
ITCMI
LDTN
MAWI
MIMN
MUTX
NBAL
NBIL
AQS Site Code
01-073-0028
12-011-1002
12-057-1065
08-077-0018
28-043-0001
18-089-0022
26-033-0901
47-105-0108
55-025-0041
27-053-0966
48-453-7001
01-073-0023
17-031-4201
Location
East Thomas in
Birmingham, AL
Davie, FL
Gandy in Tampa, FL
Grand Junction, CO
Grenada, MS
Gary, IN
Sault Sainte Marie, MI
Loudon, TN
Madison, WI
Minneapolis, MN
Murchison MS in Austin,
TX
North Birmingham, AL
Northbrook in Chicago, IL
Population
Residing Within 10
Miles of the
Monitoring Site a
399,149
1,312,485
462,119
106,900
21,446
404,545
22,188
46,750
356,676
1,146,484
679,750
394,649
883,969
County-level Stationary Source
HAP Emissions in the 2002
NEIb
(tpy)
4,934
7,298
7,247
555
487
3,311
194
1,551
2,879
3,455
2,379
4,934
23,496
Closest National Weather
Service Station
Birmingham Int'l Airport
Ft Lauderdale, FL,
Hollywood Int'l Airport
Tampa, FL Int'l Airport
Walker Field Airport
Greenwood-Leflore
Airport
Lancing Municipal
Airport
Sault Ste. Marie
Municipal Airport
McGhee Tyson Airport
Dane County Regional-
Traux Field Airport
Minneapolis-St. Paul Int'l
Airport
Camp Mabry Army
National Guard
Birmingham Int'l Airport
Palwaukee Municipal
Airport
to
to
oo
-------
Table 2-2. Site Descriptions for the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
2005
UATMP
Code
NBNJ
ORFL
PCOK
PGMS
PITX
POOK
PVAL
RRTX
RTPNC
S4MO
SFSD
SIAL
AQS Site Code
34-023-0006
12-095-2002
40-071-0603
28-059-0006
48-453-703
40-071-0602
01-073-1009
48-491-7004
37-063-0014
29-510-0085
46-099-0007
01-073-6004
Location
New Brunswick, NJ
Winter Park, FL
Ponca City, OK
Pascagoula, MS
Pickle Research Center,
Austin, TX
Ponca City, OK
Providence, AL
Round Rock, TX
Research Triangle Park, NC
St. Louis, MO
Sioux Falls, SD
Birmingham, AL
Population
Residing Within 10
Miles of the
Monitoring Site a
787,380
962,938
33,081
56,235
649,314
33,081
28,665
365,870
380,541
822,941
154,472
394,649
County-level Stationary Source
HAP Emissions in the 2002
NEIb
(tpy)
2,725
4,836
320
2,815
2,379
320
4,934
772
884
2,245
538
4,934
Closest National Weather
Service Station
Somerville, NJ, Somerset
Airport
Orlando Executive Airport
Ponca City Regional
Airport
Pascagoula, MS, Lott
International Airport
Camp Mabry Army
National Guard
Ponca City Regional
Airport
Tuscaloosa Municipal
Airport
Georgetown Municipal
Airport
Raleigh-Durham Int'l
Airport
St. Louis Downtown
Airport
Joe Foss Field Airport
Birmingham Int'l Airport
to
VO
-------
Table 2-2. Site Descriptions for the 2005 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
2005
UATMP
Code
SJPR
SKFL
SMFL
SPIL
SYFL
TRTX
TUMS
WETX
YDSP
YFMI
AQS Site Code
72-021-0006
12-103-0026
12-057-0081
17-031-3103
12-057-3002
48-453-7002
28-081-0005
48-453-7000
48-141-9001
26-163-0027
Location
San Juan, PR
Skyview in Tampa, FL
Simmons Park in Tampa, FL
Schiller Park in Chicago, IL
Sydney in Plant City, FL
Travis HS in Austin, TX
Tupelo, MS
Webberville Road in Austin,
TX
El Paso, TX
Yellow Freight in Detroit,
MI
Population
Residing Within 10
Miles of the
Monitoring Site a
Unknown
698,981
58,222
2,087,514
259,538
553,117
70,215
666,062
430,692
1,154,934
County-level Stationary Source
HAP Emissions in the 2002
NEIb
(tpy)
227
2,826
7,247
23,495
7,247
2,379
1,018
2,379
2,435
9,319
Closest National Weather
Service Station
San Juan, PR, Luis Munoz
Marin Int'l Airport
St. Petersburg-Clearwater
International Airport
Tampa Int'l Airport
O'Hare Int'l Airport
Winter Haven's Gilbert
Airport
Austin-Bergstrom Int'l
Airport
Tupelo Municipal Airport
Austin-Bergstrom Int'l
Airport
El Paso Int'l Airport
Detroit City Airport
to
I
OJ
o
a Reference: http://zipnet.htm
b Reference: EPA, 2006a.
-------
Table 2-3. Current UATMP Monitoring Sites with Past Participation
Monitoring Site
Allen Park, Detroit, MI
(APMI)
Azalea Park, St.
Petersburg, FL (AZFL)
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
Boston, MA (BOMA)
Bountiful, UT (BTUT)
Camden, NJ (CANJ)
Candor, NC (CANC)
Chester, NJ (CHNJ)
Custer, SD (CUSD)
Dearborn, Detroit, MI
(DEMI)
Dickson, TN (DITN)
Elizabeth, NJ (ELNJ)
Gandy, Tampa, FL
(GAFL)
Gary, IN (INDEM)
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999/
2000a
2001
2002
2003
2004
-------
Table 2-3. Current UATMP Monitoring Sites with Past Participation (Continued)
Monitoring Site
Grand Junction, CO
(GPCO)
Grenada, MS (GRMS)
Inter-Tribal Council,
Sault Ste. Marie, MI
(ITCMI)
Knoxville, TN (LDTN)
Madison, WI (MAWI)
New Brunswick, NJ
(NBNJ)
Northbrook, Chicago,
IL (NBIL)
Pascagoula, MS
(PGMS)
Ponca City, Site 2
(POOK)
Research Triangle Park,
NC (RTPNC)
Schiller Park, Chicago,
IL (SPIL)
Simmons Park in
Tampa, FL (SMFL)
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999/
2000a
2001
2002
2003
2004
to
OJ
to
-------
Table 2-3. Current UATMP Monitoring Sites with Past Participation (Continued)
Monitoring Site
Sioux Falls, SD (SFSD)
Skyview in Tampa, FL
(SKFL)
St. Louis, MO (S4MO)
Sydney in Plant City,
FL (SYFL)
Tupelo, MS (TUMS)
Winter Park, FL
(ORFL)
Yellow Freight,
Detroit, MI (YFMI)
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999/
2000a
2001
2002
2003
2004
to
The time period for the 1999/2000 UATMP covers October 1999 to December 2000.
-------
Table 2-4. VOC Method Detection Limits
Pollutant
Method Detection Limit (ppbv)1
Hydrocarbons
Acetylene
Acrolein
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
ซ-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
m-,p-Xylene2
o-Xylene
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.03
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
w-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
c/s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
fraซs-l,2-Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.08
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
2-34
-------
Table 2-4. VOC Method Detection Limits (Continued)
Pollutant
Method Detection Limit (ppbv)1
Halogenated Hydrocarbons (Continued)
trans -1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Dichloromethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.24
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.16
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.04
Polar Compounds
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.10
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.06
1 The MDLs in the table above represent the average MDL for each pollutant, as
the MDL varies slightly based on sample volume.
2 Because /w-xylene and^-xylene elute from the GC column at the same time, the
VOC analytical method can report only the sum of /w-xylene and^-xylene
concentrations and not concentrations of the individual compounds.
2-35
-------
Table 2-5. SNMOC Method Detection Limits
Pollutant
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
n-Butane
c/5-2-Butene
trans-2-Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
n-Decane
1-Decene
/w-Diethylbenzene
/>-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
n-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Ethane
2-Ethyl-l-butene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene
/w-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
/>-Ethyltoluene
Method Detection
Limit1
ppbC2
0.06
0.26
0.52
0.52
0.13
0.08
0.29
0.12
0.32
0.20
0.26
0.26
0.16
0.29
0.27
0.43
0.28
0.77
0.77
0.20
0.29
0.19
0.07
0.14
0.15
0.21
Pollutant
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2 -Methy Ihexane
3 -Methy Ihexane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
w-Nonane
1-Nonene
w-Octane
1-Octene
w-Pentane
1 -Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
/raซs-2-Pentene
a-Pinene
p-Pinene
Propane
w-Propylbenzene
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
Method Detection
Limit1
ppbC2
0.32
0.13
0.12
0.39
0.28
0.18
0.23
0.28
0.23
0.29
0.29
0.15
0.36
0.25
0.81
0.09
0.21
0.12
0.20
0.26
0.26
0.18
0.17
0.12
0.18
0.81
2-36
-------
Table 2-5. SNMOC Method Detection Limits (Continued)
Pollutant
n-Heptane
1-Heptene
n-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
/raซ5-2-Hexene
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene3
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methyl-l-Butene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Method Detection
Limit1
ppbC2
0.26
0.43
0.09
0.26
0.29
0.29
0.07
0.30
0.32
0.17
0.36
0.32
0.32
Pollutant
Toluene
w-Tridecane
1-Tridecene
1 ,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
w-Undecane
1-Undecene
m-,p-Xylens3
o-Xylene
Method Detection
Limit1
ppbC2
0.35
0.77
0.77
0.13
0.21
0.15
0.81
0.43
0.36
0.59
0.59
0.22
0.19
1 The MDLs in the table above represent the average MDL for each pollutant, as
the MDL varies slightly based on sample volume.
2 Concentration in ppbC = concentration in ppbv x number of carbon atoms in compound.
3 Because isobutene and 1-butene elute from the GC column at the same time, the SNMOC analytical method can
report only the sum of concentrations for these two compounds and not concentrations of the individual
compounds. For the same reason, the /w-xylene and^-xylene concentrations are reported as a sum.
2-37
-------
Table 2-6. Carbonyl Method Detection Limits
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde3
Crotonaldehyde
2,5 -Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes (p-, n-, p-)3
Valeraldehyde
Method Detection Limit (ppbv)1'2
0.013
0.008
0.003
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.016
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.004
0.003
Assumes a 1000 L sample volume.
2 The MDLs in the table above represent the average MDL for each pollutant, as the MDL
varies slightly based on sample volume.
3 Because butyraldehyde/isobutyraldehyde elute from the HPLC column at the same time, the
carbonyl analytical method can report only the sum of concentrations for these two compounds and
not concentrations of the individual compounds. For the same reason, the analytical method also
reports only the sum of concentrations for the three tolualdehydes isomers, as opposed to reporting
separate concentrations for the three individual compounds.
2-38
-------
Table 2-7. Semivolatile Organic Compound Method Detection Limits
Pollutant
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo (a,) anthracene
Benzofajpyrene
Benzof&jfluoranthene
Benzofej pyrene
Benzofg, h, /^)perylene
Benzoffcjfluoranthene
Chrysene
Coronene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Method Detection Limit1'2
Total pg/m3
0.08
0.49
0.29
0.15
0.28
0.12
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.08
0.13
0.12
0.13
0.11
0.13
0.08
0.18
0.09
0.13
1 Assumes a 200 m3 sample volume.
2 The MDLs in the table above represent the average MDL for each pollutant, as the MDL
varies slightly based on sample volume.
2-39
-------
Table 2-8. Metals Method Detection Limits
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (total Chromium)
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Method Detection Limit (ng/m3)3
47 mm Round1
0.785
0.155
0.101
0.112
0.934
0.371
0.458
0.128
0.354
1.03
0.174
8X10" Quartz2
0.0267
0.0172
0.0234
0.0179
0.172
0.0246
1.26
0.166
0.151
0.177
0.0187
1 Assumes 20 m3 volume.
2 Assumes 2000 m3 volume.
3 The MDLs in the table above represent the average MDL for each pollutant, as the MDL
varies slightly based on sample volume.
2-40
-------
Table 2-9. Sampling Schedules and Completeness
Site
APMI
AZFL
BAPR
BOMA
BTUT
CANC
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
DEMI
DITN
Monitoring
Location
Allen Park in
Detroit, MI
Azalea Park in
St. Petersburg,
FL
Barceloneta, PR
Boston, MA
Bountiful, UT
Candor, NC
Camden, NJ
Chester, NJ
CusterPark, SD
Dearborn in
Detroit, MI
Dickson, TN
Sampling Period3
Starting
Date
1/4/05
1/4/05
2/27/05
1/4/05
1/5/05
1/4/05
1/4/05
1/4/05
1/4/05
1/4/05
1/10/05
Ending
Date
11/6/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/24/05
Carbonyl
A
50
57
49
56
27
55
54
60
56
28
B
51
61
51
61
28
57
61
61
58
29
C
98
93
96
92
96
96
89
98
97
97
voc
A
30
48
55
54
50
60
52
28
B
36
51
62
57
61
61
58
29
C
83
94
89
95
82
98
90
97
Metals
A
61
60
B
61
60
C
100
100
SNMOC/TNMOC
A
56
60
B
62
61
C
90
98
svoc
A
B
C
to
a Begins with 1st valid sample and may include all five types.
b Pre-Katrina data only
A = Valid Samples
B = Total Number of Samples
C = Completeness (%)
-------
Table 2-9. Sampling Schedules and Completeness (Continued)
Site
ELNJ
ETAL
FLFL
GAFL
GPCO
GRMS
INDEM
ITCMI
LDTN
MAWI
Monitoring
Location
Elizabeth, NJ
East Thomas in
Birmingham,
AL
Davie, FL
Gandy in
Tampa, FL
Grand Junction,
CO
Grenada, MS
Gary, IN
Sault Sainte
Marie, MI
Loudon, TN
Madison, WI
Sampling Period3
Starting
Date
1/4/05
7/15/05
10/13/05
1/4/05
1/4/05
1/4/05
1/4/05
1/4/05
1/10/05
1/4/05
Ending
Date
12/29/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
5/15/05
12/30/05
9/25/05
12/24/05
12/30/05
Carbonyl
A
59
16
9
57
62
11
44
27
59
B
61
16
10
60
63
12
45
30
63
C
97
100
90
95
98
92
98
90
94
voc
A
60
16
59
11
33
27
60
B
60
16
53
12
37
30
63
C
100
100
94
92
89
90
95
Metals
A
16
30
B
16
30
C
100
100
SNMOC/TNMOC
A
B
C
svoc
A
15
38
B
17
41
C
88
93
to
.u
to
1 Begins with 1st valid sample and may include all five types.
b Pre-Katrina data only
A = Valid Samples
B = Total Number of Samples
C = Completeness (%)
-------
Table 2-9. Sampling Schedules and Completeness (Continued)
Site
MIMN
MUTX
NBAL
NBIL
NBNJ
ORFL
PCOK
PGMS
PITX
Monitoring
Location
Minneapolis,
MN
Murchison MS
in Austin, TX
North
Birmingham,
AL
Northbrook in
Chicago, IL
New
Brunswick, NJ
Winter Park, FL
Site 1 in Ponca
City, OK
Pascagoula, MS
Pickle Research
Center, Austin,
TX
Sampling Period3
Starting
Date
3/29/05
6/15/05
7/15/05
1/4/05
1/4/05
1/4/05
5/28/05
1/4/05
6/27/05
Ending
Date
12/30/05
12/24/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
7/24/05
10/l/05b
12/24/05
Carbonyl
A
40
13
14
35
58
59
15
15
B
45
16
15
40
61
60
22
16
C
89
81
93
88
95
98
68
94
voc
A
42
16
14
53
57
17
15
15
B
46
16
16
59
61
17
22
16
C
91
100
88
90
93
100
68
94
Metals
A
46
17
32
61
15
B
46
17
32
61
15
C
100
100
100
100
100
SNMOC/TNMOC
A
16
52
17
5
15
B
16
59
17
10
16
C
100
88
100
50
94
SVOC
A
16
B
17
C
94
to
a Begins with 1st valid sample and may include all five types.
b Pre-Katrina data only
A = Valid Samples
B = Total Number of Samples
C = Completeness (%)
-------
Table 2-9. Sampling Schedules and Completeness (Continued)
Site
POOK
PVAL
PJITX
RTPNC
S4MO
SFSD
SIAL
SJPR
Monitoring
Location
Site 2 in Ponca
City, OK
Providence in
Birmingham,
AL
Round Rock,
TX
Research
Triangle Park,
NC
St. Louis, MO
Sioux Falls, SD
Sloss Industries
in Birmingham,
AL
San Juan, PR
Sampling Period3
Starting
Date
5/28/05
7/15/05
6/15/05
1/4/05
1/4/05
1/4/05
7/15/05
2/27/05
Ending
Date
7/24/05
12/30/05
12/24/05
12/18/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
Carbonyl
A
15
16
27
60
59
15
40
B
15
16
28
62
62
16
51
C
100
100
96
97
95
94
78
voc
A
15
15
15
61
59
13
40
B
17
16
16
62
62
16
51
C
88
94
94
98
95
81
78
Metals
A
16
18
61
16
B
16
18
61
16
C
100
100
100
100
SNMOC/TNMOC
A
15
15
58
B
17
16
61
C
88
94
95
svoc
A
16
15
B
16
16
C
100
94
to
a Begins with 1st valid sample and may include all five types.
b Pre-Katrina data only
A = Valid Samples
B = Total Number of Samples
C = Completeness (%)
-------
Table 2-9. Sampling Schedules and Completeness (Continued)
Site
SKFL
SMFL
SPIL
SYFL
TRTX
TUMS
WETX
YFMI
YDSP
Monitoring
Location
Skyview in
Tampa, FL
Simmons Park
in Tampa, FL
Schiller Park in
Chicago, IL
Sydney in Plant
City, FL
Travis HS in
Austin, TX
Tupelo, MS
Webberville
Rd, Austin, TX
Detroit, MI
El Paso, TX
Overall
Sampling Period3
Starting
Date
1/4/05
1/28/05
1/10/05
1/4/05
7/9/05
1/4/05
6/15/05
1/4/05
3/23/05
Ending
Date
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/30/05
12/24/05
12/30/05
12/24/05
10/1/05
12/30/05
Carbonyl
A
61
56
46
59
14
37
15
1606
B
61
57
49
60
15
37
16
1699
C
100
98
94
98
93
100
94
95
voc
A
58
15
38
13
43
40
1297
B
60
15
38
16
43
42
1405
C
97
100
100
81
100
95
92
Metals
A
15
17
481
B
15
17
481
C
100
100
100
SNMOC/TNMOC
A
15
13
337
B
15
16
366
C
100
81
92
svoc
A
42
142
B
46
153
C
91
93
to
' Begins with 1st valid sample and may include all five types.
b Pre-Katrina data only
A = Valid Samples
B = Total Number of Samples
C = Completeness (%)
-------
3.0 Summary of the 2005 UATMP Data
This section summarizes the data gathered during the 2005 UATMP reporting year. A total
of 60 VOC (unlike previous years, acrolein was reported beginning in July), 15 carbonyl compounds,
19 SVOC, 80 SNMOC, and 11 metals were sampled during this program reporting year. These
pollutants are discussed in greater detail in Sections 3.1 through 3.3.
A complete presentation of the data is found in Appendices C through L. Specifically:
$ Appendix C: 2005 Summary Tables for VOC Monitoring;
$ Appendix D: 2005 Summary Tables for SNMOC Monitoring;
$ Appendix E: 2005 Summary Tables for Carbonyl Monitoring;
$ Appendix F: 2005 Summary Tables for SVOC Monitoring;
$ Appendix G: 2005 Summary Tables for Metals Monitoring;
$ Appendix H: 2005 VOC Raw Monitoring Data;
$ Appendix I: 2005 SNMOC/TNMOC Raw Monitoring Data;
$ Appendix J: 2005 Carbonyl Raw Monitoring Data;
$ Appendix K: 2005 SVOC Raw Monitoring Data; and
$ Appendix L: 2005 Metals Raw Monitoring Data.
$ Appendix M: 2005 Range of Detection Limits.
A total of 169,487 urban air toxics concentrations (including duplicate, replicate, and
collocated samples) were collected at the 47 sites for the 2005 UATMP reporting year. Forty-
one sites sampled for carbonyl compounds; 36 sites sampled for VOC; 15 sites sampled for
metals; 7 sites sampled for SNMOC; and 6 sites sampled for SVOC. Additionally, five Austin
area sites sampled for total NMOCs, using sampling methodology TO-15. These data were
analyzed on a site-specific basis and results are presented in Sections 4.0 through 22.0. Samples
from sites commissioned to the Hurricane Katrina monitoring effort account for an additional
33,932 concentrations.
3-1
-------
3.1 Data Summary Parameters
The raw data tables in Appendices H through L were uploaded into a database for air
quality statistical analysis. This section examines six different data summary parameters and
reviews the basic findings determined from the statistical analysis: 1) number of sampling
detects, 2) concentration ranges, 3) statistics, 4) risk screening, 5) non-chronic risk, and 6)
correlation.
To better understand the following sections, it is important to know how the
concentration data were treated. First, all duplicate and replicate (or collocated) samples were
averaged in order to calculate one concentration for each pollutant for each sample day at each
site. Second, m,p-xy\ene and o-xylene concentrations were summed together and are henceforth
referred to as Atotal xylenesฎ or Axylenes (total)ฎ throughout the remainder of this report, with the
exception of Table 3-1 and Table 3-4, where results are broken down into m,p-xy\ene and o-
xylene.
3.1.1 Number of Sampling Detects
Tables 3-1 through 3-5 summarize sampling detects for the VOC, carbonyl, SVOC,
SNMOC, and metal concentrations, respectively. Less than 53 percent of the pollutants sampled
were above the MDL. The percentages listed below represent the percent of samples that were
above the MDL:
$ 36.3 percent of VOC;
$ 83.6 percent of carbonyl compounds;
$ 66.2 percent of SNMOC;
$ 95.9 percent of metals; and
$ 82.6 percent of SVOC.
3-2
-------
Similar to 2004, acetaldehyde, acetone, and formaldehyde had the greatest number of detectable
values reported in samples ( 1,600), while five pollutants (1,2-dichloropropane, bromoform, 1-
decene, 1-tridecene, and propyne) had zero detects (see Tables 3-1 through 3-5).
Understanding the Units of Measure and When They are Used
In order to compare concentrations across multiple sampling methods, all concentrations
have been converted to a common unit of measure, (jug/m ). However, whenever a particular
sampling method is isolated from others, such as in Tables 3-1 through 3-5, the statistical
parameters are presented in the units of measure associated with the particular sampling
method. It is important to pay very close attention to the unit of measure associated with each
analysis discussed in this section of the report.
3.1.2 Concentration Range
As a means of comparing concentrations for all pollutant types, all concentrations were
converted to |ig/m3. Approximately 72 percent of the detects had concentration values less than
1 jug/m3, less than 4 percent had concentrations greater than 5 jug/m3. VOC were observed in the
highest number of samples with concentrations greater than 5 jug/m3 (1,215); carbonyl
compounds were observed the least (563); and SVOC and metals measured no concentrations
greater than 5 jug/m3. At least one pollutant sampled had a concentration greater than 5 jug/m3 on
93 of 128 total sampling days. Forty-seven of the pollutants monitored never exceeded 1 jug/m3.
Twenty-two sites had maximum concentration values over 100 jug/m3. BTUT had the greatest
number of detects (5,283), as well as the greatest number of samples with concentrations greater
than 5 jug/m3 (353). The minimum and maximum concentration measured for each pollutant is
also presented in Tables 3-1 through 3-5 (in respective pollutant group units).
3.1.3 Statistics
In addition to the number of detects and the concentrations ranges, Tables 3-1 through 3-5
also present a number of central tendency and data distribution statistics (arithmetic mean,
geometric mean, median, mode, first and third quartiles, standard deviation, and coefficient of
variation) for each of the pollutants sampled for during the 2005 UATMP by respective pollutant
group units.
3-3
-------
The Top 3 VOCs by average mass concentration as presented in Table 3-1 are acetonitrile
(34.93 ppbv), acetylene (1.35 ppbv), and methyl ethyl ketone (1.22 ppbv). The Top 3 carbonyl
compounds by mass concentration, as presented in Table 3-2, are formaldehyde (5.18 ppbv),
acetaldehyde (1.33 ppbv), and acetone (0.87 ppbv). The Top 3 SVOC by mass concentration, as
presented in Table 3-3, are naphthalene (161.22 ng/m3), phenanthrene (22.82 ng/m3), and
fluorene (9.90 ng/m3). The Top 3 SNMOC by mass concentration, as presented in Table 3-4, are
propane (17.53 ppbC), w-butane (11.12 ppbC), and ethane (10.68 ppbC). Among the metals, the
Top 3 pollutants for both PM10 and TSP fractions are manganese (TSP = 24.74 ng/m3, PMi0 =
9.81 ng/m3), lead (TSP= 8.48 ng/m3, PMi0= 7.48 ng/m3), and chromium (TSP = 3.54 ng/m3,
PMio= 2.06 ng/m3).
3.1.4 Pollutants of Interest
Each year, a subset of pollutants is selected for further analyses (previously called
"prevalent compounds"). In UATMPs prior to 2003, this subset was based on frequency and
magnitude of concentrations. Since the 2003 UATMP, risk-based calculations were used to
determine these pollutants. For the 2005 UATMP, the pollutants of interest are also based on
risk potential, but the manner of identifying this subset has changed. For the 2005 UATMP, the
following approach was used to determine the pollutants of interest:
1. The individual xylene concentrations (o-, m-, and/?-) were summed together for
each measurement day. For instances where a pollutant is measured by two
separate methods, such as benzene with VOC and SNMOC methods, the two
concentrations were averaged together. The purpose of this is to have one
concentration per pollutant per day per site. The exception to this is the metals.
One site, NBAL, sampled metals with both PM10 and TSP methods. These were
reviewed separately.
2. Each 24-hour speciated measurement was compared against a screening value, as
compiled by an EPA risk screening guidance document (EPA, 2006b). The
purpose of this guidance is to provide a risk-based methodology for performing an
initial screen of ambient air toxics monitoring data sets. It's important to note that
not all UATMP pollutants have screening values. Concentrations that are greater
than the screening value are described as "failing the screen."
3. The number of failed screens was summed for each applicable pollutant.
3-4
-------
4. A total of 9,162 of 17,020 applicable concentrations (53.8%) failed the screen.
The percent contribution of the number of failed screens was calculated for each
applicable pollutant. The number of each metals failures were summed together.
5. The pollutants contributing to the Top 95% of the total failed screens were
identified as pollutants of interest.
Table 3-6 identifies all of the pollutants that failed screens at least once, and summarizes
the total number of detects, percentage failed, and percentage contributions. The program-wide
pollutants of interest are as follows:
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
Manganese
Nickel
Tetrachloroethylene
Total Xylenes
As mentioned in Section 2.5.1, there is currently some question about the reliability of the
acetonitrile data. Therefore, acetonitrile results were excluded from the "pollutants of interest"
designation and analysis. It is also important to note that chromium was also excluded from this
analysis due to problems with filter contamination.
Readers interested in closer examination of data trends for the other pollutants measured
by the program should refer to the summary tables in Appendices C through G, and the raw
monitoring data in Appendices H through L. However, readers should note the limitations posed
by data sets with many nondetect observations.
3-5
-------
3.1.5 Non-Chronic Risk
In addition to the risk screening described above, non-chronic risk was also evaluated
using the ATSDR acute and intermediate minimal risk (MRL) factors and California EPA acute
reference exposure limit (REL) factors (ATSDR, 2005; CARB, 2005). Acute risk is defined as
exposures from 1 to 14 days while intermediate risk is defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days.
It is useful to compare daily measurements to the short-term MRL and REL factors, as well as
compare seasonal averages to the intermediate MRL. The daily average of a particular pollutant
is simply the average concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each
season, then a seasonal average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs
substituted for all non-detects. It should be noted that the substitution of 1/2 MDLs for non-
detects may have a significant impact on pollutants that are rarely detected at or above the
detection limit and/or have a relatively high MDL. A seasonal average will not be calculated for
pollutants with less than seven detects in a respective season. The spring season included
concentrations from March, April, and May; summer includes June, July, and August; autumn
includes September, October, and November; and winter includes January, February, and
December. This analysis is still based on site-specific concentrations, but has been summed to
the program-level.
Table 3-7 presents a summary of the program-wide acute risk analysis. Acrolein,
formaldehyde, and benzene were the only pollutants with least one concentration exceeding the
ATSDR and/or CalEPA risk factors. There were 30 exceedances of the ATSDR MRL for
formaldehyde, but only 22 exceedances of the CalEPA REL. The ATSDR MRL is nearly half
the CalEPA REL for formaldehyde (0.49 jug/m3 vs. 0.94 //g/m3, respectively). There were 283
exceedances of the ATSDR MRL for acrolein, and 279 exceedances of the CalEPA REL. The
ATSDR MRL and the CalEPA REL for acrolein are more similar (0.11 jug/m3 vs. 0.19 //g/m3,
respectively). Interestingly, every detect of acrolein during the 2005 UATMP was greater than
0.11 jug/m3. Two concentrations of benzene, out of over 1300 detects, exceeded the ATSDR
MRL. Benzene does not have a CalEPA acute risk factor. Exceedances of the acute risk factors
will be discussed in further detail in Sections 4 through 22.
3-6
-------
Also presented in Table 3-7 is a summary of the program-wide intermediate risk analysis.
Only two seasonal averages of formaldehyde, both occurring during the summer season,
exceeded the ATSDR intermediate MRL (40 jug/m3). Nine seasonal acrolein averages exceeded
the ATSDR intermediate MRL (0.09 //g/m3). It is important to note that acrolein, as discussed in
Section 3.0, was not sampled for until July, therefore, spring concentrations are not available.
Additionally, based on the above definition of a seasonal average, winter and summer averages
could not be calculated. A more complete picture of intermediate acrolein risk may be available
in future UATMPs. Benzene does not have an intermediate risk factor, therefore, intermediate
risk cannot be evaluated. Exceedances of the intermediate risk factors will also be discussed in
further detail in Sections 4 through 22.
3.1.6 Pearson Correlations
This report uses Pearson correlation coefficients to measure the degree of correlation
between two variables. By definition, Pearson correlation coefficients always lie between -1 and
+1. Three qualification statements may be made:
A correlation coefficient of-1 indicates a perfectly Anegativeฎ relationship,
indicating that increases in the magnitude of one variable are associated with
proportionate decreases in the magnitude of the other variable, and vice versa;
A correlation coefficient of+1 indicates a perfectly Apositiveฎ relationship,
indicating that the magnitudes of two variables both increase and both decrease
proportionately.
Data that are completely uncorrelated have Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.
Therefore, the sign (positive or negative) and magnitude of the Pearson correlation coefficient
indicate the direction and strength, respectively, of data correlations. Generally, correlations
greater than 0.75 or less than -0.75 are classified as very strong; correlation between 0.50 and
0.75 and -0.50 and -0.75 are classified as strong; and correlations between 0.25 and 0.50 and
-0.25 and -0.50 are classified as moderately strong. Correlations between -0.25 and 0.25 are
classified as weak.
3-7
-------
When calculating correlations among the UATMP data, several measures were taken to
identify spurious correlations and to avoid introducing bias to the correlations:
$ Data correlations were calculated only for the program-wide pollutants of interest
listed in this report.
$ Correlations were calculated from the processed UATMP monitoring database in
which each pollutant has just one numerical concentration for each successful
sampling date. Non-detects (and their substituted value) were not included in this
analysis.
Ambient air concentration tendencies often correlate favorably with ambient
meteorological observations. The following three sections summarize how each of the pollutants
of interest's concentrations correlated with eight meteorological parameters: maximum daily
temperature; average daily temperature; average daily dew point temperature; average daily wet
bulb temperature; average daily relative humidity; average daily sea level pressure; and average
wind information.
3.1.6.1 Maximum and Average Temperature
Temperature is often a factor in high ambient air concentrations for some pollutants, such
as ozone. Temperature helps speed up the kinetics as pollutants react with each other.
According to Table 3-8, the program-wide pollutants of interest had mostly weak correlations
with maximum temperature and average temperature. Acrolein exhibited the strongest positive
correlation with maximum temperature (0.42) and average temperature (0.41), while nickel
(PMio) exhibited the strongest negative correlation with maximum and average temperature
(-0.32 and -0.31, respectively). It should be noted that, although the correlations shown in
Table 3-8 are low, they are mostly positive, which indicates that an increase in temperature is
associated with a proportionate increase in concentration.
The poor correlation across the majority of the sites is not surprising due to the complex
and diverse local meteorology associated with the monitoring sites. For this report, 47 sites are
spread across 19 states. As discussed in Sections 4 through 22, the temperature parameters
correlate much better at certain individual sites.
3-8
-------
3.1.6.2 Moisture
Three moisture parameters were used in this study for correlation with the pollutants of
interest. The dew point temperature is the temperature to which moist air must be cooled to
reach saturation with respect to water. The wet-bulb temperature is the temperature to which
moist air must be cooled by evaporating water into it at constant pressure until saturation is
reached. The relative humidity is the ratio of the mixing ratio to its saturation value at the same
temperature and pressure (Rogers and Yau, 1989). All three of these parameters provide an
indication of how much moisture is presently in the air. Higher dew point and wet bulb
temperatures indicate increasing amounts of moisture in the air, while relative humidity is
expressed as a percentage with 100 percent indicating saturation. It should be noted that a high
dew point and wet bulb temperature do not necessarily equate to a relative humidity near 100%,
nor does a relative humidity near 100 percent equate to a high dew point or wet bulb temperature.
As illustrated in Table 3-8, the three moisture parameters had mostly weak correlations
with the pollutants of interest. Again, acrolein and nickel (PMio) had the strongest correlations
with dew point and wet bulb temperatures. The strongest correlation with relative humidity was
calculated for 1,3-butadiene and nickel (TSP), both -0.13. The sites participating in the 2005
program year were located in different climatic zones ranging from a desert climate (west Texas)
to a very moist climate (Florida and Puerto Rico). As discussed in Sections 4 through 22, the
moisture parameters correlate much better at certain individual sites.
3.1.6.3 Wind and Pressure Information
Surface wind observations include two primary components: wind speed and wind
direction. Wind speed, by itself, is a scalar value and is usually measured in nautical miles or
knots (1 knot = 0.5 meters per second =1.15 miles per hour). Wind direction describes where
the wind is coming from, and is measured in degrees where 0ป *is from the north, 90* *is from the
east, 180* ปis from the south, and 270* ปis from the west. Together, the wind speed and wind
direction are described as a vector, and the hourly values can now be averaged.
3-9
-------
The M-component of the wind is the vector value traveling along the x-axis in a Cartesian
grid coordinate system. The u-component is calculated as follows:
M-component = -1* (wind speed) * sin(wind direction, degrees)
Similarly, the v-component of the wind is the vector value traveling along the y-axis in a
Cartesian grid coordinate system. The v-component is calculated as follows:
v-component = -1* (wind speed) * cos(wind direction, degrees)
Using the u- and v-components of the wind allows averaging and correlation analyses with the
measured concentrations.
As shown in Table 3-8, the u- and v-components of the wind have very weak correlations
with the pollutants of interest across all sites, which is consistent with the temperature and
moisture parameter observations. Geographical features such as mountains or valleys influence
wind speed and wind direction. The sites used for sampling in the 2005 program year are located
in different geographic zones ranging from a mountainous region (Colorado) to a plains region
(South Dakota). Additionally, sites located downwind may correlate better with the measured
concentrations than sites upwind. Acrolein concentrations had the strongest correlation with the
M-component of the wind (-0.23), as well as the strongest correlation with the v-component of the
wind speed (0.19). As discussed in Sections 4.0 through 22.0, the u- and v-components correlate
much better at certain individual sites.
Wind is created through changes in pressure. The magnitude of the pressure difference
(or pressure gradient) over an area is directly proportional to the magnitude of the wind speed.
The direction of the wind flow is governed by the direction of the pressure gradient. Sea level
pressure is the local station pressure corrected for elevation, in effect bringing all geographic
locations down to sea-level, thus making different topographical areas comparable. Overall, sea
3-10
-------
level pressure correlated weakly with ambient concentrations. The strongest correlations
occurred with acrolein (-0.40) and formaldehyde (-0.33).
3.2 Additional Analyses of the 2005 UATMP
This section provides a summary of additional analyses performed on the 2005 UATMP
dataset and discusses their results. Additional program-wide analyses include an examination
into the impact of motor vehicles and a review of how concentrations vary among the sites
themselves and from season to season.
3.2.1 The Impact of Mobile Source Emissions on Spatial Variations
Mobile source emissions from motor vehicles contribute significantly to air pollution in
urban environments. Pollutants found in motor vehicle exhaust generally result from incomplete
combustion of vehicle fuels. Although modern vehicles and, more recently, vehicle fuels have
been engineered to minimize air emissions, all motor vehicles with internal combustion engines
emit a wide range of chemical pollutants. The magnitude of these emissions in urban areas
primarily depends on the volume of traffic, while the chemical profile of these emissions depends
more on vehicle design and fuel content. This report uses four parameters to evaluate the impact
of motor vehicle emissions on ambient air quality:
$ Estimated motor vehicle ownership data;
$ BTEX concentration profiles;
$ Estimated daily traffic estimates; and
$ Mobile source tracer analysis.
3.2.1.1 Motor Vehicle Ownership Data
As an indicator of motor vehicle emissions near the UATMP monitoring sites, Table 3-9
presents estimates of the number of vehicles owned by residents in the county in which the
monitoring site is located. Where possible, actual county-level vehicle registration was obtained
from the state or local agency. If data were not available, vehicle registration data are available
at the state-level (EIA, 2005). Then the county proportion of the state population was applied to
3-11
-------
the state registration count. For each UATMP county, a vehicle registration to population ratio
was developed. Each ratio was then applied to the 10-mile populations surrounding the monitors
(from Table 2-3). These estimated values are discussed in the individual state sections.
For purposes of comparison, both 10-mile motor vehicle ownership data and the
arithmetic mean of hydrocarbons are presented in Table 3-9 and Figure 3-1. The data in the table
and figure indicate a very slight positive linear correlation between motor vehicle ownership and
ambient air concentrations of hydrocarbons. A Pearson correlation calculation from this data
yields a weak positive correlation (0.14), where less than 0.25 is considered weak. However,
readers should keep in mind other factors that might impact the reliability of motor vehicle
ownership data as an indicator of ambient air monitoring data results:
$ Estimates of higher car ownership surrounding a monitoring site do not
necessarily imply increased motor vehicle use in the immediate vicinity of a
monitoring site. Conversely, sparsely populated regions often contain heavily
traveled roadways.
$ Emissions sources in the area other than motor vehicles may significantly affect
levels of hydrocarbons in the ambient air.
3.2.1.2 Estimated Traffic Data
When a site is being characterized, a parameter often recorded is the number of vehicles
that pass the monitoring site on a daily basis. Traffic data were obtained from the site
information provided on EPA=s Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) database, or by contacting state
and local agencies. Table 3-9 contains the estimated daily traffic values, as well as county-level
on-road and non-road HAP (hazardous air pollutant) emissions.
The highest traffic volume occurred at the SPIL and ELNJ sites, with over 214,900 and
170,000 vehicles passing by these monitoring sites, respectively. SPIL is located near Interstate
294 near the Chicago-OHare International Airport, and ELNJ is located near Exit 13 on
Interstate 95. The average hydrocarbon (total) value at ELNJ was 8.05 ppbv, which is ranked 6th
among sites that measured hydrocarbons. ETAL, PCOK, NBAL, SIAL, and WETX each had
3-12
-------
average hydrocarbon concentrations greater than ELNJ, yet their traffic counts are ranked 14th,
30th, 41st, 39th, and 32nd highest, respectively. At SPIL, the average hydrocarbon (total) value was
only 4.09 ppbv, which ranked 24th. Specific characterizations for these sites appear in the
separate state sections.
Estimated on-road county emissions were highest in Wayne County, MI, which is the
location of three UATMP sites (APMI, DEMI, and YFMI). The hydrocarbon averages for the
sites in Wayne County, MI were fairly different from one another (6.13 ppbv at APMI; 4.90 ppbv
at DEMI; and 7.25 ppbv at YFMI), where YFMI, with the highest average hydrocarbon
concentration of the Wayne County sites, ranked 9th highest among all UATMP sites for 2005.
Estimated non-road county emissions were highest in Cook County, IL. Non-road emission
sources include, but are not limited to, activities from airplanes, construction vehicles, and lawn
and garden equipment. As shown in Figure 3-2, there does not appear to be a direct correlation
between traffic counts and average hydrocarbon concentrations. The calculated Pearson
correlation was only -0.06, indicating a very weak relationship. Please refer to Table 3-9 and
Figure 3-2 for a more detailed look at mobile source emissions and average hydrocarbon
concentrations.
3.2.1.3 Mobile Source Tracer Analysis
Research has shown that acetylene can be used as a signature compound for automotive
emissions (Warneck, 1988; NRC, 1991), as this VOC is not typically emitted from biogenic or
stationary sources. As summarized in Table 3-9, many UATMP sites are located in high traffic
areas (e.g., ELNJ and SPIL). Average acetylene concentrations at each site are also summarized
in Table 3-9. As presented in Figure 3-3, there does not appear to be a direct correlation with
daily traffic and acetylene concentrations. The calculated Pearson correlation was less than 0.01,
indicating a very weak relationship. This observation might suggest that the site traffic counts
may need to be updated, as many were recorded ten or more year ago.
Nearly all emissions of ethylene are due to automotive sources, with the exception of
activities related to natural gas production and transmission. Ethylene is not detected as a VOC
by the TO-15 sampling method, but is detected using the SNMOC method. For sites that chose
3-13
-------
the SNMOC option, ethylene to acetylene concentration ratios were computed and compared to a
ratio developed in numerous tunnel studies, and are presented in Table 3-10. An ethylene to
acetylene ratio of 1.7 to 1 is indicative of mobile sources (TNRCC, 2002). Of the sites that
sampled SNMOC, NBIL=s ethylene to acetylene ratio was the closest to the expected 1.7 to 1
ratio (1.77 to 1). These results are discussed further in the individual state sections.
3.2.1.4 BTEX Concentration Profiles
The magnitude of emissions from motor vehicles generally depends on the volume of
traffic in urban areas, but the composition of these emissions depends more on vehicle design.
Because the distribution of vehicle designs (i.e., the relative number of motor vehicles of
different styles) is probably quite similar from one urban area to the next, the composition of air
pollution resulting from motor vehicle emissions is not expected to exhibit significant spatial
variations. In support of this hypothesis, previous air monitoring studies have observed relatively
constant composition of ambient air samples collected along heavily traveled urban roadways
(Conner et al., 1995). Roadside studies have found particularly consistent proportions of four
hydrocarbons (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and the xylene isomers - the ABTEXฎ compounds)
both in motor vehicle exhaust and in ambient air near roadways.
To examine the impact of motor vehicle emissions on air quality at the 2005 UATMP
monitoring sites, Table 3-11 and Figure 3-4 compare concentration ratios for the BTEX
compounds measured during the 2005 UATMP to the ratios reported in a roadside study (Conner
et al., 1995). This comparison provides a qualitative depiction of how greatly motor vehicle
emissions affect air quality at the UATMP monitoring sites: the more similar the concentration
ratios at a particular monitoring site are to those of the roadside study, the more likely that motor
vehicle emissions impact ambient levels of hydrocarbons at that location.
As presented in Figure 3-4, the concentration ratios for BTEX compounds measured at
most UATMP monitoring sites bear some resemblance to the ratios reported in the roadside
study. The BTEX ratios at the BAPR monitoring site appear to be the most similar to the
roadside study profile. For all monitoring sites, the toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is the largest of
the four ratios, with the exceptions of ITCMI, SIAL, and YFMI. The benzene-ethylbenzene ratio
3-14
-------
is the smallest of the four ratios at 16 sites, while the xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio is the smallest at
18 sites. These observations suggest, though certainly do not prove, that emissions from motor
vehicles significantly affect levels of hydrocarbons in urban ambient air.
3.2.2 Variability Analysis
Two types of variability are analyzed for this report. The first type examines the
coefficient of variation analysis for each of the pollutants of interest across the UATMP sites.
Seasonal variability is the second type of variability analyzed in this report. The UATMP
concentration data were divided into the four seasons, as described in Section 3.1.5.
3.2.2.1 Coefficient of Variation
Figures 3-5 to 3-20 are graphical displays of site standard deviation versus average
concentration. This analysis is best suited for comparing variability across data distributions for
different sites and pollutants. Most of the pollutants of interest are either in a cluster (such as
formaldehyde and tetrachloroethylene), exhibit a positive linear correlation (such as 1,3-
butadiene and total xylenes), or are spread randomly (such as carbon tetrachloride). The
coefficient of variation provides a relative measure of variability by expressing variations to the
magnitude of the arithmetic mean.
3.2.2.2 Seasonal Variability Analysis
Figures 3-21 to 3-36 provide a graphical display of the average concentrations by season
for the pollutants of interest. Recall how seasonal averages are calculated based on criteria
specified in Section 3.1.5.
Many of the pollutants of interest, such as 1,3-butadiene, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, p-
dichlorobenzene, and tetrachloroethylene, were detected frequently in some seasons but not often
in others. As a result of the seasonal average criteria, there are gaps in the figures for these
pollutants for certain seasons. For example, Figure 3-12 shows that very few spring and winter
averages are available, indicating that 1,3-butadiene is infrequently measured above the detection
level in these seasons.
3-15
-------
Other pollutants of interest, such as formaldehyde, benzene, and acetaldehyde, were
detected year round. Comparing the seasonal averages for the sites with four valid seasonal
averages often reveals a trend for these pollutants. For example, formaldehyde averages tended
to be higher in the summer, as shown in Figure 3-28, while benzene averages tended to be higher
in the winter, as shown in Figure 3-26. Other pollutants, such as acetaldehyde, do not exhibit as
strong a trend.
Of the sites that sampled metals, most are located in Alabama and Texas. Unfortunately,
these sites did not begin sampling until the summer, so only one or two seasonal averages are
available. On a program-level, the same is true of acrolein as sampling began in the summer.
Therefore, seasonal trends are only available for a small sample of sites, which makes a seasonal
pattern difficult to discern at this time.
3.3 Additional Site-Specific Analyses
In addition to the analyses described in the preceding sections, the state-specific sections
(4.0 through 22.0) contain additional analyses that do not lend themselves to review at a broader
(program-wide) level. This section provides an overview of these analyses but does not discuss
their results.
3.3.1 Emission Tracer Analysis
In this analysis, pollution roses for each of the pollutants of interest that exceeded the
acute risk factors were created to help identify the geographical area where the emission sources
of these pollutants may have originated. A pollution rose is a plot of the ambient concentration
versus the unit vector of the wind direction; high concentrations are shown in relation to the
direction of potential emissions sources.
3-16
-------
3.3.2 Back Trajectory Analysis
A back trajectory analysis traces the origin of an air parcel in relation to the location
where it is currently being measured. The method of constructing a back trajectory uses the
Lagrangian frame of reference. In simplest terms, an air parcel can be traced back one hour to a
new point of reference based on the current measured wind speed and direction. At this new
point of reference that is now one hour prior to the current observation, the wind speed and
direction are used again to determine where the air was one hour before. Each time segment is
referred to as a Atime step.ฎ Typical back trajectories go 24 to 48 hours prior using surface and
upper air meteorological observations. Back trajectory calculations are also governed by other
meteorological parameters, such as pressure and temperature.
Gridded meteorological data and the model used for back trajectory analyses were
prepared and developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The
model used is the Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT). More
information on the model can be found at http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html. The
meteorological data represented the 2005 sampling year. Back trajectories were computed
24 hours prior to the sampling day (to match the 24-hour sample), and composite back trajectory
maps were constructed for sampling days using GIS software. The value of the composite back
trajectory maps is the determination of an airshed domain for air originating 24 hours prior to a
sampling day. Agencies can use the airshed domain to evaluate regions where long-range
transport may affect their monitoring site.
3.3.3 Wind Rose Analysis
In this analysis, wind roses were constructed for each site to help identify the predominant
direction from which the wind blows. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions about
a 16-point compass, and uses color or shading to represent wind speeds. Wind roses are
constructed by uploading hourly wind data from the nearest weather station into a wind rose
software program, WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006). A wind rose is often used in determining where to
put an ambient monitoring site when trying to capture emissions from an upwind source. A wind
rose may also be useful in determining whether high concentrations correlate with a specific
3-17
-------
wind direction. While the composite back trajectory maps show where a parcel of air originated
from on a number of days, the wind rose shows the frequency at which wind speed and direction
are measured near the monitoring site. In other words, the back trajectory map focuses on long
range transport, while the wind rose captures day to day fluctuations. Both are used to "capture"
meteorological influences at the monitoring sites.
3.3.4 Site Trends Analysis
Table 2-1 presented past UATMP participation for sites participating in this year=s
program. For sites that participated prior to 2004 and are still participants through the 2005
program year, a trends analysis was conducted. The trends analyzed are daily averages (refer to
the definitions in Section 3.1.5) at each site for three pollutants: 1,3-butadiene, benzene, and
formaldehyde. These daily averages are presented in the form of bar graphs. New to the site
trends graphs this year is the confidence interval, represented by error bars extending from the
top of each bar graph. The purpose of the confidence interval is to show the statistical
significance of the relative increases or decreases shown over the years of participation.
Although the average concentration for a particular year may appear to be much lower (or higher)
than another year, if the confidence intervals overlap, the difference is not statistically significant.
A large confidence interval correlates to a low confidence in a specific statistical parameter, in
this case the daily average, and may indicate the presence of a few outliers driving the daily
average in one direction or another.
At sites where all three pollutants were sampled, formaldehyde consistently measured the
highest daily average concentration at all sites of the sites with at least 3 consecutive years of
sampling, while 1,3-butadiene, with few exceptions, consistently measured the lowest. The site
with the most years of participation is CANJ, having sampled consistently since 1994. It is
important to note that not all sites sample the same pollutant types, therefore all three pollutants
may not be represented for all years of participation.
3-18
-------
3.3.5 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
In February 2006, the US EPA released the results of its national-scale air toxics
assessment, NATA, for base year 1999 (EPA, 2006c). NATA uses the National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as its starting point, but also incorporates
ambient monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation
information to model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimates (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. The national-scale air toxics
assessment (NATA) is a useful resource in helping federal and state/local/tribal agencies identify
potential areas of air quality concern.
Several of the program-wide pollutants of interest are HAPs that have been identified as
NATA risk driver pollutants (US EPA, 2006c): acrolein (national noncancer); arsenic (regional
cancer and noncancer); benzene (national cancer); 1,3-butadiene (regional cancer and
noncancer); carbon tetrachloride (regional cancer); formaldehyde (regional noncancer);
manganese (regional noncancer); nickel (regional noncancer); and tetrachloroethylene (regional
cancer).
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this analysis. First, in
sections 4.0 through 22.0, each site's respective census tract is identified and the percent of the
home county population that resides in said census tract is calculated. Then the cancer and
noncancer risk associated with the pollutants that "failed" screens (refer to Section 3.1.4) at each
site is presented and discussed. Finally, an annual average, if available, is presented for
comparison to the 1999 NATA modeled concentrations. NATA-modeled concentrations are
assumed to be the average concentration that a person breathed for an entire year. An annual
average is the average concentration of all detects and 1/2 MDL substituted values for non-
detects. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no earlier than November. Although EPA does not recommend
comparing concentrations from different base years, it is useful to see if the concentration profile
is similar.
3-19
-------
Figure 3-1. Comparison of Average Hydrocarbon Concentration vs. 10-Mile Vehicle Registration
to
o
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
c 1,200,000
.o
'
ง> 1,000,000
a:
_0>
.0
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
6 8 10 12
Average Hydrocarbon Concentration (ppbv)
14
16
-------
Figure 3-2. Comparison of Average Hydrocarbon Concentration vs. Daily Traffic Counts
to
250,000
200,000
150,000
ซ 100,000
50,000
6 8 10
Average Hydrocarbon Concentration (ppbv)
12
14
16
-------
Figure 3-3. Comparison of Average Acetylene Concentration vs. Daily Traffic Counts
to
to
250,000
200,000
150,000
u
ซ 100,000
50,000
* ซ!.
* *,
3456
Average Acetylene Concentration (ppbv)
-------
Figure 3-4. Comparison of Concentration Ratios for BTEX Compounds vs. Roadside Study
to
o
0)
u
O
o
DITN s toluene-
ethylbenzene ratio
is 22.06
Roadside APMI
BAPR BTUT CANJ CHNJ CUSD DEMI
Monitoring Location
DITN
ELNJ
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
I Toluene-Ethylbenzene
DXylenes-Ethylbenzene
-------
16
12
Figure 3-4. Comparison of Concentration Ratios for BTEX Compounds vs. Roadside Study (Continued)
to
o
0)
u
o
o
~h
Roadside ETAL GPCO
GRMS ITCMI LDTN
Monitoring Location
MAWI
MIMN
MUTX
NBAL
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
I Toluene-Ethylbenzene
DXylenes-Ethylbenzene
-------
Figure 3-4. Comparison of Concentration Ratios for BTEX Compounds vs. Roadside Study (Continued)
to
o
0)
u
o
o
Roadside NBIL
NBNJ PCOK PGMS PITX
Monitoring Location
POOK
PVAL
RRTX
S4MO
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
I Toluene-Ethylbenzene
DXylenes-Ethylbenzene
-------
Figure 3-4. Comparison of Concentration Ratios for BTEX Compounds vs. Roadside Study (Continued)
16
OJ
to
12
O
I
O
O
YFMI's benzene-
ethylbenzene ratio
is 19.12
Roadside SFSD
SIAL SJPR SPIL TRTX TUMS WETX YDSP YFMI
Monitoring Location
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
I Toluene-Ethylbenzene
DXylenes-Ethylbenzene
-------
to
0.35
0.3
0.25
o
0)
Q
0.1
0.05
Figure 3-5. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of 1, 3-Butadiene Across 35 Sites
*
0.05 0.1
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Average Concentration (|jg/m3)
0.35 0.4 0.45
-------
Figure 3-6. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Acetaldehyde Across 41 Sites
to
oo
,o
'^
.2
0)
Q
TO
o
3 4
Average Concentration (|jg/m3)
-------
Figure 3-7. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Acetonitrile Across 35 Sites
to
VO
7 T
o
-E 4
.2
0)
Q
TO
1 3
4567
Average Concentration (|jg/m3)
10
-------
12 T-
Figure 3-8. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Benzene Across 36 Sites
10
TO
5
TO
T3
* *
Average Concentration ((jg/m )
-------
Figure 3-9. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Carbon Tetrachloride Across 36 Sites
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0)
Q
TO
o
0.2
0.15
-* **
0.1
ป ^ ป
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5
Average Concentration (|jg/m3)
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
-------
Figure 3-10. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Formaldehyde Across 41 Sites
to
100
90
80
70
.2
0)
Q
TO
o
50
I 40
30
20
10
10
20
30 40 50
Average Concentration (|jg/m3)
60
70
80
-------
Figure 3-11. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Hexachloro-l,3-Butadiene Across 31 Sites
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
J
.2 0.1
i
TO
a 0.08
CO
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.1 0.15
Average Concentration (|jg/m3)
0.2
0.25
-------
Figure 3-12. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of />-Dichlorobenzene Across 35 Sites
.2
0)
Q
TO
o
ซ?ซ"ป ป t
0.2
0.4
0.6 0.8
Average Concentration (|jg/m3)
1.2
1.4
-------
Figure 3-13. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Tetrachloroethylene Across 35 Sites
30
25
20
o
'i
i
I
15
10
8 10 12
Average Concentration (|jg/m3)
14
16
18
20
-------
30
25
Figure 3-14. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Xylene Across 36 Sites
20
0)
TO
o
10
ป
8 10 12
Average Concentration (|jg/m3)
14 16 18 20
-------
Figure 3-15. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Arsenic-PMio Across 8 Sites
0.005
0.0045
0.004
0.0035
0.003
I
TO
C
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
Average Concentration (|jg/m )
-------
0.03
0.025
Figure 3-16. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Manganese-PMio Across 8 Sites
0.02
oo
0)
Q
TO
o
0.015
0.01
0.005
*
0.005
0.01
0.015 0.02 0.025
Average Concentration (|jg/m3)
0.03
0.035
0.04
-------
Figure 3-17. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Nickel-PMio Across 8 Sites
VO
0.0025 -1
0.002 -
ง 0.0015
5
Q
TO
T3
55 o.ooi -
0.0005 -
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
Average Concentration (\iglm )
-------
Figure 3-18. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Arsenic-TSP Across 8 Sites
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0)
Q
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
* *
0.001
0.002 0.003 0.004
Average Concentration (|jg/m3)
0.005
0.006
-------
Figure 3-19. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Manganese-TSP Across 8 Sites
0.16
0.14
0.12
o
't-f
TO
'ง>
Q
TO
T3
I
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Average Concentration
-------
Figure 3-20. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Nickel-TSP Across 8 Sites
to
0.0045
0.004
0.0035
0.003
0.0025
0)
Q
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0.0005 0.001
0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
Average Concentration (|jg/m3)
0.0035 0.004 0.0045
-------
Figure 3-21a. Comparison of Average Seasonal 1,3-Butadiene Concentration by Season
0.35
0.3
E
1 0.25
o
0.2
0)
u
o
o
TO
g 0.15
i/)
TO
(1)
CO
0)
g 0.1
0)
0.05
0
APMI BAPR BTUT CANJ CHNJ CUSD DEMI ELNJ ETAL GPCO LDTN MAWI MIMN MUTX NBIL
Monitoring Site
1 SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-21b. Comparison of Average Seasonal 1,3-Butadiene Concentration by Season (Continued)
0.45
0.4
J- 0.35
"3)
g 0.3
ง 0.25
o
O
1 0.2
o
i/)
TO
0)
"2 0.15
O)
ro
< 0.1
0.05
J_L
NBNJ PCOK PITX POOK RRTX S4MO SFSD SJPR SPIL TRTX TUMS WETX YDSP YFMI
Monitoring Site
] SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-22a. Comparison of Average Seasonal Acetaldehyde Concentration by Season
Q LU
Monitoring Site
I SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-22b. Comparison of Average Seasonal Acetaldehyde Concentration by Season (Continued)
\ฃ.
m
"I
"3)
= Q
oncentratic
n c
O ซ
0
n
m ^
Average !
o -i
in
m
-
2
Q
3
*
5
^
Li
Q
r
J
X
\
>
Q
/
n
< H
> Q
/
X
|
U
o c
ฃ ;
)
>
F
-
C
ซ
Li
1
)
<
(J
J
5
i n n iT
nr 'Ml
a: i i i i x u) x
a:
Monitoring Site
] SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-23. Comparison of Average Seasonal Acrolein Concentration by Season
"3)
ง 4
I
o
o
o
in
TO
0)
W
o
O)
2
0)
BTUT CHNJ CUSD GPCO MIMN MUTX
Monitoring Site
NBNJ
SPIL
TUMS
I SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-24. Average Seasonal Arsenic PMio Concentration Comparison by Season
oo
0.005
0.0045
0.004
a o.
c
ฃ 0.003
I
o o
o u-
"55
I <
0)
CO
S> 0.0015
0)
"* 0.001
0.0005
BOMA
MUTX
NBAL
PITX RRTX
Monitoring Site
S4MO
TRTX
WETX
D SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-25. Comparison of Average Seasonal Arsenic TSP Concentration by Season
VO
0.008
0.007
E 0.006
O)
c
0.005
I
ฐ
0.004
o
g 0.003
CO
o
01
2
9> 0.002
0.001
BTUT
ETAL
MAWI
MIMN NBAL
Monitoring Site
NBIL
PVAL
SIAL
I SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-26a. Comparison of Average Seasonal Benzene Concentration by Season
A
^ 3.5
O)
ง 3
2
8 2.5
0
O
s 2
o
TO
0)
W 1.5 -
a)
0)
0)
0.5
f[
-
Jl
||
^ a:
1 1
-
_
h-
h-
|
3
<
O
SPRING
~
rfl n n
n|- -
j^r 1
r_T
1..JI
~3 Q ^ "Z. ~> 1
x ง w t E ^
0 Q Q Q LiJ UJ
Monitoring Site
p
-
-
n r
1 n -
wrt -
JM .
8 | 1 1 I I
0 t -i 2 2 2
DSUMMER DAUTUMN DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-26b. Comparison of Average Seasonal Benzene Concentration by Season (Continued)
Monitoring Site
I SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
0.9
Figure 3-21 a. Comparison of Average Seasonal Carbon Tetrachloride Concentration by Season
to
"3)
0.7
c
o
1
i: 0.6
a>
o
o n ^
o u-ฐ
o
i/)
n
0)
(/}
g
0.2
0.1
Monitoring Site
] SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-27b. Comparison of Average Seasonal Carbon Tetrachloride Concentration by Season (Continued)
0.9
"3)
0.7
(Q
| 0.6
0)
o
c
One:
O u-ฐ
I ฐ'4
0)
CO
ซ n -5
O) U.o
2
0)
< 0.2
0.1
n
.
O
O
Q_
.
O
O
Q.
a:
a:
CO
Q
CO
LL.
co
a:
-
CO
CO
a:
D.
CO
Q
Monitoring Site
] SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
35
30
O)
3i 25
o
u
o
o
n
0)
Figure 3-28a. Comparison of Average Seasonal Formaldehyde Concentration by Season
INDEM Summer
Concentration is
193.41 ug/m3
10
0)
n-i-i
ttlrffll
n
n
y
Q_
<
<
m
m
o
o
<
o
o
Q
CO
z>
o
LU
Q
LU
O
o
Q_
o
LU
Q
Monitoring Site
] SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-28b. Comparison of Average Seasonal Formaldehyde Concentration by Season (Continued)
35
O)
3 25
c
o
1
g 20
o
o
o
"!5 _ _
= 15
o
M
n
0)
CO
a)
g
n
li
r
1
i
SPIL Summer
Concentration is
53.82 ug/m3
m
m
ป
Monitoring Site
SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-29. Comparison of Average Seasonal Hexachloro-1,3 Butadiene Concentration by Season
1.25
Monitoring Site
I SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-30. Comparison of Average Seasonal Manganese PMio Concentration by Season
0.05
~ 0.04
"3)
I
1
I 0.03
0)
o
o
o
(0
o
U)
(0
0)
0.02
0)
O)
2
0)
0.01
o
m
L ^
r a:
Monitoring Site
x
a:
I SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-31. Comparison of Average Seasonal Manganese TSP Concentration by Season
0.15
OJ
oo
n~ 0.12
"3)
o
.!= 0.09
I
o
O
"55
c
8 0.06
0)
O)
2
a)
"* 0.03
rTTh
Monitoring Site
I SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-32. Comparison of Average Seasonal Nickel PMio Concentration by Season
0.01
~ 0.008
"3)
o
I 0.006
0)
o
o
o
"re
o
(/>
re
0)
CO
a)
O)
2
0)
< 0.002
0.004
Monitoring Site
] SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-33. Comparison of Average Seasonal Nickel TSP Concentration by Season
0.01
OJ
o
^ 0.008
"3)
o
IB
.!= 0.006
o
o
o
"(5
c
8 0.004
0)
O)
2
a)
"* 0.002
Monitoring Site
] SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-34a. Comparison of Average Seasonal /7-Dichlorobenzene Concentration by Season
<1 -
1 7*i
Ut
c
ฃ
k.
1
O 1
o '
"(5
0
w
0)
O)
S?
m n *,
n 911)
n
n
1
n
-
n
1 1
SPRING
_
3
o
n
Hi \\
I z
LU _l
Q LU
II [h n n m n RI
~]
& I i 1 1 1 5 I
Monitoring Site
D SUMMER D AUTUMN D WINTER
-------
to
Figure 3-34b. Comparison of Average Seasonal /7-Dichlorobenzene Concentration by Season (Continued)
1.75
)
o
1.5
15 1.25
0)
o
o
o
"!5
o
in
re
0)
a)
O)
2
0)
0.75
0.5
0.25
o
o
Q_
.
o
o
Q.
a:
a:
CO
Q
CO
LL.
co
a:
Q.
CO
D.
CO
a:
CO
2
Z)
D.
CO
Q
Monitoring Site
I SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-35a. Comparison of Average Seasonal Tetrachloroethylene Concentration by Season
"E
? r.
ntration (|
i. C
0) *
u
o
o
1 >
0 ฐ
in
TO
(1)
CO
(1)
O) O
2 '-
0)
<
H
1
0
_
^
^
Q
<
APMI Summer and Fall
Concentrations are 1 1 .12 and
47.46 ug/rn3, respectively
r^ ft
S D Z
c fe 6
SPRING
pi
n-i H~i
^ Q
1 ง
D SUMMER
_
^
^
LJ
C
M<
-
n rfn m n n
; 5 ^ o 5 z ?<
J 3 ^ o | 1 H
i m u o i 2 1
jnitoring Site
DAUTUMN DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-35b. Comparison of Average Seasonal Tetrachloroethylene Concentration by Season (Continued)
Is
I
'i
+J
ง 4
o
o
o
ง
in
TO
0)
(/}
O
Ut
2
0)
3
m
JIL
JZL
n
JZL
_CL
n
.
O
O
0.
a:
a:
Q
CO
LL.
co
a:
-
CO
CO
LU
D.
CO
Q
Monitoring Site
I SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-36a. Comparison of Average Seasonal Xylenes Concentration by Season
18
16
14
)
12
g 10
o
o
w 8
o
in
TO
(1)
W 6
a)
O)
2
0)
4
Jl
1
II
M
a:
o_
<
O
I
o
Q
CO
O
LU
Q
Q LLJ
Monitoring Site
LU
O
O
D.
O
o
b <
I SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Figure 3-36b. Comparison of Average Seasonal Xylenes Concentration by Season
Oi
Oi
m
-
Monitoring Site
I SPRING
DSUMMER
DAUTUMN
DWINTER
-------
Table 3-1. Target Pollutant Detection Statistical Summaries of the VOC Concentrations
Pollutant
1, ,1-Trichloroethane
1, ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1, ,2-Trichloroethane
1, -Dichloroethane
1, -Dichloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1,3,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
# Detects
858
24
2
14
7
124
1003
3
32
0
938
789
345
1297
283
17
1291
1
23
0
649
1222
70
563
542
1295
9
Minimum
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.11
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
Maximum
(ppbv)
0.4
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.21
0.25
2.99
0.06
0.08
1.12
0.58
2670
40.2
8.93
0.53
15
0.11
0.06
2.73
0.34
0.16
0.45
1.44
2.00
0.09
Arithmetric
Mean
(ppbv)
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.16
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.08
34.93
1.35
1.15
0.19
0.53
0.11
0.04
0.03
0.10
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.69
0.04
Mode
(ppbv)
0.03
0.01
NA
0.02
NA
0.02
0.09
NA
0.05
0.02
0.02
9.16
0.67
0.47
0.25
0.26
NA
0.03
0.01
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.6
0.01
Median
(ppbv)
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.14
0.02
0.12
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.06
4.53
1.00
0.66
0.17
0.35
0.11
0.03
0.01
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.66
0.04
Geometric
Mean
(ppbv)
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.11
0.04
0.04
NA
0.04
0.05
5.61
0.99
0.71
0.15
0.38
0.11
0.03
NA
0.02
0.10
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.67
0.03
First
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.14
0.02
0.07
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.03
1.33
0.63
0.37
0.07
0.24
0.11
0.03
0.01
0.09
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.58
0.02
Third
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.14
0.03
0.2
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.10
20.8
1.56
1.17
0.25
0.52
0.11
0.05
0.02
0.11
0.05
0.03
0.06
0.76
0.07
Standard
Deviation
(ppbv)
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.06
0.03
0.19
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.07
156.65
1.81
1.41
0.14
0.84
NA
0.01
0.16
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.08
0.19
0.03
Coefficient
of Variation
0.86
0.65
0.5
0.55
0.72
1.11
1.15
0.24
0.39
1.16
0.92
4.48
1.34
1.22
0.71
1.59
NA
0.38
4.64
0.25
0.88
1.37
1.52
0.27
0.66
-------
Table 3-1. Target Pollutant Detection Statistical Summaries of the VOC Concentrations (Continued)
Pollutant
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
cis- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Dibromochloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -Butadiene
m,p-Xylene
/w-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
w-Octane
o-Dichlorobenzene
o-Xylene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Propylene
Styrene
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
# Detects
3
6
1
18
1296
1055
792
1
6
1223
225
1260
41
497
272
35
163
725
52
1201
596
1293
961
12
711
1294
o
J
Minimum
(ppbv)
0.01
0.05
Maximum
(ppbv)
0.10
0.13
Arithmetric
Mean
(ppbv)
0.07
0.09
Mode
(ppbv)
NA
NA
Median
(ppbv)
0.09
0.09
Geometric
Mean
(ppbv)
0.04
0.08
First
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.05
0.07
Third
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.10
0.10
Standard
Deviation
(ppbv)
0.04
0.02
Coefficient
of Variation
0.60
0.29
NA
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.06
1.61
9.73
0.11
0.02
0.64
0.23
0.02
0.01
0.61
0.08
0.02
0.01
0.62
0.10
0.02
0.01
0.63
0.12
0.02
0.01
0.58
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.68
0.17
0.02
0.01
0.11
0.61
0.01
0.73
0.17
2.63
0.33
NA
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.06
3.49
0.05
11.0
0.18
12.60
2.97
3.43
7.29
4.76
0.14
3.87
3.64
27.48
3.15
0.38
14.8
22.8
0.04
0.03
0.18
0.02
0.42
0.03
1.22
0.20
0.47
0.55
0.12
0.04
0.19
0.06
0.86
0.10
0.07
0.19
1.05
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.11
0.01
0.25
0.06
0.01
0.11
0.04
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.24
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.26
NA
0.02
0.11
0.02
0.26
0.02
0.59
0.08
0.16
0.32
0.06
0.02
0.12
0.03
0.54
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.68
0.03
0.02
0.12
0.02
NA
0.02
0.65
0.10
0.16
0.3
0.07
0.02
NA
0.03
0.56
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.68
0.03
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.14
0.01
0.32
0.05
0.08
0.15
0.04
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.32
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.35
0.03
0.03
0.21
0.02
0.48
0.02
1.18
0.20
0.39
0.69
0.11
0.06
0.21
0.07
0.87
0.09
0.06
0.07
1.25
0.04
0.02
0.25
0.01
0.59
0.03
1.77
0.31
0.81
0.74
0.33
0.04
0.23
0.16
1.39
0.19
0.10
0.97
1.40
0.01
0.67
1.38
0.39
1.42
1.19
1.45
1.56
1.72
1.35
2.69
1.00
1.26
2.72
1.62
1.92
1.34
5.04
1.34
0.27
-------
OJ
ON
Table 3-1. Target Pollutant Detection Statistical Summaries of the VOC Concentrations (Continued)
Pollutant
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
# Detects
2
389
1294
1294
105
Minimum
(ppbv)
0.04
0.01
0.06
0.04
0.01
Maximum
(ppbv)
0.06
1.28
2.49
0.88
0.13
Arithmetric
Mean
(ppbv)
0.05
0.06
0.30
0.12
0.02
Mode
(ppbv)
NA
0.01
0.29
0.09
0.01
Median
(ppbv)
0.05
0.03
0.29
0.10
0.01
Geometric
Mean
(ppbv)
0.05
0.03
0.30
0.11
0.01
First
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.05
0.02
0.27
0.09
0.01
Third
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.06
0.05
0.33
0.14
0.01
Standard
Deviation
(ppbv)
0.01
0.12
0.09
0.06
0.02
Coefficient
of Variation
0.20
1.95
0.30
0.46
0.99
-------
Table 3-2. Target Pollutant Detection Statistical Summaries of the Carbonyl Compound Concentrations
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde/Isobutyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
#
Detects
1606
1606
1546
1590
1557
83
1600
1551
520
1531
1409
1519
Minimum
(ppbv)
0.02
0.01
0.002
0.01
0.004
0.002
0.01
0.002
0.002
0.0003
0.002
0.004
Maximum
(ppbv)
18.00
5.53
1.13
2.11
1.88
0.47
287.00
1.32
0.33
2.02
0.77
1.79
Arithmetric
Mean
(ppbv)
1.33
0.87
0.04
0.10
0.11
0.03
5.18
0.05
0.02
0.12
0.03
0.04
Mode
(ppbv)
1.10
1.21
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.01
1.34
0.02
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.02
Median
(ppbv)
1.01
0.68
0.03
0.07
0.05
0.01
2.04
0.03
0.01
0.10
0.02
0.03
Geometric
Mean
(ppbv)
1.02
0.61
0.03
0.07
0.06
0.02
2.18
0.03
0.01
0.09
0.02
0.03
First
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.65
0.33
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.01
1.19
0.02
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.02
Third
Quartile
(ppbv)
1.60
1.19
0.05
0.12
0.12
0.02
3.55
0.04
0.02
0.15
0.04
0.04
Standard
Deviation
(ppbv)
1.24
0.70
0.07
0.10
0.16
0.06
17.75
0.08
0.02
0.12
0.05
0.08
Coefficient of
Variation
0.93
0.81
1.56
1.05
1.49
2.08
3.43
1.81
1.24
1.00
1.40
1.80
-------
Table 3-3. Target Pollutant Detection Statistical Summaries of the SVOC Concentrations
Pollutant
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (e) pyrene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Chrysene
Coronene
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
# Detects
142
130
115
130
107
119
120
107
129
141
77
40
142
141
98
142
65
142
142
Minimum
(ng/m3)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.17
0.13
0.02
0.12
0.01
0.10
0.09
Maximum
(ng/m3)
86.00
124.00
49.90
19.30
13.60
15.60
12.40
6.66
15.90
24.50
1.85
3.38
62.30
83.90
10.70
1410.00
4.06
186.00
41.80
Arithmetric
Mean
(ng/m3)
9.82
6.68
4.61
1.03
0.71
0.98
0.77
0.56
0.87
1.36
0.22
0.41
6.98
9.90
0.76
161.22
0.31
22.82
4.37
Mode
(ng/m3)
16.70
1.21
2.61
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.10
0.23
0.13
0.17
0.11
0.03
6.49
1.08
0.17
117.00
0.04
2.81
2.11
Median
(ng/m3)
2.67
1.12
1.27
0.16
0.13
0.23
0.21
0.20
0.22
0.31
0.11
0.18
3.18
3.73
0.20
25.30
0.07
9.91
1.94
Geometric
Mean
(ng/m3)
2.41
1.10
1.30
0.20
0.18
0.27
0.23
0.24
0.27
0.37
0.13
0.18
3.17
3.91
0.26
22.31
0.10
10.09
1.92
First
Quartile
(ng/m3)
0.51
0.26
0.34
0.06
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.10
0.13
0.06
0.06
1.29
1.19
0.10
3.26
0.03
3.63
0.77
Third
Quartile
(ng/m3)
10.73
5.47
5.50
0.45
0.43
0.62
0.49
0.50
0.58
0.79
0.23
0.48
8.56
12.00
0.62
217.00
0.25
29.03
4.96
Standard
Deviation
(ng/m3)
15.78
14.84
8.27
2.69
1.80
2.19
1.71
1.04
2.05
3.20
0.29
0.62
9.72
14.53
1.57
279.17
0.67
30.82
6.37
Coefficient of
Variation
1.61
2.22
1.80
2.60
2.53
2.24
2.22
1.85
2.34
2.36
1.37
1.51
1.39
1.47
2.05
1.73
2.19
1.35
1.46
-------
Table 3-4. Target Pollutant Detection Statistical Summaries of the SNMOC Concentrations
Pollutant
1,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1,3 -Butadiene
1-Decene
1-Dodecene
1-Heptene
1-Hexene
1-Nonene
1-Octene
1-Pentene
1-Tridecene
1-Undecene
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
2-Ethyl-l-butene
2-Methyl-l-butene
2-Methyl-l-pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2-Methylheptane
2 -Methy Ihexane
#
Detects
133
192
175
125
0
54
127
179
121
92
173
0
42
128
244
217
210
233
226
223
1
181
21
185
180
215
Minimum
(ppbC)
0.09
0.13
0.10
0.06
Maximum
(ppbC)
3.91
19.30
7.71
1.03
Arithmetric
Mean
(ppbC)
0.39
1.22
0.50
0.18
Mode
(ppbC)
0.62
1.41
0.22
0.12
Median
(ppbC)
0.27
0.80
0.33
0.15
Geometric
Mean
(ppbC)
0.28
0.81
0.34
0.16
First
Quartile
(ppbC)
0.18
0.50
0.21
0.11
Third
Quartile
(ppbC)
0.38
1.21
0.51
0.21
Standard
Deviation
(ppbC)
0.51
2.07
0.84
0.12
Coefficient
of
Variation
1.33
1.69
1.70
0.68
NA
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.09
6.33
1.39
1.54
3.18
1.13
21.10
0.42
0.31
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.74
0.12
0.15
0.52
0.19
0.22
0.24
0.20
0.20
0.31
0.25
0.30
0.36
0.24
0.24
0.30
0.27
0.28
0.38
0.13
0.14
0.19
0.17
0.20
0.23
0.34
0.37
0.45
0.40
0.40
0.51
0.86
0.27
0.22
0.37
0.19
2.22
2.06
0.86
0.62
1.07
0.58
3.00
NA
0.06
0.08
0.11
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.60
17.00
118.00
7.58
28.40
10.90
15.30
15.50
0.22
0.97
3.36
0.61
1.06
1.01
1.18
0.83
0.28
0.16
1.65
0.21
0.10
1.27
0.17
0.36
0.21
0.32
0.90
0.43
0.40
0.54
0.67
0.42
0.19
0.42
1.10
0.44
0.45
0.62
0.70
0.47
0.12
0.17
0.52
0.25
0.24
0.33
0.36
0.25
0.30
0.73
2.01
0.70
0.72
1.16
1.27
0.86
0.14
2.08
10.79
0.70
2.80
1.38
1.69
1.49
0.60
2.15
3.21
1.16
2.63
1.37
1.43
1.80
NA
0.06
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.08
1.44
126.00
1.69
4.01
20.20
0.33
6.16
0.35
0.45
1.01
0.17
0.11
0.11
1.07
0.27
0.15
0.27
0.33
0.54
0.26
0.21
0.28
0.32
0.56
0.15
0.11
0.16
0.19
0.27
0.43
0.22
0.46
0.52
1.05
0.24
26.80
0.27
0.48
1.91
0.73
4.35
0.77
1.08
1.89
OJ
to
-------
Table 3-4. Target Pollutant Detection Statistical Summaries of the SNMOC Concentrations (Continued)
Pollutant
2-Methylpentane
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
3-Methylheptane
3 -Methylhexane
3-Methylpentane
4-Methyl-l-pentene
Acetylene
a-Pinene
Benzene
b-Pinene
c/s-2-Butene
c/s-2-Hexene
c/s-2-Pentene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
Ethane
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
/w-Diethylbenzene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
/w-Ethyltoluene
#
Detects
260
16
183
258
260
6
262
160
263
23
178
14
173
214
239
68
262
257
252
263
261
260
208
113
117
234
259
201
Minimum
(ppbC)
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.12
0.13
0.08
0.13
0.10
0.23
0.12
0.08
0.09
0.07
0.09
0.07
0.08
0.42
0.09
0.09
0.28
0.15
0.44
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.10
0.09
Maximum
(ppbC)
37.80
0.48
5.09
28.20
14.70
0.46
25.90
15.60
23.00
4.88
2.89
0.33
0.90
5.85
2.78
5.18
150.00
18.60
194.00
124.00
6.33
68.20
9.39
0.93
1.87
6.18
6.14
12.20
Arithmetric
Mean
(ppbC)
2.88
0.22
0.41
1.85
1.63
0.29
2.52
1.26
1.80
1.63
0.33
0.17
0.27
0.73
0.46
0.31
10.68
1.17
3.77
7.19
1.11
8.55
1.27
0.18
0.40
0.87
1.03
0.74
Mode
(ppbC)
3.20
NA
0.12
1.04
2.99
NA
1.97
2.06
1.24
NA
0.24
0.11
0.22
1.24
0.50
0.12
6.14
0.57
1.50
1.59
1.19
6.41
2.14
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.29
0.64
Median
(ppbC)
1.51
0.20
0.27
1.14
0.93
0.32
1.81
0.61
1.32
0.61
0.28
0.16
0.23
0.42
0.27
0.17
7.01
0.62
2.20
2.20
0.92
4.33
0.49
0.15
0.25
0.46
0.57
0.49
Geometric
Mean
(ppbC)
1.58
0.20
0.30
1.10
1.04
0.24
1.78
0.68
1.33
0.82
0.28
0.16
0.24
0.48
0.33
0.20
7.63
0.67
2.20
2.93
0.90
4.83
0.64
0.16
0.29
0.53
0.67
0.49
First
Quartile
(ppbC)
0.69
0.16
0.18
0.58
0.53
0.16
1.04
0.30
0.78
0.30
0.19
0.11
0.17
0.25
0.18
0.13
4.65
0.31
1.32
1.08
0.60
2.22
0.25
0.12
0.16
0.23
0.33
0.29
Third
Quartile
(ppbC)
3.40
0.24
0.44
2.11
1.99
0.42
2.81
1.56
2.07
3.17
0.39
0.19
0.34
0.94
0.58
0.25
10.78
1.21
3.64
7.62
1.32
10.53
1.93
0.19
0.50
1.23
1.44
0.73
Standard
Deviation
(ppbC)
3.90
0.10
0.56
2.85
2.02
0.15
2.90
2.09
2.15
1.60
0.28
0.07
0.14
0.77
0.46
0.62
12.54
1.99
12.40
12.46
0.81
10.69
1.60
0.12
0.37
0.94
1.07
1.26
Coefficient
of
Variation
1.36
0.44
1.35
1.54
1.24
0.50
1.15
1.66
1.19
0.98
0.83
0.39
0.52
1.06
0.98
2.01
1.17
1.70
3.29
1.73
0.73
1.25
1.26
0.67
0.92
1.08
1.04
1.71
-------
Table 3-4. Target Pollutant Detection Statistical Summaries of the SNMOC Concentrations (Continued)
Pollutant
7w-Xylene/ฃ>-Xylene
w-Butane
w-Decane
w-Dodecane
w-Heptane
w-Hexane
w-Nonane
w-Octane
w-Pentane
w-Propylbenzene
w-Tridecane
w-Undecane
o-Ethyltoluene
o-Xylene
ฃ>-Diethylbenzene
ฃ>-Ethyltoluene
Propane
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
Sum of Unknowns
Toluene
trans-2-Butene
/raปs-2-Hexene
/raws-2-Pentene
SNMOC (Sum of Knowns)
TNMOC (Total)
#
Detects
262
263
173
116
248
263
201
237
263
161
8
153
161
254
120
183
263
263
0
199
263
262
180
31
193
263
337
Minimum
(ppbC)
0.14
0.37
0.09
0.06
0.09
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.28
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.09
0.55
0.15
Maximum
(ppbC)
60.30
113.00
4.68
10.70
13.10
18.30
4.77
4.97
35.80
3.97
0.25
21.70
4.21
20.80
7.45
6.51
128.00
13.90
Arithmetric
Mean
(ppbC)
2.72
11.12
0.74
0.64
1.10
2.08
0.47
0.60
4.79
0.37
0.17
1.07
0.45
1.01
0.64
0.50
17.53
1.57
Mode
(ppbC)
1.75
10.90
0.58
0.27
1.02
1.16
0.30
0.33
1.60
0.39
NA
1.01
0.49
0.29
0.19
0.16
13.60
1.68
Median
(ppbC)
1.67
4.58
0.49
0.22
0.56
1.16
0.35
0.40
2.38
0.29
0.17
0.51
0.32
0.63
0.22
0.35
9.87
1.18
Geometric
Mean
(ppbC)
1.56
5.36
0.51
0.29
0.64
1.25
0.36
0.42
2.93
0.29
0.17
0.57
0.34
0.62
0.33
0.36
11.06
1.17
First
Quartile
(ppbC)
0.73
2.25
0.29
0.14
0.31
0.61
0.22
0.25
1.37
0.20
0.14
0.30
0.21
0.32
0.17
0.24
5.27
0.66
Third
Quartile
(ppbC)
2.85
11.05
0.87
0.39
1.30
2.80
0.57
0.69
6.31
0.38
0.22
0.90
0.52
1.06
0.57
0.50
22.55
1.84
Standard
Deviation
(ppbC)
5.38
17.52
0.80
1.39
1.56
2.45
0.46
0.65
5.55
0.45
0.05
2.35
0.49
1.89
1.15
0.70
19.42
1.51
Coefficient
of
Variation
1.97
1.58
1.09
2.15
1.43
1.18
0.99
1.09
1.16
1.21
0.27
2.18
1.09
1.88
1.79
1.40
1.11
0.96
NA
0.08
2.16
0.23
0.06
0.05
0.06
11.00
14.30
5.99
393.00
87.20
3.83
0.55
1.54
655.00
1600.00
0.96
64.22
5.10
0.31
0.18
0.38
112.89
233.30
0.16
25.20
1.39
0.25
NA
0.51
110.00
172.00
0.35
44.30
2.82
0.24
0.16
0.31
71.10
159.00
0.49
43.00
2.86
0.25
0.17
0.32
77.57
162.68
0.18
23.35
1.37
0.16
0.12
0.22
41.60
91.60
1.31
84.45
5.52
0.35
0.21
0.49
135.00
275.00
1.16
62.65
8.40
0.34
0.09
0.25
115.71
231.26
1.21
0.98
1.65
1.08
0.49
0.66
1.02
0.99
-------
Table 3-5. Target Pollutant Detection Statistical Summaries of the Metals Concentrations
PM Type
PM10
PM10
PM10
PM10
PM10
PM10
PM10
PM10
PM10
PM10
PM10
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
#
Detects
220
220
215
220
220
220
220
220
125
220
220
261
261
249
261
261
261
261
261
156
261
260
Minimum
(ng/m3)
0.04
0.04
0.0001
0.01
0.14
0.01
0.19
0.33
0.0006
0.12
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.0001
0.01
0.24
0.01
0.37
0.90
0.0007
0.10
0.01
Maximum
(ng/m3)
12.10
29.90
0.07
4.99
5.09
0.76
67.70
104.00
0.95
10.85
5.90
4.42
34.30
1.44
3.19
11.60
20.30
115.00
606.00
1.01
29.60
11.40
Arithmetric
Mean
(ng/m3)
1.07
1.22
0.01
0.51
2.06
0.15
7.48
9.81
0.07
1.82
0.77
1.00
1.23
0.03
0.25
3.54
0.37
8.48
24.74
0.07
2.29
0.82
Mode
(ng/m3)
0.59
0.41
0.01
0.10
2.75
0.08
12.60
10.70
0.02
1.04
0.40
0.41
0.52
0.02
0.11
2.19
0.06
4.03
11.90
0.01
0.88
0.18
Median
(ng/m3)
0.90
0.59
0.01
0.27
2.07
0.13
3.96
5.68
0.03
1.45
0.55
0.84
0.79
0.01
0.15
3.02
0.16
4.93
10.30
0.03
1.73
0.58
Geometric
Mean
(ng/m3)
0.82
0.64
0.01
0.27
1.90
0.12
4.52
6.06
0.03
1.47
0.55
0.76
0.80
0.01
0.16
2.99
0.16
5.43
11.82
0.03
1.65
0.56
First
Quartile
(ng/m3)
0.59
0.37
0.00
0.12
1.70
0.08
2.54
3.48
0.01
1.09
0.34
0.45
0.48
0.01
0.10
2.18
0.09
3.29
4.78
0.01
1.04
0.33
Third
Quartile
(ng/m3)
1.26
0.99
0.01
0.61
2.42
0.18
9.84
9.96
0.06
2.01
1.03
1.31
1.26
0.02
0.27
4.72
0.25
8.86
25.50
0.07
2.56
0.96
Standard
Deviation
(ng/m3)
1.03
2.66
0.01
0.65
0.65
0.11
8.56
13.09
0.14
1.41
0.67
0.74
2.33
0.11
0.35
1.92
1.50
11.49
48.30
0.11
2.51
0.96
Coefficient of
Variation
0.97
2.17
1.03
1.27
0.32
0.70
1.14
1.33
1.89
0.78
0.87
0.74
1.90
3.49
1.38
0.54
4.10
1.36
1.95
1.64
1.10
1.17
-------
Table 3-6. Program-Wide Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA
Screening Values
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Arsenic
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Manganese
Acrolein
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Nickel
Xylenes
Cadmium
Naphthalene
Dichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Methyl fer/-Butyl Ether
Benzo (a) pyrene
Acrylonitrile
Bromomethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
Benzo (a) anthracene
Beryllium
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Toluene
Cobalt
Ethyl Acrylate
# Failed
Screens
1563
1393
1296
1221
777
518
446
425
324
283
225
149
104
89
67
60
52
32
24
23
19
17
15
9
6
5
o
J
o
J
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
#
Detects
1606
1600
1296
1222
821
711
481
596
481
283
225
481
1280
481
142
1055
389
32
24
163
107
17
649
9
105
40
3
130
464
2
119
129
1297
481
1
% Failed
97.32
87.06
100.00
99.92
94.64
72.86
92.72
71.31
67.36
100.00
100.00
30.98
8.13
18.50
47.18
5.69
13.37
100.00
100.00
14.11
17.76
100.00
2.31
100.00
5.71
12.50
100.00
2.31
1.20
100.00
1.68
1.55
0.15
0.38
100.00
%
Contribution
17.06
15.20
14.15
13.33
8.48
5.65
4.87
4.64
3.54
3.09
2.46
1.63
1.14
0.97
0.73
0.65
0.57
0.35
0.26
0.25
0.21
0.19
0.16
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
Cumulative
%
17.06
32.26
46.41
59.74
68.22
73.87
78.74
83.38
86.91
90.00
92.46
94.08
95.22
96.19
96.92
97.58
98.14
98.49
98.76
99.01
99.21
99.40
99.56
99.66
99.73
99.78
99.81
99.85
99.88
99.90
99.92
99.95
99.97
99.98
99.99
3-76
-------
Table 3-6. Program-Wide Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA
Screening Values (Continued)
Pollutant
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Total
# Failed
Screens
1
9162
#
Detects
98
17020
% Failed
1.02
53.83
%
Contribution
0.01
Cumulative
%
100.00
3-77
-------
OJ
oo
Table 3-7. Program-Wide Non-Chronic Risk Summary
Sampling
Method
TO-11A
TO-15
TO-15
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene1
ATSDR
Short-
term
MRL
(Ug/m3)
49
0.11
28.75
Number of
Exceedances
30
283
2
CAL
EPA
REL
Acute
(Ug/m3)
94
0.19
NA
Number of
Exceedances
22
279
-
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(Ug/m3)
40
0.09
NA
Number of
Winter
Exceedances
0
~
Number of
Spring
Exceedances
0
~
Number of
Summer
Exceedances
2
-
Number of
Autumn
Exceedances
0
9
~
Indicates the use of the ATSDR re-calculated acute risk factor
-------
Table 3-8. Summary of Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Selected Meteorological Parameters and Pollutants of Interest
Pollutant
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
Manganese (TSP)
Nickel (PM10)
Nickel (TSP)
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
#
Detects
821
1604
283
220
261
1296
1222
1598
225
220
261
220
261
596
711
1280
Maximum
Temperature
-0.07
0.08
0.42
0.08
0.12
0.08
0.13
0.10
-0.33
0.05
0.22
-0.32
0.13
0.17
0.02
0.21
Average
Temperature
-0.10
0.06
0.41
0.04
0.11
0.08
0.14
0.11
-0.34
0.01
0.20
-0.31
0.11
0.17
0.02
0.20
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.15
0.00
0.34
0.08
0.15
0.07
0.20
0.10
-0.30
0.03
0.24
-0.27
0.04
0.17
0.03
0.15
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.12
0.02
0.38
0.07
0.14
0.07
0.18
0.10
-0.32
0.02
0.23
-0.27
0.07
0.17
0.02
0.18
Relative
Humidity
-0.13
-0.11
-0.12
0.09
0.12
-0.01
0.14
0.01
0.08
0.04
0.08
0.09
-0.13
0.04
0.00
-0.08
M-Component
of the Wind
-0.02
-0.03
-0.23
-0.09
-0.07
-0.03
-0.02
0.01
0.09
-0.10
-0.08
0.04
-0.06
-0.08
0.04
-0.16
v-Component
of the Wind
0.02
0.08
0.19
0.09
-0.11
0.13
0.08
0.06
0.02
0.11
-0.03
-0.12
0.09
-0.02
0.02
0.09
Sea
Level
Pressure
0.03
0.05
-0.40
0.07
0.04
0.02
-0.02
-0.35
0.14
0.08
0.02
0.13
-0.07
-0.01
0.02
0.02
VO
-------
Table 3-9. Summary of Mobile Source Information by Site
oo
o
Site
APMI
AZFL
BAPR
BOMA
BTUT
CANC
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
DEMI
DITN
ELNJ
ETAL
FLFL
GAFL
GPCO
GRMS
INDEM
ITCMI
LDTN
MAWI
MIMN
MUTX
NBAL
NBIL
NBNJ
County Motor
Vehicle
Registration
1,422,117
1,030,672
13,130
566,351
217,537
26,843
369,412
349,299
9,403
1,422,117
43,784
380,628
544,407
1,140,365
835,689
148,158
20,036
393,034
33,580
46,656
420,070
1,004,883
707,976
544,407
2,115,353
561,754
2005 Estimated
County
Population
1,998,217
928,032
22,829
654,428
268,187
27,322
518,249
490,593
7,904
1,998,217
45,894
531,457
657,229
1,777,638
1,132,152
129,872
22,861
493,297
38,780
43,387
458,106
1,119,364
888,185
657,229
5,303,683
789,516
Traffic Data
Near Site
(Daily Average)
60,000
51,000
10
27,287
33,310
100
62,000
12,623
1,940
12,791
4,420
170,000
30,000
8,000
81,400
19,572
1,100
42,950
100,000
13,360
23,750
10,000
4,374
2,000
29,600
63,000
County-
Level On-
road
Emissions
(tpy)
9,896
4,831
9
1,136
1,067
164
1,106
1,737
43
9,896
345
1,399
4,010
7,629
5,580
543
130
1,519
181
366
1,761
3,891
2,955
4,010
8,734
2,343
County-Level
Non-road
Emissions
(tpy)
2,218
1,822
109
1,962
429
13
704
1,396
38
2,218
16
664
620
2,363
1,849
223
93
957
507
132
1,024
2,377
1,311
620
5,510
1,330
Hydrocarbon
Arithmetic
Mean
(ppbv)
6.13
NA
4.37
NA
5.17
NA
4.94
1.69
2.19
4.89
5.23
8.05
14.87
NA
NA
7.24
1.71
NA
1.69
4.58
2.21
3.61
4.17
11.54
3.47
3.62
Acetylene
Arithmetic
Mean
(ppbv)
1.55
NA
1.15
NA
1.62
NA
1.46
0.58
0.72
1.46
0.89
1.55
8.47
NA
NA
1.92
0.58
NA
0.73
0.98
0.80
1.1
0.7
4.21
1.49
1.14
-------
Table 3-9. Summary of Mobile Source Information by Site (Continued)
oo
Site ID
ORFL
PCOK
PGMS
PITX
POOK
PVAL
RRTX
RTPNC
S4MO
SFSD
SIAL
SJPR
SKFL
SMFL
SPIL
SYFL
TRTX
TUMS
WETX
YDSP
YFMI
County Motor
Vehicle
Registration
735,120
37,218
119,796
707,976
37,218
544,407
269,253
175,758
189,295
155,857
544,407
130,070
1,030,672
835,689
2,115,353
835,689
707,976
69,518
707,976
505,459
1,422,117
2005 Estimated
County
Population
1,023,023
46,480
135,940
888,185
46,480
657,229
333,457
242,582
344,362
160,087
657,229
222,195
928,032
1,132,152
5,303,683
1,132,152
888,185
78,793
888,185
721,598
1,998,217
Traffic Data
Near Site
(Daily Average)
59,000
8,100
8,600
33,936
3,800
NA
20,900
12,000
22,840
4,320
2,700
250
50,500
18,700
214,900
5,142
27,114
4,900
5,733
2,200
500
County-
Level On-
road
Emissions
(tpy)
5,588
305
668
2,955
305
4,010
840
1,247
1,377
547
4,010
493
4,831
5,580
8,734
5,580
2,955
438
2,955
2,209
9,896
County-Level
Non-road
Emissions
(tpy)
2,017
163
997
1,311
163
620
319
187
482
198
620
1,092
1,822
1,849
5,510
1,849
1,311
91
1,311
524
2,218
Hydrocarbon
Arithmetic
Mean
(ppbv)
NA
13.36
3.52
4.50
4.69
1.95
7.14
NA
3.78
2.23
9.66
7.94
NA
NA
4.09
NA
5.55
2.4
8.22
8.04
7.25
Acetylene
Arithmetic
Mean
(ppbv)
NA
1.22
0.85
0.82
1.05
0.36
1.18
NA
1.29
0.68
2.05
1.71
NA
NA
1.44
NA
1.24
0.69
1.94
2.04
1.53
-------
Table 3-10. Average Ethylene to Acetylene
Ratios for Sites that Sampled SNMOC
Site
BTUT
CUSD
NBIL
PCOK
PGMS
POOK
SFSD
Average Ethylene to
Acetylene Ratio
.33 ฑ0.22
.58 ฑ0.35
.77 ฑ0.34
.53 ฑ0.21
.41 ฑ0.16
.25 ฑ 0.23
.38 ฑ0.21
% Difference from
1.70 Ratio
-21.68
-6.77
3.99
-10.27
-17.18
-26.28
-18.56
3-82
-------
Table 3-11. Comparison of Concentration Ratios for BTEX Compounds
vs. Roadside Study
Site
Roadside Study
APMI
BAPR
BTUT
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
DEMI
DITN
ELNJ
ETAL
GPCO
GRMS
ITCMI
LDTN
MAWI
MIMN
MUTX
NBAL
NBIL
NBNJ
PCOK
PGMS
PITX
POOK
PVAL
RRTX
S4MO
SFSD
SIAL
SJPR
SPIL
TRTX
TUMS
WETX
YDSP
YFMI
Benzene-
Ethylbenzene Ratio
2.85
3.63 ฑ0.52
2.31 ฑ0.13
4.28 ฑ0.30
3.84 ฑ0.28
4.37 ฑ0.56
4.77 ฑ0.59
3.55 ฑ0.27
4.61 ฑ0.67
3.37 ฑ0.24
3.28 ฑ0.63
2.33 ฑ0.27
4.31 ฑ0.90
6.44 ฑ1.26
4.01 ฑ0.66
4.71 ฑ0.40
3.65 ฑ0.30
1.40 ฑ0.42
3.57 ฑ1.14
4.33 ฑ0.53
2.69 ฑ0.33
1.38 ฑ0.21
3.79 ฑ0.75
1.31 ฑ0.50
2.01 ฑ0.22
3.27 ฑ0.48
1.36 ฑ0.46
3.08 ฑ0.24
4.06 ฑ0.39
6.86 ฑ2.24
2.17 ฑ0.20
4.24 ฑ0.44
1.46 ฑ0.39
3.86 ฑ0.31
1.87 ฑ0.31
2.83 ฑ0.18
19. 12 ฑ8.76
Toluene-
Ethylbenzene Ratio
5.85
6.49 ฑ0.51
6.31 ฑ0.31
8. 17 ฑ0.64
7.92 ฑ1.40
5. 39 ฑ0.36
5.25 ฑ0.47
5.78 ฑ0.40
22.06 ฑ5.61
6.46 ฑ0.37
5. 12 ฑ0.28
5.23 ฑ0.49
4.95 ฑ0.69
6.16 ฑ0.65
7.89 ฑ0.69
6.34 ฑ0.36
7.22 ฑ0.74
2.64 ฑ0.41
5. 57 ฑ0.85
7.04 ฑ2.03
5.41 ฑ1.23
4.87 ฑ0.87
7.96 ฑ0.79
2.27 ฑ0.44
6.11 ฑ0.57
9.85 ฑ2.09
8.28 ฑ1.73
6.61 ฑ1.10
5. 89 ฑ0.47
5.74 ฑ0.68
6.77 ฑ0.56
6. 17 ฑ0.44
3.41 ฑ0.64
8.23 ฑ 1.24
3.63 ฑ0.47
5.61 ฑ0.23
8.81 ฑ1.25
Xylenes-
Ethylbenzene Ratio
4.55
3.70 ฑ0.18
4.29 ฑ0.14
4.25 ฑ0.18
3.72 ฑ0.12
3.07 ฑ0.13
3.35 ฑ0.21
3.59 ฑ0.10
3.58 ฑ0.18
3.68 ฑ0.10
3.56 ฑ0.26
4.69 ฑ0.14
3.89 ฑ0.28
3.20 ฑ0.19
3.46 ฑ0.17
3.31ฑ0.18
3.76 ฑ0.10
1.32 ฑ0.25
4.67 ฑ0.53
3.27 ฑ0.13
2.70 ฑ0.18
2.23 ฑ 0.47
2.95 ฑ0.17
1.24 ฑ0.26
2.95 ฑ0.19
3.56 ฑ0.28
1.21 ฑ0.32
3.08 ฑ0.09
3.21 ฑ0.15
3.49 ฑ0.35
4.37 ฑ0.18
3.45 ฑ0.13
1.46 ฑ0.30
3.35 ฑ0.18
2.25 ฑ0.33
3.54 ฑ0.10
3.66 ฑ0.14
3-83
-------
4.0 Sites in Alabama
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
sites in Alabama (ETAL, NBAL, PVAL, and SIAL), located in or near the Birmingham area.
Figures 4-1 thru 4-4 are topographical maps showing the monitoring sites in their urban and rural
locations. Figures 4-5 thru 4-6 identify point source emission locations within 10 miles of each
site as reported in the 2002 NEI for point sources. As Figure 4-5 shows, the three monitoring
sites located within the city of Birmingham (ETAL, NBAL, and SIAL) are located relatively
close to each other. Both the sites and nearby facilities are oriented along a diagonal line
extending from northeast to southwest Birmingham. Surface coating processes and waste
treatment and disposal facilities are the most prevalent industries near these monitoring sites.
The PVAL monitoring site is located on the western edge of Jefferson County, with relatively
few industrial sources nearby, as indicated in Figure 4-6.
Hourly meteorological data at weather stations near these sites were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather station closest
to the ETAL, NBAL, and SIAL monitoring sites is Birmingham International Airport (WBAN
13876), while the closest weather station to PVAL is Tuscaloosa Municipal Airport (WBAN
93806).
Birmingham, Alabama is about 300 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. This
proximity allows the Gulf of Mexico to be a major influence in the city's climate. Winters are
tempered and wet while summers are warm and humid. (Ruffner and Bair, 1987). Table 4-1
presents average meteorological conditions of temperature (average maximum and average),
moisture (average dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative
humidity), pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind) for the entire year and on days samples were taken. As shown in
Table 4-1, average meteorological conditions on sample days are fairly representative of average
weather conditions throughout the year.
4-1
-------
4.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Alabama Monitoring Sites
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest
is a modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured
pollutant concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily
concentration value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those in which the individual pollutant's total failed
screens contribute to the top 95% of the site's total failed screens. A total of 81 HAPs are listed
in the guidance document as having risk screening values. Table 4-2 presents the pollutants that
failed at least one screen at the Alabama monitoring sites. The number of pollutants failing the
screen varies by site, as indicated in Table 4-2. Seventeen pollutants with a total of 192
measured concentrations failed the screen at ETAL; 28 pollutants with a total of 231 measured
concentrations failed the screen at NBAL; eleven pollutants with a total of 110 measured
concentrations failed the screen at PVAL; and 19 pollutants with a total of 170 measured
concentrations failed the screen at SIAL. The pollutants of interest also varied by site, yet the
following nine pollutants contributed to the top 95% of the total failed screens at each Alabama
monitoring site: arsenic, acrolein, formaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, manganese, acetaldehyde,
benzene, naphthalene, and/>-dichlorobenzene. If PVAL is not included, the list of pollutants of
interest is even more similar. It's important to note that the Alabama sites sampled for
carbonyls, VOCs, SVOCs, and metals, and that this is reflected in each site's pollutants of
interest.
Also listed in Table 4-2 are the total number of detects and the percent detects failing the
screen. Of the nine pollutants that were the same among all four sites, five pollutants of interest,
acrolein, acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and arsenic, had 100% of their detects fail
the screening values.
4.2 Concentration Averages at the Alabama Monitoring Sites
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of interest: daily,
seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the average
concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a
seasonal average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all
4-2
-------
non-detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects
in a respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no earlier than November. The daily and seasonal averages are
presented in Table 4-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in later
sections.
Among the daily averages at ETAL, total xylenes measured the highest concentration by
mass (8.94 ฑ 2.76 ug/m3), followed by formaldehyde (4.56 ฑ 0.91 ug/m3) and benzene (3.44 ฑ
1.09 ug/m3). As the Alabama sites did not begin sampling until mid-July, no seasonal average is
available for winter, spring, and summer. Total xylene concentrations measured the highest
average autumn concentration at 10.33 ฑ 4.51 ug/m3, again followed by formaldehyde (4.42 ฑ
1.21 ug/m3) and benzene (4.03 ฑ1.86 ug/m3), none of which vary much from their respective
daily averages, due to the high number of detects.
Similar to ETAL, the pollutants with the highest daily averages at NBAL were total
xylenes (11.86 ฑ 4.26 ug/m3), formaldehyde (3.86 ฑ 1.10 ug/m3), and benzene (3.48 ฑ 1.52
ug/m3). Only SVOCs and metals had enough samples in any season to calculate a valid seasonal
average, therefore very few of the NBAL pollutants of interest have seasonal averages in Table
4-3.
The pollutants with the highest daily averages at PVAL were formaldehyde (3.28 ฑ 0.96
ug/m3), acrolein (1.41 ฑ 1.09 ug/m3), and acetaldehyde (1.17 ฑ 0.19 ug/m3). Formaldehyde
concentrations also measured the highest average autumn concentration (3.14 ฑ 1.07 ug/m3)
followed by acetaldehyde (1.29 ฑ 0.26 ug/m3), both of which vary little from their respective
daily averages. Acrolein has no autumnal seasonal average.
Similar to ETAL and NBAL, the pollutants with the highest daily averages at SIAL were
total xylenes (8.27 ฑ 2.61 ug/m3), benzene (6.50 ฑ 2.15 ug/m3), and formaldehyde (3.29 ฑ 0.65
4-3
-------
ug/m3). Very few of the SIAL pollutants of interest have seasonal averages in Table 4-3.
However, for the ones that do, the autumnal averages vary little from the daily averages.
4.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Alabama Monitoring Sites
Non-chronic risk for the concentration data at Alabama monitoring sites was evaluated
using ATSDR acute and intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) and California EPA acute
reference exposure limit (REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as exposures from 1 to 14 days
while intermediate risk is defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. It is useful to compare daily
measurements to the short term MRL and REL factors, as well as compare seasonal averages to
the intermediate MRL. Of the pollutants with at least one failed screen, only acrolein and
manganese exceeded either the acute or intermediate risk values, and each site's non-chronic risk
is summarized in Table 4-4.
All acrolein detects at the Alabama sites were greater than the ATSDR acute value of
0.11 ug/m3 and the California REL value of 0.19 ug/m3. The average detected concentration
ranged from 1.41 ฑ 0.43 ug/m3 (at NBAL) to 2.34 ฑ 0.92 ug/m3 (at SIAL), which are an order of
magnitude higher than either acute risk factor. No seasonal averages for acrolein could be
calculated, therefore intermediate risk could not be evaluated.
For the pollutants that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. For all four Alabama monitoring sites, only acrolein concentrations
exceeded the acute risk factors. Figures 4-7 through 4-10 are pollution roses for acrolein at the
Alabama sites. The pollution rose is a plot of concentration and wind direction. As shown in
Figures 4-7 through 4-10, and discussed in Section 4.3, all acrolein concentrations exceeded the
acute risk factors, which are indicated by a dashed line (CalEPA REL) and solid line (ATSDR
MRL).
Figure 4-7 is the acrolein pollution rose for the ETAL monitoring site. The pollution rose
shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with winds originating from
a variety of directions, which is characteristic of mobile sources. The highest concentration of
acrolein occurred on July 27, 2005 with a westerly wind. The ETAL site is located near several
4-4
-------
heavily traveled roadways, including 1-20, which runs east to west and lies to the south of the
monitoring site. Railroads are also located to the north and south of the site.
Figure 4-8 is the acrolein pollution rose for the NBAL monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with winds originating
from a variety of directions, which is characteristic of mobile sources. The highest concentration
of acrolein occurred on October 31, 2005 with a south-southeasterly wind. NBAL is located just
east of 1-65 and several railways transverse the area near the monitoring site.
Figure 4-9 is the acrolein pollution rose for the PVAL monitoring site. The pollution rose
shows that the few measured concentrations occurred with winds originating from a several
directions. The highest concentration of acrolein occurred on October 19, 2005 with a
southwesterly wind. The PVAL site is located in a rural area beyond the Birmingham city limits.
Figure 4-10 is the acrolein pollution rose for the SIAL monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with winds originating
from a variety of directions, characteristic of mobile sources. The highest concentrations of
acrolein occurred on October 19, 2005 and July 27, 2005, both with a westerly wind.
Interestingly, these dates correspond with ETAL and PVAL. SIAL is located just east of NBAL,
near several heavily traveled roadways. A number of railways also transverse the area near
SIAL.
4.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Alabama Sites
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following three
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coeffiencients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and the concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
4.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 4-5 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the Alabama monitoring sites.
4-5
-------
(Please refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) Most of the
correlations between the temperature and moisture variables and the pollutants of interest at
ETAL were weak. However, formaldehyde and/>-dichlorobenzene exhibited moderately strong
to strong positive correlations with the temperature and moisture variables, indicating that
concentrations tend to increase as temperature and humidity increase. Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
exhibited very strong negative correlations with these same parameters, indicating that
concentrations tend to decrease as temperature and humidity increase. This pollutant also had
the strongest correlations with the wind components and sea level pressure. However, it is
important to note that hexachloro-1,3-butadiene was detected relatively few times.
Correlations between the pollutants of interest at NBAL and the temperature and
moisture parameters were mostly positive, indicating the concentrations tend to increase as
temperature and humidity increase. Formaldehyde exhibited the strongest of these correlations
for maximum temperature (0.84), average temperature (0.79), dew point temperature (0.74), and
wet bulb temperature (0.76). Six pollutants had moderately strong to very strong negative
correlations with the w-component of the wind and moderately strong to strong negative
correlations with the v-component of the wind (1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexachloro-
1,3-butadiene, manganese (TSP and PMio), and tetrachloroethylene). Acrolein, 1,3-butadiene,
and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene each exhibited strong to very strong correlations with sea level
pressure at the NBAL monitoring site.
Benzene and carbon tetrachloride had moderately strong to strong negative correlations
with the temperature and moisture parameters at the PVAL monitoring site while formaldehyde
and/>-dichlorobenzene tended to have moderately strong to very strong positive correlations with
the same parameters. Acrolein was detected fewer than four times at the PVAL site, therefore,
no Pearson Correlations were calculated for this pollutant. Correlations with the wind
parameters tended to be weak. Benzene exhibited a very strong positive correlation with sea
level pressure (0.78), suggesting that concentrations of benzene increase as surface pressure
increases.
4-6
-------
Several pollutants exhibited strong positive correlations with the temperature and
moisture variables at the SIAL monitoring site, of which dibenz (a,h) anthracene, formaldehyde,
and acrolein had the strongest correlations. Many pollutants had moderately strong to strong
positive correlations with the w-component of the wind, while almost all the pollutants exhibited
moderately strong to strong negative correlations with the v-component of the wind. This
indicates that ambient air concentrations at the SIAL are influenced greatly by which way and
how strongly the wind blows. Several pollutants had moderately strong to strong correlations
with sea level pressure, although the calculated correlations were both positive and negative.
4.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figures 4-11 thru 4-14 are composite back trajectory maps for the Alabama monitoring
sites for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along
which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day and each circle
represents 100 miles.
As shown in Figure 4-11, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
ETAL. The 24-hour airshed domain is somewhat smaller than other UATMP sites, with
trajectories originating as far away as southeast Kansas, or greater than 400 miles away. Nearly
56% of the trajectories originated within 200 miles of the site; and 78% within 300 miles from
the ETAL monitoring site.
As shown in Figure 4-12, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
NBAL. The 24-hour airshed domain is somewhat smaller than other UATMP sites, with
trajectories originating as far away as southeast Kansas, or greater than 400 miles away. Nearly
50% of the trajectories originated within 200 miles of the site; and 72% within 300 miles from
the NBAL monitoring site.
As shown in Figure 4-13, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
PVAL. The 24-hour airshed domain is somewhat smaller than other UATMP sites, with
trajectories originating as far away as southeast Kansas, or nearly 500 miles away. Nearly 53%
4-7
-------
of the trajectories originated within 200 miles of the site; and 82% within 300 miles from the
PVAL monitoring site.
As shown in Figure 4-14, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
SIAL. The 24-hour airshed domain is somewhat smaller than other UATMP sites, with
trajectories originating as far away as southeast Kansas, or nearly 500 miles away. Over 56% of
the trajectories originated within 200 miles of the site; and 88% within 300 miles from the SIAL
monitoring site.
4.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from the Birmingham International Airport and Tuscaloosa Municipal
Airport stations were uploaded into a wind rose software program, WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006).
WRPLOT produces a graphical wind rose from the wind data. A wind rose shows the frequency
of wind directions about a 16-point compass, and uses different shading to represent wind
speeds. Figures 4-15 through 4-18 are the wind roses for the Alabama monitoring sites on days
sampling occurred.
As indicated in Figure 4-15, hourly winds were predominantly out of the north (10% of
observations), south-southeast (10%), and south (7%) on days samples were taken near ETAL.
Calm winds (<2 knots) were recorded for 33% of the hourly measurements. For wind speeds
greater than 2 knots, 27% of observations ranged from 7 to 11 knots.
As indicated in Figure 4-16, hourly winds were predominantly out of north (10%), south-
southeast (8%), northwest (7%), and south (6%) on days samples were taken near NBAL.
Similar to ETAL, calm winds were observed for 33% of the observations, and windspeeds of 7 to
11 knots were recorded for 28% of the wind measurements.
As shown in Figure 4-17, northerly (9%) and southerly (12%) winds were predominant
near PVAL on days samples were taken. Wind speeds in the 7 to 11 knot range were most often
recorded on days with northerly or southerly winds. Nearly 40 percent of hourly wind speed
measurements were calm, or less than 2 knots.
4-8
-------
Figure 4-18 shows that the SIAL windrose is very similar to the ETAL wind rose.
Northerly winds occurred most frequently (11%), followed by south-southeasterly winds (10%),
and southerly winds (7%). Wind speeds at SIAL were frequently less than 2 knots (33%), but
when greater than 2 knots, tended to fall into the 7 to 11 knot range (29%).
4.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following two spatial
analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic volume comparisons; and BTEX analyses.
4.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Volume Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population in Jefferson County, AL were obtained
from the Alabama Department of Revenue and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in
Table 4-6. Table 4-6 also includes a vehicle registration to county population ratio (vehicles per
person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimation of
10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile population surrounding the monitor
and the vehicle registration ratio. Finally, Table 4-6 contains the average daily traffic
information, which represents the average number of vehicles passing the monitoring sites on the
nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
As presented in Table 4-6, the PVAL monitoring site has a significantly lower population
residing within 10 miles of it than the other sites, and therefore a significantly lower estimated 10
mile vehicle ownership. Traffic data for three Birmingham sites was obtained from the Alabama
Department of Transportation, but no traffic data was available for PVAL. The ETAL site
experiences a significantly higher daily traffic volume than NBAL and SIAL, and according to
Figure 4-1, resides next to a major interstate. Compared to other UATMP locations, Jefferson
County's population and vehicle registration are slightly above the middle of the range.
4.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information of this study, refer to Section 3.2.1.4). Table 3-11 presented
4-9
-------
and Figure 3-4 depicted the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compared
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites in an effort to characterize the
impact of on-road, or motor vehicle, emissions. Of the four Alabama sites, the NBAL
monitoring site's ratios most resemble those of the roadside study, suggesting that mobile source
emissions are a major influence at this site. At ETAL, the benzene-ethylbenzene (3.28 ฑ 0.63)
and xylenes-ethylbenzene (3.56 ฑ 0.26) ratios are similar to each other, while the toluene-
ethylbenzene ratio is the highest of the three (5.12 ฑ 0.28). At PVAL, the toluene-ethylbenzene
ratio (9.85 ฑ 2.09) is significantly higher than the other two ratios, as well as the roadside study's
ratios. The ratios at the SIAL monitoring site least resemble the roadside study. SIAL's
benzene-ethylbenzene ratio (6.56 ฑ 2.24) is the highest, followed by the toluene-ethylbenzene
ratio (5.74 ฑ 0.68) and the xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio (3.49 ฑ 0.35).
4.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and presented in this section. One purpose
of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air quality
concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient monitoring
data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to model
ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are then
applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC) factors
to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 4-7 presents the 1999 NATA results
for the census tracts where the Alabama monitoring sites are located. Only pollutants that
"failed" the screens are presented in Table 4-7. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
The ETAL monitoring site is located in census tract 01073001200 with a population of
3,603, which represents 0.5% of the county population in 2000. The NBAL monitoring site is
located in census tract 01073000800, with a population of 5,387, which represents 0.8% of
Jefferson County's 2000 population. PVAL is located in census tract 01073014102. The
population in that census tract was 5,132, or just less than 0.8% of the county's 2000 population.
Finally, SIAL is located in census tract 01073005500. In 2000, the population in this census
tract was 2,689 or 0.4 % of the 2000 county population.
4-10
-------
4.6.1 1999 NATA Summary
In terms of cancer risk, the Top 3 pollutants identified by NATA in the ETAL, NBAL,
and SIAL census tracts are benzene (16.03, 19.77, and 19.41 in-a-million risk, respectively), 1,3-
butadiene (4.81. 6.17, and 5.01 in-a-million, respectively), and acetaldehyde (4.48, 4.89, and
4.52 in-a-million, respectively). While these cancer risks are relatively low when compared to
other urban areas, such as near the BAPR and MTMN monitoring sites (71.0 and 39.5 in-a-
million, respectively), the NBAL and SIAL benzene cancer risk are both in the Top 10 cancer
risks among all UATMP sites for the pollutants of interest. Acrolein was the only pollutant in
the Alabama census tracts to have a noncancer hazard quotient greater than 1.0 (an HQ greater
than 1.0 may lead to adverse health effects), ranging from 6.81 at ETAL to 7.71 at NBAL. Most
noncancer hazard quotients were less than 0.20, suggesting very little risk for noncancer health
affects, with the exception of acrolein.
Cancer risk in the PVAL census tract tended to be lower than at the other Alabama
census tracts. In terms of cancer risk, the Top 3 pollutants identified by NATA in the PVAL
census tract are benzene (7.47 in-a-million risk), carbon tetrachloride (3.17 in-a-million), and
acetaldehyde (2.79 in-a-million). Acrolein was the only pollutant in the PVAL census tract to
have a noncancer hazard quotient greater than 1.0 (3.40), which may lead to adverse health
effects. Most noncancer hazard quotients were less than 0.15, suggesting very little risk for
noncancer health affects, with the exception of acrolein.
4.6.2 Annual Average Comparison
NATA-modeled concentrations are assumed to be the average concentration that a person
breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid annual average representing an entire year, including
detects and non-detects, needs to be calculated (refer to Section 4.2 on how a valid annual
average is calculated). Unfortunately, the Alabama sites did not begin sampling until July 2005,
therefore, valid annual averages could not be calculated.
4-11
-------
Alabama Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest common to each Alabama site are acetaldehyde, acrolein,
arsenic, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, manganese, naphthalene, and
p-dichlorobenzene.
Total xylenes measured the highest daily average at each of the three Birmingham sites
(ETAL, NBAL, andSIAL), while formaldehyde had the highest daily average at PVAL.
Acrolein was the only pollutant to exceed either of the short-term risk factors.
4-12
-------
Figure 4-1. Birmingham, Alabama (ETAL) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
4-13
-------
Figure 4-2. Birmingham, Alabama (NBAL) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
4-14
-------
Figure 4-3. Birmingham, Alabama (PVAL) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
4-15
-------
Figure 4-4. Birmingham, Alabama (SIAL) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
4-16
-------
Figure 4-5. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of the Birmingham, Alabama Sites
ETAL, NBAL, and SIAL
>;
Shelby
County
H 1 1 1
Note; Due to faoiltty density and collocation, the local facilities
displayed may not represent al facilities wiEhin She area of interest.
Legend
ETAL UATMP site
NBAL UATMP site
SIAL UATMP site
10 mite radius
| County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
ฅ Automotive Repair, Services. & Parking (1)
'i Business Services Facility (2)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (8)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (8)
H Furniture & Fixtures Facility (2)
+ Health Services Facility (1)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (2)
r Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (2)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (1)
II Medical, Dental, & Hospital Equipment and Supplies (1)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (4)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (3)
v Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (3)
2 Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels (2)
P Petroleum/Nat Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (3)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (2)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (7)
# Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (2)
ป Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (21)
T Transportation Equipment (1)
'!' Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (11)
>: Wioiesaie Trade (2)
4-17
-------
Figure 4-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of PVAL
/p
Jefferson
County
TuscaSoosa
County
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area gf interest.
Legend
jV PVALUATMPsite
10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
Coal Mining (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (2)
p Petroleum/Nat, Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (1)
s Utility Boilers (1)
4-18
-------
Figure 4-7. Acrolein Pollution Rose at ETAL
_o
73
ai
o
o
O
o
a.
,.u
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
A n
NW N
-
-
w ,'~r
^ .c
*~<
-
-
-
-
Ava Cone =1 .47 ฑ 0.51 ua/m3
sw
s
NE
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
*
V * E
SE
4.0
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0
1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Pollutant Concentration
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
-------
Figure 4-8. Acrolein Pollution Rose at NBAL
to
o
O.VJ
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
c
O
4=
2 0.5
4-1
tConcer
o
b
|as
o
a.
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3 n
NW N
-
w .'-
X
ซ
-
-
Ava Cone =1.41 ฑ 0.43 uq/m3
sw
s
NE
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
,
-v- E
J f;
*
*
SE
3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5
Pollutant Concentration
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
-------
Figure 4-9. Acrolein Pollution Rose at PVAL
O.VJ
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
c
O
4=
2 0.5
i:
c
01
o
0 0.0
O
4-1
"5
Q.
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3 n
NW N
-
-
W ^
,'' /-
i i i i i . i
\ v.
X
-
-
SW
s
NE
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
E
"N^ \
J.i i i i i
-^ f!
.-"
Ava Cone = 1 .41 ฑ 1 .09 ua/m3
SE
3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5
Pollutant Concentration
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
-------
Figure 4-10. Acrolein Pollution Rose at SIAL
to
to
o
73
ฃ
o
o
o
a.
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5
Pollutant Concentration
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
NW N
-
*
w ,--;
* "V
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
35 sw
s
A n I
NE
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDRMRL(0.11 |jg/m3)
V' E
J,.
Ava Cone =2.34 ฑ 0.92 ua/m3
SE
3.5 4.0
-------
Figure 4-11. Composite Back Trajectory Map for ETAL
to
-------
Figure 4-12. Composite Back Trajectory Map for NBAL
to
-------
Figure 4-13. Composite Back Trajectory Map for PVAL
to
-------
Figure 4-14. Composite Back Trajectory Map for SIAL
to
-------
Figure 4-15. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the ETAL Monitoring Site
to
WEST ;
15%
12%
9%.
6%.
SOUTH ,-"
! EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | >= 22
I I 17 - 21
^| 11 - 17
^| 7- 11
I I -q- 7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 33.41%
-------
Figure 4-16. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the NBAL Monitoring Site
to
oo
WEST!"
i
t
ซ.
NORTH1
15%
12%
9%.
6%.
SOUTH ,-"
! EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | >= 22
I I 17 - 21
^| 11 - 17
^| 7- 11
I I -q- 7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 32.77%
-------
Figure 4-17. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the PVAL Monitoring Site
to
VO
WEST ;
15%
12%
9%.
6%.
SOUTH ,-"
! EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | >= 22
I I 17 - 21
^| 11 - 17
^| 7- 11
I I -q- 7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 38.33%
-------
Figure 4-18. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the SIAL Monitoring Site
-^
OJ
o
WEST!"
i
ซ.
i i
15%
12%
9%.
6%.
SOUTH ,-"
! EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | >= 22
I I 17 - 21
^| 11 - 17
^| 7- 11
I I -q- 7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 33.42%
-------
Table 4-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Alabama
Site
ETAL
NBAL
PVAL
SIAL
WBAN
13876
13876
93806
13876
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(ฐF)
73.01
ฑ 1.50
75.33
ฑ6.45
73.01
ฑ1.50
74.89
ฑ6.69
75.24
ฑ 1.50
79.82
ฑ5.90
73.01
ฑ1.50
77.63
ฑ6.35
Average
Temperature
(ปF)
63.18
ฑ1.48
64.75
ฑ6.94
63.18
ฑ1.48
64.09
ฑ7.16
63.99
ฑ1.48
67.42
ฑ6.64
63.18
ฑ1.48
66.67
ฑ7.08
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(ฐF)
51.64
ฑ 1.71
53.36
ฑ8.25
51.64
ฑ1.71
52.44
ฑ8.44
53.34
ฑ 1.68
57.55
ฑ7.78
51.64
ฑ1.71
55.06
ฑ8.65
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(ฐF)
56.98
ฑ 1.45
58.58
ฑ7.03
56.98
ฑ1.45
57.83
ฑ7.23
58.16
ฑ 1.45
61.77
ฑ6.79
56.98
ฑ1.45
60.25
ฑ7.29
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
69.45
ฑ1.29
70.10
ฑ5.87
69.45
ฑ1.29
69.39
ฑ5.77
71.69
ฑ1.10
73.76
ฑ4.01
69.45
ฑ1.29
69.89
ฑ6.44
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mh)
1017.67
ฑ0.57
1017.87
ฑ2.35
1017.67
ฑ0.57
1017.82
ฑ2.35
1017.32
ฑ0.58
1017.29
ฑ2.43
1017.67
ฑ0.57
1017.65
ฑ2.62
Average
ซ-component of
the wind
-0.01
ฑ0.36
-0.27
ฑ0.99
-0.01
ฑ0.36
-0.03
ฑ1.10
0.09
ฑ0.26
-0.03
ฑ0.83
-0.01
ฑ0.36
-0.31
ฑ1.12
Average
v-component
of the wind
-0.2
ฑ0.37
0.25
ฑ1.85
-0.2
ฑ0.37
-0.03
ฑ1.92
-0.39
ฑ0.33
0.35
ฑ1.77
-0.20
ฑ0.37
0.37
ฑ2.07
-------
Table 4-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at
the Alabama Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
%of
Detects
Failing
% of Total
Failures
%
Contribution
East Thomas in Birmingham, Alabama - ETAL
Arsenic (TSP)
Formaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Manganese (TSP)
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Naphthalene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Nickel (TSP)
Cadmium (TSP)
Xylenes
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Acrolein
Benzo (a) pyrene
Acrylonitrile
Total
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
12
9
7
7
7
7
1
1
192
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
16
14
16
16
16
7
7
13
1
232
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
93.8
85.7
56.3
43.8
43.8
100.0
100.0
7.7
100.0
82.8
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
7.8%
7.8%
7.8%
6.3%
4.7%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
0.5%
0.5%
8.3%
16.7%
25.0%
33.3%
41.7%
50.0%
57.8%
65.6%
73.4%
79.7%
84.4%
88.0%
91.7%
95.3%
99.0%
99.5%
100.0%
North Birmingham, Alabama - NBAL
Manganese (TSP)
Arsenic (PM10)
Arsenic (TSP)
Naphthalene
Manganese (PM10)
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium (TSP)
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
Cadmium (PM10)
Nickel (TSP)
Acrolein
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Nickel (PM10)
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
16
16
16
16
15
14
14
14
14
14
11
10
9
8
8
6
6
5
4
3
2
2
16
16
16
16
16
14
14
14
14
14
11
16
11
14
16
16
6
5
12
16
16
15
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
93.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
62.5
81.8
57.1
50.0
37.5
100.0
100.0
33.3
18.8
12.5
13.3
6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
6.9%
6.5%
6.1%
6.1%
6.1%
6.1%
6.1%
4.8%
4.3%
3.9%
3.5%
3.5%
2.6%
2.6%
2.2%
1.7%
1.3%
0.9%
0.9%
6.9%
13.9%
20.8%
27.7%
34.2%
40.3%
46.3%
52.4%
58.4%
64.5%
69.3%
73.6%
77.5%
81.0%
84.4%
87.0%
89.6%
91.8%
93.5%
94.8%
95.7%
96.5%
4-32
-------
Table 4-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at
the Alabama Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Acrylonitrile
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Trichloroethylene
Total
#of
Failures
2
2
1
1
1
1
231
#of
Detects
13
8
1
1
10
11
348
%of
Detects
Failing
15.4
25.0
100.0
100.0
10.0
9.1
66.4
% of Total
Failures
0.9%
0.9%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
%
Contribution
97.4%
98.3%
98.7%
99.1%
99.6%
100.0%
Providence, Alabama - PVAL
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese (TSP)
Naphthalene
Acrolein
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
1,3 -Butadiene
Total
16
15
15
15
15
14
10
o
J
3
2
2
110
16
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
3
2
8
136
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
93.3
62.5
18.8
100.0
100.0
25.0
80.9
14.5%
13.6%
13.6%
13.6%
13.6%
12.7%
9.1%
2.7%
2.7%
1.8%
1.8%
14.5%
28.2%
41.8%
55.5%
69.1%
81.8%
90.9%
93.6%
96.4%
98.2%
100.0%
Sloss Industries in Birmingham, Alabama - SIAL
Manganese (TSP)
Arsenic (TSP)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Naphthalene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Nickel (TSP)
Benzo (a) pyrene
Acrolein
Xylenes
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene
Beryllium (TSP)
Cadmium (TSP)
Chloromethylbenzene
Total
16
16
15
15
14
13
13
12
12
9
8
6
5
4
o
J
3
o
J
2
1
170
16
16
15
15
15
13
13
12
13
10
16
13
5
13
o
3
8
16
16
1
229
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
93.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
92.3
90.0
50.0
46.2
100.0
30.8
100.0
37.5
18.8
12.5
100.0
74.2
9.4%
9.4%
8.8%
8.8%
8.2%
7.6%
7.6%
7.1%
7.1%
5.3%
4.7%
3.5%
2.9%
2.4%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.2%
0.6%
9.4%
18.8%
27.6%
36.5%
44.7%
52.4%
60.0%
67.1%
74.1%
79.4%
84.1%
87.6%
90.6%
92.9%
94.7%
96.5%
98.2%
99.4%
100.0%
4-33
-------
Table 4-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Alabama Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
East Thomas in Birmingham, Alabama - ETAL
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Cadmium (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Naphthalene
Nickel (TSP)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
16
16
7
16
16
16
16
16
7
16
15
16
15
14
16
16
16
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
16
16
16
16
0.24
2.05
1.47
0.0018
3.44
0.0005
0.70
4.56
0.17
0.06
0.31
0.0025
0.37
0.43
8.94
0.07
0.41
0.51
0.0004
1.09
0.0002
0.05
0.91
0.04
0.02
0.16
0.0005
0.10
0.15
2.76
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.25
2.28
NR
0.0017
4.03
0.0005
0.68
4.42
NR
0.06
0.37
0.0029
0.44
0.45
10.33
0.13
0.71
NR
0.0007
1.86
0.0002
0.07
1.21
NR
0.02
0.25
0.0008
0.15
0.23
4.51
North Birmingham, Alabama - NBAL
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Cadmium (TSP)
11
14
6
16
16
14
16
12
13
15
16
14
14
14
16
16
14
16
16
16
16
16
0.18
1.67
1.41
0.0022
0.0023
3.48
0.0038
0.0025
0.003
0.003
0.0010
0.06
0.34
0.43
0.0006
0.0005
1.52
0.0030
0.0024
0.003
0.002
0.0004
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.002
0.002
NR
0.006
NR
0.004
0.004
0.001
NR
NR
NR
0.001
0.001
NR
0.005
NR
0.004
0.007
0.001
-------
Table 4-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Alabama Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Cadmium (PM10)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Manganese (PM10)
Naphthalene
Nickel (TSP)
Nickel (PM10)
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
#
Detects
16
14
8
14
5
16
16
16
16
16
14
11
14
#
Samples
16
14
16
14
14
16
16
16
16
16
14
14
14
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
0.0009
0.69
0.0009
3.86
0.19
0.07
0.04
0.29
0.0022
0.0015
0.43
0.32
11.86
Conf.
Int.
0.0004
0.04
0.0008
1.10
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.10
0.0006
0.0003
0.08
0.08
4.26
Winter
Avg
(Hg/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Conf.
Int.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Spring
Avg
(Hg/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Conf.
Int.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Summer
Avg
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Conf.
Int.
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Autumn
Avg
(Hg/m3)
0.001
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.096
0.047
0.304
0.003
0.002
NR
NR
NR
Conf.
Int.
0.001
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.049
0.021
0.161
0.001
0.000
NR
NR
NR
Providence, Alabama - PVAL
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese (TSP)
Naphthalene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
15
o
5
16
15
15
15
16
16
15
15
14
16
15
15
15
16
16
15
1.17
1.41
0.0010
0.68
0.68
3.28
0.0060
0.02
0.38
0.19
1.09
0.0002
0.10
0.05
0.96
0.0013
0.00
0.11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.29
NR
0.0009
0.61
0.71
3.14
0.0072
0.0131
0.27
0.26
NR
0.0002
0.12
0.08
1.07
0.0021
0.0045
0.04
Sloss Industries in Birmingham, Alabama - SIAL
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (TSP)
12
15
5
16
13
15
13
16
0.25
1.48
2.34
0.005
0.06
0.21
0.92
0.004
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.61
NR
0.007
NR
0.33
NR
0.007
-------
Table 4-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Alabama Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Benzene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Beryllium (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Naphthalene
Nickel (TSP)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
#
Detects
13
13
16
13
8
15
3
16
15
16
13
10
13
#
Samples
13
15
16
13
15
15
13
16
15
16
13
13
13
Daily
Avg
(Ug/m3)
6.50
0.001
0.0003
0.67
0.0006
3.29
0.14
0.119
0.38
0.002
0.57
0.43
8.27
Conf.
Int.
2.15
0.001
0.0002
0.06
0.0002
0.65
0.06
0.066
0.14
0.001
0.21
0.14
2.61
Winter
Avg
(Ug/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Conf.
Int.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Spring
Avg
(Ug/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Conf.
Int.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Summer
Avg
(Ug/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Conf.
Int.
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Autumn
Avg
(Ug/m3)
NR
NR
0.0004
NR
NR
3.09
NR
0.15
0.44
0.003
NR
NR
NR
Conf.
Int.
NR
NR
0.0003
NR
NR
0.64
NR
0.13
0.23
0.001
NR
NR
NR
NA = Not Available due to short
NR = Not Reportable due to low
sampling duration.
number of detects.
-------
Table 4-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Alabama Monitoring Sites
Site
ETAL
NBAL
PVAL
SIAL
Method
TO-15
TO-15
TO-15
TO-15
Pollutant
Acrolein
Acrolein
Acrolein
Acrolein
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1.47
ฑ0.51
1.41
ฑ0.43
1.41
ฑ1.09
2.34
ฑ0.92
ATSDR
Short-term
MRL
(Hg/m3)
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
7
6
o
J
5
CAL EPA
REL Acute
(Hg/m3)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
7
6
3
5
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(Hg/m3)
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
Winter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Spring
Average
(Hg/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Summer
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
Autumn
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA = Not Available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not Reportable due to low number of detects.
-------
Table 4-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Alabama
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
w-Component
of the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea Level
Pressure
East Thomas in Birmingham, Alabama - ETAL
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Cadmium (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Naphthalene
Nickel (TSP)
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
16
16
7
16
16
16
16
16
7
16
15
16
15
14
16
0.07
0.27
0.16
0.30
0.08
0.18
-0.19
0.68
-0.71
0.09
-0.04
0.03
0.56
0.35
0.18
-0.05
0.11
0.14
0.18
-0.07
0.04
-0.06
0.58
-0.77
-0.03
-0.17
0.03
0.42
0.21
0.03
-0.08
0.00
0.14
0.20
-0.12
0.06
-0.03
0.47
-0.95
0.03
-0.26
0.15
0.31
0.15
0.00
-0.09
0.03
0.14
0.17
-0.12
0.04
-0.03
0.51
-0.88
-0.01
-0.23
0.09
0.34
0.16
-0.01
-0.08
-0.24
0.13
0.18
-0.14
0.10
0.01
0.03
-0.70
0.17
-0.31
0.42
-0.02
-0.04
-0.05
0.41
0.28
0.39
0.11
0.16
0.10
0.19
0.24
-0.54
0.16
0.00
0.09
0.14
-0.04
0.23
-0.05
-0.21
-0.18
-0.40
-0.14
-0.23
0.43
-0.10
0.58
-0.27
0.10
-0.19
-0.02
0.01
-0.28
0.15
0.18
0.32
0.26
0.37
0.34
-0.06
0.03
0.89
0.22
0.53
-0.30
-0.02
0.17
0.18
North Birmingham, Alabama - NBAL
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Cadmium (PM10)
11
14
6
16
16
14
16
12
13
15
16
0.22
0.55
0.30
0.29
0.31
0.11
0.09
0.16
0.08
0.10
0.57
0.10
0.44
0.23
0.14
0.18
-0.02
0.00
0.12
0.01
0.02
0.44
0.14
0.33
0.01
0.14
0.20
-0.06
-0.08
0.09
-0.02
-0.04
0.38
0.11
0.37
0.16
0.12
0.17
-0.06
-0.06
0.10
-0.02
-0.03
0.39
0.24
-0.01
-0.34
0.09
0.19
-0.09
-0.19
0.01
-0.06
-0.13
0.10
-0.36
0.05
-0.23
0.06
-0.07
-0.09
-0.03
-0.12
-0.18
-0.08
0.04
0.27
-0.22
0.10
-0.16
-0.13
-0.01
-0.02
0.04
-0.03
-0.06
-0.14
0.63
0.00
0.63
0.22
0.13
0.40
0.20
0.06
0.18
0.23
-0.07
-------
Table 4-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Alabama
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Cadmium (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
Manganese (TSP)
Naphthalene
Nickel (PM10)
Nickel (TSP)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
#
Detects
16
14
8
14
5
16
16
16
16
16
14
11
14
Maximum
Temperature
0.52
-0.11
0.33
0.84
0.34
0.29
0.20
0.08
0.28
0.04
0.51
0.33
0.22
Average
Temperature
0.40
-0.10
0.30
0.79
0.07
0.18
0.14
-0.07
0.26
0.05
0.39
0.24
0.11
Dew Point
Temperature
0.33
-0.08
0.28
0.74
-0.26
0.06
0.03
-0.10
0.32
0.14
0.32
0.33
0.15
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.35
-0.09
0.28
0.76
-0.04
0.11
0.07
-0.10
0.29
0.10
0.34
0.28
0.12
Relative
Humidity
0.07
-0.03
0.15
0.37
-0.42
-0.23
-0.23
-0.11
0.37
0.33
0.06
0.47
0.24
w-Component
of the Wind
-0.06
-0.48
-0.40
-0.03
-0.89
-0.32
-0.59
0.11
-0.05
-0.07
0.04
-0.46
-0.14
v-Component
of the Wind
-0.10
0.46
0.12
-0.07
0.63
0.37
0.66
-0.07
-0.09
-0.17
-0.25
0.35
-0.25
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.07
0.16
0.13
-0.21
0.79
0.06
0.09
0.27
-0.42
-0.41
0.10
0.10
0.32
Providence, Alabama - PVAL
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese (TSP)
Naphthalene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
15
o
J
16
15
15
15
16
16
15
0.13
0.25
0.01
-0.56
-0.37
0.78
0.24
-0.27
0.49
-0.10
0.04
-0.01
-0.66
-0.30
0.64
0.07
-0.23
0.58
-0.20
0.03
-0.01
-0.64
-0.28
0.55
-0.02
-0.19
0.61
-0.17
0.03
-0.01
-0.65
-0.28
0.59
0.00
-0.21
0.61
-0.45
0.21
-0.03
-0.42
-0.17
0.15
-0.26
-0.05
0.53
0.36
-0.63
0.09
0.24
-0.32
0.13
0.09
-0.09
-0.01
-0.19
0.67
-0.26
-0.04
0.15
0.04
-0.20
0.06
0.28
0.15
-0.59
0.39
0.78
-0.11
-0.15
0.00
0.31
-0.25
Sloss Industries in Birmingham, Alabama - SIAL
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (TSP)
12
15
5
16
0.01
0.28
0.74
-0.20
-0.12
0.15
0.62
-0.14
-0.12
0.02
0.52
0.00
-0.14
0.06
0.55
-0.06
-0.04
-0.28
0.11
0.37
0.48
0.38
0.61
0.02
-0.48
-0.52
-0.57
-0.63
0.33
-0.08
0.60
-0.24
-------
Table 4-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Alabama
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Benzene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Beryllium (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Naphthalene
Nickel (TSP)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
#
Detects
13
13
16
13
8
15
o
6
16
15
16
13
10
13
Maximum
Temperature
0.49
0.63
0.05
-0.17
0.78
0.77
Average
Temperature
0.35
0.55
0.07
-0.08
0.81
0.71
Dew Point
Temperature
0.23
0.40
0.19
-0.07
0.75
0.68
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.27
0.46
0.13
-0.06
0.78
0.69
Relative
Humidity
-0.10
-0.09
0.42
-0.04
0.47
0.40
w-Component
of the Wind
0.30
0.30
0.04
-0.05
0.09
0.23
v-Component
of the Wind
-0.48
-0.32
-0.66
0.52
-0.62
-0.26
Sea Level
Pressure
0.10
-0.24
-0.29
-0.47
-0.18
-0.36
NA
-0.05
0.14
-0.04
0.27
0.12
0.34
-0.01
-0.04
0.02
0.12
0.05
0.19
0.13
-0.17
0.16
0.06
0.10
0.12
0.07
-0.13
0.10
0.07
0.07
0.13
0.46
-0.38
0.47
-0.08
0.21
-0.05
0.08
0.31
-0.01
0.19
-0.43
0.17
-0.59
-0.17
-0.40
-0.28
0.17
-0.34
-0.30
0.33
-0.32
0.17
0.32
0.17
J^.
o
-------
Table 4-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the Alabama Monitoring Sites
Site
ETAL
NBAL
PVAL
SIAL
2005 Estimated
County
Population
657,229
657,229
657,229
657,229
Number of
Vehicles
Registered
544,407
544,407
544,407
544,407
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
Population
Within 10 Miles
399,149
394,649
28,665
394,649
Estimated 10
mile Vehicle
Ownership
330,630
326,902
23,744
326,902
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
30,000
2,000
NA
2,700
NA = Not available.
-------
Table 4-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in
Alabama
Pollutant
2005
UATMP
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
East Thomas in Birmingham, Alabama - ETAL, Census Tract 01073001200
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Cadmium (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Naphthalene
Nickel (TSP)
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.16
2.04
0.14
0.01
0.03
2.06
0.01
0.18
0.22
1.81
O.01
5.94
0.09
0.42
0.03
0.17
3.32
4.81
4.48
0.13
0.14
16.03
0.07
0.32
3.24
0.01
0.03
2.98
0.07
0.37
1.03
0.08
0.23
6.81
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.18
O.01
0.12
0.03
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.03
North Birmingham, Alabama - NBAL, Census Tract 01073000800
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic (TSP)
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Cadmium (TSP)
Cadmium (PM10)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Manganese (PM10)
Manganese (TSP)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.03
0.21
2.22
0.15
O.01
0.03
0.03
2.53
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.90
0.90
0.21
O.01
1.95
O.01
0.01
10.74
10.74
0.83
6.17
4.89
0.16
0.11
0.11
19.77
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.05
1.61
1.61
3.19
0.08
0.01
0.03
0.05
~
-
O.01
0.10
0.25
7.71
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.08
~
0.04
0.04
O.01
0.20
O.01
0.21
0.21
4-42
-------
Table 4-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring
Sites in Alabama (Continued)
Pollutant
Naphthalene
Nickel (PM10)
Nickel (TSP)
/j-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
2005
UATMP
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
0.11
0.75
0.75
0.03
0.18
0.12
6.31
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
3.85
0.12
0.12
0.38
1.04
0.25
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.06
Providence, Alabama- PVAL, Census Tract 01073014102
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Naphthalene
/j-Dichlorobenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.07
1.27
0.07
0.04
0.96
0.21
1.31
<0.01
2.74
0.03
0.01
2.18
2.79
0.18
7.47
3.17
0.01
0.03
1.05
0.12
0.04
0.14
3.40
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.13
O.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
Sloss Industries in Birmingham, Alabama- SIAL, Census Tract 1073005500
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Beryllium (TSP)
Cadmium (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethylbenzene
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Naphthalene
Nickel (TSP)
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.17
2.05
0.14
0.03
2.49
<0.01
0.01
0.42
0.21
0.01
<0.01
1.84
<0.01
10.65
0.09
0.74
0.03
0.17
5.80
5.01
4.52
0.13
19.41
0.08
0.01
0.75
3.15
0.01
0.08
0.01
0.03
3.12
0.12
0.31
1.00
~
0.08
0.23
6.90
0.01
0.08
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.19
O.01
0.21
0.03
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.06
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
4-43
-------
5.0 Site in Colorado
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Colorado (GPCO), located in Grand Junction. Figure 5-1 is a topographical map showing
the monitoring site in its urban location. Figure 5-2 identifies point source emission locations
within 10 miles of this site as reported in the 2002 NEI for point sources. The Grand Junction
site is surrounded by numerous sources, mostly located to the north and east of the site. A large
number of sources near GPCO fall into the liquids distribution source category.
Hourly meteorological data at a weather station near this site were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather station closest
to the GPCO monitoring site is Walker Field Airport (WBAN 23066).
Grand Junction is located in a mountain valley on the west side of the Rockies. This
location can help protect the area from dramatic weather changes. The area tends to be rather
dry and winds tend to flow out of the east-southeast on average, due to the valley breeze effect.
Valley breezes occur as the sun heats up the side of a mountain. The warm air rises, creating a
current that will move up the valley walls (Ruffner and Bair, 1987). Table 5-1 presents average
meteorological conditions of temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average
dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), pressure
(average sea level pressure), and wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind)
for the entire year and on days samples were taken. As shown in Table 5-1, average
meteorological conditions on sample days are fairly representative of average weather conditions
throughout the year.
5.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Colorado Monitoring Site
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest
is a modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured
pollutant concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily
concentration value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration
5-1
-------
"failed the screen." A total of 81 HAPs are listed in the guidance document as having risk
screening values. Table 5-2 presents the fourteen pollutants that failed at least one screen at
GPCO; a total of 366 measured concentrations failed screens. The pollutants of interest at
GPCO were identified as the pollutants that contributed to the top 95% of the total failed screens,
resulting in nine pollutants: acetaldehyde (62 failed screens), formaldehyde (61), benzene (59),
carbon tetrachloride (54), 1,3-butadiene (41), tetrachloroethylene (29), xylenes (23), acrolein
(15), and hexachloro-l,3-butadiene (10). It's important to note that the GPCO site sampled for
carbonyls and VOCs only, and that this is reflected in the site's pollutants of interest.
Also listed in Table 5-2 are the total number of detects and the percent detects failing the
screen. Of the nine pollutants of interest, acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, acrolein,
and hexachloro-l,3-butadiene had 100% of their detects fail the screening values.
5.2 Concentration Averages at the Colorado Monitoring Site
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the nine pollutants of interest:
daily, seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the average
concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a
seasonal average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all
non-detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects
in a respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no earlier than November. Daily and seasonal averages are
presented in Table 5-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in later
sections.
Among the daily averages at GPCO, total xylenes measured the highest concentration by
mass (11.09 ฑ 2.14 ug/m3), followed by formaldehyde (3.16 ฑ 0.44 ug/m3) and acetaldehyde
(3.02 ฑ 0.51 ug/m3). Total xylene concentrations also measured the highest among each season,
ranging from 8.72 ฑ 0.96 ug/m3 in winter to 13.43 ฑ 3.31 ug/m3 in autumn. Acetaldehyde,
5-2
-------
benzene, formaldehyde, and total xylenes were detected in every sample taken at GPCO, while
acrolein and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene were detected in less than one-half of the samples taken.
5.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Colorado Monitoring Site
Non-chronic risk for the concentration data at GPCO was evaluated using ATSDR acute
and intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) and California EPA acute reference exposure limit
(REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as exposures from 1 to 14 days while intermediate risk is
defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. It is useful to compare daily measurements to the
short-term MRL and REL factors, as well as compare seasonal averages to the intermediate
MRL. Of the fourteen pollutants with at least one failed screen, only acrolein exceeded both the
acute and intermediate risk values, and its non-chronic risk is summarized in Table 5-4.
All fifteen acrolein detects were greater than the ATSDR acute risk value of 0.11 ug/m3
and the California REL risk value of 0.19 ug/m3. The average detected acrolein concentration
was 1.68 ฑ 0.34 ug/m3, which is more than eight times the California REL value. For the
intermediate acrolein risk, seasonal averages were compared to the ATSDR intermediate value
of 0.09 ug/m3. As discussed in Sections 3.1.5, acrolein concentrations could only be evaluated
beginning July 2005, and a valid seasonal average could only be calculated for autumn. The
autumn seasonal average was significantly greater than the ATSDR intermediate risk level.
For the pollutants that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. Figure 5-3 is a pollution rose for acrolein at GPCO. The pollution rose
is a plot of daily concentration and daily average wind direction. As indicated in Figure 5-3, all
acrolein concentrations exceeded the acute risk factors, indicated by a dashed (CalEPA REL) and
solid line (ATSDR MRL). The concentrations on the pollution rose are scattered around the
center, a pattern characteristic of mobile sources. The highest concentration of acrolein occurred
on October 19, 2005 with a northerly wind, yet most of the concentrations were measured on a
day with wind with an easterly component. GPCO is situated near several roadways and a
railroad that runs east-northeast to west-southwest in relation to the monitoring site, and then
curves northwestward just south of the site (Figure 5-1).
5-3
-------
5.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Colorado Monitoring Site
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following three
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
5.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 5-5 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the GPCO monitoring site. (Please
refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) Many of the pollutants of
interest had moderately strong to very strong correlations with the temperature and moisture
variables. The strongest correlations with temperature occurred with hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
(-0.78 with maximum temperature and -0.81 with average temperature). However, it's important
to note that this pollutant was detected only 10 times. Moderately strong positive correlations
with temperature also occurred with acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, and xylenes, while
moderately strong negative correlations were calculated for 1,3-butadiene, benzene, and
tetrachloroethylene. It is interesting to note that pollutants with higher averages in the summer
(acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, and formaldehyde) also exhibited positive correlations with
maximum and average temperature. Conversely, benzene and 1,3-butadiene concentrations were
highest in winter. This observation matches well with the negative correlation with average and
maximum temperature for these two pollutants.
The strongest correlation with the dew point temperature occurred with acrolein (0.65)
and the strongest correlation with wet bulb temperature occurred with hexachloro-1,3-butadiene
(-0.73), yet both of these pollutants were detected fairly infrequently (15 and 10, respectively).
Benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and tetrachloroethylene exhibited moderately strong negative
correlations with the dew point and wet bulb temperatures, while carbon tetrachloride,
acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde had moderately strong positive correlations with these
parameters. Correlations with relative humidity tended to be slightly weaker.
5-4
-------
Hexachloro-l,3-butdiene and benzene had moderately strong correlations with the u-
component of the wind, indicating concentrations are significantly influenced by winds with an
easterly or westerly component. However, most of the wind correlations were weak. Several
pollutants of interest exhibited strong positive correlations with sea level pressure, indicating that
as surface pressure rises, concentrations of these compounds tend to increase. Benzene, 1,3-
butadiene, and tetrachloroethylene correlations were greater than 0.45, while hexachloro-1,3-
butadiene had a moderately strong positive correlation (0.29) with pressure.
5.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 5-4 is a composite back trajectory map for the GPCO monitoring site for the days
on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of
air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. Each circle around the site in
Figure 5-4 represents 100 miles. As shown in Figure 5-4, the back trajectories originated from a
variety of directions at GPCO. The 24-hour airshed domain is somewhat smaller at GPCO than
at other UATMP sites, with trajectories originating as far away as central Idaho, or greater than
400 miles away. However, 65% of the trajectories originated within 200 miles of the site; and
83% within 300 miles from the GPCO monitoring site.
5.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from the Walker Field Airport near the GPCO monitoring site was
uploaded into a wind rose software program, WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006). WRPLOT produces a
graphical wind rose from the wind data. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions
about a 16-point compass, and uses different shading to represent wind speeds. Figure 5-5 is the
wind rose for the GPCO monitoring site on days sampling occurred. As indicated in Figure 5-5,
hourly winds were predominantly out of the east-southeast (16% of observations), east (11%),
and southeast (10%) on sample days. Wind speeds tended to range from 7 to 11 knots on day
samples were taken (34% of observations). Calm winds (<2 knots) were observed for 14% of
the measurements.
5-5
-------
5.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following two spatial
analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; and BTEX analysis.
5.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Volume Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population in Mesa County, CO were obtained from
the Colorado Department of Revenue and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in
Table 5-6. Table 5-6 also includes a vehicle registration to county population ratio (vehicles per
person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimation of
10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile population surrounding the monitor
and the vehicle registration ratio. Finally, Table 5-6 contains the average daily traffic
information, which represents the average number of vehicles passing the monitoring sites on the
nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
Compared to other UATMP sites, GPCO's population and vehicle registration count is
low to mid-range; however, GPCO has one of the highest estimated vehicle registration-to-
population ratios. The average daily traffic count falls in the middle of the range compared to
other UATMP sites. The GPCO monitoring site is considered a commercial area and is located
in an urban-city center setting.
5.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to Section 3.2.1.4). Table 3-11 presented
and Figure 3-4 depicted the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compared
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites in an effort to characterize the
impact of on-road or motor vehicle emissions. At the GPCO site, the toluene-ethylbenzene ratio
(5.23 ฑ 0.49) and the xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio (4.69 ฑ 0.14), are closer together than the
roadside study. Similar to the roadside study, the GPCO benzene-ethylbenzene ratio (2.33 ฑ
0.27) is the lowest concentration ratio, although slightly lower than that of the roadside study
(2.85).
5-6
-------
5.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 5-7 presents the 1999 NATA
results for the census tract where the Colorado monitoring site is located. Only pollutants that
"failed" the screens are presented in Table 5-7. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
5.6.1 1999 NATA Summary
The GPCO monitoring site is located in census tract 08077000800. The census tract
population for the census tract where the GPCO monitoring site is located was 5,845, which
represents about 5% of the county population in 2000. In terms of cancer risk, the Top 3
pollutants identified by NATA in the GPCO census tract are benzene (4.39 in-a-million risk),
carbon tetrachloride (3.19), and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (2.13). These cancer risks are low
when compared to other urban areas, such as near the BAPR and MEVIN monitoring sites (71.0
and 39.5 in-a-million, respectively). Acrolein was the only pollutant in the GPCO census tract to
have a noncancer hazard quotient greater than 1.0, which may lead to adverse health effects.
Most noncancer hazard quotients were less than 0.10, suggesting very little risk for noncancer
health affects, with the exception of acrolein.
5.6.2 Annual Average Comparison
The Colorado monitoring site annual averages are also presented in Table 5-7 for
comparison to the 1999 NATA modeled concentrations. NATA-modeled concentrations are
assumed to be the average concentration that a person breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid
annual average representing an entire year, including detects and non-detects, needs to be
calculated (refer to Section 5.2 on how a valid annual average is calculated). With the exception
of hexachloro-l,3-butadiene and total xylenes, all the pollutants were within one order of
magnitude from each other. Acetaldehyde, benzene, formaldehyde, and xylenes are identified as
5-7
-------
the Top 4 pollutants by mass concentration from both the 1999 NATA-modeled and 2005 annual
average concentrations.
Colorado Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest at the Colorado site are acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3-
butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene,
tetrachloroethylene, and total xylenes.
Total xylenes measured the highest daily average at GPCO.
Acrolein was the only pollutant to exceed either of the short-term risk factors.
5-S
-------
Figure 5-1. Grand Junction, Colorado (GPCO) Monitoring Site
..X*& _JJซ
* " ":
N:;
: .:/f
.
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
5-9
-------
Figure 5-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of GPCO
Legend
iV GPCO UATMP site
Mesa County
_ L
L L
10 mile radius
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
A Agricultural Services Facility (1)
ฑ Automobile Dealers (1)
* Automotive Repair, Services, & Parking (3)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (2)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility {1}
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (5)
+ Health Services Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (52)
Note; Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
I County boundary
U Medical. Dental, & Hospital Equipment and Supplies (1)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1}
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (7)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (5)
+ Transportation by Air (3)
T V^aste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (3)
: Water Transportation Facility (1)
' Wholesale Trade (1)
5-10
-------
Figure 5-3. Acrolein Pollution Rose at GPCO
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
f) n
z.U
1.5
ง 1-0
IB
CO
ฃ 0.5
01
o
NW N
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
-
*
-
w ''
0 00 ' r
O
+J
c
ra 0.5
2
ฃ 1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 p|
O.U
3.5
4 n
\^v
^
-
-
-
-
Aua Cone =1 .68 ฑ 0.34 ua/m3
sw
s
NE
"~-, p
^\ * *.
J/ %
*
* *
^
SE
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5
Pollutant Concentration
1.0
1.5
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
-------
Figure 5-4. Composite Back Trajectory Map for GPCO
-------
Figure 5-5. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the GPCO Monitoring Site
WEST!
'NORTH"
20%
16%
12%
SOUTH .-'
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
17 - 21
CZI 1-1 - 1?
I i 7- 11
I I 4- 7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 1437%
-------
Table 5-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for the Monitoring Site in Colorado
Site
GPCO
WBAN
23066
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(ฐF)
66.19
ฑ1.99
66.83
ฑ4.69
Average
Temperature
(ฐF)
53.85
ฑ1.78
54.53
ฑ4.15
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
<ฐF)
30.48
ฑ1.12
29.95
ฑ2.43
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(ฐF)
42.50
ฑ 1.16
42.60
ฑ2.60
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
48.94
ฑ2.05
46.80
ฑ4.82
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1014.78
ฑ0.76
1014.50
ฑ1.88
Average
ซ-component
of the wind
-1.59
ฑ0.23
-1.43
ฑ0.59
Average
v-component
of the wind
0.75
ฑ0.29
1.02
ฑ0.68
-------
Table 5-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the
Colorado Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
%of
Detects
Failing
% of Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Grand Junction, Colorado - GPCO
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
Acrolein
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrylonitrile
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloro methane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Total
62
61
59
54
41
29
23
15
10
7
2
1
1
1
366
62
62
59
54
42
35
59
15
10
25
2
1
49
1
476
100.0
98.4
100.0
100.0
97.6
82.9
39.0
100.0
100.0
28.0
100.0
100.0
2.0
100.0
76.9
16.9%
16.7%
16.1%
14.8%
11.2%
7.9%
6.3%
4.1%
2.7%
1.9%
0.5%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
16.9%
33.6%
49.7%
64.5%
75.7%
83.6%
89.9%
94.0%
96.7%
98.6%
99.2%
99.5%
99.7%
100.0%
5-15
-------
Table 5-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Colorado Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
#
Detects
62
15
59
42
54
62
10
35
59
#
Samples
62
32
59
59
59
62
59
59
59
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
3.02
1.68
1.94
0.26
0.52
3.16
0.18
0.36
11.09
Conf.
Int.
0.51
0.34
0.23
0.05
0.04
0.44
0.03
0.06
2.14
Winter
Avg
(Hg/m3)
2.76
NR
2.84
0.31
0.43
2.85
NR
0.37
8.72
Conf.
Int.
0.25
NR
0.28
0.10
0.08
0.32
NR
0.09
0.96
Spring
Avg
(Hg/m3)
2.85
NR
1.29
NR
0.39
1.87
NR
NR
11.25
Conf.
Int.
0.73
NR
0.20
NR
0.08
0.34
NR
NR
6.21
Summer
Avg
(Hg/m3)
3.89
NR
1.38
0.13
0.60
4.43
NR
0.19
10.82
Conf.
Int.
1.75
NR
0.36
0.08
0.05
1.32
NR
0.06
4.88
Autumn
Avg
(Hg/m3)
2.53
0.83
2.17
0.26
0.56
3.39
1.06
0.33
13.43
Conf.
Int.
0.36
0.48
0.40
0.06
0.09
0.36
0.39
0.10
3.31
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
-------
Table 5-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Colorado Monitoring Site
Site
GPCO
Method
TO- 15
Pollutant
Acrolein
Daily Avg
(Hg/m3)
1.68
ฑ0.34
ATSDR
Short-term
MRL (jig/m3)
0.11
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
15
CAL EPA
REL Acute
(Hg/m3)
0.19
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
15
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(Hg/m3)
0.09
Winter
Avg
(Hg/m3)
NR
Spring
Avg
(Hg/m3)
NR
Summer
Avg
(Hg/m3)
NR
Autumn
Avg
(Hg/m3)
0.83
ฑ0.48
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
-------
Table 5-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Colorado
Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
M-Component of
the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea Level
Pressure
Grand Junction, Colorado - GPCO
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
62
15
59
42
54
62
10
35
59
0.32
0.24
-0.36
-0.46
0.10
0.36
-0.78
-0.40
0.28
0.30
0.31
-0.43
-0.49
0.13
0.36
-0.81
-0.44
0.22
0.13
0.65
-0.32
-0.27
0.31
0.29
-0.51
-0.31
-0.03
0.26
0.48
-0.44
-0.46
0.21
0.36
-0.73
-0.45
0.17
-0.27
0.16
0.36
0.46
0.07
-0.20
0.21
0.32
-0.25
0.01
0.02
-0.26
-0.16
-0.18
-0.14
0.38
-0.23
-0.13
0.01
-0.05
-0.13
-0.09
0.03
0.11
-0.19
-0.02
0.02
0.01
-0.08
0.57
0.48
-0.05
0.08
0.29
0.55
0.08
oo
-------
Table 5-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the Colorado Monitoring Site
Site
GPCO
2005 Estimated
County Population
129,872
Number of
Vehicles
Registered
148,158
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
1.14
Population
Within 10 Miles
106,900
Estimated 10
mile Vehicle
Ownership
121,952
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
19,572
VO
-------
Table 5-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Site in Colorado
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Site Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer
Risk
(in-a-
million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer
Risk
(hazard
quotient)
Grand Junction, Colorado - GPCO, Census Tract ID 08077000800
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloro methane
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes (total)
0.21 ฑ0.04
3.02 ฑ0.51
NA
0.07 ฑ0.01
1.94 ฑ0.23
0.49 ฑ0.04
0.09 ฑ0.01
0.43 ฑ0.10
3. 16 ฑ0.44
0.98 ฑ0.14
0.14 ฑ0.01
0.15 ฑ0.01
0.27 ฑ0.05
11.09 ฑ2.14
0.04
0.58
0.02
0.01
0.56
0.21
0.02
0.21
0.73
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.07
0.53
1.25
1.28
0.15
4.39
3.19
0.63
0.10
0.01
0.03
0.14
2.13
0.42
-
0.02
0.06
1.04
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
BOLD indicates a pollutant of interest.
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
5-20
-------
6.0 Sites in Florida
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the five
UATMP sites in and near the Tampa/St. Petersburg, FL area (AZFL, GAFL, SKFL, SMFL, and
SYFL), one site in the Ft. Lauderdale area (FLFL), and one site near Orlando, FL (ORFL).
Figures 6-1 through 6-7 are topographical maps showing the monitoring sites in their urban and
rural locations. Figures 6-8 through 6-10 identify point source emission sources within 10 miles
of the sites and that reported to the 2002 NEI. In the Tampa/St. Petersburg area, three of these
sites are located in Hillsborough County and two are located in Pinellas County. SKFL and
AZFL are located on the Peninsula, with the bulk of the facilities to the north of the sites, and
closest to SKFL. GAFL is located near the Gandy Bridge on Highway 92. A cluster of facilities
is located near GAFL, but most are farther to the west of this site. SYFL is farther inland in
Plant City. Most of the facilities within 10 miles are to the west or east of this site. SMFL is
located in the southwest portion of Hillsborough County, with relatively few facilities nearby. A
wide range of industries have facilities near these sites, of which surface coating processes and
fuel combustion are the most numerous. FLFL (Figure 6-9) is located near Florida's east coast
and nearby facilities are located mostly to the northeast and east of the monitoring site. Surface
coating and liquids distribution industries are the major source types within the 10 mile radius.
Several facilities surround ORFL (Figure 6-10), most of which are involved in waste treatment
and disposal or fuel combustion.
Hourly meteorological data at weather stations near these sites were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather station closest
to the GAFL and SMFL monitoring sites is Tampa International Airport (WBAN 12842); closest
to AZFL is St. Petersburg/Whitted Airport (WBAN 92806); closest to SKFL is St.
Petersburg/Clearwater International Airport (WBAN 12873); closest to SYFL is Winter Haven=s
Gilbert Airport (WBAN 12876); closest to FLFL is Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood International
Airport (WBAN 12849); and closest to ORFL is Orlando Executive Airport (WBAN 12841).
6-1
-------
Florida=s climate is subtropical, with very mild winters and warm, humid summers. The
annual average maximum temperature is around 8O F for all locations and average relative
humidity is near 70 percent. Although land and sea breezes affect each of the locations, wind
generally blows from an easterly direction due to high pressure offshore (Ruffner and Bair,
1987). Table 6-1 presents average meteorological conditions of temperature (average maximum
and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and
average relative humidity), pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind information (average
u- and v- components of the wind) for the entire year and on days samples were taken. As shown
in Table 6-1, average meteorological conditions on sample days are fairly representative of
average weather conditions throughout the year.
6.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Florida Monitoring Sites
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest
is a modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured
pollutant concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily
concentration value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those in which the individual pollutant's total failed
screens contributed to the top 95% of the site's total failed screens. A total of 81 HAPs are listed
in the guidance document as having risk screening values. Table 6-2 presents the pollutants that
failed at least one screen at the Florida monitoring sites. It's important to note that these sites
sampled for carbonyl compounds only and that only two carbonyls have risk screening values,
acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. Both pollutants failed the screen at least once at each site, as
indicated in Table 6-2, and both contributed almost equally to the number of failures. Therefore,
acetaldehyde and formaldehyde are the two pollutants of interest at each Florida site. Also listed
in Table 6-2 are the total number of detects and the percent detects failing the screen.
Acetaldehyde failed 100% of the screens at all seven Florida sites and formaldehyde failed 100%
of the screens at FLFL and SMFL.
6.2 Concentration Averages at the Florida Monitoring Sites
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the compounds of interest:
daily, seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the average
6-2
-------
concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a
seasonal average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all
non-detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects
in a respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no later than November. Daily and seasonal averages are
presented in Table 6-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in later
sections. With the exception of FLFL, all the Florida monitoring sites sampled year round.
Daily averages of acetaldehyde did not vary much among the sites, ranging from 1.25 ฑ
0.16 ug/m3 at SYFL to 2.77 ฑ 0.29 ug/m3 at FLFL. Seasonal acetaldehyde averages are available
for each season at each site (except FLFL). Interestingly, the highest acetaldehyde seasonal
averages occurred during the winter and spring at every site. However, most of the seasonal
averages of acetaldehyde did not differ statistically. Only SKFL's acetaldehyde winter average
was significantly higher than the other seasonal averages. The daily average concentration of
formaldehyde at SMFL and GAFL were significantly higher than at the remaining sites (14.81 ฑ
4.71 ug/m3 and 10.75 ฑ 7.33 ug/m3, respectively). The remaining sites' daily average
formaldehyde concentrations ranged from 1.94 ฑ 0.29 ug/m3 at AZFL to 3.84 ฑ 2.85 ug/m3 at
SKFL. With the exception of FLFL, seasonal averages for formaldehyde are also available for
each season at each site. The seasonal pattern observed for the acetaldehyde concentrations is
not similar to the seasonal formaldehyde averages. Three sites measured their highest seasonal
formaldehyde average during the summer (GAFL, ORFL, and SKFL), two during the spring
(AZFL and SMFL), and one during the winter (SYFL). However, the large confidence intervals
for the spring and summer GAFL formaldehyde averages, the SKFL summer formaldehyde
average, and the winter and spring formaldehyde averages, indicate that a few outliers may be
driving the formaldehyde averages upward.
6-3
-------
6.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Florida Monitoring Sites
Non-chronic risk for the concentration data at Florida monitoring sites was evaluated
using ATSDR acute and intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) and California EPA acute
reference exposure limit (REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as exposures from 1 to 14 days
while intermediate risk is defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. It is useful to compare daily
measurements to the short-term MRL and REL factors, as well as compare seasonal averages to
the intermediate MRL. Of the pollutants with at least one failed screen, only formaldehyde
exceeded either the acute and intermediate risk values, and each site's non-chronic risk is
summarized in Table 6-4.
Of the 358 detects of formaldehyde at the Florida sites, only 6 exceeded the ATSDR
Short-term MRL of 49 ^g/m3 (4 at GAFL, 1 at SKFL, and 1 at SMFL) and only 4 exceeded the
CAL EPA REL of 94 ug/m3 (3 at GAFL and 1 at SMFL). This represents less than 2% of
formaldehyde samples. Also presented in Table 6-4 is the ATSDR Intermediate MRL and
seasonal averages of formaldehyde. No seasonal averages for formaldehyde exceeded the
ATSDR Intermediate MRL of 40 ug/m3.
For the compounds that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. Three Florida monitoring sites, GAFL, SKFL, and SMFL, sampled
concentrations of formaldehyde that exceeded the acute risk factors. Figures 6-11 through 6-13
are pollution roses for formaldehyde at these sites. The pollution rose is a plot of concentration
and wind direction. As shown in Figures 6-11 through 6-13, and discussed above, only a few
formaldehyde concentrations exceeded the acute risk factors, which are indicated by a dashed
line (CalEPA REL) and solid line (ATSDR MRL). At each one of these sites, the concentrations
are generally dispersed around the center, suggesting a mobile source signature.
Figure 6-11 is the formaldehyde pollution rose for the GAFL monitoring site. The
pollution rose shows that the few concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with
winds originating from a variety of directions. The highest concentration of formaldehyde
occurred on May 16, 2005 with a west-southwesterly wind. However, on June 3, 2005, a
concentration nearly as high as the one on May 16 was recorded with a southeasterly wind. The
6-4
-------
GAFL site is located on a narrow strip of land near the Gandy Bridge, which spans westward
across the Tampa Bay. A mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial areas are located to
the east of the site.
Figure 6-12 is the formaldehyde pollution rose for the SKFL monitoring site. The
pollution rose shows that only one concentration exceeded the acute risk factors, and occurred on
July 9, 2005, with winds originating from the east-southeast. The SKFL site is surrounded by
residential neighborhoods, and wedged in between several major roadways in the area.
Figure 6-13 is the formaldehyde pollution rose for the SMFL monitoring site. The
pollution rose shows that only one concentration exceeded the acute risk factors, and occurred on
May 10, 2005, with winds originating from the west-northwest. SMFL is located in E.G.
Simmons Park, an estuary and nature preserve on the eastern short of the Tampa Bay.
6.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Florida Monitoring Sites
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
6.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 6-5 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the Florida monitoring sites.
(Please refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) Most of the
correlations between the meteorological variables and the pollutants of interest were weak. The
strongest correlations occurred with acetaldehyde at FLFL. However, this site only sampled nine
times, and this low number can skew the correlations. The ORFL monitoring site exhibited
moderately strong negative correlations between acetaldehyde and the temperature and moisture
variables, indicating that as temperature and humidity increase, concentrations of acetaldehyde
decrease. In fact, many of the correlations with acetaldehyde and the temperature and moisture
6-5
-------
variables were negative, albeit weak. With the exception of AZFL, formaldehyde exhibited
positive correlations with maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures.
6.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figures 6-14 through 6-20 are composite back trajectory maps for the Florida monitoring
sites for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along
which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. Each circle around
the sites shown in these figures represents 100 miles.
As shown in Figures 6-14 through 6-18, the composite back trajectories at the Tampa/St.
Petersburg monitoring sites look very similar. Back trajectories originated from a variety of
directions from the sites. The 24-hour airshed domain is large, with trajectories originating as far
away as Great Inagua Island, the southern-most island of the Bahamas, or greater than 700 miles
away. Roughly 60% of the trajectories originated within 300 miles of the sites; and 80% within
400 miles from the monitoring sites.
As shown in Figure 6-19, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
FLFL. The 24-hour airshed domain is somewhat smaller than the other Florida sites, with the
farthest trajectory originating several hundred miles off the South Carolina Coast, or greater than
400 miles away. Fifty percent of the trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site; and 80%
within 400 miles from the FLFL monitoring site. It is important to note, however, that the FLFL
monitoring site did not begin sampling until October. The composite back trajectory map might
look much different under a longer sampling duration.
As shown in Figure 6-20, the back trajectories also originated from a variety of directions
at ORFL. The 24-hour airshed domain is large, with trajectories originating as far away as
southern Indiana, or greater than 700 miles away. Nearly 54% of the trajectories originated
within 300 miles of the site; and 77% within 400 miles from the ORFL monitoring site.
6-6
-------
6.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from weather stations at Tampa International, Whitted, St.
Petersburg/Clearwater International, Gilbert, Orland Executive, and Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood
International Airports were uploaded into a wind rose software program WRPLOT (Lakes,
2006). WRPLOT produces a graphical wind rose from the wind data. A wind rose shows the
frequency of wind directions about a 16-point compass, and uses different shading to represent
wind speeds. Figures 6-21 thru 6-27 are wind roses for the Florida monitoring sites on days
samples were taken.
As indicated in Figure 6-21, hourly winds at AZFL were predominantly out of the east
(12% of observations), and winds from the north, northeast, and east account for nearly 50% of
all wind direction observations on sample days. Wind speeds tended to range from 7 to 11 knots
on days samples were taken (36% of observations). Interestingly, winds with north,
northeasterly, and easterly components tended to be stronger than those from other directions.
Calm winds (<2 knots) were observed for 7% of measurements.
As indicated in Figure 6-22, hourly winds at GAFL were predominantly out of the west
(11% of observations) and east-northeast (10%) on sample days. Wind speeds tended to range
from 7 to 11 knots on days samples were taken (43% of observations). Calm winds were
observed for 14% of measurements.
As indicated in Figure 6-23, hourly winds at SKFL were predominantly out of the east
(11% of observations) and east-northeast (10%) on sample days. Wind speeds tended to range
from 7 to 11 knots on days samples were taken (43% of observations). However, winds from the
east-southeast had the highest frequency of winds greater than 22 knots. Calm winds were
observed for 10% of measurements.
Similar to GAFL, hourly winds at SMFL were predominantly out of the west (11% of
observations) and east-northeast (10%) on sample days, as illustrated in Figure 6-24. Both of
these sites are located in close proximity to Tampa Bay, which lies to the west of the monitoring
6-7
-------
locations. Wind speeds tended to range from 7 to 11 knots on days samples were taken (42% of
observations). Calm winds were observed for 14% of measurements.
As indicated in Figure 6-25, hourly winds at SYFL were predominantly out of the east
(13% of observations) and north (10%) on sample days. Winds out of the north, northeast, and
east account for nearly 43% of all wind direction observations on sample days. Wind speeds
tended to range from 7 to 11 knots on days samples were taken (36% of observations). Calm
winds were observed for 11% of measurements.
As indicated in Figure 6-26, hourly winds at FLFL were predominantly out of the east
(11% of observations), south (11%), and northwest (11%) on sample days. Wind speeds tended
to range from 7 to 11 knots on days samples were taken (41% of observations). Similar to
AZFL, winds out of the east were recorded at higher speeds more frequently than other
directions. Calm winds were observed for 8% of measurements.
As indicated in Figure 6-27, hourly winds at ORFL were predominantly out of the north
(9% of observations) and east (9%) on sample days. Wind speeds tended to range from 7 to 11
knots on days samples were taken (36% of observations). Calm winds were observed for 16% of
measurements.
6.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following spatial
analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; and BTEX analysis.
6.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Orange, and
Broward Counties in Florida were obtained from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in Table 6-6. Table 6-6 also
includes a vehicle registration to county population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the
population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle
registration was computed using the 10-mile population surrounding the monitor and the vehicle
6-8
-------
registration ratio. Finally, Table 6-6 contains the average daily traffic information, which
represents the average number of vehicles passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to
each site on a daily basis.
Of the four Florida counties with monitoring sites in the UATMP, Broward County,
where FLFL is located, is the most populous, while Pinellas County, where AZFL and SKFL are
located, are the least populated. Yet, Broward County has the lowest estimated vehicles per
person and Pinellas County has the highest. While FLFL has the highest number of people
living within a 10 mile radius of the site, SMFL has the least. The GAFL monitoring site,
located near the Gandy bridge between Tampa and St. Petersburg, experiences the highest daily
traffic volume, while SYFL, located in the more rural outskirts of the Tampa area, experiences
the least.
6.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A BTEX analysis could not be performed as the Florida sites sampled for carbonyl
compounds only.
6.6 Site-Specific Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2004, and are still participating in the
2005 program year (i.e., minimum 3 consecutive years), a site-specific trends analysis was
conducted. Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.3.4. The
Florida sites with enough data for a trends analysis are AZFL, GAFL, and ORFL. As previously
mentioned, the Florida sites only sample for carbonyl compounds, and this is reflected in Figures
6-28 through 6-30.
Concentrations of formaldehyde at the AZFL site have generally been decreasing
over the last four years.
Concentrations of formaldehyde in 2005 at the GAFL site appear to have doubled
since 2004. However, the confidence interval for the 2005 formaldehyde average,
illustrated by the error bars extending above and below the top of the bar, is quite
large, indicating that the average may be biased by outliers.
6-9
-------
The formaldehyde concentration at the ORFL monitoring site appears to have
increased slightly from 2003 to 2004, but when the confidence interval is taken
into account, the formaldehyde concentration has changed very little.
6.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 6-7 presents the 1999 NATA
results for the census tracts where the Florida monitoring sites are located. Only pollutants that
"failed" the screens are presented in Table 6-7, which includes acetaldehyde and formaldehyde
only.
The Florida monitoring sites are located in different types of land use and location
settings (i.e., rural vs. urban or residential vs. commercial). Some of the census tracts cover a
large area with relatively few people, while others represent a small slice of the urban
population. The census tracts for the Florida sites are as follows: 12103022402 for AZFL;
12011070204 for FLFL; 12057006500 for GAFL; 12095015901 for ORFL; 12103024905 for
SKFL; 12057014107 for SMFL; and 12057012204 for SYFL. The 5,456 people residing in the
AZFL census tract represent 0.6% of the 2000 Pinellas County population, while the 6,522
residents of the SKFL census tract represent 0.7% of the 2000 Pinellas County population. The
5,913 people residing in the GAFL census tract represent 0.6% of the 2000 Hillsborough County
population; the 4,362 residents of the SYFL census tract represent 0.4% of the 2000
Hillsborough County population; and the 1,803 residents of the more rural SMFL census tract
represent just less than 0.2% of the Hillsborough County population. The 2,083 people residing
in the ORFL census tract represent 0.2% of the 2000 Orange County population. The 4,301
residents of the FLFL census tract represent 0.3% of the 2000 Broward County population.
6-10
-------
6.7.1 1999 NATA Summary
According to NATA, the acetaldehyde risk in the Florida census tracts ranged from 2.33
in-a-million (SMFL) to 4.38 in-a-million (ORFL). Formaldehyde cancer risk is less than 0.01 in
a million in each census tract. Noncancer risk for both acetaldehyde and formaldehyde are also
low, with a hazard quotient of less than 0.25 for each pollutant in each census tract, suggesting
very little risk for noncancer health affects.
6.7.2 Annual Average Comparison
The Florida monitoring sites' annual averages are also presented in Table 6-7 for
comparison to the 1999 NATA modeled concentrations. NATA modeled concentrations are
assumed to be the average concentration that a person breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid
annual average representing an entire year, including detects and non-detects, needs to be
calculated (refer to Section 6.2 on how a valid annual average is calculated). The 1999 NATA
and 2005 UATMP formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations were very similar, usually
within 1 or 2 micrograms of each other. It important to note that FLFL sampled only from
October to December and therefore has no calculated annual averages. The highest predicted
NATA concentration in the remaining six Florida census tracts is 1.99 ug/m3 for both
acetaldehyde and formaldehyde in the ORFL census tract. The 2005 UATMP annual
acetaldehyde average at ORFL is 1.81 ฑ 0.23 ug/m3, indicating very good agreement with the
model. The 2005 UATMP annual formaldehyde average at ORFL is 3.25 ฑ 0.50 ug/m3, which is
slightly higher than the NATA modeled concentration. The 2005 UATMP formaldehyde
concentrations at GAFL and SMFL are an order of magnitude higher than their 1999 NATA
modeled concentrations.
6-11
-------
Florida Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest at all seven Florida sites are acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
The pollutant of interest with the highest daily average at GAFL, ORFL, SKFL, SMFL,
and SYFL was formaldehyde, while acetaldehyde measured the highest daily average at
AZFL andFLFL.
Formaldehyde exceeded one or both of the short-term risk factors at GAFL, SKFL, and
SMFL.
A comparison of formaldehyde concentrations for all years of UATMP participation
shows that formaldehyde concentrations decreased in 2002 and 2003 at AZFL and have
been consistent since; formaldehyde decreased from 2002 to 2003 at GAFL, but
increased in later years, although the confidence interval shows that the 2005
concentration may have been driven by a few outliers; and formaldehyde
concentrations have changed little at ORFL since 2003.
6-12
-------
Figure 6-1. Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida (AZFL) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
6-13
-------
Figure 6-2. Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida (GAFL) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
6-14
-------
Figure 6-3. Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida (SKFL) Monitoring Site
| i.'^'/^r*
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
6-15
-------
Figure 6-4. Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida (SMFL) Monitoring Site
;*>
, -.-,.,.--:.^-^
^- -%^ ::%/
^f***
.. ..- <
- --
p.; ' :
X- -
^0\ /
S-i ~! >'
)^!**illNp&j
vf:.^
n Esruf
!-*** JffijJ
'. '"ซปrC
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
6-16
-------
Figure 6-5. Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida (SYFL) Monitoring Site
\\ I
;'
'
' t' '
'"*--;.'.:*:?' \ ' I ': \
>*.ฃ.ฃ:*<>:)*' " \ &l: -
" ....'.-.- \ ...
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
6-17
-------
Figure 6-6. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (FLFL) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
6-18
-------
Figure 6-7. Orlando, Florida (ORFL) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
6-19
-------
Figure 6-8. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of the Tampa/
St. Petersburg, Florida Monitoring Sites
AZFL UATMP site
GAFL UATMP site
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent aH facilities within the area of interest
SKFL UATMP site ^J> sypL UATMP site I \ County boundary
SMFL UATMP site
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
if Automotive Repair Services. & Parking (1)
: Business Services Facility (1)
C Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (9)
Z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (6|
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (4)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (25)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (5)
Instruments & Related Products Facility (2)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility <9(
& Lumber & Wtood Products Facility 13)
I) Medical. Dental. & Hospital Equipment and Supplies (11
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (10)
X Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (4)
Miscellaneous Repair Services 111
: Motor Freight Transportation & Warehousing (11
10 mile radius
' National Security & International Affairs (1)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2(
@ Papers Allied Products (2)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (1)
V Polymers & Resins Production Induslrial Facility (5)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (2)
R Printing & Publishing Facility (1)
V Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (2)
U Stone, day. Glass, & Concrete Products 14)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (33)
+ Transportation by Air 111
1 Unknown (1)
8 Utility Boilers <3|
3 Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (14)
' \Aliolesale Trade (5|
s Wiolesale Trade - Nondurable Goods (11
6-20
-------
Figure 6-9. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of FLFL
3'W 80'20'0'W SO'ISXW 80"10"0'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities '.vitbin the area of interest
Legend
^ FLFL UATMP site
10 mite radius
~\ County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
* Automotive Repair. Services. & Parking (4)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (3)
z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (8)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (1)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (9)
8 Utility Boilers (3)
6-21
-------
Figure 6-10. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ORFL
ai*i5 Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (1)
x Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (1)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (3}
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (2)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
3 Unknown (2)
!' Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (7)
6-22
-------
Figure 6-11. Formaldehyde Pollution Rose at GAFL
to
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
NW
N
W
CA EPA REL (94 |jg/m3)
-ATSDRMRL(49|jg/m3)
SW
Avg Cone =10.75 ฑ7.33 uq/nr
NE
SE
130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 6-12. Formaldehyde Pollution Rose at SKFL
to
ฃ
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
NW
o
o
4-1
C
$
0 -
s.
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
--JM.
CA EPA REL (94 |jg/m3)
-ATSDRMRL(49|jg/m3)
Avg Cone =
sw 3.84ฑ 2.85 ua/m
NE
SE
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30
20 10 0 10 20
Pollutant Concentration
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-------
Figure 6-13. Formaldehyde Pollution Rose at SMFL
to
150
135
120
105
90
75
60
45
c
s= 30
ฃ
g
o
ง
O
1
i *>
Q.
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
15
0
NW
W
N
NE
CA EPA REL (94 jjg/rrf)
-ATSDR MRL (49 |jg/m3)
SW Avg Cone =14.81 ฑ4.71 ua/m3
SE
150 135 120 105 90 75 60 45 30 15 0 15 30
Pollutant Concentration
45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150
-------
Figure 6-14. Composite Back Trajectory Map for AZFL
Oi
\
\
\
-------
Figure 6-15. Composite Back Trajectory Map for GAFL
0 50 100 200 300 400
-------
Figure 6-16. Composite Back Trajectory Map for SKFL
00
0 50 100 200 300 400
-------
Figure 6-17. Composite Back Trajectory Map for SMFL
VO
0 50 100 200 300 400
-------
Figure 6-18. Composite Back Trajectory Map for SYFL
OJ
O
-------
Figure 6-19. Composite Back Trajectory Map for FLFL
0 25 50 100 150 200
-------
Figure 6-20. Composite Back Trajectory Map for ORFL
OJ
to
0 50 100 200 300 400
-------
Figure 6-21. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the AZFL Monitoring Site
' NORTH ""-'- -
15%
WEST
SOUTH,-'
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
>=22
17 - 21
EZI 11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I I
-------
Figure 6-22. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the GAFL Monitoring Site
12%
15%
;EAST
SOUTH --'
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | *= 22
IBI 17 - 21
EZI 11 -17
I | 7- 11
I I 1- 7
2- 4
Calms: 13.99%
-------
Figure 6-23. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the SKFL Monitoring Site
' NORTH ""-'- -
WEST
15%
SOUTH,-'
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
>=22
17 - 21
EZI 11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I I
-------
Figure 6-24. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the SMFL Monitoring Site
15%
12%
Oi
i
OJ
Oi
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | *=22
111 17 - 21
11 - 17
I | 7- 11
I I
-------
Figure 6-25. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the SYFL Monitoring Site
WEST
15%
SOUTH
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | -f= 22
17 - 21
11 - 17
I | 7- 11
EH 4-7
m 2-4
Cairns: 10.84%
-------
Figure 6-26. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the FLFL Monitoring Site
*NO RTH ""-'- -
oo
15%
SOUTH,-'
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
>=22
17 - 21
EZI 11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I I
-------
Figure 6-27. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the ORFL Monitoring Site
VO
10%
SOUTH
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | -f= 22
17 - 21
11 - 17
I | 7- 11
EH 4-7
m 2-4
Cairns: 16.42%
-------
4.5
Figure 6-28. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the AZFL Monitoring Site
3.5
o
o
U
sr.
o
*
2001
2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 6-29. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the GAFL Monitoring Site
16
14
12
10
o
U
Sf.
2 6
2001
2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 6-30. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the ORFL Monitoring Site
to
Bg
"-**
2
r
o
U
Sf.
2
2003
2004
Year
2005
D Formaldehyde
-------
Table 6-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Florida
Site
AZFL
FLFL
GAFL
ORFL
SKFL
SMFL
SYFL
WBAN
92806
12849
12842
12841
12873
12842
12876
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(ฐF)
81.30
ฑ0.97
81.08
ฑ2.24
81.58
ฑ0.67
78.70
ฑ2.29
80.40
ฑ0.93
79.88
ฑ2.26
80.71
ฑ0.97
80.25
ฑ2.43
82.16
ฑ0.95
81.87
ฑ2.21
80.40
ฑ0.93
80.58
ฑ2.26
81.72
ฑ0.96
81.15
ฑ2.31
Average
Temperature
<ฐF)
74.80
ฑ1.00
74.82
ฑ2.27
75.68
ฑ0.76
71.91
ฑ3.35
72.17
ฑ1.00
71.97
ฑ2.29
71.86
ฑ0.97
71.58
ฑ2.41
74.12
ฑ0.99
74.07
ฑ2.27
72.17
ฑ1.00
72.73
ฑ2.29
72.08
ฑ0.98
71.92
ฑ2.21
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(ฐF)
63.78
ฑ1.08
63.95
ฑ2.34
65.89
ฑ1.00
62.65
ฑ4.91
62.13
ฑ1.16
62.31
ฑ2.48
61.67
ฑ1.20
61.27
ฑ2.99
62.81
ฑ1.12
63.06
ฑ2.41
62.13
ฑ1.16
62.82
ฑ2.55
61.4
ฑ1.17
61.77
ฑ2.57
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(ฐF)
67.9
ฑ0.94
67.96
ฑ2.08
69.53
ฑ0.82
66.28
ฑ3.83
66.06
ฑ0.99
66.01
ฑ2.18
65.75
ฑ1.00
65.41
ฑ2.47
67.13
ฑ0.96
67.19
ฑ2.13
66.06
ฑ0.99
66.60
ฑ2.22
65.63
ฑ0.98
65.73
ฑ2.19
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
69.80
ฑ0.87
70.18
ฑ2.2
73.10
ฑ0.96
74.56
ฑ6.35
72.63
ฑ0.95
73.53
ฑ2.30
72.67
ฑ1.08
72.45
ฑ2.91
69.42
ฑ0.87
70.14
ฑ2.08
72.63
ฑ0.95
72.96
ฑ2.35
71.76
ฑ0.98
72.99
ฑ2.49
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1016.00 ฑ
0.44
1016.05 ฑ
1.02
1015.64 ฑ
0.42
1016.61 ฑ
1.73
1016.49 ฑ
0.44
1016.54 ฑ
1.03
1017.23 ฑ
0.45
1017.53 ฑ
1.03
1016.45 ฑ
0.44
1016.53 ฑ
1.02
1016.49 ฑ
0.44
1016.21 ฑ
0.99
1016.81 ฑ
0.44
1016.89 ฑ
1.01
Average
w-component
of the wind
-2.06
ฑ0.49
-2.38
ฑ1.37
-2.94
ฑ0.56
-1.61
ฑ2.67
-0.17
ฑ0.39
-0.22
ฑ1.01
-0.45
ฑ0.45
-0.24
ฑ1.16
-1.01
ฑ0.46
-1.19
ฑ1.19
-0.17
ฑ0.39
-0.42
ฑ1.05
-1.1
ฑ0.44
-1.01
ฑ1.07
Average
v-component
of the wind
-0.83
ฑ0.54
-1.01
ฑ1.21
0.24
ฑ0.47
-0.75
ฑ2.77
-0.87
ฑ0.37
-1.01
ฑ0.84
-0.51
ฑ0.4
-0.98
ฑ1.02
-1.00
ฑ0.50
-1.13
ฑ1.09
-0.87
ฑ0.37
-0.85
ฑ0.84
-0.80
ฑ0.40
-0.83
ฑ0.96
-------
Table 6-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening
Values at the Florida Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
# of Failures
# of Detects
%of
Detects
Failing
% of Total
Failures
%
Contribution
St. Petersburg, Florida - AZFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Total
57
55
112
57
57
114
100.0
96.5
98.2
50.9%
49.1%
50.9%
100.0%
Davie, Florida - FLFL
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Total
9
9
18
9
9
18
100.0
100.0
100.0
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
Gandy in Tampa, Florida - GAFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Total
57
56
113
57
57
114
100.0
98.2
99.1
50.4%
49.6%
50.4%
100.0%
Winter Park, Florida - ORFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Total
59
58
117
59
59
118
100.0
98.3
99.2
50.4%
49.6%
50.4%
100.0%
Pinellas Park, Florida - SKFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Total
61
60
121
61
61
122
100.0
98.4
99.2
50.4%
49.6%
50.4%
100.0%
Simmons Park in Tampa, Florida - SMFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Total
56
56
112
56
56
112
100.0
100.0
100.0
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
Plant City, Florida - SYFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Total
59
44
103
59
59
118
100.0
74.6
87.3
57.3%
42.7%
57.3%
100.0%
6-44
-------
Table 6-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Florida Monitoring Sites
Compound
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
St. Petersburg, Florida - AZFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
57
57
57
57
2.60
1.94
0.23
0.29
2.82
1.92
0.47
0.32
2.90
2.25
0.52
1.04
2.67
1.49
0.43
0.29
2.10
2.11
0.28
0.37
Davie, Florida - FLFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
9
9
9
9
2.77
2.33
0.29
0.13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Gandy in Tampa, Florida - GAFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
57
57
57
57
2.26
10.75
0.25
7.33
2.33
2.29
0.36
0.33
2.84
17.95
0.59
18.85
2.28
24.30
0.50
25.03
1.63
2.63
0.24
0.43
Winter Park, Florida - ORFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
59
59
59
59
1.81
3.25
0.23
0.50
2.37
3.60
0.64
1.58
1.98
3.37
0.34
0.67
1.46
3.63
0.28
0.66
1.44
2.50
0.28
0.54
Pinellas Park, Florida - SKFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
61
61
61
61
1.59
3.84
0.25
2.85
2.50
1.62
0.77
0.25
1.37
2.49
0.22
0.36
1.30
8.70
0.24
11.21
1.21
2.64
0.17
0.23
Simmons Park in Tampa, Florida - SMFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
56
56
56
56
2.39
14.81
0.27
4.71
2.82
12.79
1.02
7.86
3.04
27.27
0.16
13.94
2.19
16.03
0.27
1.50
1.61
2.60
0.22
0.34
Plant City, Florida - SYFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
59
59
59
59
1.25
2.25
0.16
1.04
1.35
3.30
0.51
3.95
1.38
1.28
0.22
0.28
1.15
2.59
0.22
0.56
1.12
1.90
0.16
0.43
NA = not available due to short sampling duration.
-------
Table 6-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Florida Monitoring Sites
Site
GAFL
SKFL
SMFL
Method
TO-11A
TO-11A
TO-11A
Pollutant
Fonnaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Daily
Average
(ug/m3)
10.75
ฑ7.33
3.84
ฑ2.85
14.81
ฑ4.71
ATSDR
Short-term
MRL
(ug/m3)
49
49
49
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
4
1
1
CAL
EPAREL
Acute
(ug/m3)
94
94
94
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
3
0
1
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(ug/m3)
40
40
40
Winter
Average
(ug/m3)
2.29
ฑ0.33
1.62
ฑ0.25
12.79
ฑ7.86
Spring
Average
(ug/m3)
17.95
ฑ18.85
2.49
ฑ0.36
27.27
ฑ13.94
Summer
Average
(Ug/m3)
24.30
ฑ25.03
8.70
ฑ11.21
16.03
ฑ1.50
Autumn
Average
(ug/m3)
2.63
ฑ0.43
2.64
ฑ0.23
2.60
ฑ0.34
Oi
.u
Oi
-------
Table 6-5. Pollutant of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Florida
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
M-Component
of the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea
Level
Pressure
St. Petersburg, Florida - AZFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
56
56
-0.01
-0.06
-0.10
-0.09
-0.16
-0.14
-0.14
-0.13
-0.14
-0.14
-0.01
-0.02
0.04
-0.07
0.25
-0.05
Davie, Florida - FLFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
9
9
-0.76
0.24
-0.80
0.20
-0.73
0.12
-0.79
0.15
-0.35
-0.05
0.34
-0.02
0.05
-0.01
-0.17
-0.55
Gandy in Tampa, Florida - GAFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
57
57
0.04
0.19
-0.02
0.23
-0.05
0.24
-0.05
0.24
-0.10
0.08
0.26
0.01
0.26
0.23
0.04
-0.21
Winter Park, Florida - ORFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
59
59
-0.24
0.15
-0.33
0.09
-0.40
0.02
-0.40
0.03
-0.32
-0.11
0.31
0.13
0.04
0.06
0.33
0.14
Pinellas Park, Florida - SKFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
61
61
-0.20
0.08
-0.29
0.13
-0.22
0.14
-0.26
0.14
0.16
0.06
0.13
-0.40
0.10
0.18
0.41
-0.18
Simmons Park in Tampa, Florida - SMFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
56
56
-0.16
0.05
-0.18
0.05
-0.15
0.05
-0.17
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.24
0.25
0.17
0.21
0.17
-0.09
Plant City, Florida - SYFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
59
59
0.00
0.07
-0.11
0.02
-0.27
-0.01
-0.22
0.00
-0.38
-0.06
0.24
0.09
0.01
0.07
0.10
0.02
-------
Table 6-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the Florida Monitoring Sites
Site
AZFL
FLFL
GAFL
ORFL
SKFL
SMFL
SYFL
2005 Estimated
County Population
928,032
1,777,638
1,132,152
1,023,023
928,032
1,132,152
1,132,152
Number of
Vehicles
Registered
1,030,672
1,140,365
835,689
735,120
1,030,672
835,689
835,689
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
1.11
0.64
0.74
0.72
1.11
0.74
0.74
Population
Within 10 Miles
572,722
1,312,485
462,119
962,938
698,981
58,222
259,538
Estimated 10
mile Vehicle
Ownership
636,065
841,967
341,109
691,944
776,288
42,976
191,576
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
51,000
8,000
81,400
59,000
50,500
18,700
5,142
oo
-------
Table 6-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites
in Florida
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Azalea Park in St. Petersburg, Florida - AZFL, Census Tract 12103022402
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
2.60 ฑ0.23
1.94 ฑ0.29
1.21
1.31
2.67
0.01
0.13
0.13
Davie, Florida - FLFL, Census Tract 12011070204
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
NA
NA
1.68
2.30
3.71
0.01
0.19
0.23
Gandy in Tampa, Florida - GAFL, Census Tract 12057006500
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
2.26 ฑ0.25
10.75 ฑ7.33
1.73
1.72
3.81
0.01
0.19
0.18
Winter Park, Florida - ORFL, Census Tract 12095015901
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1.81 ฑ0.23
3.25 ฑ0.50
1.99
1.99
4.38
0.01
0.22
0.20
Pinellas Park, Florida - SKFL, Census Tract 12103024905
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1.59 ฑ0.25
3.84 ฑ2.85
1.65
1.73
3.63
0.01
0.18
0.18
Simmons Park in Tampa, Florida - SMFL, Census Tract 12057014107
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
2.39 ฑ0.27
14.81 ฑ4.71
1.06
1.26
2.33
0.01
0.12
0.13
Plant City, Florida - SYFL, Census Tract 12057012204
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1.25 ฑ0.16
2.25 ฑ1.04
1.25
1.42
2.75
0.01
0.14
0.14
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
6-49
-------
7.0 Sites in Illinois
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
sites in Illinois (NBIL and SPIL), located in the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI
metropolitan statistical area (MSA). Figures 7-1 and 7-2 are topographical maps showing the
monitoring sites in their urban locations. Figure 7-3 identifies point source emission locations
within 10 miles of each site as reported in the 2002 NEI for point sources. As Figure 7-3 shows,
the NBIL and SPIL sites are within several miles of each other, and are surrounded by numerous
point sources. Fuel combustion industries, surface coating facilities, and printing and publishing
industries are the most numerous source category groups surrounding these sites.
Hourly meteorological data at weather stations near these sites were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The two weather stations are
Palwaukee Municipal Airport and O'Hare International Airport (WBAN 4838 and 94846,
respectively).
Daily weather fluctuations are common for the Chicago area due to its location near the
Great Lakes. The proximity of Chicago to Lake Michigan offers moderating effects from the
continental climate of the region. In the summertime, lake breezes can cool the city when winds
from the south and southwest push temperatures upward. How much and what type of winter
precipitation depends on the origin of the air mass. The largest snowfalls tend to occur when
cold air masses flow southward over Lake Michigan. Wind speeds average around 10 mph, but
can be greater due to the winds channeling between tall buildings downtown (Ruffner and Bair,
1987). Table 7-1 presents average meteorological conditions of temperature (average maximum
and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and
average relative humidity), pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind information (average
u- and v- components of the wind) for the entire year and on days samples were taken. As shown
in Table 7-1, average meteorological conditions on sample days are fairly representative of
average weather conditions throughout the year.
7-1
-------
7.1 Polllutants of Interest at the Illinois Monitoring Sites
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest
is a modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured
pollutant concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily
concentration value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those in which the individual pollutant's total failed
screens contribute to the top 95% of the site's total failed screens. A total of 81 HAPs are listed
in the guidance document as having risk screening values. Table 7-2 presents the pollutants that
failed at least one screen at the Illinois monitoring sites. The number of pollutants failing the
screen varies by site, as presented in Table 7-2. Twenty-one pollutants with a total of 372
measured concentrations failed screens at NBIL while 16 pollutants with a total of 324 measured
concentrations failed screens at SPIL. The pollutants of interest, which are highlighted in gray,
also varied by site, yet the following nine pollutants were common to both sites: benzene,
formaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, tetrachloroethylene,
hexachloro-l,3-butadiene,/>-dichlorobenzene, and trichloroethylene. It's important to note that
NBIL sampled for additional pollutant types compared to SPIL and that this is reflected in each
site's pollutants of interest. Carbonyls, VOC, SNMOC, and metals were sampled at the NBIL
monitoring site, while only carbonyls and VOCs were sampled at SPIL.
Also listed in Table 7-2 are the total number of detects and the percent detects failing the
screen. Of the nine pollutants that were the same between the two sites, three pollutants of
interest, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and hexachloro-l,3-butadiene, had 100% of their detects
fail the screening values.
7.2 Concentration Averages at the Illinois Monitoring Sites
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the compounds of interest:
daily, seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the average
concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a
seasonal average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all
non-detects. A seasonal average was not calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects in
7-2
-------
a respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no earlier than November. The daily and seasonal averages are
presented in Table 7-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in later
sections.
Among the daily averages at NBIL, formaldehyde measured the highest concentration by
mass (2.07 ฑ 0.52 ug/m3), followed by acrolein (1.50 ฑ 0.71 ug/m3) and acetaldehyde (1.11 ฑ
0.18 ug/m3). Valid seasonal averages for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are only available in
the spring and fall (NBIL did not begin sampling carbonyls until March), and are similar to the
daily average. Acrolein has no valid seasonal averages. Most of the pollutants of interest's
seasonal averages vary little from their daily averages.
At the SPIL monitoring site, the pollutant with the highest daily average was
formaldehyde (28.09 ฑ 12.20 ug/m3). This pollutant daily average concentration was
significantly higher than any of the other pollutants of interest. The highest seasonal average of
formaldehyde occurred in the summer (53.82 ฑ 30.52 ug/m3), followed by the autumn average
(34.62 ฑ 16.51 ug/m3). The springtime average was significantly lower (2.17 ฑ 0.47 ug/m3) and
no winter average could be calculated (SPIL did not begin sampling carbonyls until February).
The acetaldehyde summer average (0.68 ฑ 0.43 ug/m3) was significantly lower than the spring or
autumn averages (1.70 ฑ 0.38 and 1.59 ฑ 0.39 ug/m3, respectively). The remaining seasonal
averages did not vary much from season to season.
7.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Illinois Monitoring Sites
Non-chronic risk for the concentration data at Illinois monitoring sites was evaluated
using ATSDR acute and intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) and California EPA acute
reference exposure limit (REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as exposures from 1 to 14 days
while intermediate risk is defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. It is useful to compare daily
7-3
-------
measurements to the short-term MRL and REL factors, as well as compare seasonal averages to
the intermediate MRL. Of the pollutants with at least one failed screen, only acrolein and
formaldehyde exceeded either the acute and/or intermediate risk values. Non-chronic risk is
summarized in Table 7-4.
All acrolein detects at the Illinois sites were greater than the ATSDR acute MRL value of
0.11 ug/m3 and the California REL value of 0.19 ug/m3. The average detected concentrations at
NBIL and SPIL were 1.50 ฑ 0.71 ug/m3 and 1.56 ฑ 0.79 ug/m3, respectively. Both averages are
an order of magnitude higher than either acute risk factor. No seasonal averages for acrolein
could be calculated at NBIL, therefore intermediate risk could not be evaluated. Only one valid
seasonal acrolein average could be calculated at SPIL. The autumn average of acrolein was 0.70
ฑ 0.51 ug/m3 at SPIL, which is significantly higher than the intermediate risk factor of 0.09
ug/m3.
Eleven formaldehyde detects at the SPIL site were greater than the ATSDR acute MRL
of 49 ug/m3 and five detects were greater than the California REL value of 94 ug/m3. The
average detected concentration at SPIL was 28.09 ฑ 12.20 ug/m3. Valid seasonal formaldehyde
averages were calculated for spring, summer, and autumn (SPIL did not begin sampling
carbonyls until February). The summer seasonal average of formaldehyde (53.82 ฑ 30.52 ug/m3)
exceeded the ATSDR intermediate risk value of 40 ug/m3.
For the pollutants that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. Acrolein concentrations exceeded the acute risk factors at both NBIL
and SPIL, and the acute risk factor for formaldehyde was exceeded at SPIL. Figures 7-4 and 7-5
are pollution roses for acrolein, and Figure 7-6 is a pollution rose for formaldehyde. A pollution
rose is a plot of concentration and wind direction.
As shown in Figures 7-4 and 7-5, and discussed above, all acrolein concentrations
exceeded the acute risk factors, which are indicated by a dashed line (CalEPA REL) and solid
line (ATSDR MRL). Figure 7-4 shows that high acrolein concentrations at NBIL occurred with
7-4
-------
winds originating from a variety of directions. However, none of these high concentrations
occurred with winds with an easterly component. The highest acrolein concentration at NBIL
was recorded on December 18, 2005, with westerly winds. Major roadways and expressways
surround the NBIL monitoring site, yet the area is primarily residential. Figure 7-5 shows that
high acrolein concentrations at SPIL also occurred with winds originating from a variety of
directions. However, none of these high concentrations occurred with winds with an easterly
component. The highest acrolein concentration at SPIL was recorded on September 19, 2005,
with southwesterly winds. Major roadways and highways are situated to the north, east, and
south of the SPIL monitoring site, and Chicago O'Hare International Airport is located to the
west.
Figure 7-6 shows that few detected formaldehyde concentrations exceeded the acute risk
factor values. Only eleven formaldehyde detects at SPIL exceeded the ATSDR acute risk factor,
and five exceeded the CAL EPA REL risk factor. While high concentrations of formaldehyde
occurred with winds originating from a variety of directions, Figure 7-6 shows a cluster of high
concentrations occurring with southwesterly winds. Yet, the highest formaldehyde concentration
occurred with northerly winds on August 14, 2005.
7.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Illinois Monitoring Sites
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
7.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 7-5 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the Illinois monitoring sites.
(Please refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) The strongest
correlations at the NBIL site occurred with hexachloro-l,3-butadiene and most of the
meteorological parameters, ranging from -0.88 to 0.94. However, it's important to note that this
7-5
-------
pollutant was detected only eight times. Six pollutants (arsenic, manganese, nickel,
/7-dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene) exhibited moderately strong to
strong positive correlations with the maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperature,
while three pollutants (acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, and hexachloro-l,3-butdiene) exhibited
moderately strong to very strong negative correlations with the same parameters. Arsenic,
benzene, manganese, />-dichlorobenzene, and tetrachloroethylene all had moderately strong
negative correlations with the w-component of the wind, while acrolein had a strong positive
correlation (0.62) with this same parameter. Acrolein was also detected very few times.
Moderately strong positive correlations with the v-component of the wind were calculated for
acetaldehyde, arsenic, formaldehyde, and manganese.
The strongest positive correlations at the SPIL monitoring site were exhibited between
formaldehyde and maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures, ranging from 0.62
to 0.65, while the strongest negative correlations were calculated between hexachloro-1,3-
butadiene and the same parameters (-0.46 to -0.50). Pearson correlations for relative humidity,
the wind components, and sea level pressure were generally weak. However, all the correlations
with the v-component of the wind were positive, indicating that concentrations tend to increase
as northerly and southerly winds increase in magnitude.
7.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figures 7-7 and 7-8 are composite back trajectory maps for the Illinois monitoring sites
for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along
which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown, the back
trajectories originated from a variety of directions at NBIL and SPIL, although less frequently
from the east. Each circle around the sites in Figures 7-7 and 7-8 represents 100 miles.
The 24-hour airshed domain is rather large, with trajectories originating as far away as
northern Manitoba, Canada, or over 1,000 miles away. Roughly 55% of the trajectories
originated within 300 miles of the sites; and nearly 75% within 400 miles from the Illinois
monitoring sites. The one trajectory originating from Manitoba occurred on a day when a strong
7-6
-------
frontal system moved across the central and eastern US on November 24, 2005. This wind
pattern is also evident on several composite trajectory maps from other sites in the region
including the DEMI, INDEM, DITN, MEVIN, and MAWI monitoring sites.
7.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from the weather station at Pauwakee Municipal Airport near NBIL
and Chicago O'Hare International Airport near SPIL were uploaded in a wind rose software
program, WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006). WRPLOT produces a graphical wind rose from the wind
data. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions about a 16-point compass, and uses
different shading to represent wind speeds. Figure 7-9 and 7-10 are the wind roses for the NBIL
and SPIL monitoring sites on days sampling occurred.
As indicated in Figure 7-9, hourly winds at NBIL were predominantly out of the south
(12% of observations) and west (10%) on sample days. Wind speeds tended to range from 7 to
11 knots on days samples were taken (39% of observations). Calm winds (< 2 knots) were
recorded for 16% of measurements. As shown in Figure 7-10, hourly winds at SPIL resembled
those of NBIL, although they were measured at separate weather stations. Winds were
predominantly out of the west (12% of observations) and south (11%) on sample days. Wind
speeds tended to range from 7 to 11 knots on days samples were taken (41% of observations).
Calm winds were recorded for 10% of measurements.
7.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following spatial
analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; BTEX analysis; and
acetylene-ethylene mobile tracer analysis.
7.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population in Cook County, IL were obtained from
the Illinois Secretary of State and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in Table 7-6.
Table 7-6 also includes a vehicle registration to county population ratio (vehicles per person). In
7-7
-------
addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimation of 10-mile
vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile population surrounding the monitor and the
vehicle registration ratio. Finally, Table 7-6 contains the average daily traffic information, which
represents the average number of vehicles passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to
each site on a daily basis.
Table 7-6 shows that the SPIL monitoring site has more than twice the population
residing within 10 miles of it than NBIL, and therefore a significantly lower estimated 10-mile
vehicle ownership. The SPIL site experiences a significantly higher daily traffic volume than
NBIL, as well as the highest traffic volume among all UATMP sites. Figure 7-2 shows that
SPIL resides near a major interstate close to Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. Cook
County also is the most populous of any UATMP county, and has the most vehicle registrations.
7.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to section 3.2.1.4). Table 3-11 presented
and Figure 3-4 depicted the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites in an effort to characterize the
impact of on-road, or motor vehicle, emissions. Like the roadside study, the toluene-
ethylbenzene is the highest ratio for both NBIL and SPIL (7.04 ฑ 2.03 and 6.17 ฑ 0.44,
respectively). However, the xylenes-ethylbenzene (3.27 ฑ0.13 and 3.45 ฑ0.13) and benzene-
ethylbenzene (4.33 ฑ 0.53 and 4.24 ฑ 0.44) ratios are much closer to each other at NBIL and
SPIL than the roadside study.
7.5.3 Mobile Tracer Analysis
As previously stated, NBIL sampled for SNMOC in addition to VOC. Acetylene is a
compound that is primarily emitted from mobile sources, while ethylene is emitted from mobile
sources, petroleum refining facilities, and natural gas distribution facilities. Tunnel studies
conducted on mobile source emissions have found that ethylene and acetylene are typically
-------
present in a 1.7 to 1 ratio. (For more information, please refer to Section 3.2.1.3) Listed in
Table 3-10 is the ethylene-acetylene ratio for NBIL; as shown, NBIL's ethylene-acetylene ratio,
1.77 ฑ 0.34, is slightly higher than the 1.7 ratio. The similarities in these ratios suggest that
mobile sources are influencing the air quality at the NBIL monitoring site. Because this ratio is
slightly higher than the tunnel study, there may be other sources of ethylene contributing in small
quantities to this area's air quality.
7.6 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2004, and are still participating in the
2005 program year (i.e., minimum 3 consecutive years), a site-specific trends analysis was
conducted. Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.3.4. Both
Illinois sites have participated in the UATMP since 2003. Please refer to Figures 7-11 and 7-12.
Prior to 2005, the Illinois sites only sampled VOCs, therefore no formaldehyde
trend can be evaluated at this time.
At NBIL, the average benzene and 1,3-butadiene concentration was higher in
2004 compared to 2003 and 2005.
Although difficult to discern in Figure 7-12, the average concentrations of
benzene and 1,3-butadiene at SPIL have changed little over the last three years.
7.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 7-7 presents the 1999 NATA
results for the census tracts where the Illinois monitoring sites are located. Only pollutants that
"failed" the screens are presented in Table 7-7. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
7-9
-------
The NBIL monitoring site is located in census tract 17031801500, while the SPIL
monitoring site is located in 17031811600. The population for the census tract where the NBIL
site is located was 6,227, which represents about 0.1% of the Cook County population in 2000.
The population for the census tract where the SPIL site is located was 6,372, which also
represents about 0.1% of the Cook County population in 2000.
7.7.1 1999 NATA Summary
In terms of cancer risk, the Top 3 pollutants identified by NATA in both the NBIL and
SPIL census tracts are benzene (20.55 and 21.79 in-a-million risk, respectively), 1,3-butadiene
(9.59 and 9.22 in-a-million, respectively), and acetaldehyde (5.99 and 7.32 in-a-million,
respectively). These benzene cancer risks are the fifth and sixth highest cancer risks calculated
for any of the UATMP sites. Acrolein was the only pollutant in the two Illinois census tracts to
have a noncancer hazard quotient greater than 1.0 (8.98 at NBIL and 11.08 SPIL). A hazard
quotient greater than 1.0 may lead to adverse health effects. The remaining noncancer hazard
quotients were less than 0.30, suggesting very little risk for noncancer health affects.
7.7.2 Annual Average Comparison
The Illinois monitoring sites' annual averages are also presented in Table 7-7 for
comparison to the 1999 NATA modeled concentrations. NATA modeled concentrations are
assumed to be the average concentration that a person breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid
annual average representing an entire year, including detects and non-detects, needs to be
calculated (refer to Section 7.2 on how a valid annual average is calculated). With few
exceptions, the pollutants at NBIL and SPIL were within one order of magnitude from each
other. The NATA modeled concentrations and the 2005 annual averages for some pollutants,
such as trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene, were very similar. At NBIL, xylenes had the
highest NATA-modeled and measured concentration (4.22 ug/m3 and 1.90 ฑ 0.87 ug/m3,
respectively). Note that acetaldehyde and formaldehyde do not have reportable annual averages
for this site. At SPIL, xylenes, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene (not necessarily in that
order) were identified by NATA and the UATMP as the Top 4 pollutants by mass concentration.
7-10
-------
Xylenes had the highest NATA modeled concentrations at SPIL, while formaldehyde had the
highest measured concentrations in 2005, followed by xylenes.
Illinois Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest common to each Illinois site are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-
butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, p-
dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene.
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at each of the two Chicago sites
(NBIL and SPIL).
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at both Chicago sites, while formaldehyde
exceeded the short-term risk factors at SPIL.
A comparison of benzene and 1,3-butadiene concentrations for all years ofUATMP
participation shows that concentrations of these pollutants have not changed at either
site since 2003.
7-11
-------
Figure 7-1. Chicago, Illinois (NBIL) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
7-12
-------
Figure 7-2. Chicago, Illinois (SPIL) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
7-13
-------
Figure 7-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of NBIL and SPIL
87'55-O'W eT'flO'D'W 37"45'rj"W 67"4(XO\V
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent aH facilities within the area of interest
Legend
if NBIL UATMP site
TJT SPIL UATMP site
' - 10 mile radius
J Count/ boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
! Admin, of Economic Programs (2ป
A Agricultural Services Facility (5)
ฅ Automotive Repair. Services. & Parking (1)
- Business Services Facility (1)
C Chemicals S Allied Products Facility (10)
Z Electrical fl Electronic Equipment Facility (18)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility t21ป
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (11
G Food & Kindred Products Facility Hi
d Food Stores {1 >
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (205)
H Furnitures Fixtures Facility (1>
-t- Health Services Facility (7)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (33)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (21)
= Instruments 5 Related Products Facility (H
Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility <4i
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (28)
U Medical, Dental. & Hospital Equipment and Supplies (3)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (9)
X Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (22)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility i?4)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (24}
2 Nonmelallic Minerals. Except Fuels (2>
ฉ Rape* & Allied Products (St
O Personal Services(12)
P PetroleumyNal. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility <1>
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (3)
V Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility {1)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (7>
R Printing S Publishing Facility i33)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility HI
: ; Putp & Paper Production Facility O >
Y RubberS Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility HOt
[~l Special Trade Contractors Facility 11)
U Stone. Clay. Glass, a Concrete Products H7t
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (86)
4< Transportation by Air (3)
J, U,S. Postal Service (1i
? Unknown 13)
8 Utility Boilers (3)
1 Wteste Treatment S Disposal Industrial Facility (4)
ฃ< Water Transportation Facility (1>
S Wholesale Trade- Durable Goods <1>
4 Wood Furniture Facility < 1 >
7-14
-------
Figure 7-4. Acrolein Pollution Rose at NBIL
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
o
2 0.5
4-1
c
01
o
O 0.0
O
4-1
3 0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
NW
W
N
NE
CAEPAREL(0.19|jg/m3)
-ATSDRMRL(0.11 |jg/m3)
SW
3.0
Avg Cone =1.50 ฑ 0.71 ua/m~
SE
2.5 2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5 0.0 0.5
Pollutant Concentration
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
-------
Figure 7-5. Acrolein Pollution Rose at SPIL
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
it Concentration
o o -^
b oi b
ra 0.5
3
ฃ 1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
A n
NW N
-
w * ,.-"
-
^
-
-
SW
s
NE
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
y, E
Ava Cone = 1 .56 ฑ 0.79 ua/m3
SE
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Pollutant Concentration
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
3.5
4.0
-------
Figure 7-6. Formaldehyde Pollution Rose at SPIL
150
135
120
105
90
75
60
45
c
s= 30
ฃ
g 15
o
g 0
O
NW
N
CA EPA REL (94 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (49 |jg/m3)
w
i
Q.
15
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
sw
NE
Avg Cone = 28.09 ฑ12.20 ua/m"
SE
150
135 120 105 90 75 60 45 30 15 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 7-7. Composite Back Trajectory Map for NBIL
oo
0 50 100 200 300 400
-------
Figure 7-8. Composite Back Trajectory Map for SPIL
0 50 100 200 300 400 !
Miles
-------
Figure 7-9. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the NBIL Monitoring Site
to
o
15%
12%
9%.
SOUTH --'
;EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | *=22
17 - 21
EZI 11 -17
I I 7- 11
I I 4- 7
^0 2- 4
Calms:
-------
Figure 7-10. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the SPIL Monitoring Site
NORTH"-"--
to
15%
12%
9%.
SOUTH ,-'
;EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | :=22
ill 17 - 21
EZI 11 -17
I | 7- 11
I | A- 7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 10.09%
-------
Figure 7-11. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the NBIL Monitoring Site
3 --
I
2
to
to
I
2003
2004
Year
2005
D 1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 7-12. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SPIL Monitoring Site
35
-------
Table 7-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Illinois
Site
NBIL
SPIL
WBAN
04838
94846
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
<ฐF)
59.67
ฑ2.27
59.98
ฑ5.61
59.91
ฑ2.29
60.11
ฑ5.73
Average
Temperature
(ฐF)
51.53
ฑ2.11
51.90
ฑ5.09
51.69
ฑ2.11
51.96
ฑ5.25
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(ฐF)
40.86
ฑ1.88
41.15
ฑ4.49
39.61
ฑ1.92
39.51
ฑ4.81
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(ฐF)
46.12
ฑ1.83
46.39
ฑ4.39
45.70
ฑ1.84
45.79
ฑ4.57
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
70.00
ฑ1.27
70.24
ฑ3.27
66.56
ฑ1.26
65.97
ฑ3.36
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1016.99
ฑ0.74
1016.78
ฑ1.70
1016.40
ฑ0.73
1015.99
ฑ1.79
Average
w-component
of the wind
1.12
ฑ0.44
1.06
ฑ0.89
1.09
ฑ0.53
1.43
ฑ1.13
Average
v-component
of the wind
-0.03
ฑ0.49
0.06
ฑ1.16
-0.21
ฑ0.51
-0.11
ฑ1.23
to
-------
Table 7-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening
Values at the Illinois Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
%of
Detects
Failing
%of
Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Northbrook, Illinois - NBIL
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Manganese (PM10)
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Formaldehyde
Nickel (PM10)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Trichloroethylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
1,2-Dichloroethane
Bromomethane
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
Cobalt (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Xylenes
Total
56
53
53
43
32
30
29
26
13
10
8
5
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
372
61
53
53
61
35
34
35
34
61
19
8
30
5
2
1
26
1
61
61
1
53
695
91.80
100.00
100.00
70.49
91.43
88.24
82.86
76.47
21.31
52.63
100.00
16.67
100.00
100.00
100.00
3.85
100.00
1.64
1.64
100.00
1.89
15.1%
14.2%
14.2%
11.6%
8.6%
8.1%
7.8%
7.0%
3.5%
2.7%
2.2%
1.3%
1.3%
0.5%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
15.1%
29.3%
43.5%
55.1%
63.7%
71.8%
79.6%
86.6%
90.1%
92.7%
94.9%
96.2%
97.6%
98.1%
98.4%
98.7%
98.9%
99.2%
99.5%
99.7%
100.0%
Schiller Park, Illinois - SPIL
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Acrolein
Xylenes
1,2-Dichloroethane
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Bromomethane
Vinyl chloride
Dichloromethane
Total
58
58
39
39
37
33
22
12
10
7
2
2
2
1
1
1
324
58
58
39
41
46
39
40
23
10
7
56
2
2
29
3
48
501
100.00
100.00
100.00
95.12
80.43
84.62
55.00
52.17
100.00
100.00
3.57
100.00
100.00
3.45
33.33
2.08
17.9%
17.9%
12.0%
12.0%
11.4%
10.2%
6.8%
3.7%
3.1%
2.2%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
17.9%
35.8%
47.8%
59.9%
71.3%
81.5%
88.3%
92.0%
95.1%
97.2%
97.8%
98.5%
99.1%
99.4%
99.7%
100.0%
7-25
-------
Table 7-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Illinois Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Northbrook, Illionois - NBIL
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
34
35
5
61
53
53
34
8
61
61
19
35
30
53
35
30
61
53
53
35
53
61
61
53
53
53
0.09
1.11
1.50
0.001
0.84
0.69
2.07
0.13
0.014
0.002
0.12
0.37
0.31
0.02
0.18
0.71
0.000
0.14
0.03
0.52
0.03
0.003
0.0004
0.03
0.07
0.08
NR
NR
NA
0.0005
1.18
0.68
NA
NR
0.0092
0.0010
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
0.0001
0.44
0.07
NA
NR
0.0059
0.0004
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.12
NA
0.0006
0.75
0.66
1.36
NR
0.0139
0.0011
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.28
NA
0.0003
0.29
0.08
0.40
NR
0.0067
0.0002
NR
NR
NR
0.10
NR
NR
0.0009
0.87
0.68
NR
NR
0.0173
0.0026
0.17
0.38
0.27
0.01
NR
NR
0.0002
0.21
0.05
NR
NR
0.0060
0.0012
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.09
1.15
NR
0.0007
0.68
0.74
2.20
NR
0.0141
0.0017
0.13
0.34
0.27
0.01
0.30
NR
0.0002
0.20
0.07
0.61
NR
0.0042
0.0004
0.03
0.14
0.13
Schiller Park, Illionois - SPIL
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
39
46
58
58
41
10
23
39
40
58
46
58
58
46
58
58
58
58
0.20
1.43
1.35
0.69
28.09
0.14
0.15
0.54
1.05
0.06
0.24
0.23
0.03
12.20
0.03
0.06
0.16
0.44
NR
NR
1.53
0.64
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.41
NR
NR
0.63
0.06
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.21
NR
1.70
1.41
0.64
2.17
NR
NR
NR
1.09
NR
0.38
0.38
0.05
0.47
NR
NR
NR
0.83
0.14
0.68
1.19
0.68
53.82
NR
0.18
0.39
0.70
0.03
0.43
0.23
0.05
30.52
NR
0.04
0.12
0.27
0.16
1.59
1.32
0.79
34.62
0.75
0.15
0.55
0.79
0.06
0.39
0.54
0.08
16.51
0.38
0.07
0.32
0.80
-------
Table 7-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Illinois Monitoring Sites
Site
NBIL
SPIL
SPIL
Method
TO-15
TO-11A
TO-15
Pollutant
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
Acrolein
Daily
Average
(ug/m3)
1.50
ฑ0.71
28.09
ฑ 12.20
1.56
ฑ0.79
ATSDR
Short-term
MRL
(ug/m3)
0.11
49
0.11
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
5
11
7
CAL
EPA
REL
Acute
(ug/m3)
0.19
94
0.19
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
5
5
7
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(ug/m3)
0.09
40
0.09
Winter
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
NR
NA
Spring
Average
(ug/m3)
NA
2.17
ฑ0.47
NA
Summer
Average
(ug/m3)
NR
53.82
ฑ30.52
NR
Autumn
Average
(ug/m3)
NR
34.62
ฑ16.51
0.70
ฑ0.51
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
to
-------
Table 7-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Illinois
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
M-Component
of the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea
Level
Pressure
Northbrook, Illinois - NBIL
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
34
35
5
61
53
53
34
8
61
61
19
35
30
-0.30
0.15
-0.31
0.46
0.16
0.04
-0.02
-0.83
0.37
0.40
0.51
0.44
0.42
-0.32
0.11
-0.34
0.45
0.13
0.01
0.01
-0.87
0.32
0.41
0.51
0.42
0.38
-0.34
0.01
-0.41
0.43
0.12
0.00
0.04
-0.88
0.24
0.39
0.41
0.41
0.33
-0.33
0.06
-0.37
0.45
0.12
0.01
0.00
-0.88
0.29
0.40
0.46
0.41
0.35
0.06
-0.22
-0.26
-0.17
0.00
-0.07
0.14
0.21
-0.38
-0.14
-0.23
-0.14
-0.25
0.07
-0.03
0.62
-0.33
-0.29
0.08
0.08
0.94
-0.37
-0.10
-0.49
-0.37
-0.21
-0.05
0.32
-0.16
0.45
0.24
0.18
0.34
-0.07
0.39
0.18
-0.19
0.06
0.22
0.28
0.22
0.63
-0.09
0.10
-0.04
-0.26
0.51
0.00
-0.08
0.08
-0.10
-0.26
Schiller Park, Illinois - SPIL
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
39
46
58
58
41
10
23
39
40
-0.15
-0.26
0.12
0.04
0.62
-0.50
0.31
-0.05
0.17
-0.19
-0.32
0.08
0.04
0.65
-0.43
0.27
-0.09
0.13
-0.18
-0.39
0.06
0.08
0.64
-0.46
0.24
-0.12
0.06
-0.19
-0.35
0.06
0.06
0.64
-0.46
0.25
-0.10
0.10
0.09
-0.13
-0.02
0.09
-0.18
0.03
-0.10
-0.07
-0.22
0.13
0.02
-0.15
0.19
-0.03
-0.16
-0.22
0.09
-0.14
0.02
0.06
0.24
0.23
0.15
0.16
0.12
0.32
0.17
0.32
0.13
0.15
-0.06
0.08
-0.27
0.02
0.02
0.11
to
oo
-------
to
VO
Table 7-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the Illinois Monitoring Sites
Site
NBIL
SPIL
2005 Estimated
County
Population
5,303,683
5,303,683
Number of
Vehicles Registered
2,115,353
2,115,353
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
0.40
0.40
Population
Within 10 Miles
883,969
2,087,514
Estimated 10 mile
Vehicle Ownership
352,568
832,597
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
29,600
214,900
-------
Table 7-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring
Sites in Illinois
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Northbrook, Illinois - NBIL, Census Tract 17031801500
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Bromomethane
Cadmium (PM10)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Cobalt (PM10)
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
0.15 ฑ0.01
0.14 ฑ0.02
0.09 ฑ0.01
0.10 ฑ0.01
NA
NA
0.07 ฑ0.01
0.01
0.84 ฑ0.14
0.08 ฑ0.02
0.01
0.69 ฑ0.03
0.01
NA
1.05 ฑ0.15
0.01
O.01
0.16 ฑ0.01
0.30 ฑ0.06
0.23 ฑ0.05
1.90 ฑ0.87
0.08
O.01
0.05
0.32
2.72
0.18
O.01
0.01
2.64
0.14
0.24
0.22
0.01
2.73
O.01
0.67
0.36
0.04
0.24
0.26
4.22
4.44
O.01
1.25
9.59
5.99
0.06
0.06
20.55
0.44
3.23
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.44
1.44
0.52
O.01
0.01
0.16
0.30
8.98
O.01
0.01
0.09
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.28
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.04
Schiller Park, Illinois - SPIL, Census Tract 17031811600
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
0.15 ฑ0.01
0.09 ฑ0.01
0.15 ฑ0.05
1.43 ฑ0.24
NA
1.35 ฑ0.23
0.19 ฑ0.21
0.69 ฑ0.03
0.57 ฑ0.19
25.04 ฑ11. 16
0.96 ฑ0.14
0.17 ฑ0.02
0.42 ฑ0.12
0.77 ฑ0.32
0.05 ฑ 0.003
2.92 ฑ0.65
0.08
0.05
0.31
3.33
0.22
2.79
0.20
0.21
1.15
2.99
0.01
0.06
0.41
1.73
0.09
4.79
4.36
1.23
9.22
7.32
~
21.79
3.16
0.54
0.02
0.03
0.64
2.42
3.45
0.78
~
0.01
0.15
0.37
11.08
0.09
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.30
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.05
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
7-30
-------
8.0 Site in Indiana
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Indiana (INDEM). This site is located in Gary, IN, in the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-
IN-WI metropolitan statistical area (MSA). Figure 8-1 is a topographical map showing the
monitoring site in its urban location. Figure 8-2 identifies point source emission locations within
10 miles of this site that reported to the 2002 NEI for point sources. Due in part to INDEM's
proximity to Lake Michigan, most of the facilities near INDEM are located in part to the east or
west of the monitor. The bulk of these facilities are involved in fuel combustion, ferrous metal
processing, or liquids distribution.
Hourly meteorological data at a weather station near this site were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The closest weather station is
located at Lancing Municipal Airport (WBAN 04879).
Gary is located to the southeast of Chicago, and at the southern-most tip of Lake
Michigan. Gary's proximity to Lake Michigan is an important factor controlling the weather of
the area. In the summer, warm temperatures can be suppressed, while cold winter temperatures
are often moderated. Winds that blow across Lake Michigan and over Gary in the winter can
provide abundant amounts of lake-effect snow (Ruffner and Bair, 1987 and
http://www.garychamber.com/geoclimate.asp). Table 8-1 presents average meteorological
conditions of temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point
temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), pressure (average
sea level pressure), and wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind) for the
entire year and on days samples were taken. As shown in Table 8-1, average meteorological
conditions on sample days are fairly representative of average weather conditions throughout the
year.
3-1
-------
8.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Indiana Monitoring Site
As described in Section 3.1.4, the methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest is a
modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured pollutant
concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily concentration
value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration "failed the
screen." A total of 81 HAPs are listed in the guidance document as having risk screening values.
Table 8-2 presents the pollutants that failed at least one screen at INDEM. It's important to note
that the INDEM site sampled for carbonyl compounds only, and that this is reflected in the site's
pollutants of interest. A total of 76 measured concentrations of these pollutants failed screens.
The pollutants of interest at INDEM were identified as the pollutants that contributed to the top
95% of the total failed screens, resulting in two pollutants: formaldehyde (42 failed screens) and
acetaldehyde (34).
Also listed in Table 8-2 are the total number of detects and the percent detects failing the
screen. Of the two pollutants of interest, formaldehyde failed nearly 96% of screens, and 77% of
acetaldehyde detects failed screens.
8.2 Concentration Averages at the Indiana Monitoring Site
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of interest: daily,
seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the average
concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a
seasonal average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all
non-detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects
in a respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no earlier than November. Daily and seasonal averages are
presented in Table 8-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in later
sections.
8-2
-------
Table 8-3 shows that both acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were detected in 100% of the
samples taken at INDEM. The formaldehyde daily average concentration (72.85 ฑ 27.47 ug/m3)
was significantly higher than the acetaldehyde concentration (2.59 ฑ 0.55 ug/m3). The seasonal
averages show that the summer formaldehyde average (193.41 ฑ 44.41 ug/m3) was an order of
magnitude higher than the other seasons. Interestingly, the reverse is true for the acetaldehyde
seasonal averages. The summer acetaldehyde average was an order of magnitude lower than the
other seasons. Unfortunately, valid autumn seasonal averages could not be calculated, due to
sampling issues occurring throughout much of the autumn season.
8.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Indiana Monitoring Site
Non-chronic risk for the concentration data at INDEM was evaluated using ATSDR acute
and intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) and California EPA acute reference exposure limit
(REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as exposures from 1 to 14 days while intermediate risk is
defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. Of the two pollutants with at least one failed screen,
only formaldehyde exceeded both the acute and intermediate risk values, and its non-chronic risk
is summarized in Table 8-4.
Thirteen formaldehyde detects exceeded the ATSDR acute risk value of 49 ug/m3 and the
California REL value of 94 ug/m3. The average detected concentration was 72.85 ฑ 27.47
ug/m3, which is more than the ATSDR MRL value, but less than the California REL value. For
the intermediate formaldehyde risk, seasonal averages were compared to the ATSDR
intermediate value of 40 ug/m3. As discussed in Sections 8.2, a valid autumn average could not
be calculated. For the remaining seasons, only the summer average exceeded the ATSDR
intermediate MRL. However, this average is nearly five times the MRL (193.41 ฑ 44.41 ug/m3).
For the pollutants that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. Figure 8-3 is a pollution rose for formaldehyde at INDEM. The
pollution rose is a plot of daily concentration and daily average wind direction. As indicated in
Figure 8-3, several concentrations exceeded the acute risk factors, indicated by a dashed
(CalEPA REL) and solid line (ATSDR MRL). The concentrations on the pollution rose are
scattered around the center, a pattern characteristic of mobile sources. The highest concentration
8-3
-------
of formaldehyde occurred on June 9, 2005 with a south-southwesterly wind. INDEM is situated
in a fairly industrialized area, and major interstates are located just south of the monitoring site.
In addition, several railways criss-cross the area surrounding the monitoring site (Figure 8-1).
8.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Indiana Site
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
8.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 8-5 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the INDEM monitoring site.
(Please refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) As previously
mentioned, the INDEM site sampled only for carbonyl compounds. The strongest correlation
with acetaldehyde was with wet bulb temperature (-0.54). The acetaldehyde correlations with
maximum, average, and dew point temperatures were moderately strong and also negative
(-0.28, -0.33, and -0.44, respectively). This indicates that as temperature and humidity increase,
acetaldehyde concentrations tend to decrease. Moderately strong to very strong positive
correlations were computed for the temperature and moisture variables and formaldehyde
(ranging from 0.29 to 0.73). This indicates that as temperature and humidity increase,
formaldehyde concentrations also decrease. This correlates well when evaluating the seasonal
averages for these two pollutants. Correlations with wind speeds were weak. The Lancing
Municipal Airport weather station did not record sea level pressure.
8.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 8-4 is a composite back trajectory map for the INDEM monitoring site for the
days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a
parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. Each circle around the site
in Figure 8-4 represents 100 miles. As shown in Figure 8-4, the back trajectories originated from
a variety of directions at INDEM, although less frequently from the east.
8-4
-------
The 24-hour airshed domain is rather large, with trajectories originating as far away as
northern Manitoba, Canada, or greater than 500 miles away. Nearly 63% of the trajectories
originated within 300 miles of the sites; and 79% within 400 miles from the INDEM monitoring
site. The one trajectory originating from Manitoba occurred on a day when a strong frontal
system moved across the central and eastern US on November 24, 2005. This wind pattern is
also evident on several composite trajectory maps from other sites in the region including the
DEMI, NBIL and SPIL, DITN, MEVIN, and MAWI monitoring sites.
8.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from the Lancing Municipal Airport near the INDEM monitoring site
were uploaded into a wind rose software program, WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006). WRPLOT produces
a graphical wind rose from the wind data. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions
about a 16-point compass, and uses different shading to represent wind speeds. Figure 8-5 is the
wind rose for the INDEM monitoring site on days sampling occurred. As indicated in
Figure 8-5, hourly winds were predominantly out of the south (9% of observations) and west
(9%). Wind speeds tended to range from 7 to 11 knots on day samples were taken (31% of
observations). Calm winds (<2 knots) were observed for 25% of the measurements.
8.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following spatial
analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; and BTEX analysis.
8.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Volume Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population in Lake County, IN were obtained from
the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in
Table 8-6. Table 8-6 also includes a vehicle registration to county population ratio (vehicles per
person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimation of
10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile population surrounding the monitor
and the vehicle registration ratio. Finally, Table 8-6 contains the average daily traffic
information, which represents the average number of vehicles passing the monitoring sites on the
nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
3-5
-------
Compared to other UATMP sites, INDEM falls in the middle of the range in regards to
population and vehicle registration; however, INDEM is on the higher end of average daily
traffic counts. The INDEM monitoring site is considered an industrial area and is located in an
urban-city center setting. As previously mentioned, several heavily traveled roadways are
situated near the site.
8.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A BTEX analysis could not be performed as this site sampled for carbonyls only.
8.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 8-7 presents the 1999 NATA
results for the census tract where the Indiana monitoring site is located. Only pollutants that
"failed" screens are presented in Table 8-7. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
8.6.1 1999 NATA Summary
The INDEM monitoring site is located in census tract 18089010202. The population for
the census tract where the INDEM monitoring site is located was 1,689, which represents about
0.3% of the county population in 2000. In terms of cancer risk, acetaldehyde cancer risk (4.32 in
a million) was significantly higher than formaldehyde cancer risk (0.01). The noncancer hazard
quotients for acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were similar to each other, and were both less than
0.25, suggesting very little risk for noncancer health affects.
8.6.2 Annual Average Comparison
The Indiana monitoring site annual averages are also presented in Table 8-7 for
comparison to the 1999 NATA modeled concentrations. NATA-modeled concentrations are
-------
assumed to be the average concentration that a person breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid
annual average representing an entire year, including detects and non-detects, needs to be
calculated (refer to Section 8.2 on how a valid annual average is calculated). The annual
averages of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are the same as the daily averages of these pollutants
because they were each detected in 100% of the samples taken. As mentioned in Section 8.2, the
formaldehyde daily average concentration (72.85 ฑ 27.47 ug/m3) was significantly higher than
the acetaldehyde concentration (2.59 ฑ 0.55 ug/m3). Table 8-7 shows that the acetaldehyde
concentration is similar to the NATA modeled concentration. However, the formaldehyde
annual concentration is significantly higher than the NATA modeled concentration (1.86 ug/m3).
Indiana Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest at the Indiana site are acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at INDEM. Concentrations of
formaldehyde were highest in summer, while acetaldehyde was highest in winter and
spring.
Formaldehyde exceeded both of the short-term risk factors, and the summer
formaldehyde average exceeded the intermediate risk factor.
3-7
-------
Figure 8-1. Gary, Indiana (INDEM) Monitoring Site
**,
**
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
-------
Figure 8-2. Facilities Located within 10 Miles of INDEM
Note; Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
-& INDEM UATMPsite
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
'- Business Services Facility (1)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (2)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (5)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (14)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (34)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (1}
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (3)
+ Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (2)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (11)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (6)
x Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (3)
10 mile radius J County boundary
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (3)
2 Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels (1)
@ Paper & Allied Products (1)
P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (3)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (2)
# Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
i Railroad Transportation (1)
u Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (3)
s Utility Boilers (4)
& Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (2)
r- Wholesale Trade (1)
8-9
-------
Figure 8-3. Formaldehyde Pollution Rose at INDEM
oo
o
o
s
I
01
o
o
o
4-1
c
s
_3
1
OOVJ
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
o
25
50
75
1 nn
I UU
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
T=;n
NW N
CA EPA REL (94 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (49 |jg/m3)
^ .
-
-
,-*
* /'' /
. \ ^
^-.
^
^ -
-
* -
-
-
sw s
A .
NE
*
~--.^
^
V
\ A \ E
^ j
_,..-''' *
^
Ava Cone =72.85 ฑ 27.47 ua/m3
SE
350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 8-4. Composite Back Trajectory Map for INDEM
00
-------
Figure 8-5. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the INDEM Monitoring Site
oo
to
10%
OUTH .--'"
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
17 - 21
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I I 4- 7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 2431%
-------
Table 8-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Site in Indiana
Site
INDEM
WBAN
4879
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(ฐF)
60.35
ฑ2.23
59.33
ฑ6.89
Average
Temperature
(ฐF)
51.53
ฑ2.04
50.63
ฑ6.18
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(ฐF)
41.87
ฑ1.91
40.04
ฑ5.73
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(ฐF)
48.81
ฑ1.97
48.33
ฑ5.82
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
71.58
ฑ1.29
69.02
ฑ4.4
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
NA1
NA1
Average
w-component
of the wind
1.13
ฑ0.44
0.90
ฑ1.11
Average
v-component
of the wind
0.52
ฑ0.48
0.14
ฑ1.27
Sea level pressure was not recorded at the Lancing Municipal Airport weather station.
oo
-------
Table 8-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the
Indiana Monitoring Site
Pollutant
# of Failures
# of Detects
% of Detects
Failing
% of Total
Failures
% Contribution
Gary, Indiana - INDEM
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Total
42
34
76
44
44
88
95.5
77.3
86.4
55.3%
44.7%
55.3%
100.0%
8-14
-------
Table 8-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Indiana Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Gary, IN - INDEM
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
44
44
44
44
2.59
72.85
0.55
27.47
3.06
16.18
0.28
3.36
4.20
19.34
0.98
5.39
0.57
193.41
0.21
44.41
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
oo
-------
Table 8-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Indiana Monitoring Site
Site
INDEM
Method
TO-11A
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Daily
Average
(ug/m3)
72.85 ฑ
27.47
ATSDR
Short-term
MRL
(ug/m3)
49
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
13
CAL EPA
REL
Acute
(ug/m3)
94
# of CAL EPA
REL
Exceedances
13
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(Ug/m3)
40
Winter
Average
(ug/m3)
16.18ฑ
3.36
Spring
Average
(Ug/m3)
19.34ฑ
5.39
Summer
Average
(Ug/m3)
193.41
ฑ 44.41
Autumn
Average
(Ug/m3)
NR
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
oo
-------
Table 8-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Indiana
Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
w-Component
of the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea Level
Pressure
Gary, Indiana - INDEM
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
44
44
-0.28
0.61
-0.33
0.66
-0.44
0.73
-0.54
0.66
-0.20
0.29
-0.02
-0.08
0.07
0.07
NA1
NA1
Sea level pressure was not recorded at the Lancing Municipal Airport weather station.
oo
-------
Table 8-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the Indiana Monitoring Site
Site
INDEM
2005 Estimated
County Population
493,297
Number of
Vehicles
Registered
393,034
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
0.80
Population Within
10 Miles
404,545
Estimated 10 mile
Vehicle Ownership
322,321
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
42,950
oo
I
oo
-------
Table 8-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Site
in Indiana
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Annual Average
(Ug/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Ug/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Gary, Indiana - INDEM, Census Tract 18089010202
Acet aldehyde
Formaldehyde
2.59 ฑ0.55
72.85 ฑ 27.47
1.97
1.86
4.32
0.01
0.22
0.19
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
8-19
-------
9.0 Site in Massachusetts
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Massachusetts (BOMA). This site is located in the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester
metropolitan statistical area (MSA). Figure 9-1 is a topographical map showing the monitoring
site in its urban location. Figure 9-2 identifies point source emission locations within 10 miles of
this site that reported to the 2002 NEI for point sources. BOMA is located near a number of
sources, located mainly to the north and west of the site. A majority of the facilities are involved
in fuel combustion industries.
Hourly meteorological data at a weather station near this site were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather station closest
to the BOMA monitoring site is at Logan International Airport (WBAN 14739).
Boston's location on the East Coast ensures that the city experiences a fairly active
weather pattern. Most storm systems track across the Northeast, bringing ample precipitation to
the area. The proximity to the Atlantic Ocean helps moderate cold outbreaks and hot spells,
while at the same time allowing winds to gust higher than they would farther inland. Winds
generally flow from the northwest in the winter and southwest in the summer (Ruffner and Bair,
1987). Table 9-1 presents the average meteorological conditions of temperature (average
maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average wet-bulb
temperature, and average relative humidity), pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind
information (average u- and v-components of the wind) for the entire year and on days samples
were taken. As shown in Table 9-1, average meteorological conditions on sample days are fairly
representative of average weather conditions throughout the year.
9-1
-------
9.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Massachusetts Monitoring Site
As described in Section 3.1.4, the methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest is a
modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured pollutant
concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily concentration
value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration "failed the
screen." A total of 81 HAPs are listed in the guidance document as having risk screening values.
Table 9-2 presents the four pollutants that failed at least one screen at BOMA; a total of 131
measured concentrations failed screens. The pollutants of interest at BOMA were identified as
the pollutants that contributed to the top 95% of the total failed screens, resulting in four
pollutants: arsenic (54 failed screens), nickel (42), manganese (22), and cadmium (13). It's
important to note that the BOMA site sampled for metals only, and that this is reflected in the
site's pollutants of interest. Also listed in Table 9-2 are the total number of detects and the
percent detects failing the screen. The percent of detects failing screens ranged from 21%
(cadmium) to 89% (arsenic).
9.2 Concentration Averages at the Massachusetts Monitoring Site
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the four pollutants of interest:
daily, seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the average
concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a
seasonal average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all
non-detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects
in a respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no earlier than November. Daily and seasonal averages are
presented in Table 9-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in later
sections.
Among the daily averages at BOMA, manganese measured the highest concentration by
mass (0.0044 ฑ 0.0005 ug/m3), followed by nickel (0.0031 ฑ 0.005 ug/m3). The other two
9-2
-------
pollutants were an order of magnitude less than these two pollutants. The seasonal averages of
arsenic did not vary much while seasonal averages of nickel varied the most. Winter had the
highest average concentration for both cadmium and nickel, while spring had the highest average
for manganese.
9.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Massachusetts Monitoring Site
Non-chronic risk for the concentration data at BOMA was evaluated using ATSDR acute
and intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) and California EPA acute reference exposure limit
(REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as exposures from 1 to 14 days while intermediate risk is
defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. Its is useful to compare daily measurement to the
short-term MRL and REL factors, as well as compare the seasonal averages to the intermediate
MRL. Of the four pollutants with at least one failed screen, none exceeded either the acute and
intermediate risk values.
9.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Massachusetts Site
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
9.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 9-4 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the BOMA monitoring site. (Please
refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) Both cadmium and nickel
exhibited moderately strong negative correlations with maximum, average, dew point, and wet
bulb temperatures, indicating that as temperatures increase, concentrations decrease. This
correlates well with the seasonal averages of these pollutants. All of the correlations with
pressure were positive and most were moderately strong, indicating that as pressure rises, so do
concentrations of the pollutants of interest.
9-3
-------
9.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 9-3 is a composite back trajectory map for the BOMA monitoring site for the days
on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of
air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. Each circle around the site in
Figure 9-3 represents 100 miles.
As shown in Figure 9-3, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
BOMA. The 24-hour airshed domain is large at BOMA, with trajectories originating as far away
as the Gulf of St. Lawrence, north of New Brunswick, Canada, or greater than 600 miles away.
However, 50% of the trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site; and 67% within 400
miles from the BOMA monitoring site.
9.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from the Logan International Airport near the BOMA monitoring site
were uploaded into a wind rose software program, WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006). WRPLOT produces
a graphical wind rose from the wind data. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions
about a 16-point compass, and uses different shading to represent wind speeds. Figure 9-4 is the
wind rose for the BOMA monitoring site on days sampling occurred. As indicated in Figure 9-4,
hourly winds were predominantly out of the west (12% of observations), west-northwest (9%),
and southwest (9%) on sample days. Winds tended to be slightly breezier at BOMA than other
UATMP sites. Wind speeds ranged from 7 to 11 knots on day samples were taken on 50% of
observations, and ranged from 11 to 17 knots on 22% of sample days. Calm winds (<2 knots)
were observed for only 2% of the measurements.
9.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following spatial
analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; and BTEX analysis.
9-4
-------
9.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison
County-level vehicle registration was not available in Suffolk County, MA. Thus, state-
level vehicle registration from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) was allocated to the
county-level using the county-level population proportion. County-level population information
was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, and is summarized in Table 9-5. Table 9-5 also
includes a vehicle registration to county population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the
population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle registration
was computed using the 10-mile population surrounding the monitors and the vehicle registration
ratio. Finally, Table 9-5 contains the average daily traffic information, which represents the
average number of vehicles passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a
daily basis.
Compared to other UATMP sites, BOMA's county population, vehicle registration,
estimated vehicles per person, and daily traffic volume are in the middle of the range. But
BOMA's 10-mile population is on the high end, behind only sites in the New York City,
Philadelphia, and Chicago areas. As a result, its estimated 10-mile vehicle ownership is also on
the high end compared to other UATMP sites.
9.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A BTEX analysis could not be performed as BOMA sampled for metals only.
9.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 9-6 presents the 1999 NATA
results for the census tract where the Massachusetts monitoring site is located. Only pollutants
that "failed" the screens are presented in Table 9-6. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
9-5
-------
9.6.1 1999 NATA Summary
The BOMA monitoring site is located in census tract 25025080400. The population for
the census tract where the BOMA monitoring site is located was 723, which represents about
0.1% of the county population in 2000. In terms of cancer risk, arsenic had the highest risk of
the BOMA pollutants of interest (0.28 in a million). However, none of the pollutants exhibited a
cancer risk greater than 1 in a million. Similarly, no pollutants of interest had a noncancer
hazard quotient greater than 1.0 (an HQ greater than 1.0 may lead to adverse health effects).
Most noncancer hazard quotients were less than 0.01, suggesting very little risk for noncancer
health affects.
9.6.2 Annual Average Comparison
The Massachusetts monitoring site annual averages are also presented in Table 9-6 for
comparison to the 1999 NATA modeled concentrations. NATA-modeled concentrations are
assumed to be the average concentration that a person breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid
annual average representing an entire year, including detects and non-detects, needs to be
calculated (refer to Section 9.2 on how a valid annual average is calculated). Nickel was
modeled to have the highest concentration of the pollutants of interest, but manganese actually
measured the highest annual average in 2005. However, the BOMA annual average
concentrations were all significantly less than the NATA modeled concentrations.
Massachusetts Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest at the Massachusetts site are arsenic, cadmium, manganese,
and nickel.
Manganese measured the highest daily average at BOMA. Concentrations of nickel
were highest in winter.
9-6
-------
Figure 9-1. Boston, Massachusetts (BOMA) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
9-7
-------
Figure 9-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BOMA
-'*"/*'
- " F \ a an/ ,P
' c crafe L
n^arw TI-ITOW 7i-5?rw 'r.'.vw
Note: Due to tacilily density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
& BOMA UATMP site
10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (5)
c Chemicals S Allied Products Facility (4)
5 Educational Services Facility (1)
\ Non-fen'ous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
Z Electrical a Electronic Equipment Facility (1) :; Pulp a Paper Production Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (1) u Stone, Clay, Class, & Concrete Products (4)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (75) s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (1) i Unknown (1)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (3) a Utility Boilers (5)
Instruments & Related Products Facility (1) 5 Waste Treatment 8 Disposal Industrial Facility (13)
f Integrated Iron S Steel Manufacturing Facility (1) r Wholesale Trade (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (9)
9-8
-------
Figure 9-3. Composite Back Trajectory Map for BOMA
0 50 100 200 300 400
-------
Figure 9-4. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the BOMA Monitoring Site
vo
i
o
WEST
SOUTH--'
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
CH >=22
IBi 17 - 21
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I I
-------
Table 9-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Site in Massachusetts
Site
BOMA
WBAN
14739
Type
All 2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(ฐF)
57.67
ฑ1.95
58.78
ฑ4.4
Average
Temperature
(ฐF)
50.98
ฑ1.83
51.87
ฑ4.20
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(ฐF)
39.46
ฑ1.97
40.3
ฑ4.64
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(ฐF)
45.80
ฑ1.70
46.65
ฑ3.97
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
67.38
ฑ1.57
67.26
ฑ3.64
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1015.62
ฑ0.89
1016.09
ฑ2.07
Average
w-component
of the wind
2.11
ฑ0.63
1.68
ฑ1.40
Average
v- component
of the wind
-0.63
ฑ0.56
-0.24
ฑ1.26
-------
Table 9-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values
at the Massachusetts Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
% of Detects
Failing
% of Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Boston, Massachusetts - BOMA
Arsenic (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
Manganese (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Total
54
42
22
13
131
61
61
61
61
244
88.5
68.9
36.1
21.3
53.7
41.2%
32.1%
16.8%
9.9%
41.2%
73.3%
90.1%
100.0%
9-12
-------
Table 9-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Massachusetts Monitoring Site
Pollutant
Arsenic (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Manganese (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
#
Detects
61
61
61
61
#
Samples
61
61
61
61
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
0.0005
0.0005
0.0044
0.0031
Conf.
Int.
0.0001
0.0001
0.0005
0.0005
Winter
Avg
(Hg/m3)
0.0005
0.0008
0.0038
0.0051
Conf.
Int.
0.0001
0.0003
0.0009
0.0014
Spring
Avg
(Hg/m3)
0.0005
0.0004
0.0056
0.0025
Conf.
Int.
0.0001
0.0002
0.0011
0.0004
Summer
Avg
(Hg/m3)
0.0005
0.0002
0.0050
0.0027
Conf.
Int.
0.0001
0.0001
0.0010
0.0007
Autumn
Avg
(Hg/m3)
0.0005
0.0005
0.0034
0.0023
Conf.
Int.
0.0001
0.0003
0.0009
0.0004
VO
-------
Table 9-4. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Massachusetts
Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
M-Component
of the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea Level
Pressure
Boston, Massachusetts - BOMA
Arsenic (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Manganese (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
61
61
61
61
0.17
-0.32
0.14
-0.42
0.12
-0.32
0.13
-0.47
0.03
-0.28
0.02
-0.39
0.07
-0.30
0.08
-0.44
-0.22
-0.02
-0.31
0.01
0.02
-0.08
-0.01
-0.13
0.20
-0.26
0.19
-0.24
0.26
0.27
0.08
0.35
VO
-------
Table 9-5. Motor Vehicle Information for the Massachusetts Monitoring Site
Site
BOMA
2005 Estimated
County Population
654,428
Number of
Vehicles
Registered
566,351
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
0.87
Population Within
10 Miles
1,589,367
Estimated 10 mile
Vehicle
Ownership
1,375,460
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
27,287
VO
-------
Table 9-6. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Site in
Massachusetts
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Boston, Massachusetts - BOMA, Census Tract 25025080400
Arsenic (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Manganese (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
0.001
O.001
0.004 ฑ 0.0005
0.003 ฑ 0.0005
0.07
0.03
0.11
0.61
0.28
0.05
0.10
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.009
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
9-16
-------
10.0 Sites in Michigan
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the four
UATMP sites in Michigan. Three sites, APMI, DEMI, and YFMI, are located in the Detroit area,
while the ITCMI site is in Sault Saint Marie on the Upper Pennisula. Figures 10-1 through 10-4
are topographical maps showing the monitoring sites in their urban locations. Figures 10-5 and
10-6 identify point source emission locations within 10 miles of the sites that reported to the
2002 NEI for point sources. The Detroit sites are within a few miles of each other. A number of
facilities surround these sites, many of which are located just south of DEMI and YFMI. Most of
these facilities are involved in fuel combustion or waste treatment and disposal. All of the
industrial facilities within 10 miles of ITCMI are involved in waste treatment and disposal.
Hourly meteorological data at weather stations near these sites were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather stations closest
to the Michigan monitoring sites are Detroit-Metropolitan Airport (APMI and DEMI), Detroit
City Airport (YFMI), and Sault Ste. Marie International Airport (ITCMI), WBAN 94847, 14822,
and 14847, respectively.
The Detroit area is located in the Great Lakes region, a place for active weather, as storm
systems typically track across the region. Hence, winters can be cold and wet, while summers
are generally mild. The urbanization of the area along with Lake St. Clair to the east are two
major influences on the city=s weather. The lake tends to keep Detroit warmer in the winter and
cooler in the summer than more inland areas. The urban heat island tends to keep the city
warmer than outlying areas. Winds are often breezy and generally flow from the southwest on
average. Sault Saint Marie is located on the northeast edge of Michigan=s Upper Pennisula.
While this area also experiences an active weather pattern, its climate is somewhat tempered by
the surrounding waters of Lakes Superior and Huron, as the city resides on the channel between
the two lakes. This location experiences ample precipitation, especially during lake-effect snow
10-1
-------
events (Ruffner and Bair, 1987). As shown in Table 10-1, average meteorological conditions on
sample days are fairly representative of average weather conditions throughout the year.
10.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Michigan Monitoring Sites
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest
is a modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured
pollutant concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily
concentration value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those in which the individual pollutant's total failed
screens contribute to the top 95% of the site's total failed screens. A total of 81 HAPs are listed
in the guidance document as having risk screening values. Table 10-2 presents the pollutants that
failed at least one screen at the Michigan monitoring sites. The number of pollutants failing the
screen varies by site, as indicated in Table 10-2. Ten pollutants with a total of 219 measured
concentrations failed screens at APMI; 12 pollutants with a total of 335 measured concentrations
failed screens at DEMI; 7 pollutants with a total of 76 measured concentrations failed screens at
ITCMI; and 11 pollutants with a total of 174 measured concentrations failed screens at YFMI.
The pollutants of interest also varied by site, yet the following five pollutants contributed to the
top 95% of the total failed screens at each Michigan monitoring site: benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
carbon tetrachloride, />-dichlorobenzene and tetrachloroethylene. It's important to note that the
Michigan sites sampled for different pollutant types, and that this is reflected in each site's
pollutants of interest. DEMI and APMI sampled for carbonyl compounds and VOC, while
ITCMI and YFMI sampled for VOC and SVOC.
Also listed in Table 10-2 are the total number of detects and the percent detects failing the
screen. Of the five pollutants of interest that were the same among all four sites, benzene and
carbon tetrachloride had 100% of their detects fail the screening values.
10.2 Concentration Averages at the Michigan Monitoring Sites
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of interest: daily,
seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the average
10-2
-------
concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a seasonal
average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all non-
detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects in a
respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no earlier than November. Daily and seasonal averages are
presented in Table 10-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in
later sections.
Among the daily averages at APMI, tetrachloroethylene measured the highest
concentration by mass (18.40 ฑ 9.40 ug/m3), followed by formaldehyde (2.82 ฑ 0.39 ug/m3) and
benzene (2.21 ฑ 0.68 ug/m3). Autumn tetrachloroethylene concentrations were significantly
higher than the other valid seasonal averages, although there were not enough VOC samples
taken in winter to calculate a winter seasonal average. Most of the other seasonal averages did
not vary much at the APMI site. Among the daily averages at DEMI, formaldehyde measured the
highest concentration by mass (5.35 ฑ 1.39 ug/m3), followed by tetrachloroethylene (2.81 ฑ 0.87
ug/m3) and acetaldehyde (2.13 ฑ 0.28 ug/m3). Statistically, the seasonal averages did not vary
much at the DEMI site. The benzene (8.18 ฑ 3.25 ug/m3) and total xylenes (4.18 ฑ 0.91 ug/m3)
daily averages at YFMI were significantly higher than daily averages of the other pollutants of
interest. The YFMI site sampled only through early October, and therefore has no autumn
seasonal averages. For the remaining seasons, the seasonal averages did not vary much
statistically at the YFMI site.
The averages at the Sault Ste. Marie site tended to be significantly less than those from
the Detroit sites. Among the daily averages at ITCMI, benzene measured the highest
concentration by mass (0.89 ฑ 0.12 ug/m3), followed by carbon tetrachloride (0.77 ฑ 0.14 ug/m3)
and acrolein (0.54 ฑ 0.28 ug/m3). The ITCMI site sampled only through September and most of
ITCMI's pollutants of interest were not detected frequently enough to calculate seasonal
10-3
-------
averages. However, benzene has three valid seasonal averages and carbon tetrachloride has two
valid seasonal averages. Table 10-3 shows that seasonal averages of these pollutants did not vary
much from season to season.
10.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Michigan Monitoring Sites
Non-chronic risk for the concentration data at Michigan monitoring sites was evaluated
using ATSDR acute and intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) and California EPA acute
reference exposure limit (REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as exposures from 1 to 14 days
while intermediate risk is defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. It is useful to compare daily
measurements to the short term MRL and REL factors, as well as to compare seasonal averages
to the intermediate MRL. Of the pollutants with at least one failed screen, only acrolein and
benzene exceeded either the acute and intermediate risk values, and each site's non-chronic risk
is summarized in Table 10-4.
All acrolein detects at the Michigan sites were greater than the ATSDR acute value of
0.11 ug/m3 and the California REL value of 0.19 ug/m3. The average detected concentration
ranged from 0.54 ฑ 0.28 ug/m3 (at ITCMI) to 1.18 ฑ 0.34 ug/m3 (at DEMI), which is an order of
magnitude higher than either acute risk factor. No seasonal averages for acrolein could be
calculated, therefore intermediate risk could not be evaluated.
Two benzene detects at the YFMI site were greater than the ATSDR acute risk value of
28.75 ug/m3. However, the average detected benzene concentration was 8.18 ฑ 3.25 ug/m3, and
none of the three valid seasonal averages exceeded the ATSDR intermediate MRL of 20 ug/m3.
As previously mentioned, autumn seasonal averages could not be calculated for the YFMI site.
Interestingly, the two exceedances of the ATSDR acute value occurred in autumn.
For the pollutants that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. For all four Michigan monitoring sites, at least one acrolein
concentration exceeded the acute risk factors. Figures 10-7 through 10-10 are pollution roses for
acrolein at the Michigan sites. A pollution rose is a plot of concentration and wind direction. As
10-4
-------
shown in Figures 10-7 through 10-10, and discussed above, all acrolein concentrations exceeded
the acute risk factors, which are indicated by a dashed line (CalEPA REL) and solid line
(ATSDR MRL).
Figure 10-7 is the acrolein pollution rose for the APMI monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that acrolein was detected only once during sampling at the APMI site. This
concentration was recorded on October 25, 2005 with a northerly wind. However, there are not
enough detects of acrolein to determine if a pattern between concentration and wind direction.
Figure 10-8 is the acrolein pollution rose for the DEMI monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with winds originating
from a variety of directions, a pattern characteristic of mobile sources. The highest concentration
of acrolein occurred on July 9, 2005 with a northwesterly wind. The DEMI site is located in a
suburban, yet industrial area, and is surrounded by many railways and major interstates. 1-94 is
located to the west and north and 1-75 is located to the south and east of the site. Major auto and
steel manufacturers are located in close proximity to the site.
Figure 10-9 is the acrolein pollution rose for the ITCMI monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that four acrolein concentrations exceeded the acute risk factors. The exceedances
occurred with winds originating from a variety of directions, a pattern characteristic of mobile
sources. The highest concentration of acrolein occurred on July 3, 2005 with a south-
southeasterly wind. ITCMI is located on the campus of Lake Superior State University, in a
primarily residential area. Interstate 75 is located just west and north of the monitoring site, and
ITCMI has one of the highest daily traffic volumes of all the UATMP sites.
Figure 10-10 is the acrolein pollution rose for the YFMI monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that two acrolein concentrations exceeded the acute risk factors. The exceedances
occurred with winds originating from the east or the west. The highest concentration of acrolein
occurred on July 15, 2005 with an east-northeastly wind. However, there are not enough detects
of acrolein to determine if a pattern exists between concentration and wind direction.
10-5
-------
Figure 10-11 is a pollution rose for benzene at the YFMI site. As shown in Figure 10-11,
only two benzene concentrations exceeded the ATSDR acute risk factor, which is indicated by a
dashed line. These exceedances occurred with south and south-southwesterly winds.
Figure 10-3 shows numerous point sources are located to the south and southwest of the
monitoring site. YFMI is located in a heavily industrialized area just west of the Detroit River.
Interstate 75 is located to the north and west of the monitoring site. The two exceedances
occurred on back-to-back sample days, September 19, 2005 and September 25, 2005.
10.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Michigan Sites
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
10.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 10-5 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the Michigan monitoring sites.
(Please refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) At APMI,
acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, and/?-dichlorobenzene exhibited moderately
strong to strong positive correlations with maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb
temperatures. All of the correlations with the v-component of the wind were positive, indicating
that northerly and/or southerly winds influence concentrations of the pollutants of interest at
APMI.
At DEMI, acetaldehyde, acrolein, carbon tetrachloride, /?-dichlorobenzene, and
tetrachloroethylene exhibited moderately strong to strong positive correlations with maximum,
average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures. Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene exhibited strong
negative correlations with these same parameters. With the exception of carbon tetrachloride, all
of the correlations with the w-component of the wind were negative, indicating that easterly
and/or westerly winds influence concentrations of the pollutants of interest at DEMI. Acrolein
10-6
-------
and/>-dichlorobenzene each exhibited moderately strong negative correlations with the v-
component of the wind, while acetaldehyde exhibited a moderately strong positive correlation
with the v-component. Moderately strong positive correlations with sea level pressure were
calculated for acetaldehyde and acrolein.
Strong correlations were calculated between the various meteorological parameters and
the pollutants of interest at ITCMI. However, the low number of detects shown in Table 10-5
may allow for exaggeration of the relationship between the concentrations and weather
parameters. A moderately strong negative correlation exists between benzene and the maximum,
average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures. Correlations with the v-component of the wind
were moderately strong for all of the pollutants, indicating that northerly and/or southerly winds
influence concentrations of the pollutants of interest at ITCMI.
Moderately strong positive correlations were calculated between benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, and naphthalene and maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures at
YFMI, while moderately strong negative correlations were calculated between 1,3-butadiene and
tetrachloroethylene and these same parameters. With the exception ofp-dichlorobenzene and
tetrachloroethylene, all of the correlations with the v-component of the wind were moderately
strong to strong and positive. This indicates that northerly and/or southerly winds are important
factors in concentration of the pollutants of interest at YFMI. Tetrachl oroethylene exhibited a
strong positive correlation with sea level pressure (0.50).
10.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figures 10-12 through 10-15 are composite back trajectory maps for the Michigan
monitoring sites for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour
trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day.
Each circle around the site represents 100 miles.
As shown in Figure 10-12, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
APMI. The 24-hour airshed domain is somewhat large, with trajectories originating as far away
10-7
-------
as extreme northwest Iowa, over 600 miles away. Nearly 66% of the trajectories originated
within 300 miles of the site; and 87% within 400 miles from the APMI monitoring site.
As shown in Figure 10-13, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
DEMI. The 24-hour airshed domain is large, with trajectories originating as far away as central
Manitoba, Canada, or over 1000 miles away. Nearly 61% of the trajectories originated within
300 miles of the site; and 83% within 400 miles from the DEMI monitoring site. The one
trajectory originating from Manitoba, Canada, occurred on a day when a strong frontal system
moved across the central and eastern US on November 24, 2005. This wind pattern is also
evident on several composite trajectory maps from other sites in the region including the
INDEM, NBIL and SPIL, DITN, MEVIN, and MAWI monitoring sites. This trajectory is not
shown on the APMI, ITCMI, or YFMI composite trajectory maps because these sites stopped
sampling prior to November 24, 2005.
As shown in Figure 10-14, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
ITCMI. The 24-hour airshed domain is somewhat large, with trajectories originating as far away
as east-central Manitoba, Canada, nearly 600 miles away. Nearly 58% of the trajectories
originated within 300 miles of the site; and 79% within 400 miles from the ITCMI monitoring
site.
As shown in Figure 10-15, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
YFMI. The 24-hour airshed domain is large, with trajectories originating as far away as western
Ontario, Canada, over 700 miles away. Nearly 70% of the trajectories originated within 300
miles of the site; and 93% within 500 miles from the YFMI monitoring site. Interestingly, the
long trajectory originating in Ontario is for September 29, 2005, not November 24, 2005 as
shown for DEMI in Figure 10-13. September 29 was a make-up day for the YFMI monitoring
site, and samples were not taken on this date at other sites.
10-8
-------
10.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from the weather stations mentioned in Section 10.0 were uploaded into
a wind rose software program, WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006). WRPLOT produces a graphical wind
rose from the wind data. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions about a 16-point
compass, and uses different shading to represent wind speeds. Figures 10-16 through 10-19 are
the wind roses for the Michigan monitoring sites on days sampling occurred.
As indicated in Figure 10-16, hourly winds at APMI originated from all directions.
However, southerly, northerly, and westerly were most frequently measured (each representing
9% of the hourly observations). Calm winds (<2 knots) were recorded for 10% of the hourly
measurements. For wind speeds greater than 2 knots, 36% of observations ranged from 7 to
11 knots. Wind speeds greater than 22 knots were most frequently recorded with southwesterly
to westerly wind directions.
The wind rose for DEMI resembles the APMI wind rose. As indicated in Figure 10-17,
hourly winds at DEMI originated from all directions. However, the mostly frequently measured
wind directions were southerly, northerly, and westerly (10%, 8%, and 8%, respectively). Calm
winds were recorded for 9% of the hourly measurements. For wind speeds greater than 2 knots,
37% of observations ranged from 7 to 11 knots. Wind speeds greater than 22 knots were most
frequently recorded with southwesterly to northwesterly wind directions.
As indicated in Figure 10-18, hourly winds at ITCMI originated predominantly from the
west-northwest (12% of the hourly observations), east (11%), west (9%), and northwest (9%).
Calm winds were recorded for 11% of the hourly measurements. For wind speeds greater than
2 knots, 39% of observations ranged from 7 to 11 knots. Light winds (2-4 knots) were most
frequently observed from the east-northeast and east.
The wind rose for YFMI shows that westerly winds were recorded most frequently (11 %
of observations) as indicated in Figure 10-19, followed by southerly winds (9%), northerly winds
10-9
-------
(8%), and easterly winds (7%). Calm winds were recorded for 14% of the hourly measurements.
For wind speeds greater than 2 knots, 40% of observations ranged from 7 to 11 knots.
10.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following spatial
analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; and BTEX analysis.
10.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population in Chippewa County and Wayne County,
Michigan, were obtained from the Michigan Department of State and the U.S. Census Bureau,
and are summarized in Table 10-6. Table 10-6 also includes a vehicle registration to county
population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is
presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile
population surrounding the monitor and the vehicle registration ratio. Finally, Table 10-6
contains the average daily traffic information, which represents the average number of vehicles
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
The Detroit sites are located in Wayne County, and ITCMI is located in Chippewa
County. Wayne County has significantly more residents and registered vehicles than Chippewa
County. In fact, this county has the highest population and vehicle registration of all the UATMP
sites, except NBIL and SPIL in Cook County, in the Chicago area. However, the ITCMI site has
a higher registration-population ratio than the Detroit sites. The Dearborn site (DEMI) has the
highest estimated vehicle ownership within a 10-mile radius of the Michigan sites, although the
ITCMI site has the highest daily traffic volume passing a Michigan monitor. The ITCMI
monitoring site has the third highest traffic volume of all the UATMP sites.
10.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to Section 3.2.14). Table 3-11 presented
10-10
-------
and Figure 3-4 depicted the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compared
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites in an effort to characterize the
impact of on-road, or motor vehicle emissions. APMI and DEMts ratios most resemble those of
the roadside study, although both of their benzene-ethylbenzene and xylenes-ethylbenzene ratios
are much closer together (3.63 ฑ 0.32 and 3.70 ฑ 0.18 for APMI and 3.55 ฑ 0.27 and 3.59 ฑ 0.10
for DEMI, respectively), and APMI's toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is somewhat higher (6.49 ฑ 0.51
for APMI vs. 5.85 for the roadside study) than the roadside study. ITCMts benzene-
ethylbenzene and toluene-ethylbenzene ratios are similar (6.44 ฑ 1.26 and 6.16 ฑ 0.65 for ITCMI
vs. 2.85 and 5.85 for the roadside study). YFMts benzene-ethylbenzene ratio (19.12 ฑ 8.76) is
the highest and xylene-ethylbenzene ratio (3.66 ฑ 0.14) is the lowest, unlike the roadside study.
These observations are very similar to those from 2004.
10.6 Site-Specific Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2004, and are still participating in the
2005 program year (i.e., minimum 3 consecutive years), a site-specific trends analysis was
conducted. Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.3.4. The
Michigan sites with enough data for a trends analysis are APMI, DEMI, and ITCMI.
Figure 10-20 shows that concentrations of 1,3-butadiene and benzene at APMI
have changed little over the years (when factoring in the confidence intervals
illustrated by the error bars). Concentrations of formaldehyde seem to have
increased in 2005 after an initial decrease in 2002. However, the APMI site did
not sample carbonyl compounds in 2003, so no formaldehyde concentration is
provided.
The DEMI monitoring site has consistently sampled VOC and carbonyls since
2001, as shown in Figure 10-21. After an initial decrease in formaldehyde
concentrations in 2002, formaldehyde concentrations increased in 2003. The high
2004 formaldehyde concentration is probably skewed from a couple of high
samples, as indicated by the confidence intervals represented by error bars.
Concentrations of 1,3-butadiene and benzene have been fairly consistent
throughout the period.
The ITCMI monitoring site has sampled VOC since 2003. Although potentially
misleading in Figure 10-22 due to the small range of concentrations, benzene
concentrations have changed little statistically over the period. 1,3-Butadiene
10-11
-------
concentrations appear to have increased in 2004, then decreased in 2005.
However, the 2004 1,3-butadiene concentration is based on only one detect.
10.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 10-7 presents the 1999
NATA results for the census tracts where the Michigan monitoring sites are located. Only
pollutants that "failed" the screens are presented in Table 10-7. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
The APMI monitoring site is located in census tract 26163576600 with a population of
4,376, which represents 0.2% of the county population in 2000. The DEMI monitoring site is
located in census tract 26163573500, with a population of 5,214, which represents 0.3% of
Wayne County's 2000 population. YFMI is located in census tract 26163579000, which has a
population of zero. Finally, ITCMI is located in census tract 26033970300. In 2000, the
population in this census tract was 3,744 or 10% of the county population.
10.7.1 1999 NATA Summary
In terms of cancer risk at the Detroit sites, the Top 3 pollutants identified by NATA in the
APMI and DEMI census tracts are benzene (20.04 and 29.55 in-a-million risk, respectively), 1,3-
butadiene (6.47 and 10.06 in-a-million, respectively), and acetaldehyde (4.99 and 5.72 in-a-
million, respectively). DEMI's benzene cancer risk is the third-highest calculated for a UATMP
site, behind only BAPR and MEVIN. Due to the lack of residents in the YFMI census tract,
cancer risk is low. Acrolein was the only pollutant in the APMI and DEMI census tracts to have
a noncancer hazard quotient greater than 1.0 (which may lead to adverse health effects), ranging
from 8.08 at APMI to 9.52 at DEMI. Most noncancer hazard quotients were less than 0.20,
suggesting very little risk for noncancer health affects, with the exception of acrolein. The Top 3
10-12
-------
cancer risk pollutants identified by NATA at ITCMI are benzene (4.18 in a million), carbon
tetrachloride (3.13), and tetrachloroethylene (1.23). Noncancer risk was low, with acrolein
having the highest noncancer risk (0.38).
10.7.2 Annual Average Comparison
NATA-modeled concentrations are assumed to be the average concentration that a person
breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid annual average representing an entire year, including
detects and non-detects, needs to be calculated (refer to Section 10.2 on how a valid annual
average is calculated). Unfortunately, the ITCMI and YFMI sites ended sampling prior to
November 2005, therefore, valid annual averages could not be calculated for those sites. For
APMI, the NATA modeled concentrations are fairly similar to the annual averages, with the
exception of tetrachloroethylene and total xylenes. The total xylenes annual average is slightly
higher than the NATA modeled concentration, while the tetrachloroethylene annual average is
significantly higher than the NATA modeled concentration. Tetrachloroethylene and
formaldehyde annual averages at DEMI are somewhat higher than the NATA modeled
concentrations, while the NATA modeled concentration for total xylenes is higher than the 2005
measured annual average.
Michigan Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest common to each Michigan site are benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
carbon tetrachloride, p-dichlorobenzene, and tetrachloroethylene.
Tetrachloroethylene measured the highest daily average at APMI; formaldehyde
measured highest at DEMI; and benzene measured highest at ITCMI and YFMI.
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at each of the Michigan sites, while
benzene exceeded the short-term risk factor at YFMI.
A comparison of formaldehyde, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene concentrations for all years
of UATMP participation shows that concentrations of formaldehyde increased in 2005
at APMI, while benzene and 1,3-butadiene have been holding steady. Formaldehyde
appears to be increasing at DEMI although the low confidence interval in 2004
indicates the high 2004 concentration may have been driven by a few outliers. Little
change is noted at ITCMI.
10-13
-------
Figure 10-1. Detroit, Michigan (APMI) Monitoring Site
1 /V ALLKN PARK
n:i
-
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
10-14
-------
Figure 10-2. Detroit, Michigan (DEMI) Monitoring Site
f\-''-. --- '.-A*-''
, JW^r.
i-.T * , m.' %.. \ *
^, ' ' '" > "
y '^ป - . -V":" ' --
'v
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
10-15
-------
Figure 10-3. Detroit, Michigan (YFMI) Monitoring Site
'**"<?>/' -v-'W
W^^'M ' SKw /
''A '& /'^M^J^ViSfl^l^M Cr, /
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
10-16
-------
Figure 10-4. Sault Saint Marie, Michigan (ITCMI) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
10-17
-------
Figure 10-5. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of the Detroit, Michigan
Monitoring Sites (APMI, DEMI, YFMI)
Legend
fc APMI UATMPsite
YFMI UATMP site
fa DEMI UATMP site 10 mile radius
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (6)
z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (5)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (47)
+ Health Services Facility (1)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (4)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (1)
-*- Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (3)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (10)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (8)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (6)
83*TOB^Y '> -'* 83'OfCTW
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent aN facilities within the area of interest.
County boundary
Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels (3)
PetroleunVNat Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (2)
Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (2)
Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (2)
Primary Metal Industries Facility (5)
Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (2)
Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (2)
Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (2)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (6)
Transportation Equipment (4)
Utility Boilers (7)
Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (19)
Wholesale Trade (2)
10-18
-------
Figure 10-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ITCMI
\\--y.':. Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
& ITCMIUATMPsite
10 mile radius
J County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
!" Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (27)
10-19
-------
Figure 10-7. Acrolein Pollution Rose at APMI
to
o
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
ฃ 0.4
m
Concenl
0 0
o k)
c 0.2
S
= ฐ.4
Q.
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
NW N
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
*
-
-
W /'/^-
\ \^
"--
-
-
-
-
1.8 SW
I s
o n 1
NE
"V- E
--'
Avq Cone =1.08 ua/rn3
SE
2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
Pollutant Concentration
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
-------
Figure 10-8. Acrolein Pollution Rose at DEMI
Z..O
2.0
1.5
1.0
mtration
0
bi
itant Conce
0
o
NW N
-
*
w ,,--;
i i i i i i
*
1 0.5 I
Q- (
1
1.0 I *
I
1.5 |
I
I
2.0 I
|
I sw
I s
0 * I
NE
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDRMRL(0.11 |jg/m3)
"v- * E
Jy *
Ava Cone =1.1 8 ฑ0.34 UQ/m3
SE
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5 0.0 0.5
Pollutant Concentration
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
-------
Figure 10-9. Acrolein Pollution Rose at ITCMI
2.0
1.5
1.0
1 ฐ'5
4-1
i > O
*? n 00
I O \J.\J
to o
tO 4-
C
S
|0.5
Q.
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
NW N
-
-
_
A
w .-'-
\ ^
S ^-
-
-
Ava Cone =0.54 ฑ 0.28 uq/m3
-
sw
s
NE
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.11 |jg/m3)
-v- E
J^>
SE
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5 0.0 0.5
Pollutant Concentration
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
-------
Figure 10-10. Acrolein Pollution Rose at YFMI
to
o
7=
C
o
o
o
4-1
C
=
o
a.
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
NW N
-
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
-
-
-
w />^
if
'* i i
\^v_
0.4 [
0.6 [
0.8 [
1.0 |
1.2 |
1.4
1.6 |
1.8 I SW
I s
o n 1
NE
-y\ E
Ava Cone = 0.77 ฑ 0.27 ua/m3
SE
2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
Pollutant Concentration
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
-------
Figure 10-11. Benzene Pollution Rose at YFMI
to
3U
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
c
O
*= 10
ฃ_
ฃ 5
o
o 0
O <->
o
c 5
jS
i 10
o
^L
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
ซ;n
NW N
ATSDR MRL (28.75 |jg/m3)
-
-
f, .--'''
X
X
X
/
f'
^
/
W .' *^
; * 5^
^
\
\
4 V
^^^^
^*--...._*
-
.
4
sw
s*
NE
~ " . ^
s.
V
V
\
\
\
A \
^ \
\
I
L. ' E
^K. * '
/
A /
^^ /
/
X
* ,,'-''
* ,..--''
Ava Cone = 8.18 ฑ 3.25 ua/m3
SE
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10
Pollutant Concentration
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-------
Figure 10-12. Composite Back Trajectory Map for APMI
to
0 50 100 200 300 400
-------
Figure 10-13. Composite Back Trajectory Map for DEMI
to
L-^ 0 50 100 200 300 400
-------
Figure 10-14. Composite Back Trajectory Map for ITCMI
to
0 50 100 200 300 400
-------
Figure 10-15. Composite Back Trajectory Map for YFMI
to
oo
-------
Figure 10-16. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the APMI Monitoring Site
WEST!
to
VO
10%
8%,
SOUTH--'
I EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | :=22
17 - 21
11 - 17
I | 7- 11
I | 4- 7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 9.84%
-------
Figure 10-17. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the DEMI Monitoring Site
' NORTH "
o
o
10%
lOUTH --'
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | *= 22
17 - 21
11 - 17
I | 7- 11
I I 4- 7
2- 4
Calms: 9.28%
-------
Figure 10-18. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the ITCMI Monitoring Site
VJORTI-T
15%
SOUTH
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | 'f= 22
111 17 - 21
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I | 4- 7
^| 2- 4
Cairns: 10,50%
-------
Figure 10-19. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the YFMI Monitoring Site
'NORTH'
WEST!
o
OJ
to
SOUTH
EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | 'f= 22
111 17 - 21
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I | 4- 7
^| 2- 4
Cairns: 11.35%
-------
Figure 10-20. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the APMI Monitoring Site
2.5 --
.a
Q.
o
2 --
1.5 -
o
U
QJ
SB
A
L.
01
0.5 -
2001
rf
rf
2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
D 1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 10-21. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the DEMI Monitoring Site
21
18 -
15 -
.a
I 12
I
-^
I
o
M)
L.
01
9 -]
6
3 -
0 -I
i-
2001
2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
D 1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 10-22. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the ITCMI Monitoring Site
0.75
2003
2004
Year
2005
D 1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
-------
Table 10-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Michigan
Site
APMI
DEMI
ITCMI
YFMI
WBAN
94847
94847
14847
14822
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
<ฐF)
58.86
ฑ2.25
62.88
ฑ5.85
58.86
ฑ2.25
59.03
ฑ5.67
51.27
ฑ2.29
55.26
ฑ6.70
58.87
ฑ2.27
64.00
ฑ6.43
Average
Temperature
<ฐF)
50.84
ฑ2.07
54.50
ฑ5.31
50.84
ฑ2.07
50.88
ฑ5.15
42.82
ฑ2.12
45.64
ฑ6.17
51.47
ฑ2.11
55.86
ฑ5.96
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
<ฐF)
39.75
ฑ1.90
43.35
ฑ5.02
39.75
ฑ1.90
39.88
ฑ4.83
34.23
ฑ2.06
35.75
ฑ6.10
39.78
ฑ1.88
43.77
ฑ5.35
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
<ฐF)
45.36
ฑ1.84
48.78
ฑ4.78
45.36
ฑ1.84
45.46
ฑ4.63
39.01
ฑ1.95
41.15
ฑ5.71
45.63
ฑ1.84
49.48
ฑ5.23
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
68.75
ฑ1.21
68.90
ฑ2.97
68.75
ฑ1.21
68.84
ฑ2.73
74.32
ฑ1.20
71.42
ฑ3.46
67.09
ฑ1.18
66.84
ฑ3.17
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1016.78
ฑ0.76
1016.64
ฑ1.94
1016.78
ฑ0.76
1016.79
ฑ1.85
1015.49
ฑ0.79
1015.67
ฑ2.13
1016.78
ฑ0.77
1017.3
ฑ2.06
Average
ซ-component
of the wind
1.87
ฑ0.49
1.41
ฑ1.11
1.87
ฑ0.49
1.78
ฑ1.09
0.87
ฑ0.49
1.02
ฑ1.34
1.24
ฑ0.48
0.68
ฑ1.12
Average
v-component
of the wind
0.19
ฑ0.49
-0.11
ฑ1.26
0.19
ฑ0.49
0.29
ฑ1.17
-0.32
ฑ0.34
0.01
ฑ0.83
0.41
ฑ0.48
0.52
ฑ1.09
-------
Table 10-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values
at the Michigan Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#of
Failures
# of Detects
%of
Detects
Failing
%of
Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Allen Park in Detroit, Michigan - APMI
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Xylenes
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Acrolein
Total
49
46
30
30
28
17
10
4
4
1
219
50
50
30
30
28
17
11
30
4
1
251
98.0
92.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
90.9
13.3
100.0
100.0
87.3
22.4%
21.0%
13.7%
13.7%
12.8%
7.8%
4.6%
1.8%
1.8%
0.5%
22.4%
43.4%
57.1%
70.8%
83.6%
91.3%
95.9%
97.7%
99.5%
100.0%
Dearborn in Detroit, Michigan - DEMI
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3 -Butadiene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrolein
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Xylenes
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Total
56
55
52
52
46
32
16
10
10
3
2
1
335
56
56
52
52
46
33
26
10
10
52
41
1
435
100.0
98.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.0
61.5
100.0
100.0
5.8
4.9
100.0
77.0
16.7%
16.4%
15.5%
15.5%
13.7%
9.6%
4.8%
3.0%
3.0%
0.9%
0.6%
0.3%
16.7%
33.1%
48.7%
64.2%
77.9%
87.5%
92.2%
95.2%
98.2%
99.1%
99.7%
100.0%
Sault St. Marie, Michigan - ITCMI
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrolein
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3 -Butadiene
Chloromethylbenzene
Total
32
28
5
4
3
3
1
76
32
28
6
4
4
5
1
80
100.0
100.0
83.3
100.0
75.0
60.0
100.0
95.0
42.1%
36.8%
6.6%
5.3%
3.9%
3.9%
1.3%
42.1%
78.9%
85.5%
90.8%
94.7%
98.7%
100.0%
10-37
-------
Table 10-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening
Values at the Michigan Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
#of
Failures
# of Detects
%of
Detects
Failing
%of
Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Yellow Freight in Detroit, Michigan - YFMI
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3 -Butadiene
Naphthalene
Benzo (a) pyrene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Xylenes
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Acrolein
1,2-Dichloroethane
Total
43
41
23
23
19
8
8
4
2
2
1
174
43
41
26
23
42
40
14
43
2
2
1
277
100.0
100.0
88.5
100.0
45.2
20.0
57.1
9.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
62.8
24.7%
23.6%
13.2%
13.2%
10.9%
4.6%
4.6%
2.3%
1.1%
1.1%
0.6%
24.7%
48.3%
61.5%
74.7%
85.6%
90.2%
94.8%
97.1%
98.3%
99.4%
100.0%
10-38
-------
Table 10-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Michigan Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Allen Park in Detroit, Michigan - APMI
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
17
50
30
28
50
11
30
30
50
30
30
50
30
30
0.30
1.74
2.21
0.64
2.82
0.17
18.40
0.12
0.21
0.68
0.04
0.39
0.08
9.40
NR
1.63
NR
NR
1.92
NR
NR
NR
0.70
NR
NR
0.65
NR
NR
0.24
1.63
2.37
0.54
2.50
NR
6.85
0.15
0.33
1.26
0.09
0.62
NR
1.65
NR
1.92
2.40
0.73
3.85
NR
11.12
NR
0.36
1.92
0.05
0.68
NR
4.29
0.19
1.73
2.26
0.69
2.60
0.15
47.46
0.08
0.40
0.69
0.06
0.73
0.06
25.74
Dearborn in Detroit, Michigan - DEMI
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
33
56
10
52
52
56
10
26
46
52
56
27
52
52
56
52
52
52
0.13
2.13
1.18
1.63
0.63
5.35
0.19
0.16
2.81
0.02
0.28
0.34
0.26
0.03
1.39
0.03
0.05
0.87
NR
2.11
NR
1.75
0.59
7.32
NR
NR
0.71
NR
0.73
NR
0.56
0.05
4.37
NR
NR
0.31
NR
1.96
NR
1.61
0.57
6.27
NR
NR
1.83
NR
0.42
NR
0.63
0.09
2.93
NR
NR
1.66
0.12
2.43
NR
1.72
0.67
4.73
NR
0.21
4.65
0.03
0.40
NR
0.36
0.05
0.80
NR
0.07
1.84
0.12
1.97
NR
1.41
0.70
3.20
0.90
0.14
2.47
0.04
0.62
NR
0.50
0.05
0.96
0.43
0.05
1.19
Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan - ITCMI
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
5
4
32
28
6
4
33
6
33
33
33
33
0.04
0.54
0.89
0.77
0.13
0.31
0.01
0.28
0.12
0.14
0.04
0.18
NR
NR
0.97
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.26
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.88
0.75
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.23
0.28
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.78
0.71
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.08
0.06
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
o
I
VO
-------
Table 10-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Michigan Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Yellow Freight in
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Naphthalene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
23
43
40
41
42
14
26
43
43
43
42
43
42
43
43
43
0.18
8.18
0.0005
0.67
0.18
0.24
0.71
4.18
Winter
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Detroit, Michigan - YFMI
0.04
3.25
0.0003
0.05
0.11
0.23
0.40
0.91
NR
3.16
0.0002
0.48
0.02
NR
NR
3.60
NR
2.61
0.0003
0.08
0.02
NR
NR
1.80
NR
7.15
0.0008
0.67
0.18
NR
NR
3.88
NR
4.31
0.0009
0.08
0.21
NR
NR
1.73
0.13
5.67
0.0003
0.70
0.16
0.27
0.55
3.77
0.04
3.17
0.0002
0.06
0.14
0.23
0.36
1.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
o
I
o
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
-------
Table 10-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Michigan Monitoring Sites
Site
APMI
DEMI
ITCM
YFMI
YFMI
Method
TO-15
TO-15
TO-15
TO-15
TO-15
Pollutant
Acrolein
Acrolein
Acrolein
Acrolein
Benzene1
Daily
Average
(Mg/m3)
NA2
1.18
ฑ0.34
0.54
ฑ0.28
0.77
ฑ0.27
8.18
ฑ3.25
ATSDR
Short-term
MRL
(Mg/m3)
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
28.75
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
1
10
4
2
2
CAL
EPA
REL
Acute
(Mg/m3)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
-
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
1
10
4
2
-
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(ug/m3)
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
20
Winter
Average
(Mg/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.16
ฑ2.61
Spring
Average
(Mg/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.15
ฑ4.31
Summer
Average
(Mg/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
5.67
ฑ3.17
Autumn
Average
(Ug/m3)
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
1 Indicates a recalculated Short-term MRL
2 Indicates only one detect
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
-------
Table 10-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Michigan
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
# Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
w-Component
of the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea Level
Pressure
Allen Park in Detroit, Michigan - APMI
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
17
50
30
28
50
11
30
0.06
0.35
0.22
0.50
0.60
0.54
0.17
0.07
0.31
0.22
0.51
0.58
0.57
0.18
0.11
0.29
0.24
0.56
0.57
0.39
0.18
0.10
0.29
0.22
0.55
0.57
0.47
0.18
0.13
-0.03
0.08
0.19
-0.06
-0.38
-0.04
-0.10
-0.12
-0.12
-0.04
0.04
0.39
0.13
0.10
0.46
0.15
0.27
0.46
0.01
0.06
0.00
0.16
-0.03
-0.17
-0.09
0.06
-0.09
Dearborn in Detroit, Michigan - DEMI
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
33
56
10
52
52
56
10
26
46
0.14
0.33
0.53
0.18
0.29
-0.11
-0.53
0.33
0.52
0.13
0.28
0.49
0.15
0.27
-0.13
-0.54
0.33
0.54
0.10
0.28
0.47
0.16
0.32
-0.09
-0.48
0.29
0.54
0.11
0.28
0.47
0.15
0.30
-0.12
-0.51
0.31
0.54
-0.14
0.01
-0.23
0.07
0.16
0.20
0.56
-0.24
-0.15
-0.37
-0.26
-0.10
-0.38
0.23
-0.19
0.26
-0.34
-0.33
0.22
0.41
-0.28
0.17
0.23
-0.07
0.27
-0.32
0.13
0.09
0.30
0.47
0.21
-0.18
0.13
0.34
0.10
-0.16
Sault St. Marie, Michigan - ITCMI
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
5
4
32
28
6
4
0.15
-0.01
-0.24
0.08
-0.49
-0.88
0.01
-0.18
-0.27
0.05
-0.47
-0.95
-0.05
-0.04
-0.31
0.01
-0.17
-0.89
-0.01
-0.10
-0.29
0.04
-0.32
-0.98
-0.15
0.28
-0.15
-0.15
0.61
0.10
0.24
-0.94
0.12
0.17
0.28
-0.49
0.26
0.74
-0.38
-0.36
0.29
0.34
0.64
-0.90
0.18
-0.33
-0.63
-0.36
o
I
to
-------
Table 10-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Michigan
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
# Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
w-Component
of the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea Level
Pressure
Yellow Freight in Detroit, Michigan - YFMI
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Naphthalene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
23
43
40
41
42
14
26
43
-0.24
0.38
0.11
0.47
0.31
0.11
-0.38
0.24
-0.27
0.36
0.08
0.46
0.30
0.09
-0.40
0.23
-0.29
0.35
0.01
0.43
0.23
0.25
-0.36
0.21
-0.29
0.36
0.05
0.45
0.26
0.22
-0.39
0.22
-0.06
-0.14
-0.31
-0.24
-0.33
0.21
0.22
-0.09
-0.08
0.03
0.06
0.33
-0.02
0.26
-0.25
0.01
0.43
0.63
0.44
0.38
0.47
-0.01
-0.05
0.33
0.11
0.02
0.17
-0.22
0.03
-0.26
0.50
0.01
-------
Table 10-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the Michigan Monitoring Sites
Site
APMI
DEMI
ITCMI
YFMI
2005 Estimated
County
Population
1,998,217
1,998,217
38,780
1,998,217
Number of
Vehicles
Registered
1,422,117
1,422,117
33,580
1,422,117
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
0.71
0.71
0.87
0.71
Population
Within 10 Miles
964,194
1,201,847
22,188
1,154,934
Estimated 10 mile
Vehicle Ownership
686,210
855,346
19,213
821,958
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
60,000
12,791
100,000
500
-------
Table 10-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in
Michigan
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Ug/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Allen Park in Detroit, Michigan - APMI, Census Tract 26163576600
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
0.20 ฑ0.08
1.74 ฑ0.21
NA
2.21 ฑ0.68
0.61 ฑ0.06
2.82 ฑ0.39
0.88 ฑ0.15
0.18 ฑ0.03
18.40 ฑ9.40
6.15ฑ2.10
0.22
2.27
0.16
2.57
0.21
2.11
<0.01
0.09
0.41
3.70
6.47
4.99
20.04
3.14
0.01
0.03
0.97
2.43
0.11
0.25
8.08
0.09
0.01
0.22
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.04
Dearborn in Detroit, Michigan - DEMI, Census Tract 26163573500
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
0.09 ฑ0.01
0.11 ฑ0.02
2.13 ฑ0.28
NA
1.63 ฑ0.26
0.63 ฑ0.03
0.54 ฑ0.24
5.35 ฑ1.39
0.95 ฑ0.14
0.17 ฑ0.03
2.50 ฑ0.80
4.35 ฑ0.90
0.04
0.34
2.60
0.19
3.79
0.21
0.69
2.58
0.01
0.08
0.37
6.69
1.07
10.06
5.72
29.55
3.14
0.33
0.01
0.03
0.92
2.16
0.01
0.17
0.29
9.52
0.13
0.01
0.01
0.26
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.07
Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan - ITCMI, Census Tract 26033970300
1,3-Butadiene
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethylbenzene
/j-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.03
0.01
0.54
0.21
O.01
0.02
0.21
0.76
4.18
3.13
O.01
0.25
1.23
0.01
0.38
0.02
0.01
0.01
O.01
10-45
-------
Table 10-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites
in Michigan (Continued)
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Ug/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Yellow Freight in Detroit, Michigan - YFMI, Census Tract 26163579000
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acrolein
Benzene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Naphthalene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
<0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
-
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
10-46
-------
11.0 Site in Minnesota
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Minnesota (MIMN), located in Minneapolis. Figure 11-1 is a topographical map showing
the monitoring site in its urban location. Figure 11-2 identifies point source emission locations
within 10 miles of this site as reported in the 2002 NEI for point sources. The Minneapolis site
is surrounded by numerous sources, of which a majority are involved in fuel combustion
industries.
Hourly meteorological data at a weather station near this site were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather station closest
to the MEVIN monitoring site is at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (WBAN 14922).
The Mississippi River runs through the center of Minneapolis and connects with the
Minnesota River in southwest St. Paul. The city is peppered with many small lakes throughout
the city, which freeze in the winter. The city experiences a continental climate, generally cold in
the winter and warm in the summer. Winds fluctuate seasonally, and tend to be out of the
southeast in the summer and fall, and out of the northwest in the winter and spring. Although
precipitation in the area isn't great, the spring thaw in conjunction with the river system can lead
to flooding in the spring. (Ruffner and Bair, 1987). Table 11-1 presents average meteorological
conditions of temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point
temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), pressure (average
sea level pressure), and wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind) for the
entire year and on days samples were taken. As shown in Table 11-1, average meteorological
conditions on sample days are somewhat warmer and slightly windier than average weather
conditions throughout the year. The site began sampling at the end of March, missing more than
half of the winter months, which can attribute to this difference.
11-1
-------
11.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Minnesota Monitoring Site
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest
is a modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured
pollutant concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily
concentration value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration
"failed the screen." A total of 81 HAPs are listed in the guidance document as having risk
screening values. Table 11-2 presents the nineteen pollutants that failed at least one screen at
MTMN; a total of 351 measured concentrations failed screens. The pollutants of interest at
MEVIN were identified as the pollutants that contributed to the top 95% of the total failed
screens, resulting in twelve pollutants: benzene (42 failed screens), carbon tetrachloride (42),
arsenic (39), acetaldehyde (39), manganese (35), 1,3-butadiene (33), formaldehyde (32),
tetrachloroethylene (19), nickel (18), acrolein (16), hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (12), andp-
dichlorobenzene (12). It's important to note that the MEVIN site sampled for carbonyls, VOC,
and metals, and that this is reflected in the site's pollutants of interest.
Also listed in Table 11-2 are the total number of detects and the percent detects failing
the screen. Of the twelve pollutants of interest, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, acrolein, and
hexachloro-1,3-butadiene had 100% of their detects fail the screening values.
11.2 Concentration Averages at the Minnesota Monitoring Site
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the twelve pollutants of
interest: daily, seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the
average concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a
seasonal average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all
non-detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects
in a respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no earlier than November. Daily and seasonal averages are
11-2
-------
presented in Table 11-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in
later sections.
Among the daily averages at MEVIN, formaldehyde measured the highest concentration
by mass (1.78 ฑ 0.37 ug/m3), followed by acetaldehyde (1.26 ฑ 0.25 ug/m3) and benzene (1.13 ฑ
0.14 ug/m3). The highest formaldehyde concentrations were measured in summer. Manganese
and nickel were highest in summer and autumn. The remaining averages did not vary much
from season to season. MEVIN did not begin sampling until the end of March, and therefore has
no valid winter seasonal averages. Acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, carbon tetrachloride,
formaldehyde, manganese, and nickel were detected in every sample taken at MEVIN, while
acrolein and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene were detected in one-half or less of the samples taken.
11.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Minnesota Monitoring Site
Non-chronic risk for the concentration data at MIMN was evaluated using ATSDR acute
and intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) and California EPA acute reference exposure limit
(REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as exposures from 1 to 14 days while intermediate risk is
defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. It is useful to compare daily measurements to the
short-term MRL and REL factors, as well as compare seasonal averages to the intermediate
MRL. Of the nineteen pollutants with at least one failed screen, only acrolein exceeded both the
acute and intermediate risk values, and its non-chronic risk is summarized in Table 11-4.
All sixteen acrolein detects were greater than the ATSDR acute value of 0.11 ug/m3 and
fifteen exceeded the California REL value of 0.19 ug/m3. The average detected concentration
was 1.10 ฑ 0.35 ug/m3, which is nearly six times the California REL value. For the intermediate
acrolein risk, seasonal averages were compared to the ATSDR intermediate value of 0.09 ug/m3.
As discussed in Sections 3.1.5, acrolein concentrations could only be evaluated beginning July
2005, and a valid seasonal average could only be calculated for autumn. The autumn seasonal
average was significantly greater than the ATSDR intermediate risk level.
For the pollutants that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. Figure 11-3 is a pollution rose for acrolein at MEVIN. The pollution rose
-------
is a plot of daily concentration and daily average wind direction. As indicated in Figure 11-3, all
acrolein concentrations exceeded the ATDSR acute risk factor, indicated by a solid line (ATSDR
MRL). Although difficult to discern, all but one acrolein concentration exceeded the CalEPA
acute risk factor, indicated by a dashed line (CalEPA REL). The concentrations on the pollution
rose are scattered around the center, a pattern characteristic of mobile sources, yet there is a
cluster of concentrations measured on a day with winds from the west. The highest
concentration of acrolein occurred on November 18, 2005 with a south-southwesterly wind.
MEVIN is located in downtown Minneapolis and is situated near several major roadways (Figure
11-1). The immediate vicinity is mostly shops and offices, although industrial sources are
located within a mile of the monitoring site.
11.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Minnesota Monitoring Site
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
11.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 11-5 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the MEVIN monitoring site. (Please
refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) With the exception of
hexachloro-l,3-butadiene, all the pollutants of interest at MEVIN exhibited positive correlations
with the maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures, although actual correlations
ranged from very weak to strong. This indicates that concentrations of the pollutants of interest
tend to increase as temperatures increase. The strongest correlations with these parameters were
computed for formaldehyde, which correlates well with its seasonal averages. Hexachloro-1,3-
butadiene's correlations with these parameters were all strong and negative. The strongest
correlation with relative humidity was computed for hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (0.55). The
strongest correlation with a wind component was calculated for hexachloro-l,3-butadiene as well
(0.43). Most of the remaining correlations were weak.
11-4
-------
11.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 11-4 is a composite back trajectory map for the MIMN monitoring site for the
days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a
parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. Each circle around the site
in Figure 11-4 represents 100 miles. As shown in Figure 11-4, the back trajectories originated
from a variety of directions at MIMN, although there is an apparent lack of trajectories from the
west and east. The 24-hour airshed domain is large, with trajectories originating as far away as
northern Manitoba, Canada, over 900 miles away. Nearly 61% of the trajectories originated
within 400 miles of the site; and 88% within 500 miles from the MIMN monitoring site. The
one trajectory originating from Manitoba occurred on a day when a strong frontal system moved
across the central and eastern US on November 24, 2005. This wind pattern is also evident on
several composite trajectory maps from other sites in the region including the DEMI, INDEM,
NBIL and SPIL, DITN, and MAWI monitoring sites.
11.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport near the MEVIN
monitoring site was uploaded into a wind rose software program, WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006).
WRPLOT produces a graphical wind rose from the wind data. A wind rose shows the frequency
of wind directions about a 16-point compass, and uses different shading to represent wind
speeds. Figure 11-5 is the wind rose for the MEVIN monitoring site on days sampling occurred.
As indicated in Figure 11-5, hourly winds were predominantly out of the southeast (11% of
observations), west (10%), and south-southeast (9%) on sample days. Wind speeds tended to
range from 7 to 11 knots on day samples were taken (39% of observations). Calm winds
(<2 knots) were observed for 7% of the measurements. The strongest winds (> 22 knots) were
most frequently observed with winds from the west, northwest, and north.
11.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following spatial
analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; and BTEX analysis.
11-5
-------
11.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population in Hennepin County, MN were obtained
from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety - Driver and Vehicle Services and the U.S.
Census Bureau, and are summarized in Table 11-6. Table 11-6 also includes a vehicle
registration to county population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within
10 miles of each site is presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed
using the 10-mile population surrounding the monitor and the vehicle registration ratio. Finally,
Table 11-6 contains the average daily traffic information, which represents the average number
of vehicles passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
Hennepin County is one of the eleven counties with a population over 1 million.
Accordingly, its vehicle registration count is also high compared to other UATMP sites and
MTMN has one of the higher estimated vehicle registration-to-population ratios. MEVIN's
estimated 10 mile vehicle ownership is fourth behind sites from the New York, Philadelphia, and
Boston areas. However, the average daily traffic count falls in the middle of the range compared
to other UATMP sites. The MEVIN monitoring site is considered a commercial area and is
located in an urban-city center setting.
11.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area. For more information on this study, refer to Section 3.2.1.4. Table 3-11 presented
and Figure 3-4 depicted the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites in an effort to characterize the
impact of on-road, or motor vehicle, emissions. At MEVIN, the benzene-ethylbenzene and
xylenes-ethylbenzene ratios (3.65 ฑ 0.30 and 3.76 ฑ 0.10, respectively) are closer together than
those of the roadside study (2.85 and 4.55, respectively). The toluene-ethylbenzene ratio (7.22 ฑ
0.74) is also somewhat higher than those of roadside study (5.85).
11-6
-------
11.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 11-7 presents the 1999
NATA results for the census tract where the Minnesota monitoring site is located. Only
pollutants that "failed" the screens are presented in Table 11-7. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
11.6.1 1999 NATA Summary
The MTMN monitoring site is located in census tract 27053104600. The population for
the census tract where the MEVIN monitoring site is located was 3,082, which represents about
0.3% of the county population in 2000. In terms of cancer risk, the Top 3 pollutants identified
by NATA in the MEVIN census tract are benzene (39.5 in-a-million risk), 1,3-butadiene (14.18),
and acetaldehyde (7.08). The cancer risk for benzene is the second highest cancer risk compared
to other UATMP site census tracts. Acrolein was the only pollutant in the MEVIN census tract to
have a noncancer hazard quotient greater than 1.0 (an HQ greater than 1.0 may lead to adverse
health effects). Most noncancer hazard quotients were less than 0.30, suggesting very little risk
for noncancer health affects, with the exception of acrolein.
11.6.2 Annual Average Comparison
NATA-modeled concentrations are assumed to be the average concentration that a person
breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid annual average representing an entire year, including
detects and non-detects, needs to be calculated (refer to Section 11.2 on how a valid annual
average is calculated). Unfortunately, the MEVIN started sampling in late March, and therefore,
annual averages could not be calculated.
11-7
-------
Minnesota Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest at the Minnesota site are acetaldehyde, acrolein, arsenic,
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, hexachloro-l,3-butadiene,
manganese, nickel, p-dichlorobenzene, and tetrachloroethylene.
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average atMIMN. Concentrations of
formaldehyde were highest in summer, while nickel and manganese were highest in
summer and autumn.
Acrolein was the only pollutant to exceed either of the short-term risk factors.
11-8
-------
Figure 11-1. Minneapolis, Minnesota (MIMN) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minutes Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
11-9
-------
Figure 11-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of MIMN
An oka
Coynty
'" , Ramsey
g ' -, County
V
F
F ff
4 F
F
f
, F
,8 Q '
F J
; \R
. |_ FS EU _ - - ' S -
I e P s G P
E.UL
ff p
Hennepin
County
t F r r
f f ffiR
JFF IF p ' * n ฅ
FlS
F S
County
R-J.
Legend
-fr MIMN UATMP ate 10 mile radius ]
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
* Agricultural Production - Crops {1)
t Automobile Dealers {1}
ฅ Automotive Re pah. Services, & Paiking (3)
5 Educational Sen/tces Facility (1)
Z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility {3}
-- Executive, Legislative, S General Government Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Pioclucts Facility (5)
G Food & Krtdred Products Facility {1}
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (134)
H Furniture & Fixtures Facility (1)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (17)
-~ Instruments & Related Products Facility (1)
*- Integrated fron S Steel Manufacturing Facility (4)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility {3)
a Lumber S Wood Products Facility (4)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility {7}
X Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (23)
Note: Due to fjutrty density1 and collocation tlhe total facilities
displayed may not represent ai! facilities within the area of interest.
County boundary
- National Security S International Affairs (1)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (3)
2 NonmetaiSic Minerals, Except Fuels O)
@ Paper & Allied Products (2)
P Petroleum/Nat Gas Prod, & Refining Industrial Facility (2
Q primary Metal industries Facility (3)
R Printing S Publishing Facility (18)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (4)
V Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (6)
i.': Special Trade Contractors Facility (1)
U Stone, Clay, GSass, & Concrete Products (3)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (19)
T Transportation Equipment (1)
f1 Transportation by Air (3)
? Unknown (5)
8 Utility Boilers (5)
"s Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (2)
* Wholesale Trade (2)
11-10
-------
Figure 11-3. Acrolein Pollution Rose at MIMN
Avq Cone =1.10 ฑ 0.35 uq/m
CAEPAREL(0.19|jg/rrr)
ATSDRMRL(0.11 ug/mฐ)
0.5 0.0 0.5
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 11-4. Composite Back Trajectory Map for MIMN
D 75 150 300 450 600
Miles
-------
Figure 11-5. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the MIMN Monitoring Site
SOUTH.-'
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | >=22
17 - 21
11 - 17
i | 7- 11
^| 2- 4
Calms: 7,39%
-------
Table 11-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Site in Minnesota
Site
MIMN
WBAN
14922
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(ฐF)
56.27
ฑ2.44
63.02
ฑ6.06
Average
Temperature
<ฐF)
48.41
ฑ2.32
55.57
ฑ5.70
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
<ฐF)
36.85
ฑ2.10
43.32
ฑ5.27
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
<ฐF)
42.8
ฑ2.04
49.22
ฑ5.01
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
67.22
ฑ1.23
66.81
ฑ4.09
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1015.79
ฑ0.79
1014.22
ฑ2.03
Average
w-component
of the wind
0.41
ฑ0.53
0.64
ฑ1.40
Average
v-component
of the wind
0.69
ฑ0.52
0.90
ฑ1.36
-------
Table 11-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the
Minnesota Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
%of
Detects
Failing
% of Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Minneapolis, MN - MIMN
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic (TSP)
Acetaldehyde
Manganese (TSP)
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Nickel (TSP)
Acrolein
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
Cadmium (TSP)
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acrylonitrile
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Bromomethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Total
42
42
39
39
35
33
32
19
18
16
12
12
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
351
42
42
46
40
46
34
40
26
46
16
12
23
23
46
2
1
1
25
1
512
100.0
100.0
84.8
97.5
76.1
97.1
80.0
73.1
39.1
100.0
100.0
52.2
17.4
4.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.0
100.0
68.6
12.0%
12.0%
11.1%
11.1%
10.0%
9.4%
9.1%
5.4%
5.1%
4.6%
3.4%
3.4%
1.1%
0.6%
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
12.0%
23.9%
35.0%
46.2%
56.1%
65.5%
74.6%
80.1%
85.2%
89.7%
93.2%
96.6%
97.7%
98.3%
98.9%
99.1%
99.4%
99.7%
100.0%
11-15
-------
Table 11-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Minnesota Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Minneapolis, Minnesota - MIMN
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Nickel (TSP)
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
34
40
16
46
42
42
40
12
46
46
23
26
42
40
28
46
42
42
40
42
46
46
42
42
0.13
1.26
1.10
0.001
1.13
0.72
1.78
0.18
0.016
0.002
0.10
0.39
0.02
0.25
0.35
0.0001
0.14
0.05
0.37
0.03
0.004
0.001
0.02
0.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
1.27
NR
0.0004
1.17
0.67
1.40
NR
0.0070
0.0009
NR
NR
NR
0.27
NR
0.0003
0.40
0.13
0.24
NR
0.0050
0.0005
NR
NR
0.11
1.58
NR
0.0008
1.01
0.72
2.91
NR
0.0242
0.0027
0.14
NR
0.04
0.72
NR
0.0001
0.19
0.06
0.88
NR
0.0062
0.0009
0.02
NR
0.14
1.18
0.85
0.0008
1.24
0.77
1.54
0.96
0.0192
0.0031
0.11
0.46
0.03
0.30
0.42
0.0002
0.24
0.06
0.44
0.39
0.0072
0.0012
0.03
0.28
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
-------
Table 11-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Minnesota Monitoring Site
Site
MIMN
Method
TO- 15
Pollutant
Acrolein
Daily
Average
(ug/m3)
1.10
ฑ0.35
ATSDR
Short-term
MRL
(ug/m3)
0.11
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
16
CAL EPA
REL Acute
(Ug/m3)
0.19
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
15
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(ug/m3)
0.09
Winter
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
Spring
Average
(ug/m3)
NA
Summer
Average
(Ug/m3)
NR
Autumn
Average
(ug/m3)
0.85
ฑ0.42
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
-------
Table 11-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Minnesota
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
M-Component
of the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea Level
Pressure
Minneapolis, MN - MEMN
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Nickel (TSP)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
34
40
16
46
42
42
40
12
46
46
23
26
0.25
0.42
0.29
0.24
0.06
0.09
0.65
-0.63
0.56
0.19
0.21
0.01
0.24
0.40
0.24
0.24
0.08
0.12
0.64
-0.62
0.53
0.19
0.25
0.03
0.28
0.39
0.20
0.30
0.21
0.22
0.63
-0.58
0.47
0.27
0.35
0.12
0.27
0.40
0.23
0.26
0.15
0.17
0.64
-0.60
0.49
0.23
0.30
0.07
0.12
-0.08
-0.35
0.07
0.38
0.26
-0.11
0.55
-0.34
0.14
0.25
0.30
-0.27
-0.26
-0.07
0.03
-0.14
-0.07
-0.20
0.43
0.09
0.08
0.00
-0.02
-0.02
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.08
-0.07
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.28
-0.22
-0.07
0.10
-0.14
0.15
0.05
0.20
-0.12
-0.21
0.02
-0.06
-0.08
0.00
0.02
oo
-------
Table 11-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the Minnesota Monitoring Site
Site
MIMN
2005 Estimated
County
Population
1,119,364
Number of
Vehicles
Registered
1,004,883
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
0.90
Population
Within 10 Miles
1,146,484
Estimated 10
mile Vehicle
Ownership
1,029,229
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
10,000
-------
Table 11-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Site in Minnesota
Compound
2005 UATMP
Annual Average
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Minneapolis, MN - MIMN, Census Tract 27053104600
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Bromomethane
Cadmium (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Nickel (TSP)
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.06
0.04
0.47
3.22
0.22
<0.01
0.15
5.06
0.21
0.14
0.21
<0.01
3.12
<0.01
0.36
1.10
0.06
0.35
0.57
3.38
0.97
14.18
7.08
~
0.12
0.64
39.50
~
0.25
3.18
<0.01
0.02
0.03
~
0.18
0.69
2.04
1.13
~
<0.01
0.24
0.36
10.81
<0.01
<0.01
0.17
0.04
0.01
0.01
~
0.32
<0.01
0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
11-20
-------
12.0 Sites in Mississippi
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the three
UATMP sites in Mississippi (GRMS, PGMS, and TUMS). These sites are located in different
cities in Mississippi: Grenada, Pascagoula, and Tupelo. Figures 12-1 through 12-3 are
topographical maps showing the monitoring sites in their urban and rural locations. Figures 12-4
through 12-6 identify point source emission locations within 10 miles of the sites that reported to
the 2002 NEI for point sources. Very few facilities are located near the GRMS site, which is
located in central Mississippi. Most of the facilities are located to the south of the site and
involved in a variety of industrial processes. The PGMS site is located along the Gulf Coast,
near the Mississippi/Alabama border. Accordingly, a majority of the sources are located to the
north and east of the monitoring site, and are mostly involved in surface coating industries. The
industrial facilities within a ten mile radius of TUMS, which is located in northeast Mississippi,
are mainly to the east and southeast of the site. A number of the sources near the TUMS site are
involved in surface coating processes and chemical and allied products industries.
Hourly meteorological data at weather stations near these sites were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather station closest
to the GRMS monitoring site is Greenwood-Leflore Airport (WBAN 13978); the closest weather
station to PGMS site is Pascagoula-Lott International Airport (WBAN 53858); and the closest
weather station to TUMS site is Tupelo Municipal Airport (WBAN 93862).
Climatologically, all three of the Mississippi cities are warm and humid, especially
Pascagoula, the site nearest the coast. High temperatures and humidity, due to proximity to the
Gulf of Mexico, can make the climate in this region feel uncomfortable. Precipitation is
distributed fairly evenly throughout the year, and thunderstorms are fairly common, especially in
the summer and nearer to the coast (Ruffner and Bair, 1987). Table 12-1 presents average
meteorological conditions of temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average
dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), pressure
12-1
-------
(average sea level pressure), and wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind)
for the entire year and on days samples were taken. As shown in Table 12-1, average
meteorological conditions on sample days at PGMS and TUMS are fairly representative of
average weather conditions throughout the year. The average meteorological conditions on
sample days at GRMS are slightly different from the average weather conditions throughout the
year. This is most likely because GRMS sampled from January through May only.
12.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Mississippi Monitoring Sites
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest
is a modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured
pollutant concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily
concentration value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those in which the individual pollutant's total failed
screens contribute to the top 95% of the site's total screens. A total of 81 HAPs are listed in the
guidance document as having risk screening values. Table 12-2 presents the pollutants that
failed at least one screen at the Mississippi monitoring sites. The number of pollutants failing
the screen varies by site, as indicated in Table 12-2. Five pollutants with a total of 39 measured
concentrations failed the screen at GRMS; 11 pollutants with a total of 57 measured
concentrations failed the screen at PGMS; and 14 pollutants with a total of 193 measured
concentrations failed the screen at TUMS. The pollutants of interest also varied by site, yet the
following four pollutants contributed to the top 95% of the total failed screens at each
Mississippi monitoring site: acetaldehyde, benzene, formaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride. It's
important to note that GRMS and TUMS sampled for carbonyls and VOC, while PGMS sampled
for SNMOC in addition to carbonyls and VOC, and that this is reflected in each site's pollutants
of interest.
Also listed in Table 12-2 are the total number of detects and the percent detects failing
the screen. Of the four pollutants that were the same among all three sites, two pollutants of
interest, benzene and carbon tetrachloride, had all 100% of their detects fail the screening values.
12-2
-------
12.2 Concentration Averages at the Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of interest: daily,
seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the average
concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a
seasonal average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all
non-detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects
in a respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no earlier than November. The daily and seasonal averages are
presented in Table 12-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in
later sections.
Among the daily averages at GRMS, acetaldehyde measured the highest concentration by
mass (1.74 ฑ 0.30 ug/m3), followed by formaldehyde (1.11 ฑ 0.32 ug/m3). As the GRMS site
ended in May and followed a l-in-12 sampling schedule, no seasonal averages are available for
this site.
At PGMS, the pollutants with the highest daily averages were benzene (1.19 ฑ 0.19
ug/m3), formaldehyde (0.79 ฑ 0.17 ug/m3), and acetaldehyde (0.67 ฑ 0.20 ug/m3). The one
detect of acrolein, however, was higher than the averages of any of the other pollutants of
interest. PGMS started sampling every day beginning in October as part of the Hurricane
Katrina monitoring effort. Therefore, only samples prior to October are being evaluated as
UATMP data. (A post-Katrina analysis is presented at the end of this section). As a result of
this and the 1 in 12 day sampling schedule, no seasonal averages are available for this site.
Finally, at TUMS, the pollutants with the highest daily averages were acetaldehyde (2.54
ฑ 0.75 ug/m3), acrolein (1.30 ฑ 0.41 ug/m3), and formaldehyde (1.21 ฑ 0.29 ug/m3). TUMS was
also part of the Hurricane Katrina monitoring effort. However, the TUMS site was used as a
12-2
-------
background site. Sampling frequency increased from a l-in-12 sampling schedule to a l-in-6
schedule in October. This l-in-6 schedule is the same as the schedule for most UATMP
monitoring sites. Therefore, TUMS data sampled after October is still considered UATMP data,
and seasonal averages are available for those pollutants with enough detects to meet the seasonal
average criteria. For those meeting the criteria, the seasonal averages did not vary much from
season to season, when the confidence interval is considered. For example, acetaldehyde
seasonal averages varied from 1.12 ฑ 0.29 ug/m3 in spring to 3.20 ฑ 2.62 ug/m3 in winter.
12.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Non-chronic risk for the concentration data at the Mississippi monitoring sites was
evaluated using ATSDR acute and intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) and California EPA
acute reference exposure limit (CalEPA REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as exposures from 1
to 14 days while intermediate risk is defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. It is useful to
compare daily measurements to the short-term MRL and REL factors, as well as compare
seasonal averages to the intermediate MRL. Of the pollutants with at least one failed screen,
only acrolein exceeded either the acute and intermediate risk values, and each site's non-chronic
risk is summarized in Table 12-4.
The lone acrolein detect at the PGMS site (2.25 ug/m3) was an order of magnitude greater
than the ATSDR acute value of 0.11 ug/m3 and the CalEPA REL value of 0.19 ug/m3. However,
since no seasonal averages for acrolein could be calculated, intermediate risk could not be
evaluated. All of the acrolein detects at TUMS exceeded the ATSDR acute value, and all but
one acrolein detect exceeded the CalEPA REL value. An autumn seasonal acrolein average was
able to be calculated for TUMS, and that average (0.71 ฑ 0.41 ug/m3) is much greater than the
ATSDR intermediate value (0.09 ug/m3).
For the pollutants that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. Acrolein exceeded the acute risk factors at the PGMS and TUMS
monitoring sites. Figures 12-7 through 12-8 are acrolein pollution roses for PGMS and TUMS.
A pollution rose is a plot of concentration and wind direction. As shown in Figures 12-7 through
12-4
-------
12-8, and discussed above, all acrolein concentrations exceeded at least one of the acute risk
factors, which are indicated by a dashed line (CalEPA REL) and solid line (ATSDR MRL).
Figure 12-7 is the acrolein pollution rose for the PGMS monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that acrolein was detected only once at this site. This detect was sampled on July 15,
2005 with a south-southeasterly wind. Unfortunately, a concentration-wind direction pattern
cannot be determined with only one concentration.
Figure 12-8 is the acrolein pollution rose for the TUMS monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with winds originating
from a variety of directions, which is characteristic of mobile sources. The highest
concentrations of acrolein occurred on July 27, 2005 with a northwesterly wind and on
November 18, 2005, with a north-northeasterly wind. TUMS is located on the Tupelo Airport
property on the west side of town. Several major roadways, such as Natchez Trace Parkway and
Highway 278, border the airport property.
12.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Mississippi Sites
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following three
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and the concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
12.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 12-5 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the Mississippi monitoring sites.
(Please refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on understanding Pearson Correlations.)
Many of the correlations between the pollutants of interest and the meteorological parameters at
the GRMS site were strong. However, the low number of detects of each pollutant may make
the correlations appear stronger than they would if the number of detects were larger. Readers
should keep this in mind when evaluating the correlations at GRMS. Strong to very strong
12-5
-------
positive correlations were calculated between formaldehyde and maximum, average, dew point,
and wet bulb temperatures (0.75, 0.77, 0.57, and 0.68, respectively), while moderately strong to
strong negative correlations were calculated between benzene and the same four parameters (-
0.66, -0.62, -0.45, and -0.55, respectively). Acetaldehyde and carbon tetrachloride both
exhibited moderately strong positive correlations with maximum temperature (0.34 and 0.38,
respectively) and average temperature (0.26 and 0.29, respectively). The correlations with
relative humidity were moderately strong to strong for all of the pollutants of interest at GRMS.
The v-component of the wind exhibited stronger correlations than the w-component of the wind.
Both formaldehyde and carbon tetrachloride has strong negative correlations with sea level
pressure (-0.50 and -0.56, respectively).
Similar to GRMS, the correlations at PGMS between the pollutants of interest and
maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures were moderately strong to very strong.
The strongest correlation was calculated between formaldehyde and average temperature (0.76).
The correlations for relative humidity, the wind components, and sea level pressure were fairly
weak, with the exception of 1,3-butadiene and the w-component of the wind (0.63),
formaldehyde and relative humidity (0.31), and the v-component of the wind (0.47), and sea
level pressure (-0.29). However, the same note of caution should be used with the 1,3-butadiene
correlations, as the number of detects was also low. Correlations for 1,2-dibromoethane,
acrylonitrile,/>-dichlorobenzene, acrolein, chloromethylbenzene, and tetrachloroethylene could
not be calculated due to the low detection rate (less than 4).
Tetrachloroethylene and/>-dichlorobenzene exhibited moderately strong positive
correlations with the maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures at TUMS
(ranging from 0.32 to 0.48 for both pollutants), while moderately strong negative correlations
were calculated between 1,3-butadiene and these same parameters (ranging from -0.23 to -0.37).
Acetaldehyde, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, and/?-dichlorobenzene exhibited moderately strong
correlations with relative humidity. The correlations with the wind components and sea level
pressure tended to be weak, with a few exceptions. Tetrachloroethylene exhibited a moderately
strong positive correlation with the v-component of the wind (0.36), while 1,3-butadiene and
12-6
-------
acrolein exhibited moderately strong positive correlations with sea level pressure (0.41 and 0.40,
respectively).
12.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figures 12-9 thru 12-11 are composite back trajectory maps for the Mississippi
monitoring sites for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour
trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day.
Each circle around the site in Figures 12-9 through 12-11 represents 100 miles.
As shown in Figure 12-9, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
GRMS. The 24-hour airshed domain is somewhat smaller than other UATMP sites, with
trajectories originating as far away as South Carolina, or greater than 400 miles away. Nearly
42% of the trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site; and 92% within 400 miles from
the GRMS monitoring site. It is important to note, however, that the GRMS monitoring site
ended sampling in mid-May. The composite back trajectory map may look different if sampling
continued throughout the year.
As presented in Figure 12-10, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions
at PGMS. The 24-hour airshed domain is somewhat smaller than other UATMP sites, with
trajectories originating as far away as South Carolina, or greater than 400 miles away. Nearly
78% of the trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site; and 91% within 400 miles from
the PGMS monitoring site. It is important to note, however, that the composite back trajectory
for the PGMS monitoring site includes sampling days through the end of September only.
As presented in Figure 12-11, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions
at TUMS. The 24-hour airshed domain is larger than other Mississippi sites, with trajectories
originating as far away as eastern Nebraska, or greater than 600 miles away. However, 63% of
the trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site; and 87% within 400 miles from the
TUMS monitoring site. The lone trajectory originating from Nebraska occurred on the same day
a strong frontal system moved across the central and eastern US on November 24, 2005. This
12-7
-------
wind pattern is also evident on several composite trajectory maps from other sites in the central
U.S., including the DEMI, INDEM, NBIL and SPIL, DITN, MEVIN, and MAWI monitoring
sites.
12.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from weather stations near these sites were uploaded into a wind rose
software program, WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006). WRPLOT produces a graphical wind rose from
submitted wind data. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions about a 16-point
compass, and uses different shading to represent wind speeds. Figures 12-12 through 12-14 are
the wind roses for the Mississippi monitoring sites on days sampling occurred.
As presented in Figure 12-12, hourly winds were predominantly out of the north (14% of
observations) and south (11%) on sample days near GRMS. Calm winds (<2 knots) were
recorded for only 7% of the hourly measurements. For wind speeds greater than 2 knots, 47% of
observations ranged from 7 to 11 knots. It is important to recall that GRMS sampled only
through May, and that the wind rose for an entire year's worth of sample days might look
differently.
As presented in Figure 12-13, hourly winds were predominantly out of the north (11% of
observations) and north-northwest (10%) on sample days near PGMS. Unlike GRMS, calm
winds (<2 knots) at PGMS were recorded for 41% of the hourly measurements. For wind speeds
greater than 2 knots, 28% of observations ranged from 7 to 11 knots. Like GRMS, a wind rose
for PGMS with an entire year's worth of sample days might look differently.
As presented in Figure 12-14, hourly winds were predominantly out of the north (15% of
observations) and south (12%) on sample days near TUMS. The TUMS wind rose is somewhat
similar to the GRMS wind rose. Interestingly, both sites are located in the northern half of the
state. Unlike GRMS, calm winds (<2 knots) at TUMS were recorded for 19% of the hourly
measurements. For wind speeds greater than 2 knots, 31% of observations ranged from 7 to 11
knots.
12-8
-------
12.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following three spatial
analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; BTEX analysis; and
ethylene-acetylene ratio analysis.
12.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Volume Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population information for Grenada County,
Jackson County, and Lee County, MS, were obtained from the Mississippi State Tax
Commission and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in Table 12-6. Table 12-6 also
includes a vehicle registration to county population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the
population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle
registration was computed using the 10-mile population surrounding the monitor and the vehicle
registration ratio. Finally, Table 12-6 contains the average daily traffic information, which
represents the average number of vehicles passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to
each site on a daily basis.
County population and vehicle registration are highest near PGMS, while the ten-mile
population and vehicle ownership are highest near TUMS. Interestingly, the vehicles per person
estimate is the same for all three sites. PGMS experiences the highest daily traffic volume of the
three Mississippi sites, while GRMS experiences the lowest. In relation to other UATMP sites,
the population and vehicle ownership counts for GRMS are among the lowest, while the counts
for PGMS and TUMS are in the low to mid-range.
12.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to Section 3.2.1.4). Table 3-11 presented
and Figure 3-4 depicted the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites in an effort characterize the
impact of on-road, or motor vehicle, emissions. At GRMS, the three ratios are fairly similar,
12-9
-------
although the toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is highest (4.95 ฑ 0.69), the xylene-ethylbenzene ratio is
lowest (3.89 ฑ 0.28), and the benzene-ethylbenzene ratio falls in-between (4.31 ฑ 0.90). The
toluene-ethylbenzene is also highest at PGMS and TUMS (7.96 ฑ 0.79 and 8.23 ฑ 1.24), but is
significantly higher than the toluene-ethylbenzene ratio at GRMS or the roadside study (5.85).
At both PGMS and TUMS, the benzene-ethylbenzene is higher than the xylene-ethylbenzene
ratio, which is the opposite of the roadside study.
12.5.3 Mobile Tracer Analysis
As previously stated, PGMS sampled for SNMOC in addition to VOC for a portion of the
sampling period. Acetylene is a pollutant that is primarily emitted from mobile sources, while
ethylene is emitted from mobile sources, petroleum refining facilities, and natural gas
distribution facilities. Tunnel studies conducted on mobile sources have found that
concentrations of ethylene and acetylene are typically present in a 1.7 to 1 ratio. (For more
information, please refer to Section 3.2.1.3.) Listed in Table 3-10 is the ethylene to acetylene
ratio for PGMS; as shown, PGMS's ethylene-acetylene ratio, 1.41 ฑ 0.16, is somewhat lower
than the 1.7 ratio. This ratio suggests that while mobile sources may be influencing the air
quality at the PGMS monitoring site, there may also be atmospheric chemical processes affecting
the quantities of ethylene in this area's air quality. Known sinks of ethylene include reactions
with ozone, as well as soil (National Library of Medicine).
12.6 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2004, and are still participating in the
2005 program year (i.e., minimum 3 consecutive years), a site-specific trends analysis was
conducted. Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.3.4. The
following observations were made:
As presented in Figure 12-15, the GRMS monitoring site has participated in the UATMP
since 2003. Concentrations of 1,3-butadiene have not been detected above the MDL at
this site. Although it appears that the benzene concentration increased slightly in 2005,
12-10
-------
the confidence intervals show that the apparent increase is not statistically significant.
Formaldehyde concentrations, however, have decreased since the onset of sampling.
As presented in Figure 12-16, the PGMS monitoring site has participated in the UATMP
since 2001. Concentrations of 1,3-butadiene appear to have decreased through the years,
but the confidence intervals show that the apparent decrease is not statistically
significant. However, the large confidence interval in 2001 indicates that the high 2001
concentration may have been driven by a handful of outliers. Although difficult to
discern, benzene concentrations decreased from 2001 to 2002, and then have been
holding steady. Formaldehyde concentrations were lowest in 2005 at PGMS. The large
2004 confidence interval indicates that the 2004 formaldehyde concentration may have
been driven by a handful of outliers.
TUMS formaldehyde concentrations have been decreasing since 2001, as depicted in
Figure 12-17. Benzene concentrations have decreased slightly over the sample period.
The 1,3-butadiene concentrations have not changed significantly since 2001 at TUMS.
12.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 12-7 presents the 1999
NATA results for the census tracts where the Mississippi monitoring sites are located. Only
pollutants that "failed" the screens are presented in Table 12-7. Site-specific pollutants of
interest are bolded.
The GRMS monitoring site is located in census tract 28043950200 with a population in
2000 of 5,038, which represents 21.7% of the county population. The PGMS monitoring site is
located in census tract 28059042200, with a population in 2000 of 5,242, which represents 4.0%
of the county population. TUMS is located in census tract 28081950600. The 2000 population
in that census tract in 2000 was 7,862, or just less than 10.4% of the county's population.
12-11
-------
12.7.1 1999 NATA Summary
In terms of cancer risk, the top two pollutants identified by NATA in all three of the
Mississippi census tracts are benzene and carbon tetrachloride. In the GRMS census tract, the
top 3 pollutants in regards to cancer risk are benzene (3.29 in-a-million risk), carbon
tetrachloride (3.16 in-a-million), and acetaldehyde (1.28 in-a-million). The top 3 pollutants in
regards to cancer risk in the PGMS census tract are benzene (10.47 in-a-million risk), carbon
tetrachloride (4.00 in-a-million), and 1,3-butadiene (2.98 in-a-million). The top 3 pollutants in
regards to cancer risk in the TUMS census tract are benzene (7.06 in-a-million risk), carbon
tetrachloride (3.14 in-a-million), and dichloromethane (2.42 in-a-million). Acrolein was the only
pollutant in the Mississippi census tracts to have a noncancer hazard quotient greater than 1.0 (an
HQ greater than 1.0 may lead to adverse health effects). Most noncancer hazard quotients were
less than 0.10, suggesting very little risk for noncancer health affects, with the exception of
acrolein.
12.7.2 Annual Average Comparison
NATA-modeled concentrations are assumed to be the average concentration that a person
breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid annual average representing an entire year, including
detects and non-detects, needs to be calculated to provide comparisons (refer to Section 12.2 on
how a valid annual average is calculated). Unfortunately, the GRMS site ended sampling in May
2005, therefore, valid annual averages could not be calculated. Annual averages for PGMS are
also not provided due to the transition to daily (or 1-in-l) sampling in October in response to
Hurricane Katrina.
The annual averages for the TUMS site are provided in Table 12-7. Nearly all of the
pollutants were within one order of magnitude from each other. Some pollutants' NATA-
modeled and measured concentrations, such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and tetrachloroethylene
are in very good agreement, while others, such as dichloromethane, are less so.
Dichloromethane, benzene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde are identified as the Top 4
pollutants by mass concentration for the 1999 NATA-modeled concentrations, while
acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, and benzene are the pollutants with the
highest annual average concentrations.
12-12
-------
Mississippi Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest common to each Mississippi site are acetaldehyde, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, and formaldehyde.
Acetaldehyde measured the highest daily average at GRMS and TUMS, while benzene
was highest at PGMS.
Acrolein was the only pollutant to exceed either of the short-term risk factors.
A comparison of formaldehyde, benzene and 1,3-butadiene concentrations for all years
of UATMP participation shows that concentrations of formaldehyde have been
decreasing since the onset of program participation at GRMS, PGMS, and TUMS.
Benzene has been decreasing at TUMS since 2002. Concentrations of 1,3-butadiene
have been steady at PGMS and TUMS and have never been detected at GRMS.
12.8 Post-Katrina Analysis
Analyses similar to those described in preceding sections (risk screening, non-chronic
risk, and daily averages) were also prepared for the post-Katrina sampling data for GPMS and
PGMS at the request of the State of Mississippi. GPMS was a UATMP monitoring site during
the 2004 program-year, and is located in the coastal city of Gulfport, MS (AQS ID 28-047-
0008). The Hurricane Katrina monitoring effort began in October and continued into 2006.
However, only 2005 data will be discussed in this section. Data from GPMS and PGMS can be
compared to each other to evaluate how concentrations may vary spatially; and pre- and post-
Katrina data from PGMS can be compared to see how concentrations may have changed after
Katrina's landfall and the conditions that resulted during recovery process.
12.8.1 Pollutants of Interest
Table 12-8 presents the pollutants that failed at least one screen at the GPMS and PGMS
monitoring sites from October through December. The number of pollutants failing the screen
varies by site, as indicated in Table 12-8. Twenty-eight pollutants with a total of 837 measured
concentrations failed screens at GPMS while 23 pollutants with a total of 710 measured
concentrations failed screens at PGMS. During the first 90 days of the monitoring effort,
sampling took place everyday, which allows for the high number of detects. It's important to
note that GPMS sampled for carbonyls, VOC, SVOC, SNMOC, and metals, while PGMS
12-13
-------
sampled for carbonyls, VOC, and metals for the Hurricane Katrina monitoring effort; this is
reflected in each site's pollutants of interest. Additionally, two sizes of metals were sampled:
and PM2.5. For purposes of this report, the two method types are viewed separately.
Although the pollutants of interest varied by site, the following fifteen pollutants
contributed to the top 95% of the total failed screens at GPMS and PGMS post-Katrina: 1,2-
dichloroethane, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, benzene, beryllium (PMio and PM2.s), carbon
tetrachl oride, 1,3 -butadiene, arsenic (PM2.5 & PMio), hexachloro- 1,3 -butadiene, acrolein,/?-
dichlorobenzene, manganese (PMio), and tetrachl oroethylene . Also listed in Table 12-8 are the
total number of detects and the percent detects failing the screen. Of the fifteen pollutants that
were common between both sites, six pollutants of interest, formaldehyde, benzene, carbon
tetrachl oride, acrolein, 1,2-dichloroethane, and hexachloro- 1,3 -butadiene had 100% of their
detects fail the screening values.
The failure rate, or percent of detects failing screens, especially for the common
pollutants of interest, is very similar for both sites (within 5% of each other), with a few
expections: arsenic (PM^.s), />-dichlorobenzene, nickel (PMio & PIVk.s), and total xylenes.
Arsenic (PM2.s) and/>-dichlorobenzene had higher failure rates at GPMS while nickel (PMio &
PM2.s) and total xylenes had higher failure rates at PGMS.
Pre- and post- Katrina pollutants of interest and failure rates can also be compared for
PGMS. Of the pollutants that failed at least one screen, 74% of those detects failed screens prior
to Hurricane Katrina. Surprisingly, of the pollutants that failed at least one screen during the
post-Katrina sampling, only 52% of detects failed screens. However, it's important to note that
eleven pollutants failed screens prior to Hurricane Katrina, while twenty-three pollutants failed
screens after Hurricane Katrina. If metals (which were sampled post-Katrina, but not before) are
excluded, then thirteen pollutants failed screens after Hurricane Katrina. The lower percentage
of failed screens post-Katrina may be a result of the numerous stationary and mobile sources not
operating immediately after the storm.
12-14
-------
Seven pollutants of interest are the same between the two time periods: benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, l,3-butadiene,/>-dichlorobenzene, and
tetrachloroethylene. The failure rates of benzene and carbon tetrachl oride are the same for both
time periods (100%). Failure rates of 1,3-butadiene, />-dichlorobenzene, and tetrachloroethylene
decreased after Hurricane Katrina. Failure rates of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde increased
after Hurricane Katrina.
12.8.2 Concentration Averages
Daily averages of the post-Katrina pollutants of interest at the GPMS and PGMS
monitoring sites are presented in Table 12-9. Due to the unique situation presented after the
hurricane, calculation of seasonal averages is not appropriate. Rather, average concentrations
from October through December, with 1/2 MDLs incorporated for non-detects (similar to
seasonal or annual averages in previous sections), are presented as an intermediate average.
Among the daily averages at GPMS, formaldehyde measured the highest concentration by mass
(3.44 ฑ 0.33 ug/m3), followed by acetaldehyde (2.43 ฑ 0.29 ug/m3), and acrolein (1.55 ฑ 0.22
ug/m3). Among the intermediate averages, formaldehyde exhibited the highest concentration
(3.44 ฑ 0.33 ug/m3), followed by acetaldehyde (2.43 ฑ 0.29 ug/m3), and benzene (1.17 ฑ 0.20
ug/m3). The daily and intermediate averages for these three pollutants are the same as these
pollutants were detected in every post-Katrina sample taken.
Among the daily averages at PGMS, formaldehyde measured the highest concentration
by mass (27.15 ฑ 13.99 ug/m3), followed by acetaldehyde (2.73 ฑ 0.36 ug/m3), and benzene
(1.51 ฑ 0.27 ug/m3). Among the intermediate averages, formaldehyde exhibited the highest
concentration (26.80 ฑ 13.82 ug/m3), followed by acetaldehyde (2.73 ฑ 0.36 ug/m3), and benzene
(1.51 ฑ 0.27 ug/m3). The daily and intermediate averages for acetaldehyde and benzene are the
same as these pollutants were detected in every post-Katrina sample taken, while formaldehyde
had one non-detect.
Daily averages of the pre- and post- Katrina pollutants of interest can be compared for
PGMS. In comparing the pre- and post-Hurricane Katrina daily averages of the common
12-15
-------
pollutants of interest at PGMS, only formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are statistically different for
the two time periods. Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde are higher after Hurricane Katrina (0.67 ฑ
0.20 ug/m3 vs. 2.73 ฑ 0.36 ug/m3 for acetaldehyde before and after, and 0.79 ฑ 0.17 ug/m3 vs.
27.15 ฑ 13.99 ug/m3 for formaldehyde before and after).
12.8.3 Non-Chronic Risk
Table 12-10 presents the summary of the post-Katrina non-chronic risk at GPMS and
PGMS. Of the pollutants with at least one failed screen at these sites, only acrolein and
formaldehyde exceeded either the acute and/or intermediate risk values. All detects of acrolein
at both sites exceeded the acute risk factors. Daily acrolein averages at both sites were
significantly greater than the ATSDR acute value of 0.11 ug/m3 and the California REL value of
0.19 ug/m3 (1.55 ฑ 0.22 ug/m3 at GPMS and 1.42 ฑ 0.21 ug/m3 at PGMS), and the intermediate
averages at both sites exceeded the ATSDR intermediate value of 0.09 ug/m3 (1.04 ฑ 0.21 ug/m3
at GPMS and 1.06 ฑ 0.21 ug/m3 at PGMS). The GPMS and PGMS daily acrolein averages were
somewhat higher than their intermediate averages due to the number of non-detects.
Six formaldehyde concentrations at the PGMS site exceeded the acute risk factors,
although the average daily formaldehyde average (27.15 ฑ 13.99 ug/m3) is less than both risk
factors. Five of the six exceedences of the acute risk values occurred in October, approximately
one and half months after the hurricane made landfall. The intermediate formaldehyde average
did not exceeded the ATSDR intermediate value of 40 ug/m3 (26.80 ฑ 13.82 ug/m3) at PGMS.
Prior to Hurricane Katrina, only one detect of acrolein at PGMS exceeded either the
ATSDR MRL or California REL risk factors. Interestingly, from July (when acrolein sampling
began) through the end of September (15 total samples), this pollutant was only detected once,
representing a 7% detection rate. After Hurricane Katrina, this pollutant was detected 49 times
in 66 samples, which represents a 74% detection rate. Out of fifteen samples, no formaldehyde
concentrations exceeded the risk factors prior to Hurricane Katrina. Out of 78 samples, 6
formaldehyde concentrations exceeded the risk factors after Hurricane Katrina.
12-16
-------
Figure 12-1. Grenada, Mississippi (GRMS) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
12-17
-------
Figure 12-2. Pascagoula, Mississippi (PGMS) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
12-18
-------
Figure 12-3. Tupelo, Mississippi (TUMS) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
12-19
-------
Figure 12-4. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of GRMS
,_A
, - ,
'. :: /, 89*45tCW '- V.
Note: Due lo facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
end
GRMS UATMP site
O 10 mile radius
^\ County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (1)
a Lumber & Wood Products Facility (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (1)
:: Pulp & Paper Production Facility (1)
U Stone. Clay. Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (2)
* Unknown (1)
12-20
-------
Figure 12-5. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of PGMS
: IM 'A
88-3S1W 88'MWW 88-25'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of iiterest.
PGMS UATMP site
10 mile radius
| County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (3)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (2)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (2)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (15)
a Utility Boilers (1)
12-21
-------
Figure 12-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of TUMS
Note: Due to fa dirty density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
Tit TUMS UATMP site
Q 10 mile radius
] County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (4)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (2)
* Health Services Facility (1)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (3)
u Stone. Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (5)
i Unknown (1)
T Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
12-22
-------
Figure 12-7. Acrolein Pollution Rose at PGMS
to
3.0
O.VJ
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
'ollutant Concentration
o o o
en b en
Q.
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
NW N
-
W
/ c
\ ^
\
-
-
Ava Cone =2.25 ua/m3
sw
s
NE
CA EPA REL (0.1 9 |jg/m3)
ATSDRMRL(0.11 |jg/m3)
E
> \
J ;
4
SE
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0
0.5 0.0 0.5
Pollutant Concentration
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
-------
Figure 12-8. Acrolein Pollution Rose at TUMS
to
to
s-.u
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
ง 1.0
j=
ro
1 0.5
(1)
O
Oc n n
u.u
o
+J
| 0.5
_3
"O -i n
Q. 1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
NW N
-
-
-
ป
-
-
A
-
w ,,-:;
\x\.
-
ซ
*
-
4
-
CA EPA REL (0.1 9 |jg/m3)
ATCRD ft/IDI (C\ \ \ in-i/^
A i oUK MKL (u. i i |jg/rn )
S\N
S
NE
*
*
^
S^1 E
, *
Ava Cone =1 .30 ฑ 0.41 ua/m3
SE
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Pollutant Concentration
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
-------
Figure 12-9. Composite Back Trajectory Map for GRMS
to
0 25 50 100 150 200
Miles
-------
Figure 12-10. Composite Back Trajectory Map for PGMS
.--
to
0 25 50 100 150 200
Miles
-------
Figure 12-11. Composite Back Trajectory Map for TUMS
to
-------
Figure 12-12. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the GRMS Monitoring Site
WEST
to
to
oo
15%
12%
9%.
SOUTH
I I
I EAST
VWJD SPEED
(Knots)
| | s=22
17 - 21
11 - 17
I | 7- 11
Calms: 8.97%
-------
Figure 12-13. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the PGMS Monitoring Site
to
to
VO
WEST
NORTH"---.
15%
12%
9%.
6%
SOUTH,-'
; EAST
VWJD SPEED
(Knots)
[ | >= 22
[I 17 - 21
ill 11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I I 4- 7
^0 2- 4
Calms: 41,18%
-------
Figure 12-14. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the TUMS Monitoring Site
: NORTH'
to
OJ
o
WEST I
20%
16%
12%
8%
SOUTH .-"
;EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | >= 22
[I 17 - 21
EZI 11 -17
I I 7- 11
I I A- 7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 19.*%
-------
Figure 12-15. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the GRMS Monitoring Site
to
.0
o.
&
a
o
a
o
U
2003
2004
Year
2005
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
10
Figure 12-16. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the PGMS Monitoring Site
to
OJ
to
.0
o.
o.
^-^
e
o
a
O>
CJ
e
o
U
01
60
6 -
2001
2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
D 1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
10
Figure 12-17. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the TUMS Monitoring Site
.0
o.
o.
^-^
e
o
e
01
tj
e
o
U
01
60
6 -
2001
2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
D 1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Table 12-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Mississippi
Site
GRMS
PGMS
TUMS
WBAN
13978
53858
93862
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(ฐF)
74.98
ฑ1.60
66.75
ฑ7.42
77.57
ฑ1.22
78.43
ฑ4.94
73.81
ฑ1.63
72.32
ฑ4.86
Average
Temperature
<ฐF)
63.97
ฑ1.55
57.01
ฑ6.66
66.52
ฑ1.28
68.44
ฑ4.85
63.27
ฑ1.57
61.51
ฑ4.86
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(ฐF)
53.13
ฑ1.63
45.71
ฑ6.01
57.45
ฑ1.49
60.32
ฑ5.44
51.15
ฑ1.69
48.63
ฑ5.17
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(ฐF)
57.91
ฑ1.46
51.17
ฑ5.77
61.34
ฑ1.28
63.58
ฑ4.82
56.67
ฑ1.48
54.64
ฑ4.56
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
71.06
ฑ0.98
69.56
ฑ6.09
75.64
ฑ1.10
77.74
ฑ3.49
67.74
ฑ1.05
65.89
ฑ3.15
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1017.06
ฑ0.60
1018.79
ฑ4.05
1016.97
ฑ0.54
1017.10
ฑ1.79
1017.17
ฑ0.61
1017.52
ฑ1.96
Average
w-component
of the wind
-0.41
ฑ0.30
-0.44
ฑ2.43
-0.68
ฑ0.27
-0.55
ฑ1.05
-0.11
ฑ0.27
-0.01
ฑ0.85
Average
v-component
of the wind
0.10
ฑ0.46
-0.02
ฑ3.16
-1.00
ฑ0.34
-0.09
ฑ1.58
-0.41
ฑ0.46
-0.32
ฑ1.52
to
-------
Table 12-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the
Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
% of Detects
Failing
% of Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Grenada, Mississippi - GRMS
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Dichloromethane
Total
11
11
10
6
1
39
11
11
10
11
5
48
100.0
100.0
100.0
54.5
20.0
81.3
28.2%
28.2%
25.6%
15.4%
2.6%
28.2%
56.4%
82.1%
97.4%
100.0%
Pascagoula, Mississippi - PGMS
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Acrylonitrile
1,2-Dibromoethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Acrolein
Total
15
15
9
8
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
57
15
15
15
8
15
2
3
1
1
1
1
77
100
100
60
100
20
100
33
100
100
100
100
74.0
26.3%
26.3%
15.8%
14.0%
5.3%
3.5%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
26.3%
52.6%
68.4%
82.5%
87.7%
91.2%
93.0%
94.7%
96.5%
98.2%
100.0%
Tupelo, Mississippi - TUMS
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Acrolein
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Vinyl chloride
1,2-Dibromoethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Dichloromethane
Total
38
38
37
20
19
12
11
6
6
2
1
1
1
1
193
38
38
37
20
37
12
11
12
17
2
5
1
1
29
260
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
51.4
100.0
100.0
50.0
35.3
100.0
20.0
100.0
100.0
3.4
74.2
19.7%
19.7%
19.2%
10.4%
9.8%
6.2%
5.7%
3.1%
3.1%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
19.7%
39.4%
58.5%
68.9%
78.8%
85.0%
90.7%
93.8%
96.9%
97.9%
98.4%
99.0%
99.5%
100.0%
12-35
-------
Table 12-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Grenada, Mississippi - GRMS
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
11
1.74
0.74
0.53
1.11
0.30
0.11
0.05
0.32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pascagoula, Mississippi - PGMS
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
1
8
15
1
1
15
15
1
15
2
3
15
15
15
4
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
0.31
0.12
0.67
2.25
0.39
1.19
0.63
0.44
0.79
0.36
0.25
~
0.04
0.20
~
0.19
0.06
0.17
0.33
0.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tupelo, Mississippi - TUMS
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
20
37
11
38
38
37
12
12
17
38
37
23
38
38
37
38
38
38
0.09
2.54
1.30
0.81
0.60
1.21
0.19
0.46
0.16
0.03
0.75
0.41
0.11
0.05
0.29
0.03
0.57
0.05
NR
3.20
NA
0.88
0.57
1.09
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.62
NA
0.19
0.10
0.69
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.12
NA
0.67
0.56
0.64
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.29
NA
0.17
0.08
0.18
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.40
NR
0.72
0.67
1.95
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.37
NR
0.16
0.07
0.74
NR
NR
NR
0.09
3.03
0.72
0.90
0.60
1.25
0.78
0.13
0.16
0.02
0.86
0.41
0.25
0.11
0.34
0.42
0.04
0.06
to
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
-------
Table 12-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Site
PGMS
TUMS
Method
TO- 15
TO- 15
Pollutant
Acrolein
Acrolein
Daily
Average
fag/m3)
2.251
1.30
ฑ0.41
ATSDR
Short-
term
MRL
(Hg/m3)
0.11
0.11
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
1
11
CAL
EPA
REL
Acute
(Hg/m3)
0.19
0.19
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
1
10
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(Ug/m3)
0.09
0.09
Winter
Average
fag/m3)
NA
NA
Spring
Average
fag/m3)
NA
NA
Summer
Average
fag/m3)
NR
NR
Autumn
Average
fag/m3)
NA
0.72
ฑ0.41
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
1 This pollutant was detected only once.
to
-------
Table 12-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Mississippi
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
M-Component
of the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea Level
Pressure
Grenada, Mississippi - GRMS
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
11
11
10
11
0.34
-0.66
0.38
0.75
0.26
-0.62
0.29
0.77
0.01
-0.45
0.07
0.57
0.12
-0.55
0.18
0.68
-0.58
0.49
-0.38
-0.55
0.02
-0.06
0.04
0.31
0.16
-0.46
0.45
0.41
-0.18
0.08
-0.56
-0.50
Pascagoula, Mississippi - PGMS
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
1
8
15
1
1
15
15
1
15
2
3
NA
-0.56
0.53
-0.47
0.50
-0.43
0.48
-0.45
0.49
-0.11
0.22
0.63
0.05
0.24
0.19
-0.29
-0.24
NA
NA
-0.29
0.25
-0.41
0.34
-0.43
0.36
-0.43
0.36
-0.17
0.18
0.23
-0.31
0.16
0.21
0.12
-0.10
NA
0.71
0.76
0.73
0.75
0.31
-0.14
0.47
-0.29
NA
NA
Tui
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
20
37
11
38
38
37
12
12
17
-0.23
-0.08
-0.12
0.02
0.08
0.33
-0.07
0.42
0.48
-0.33
-0.16
-0.10
-0.10
0.08
0.26
0.04
0.43
0.41
jelo, Mississippi - TUMS
-0.37
-0.25
-0.12
-0.12
0.08
0.17
0.17
0.47
0.32
-0.36
-0.20
-0.10
-0.12
0.09
0.22
0.12
0.46
0.35
-0.24
-0.40
-0.07
-0.05
0.02
-0.22
0.32
0.27
-0.12
-0.10
0.25
-0.03
0.04
0.12
0.22
-0.02
0.27
0.14
0.20
-0.15
0.04
0.19
-0.01
-0.08
-0.19
-0.26
0.36
0.41
0.10
0.40
0.23
-0.09
-0.09
-0.13
-0.26
0.00
to
OJ
oo
-------
to
OJ
VO
Table 12-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Site
GRMS
PGMS
TUMS
2005 Estimated
County
Population
22,861
135,940
78,793
Number of
Vehicles
Registered
20,036
119,796
69,518
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
0.88
0.88
0.88
Population
Within 10 Miles
21,446
56,235
70,215
Estimated 10 mile
Vehicle Ownership
18,796
49,557
61,950
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
1,100
8,600
4,900
-------
Table 12-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in
Mississippi
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Grenada, Mississippi - GRMS, Census Tract 28043950200
Acet aldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.58
0.42
0.21
0.15
0.53
1.28
3.29
3.16
0.07
O.01
0.06
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.05
Pascagoula, Mississippi - PGMS, Census Tract 28059042200
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Tu
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethylbenzene
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.10
1.15
0.08
0.01
1.34
0.27
O.01
1.06
0.02
0.12
2.68
2.98
2.54
~
0.02
10.47
4.00
O.01
0.01
0.27
0.71
0.02
0.05
0.13
4.11
0.01
0.04
0.01
~
0.11
0.01
O.01
pelo, Mississippi - TUMS, Census Tract 28081950600
0.16 ฑ0.01
0.09 ฑ0.01
0.08 ฑ0.01
2.54 ฑ0.75
NA
0.81 ฑ0.11
0.60 ฑ0.05
0.11 ฑ0.02
0.49 ฑ0.50
1.21 ฑ0.29
0.86 ฑ0.18
0.27 ฑ0.18
0.15 ฑ0.02
0.06 ฑ0.01
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.82
0.04
0.90
0.21
0.01
5.15
0.76
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.01
1.26
0.41
1.55
1.81
~
7.06
3.14
0.01
2.42
0.01
0.03
0.22
0.39
0.11
0.01
O.01
0.03
0.09
2.06
0.03
0.01
~
0.01
0.08
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
12-40
-------
Table 12-8. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening
Values at the Post-Katrina Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
%of
Detects
Failing
%of
Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Gulfport, Mississippi - GPMS
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Arsenic (PM2 5)
Arsenic (PM10)
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Naphthalene
Acrolein
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Manganese (PM10)
Tetrachloroethylene
Cadmium (PM10)
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Beryllium (PM2 5)
Beryllium (PM10)
Cadmium (PM2 5)
Benzo (a) pyrene
Nickel (PM10)
Xylenes
Nickel (PM25)
Acrylonitrile
Antimony (PM10)
Antimony (PM25)
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Dichloro methane
Total
83
83
77
77
68
64
64
61
58
51
38
36
20
8
7
7
7
7
6
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
837
83
83
77
77
75
67
69
61
83
51
68
87
70
80
7
45
45
77
18
72
77
68
1
72
66
60
41
74
1754
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.67
95.52
92.75
100.00
69.88
100.00
55.88
41.38
28.57
10.00
100.00
15.56
15.56
9.09
33.33
5.56
3.90
2.94
100.00
1.39
1.52
1.67
2.44
1.35
47.72
9.92
9.92
9.20
9.20
8.12
7.65
7.65
7.29
6.93
6.09
4.54
4.30
2.39
0.96
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.72
0.48
0.36
0.24
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
9.92
19.83
29.03
38.23
46.36
54.00
61.65
68.94
75.87
81.96
86.50
90.80
93.19
94.15
94.98
95.82
96.65
97.49
98.21
98.69
99.04
99.28
99.40
99.52
99.64
99.76
99.88
100.00
Pascagoula, Mississippi - PGMS
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic (PM10)
Arsenic (PM2 5)
1,3 -Butadiene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
77
74
66
66
60
58
57
52
77
78
66
66
69
69
63
52
100.00
94.87
100.00
100.00
86.96
84.06
90.48
100.00
10.85
10.42
9.30
9.30
8.45
8.17
8.03
7.32
10.85
21.27
30.56
39.86
48.31
56.48
64.51
71.83
12-41
-------
Table 12-8. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening
Values at the Post-Katrina Mississippi Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Acrolein
Manganese (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Nickel (PM25)
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Beryllium (PM2 5)
Beryllium (PM10)
Cadmium (PM10)
Xylenes
Cadmium (PM2 5)
Acrylonitrile
Manganese (PM25)
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Total
#of
Failures
49
37
18
18
15
14
8
8
8
7
7
6
2
2
1
710
#of
Detects
49
87
81
45
53
79
8
49
52
79
66
83
2
88
1
1362
%of
Detects
Failing
100.00
42.53
22.22
40.00
28.30
17.72
100.00
16.33
15.38
8.86
10.61
7.23
100.00
2.27
100.00
52.13
%of
Total
Failures
6.90
5.21
2.54
2.54
2.11
1.97
1.13
1.13
1.13
0.99
0.99
0.85
0.28
0.28
0.14
%
Contribution
78.73
83.94
86.48
89.01
91.13
93.10
94.23
95.35
96.48
97.46
98.45
99.30
99.58
99.86
100.00
12-42
-------
Table 12-9. Daily and Intermediate-term Averages for Pollutants of Interest at
the Post-Katrina Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int
Intermediate
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int
Gulfport, Mississippi - GPMS
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Arsenic (PM2 5)
Benzene
Beryllium (PM10)
Beryllium (PM2 5)
Cadmium (PM10)
Cadmium (PM2 5)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
Naphthalene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
7
75
83
51
69
67
77
45
45
80
77
77
83
61
87
83
68
70
77
77
83
77
87
85
77
87
85
87
85
77
83
77
87
83
77
77
0.09
0.13
2.43
1.55
1.75E-03
1.64E-03
1.17
2.09E-04
2.04E-04
2.89E-04
2.88E-04
0.68
3.44
0.18
4.76E-03
0.06
0.17
0.18
0.05
0.03
0.29
0.22
4.61E-04
4.20E-04
0.20
4.63E-05
4.43E-05
4.03E-05
3.95E-05
0.02
0.33
0.01
6.76E-04
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.14
2.43
1.04
1.46E-03
1.36E-03
1.17
2.62E-04
2.57E-04
2.69E-04
2.65E-04
0.68
3.44
0.51
4.76E-03
0.06
0.17
0.17
0.00
0.03
0.29
0.21
3.85E-04
3.50E-04
0.20
2.66E-05
2.64E-05
3.96E-05
3.89E-05
0.02
0.33
0.14
6.76E-04
0.01
0.03
0.06
Pascagoula, Mississippi - PGMS
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Arsenic (PM2 5)
Benzene
Beryllium (PM10)
Beryllium (PM2 5)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
Nickel (PM25)
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
8
63
78
49
69
69
66
52
49
66
77
52
87
81
79
45
53
66
66
78
66
87
91
66
87
91
66
78
66
87
87
91
66
66
0.11
0.16
2.73
1.42
1.37E-03
1.22E-03
1.51
2.02E-04
2.05E-04
0.67
27.15
0.18
4.64E-03
1.54E-03
3.45E-03
0.13
0.17
0.06
0.04
0.36
0.21
3.34E-04
3.21E-04
0.27
4.14E-05
4.32E-05
0.03
13.99
0.02
5.59E-04
2.83E-04
4.12E-03
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.16
2.73
1.06
1.15E-03
l.OOE-03
1.51
2.49E-04
2.58E-04
0.67
26.80
0.52
4.64E-03
1.45E-03
3.02E-03
0.14
0.15
0.01
0.04
0.36
0.21
2.80E-04
2.56E-04
0.27
2.75E-05
2.60E-05
0.03
13.82
0.16
5.59E-04
2.73E-04
3.58E-03
0.02
0.03
12-43
-------
Table 12-10. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Post-Katrina Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Site
GPMS
PGMS
PGMS
Method
TO- 15
TO- 15
TO- 15
Pollutant
Acrolein
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1.55
ฑ0.22
1.42
ฑ0.21
27.15
ฑ 13.99
ATSDR Short-
term MRL
(Hg/m3)
0.11
0.11
49
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
51
49
6
CAL EPA
REL Acute
(Hg/m3)
0.19
0.19
94
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
51
49
6
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(Hg/m3)
0.09
0.09
40
Intermediate
Average
(jig/m3)
1.04
ฑ0.21
1.06
ฑ0.21
26.80
ฑ 13.82
to
-------
13.0 Site in Missouri
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Missouri (S4MO). This site is located in the St. Louis metropolitan statistical area
(MSA). Figure 13-1 is a topographical map showing the monitoring site in its urban location.
Figure 13-2 identifies point source emission locations within 10 miles of the site that reported to
the 2002 NEI for point sources. Numerous sources are located near the St. Louis site, most of
which are involved in fuel combustion industries.
Hourly meteorological data at a weather station near this site were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather station closest
to the S4MO monitoring site is at St. Louis Downtown Airport (WBAN 03960).
St. Louis has a climate that is continental in nature, with cold, rather dry winters, warm,
somewhat wetter summers, and significant seasonal variability. Wind speeds are generally light
and wind flows from the southeast on average (Ruffner and Bair, 1987). Table 13-1 presents
average meteorological conditions of temperature (average maximum and average), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind information (average u- and v- components of the
wind) for the entire year and on days samples were taken. As shown in Table 13-1, average
meteorological conditions on sample days are fairly representative of average weather conditions
throughout the year.
13.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Missouri Monitoring Site
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest
is a modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured
pollutant concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily
concentration value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration
"failed the screen." A total of 81 HAPs are listed in the guidance document as having risk
13-1
-------
screening values. Table 13-2 presents the eighteen pollutants that failed at least one screen at
S4MO; a total of 479 measured concentrations failed screens. The pollutants of interest at
S4MO were identified as the pollutants that contributed to the top 95% of the total failed screens,
resulting in eleven pollutants: benzene (61 failed screens), acetaldehyde (60), arsenic (60),
carbon tetrachloride (58), formaldehyde (51), manganese (50), 1,3-butadiene (39), cadmium
(38), tetrachloroethylene (20),/>-dichlorobenzene (17), and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (9). It's
important to note that the S4MO site sampled for carbonyls, VOC, and metals, and that this is
reflected in the site's pollutants of interest.
Also listed in Table 13-2 are the total number of detects and the percent detects failing
the screen. Of the eleven pollutants of interest, acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, 1,3-
butadiene, and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene had 100% of their detects fail the screening values.
13.2 Concentration Averages at the Missouri Monitoring Site
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the eleven pollutants of
interest: daily, seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the
average concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a
seasonal average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all
non-detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects
in a respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no earlier than November. Daily and seasonal averages are
presented in Table 13-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in
later sections.
Among the daily averages at S4MO, formaldehyde measured the highest concentration
by mass (3.72 ฑ 0.63 ug/m3), followed by acetaldehyde (2.70 ฑ 0.28 ug/m3) and benzene (1.15 ฑ
0.10 ug/m3). Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations were the highest in summer and
13-2
-------
spring. Carbon tetrachloride concentrations tended to be higher in summer and autumn. The
remaining concentrations did not vary much by season. Acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene,
cadmium, formaldehyde, and manganese were detected in every sample taken at S4MO, while
/7-dichlorobenzene and hexachloro-l,3-butadiene were detected in less than one-half of the
samples taken.
13.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Missouri Monitoring Site
Non-chronic risk for the concentration data at S4MO was evaluated using ATSDR acute
and intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) and California EPA acute reference exposure limit
(REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as exposures from 1 to 14 days while intermediate risk is
defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. It is useful to compare daily measurements to the
short-term MRL and REL factors, as well as compare seasonal averages to the intermediate
MRL. Of the eighteen pollutants with at least one failed screen, only acrolein exceeded the acute
risk values, and its non-chronic risk is summarized in Table 13-4.
All five acrolein detects were greater than the ATSDR acute risk value of 0.11 ug/m3 and
the California REL value of 0.19 ug/m3. The average detected concentration was 1.00 ฑ 0.40
ug/m3, which is more than five times the California REL value. As discussed in Sections 3.1.5,
acrolein concentrations could only be measured beginning July 2005, and a valid seasonal
average could potentially be calculated for autumn only. However, a valid seasonal average
needs at least 7 detects, as stated in Section 13.2, and acrolein was detected only five times.
Therefore, no seasonal averages could be calculated for acrolein, and intermediate risk could not
be evaluated.
For the pollutants that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. Figure 13-3 is a pollution rose for acrolein at S4MO. The pollution rose
is a plot of daily concentration and daily average wind direction. As indicated in Figure 13-3, all
acrolein concentrations exceeded the acute risk factors, indicated by a dashed (CalEPA REL) and
solid line (ATSDR MRL). The concentrations on the pollution rose are scattered around the
center, a pattern characteristic of mobile sources. The highest concentration of acrolein occurred
1O "
13-j
-------
on October 25, 2005 with a northwesterly wind. S4MO is located in downtown St. Louis and is
wedged between 1-70 and another major roadway.
13.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Missouri Site
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
13.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 13-5 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the S4MO monitoring site. (Please
refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) Moderately strong to
strong positive correlations were calculated for acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride,
formaldehyde, and/?-dichlorobenzene and maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb
temperatures. Aside from 1,3-butadiene and hexachloro-l,3-butadiene, the pollutants of interest
exhibited negative correlations with the w-component of the wind, albeit weak. With the
exception of hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, the pollutants of interest exhibited positive correlations
with the v-component of the wind, and many of these were moderately strong. This indicates
that concentrations of the pollutants of interest can be influenced by wind direction. The
remaining correlations were generally weak.
13.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 13-4 is a composite back trajectory map for the S4MO monitoring site for the days
on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of
air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. Each circle around the site in Figure
13-4 represents 100 miles.
As shown in Figure 13-4, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
S4MO, although there is an apparent lack of trajectories from the east. The 24-hour airshed
13-4
-------
domain is very large at S4MO, with trajectories originating as far away as central Manitoba,
Canada, or over 700 miles away. Nearly 57% of the trajectories originated within 300 miles of
the site; and 83% within 400 miles from the S4MO monitoring site. The one trajectory
originating from Manitoba occurred on a day when a strong frontal system moved across the
central and eastern US on November 24, 2005. This wind pattern is also evident on several
composite trajectory maps from other sites in the region including the DEMI, INDEM, NBIL and
SPIL, DITN, MAWI, and MEVIN monitoring sites.
13.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from the St. Louis Downtown Airport near the S4MO monitoring site
were uploaded into a wind rose software program, WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006). WRPLOT produces
a graphical wind rose from the wind data. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions
about a 16-point compass, and uses different shading to represent wind speeds. Figure 13-5 is
the wind rose for the S4MO monitoring site on days sampling occurred. As indicated in Figure
13-5, hourly winds were predominantly out of the south-southeast (11% of observations),
southeast (8%), north-northwest (8%), and north (7%) on sample days. Wind speeds tended to
range from 7 to 11 knots on day samples were taken (33% of observations). Wind speeds greater
than 22 knots were recorded most frequently with northwesterly winds. Calm winds (<2 knots)
were observed for 22% of the measurements.
13.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following spatial
analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; and BTEX analysis.
13.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population in St. Louis City and St. Louis County,
MO were obtained from the Missouri Department of Revenue and the U.S. Census Bureau, and
are summarized in Table 13-6. Table 13-6 also includes a vehicle registration to county
population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is
presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile
13-5
-------
population surrounding the monitor and the vehicle registration ratio. Finally, Table 13-6
contains the average daily traffic information, which represents the average number of vehicles
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
Compared to other UATMP sites, S4MO has the 7th highest population and the 3rd
highest vehicle registration count. S4MO also has one of the highest estimated vehicle
registration-to-population ratios. The average daily traffic count falls in the middle of the range
compared to other UATMP sites. The S4MO monitoring site is in a residential area and is
located in an urban-city center setting.
13.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to Section 3.2.1.4). Table 3-11 presented
and Figure 3-4 depicted the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites in an effort to characterize the
impact of on-road, or motor vehicle, emissions. At S4MO the benzene-ethylbenzene and
xylenes-ethylbenzene ratios (3.08 ฑ 0.24 and 3.08 ฑ 0.09, respectively) are identical, except for
the confidence interval, as opposed to those of the roadside study (2.85 and 4.55, respectively).
The toluene-ethylbenzene ratio (6.61 ฑ 1.10) is also somewhat higher than those of roadside
study (5.85).
13.6 Site-Specific Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2004, and are still participating in the
2005 program year (i.e., minimum 3 consecutive years), a site-specific trends analysis was
conducted. Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.3.4. S4MO
has been a participant in the UATMP since 2002. Please refer to Figure 13-6. S4MO did not
sample for VOC until 2003, therefore only formaldehyde concentrations were available in 2002.
13-6
-------
S4MO's benzene and 1,3-butadiene 2004 concentrations changed little from their
2003 concentrations, but both pollutants' concentrations decreased in 2005.
When the confidence intervals, represented by the error bars, are taken into
account, formaldehyde concentrations have changed little over the period.
13.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 13-7 presents the 1999
NATA results for the census tract where the Missouri monitoring site is located. Only pollutants
that "failed" the screens are presented in Table 13-7. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
13.7.1 1999 NATA Summary
The S4MO monitoring site is located in census tract 29510109700. The population for
the census tract where the S4MO monitoring site is located was 4,016, which represents about
0.3% of the county population in 2000. In terms of cancer risk, the Top 3 pollutants identified
by NATA in the S4MO census tract are benzene (19.27 in-a-million risk), 1,3-butadiene (6.86),
and acetaldehyde (5.18). These cancer risks are relatively low when compared to other urban
areas, such as near the BAPR and MTMN monitoring sites (71.0 and 39.5 in-a-million,
respectively). Acrolein was the only pollutant in the S4MO census tract to have a noncancer
hazard quotient greater than 1.0 (an HQ greater than 1.0 may lead to adverse health effects).
Most noncancer hazard quotients were less than 0.20, suggesting very little risk for noncancer
health affects, with the exception of acrolein.
13.7.2 Annual Average Comparison
The Missouri monitoring site annual averages are also presented in Table 13-7 for
comparison to the 1999 NATA modeled concentrations. NATA-modeled concentrations are
13-7
-------
assumed to be the average concentration that a person breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid
annual average representing an entire year, including detects and non-detects, needs to be
calculated (refer to Section 13.2 on how a valid annual average is calculated). With the
exception of the metals (cadmium, manganese, and nickel) and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, all the
pollutants were within one order of magnitude from each other. Formaldehyde, total xylenes,
acetaldehyde, and benzene are identified as the Top 4 pollutants by mass concentration for the
2005 annual average concentrations, while manganese topped the list for the NATA-modeled
concentrations, followed by total xylenes, benzene, and acetaldehyde.
Missouri Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest at the Missouri site are acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, 1,3-
butadiene, cadmium, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene,
manganese, p-dichlorobenzene, and tetrachloroethylene.
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at S4MO. Formaldehyde and
acetaldehyde were highest in spring and summer, while carbon tetrachloride was
highest in summer and autumn.
Acrolein was the only pollutant to exceed either of the short-term risk factors.
A comparison of formaldehyde, benzene and 1,3-butadiene concentrations for all years
of UATMP participation shows that concentrations of all three pollutants appear to
have decreased from 2004 to 2005. However, the formaldehyde confidence intervals
indicate that this decrease in formaldehyde is not statistically significant.
13-8
-------
Figure 13-1. St. Louis, Missouri (S4MO) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
13-9
-------
Figure 13-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of S4MO
10 mile radius ] County boundary
Legend
& S4MO UATMP site
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
* Agricultural Chemicals Production Industrial Facility (1)
ฅ Automotive Repair, Services, & Parking (1)
Business Services Facility (2)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (10)
Z Electrical S Electronic Equipment Facility (1)
Engineering & Management Services Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (2)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
G Food & Kindred Products Facility (2)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (44)
H Furniture & Fixtures Facility (1)
+ Health Services Facility (2)
J Industrial Machinery 8 Equipment Facility (3)
ป- Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (2)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (9)
e Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (3)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (57)
Mete: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displaye-d may not represent alt facilities within the area of interest.
-= Motor Freight Transportation & Warehousing (1 )
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (6)
O Personal Services (7)
P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. 8 Refining Industrial Facility (2)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (3)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (3)
R Printing & Publishing Facility (6)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (3)
i Railroad Transportation (1)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (2)
U Stone. Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (8)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (10)
r Unknown (3)
a Utility Boilers (3)
i- Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (5)
r Wholesale Trade (3)
S Wholesale Trade - Durable Goods (2)
* Wood Furniture Facility (1 )
13-10
-------
Figure 13-3. Acrolein Pollution Rose at S4MO
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
_
2 0.5
4-1
c
01
o
O 0.0
O
3 0.5
s.
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
NW
W
N
NE
CA EPA REL (0.19 M9/mJ)
ATSDR MRL (0.11 M9/m3)
3.0
sw
3.0
Avd Cone = 1.00 ฑ 0.40 u
SE
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5
Pollutant Concentration
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
-------
Figure 13-4. Composite Back Trajectory Map for S4MO
to
' /
' / ป
0 50 100 200 300 400
Miles
-------
Figure 13-5. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the S4MO Monitoring Site
WEST
15%
12%
9%.
SOUTH
EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
17 - 21
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
EH 4-7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 21J
-------
Figure 13-6. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the S4MO Monitoring Site
5 --
.Q
O.
O.
^-^
e
o
4 --
3 --
e
o
U
M
8
2 --
1 --
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
D 1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Table 13-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Site in Missouri
Site
S4MO
WBAN
03960
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(ฐF)
67.33
ฑ2.11
67.93
ฑ5.30
Average
Temperature
(ฐF)
57.45
ฑ1.92
58.31
ฑ4.67
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
<ฐF)
46.85
ฑ1.93
47.98
ฑ4.60
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(ฐF)
51.92
ฑ1.77
52.79
ฑ4.25
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
71.01
ฑ1.32
72.13
ฑ3.25
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1017.3
ฑ0.72
1017.12
ฑ1.74
Average
w-component
of the wind
0.64
ฑ0.42
0.79
ฑ1.01
Average
v-component
of the wind
-0.21
ฑ0.43
-0.22
ฑ1.09
-------
Table 13-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the
Missouri Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
% of Detects
Failing
% of Total
Failures
%
Contribution
St. Louis, Missouri - S4MO
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese (PM10)
1,3 -Butadiene
Cadmium (PM10)
Tetrachloroethylene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Acrolein
Dichloro methane
Nickel (PM10)
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Xylenes
Trichloroethylene
Bromo methane
Total
61
60
60
58
51
50
39
38
20
17
9
5
3
3
2
1
1
1
479
61
60
61
58
60
61
39
61
32
23
9
5
50
61
2
61
21
30
755
100.0
100.0
98.4
100.0
85.0
82.0
100.0
62.3
62.5
73.9
100.0
100.0
6.0
4.9
100.0
1.6
4.8
3.3
63.4
12.7%
12.5%
12.5%
12.1%
10.6%
10.4%
8.1%
7.9%
4.2%
3.5%
1.9%
1.0%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
12.7%
25.3%
37.8%
49.9%
60.5%
71.0%
79.1%
87.1%
91.2%
94.8%
96.7%
97.7%
98.3%
99.0%
99.4%
99.6%
99.8%
100.0%
13-16
-------
Table 13-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Missouri Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
St. Louis, Missouri - S4MO
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Cadmium (PM10)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
39
60
61
61
61
58
60
9
61
23
32
61
60
61
61
61
61
60
61
61
61
61
0.12
2.70
0.0023
1.15
0.0009
0.62
3.72
0.21
0.0135
0.32
0.37
0.02
0.28
0.0011
0.10
0.0002
0.04
0.63
0.07
0.0032
0.13
0.25
NR
2.10
0.0010
1.20
0.0006
0.49
1.42
NR
0.0097
NR
0.14
NR
0.45
0.0003
0.20
0.0001
0.08
0.46
NR
0.0046
NR
0.07
NR
3.28
0.0025
1.27
0.0013
0.51
4.77
NR
0.0106
NR
NR
NR
0.44
0.0015
0.26
0.0006
0.06
0.77
NR
0.0049
NR
NR
0.09
3.49
0.0045
1.09
0.0010
0.67
6.29
NR
0.0151
0.37
0.47
0.02
0.57
0.0038
0.15
0.0003
0.06
1.10
NR
0.0081
0.18
0.53
0.12
2.04
0.0014
1.05
0.0008
0.72
2.57
NR
0.0183
0.21
0.21
0.03
0.33
0.0004
0.17
0.0004
0.08
0.90
NR
0.0061
0.08
0.07
NR = Not reportable due to the low number of detects.
-------
Table 13-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Missouri Monitoring Site
Site
S4MO
Method
TO- 15
Pollutant
Acrolein
Daily
Average
(ug/m3)
1.00 ฑ0.40
ATSDR
Short-term
MRL
(ug/m3)
0.11
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
5
CAL EPA
REL
Acute
(ug/m3)
0.19
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
5
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(ug/m3)
0.09
Winter
Average
(Ug/m3)
NR
Spring
Average
(Ug/m3)
NR
Summer
Average
(ug/m3)
NR
Autumn
Average
(Ug/m3)
NR
NR = Not reportable due to the low number of detects.
oo
-------
Table 13-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
Missouri Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
u-
Component
of the
Wind
V-
Component
of the
Wind
Sea
Level
Pressure
St. Louis, Missouri - S4MO
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Cadmium (PM10)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
39
60
61
61
61
58
60
9
61
23
32
-0.11
0.46
0.22
-0.11
0.19
0.27
0.68
0.07
0.16
0.53
0.19
-0.13
0.44
0.20
-0.11
0.15
0.27
0.66
0.05
0.13
0.50
0.23
-0.12
0.37
0.22
-0.05
0.12
0.27
0.59
0.11
0.10
0.44
0.28
-0.14
0.40
0.22
-0.09
0.14
0.27
0.62
0.08
0.12
0.46
0.26
-0.26
-0.15
0.05
0.06
-0.02
0.10
-0.19
0.22
-0.03
-0.21
0.23
0.26
-0.22
-0.19
-0.11
-0.30
-0.18
-0.21
0.26
-0.22
-0.11
-0.05
0.03
0.38
0.25
0.15
0.37
0.07
0.41
-0.40
0.22
0.21
-0.08
-0.33
0.00
0.03
-0.14
0.07
0.11
-0.01
-0.17
0.06
-0.01
-0.05
VO
-------
Table 13-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the Missouri Monitoring Site
Site
S4MO
2005 Estimated
County
Population
1,349,028
Number of
Vehicles
Registered
1,474,341
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
1.09
Population
Within 10 Miles
822,941
Estimated 10 mile
Vehicle Ownership
899,385
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
22,840
to
o
-------
Table 13-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Site
in Missouri
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
St. Louis, Missouri - S4MO, Census Tract 29510109700
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Bromomethane
Cadmium (PM10)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
0.10 ฑ0.01
0.10 ฑ0.02
2.70 ฑ0.28
NA
<0.01
1.15ฑ0.10
0.13ฑ0.11
<0.01
0.60 ฑ 0.04
0.55 ฑ0.15
3.72 ฑ0.63
1.03 ฑ0.13
0.01 ฑ0.003
0.01
0.23 ฑ0.05
0.27 ฑ0.14
0.16 ฑ0.02
2.98 ฑ0.45
0.03
0.23
2.36
0.24
0.10
2.47
0.17
1.54
0.21
1.10
2.18
0.01
12.02
1.29
0.25
0.23
0.30
3.86
0.91
6.86
5.18
0.42
19.27
2.77
3.17
0.52
0.01
0.03
~
0.21
2.77
1.37
0.61
-
0.01
0.11
0.26
11.89
O.01
0.08
0.03
0.08
0.01
O.01
0.22
0.01
0.24
0.02
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
13-21
-------
14.0 Sites in New Jersey
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the four
UATMP sites in New Jersey (CANJ, CHNJ, ELNJ, and NBNJ). The four sites are located in
different cities (Camden, Chester, Elizabeth, and New Brunswick, respectively). Figures 14-1
through 14-4 are topographical maps showing the monitoring sites in their urban and rural
locations. Figures 14-5 through 14-7 identify point source emission locations within 10 miles of
the sites that reported to the 2002 NEI for point sources. CANJ is located on the southwest side
of the state, near the PA/NJ border and east of Philadelphia. A number of sources are located
mainly to its north and west, most of which are involved in fuel combustion industries. CFINJ is
located in the north-central part of New Jersey and has only eight industrial sites nearby, most of
which lie just within the ten mile radius from the site. ELNJ and NBNJ are somewhat close to
each other, with the outer portions of their ten mile radii intersecting. These two sites are near
the New Jersey/New York border, just west of Staten Island, and have a number of sources in the
vicinity, most of which are liquid distribution facilities.
Hourly meteorological data at weather stations near these sites were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather station closest to
CANJ is Philadelphia International (WBAN 13739); the closest station to CHNJ and NBNJ is
Somerville-Somerset Airport (WBAN 54785); and Newark International Airport (WBAN 14734)
is the closest weather station to ELNJ.
New Jersey is located in a region that most storm systems track across, allowing its
weather to be somewhat variable. However, its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean has a moderating
effect on temperature. Hence, summers along the coast tend to be cooler than areas farther
inland, while winters tend to be warmer. New Jersey's location also tends to allow for ample
annual precipitation and often high humidity. A southwesterly wind is most common in the
summer and a northwesterly wind is typical in the winter (Ruffner and Bair, 1987). Table 14-1
presents average meteorological conditions of temperature (average maximum and average),
14-1
-------
moisture (average dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative
humidity), pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind) for the entire year and on days samples were taken. As shown in
Table 14-1, average meteorological conditions on sample days are fairly representative of
average weather conditions throughout the year.
14.1 Pollutants of Interest at the New Jersey Monitoring Sites
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest
is a modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured
pollutant concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily
concentration value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those in which the individual pollutant's total failed
screens contribute to the top 95% of the site's total screens. A total of 81 HAPs are listed in the
guidance document as having risk screening values. Table 14-2 presents the pollutants that failed
at least one screen at the New Jersey monitoring sites. The number of pollutants failing the
screen varies by site, as indicated in Table 14-2. Sixteen pollutants with a total of 360 measured
concentrations failed the screen at CANJ; eleven pollutants with a total of 235 measured
concentrations failed the screen at CHNJ; sixteen pollutants with a total of 382 measured
concentrations failed the screen at ELNJ; and thirteen pollutants with a total of 320 measured
concentrations failed the screen at NBNJ. The pollutants of interest also varied by site, yet the
following six pollutants contributed to the top 95% of the total failed screens at each New Jersey
monitoring site: acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, and
tetrachloroethylene. It's important to note that the New Jersey sites sampled for carbonyl
compounds and VOC only, and that this is reflected in each site's pollutants of interest. Also
listed in Table 14-2 are the total number of detects and the percent detects failing the screen.
One hundred percent of benzene's detects failed the screen at each New Jersey site.
14.2 Concentration Averages at the New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of interest: daily,
seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the average
14-2
-------
concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a seasonal
average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all non-
detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects in a
respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no earlier than November. The daily and seasonal averages are
presented in Table 14-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in
later sections.
Among the daily averages at CANJ, formaldehyde measured the highest concentration by
mass (4.24 ฑ 1.03 ug/m3), followed by acetaldehyde (2.94 ฑ 0.52 ug/m3) and methyl tert-butyl
ether (2.42 ฑ 0.60 ug/m3). The seasonal averages of the pollutants of interest at CANJ did not
vary much statistically from season to season. The summer formaldehyde average (6.73 ฑ 3.35
ug/m3) appears much higher than the other seasonal averages, but the rather high confidence
interval indicates that this average might be driven by a few outliers.
The pollutants with the highest daily averages at CHNJ were acrolein (2.39 ฑ 0.96
ug/m3), formaldehyde (2.39 ฑ 0.49 ug/m3), and acetaldehyde (1.48 ฑ 0.20 ug/m3). Some of the
CFDSTJ pollutants of interest do not have seasonal averages listed in Table 14-3 because there
were so few detects. For the pollutants with valid seasonal averages, most of them did not vary
much among the seasons. Formaldehyde is the one exception. The summer formaldehyde
average (4.55 ฑ 1.03 ug/m3) was higher than the winter, spring, and fall averages (1.47 ฑ 0.38
ug/m3, 1.16 ฑ 0.19 ug/m3, 2.26 ฑ 0.71 ug/m3 respectively).
The pollutants with the highest daily averages at ELNJ were acetaldehyde (5.07 ฑ 0.65
ug/m3), formaldehyde (4.74 ฑ 0.51 ug/m3), and methyl tert-butyl ether (3.75 ฑ 1.24 ug/m3). With
the exception of benzene, the pollutants of interest tended to measure their highest concentrations
in the summer or fall. However, the seasonal averages at ELNJ did not vary much statistically.
14-3
-------
The pollutants with the highest daily averages at NBNJ were acetaldehyde (6.24 ฑ 0.90
ug/m3), formaldehyde (5.39 ฑ 0.85 ug/m3), and acrolein (2.15 ฑ 0.87 ug/m3). The summer
acetaldehyde average concentration (10.37 ฑ 1.70 ug/m3) was significantly higher than its other
seasonal averages. Formaldehyde appears to follow this trend too, but factoring in the
confidence interval shows the difference is not statistically significant.
14.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Non-chronic risk for the concentration data at New Jersey monitoring sites was evaluated
using ATSDR acute and intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) and California EPA acute
reference exposure limit (REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as exposures from 1 to 14 days
while intermediate risk is defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. It is useful to compare daily
measurements to the short-term MRL and REL factors, as well as compare seasonal averages to
the intermediate MRL. Of the pollutants with at least one failed screen, only acrolein exceeded
either the acute and intermediate risk values, and each site's non-chronic risk is summarized in
Table 14-4.
All acrolein detects at the New Jersey sites were greater than the ATSDR acute value of
0.11 ug/m3 and all but one of the acrolein detects exceeded the California REL value of 0.19
ug/m3. The average detected concentration ranged from 0.87 ฑ 0.27 ug/m3 (at CANJ) to 2.39 ฑ
0.96 ug/m3 (at CFtNJ), which are all significantly higher than either acute risk factor. Seasonal
averages for acrolein could only be calculated for autumn, and only at CFINJ and NBNJ. Both
autumn acrolein averages exceed the ATSDR intermediate risk value.
For the pollutants that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. For all four New Jersey monitoring sites, only acrolein concentrations
exceeded the acute risk factors. Figures 14-8 through 14-11 are pollution roses for acrolein at the
New Jersey sites. A pollution rose is a plot of concentration and wind direction. As shown in
Figures 14-8 through 14-11, and discussed above, all but one acrolein concentrations exceeded
the acute risk factors, which are indicated by a dashed line (CalEPA REL) and solid line
(ATSDR MRL).
14-4
-------
Figure 14-8 is the acrolein pollution rose for the CANJ monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with winds originating
from a variety of directions, which is a pattern consistent with mobile sources, although they
most frequently occur with westerly winds. The highest concentration of acrolein occurred on
December 24, 2005 with a southwesterly wind. CANJ is wedged between several major
thoroughfares, including 1-676. Although located in a predominantly residential area, many
industrial facilities are located fairly close to the monitoring site.
Figure 14-9 is the acrolein pollution rose for the CFDSTJ monitoring site. Similar to
CANJ, the pollution rose shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred
with winds originating from a variety of directions, a pattern consistent with mobile sources. The
highest concentration of acrolein occurred on October 7, 2005 with a south-southeasterly wind.
Although located in a rural area, the CFINJ monitoring site is located near a main road through
town.
Figure 14-10 is the acrolein pollution rose for the ELNJ monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that only one concentration was less than both acute risk factors. Similar to CANJ
and CFINJ, acrolein concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with winds
originating from a variety of directions. The highest concentration of acrolein occurred on
December 24, 2005 with a south-southwesterly wind. Interestingly, the highest acrolein
concentration at CANJ also occurred on this date. ELNJ is located near exit 13 of 1-95, which is
also where 1-278 to Staten Island intersects 1-95. The area is also very industrial with a major
refinery located just south of the site.
Figure 14-11 is the acrolein pollution rose for the NBNJ monitoring site. Similar to the
other New Jersey sites, the pollution rose shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk
factors occurred with winds originating from a variety of directions. The highest concentration
of acrolein occurred on July 27, 2005 with a west-southeasterly wind. Although the NBNJ
monitoring site is located in a rural area, it is also wedged between several major roadways. The
site is positioned just off a US-1 exit and is just west of the New Jersey Turnpike (1-95).
14-5
-------
14.4 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the New Jersey Sites
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
14.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 14-5 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the New Jersey monitoring sites.
(Please refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) At CANJ, the
strongest correlations were calculated for hexachloro-1,3-butadiene. However, this pollutant was
detected only nine times, and this low number of detects can skew the correlations. Carbon
tetrachloride, formaldehyde, methyl tert-buty\ ether, /?-dichlorobenzene, and trichloroethylene
exhibited moderately strong positive correlations with the maximum, average, dew point, and
wet bulb temperatures, while 1,3-butadiene and bromomethane exhibited moderately strong
negative correlations with these same parameters. Acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, and benzene
exhibited moderately strong correlations with sea level pressure. Most of the correlations with
the wind parameters were weak. Aside from hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, the strongest correlation
with the M-component of the wind was calculated for acrolein (-0.42), and the strongest
correlation with the v-component of the wind was calculated for trichloroethylene (0.44).
At CHNJ, acrolein and formaldehyde exhibited moderately strong to strong positive
correlations with maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures, while benzene
exhibited moderately strong negative correlations with these same parameters. Moderately
strong negative correlations were calculated between 1,3-butadiene and relative humidity, while
moderately strong positive correlations were calculated between acrolein, carbon tetrachl oride,
and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene and relative humidity. Several pollutants exhibited moderately
strong correlations with the wind components, indicating that winds influence concentrations of
several of the pollutants of interest. Pearson correlations could not be calculated for 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane due to the low number of detects (less than 4 detects).
14-6
-------
With the exception of 1,3-butadiene and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, correlations
calculated between the pollutants of interest at ELNJ and maximum, average, dew point, and wet
bulb temperatures were all positive and tended to be at least moderately strong. Hexachloro-1,3-
butadiene's correlations with these same parameters were strong and negative while 1,3-
butadiene's were weak. All but one of the pollutants exhibited moderately strong to strong
positive correlations with the v-component of the wind.
Very strong positive correlations were calculated between acetaldehyde and formaldehyde
and the maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures at NBNJ. Acrolein and
/>-dichlorobenzene had positive correlations with these parameters as well, but were weaker.
Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde also exhibited the strongest correlations with a wind component,
the v-component (0.44 and 0.42, respectively). Most of the remaining correlations at NBNJ were
weak.
14.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figures 14-12 thru 14-15 are composite back trajectory maps for the New Jersey
monitoring sites for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour
trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. Each
circle around the site in Figure 14-12 through Figure 14-15 represents 100 miles.
As shown in Figure 14-12, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
CANJ. The 24-hour airshed domain is large, with trajectories originating as far away as southern
Wisconsin, or over 700 miles away. Nearly 58% of the trajectories originated within 300 miles
of the site; and 82% within 500 miles from the CANJ monitoring site.
As shown in Figure 14-13, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
CFtNJ. The 24-hour airshed domain is large, with trajectories originating as far away as west-
central Wisconsin, or over 800 miles away. Roughly 54% of the trajectories originated within
300 miles of the site; and 80% within 500 miles from the CFINJ monitoring site.
14-7
-------
As shown in Figure 14-14, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
ELNJ. The 24-hour airshed domain is large, with trajectories originating as far away as central
Wisconsin, or over 800 miles away. Nearly 57% of the trajectories originated within 300 miles
of the site; and 84% within 500 miles from the ELNJ monitoring site.
As shown in Figure 14-15, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
NBNJ. The 24-hour airshed domain is large, with trajectories originating as far away as central
Wisconsin, or nearly 800 miles away. Nearly 58% of the trajectories originated within 300 miles
of the site; and 84% within 500 miles from the NBNJ monitoring site.
14.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from the weather stations closest to the sites were uploaded into a wind
rose software program, WJAPLOT (Lakes, 2006). WJAPLOT produces a graphical wind rose
from the wind data. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions about a 16-point
compass, and uses different shading to represent wind speeds. Figures 14-16 through 14-19 are
the wind roses for the New Jersey monitoring sites on days sampling occurred.
As indicated in Figure 14-16, hourly winds originated from a variety of directions on days
samples were taken near CANJ. However, an apparent lack of winds originating from the east
and southeast is evident in Figure 14-16. Wind observations were recorded most frequently from
the south (9% of observations). In regards to wind speed, 40% of observations ranged from 7 to
11 knots. Calm winds (<2 knots) were recorded for 9% of the hourly measurements.
As indicated in Figure 14-17, hourly winds originated primarily from the north (10% of
observations) on days samples were taken near CHNJ. However, a large percentage (49%) of
wind observations were calm (<2 knots) at CHNJ, for which direction is negligible. For wind
speeds greater than 2 knots, 23% of observations ranged from 7 to 11 kts.
As indicated in Figure 14-18, hourly winds originated primarily from the west (11% of
observations, south (10%), and north-northeast (9%) at ELNJ. Similar to CANJ, an apparent
14-8
-------
lack of winds originating from the east and southeast is evident in Figure 14-18. In regards to
wind speed, 44% of observations ranged from 7 to 11 knots. Calm winds (<2 knots) were
recorded for 5% of the hourly measurements.
Similar to CHNJ, hourly winds near NBNJ originated primarily from the north (10% of
observations) on days samples were taken, as indicated in Figure 14-19. A large percentage
(49%) of wind observations were also calm (<2 knots) at NBNJ, for which direction is
negligible. This is reasonable as the weather stations for the CHNJ and NBNJ are both from
Somerville-Somerset Airport. For wind speeds greater than 2 knots, 22% of observations ranged
from 7 to 11 knots.
14.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; and
BTEX analysis.
14.5.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
County level vehicle registration information was not available for Camden, Middlesex,
Morris, and Union Counties. Thus, state-level vehicle registration, from the Energy Information
Administration (EIA), was allocated to the county level using the county-level population
proportion. County-level population information in these counties was obtained from the U.S.
Census Bureau, and is summarized in Table 14-6. Table 14-6 also includes a vehicle registration
to county population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of
each site is presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-
mile population surrounding the monitor and the vehicle registration ratio. Finally, Table 14-6
contains the average daily traffic information, which represents the average number of vehicles
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
County population and vehicle registration is highest in Middlesex County, where NBNJ
is located. Interestingly, the vehicles per person ratios are all very similar. Not surprisingly, the
14-9
-------
10-mile population is lowest near CHNJ, the most rural site, and highest near ELNJ, the site
closest to Newark and New York City. Ten mile population and estimated vehicle registration is
second highest near CANJ, which is located near Philadelphia. The CHNJ and ELNJ sites also
have the least and most daily traffic volume passing the sites, respectively. In relation to the
other UATMP sites, the county-level populations are mid-range, yet ELNJ and CANJ have the
highest and third highest 10-mile radius populations, and highest two estimated vehicle
registrations. The ELNJ site's daily traffic count is second only to one of the Chicago sites
(SPIL).
14.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to Section 3.2.1.4). Table 3-11 presented
and Figure 3-4 depicted the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites in an effort to characterize the
impact of on-road, or motor vehicle, emissions. Of the four New Jersey sites, the ELNJ
monitoring site ratios most resemble those of the roadside study, although the benzene-
ethylbenzene and xylenes-ethylbenzene ratios are closer together at this site than they are for the
roadside study (3.37 ฑ 0.24 and 3.68 ฑ 0.10 for ELNJ, and 2.85 and 4.55 for the roadside study).
This suggests that mobile source emissions are major influences at this site. At CANJ, these two
ratios are also very similar (3.84 ฑ 0.28 and 3.72 ฑ 0.12, respectively), and the toluene-
ethylbenzene ratio is somewhat higher than that of the roadside study (7.92 ฑ 1.40 vs. 5.85). The
benzene-ethylbenzene and xylenes-ethylbenzene ratios are even more similar atNBNJ (2.69 ฑ
0.33 and 2.70 ฑ 0.18, respectively). At CHNJ, the benzene-ethylbenzene is higher than the
xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio (4.37 ฑ 0.56 and 3.07 ฑ 0.13), which is the reverse of the roadside
study. Its toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is somewhat lower than that of the roadside study (5.39 ฑ
0.36 vs. 5.85).
14-10
-------
14.6 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2004 and are still participating in the
2005 program year (i.e., minimum 3 consecutive years); a site-specific trends analysis was
conducted. Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.3.4. CANJ has
participated in the UATMP since 1994; ELNJ since 1999; and CHNJ and NBNJ since 2001.
Figure 14-20 is a comparison of concentrations of 1,3-butadiene, benzene, and
formaldehyde at CANJ and shows that there has been a lot of variation of the last
ten years. The addition of confidence intervals shows that while the average
concentrations have changed over the years, the difference has generally not be
statistically significant. High formaldehyde concentrations in 2004, 1997, and
1996 may have been driven by outliers, as indicated by the large confidence
interval.
Figure 14-21 shows that formaldehyde concentrations at CHNJ have been
decreasing since 2001. The slight increase in 2004 may have been driven by
outliers, as indicated by the large confidence interval. Concentrations of benzene
and 1,3-butadiene have not changed much since 2001.
As indicated in Figure 14-22, after two years of decreasing, formaldehyde
concentrations began to increase somewhat in 2003 at the ELNJ monitoring site.
Benzene and 1,3-butadiene concentrations have not changed significantly since
2000.
As indicated in Figure 4-23, formaldehyde levels at NBNJ decreased after 2001,
but increased in later years. The 2004 increase may have been driven by outliers,
as indicated by the large confidence interval. Benzene and 1,3-butadiene
concentrations have not changed significantly since 2001.
14.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 14-7 presents the 1999
14-11
-------
ion.
census
NATA results for the census tracts where the New Jersey monitoring sites are located. Only
pollutants that "failed" the screens are presented in Table 14-7. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
The CANJ monitoring site is located in census tract 34007601500 with a population of
6,424, which represents 1.3% of the Camdem County population in 2000. The CHNJ monitoring
site is located in census tract 34027045901, with a population of 1,635, which represents 0.3% of
Morris County's 2000 population. ELNJ is located in census tract 34039030100. The
population in that census tract in 2000 was 334, or less than 0.1% of Union County's populat:
Finally, NBNJ is located in census tract 34023006206. In 2000, the population in this
tract was 1,794 or 0.2 % of the Middlesex County population.
14.7.1 1999 NATA Summary
In terms of cancer risk, the top pollutant identified by NATA in each New Jersey census
tract is benzene, ranging from 8.08 in-a-million at CHNJ to 26.33 in a million at ELNJ. This
benzene cancer risk for ELNJ was the fourth highest cancer risk calculated for a pollutant of
interest at any UATMP site. Benzene, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene (not necessarily in that
order) had the highest cancer risks at CANJ, ELNJ, and NBNJ. At CHNJ, the pollutants with the
highest cancer risk were benzene, followed by 1,3-butadiene, and carbon tetrachloride. Acrolein
was the only pollutant in the New Jersey census tracts to have a noncancer hazard quotient
greater than 1.0 (an HQ greater than 1.0 may lead to adverse health effects), ranging from 3.34 at
CHNJ to 35.46 at ELNJ. Most noncancer hazard quotients were less than 0.20, suggesting very
little risk for noncancer health affects, with the exception of acrolein.
14.7.2 Annual Average Comparison
The New Jersey monitoring site annual averages are also presented in Table 14-7 for
comparison to the 1999 NATA-modeled concentrations. NATA-modeled concentrations are
assumed to be the average concentration that a person breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid
annual average representing an entire year, including detects and non-detects, needs to be
calculated (refer to Section 14.2 on how a valid annual average is calculated). With the
exception of hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, all the concentrations were within one order of
14-12
-------
magnitude from each other. Many of the measured and NATA-modeled concentrations are very
similar. At CANJ and ELNJ, the top 4 NATA-modeled concentrations were xylenes,
acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and methyl tert-butyl ether, not necessarily in that order. At CHNJ
and NBNJ the top 4 NATA-modeled concentrations were formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene,
and dichloromethane, (not necessarily in that order). The pollutants with the highest measured
concentrations were formaldehyde and acetaldehyde at CHNJ, ELNJ, and NBNJ. Formaldehyde
and total xylenes were highest at CANJ, with acetaldehyde rounding out the top three.
New Jersey Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest common to each of the New Jersey sites are acetaldehyde,
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, and tetrachloroethylene.
Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde measured the highest daily averages at CANJ, ELNJ,
and NBNJ, while formaldehyde andacrolein measured highest at CHNJ.
Formaldehyde was highest in summer at CHNJ, while acetaldehyde was highest in
summer at NBNJ.
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at all four New Jersey sites.
A comparison of formaldehyde, benzene and 1,3-butadiene concentrations for all years
of UATMP participation shows that concentrations of benzene and 1,3-butadiene have
changed little at these sites. Formaldehyde concentrations have been decreasing at
CHNJ, increasing at ELNJ and NBNJ, and fluctuating at CANJ.
14-13
-------
Figure 14-1. Camden, New Jersey (CANJ) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
14-14
-------
Figure 14-2. Chester, New Jersey (CHNJ) Monitoring Site
\)L
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
14-15
-------
Figure 14-3. Elizabeth, New Jersey (ELNJ) Monitoring Site
w _
'
8M.'.Vป
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
14-16
-------
Figure 14-4. New Brunswick, New Jersey (NBNJ) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
14-17
-------
Figure 14-5. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CANJ
'""- .
3-
"
f
^~
7;
=,.
^ j J ~^-\,-fr-, ' '' Montgomery
\sf h"vฃ"fty*^* ' County , /
\}' ^vr^l' | \ .- - " ' -'
i-^"'~^?'''~\ - - ""/"%' .---X'""
Y ^~rfK \ \ '""-"-/ 5 "'"-,'-'""' ,/ '
1 JJTฐ- - "~v ~~""',-/ '*'"' ""'" '
ftXtl'^^-r '" ' * *
i '- "'
Philadelphia " ,--' ,- T
. "County S|
\ / Burlington
- p- --.__ , ''-,.' ( County
' V'"'*''*":.
ra>F V
ฃ /'. D V- > __ .- -
Jป- 'V-Y%*"4 / ' i F F c C -'""" " P "- - - -" '
C" A \^ \J
'./ '''F.,, ff' p f /}= S
! '" - '' ', -p -' ' p Ej
'-' '.. / ',,--" 'l T
'' - '- - ~>f\* ''' f i
. / Fe F F ' R 8 -
s / ' F
.'/ ., F f F '^
r--- SF R+i IE \P
! i, F *F * ' F ' SF
i F ''> J'L S ' ''
\ , \P * f FV -f 4 ^
'; >,' - " ' [
' \ .--"!''" t! \ A
- -'' ' " ' /! FF* - .-.- """
.-i .----u"8
/ , F
' ' ' ' ~ -i > 8
i \ ''- -^.' F ' /
Delaware ' -^ ,- : \
Ccunty ' ' >' M
'..-''' , ^ - ''
>-"""'" ^-A- - Y" J
' , .. i, c
' -'- ' '5 v-- *
- -' ~ ' ""-- .. L '.
9 i 1 i S . i i 1 ' '"'~----'
1 'i*L T
Hole:
F /' iป- - " '>
A-'F ' \ "' o ' '-
1 ; F / \ s
J F '' -H C ':
\.,-.; \ 'ซ
{
r ' '"-.
F ' \ _. .', - - ' \
3 ' Camden
CounEy ^ '
" L
> *F ; s
'-.; ' , v
-^> F * ' ^
'^-^ . y "
.-' ' " '
i'
Gloucester
CoonEy '
ซ\-*
- - ~ s
*:
'h
k
'-
^
r
Due to facilsty den^t , ^nd cullucjtjc*! the total fadliJies
LeQend displayed may not represent all facilities wittisn the area of interest
T^T CANJ U ATM P site ' 10 mile radius
Source Category Croup (No. of Facilities)
* Agricultural Chemica s Production Industrial Facility ( t )
Business Services Facility i, 1 >
C Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (5)
E Electric, Gas, 4 Sanitary Services (2)
2 Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1 )
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (2j
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (5Q\
+ Health Services Facility (2)
Incineration Industrial Facility (4)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility 1 1 j
= Instruments & Related Products Facility < 1 )
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility f 11 )
x Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries i3ป
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility ( 10 1
-- Motor Freight Transportation & Warehousing 1 1 :>
National Security & International Affairs ( 1 )
County boundary
^ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility r5)
2 Honmetalc Minerals, Except Fuels ( 1 1
@ Paper 4 Allied Products ( 1 1
P Petj'oleunVNat. Gas Prod, & Refining Industrial Facility (4>
V Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (1)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (2)
R Printing S Publishing Facility (3|
# Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility f 1 )
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (5}
1 : Pulp & Paper Production Facility ( 1 )
U Stone, a ay. Glass, 4 Concrete Products ( 1 1
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (8)
T Transportation Equipment ( 1 (
-f Transportation by Air ( 1 )
S Utility Boilers (7)
T waste Treatnent & Disposal Industrial Facility (3i
r WiolesaleTradep!
14-18
-------
Figure 14-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CHNJ
Warren
County
Sussex
County
Morris
County
Somerset
County
HunSerdon
County
..IT
Note: Due to facffly density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may no! represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
-& CHNJ UATMP site
10 rnite radius
| County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (1)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (1)
ป National Security & International Affairs {1)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
..' Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility {1}
14-19
-------
Figure 14-7. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ELNJ and NBNJ
. , eiispi
Legend
lV ELNJ UATMP site [& NBNJ UATMP site
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
* Agricultural Chemicals Production Industrial Facility (2)
: Business Services Facility (2)
C Chemicals & Allied Products Facility {30)
T Construction/Mining Machinery, Equipment, & Materials (1)
E Electric. Gas, & Sanitary Services (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (6)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (3)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (44)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (4)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Fadlrty {3}
Instruments & Related Products Facility (1)
i Integrated Icon & Steel Manufacturing Facility (1)
Leather & Leather Products Facility (2)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (252)
x M eta I Mini rig (1)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (6)
X Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (1}
: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
ayed may not represent all facilities 'within the area of interest,
10 mile radius ' County boundary
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (27)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (3)
P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (2)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes industrial Facility {6}
V Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (5)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (8)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (10)
:: Pulp & Paper Production Facility (2)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (6)
U Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (15)
T Transportation Equaprnemt{1)
-f Transportation by Air (1)
? Unknown (3)
8 Utility Boilers ()
l Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (7)
f Wholesale Trade (5)
14-20
-------
Figure 14-8. Acrolein Pollution Rose at CANJ
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
01
o
O 0.0
O
I0-5
1.0
1.5
2.0
NW
W
N
NE
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.11 |jg/m3)
SW
2.5
Avg Conc=0.87ฑ 0.27 uq/nr
SE
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5 0.0 0.5
Pollutant Concentration
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
-------
Figure 14-9. Acrolein Pollution Rose at CHNJ
to
to
o
IB
CO
is 1
c
01
o
ง 0
O
O
Q.
NW
W
SW
N
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDRMRL(0.11 |jg/m3)
NE
Avg Cone =2.39 ฑ 0.96 uq/nr
SE
1 o 1
Pollutant Concentration
234567
-------
Figure 14-10. Acrolein Pollution Rose at ELNJ
to
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
t Concentration
o o -^
b en b
jf 0.5
S. 1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
An
NW N
'
w ป ซ'ฃ
-
-
-
-
-
sw *
S
NE
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
Y- E
J.
*
Ava Cone =1 .43 ฑ 0.75 ua/m3
SE
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5
Pollutant Concentration
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
-------
Figure 14-11. Acrolein Pollution Rose atNBNJ
to
1 U
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
c
O _
*= 2
ro
i:
S 1
o
o 0
O u
O
c 1
S
i 2
o
Q.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-in
NW N
-
Ava Cone =2. 1 5 + 0.87 ua/m3
-
-
-
-
+
-
w ).
v
_
*^
^
*-
*
-
-
sw
s
NE
A
^
E
y
^
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
SE
10
21012
Pollutant Concentration
9 10
-------
Figure 14-12. Composite Back Trajectory Map for CANJ
to
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \
I I I
I
\ \ J \
0 60 120 240 360 480
Miles
-------
Figure 14-13. Composite Back Trajectory Map for CHNJ
to
f 0 50 100 200 300 400
-------
Figure 14-14. Composite Back Trajectory Map for ELNJ
to
D 50 100 200 300 400
-------
Figure 14-15. Composite Back Trajectory Map for NBNJ
to
00
0 50 100 200 300 400
Miles
-------
Figure 14-16. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the CANJ Monitoring Site
'NORTH"---.
to
VO
10%
SOUTH --'"
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | *=22
17 - 21
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I | 4- 7
2- 4
Calms: 9,23%
-------
Figure 14-17. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the CHNJ Monitoring Site
WEST
-^
o
10%
8%,
6%.
SOUTH,-'
!EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | >=22
17 - 21
7- 11
I I "1- 7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 48.59%
-------
Figure 14-18. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the ELNJ Monitoring Site
'NORTH *---.
15%
\ %
12%
9%.
SOUTH,-'
!EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | >=22
17 - 21
111 11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I I "1- 7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 5.15%
-------
Figure 14-19. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the NBNJ Monitoring Site
WEST!
-^
to
6%.
10%
8%,
SOUTH --'"
EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | *=22
17 - 21
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I | 4- 7
2- 4
Calms: 49.17%
-------
Figure 14-20. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the CANJ Monitoring Site
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
D 1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 14-21. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the CHNJ Monitoring Site
o
U
2
o
2 --
2001
2002
2003
Year
2004
2005
D 1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 14-22. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the ELNJ Monitoring Site
o
U
2
-------
Figure 14-23. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the NBNJ Monitoring Site
4 --
o
U
2
-------
Table 14-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in New Jersey
Site
CANJ
CHNJ
ELNJ
NBNJ
WBAN
13739
54785
14734
54785
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(ฐF)
64.07
ฑ2.01
63.68
ฑ5.22
63.10
ฑ2.09
63.79
ฑ4.93
62.95
ฑ2.07
63.48
ฑ4.87
63.10
ฑ2.09
63.69
ฑ4.90
Average
Temperature
<ฐF)
55.94
ฑ1.89
55.29
ฑ4.87
52.30
ฑ1.93
52.61
ฑ4.66
55.28
ฑ1.94
55.40
ฑ4.61
52.30
ฑ1.93
52.48
ฑ4.64
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
<ฐF)
42.02
ฑ1.99
41.66
ฑ5.04
40.95
ฑ2.02
41.58
ฑ4.85
40.94
ฑ1.98
41.58
ฑ4.68
40.95
ฑ2.02
41.53
ฑ4.84
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(ฐF)
49.27
ฑ1.73
48.75
ฑ4.41
47.09
ฑ1.79
47.32
ฑ4.35
48.41
ฑ1.74
48.72
ฑ4.13
47.09
ฑ1.79
47.25
ฑ4.33
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
62.74
ฑ1.43
63.42
ฑ3.63
68.40
ฑ1.27
70.10
ฑ2.87
61.71
ฑ1.48
62.85
ฑ3.51
68.40
ฑ1.27
70.27
ฑ2.87
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1016.77
ฑ0.81
1016.56
ฑ2.19
1016.05
ฑ0.83
1016.37
ฑ2.09
1016.29
ฑ0.83
1016.65
ฑ2.11
1016.05
ฑ0.83
1016.18
ฑ2.09
Average
w-component
of the wind
1.86
ฑ0.54
1.66
ฑ1.27
0.00
ฑ0.22
-0.15
ฑ0.56
1.92
ฑ0.53
1.30
ฑ1.26
0.00
ฑ0.22
-0.13
ฑ0.56
Average
v-component
of the wind
-0.63
ฑ0.48
-0.65
ฑ1.22
-0.99
ฑ0.31
-0.71
ฑ0.61
-1.37
ฑ0.53
-0.76
ฑ1.23
-0.99
ฑ0.31
-0.64
ฑ0.6
-------
Table 14-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values
at the New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
% of Detects
Failing
% of Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Camden, New Jersey - CANJ
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3 -Butadiene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Bromomethane
Acrolein
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Trichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Total
55
54
52
45
40
32
28
11
10
9
9
9
2
2
1
1
360
55
54
55
46
43
33
32
40
10
9
34
28
51
12
54
1
557
100.0
100.0
94.5
97.8
93.0
97.0
87.5
27.5
100.0
100.0
26.5
32.1
3.9
16.7
1.9
100.0
64.6
15.3%
15.0%
14.4%
12.5%
11.1%
8.9%
7.8%
3.1%
2.8%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
15.3%
30.3%
44.7%
57.2%
68.3%
77.2%
85.0%
88.1%
90.8%
93.3%
95.8%
98.3%
98.9%
99.4%
99.7%
100.0%
Chester, New Jersey - CHNJ
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Total
52
49
44
39
13
13
10
8
3
2
2
235
54
49
54
39
30
13
17
8
38
2
2
306
96.30
100.0
81.48
100.0
43.33
100.0
58.82
100.0
7.89
100.0
100.0
22.1%
20.9%
18.7%
16.6%
5.5%
5.5%
4.3%
3.4%
1.3%
0.9%
0.9%
22.1%
43.0%
61.7%
78.3%
83.8%
89.4%
93.6%
97.0%
98.3%
99.1%
100.0%
Elizabeth, New Jersey - ELNJ
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Acrolein
60
60
60
52
43
39
22
14
13
9
60
60
60
52
43
42
30
43
13
9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
92.9
73.3
32.6
100.0
100.0
15.7%
15.7%
15.7%
13.6%
11.3%
10.2%
5.8%
3.7%
3.4%
2.4%
15.7%
31.4%
47.1%
60.7%
72.0%
82.2%
88.0%
91.6%
95.03%
97.4%
14-38
-------
Table 14-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values
at the New Jersey Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Xylenes
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Total
#of
Failures
3
2
2
1
1
1
382
#of
Detects
60
55
2
1
1
23
554
% of Detects
Failing
5.0
3.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
4.3
69.0
% of Total
Failures
0.8%
0.5%
0.5%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
%
Contribution
98.2%
98.7%
99.2%
99.5%
99.7%
100.0%
New Brunswick, New Jersey - NBNJ
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrolein
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Vinyl chloride
Total
58
57
55
51
28
27
18
11
9
2
2
1
1
320
58
57
58
51
36
30
18
18
9
2
47
1
6
391
100.0
100.0
94.8
100.0
77.8
90.0
100.0
61.1
100.0
100.0
4.3
100.0
16.7
81.8
18.1%
17.8%
17.2%
15.9%
8.8%
8.4%
5.6%
3.4%
2.8%
0.6%
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
18.1%
35.9%
53.1%
69.1%
77.8%
86.3%
91.9%
95.3%
98.1%
98.8%
99.4%
99.7%
100.0%
14-39
-------
Table 14-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Camden, New Jersey - CANJ
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
33
55
10
54
40
46
55
9
34
32
43
28
54
55
30
54
54
54
55
54
54
54
54
54
0.16
2.94
0.87
1.57
0.96
0.62
4.24
0.17
2.42
0.27
0.76
0.74
0.05
0.52
0.27
0.27
0.62
0.05
1.03
0.03
0.60
0.06
0.55
0.34
NR
3.56
NA
1.99
1.54
0.41
3.14
NR
1.43
NR
1.16
0.37
NR
1.15
NA
0.52
1.41
0.10
0.95
NR
0.94
NR
1.45
0.24
NR
3.74
NA
1.31
NR
NR
2.36
NR
1.69
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.10
NA
0.30
NR
NR
0.73
NR
1.12
NR
NR
NR
0.07
2.51
NR
1.14
0.24
0.65
6.73
NR
1.94
0.25
0.65
0.61
0.02
0.99
NR
0.21
0.19
0.04
3.35
NR
0.78
0.09
0.57
0.49
0.19
2.12
NR
1.73
0.19
0.72
4.40
NR
1.26
0.31
0.38
0.55
0.07
0.58
NR
0.70
0.11
0.10
0.99
NR
0.99
0.10
0.11
0.47
Chester, New Jersey - CHNJ
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
17
54
13
49
39
54
8
30
50
54
26
50
50
54
50
50
0.04
1.48
2.39
0.67
0.59
2.39
0.17
0.18
0.01
0.20
0.96
0.08
0.04
0.49
0.05
0.03
NR
1.52
NA
0.94
NR
1.47
NR
NR
NR
0.32
NA
0.13
NR
0.38
NR
NR
NR
1.30
NA
0.68
NR
1.16
NR
NR
NR
0.23
NA
0.21
NR
0.19
NR
NR
NR
1.93
NR
0.57
0.65
4.55
NR
0.18
NR
0.55
NR
0.09
0.05
1.03
NR
0.03
0.05
1.25
1.67
0.51
0.57
2.26
1.02
0.12
0.01
0.32
1.05
0.10
0.05
0.71
0.40
0.03
-^
o
-------
Table 14-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the New Jersey Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Elizabeth, New Jersey - ELNJ
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
43
60
60
52
60
13
43
30
42
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
0.19
5.07
1.58
0.63
4.74
0.14
3.75
0.19
0.44
0.02
0.65
0.18
0.05
0.51
0.03
1.24
0.05
0.07
0.12
4.34
1.74
0.48
4.40
NA
1.55
NR
0.38
0.04
0.82
0.41
0.10
0.84
NA
0.84
NR
0.15
NR
3.91
1.27
0.43
4.35
NA
1.71
NR
NR
NR
0.73
0.20
0.09
0.68
NA
0.81
NR
NR
0.17
5.75
1.67
0.72
6.05
NR
4.72
0.19
0.44
0.02
0.94
0.32
0.09
0.93
NR
3.28
0.04
0.07
0.22
6.14
1.64
0.67
4.16
NR
3.01
0.21
0.40
0.05
1.82
0.42
0.10
1.18
NR
1.66
0.09
0.13
New Brunswick, New Jersey - NBNJ
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
30
58
18
57
51
58
18
36
57
58
27
57
57
58
57
57
0.10
6.24
2.15
1.00
0.57
5.39
1.32
0.41
0.03
0.90
0.87
0.14
0.04
0.85
2.30
0.19
NR
4.24
NA
1.38
0.48
3.05
NR
0.33
NR
0.98
NA
0.39
0.08
0.75
NR
0.14
NR
4.34
NA
0.94
0.40
4.92
NR
NR
NR
0.72
NA
0.22
0.08
0.79
NR
NR
0.10
10.37
NR
0.82
0.59
8.53
1.72
0.48
0.06
1.70
NR
0.15
0.07
1.78
2.93
0.47
0.07
6.29
1.25
0.82
0.67
5.25
0.13
0.28
0.02
1.58
0.57
0.17
0.05
1.86
0.03
0.07
NA = Not available due to
NR = Not responsible due
short sampling duration.
to low number of detects.
-------
Table 14-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Site
CANJ
CHNJ
ELNJ
NBNJ
Method
TO- 15
TO- 15
TO- 15
TO- 15
Pollutant
Acrolein
Acrolein
Acrolein
Acrolein
Daily
Average
(ug/m3)
0.87
ฑ0.27
2.39
ฑ0.96
1.43
ฑ1.15
2.15
ฑ0.87
ATSDR
Short-term
MRL
(ug/m3)
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
10
13
9
18
CAL
EPA
REL
Acute
(ug/m3)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
10
13
8
18
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(ug/m3)
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
Winter
Average
(ug/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Spring
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Summer
Average
(ug/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
Autumn
Average
(ug/m3)
NR
1.67
ฑ 1.05
NR
1.25
ฑ0.57
-^
to
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = No reportable due to the low number of detects.
-------
Table 14-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the New Jersey
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
w-Component
of the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea Level
Pressure
Camden, New Jersey - CANJ
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
33
55
10
54
40
46
55
9
34
32
43
28
-0.23
-0.12
-0.12
-0.12
-0.27
0.23
0.45
-0.59
0.30
0.41
-0.02
0.35
-0.36
-0.18
-0.21
-0.20
-0.27
0.26
0.42
-0.70
0.24
0.32
-0.07
0.30
-0.37
-0.25
-0.23
-0.22
-0.24
0.27
0.35
-0.78
0.21
0.18
-0.10
0.27
-0.38
-0.22
-0.22
-0.22
-0.26
0.28
0.38
-0.74
0.22
0.23
-0.09
0.29
-0.18
-0.27
-0.11
-0.13
0.00
0.07
-0.12
-0.62
-0.03
-0.29
-0.11
-0.08
-0.03
0.03
-0.42
-0.01
-0.04
-0.11
0.23
0.65
0.11
0.18
-0.02
0.01
0.15
0.03
0.19
0.14
-0.06
0.13
0.29
-0.06
0.39
0.20
0.03
0.44
0.35
0.14
0.25
0.31
-0.02
0.04
0.02
0.25
0.04
0.09
-0.02
-0.04
Chester, New Jersey - CHNJ
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
17
54
13
49
39
54
8
30
0.06
0.22
0.60
-0.47
0.30
0.72
-0.45
-0.06
-0.04
0.12
0.69
-0.49
0.33
0.67
-0.14
-0.06
-0.12
0.10
0.72
-0.43
0.37
0.62
0.04
0.00
-0.09
0.10
0.71
-0.47
0.35
0.64
-0.03
-0.04
-0.31
-0.04
0.39
0.04
0.27
0.04
0.48
0.22
0.31
0.01
-0.47
-0.22
-0.21
0.09
-0.31
-0.33
-0.07
0.37
0.40
-0.09
0.18
0.45
-0.26
0.32
-0.36
0.11
-0.22
0.14
0.01
-0.01
-0.94
0.05
-------
Table 14-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the New Jersey
Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
# Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
w-Component
of the Wind
v-Component Sea Level
of the Wind Pressure
Elizabeth, New Jersey - ELNJ
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
43
60
60
52
60
13
43
30
42
0.05
0.51
0.18
0.27
0.48
-0.68
0.38
0.42
0.15
-0.01
0.46
0.15
0.33
0.44
-0.66
0.39
0.40
0.12
-0.05
0.34
0.11
0.39
0.33
-0.62
0.38
0.36
0.14
-0.03
0.39
0.12
0.36
0.38
-0.66
0.39
0.39
0.12
-0.09
-0.26
-0.08
0.19
-0.22
-0.05
0.03
-0.06
0.08
-0.19
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.06
0.10
-0.20
-0.24
0.33
0.42
0.33
0.06
0.40
-0.10
0.52
0.20
0.08
0.33
0.15
0.21
-0.04
0.07
-0.03
0.12
0.20
0.22
New Brunswick, New Jersey - NBNJ
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
30
58
18
57
51
58
18
36
-0.09
0.77
0.42
-0.25
0.05
0.77
0.32
0.21
-0.10
0.74
0.43
-0.29
0.09
0.75
0.29
0.18
-0.04
0.71
0.41
-0.25
0.13
0.70
0.28
0.18
-0.07
0.73
0.42
-0.28
0.11
0.73
0.28
0.18
0.29
0.12
-0.06
0.07
0.08
0.06
-0.02
0.02
-0.27
0.03
-0.04
-0.22
0.11
0.01
0.05
-0.05
0.15
0.44
0.05
0.04
-0.06
0.42
0.13
0.10
0.26
-0.01
-0.32
0.16
-0.04
-0.06
-0.32
-0.07
-------
Table 14-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Site
CANJ
CHNJ
ELNJ
NBNJ
2005 Estimated
County Population
518,249
490,593
531,457
789,516
Number of
Vehicles Registered
369,412
349,299
380,628
561,754
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
0.71
0.71
0.72
0.71
Population
Within
10 Miles
2,030,976
234,148
2,179,781
787,380
Estimated 10 mile
Vehicle
Ownership
1,447,696
166,712
1,561,153
560,234
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
62,000
12,623
170,000
63,000
-------
Table 14-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in
New Jersey
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Camden, New Jersey - CANJ, Census Tract 34007601500
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
/j-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
0.09 ฑ0.01
0.13 ฑ0.03
2.94 ฑ0.52
NA
1.57 ฑ0.27
0.73 ฑ 0.47
0.56 ฑ0.06
0.58 ฑ0.14
4.24 ฑ 1.03
0.99 ฑ0.15
1.56 ฑ0.48
0.23 ฑ 0.04
0.64 ฑ 0.44
0.45 ฑ 0.20
0.05 ฑ0.01
3.64 ฑ0.61
0.04
0.18
2.50
0.19
1.91
0.29
0.22
0.79
2.45
0.01
2.30
0.09
0.23
0.15
0.06
3.03
1.05
5.37
5.50
14.87
3.30
0.37
0.01
0.03
1.00
1.38
0.31
0.52
O.01
0.09
0.28
9.63
0.06
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.25
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.03
Chester, New Jersey - CHNJ, Census Tract 34027045901
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
0.15 ฑ0.01
0.10 ฑ0.01
0.05 ฑ 0.04
1.48 ฑ0.20
NA
0.66 ฑ0.08
0.50 ฑ0.05
0.66 ฑ 0.42
2.39 ฑ0.49
1.02 ฑ0.15
0.17 ฑ0.02
0.05
0.03
0.11
1.10
0.07
1.04
0.21
0.39
1.29
O.01
0.12
2.63
0.77
3.43
2.43
8.08
3.12
0.18
0.01
0.03
0.72
O.01
0.06
0.12
3.34
0.03
0.01
O.01
0.13
O.01
0.01
Elizabeth, New Jersey - ELNJ, Census Tract 34039030100
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
0.15 ฑ0.01
0.10 ฑ0.01
0.16 ฑ0.02
5.07 ฑ0.65
NA
0.09 ฑ0.04
1.58 ฑ0.18
0.58 ฑ0.06
0.85 ฑ 0.22
4.74 ฑ0.51
0.06
0.04
0.54
4.36
0.71
0.00
3.38
0.21
0.71
5.60
3.26
0.92
16.09
9.59
0.07
26.33
3.17
0.33
0.03
O.01
0.27
0.48
35.46
O.01
0.11
0.01
0.01
0.57
14-46
-------
Table 14-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in
New Jersey (Continued)
Pollutant
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
2005 UATMP
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
0.90 ฑ0.13
2.72 ฑ0.98
0.18 ฑ0.03
0.36 ฑ0.06
0.17 ฑ0.03
4.31 ฑ0.65
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Ug/m3)
<0.01
3.45
0.07
0.31
0.12
6.20
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-
million)
0.04
0.73
1.82
0.24
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard
quotient)
<0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.06
New Brunswick, New Jersey - NBNJ, Census Tract 34023006206
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
0.15 ฑ0.01
0.10 ฑ0.01
0.08 ฑ0.02
6.24 ฑ0.90
NA
1.00 ฑ0.14
0.53 ฑ0.05
0.58 ฑ0.16
5.39 ฑ0.85
0.97 ฑ0.13
0.54 ฑ0.74
0.32 ฑ0.13
0.05 ฑ0.04
0.06
0.04
0.28
1.98
0.15
2.26
0.21
0.50
2.29
<0.01
0.04
0.20
0.06
3.20
0.93
8.33
4.36
17.62
3.17
0.24
0.01
0.03
0.44
1.21
0.50
O.01
0.14
0.22
7.61
0.08
0.01
O.01
0.23
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
14-47
-------
15.0 Sites in North Carolina
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP sites
in North Carolina (CANC and RTPNC). CANC is a rural site located in Candor near the Uwharrie
National Forest. RTPNC is an urban site located in the Research Triangle Park area near Durham,
North Carolina. Figures 15-1 and 15-2 are topographical maps showing the monitoring sites in their
rural and urban locations. Figures 15-3 and 15-4 identify point source emission locations within 10
miles of these sites as reported to the 2002 NEI for point sources. The CANC site has few sources
nearby, mostly located to the north or west of the site, and the majority are involved in lumber and
wood products. The RTPNC site has a few more nearby sources, mostly to the north and east, and
the majority are involved in fuel combustion and industrial machinery and equipment industries.
Hourly meteorological data at weather stations near these sites were retrieved for all of 2005.
These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary from normal
conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of meteorological data
with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather station closest to the CANC and
RTPNC monitoring sites are the Moore County Airport and Raleigh-Durham International Airport
(WBAN 3720 and 13722, respectively).
Candor is located in south-central North Carolina, about halfway between Charlotte and
Fayetteville, near the Uwharrie National Forest. This area is considered the Sandhills region, where
the sandy soil allows for rapid drainage, as well as rapid warming during the day and cooling during
the night. As a result, daytime temperatures rise quickly, while nighttime temperatures cool quickly
(http://www.pinehurstproperty.com/climate.html). Research Triangle Park is located between
Raleigh and Durham in central North Carolina. Its Southeastern location allows for warm, usually
muggy summers, and generally mild winters The Mid-Atlantic location of these sites allows for
fairly ample rainfall. Afternoon thunderstorms are typical during the summer, although rainfall is
distributed rather equally throughout the year (Ruffner and Bair, 1987). Table 15-1 presents the
average meteorological conditions of temperature (average maximum and average), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind information (average u- and v- components of the
wind) for the entire year and on days samples were taken. As shown in Table 15-1, average
15-1
-------
meteorological conditions on sample days are fairly representative of average weather conditions
throughout the year. The weather station at Moore County Airport did not record sea level pressure,
therefore it is not presented in Table 15-1.
15.1 Pollutants of Interest at the North Carolina Monitoring Sites
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest is a
modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured pollutant
concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily concentration value
was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration "failed the screen."
Pollutants of interest are those in which the individual pollutant's total failed screens contribute to
the top 95% of the site's total screens. A total of 81 HAPs are listed in the guidance document as
having risk screening values. Table 15-2 presents the pollutants that failed at least one screen at the
North Carolina monitoring sites. It's important to note that the North Carolina sites sampled for
carbonyl compounds only, and that this is reflected in Table 15-2. Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde
failed screens at the CANC and RTPNC monitoring sites. These two pollutants failed a total of 34
screens at CANC and 41 screens at RTPNC. Both pollutants contributed to 95% of the total failed
screens at each North Carolina monitoring site, although acetaldehyde contributed to more than half
of the failed screens at both sites. Also listed in Table 15-2 are the total number of detects and the
percent detects failing the screen. Acetaldehyde concentrations failed more than 85% of screens at
each site. Formaldehyde concentrations failed nearly twice as many screens at RTPNC than at
CANC.
15.2 Concentration Averages at the North Carolina Monitoring Sites
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of interest: daily,
seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the average concentration
of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a seasonal average can be
calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all non-detects. A seasonal
average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects in a respective season.
Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and 1/2 MDLs substituted for
non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently higher than the annual
averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the average. Annual averages
15-2
-------
will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no later than February and ended
no earlier than November. The daily and seasonal averages are presented in Table 15-3. Annual
averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in later sections.
Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were detected in every sampled taken at the North Carolina
monitoring sites. The daily average of formaldehyde was higher than acetaldehyde at both sites, but
if the confidence interval is considered, the concentrations are not significantly different. The
seasonal averages of these two pollutants of interest did not vary much statistically at either site.
15.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the North Carolina Monitoring Sites
Non-chronic risk is evaluated using ATSDR acute and intermediate minimal risk level
(MRL) and California EPA acute reference exposure limit (REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as
exposures from 1 to 14 days while intermediate risk is defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. It
is useful to compare daily measurements to the short-term MRL and REL factors, as well as
compare seasonal averages to the intermediate MRL. Of the two pollutants with at least one failed
screen, neither exceeded either the acute and intermediate risk values.
15.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the North Carolina Monitoring Sites
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following meteorological
analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters (such as
temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite back
trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
15.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 15-4 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the North Carolina monitoring sites.
(Please refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) The correlations with
acetaldehyde and the temperature and moisture parameters were all negative, although stronger at
RTPNC than at CANC, indicating that concentrations tend to increase as temperature and humidity
decrease. The correlations with formaldehyde and the temperature and moisture parameters were all
moderately strong to strong and positive, and again stronger at RTPNC than at CANC, indicating
15-3
-------
that concentrations tend to increase as temperature and moisture content increase. Acetaldehyde
exhibited the strongest correlation with a wind parameter at both sites (0.29 at CANC and 0.34 at
RTPNC with the w-component of the wind).
15.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figures 15-5 and 15-6 are composite back trajectory maps for the North Carolina monitoring
sites for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along
which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. Each circle around the
site represents 100 miles.
As shown in Figure 15-5, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
CANC, although there is an absence of trajectories from the north and south. The 24-hour airshed
domain is somewhat large, with trajectories originating as far away as New York and Missouri, or
greater than 600 miles away. Nearly 36% of the trajectories originated within 200 miles of the site;
and 82% within 400 miles from the CANC monitoring site.
As shown in Figure 15-6, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
RTPNC, although there is an absence of trajectories from the north and south, and fewer trajectories
from the northwest. The 24-hour airshed domain is somewhat large, with trajectories originating as
far away as New York and Missouri, or greater than 600 miles away. Nearly 36% of the trajectories
originated within 200 miles of the site; and 89% within 500 miles from the RTPNC monitoring site.
15.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from the Moore County Airport and Raleigh-Durham International Airport
weather stations were uploaded into a wind rose software program, WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006).
WRPLOT produces a graphical wind rose from the wind data. A wind rose shows the frequency of
wind directions about a 16-point compass, and uses different shading to represent wind speeds.
Figures 15-7 and 15-8 are the wind roses for the North Carolina monitoring sites on days sampling
occurred.
15-4
-------
As indicated in Figure 15-7, hourly winds were predominantly out of the southwest (10% of
observations), west-southwest (10%), and northeast (9%) on days samples were taken near CANC.
Calm winds (<2 knots) were recorded for 15% of the hourly measurements. For wind speeds greater
than 2 knots, 30% of observations ranged from 7 to 11 knots, 28% ranged from 2 to 4 knots, and
21% ranged from 4 to 7 knots.
As indicated in Figure 15-8, hourly winds were predominantly out of southwest (16%) and
northeast (10%) on days samples were taken near RTPNC. Calm winds (<2 knots) were recorded
for 20% of the hourly measurements. For wind speeds greater than 2 knots, 35% of observations
ranged from 7 to 11 knots.
15.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following spatial analyses:
population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; and BTEX analysis.
15.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population in Montgomery County and Durham
County, North Carolina were obtained from the North Carolina Department of Transportation and
the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in Table 15-5. Table 15-5 also includes a vehicle
registration to county population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within 10
miles of each site is presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using
the 10-mile population surrounding the monitor and the vehicle registration ratio. Finally, Table 15-
5 contains the average daily traffic information, which represents the average number of vehicles
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
According to Table 15-5, the CANC monitoring site has a significantly lower population and
vehicle ownership than RTPNC. Interestingly, the CANC vehicles per person ratio is higher than
the RTPNC ratio, and is almost 1.0. CANC also has a significantly lower daily traffic volume than
RTPNC. This is expected as the CANC site is located within the boundaries of a National Forest
while RTPNC is located in a business park near a major interstate, as shown in Figures 15-1 and
15-2. Compared to other UATMP locations, CANC has one of the lowest daily traffic volumes,
15-5
-------
second only to BAPR, while RTPNC's daily traffic volume falls mid-range. The pattern is
consistent for county population and vehicle ownership as well as 10-mile population and vehicle
ownership.
15.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A BTEX analysis could not be performed as the sites sampled for carbonyl compounds only.
15.6 Site-Specific Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2004, and are still participating in the 2005
program year (i.e., minimum 3 consecutive years), a site-specific trends analysis was conducted.
Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.3.4. The CANC monitoring
site has participated in the UATMP since 2003. As previously mentioned, this site only sampled for
carbonyl compounds, and this is reflected in Figure 15-9. Formaldehyde concentrations seem to
have decreased somewhat since 2003. However, the confidence intervals, represented by the error
bars, indicate that this decrease is not statistically significant.
15.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One purpose
of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air quality
concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient monitoring data,
geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to model ambient
concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are then applied to cancer
unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC) factors to yield census tract-
level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 15-6 presents the 1999 NATA results for the census tracts
where the North Carolina monitoring sites are located. Only pollutants that "failed" the screens are
presented in Table 15-6. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
15.7.1 1999 NATA Summary
The CANC monitoring site is located in census tract 37123960500. This tract has a
population of 5,228, which represents 19.5% of the Montgomery County population in 2000. The
RTPNC monitoring site is located in census tract 37063002014, which has a population of 5,034.
15-6
-------
This represents 2.3% of Durham County's 2000 population. In terms of cancer risk, the
acetaldehyde cancer risk in the RTPNC census tract was more than twice that of the CANC census
tract (2.65 in a million vs. 1.25, respectively). Cancer risk due to formaldehyde was very low at both
sites. The noncancer hazard quotients were less than 0.15, suggesting very little risk for noncancer
health affects (an HQ greater than 1.0 may lead to adverse health effects).
15.7.2 Annual Average Comparison
NATA-modeled concentrations are assumed to be the average concentration that a person
breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid annual average representing an entire year, including
detects and non-detects, needs to be calculated (refer to Section 15.2 on how a valid annual average
is calculated). For CANC, the UATMP annual averages were slightly higher than the NATA-
modeled concentrations for acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. The NATA-modeled and UATMP
annual average concentration differences for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were not statistically
significant at the RTPNC monitoring site.
North Carolina Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest common to both North Carolina sites are acetaldehyde and
formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at both sites.
A comparison of formaldehyde concentrations for all years of UATMP participation
shows that formaldehyde concentrations at CANC appear to have decreased from 2004
to 2005, although the confidence interval indicates that this decrease is not statistically
significant.
15-7
-------
Figure 15-1. Candor, North Carolina (CANC) Monitoring Site
f X. V i\
,' <
' A I i ^
'/" IT
rปn*ซ> . > - ) ;,'}* o:, 'v- in M? <-
IV;; ' 1 ' I
i/ ง
,'^>V . I -*? - ',
XV ' , !
S ^f- N \-4;[:
f./^?
^ :" ^
/
.
1 i ; '
;ป; *> - "'
/ ป CANC,
:i"l;:"- r
ซ ^m^^
.- _ ..-_. .._ ,.,
-."
.*M(
ffr^1
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
15-8
-------
Figure 15-2. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (RTPNC) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24, 000.
15-9
-------
Figure 15-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CANC
\ Montgomery County
Moore
County
County
Richmond
County
-4--
V*
-JT-
Note; Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent afi facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
if GANG UATMP site
10 mile radius
! County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (2)
r Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (1)
& Lumber & Wood Products Facility (5)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (2)
' Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
15-10
-------
Figure 15-4. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of RTPNC
' A ,^"^
. I ' !v r-^- -<ฃ
K&\ ^ _ i
Durham
County
Orange
County
Chatham
County
Wake
County
Legend
&> RTPNC UATMP site 10 mile radius
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (1)
z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (5)
+ Health Services Facility (1)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (2)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (5)
Note: Due to facility density and coilocatioo. the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
: County boundary
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (3)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (3)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (1)
u Stone, Clay, Glass. & Concrete Products (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
t Wholesale Trade (1)
15-11
-------
Figure 15-5. Composite Back Trajectory Map for CANC
-------
Figure 15-6. Composite Back Trajectory Map for RTPNC
-------
Figure 15-7. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the CANC Monitoring Site
_* -1-^~
"H*. *
i
'
EAST
J3QLITH,-'
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | >=22
111 17 - 21
EZl 11 -17
I | 7- 11
I | 4- 7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 15,08%
-------
Figure 15-8. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the RTPNC Monitoring Site
20%
SOUTH --'"
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
[ | s=22
17 - 21
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I |
-------
Figure 15-9. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the CANC Monitoring Site
I
"S 9
1
o
U
2003
2004
Year
2005
D Formaldehyde
-------
Table 15-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in North Carolina
Site
CANC
RTPNC
WBAN
3720
13722
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
<ฐF)
71.3
ฑ 1.68
71.46
ฑ6.70
71.28
ฑ1.74
72.89
ฑ6.54
Average
Temperature
(ฐF)
60.51
ฑ1.65
60.14
ฑ6.18
60.53
ฑ1.65
62.57
ฑ6.03
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(ฐF)
48.54
ฑ1.94
48.23
ฑ7.12
48.36
ฑ1.86
51.47
ฑ6.56
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
<ฐF)
56.09
ฑ1.77
55.17
ฑ6.95
54.25
ฑ1.58
56.55
ฑ5.69
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
69.10
ฑ1.67
68.18
ฑ6.24
67.89
ฑ1.34
70.56
ฑ4.92
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
NA1
NA1
1017.24
ฑ0.69
1017.72
ฑ2.75
Average
ซ-component
of the wind
0.34
ฑ0.37
0.38
ฑ1.47
0.32
ฑ0.38
-0.05
ฑ1.41
Average
v-component
of the wind
-0.01
ฑ0.33
0.35
ฑ1.19
0.09
ฑ0.37
0.84
ฑ1.32
NA = Sea level pressure was not recorded at this station.
-------
Table 15-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening
Values at the North Carolina Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
% of Detects
Failing
% of Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Candor, North Carolina - CANC
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Total
24
10
34
27
27
54
88.9
37.0
63.0
70.6%
29.4%
70.6%
100.0%
Durham, North Carolina - RTPNC
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Total
23
18
41
27
27
54
85.2
66.7
75.9
56.1%
43.9%
56.1%
100.0%
15-18
-------
Table 15-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the North Carolina Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Candor, North Carolina - CANC
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
27
27
27
27
0.82
1.26
0.14
0.73
0.85
0.69
0.17
0.16
0.77
0.54
0.20
0.12
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.87
1.16
0.33
0.40
Durham, North Carolina - RTPNC
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
27
27
27
27
1.23
1.57
0.28
0.56
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.59
2.91
0.38
1.65
1.19
1.48
0.45
0.46
NR = Not reportable due to the low number of detects.
-------
Table 15-4. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the North Carolina
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
w-Component of
the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea
Level
Pressure
Candor, North Carolina - CANC
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
26
26
-0.04
0.33
-0.03
0.36
-0.05
0.30
-0.09
0.32
-0.20
0.02
0.29
0.04
0.10
0.01
NA
NA
Durham, North Carolina - RTPNC
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
27
27
-0.21
0.61
-0.30
0.61
-0.37
0.49
-0.35
0.54
-0.34
-0.12
0.34
0.13
0.16
0.10
-0.05
-0.27
NA = This station did not record sea level pressure.
to
o
-------
Table 15-5. Motor Vehicle Information for the North Carolina Monitoring Sites
Site
CANC
RTPNC
2005 Estimated
County
Population
27,322
242,582
Number of
Vehicles Registered
26,843
175,758
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
0.98
0.72
Population
Within 10 Miles
11,014
380,541
Estimated 10 mile
Vehicle Ownership
10,821
275,713
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
100
12,000
-------
Table 15-6. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites
in North Carolina
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Candor, North Carolina - CANC, Census Tract 37123960500
Acet aldehyde
Formaldehyde
0.82 ฑ0.14
1.26 ฑ0.73
0.57
0.39
1.25
0.01
0.06
0.04
Durham, North Carolina - RTPNC, Census Tract 37063002014
Acet aldehyde
Formaldehyde
1.23 ฑ0.28
1.57 ฑ0.56
1.21
1.24
2.65
0.01
0.13
0.13
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
15-22
-------
16.0 Sites in Oklahoma
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
sites in Oklahoma (PCOK and POOK). These sites are both located in Ponca City in north-
central Oklahoma. Figures 16-1 and 16-2 are topographical maps showing the monitoring sites
in their urban locations. Only a few city blocks separate the two sites. Figure 16-3 identifies
point source emission locations within 10 miles of these sites as reported to the 2002 NEI for
point sources. Only a handful of sources are located within a ten mile radius of these sites,
although one chemical and allied products facility is located just south of PCOK.
Hourly meteorological data at weather stations near these sites were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather station closest
to the monitoring sites is the Ponca City Regional Airport (WBAN 13969).
Ponca City is located in north-central Oklahoma, just west of the Osage Indian
Reservation and Kaw Lake. The area is characterized by a continental climate, with warm and
often humid summers and cool winters. The region experiences ample rainfall, with spring as its
wettest season. A southerly wind prevails, bringing warm, moist air northward from the Gulf of
Mexico (Ruffner and Bair, 1987). Oklahoma is also in the heart of Tornado Alley, where severe
thunderstorms capable of producing strong winds, hail, and tornadoes are not uncommon.
Table 16-1 presents the average meteorological conditions of temperature (average maximum and
average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average
relative humidity), pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind information (average u- and
v- components of the wind) for the entire year and on days samples were taken. Table 16-1
shows a large difference between annual weather conditions and those observed on sample days.
The Ponca City sites sampled only from May through July, which can explain the wide disparity
between the two sets of averages.
16-1
-------
16.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest
is a modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured
pollutant concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily
concentration value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those in which the individual pollutant's total failed
screens contribute to the top 95% of the site's total screens. A total of 81 HAPs are listed in the
guidance document as having risk screening values. Table 16-2 presents the pollutants that
failed at least one screen at the Oklahoma monitoring sites. The number of pollutants failing the
screen varies by site, as indicated in Table 16-2. Ten pollutants with a total of 72 measured
concentrations failed screens at PCOK, while six pollutants with a total of 57 measured
concentrations failed screens at POOK. The pollutants of interest also varied by site, yet the
following five pollutants contributed to the top 95% of the total failed screens at each Oklahoma
monitoring site: acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, and/?-dichlorobenzene.
An interesting observation between the two sites is that xylenes, toluene, acrylonitrile, and
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane were not detected at POOK, yet were detected just a few blocks away
at PCOK.
It's important to note that the Oklahoma sites sampled for VOC and SNMOC only, and
that this is reflected in Table 16-2. Also listed in Table 16-2 are the total number of detects and
the percent detects failing the screen. Benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride,
/>-dichlorobenzene, and acrolein had 100% of their detects fail the screening values at both sites.
16.2 Concentration Averages at the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of interest: daily,
seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the average
concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a
seasonal average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all
non-detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects
in a respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
16-2
-------
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no earlier than November. The daily and seasonal averages are
presented in Table 16-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in
later sections.
The daily averages of 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, and/>-dichlorobenzene did not
differ much between the two sites. The benzene concentration at PCOK (3.49 ฑ1.87 ug/m3) was
three times that of POOK (1.16 ฑ 0.14 ug/m3), while the acrolein concentration at POOK (7.36 ฑ
7.94 ug/m3) was more than twice that of PCOK (3.00 ฑ 2.07 ug/m3). However, the highest daily
averages at the PCOK site were calculated for total xylenes (17.56 ฑ 11.48 ug/m3) and toluene
(15.57 ฑ 7.53 ug/m3). The relatively large confidence interval indicates that these averages
might be driven by a couple of outliers. As previously mentioned, the Oklahoma sites sampled
during the summer only, so seasonal variability could not be evaluated.
16.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites
Non-chronic risk is evaluated using ATSDR acute and intermediate minimal risk level
(MRL) and California EPA acute reference exposure limit (REL) factors. Acute risk is defined
as exposures from 1 to 14 days while intermediate risk is defined as exposures from 15 to 364
days. It is useful to compare daily measurements to the short-term MRL and REL factors, as
well as compare seasonal averages to the intermediate MRL. Of the pollutants with at least one
failed screen, only acrolein exceeded either the acute and intermediate risk values, and each
site's non-chronic risk is summarized in Table 16-4.
All acrolein detects at the Oklahoma sites were greater than the ATSDR acute value of
0.11 ug/m3 and the California REL value of 0.19 ug/m3. The average detected concentration of
acrolein was 3.00 ฑ 2.07 ug/m3 at PCOK and 7.36 ฑ 7.94 ug/m3 at POOK, which are an order of
magnitude higher than either acute risk factor. The POOK daily acrolein average is one of the
highest calculated for all VOC - sampling UATMP sites, second only to RRTX. No seasonal
averages for acrolein could be calculated, therefore intermediate risk could not be evaluated.
16-2
-------
For the pollutants that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. Only acrolein concentrations exceeded the acute risk factors. Figures
16-4 and 16-5 are pollution roses for acrolein at the Ponca City sites. A pollution rose is a plot
of concentration and wind direction. As shown in Figures 16-4 and 16-5, all acrolein
concentrations exceeded the acute risk factors, which are indicated by a dashed line (CalEPA
REL) and solid line (ATSDR MRL).
There are not enough detects of acrolein at the Oklahoma sites to determine if a pattern
exists between concentration and wind direction. However, it is interesting to note that the two
detects at each site were detected on the same dates, July 6 and July 18, and that the July 18,
2005 concentrations were significantly higher than the July 6, 2005 concentrations at both sites.
Also, these acrolein detects occurred with east and southeasterly winds. These sites are located
in the heart of Ponca City, near a railroad that is oriented north-south through the middle of
town.
16.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
16.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 16-4 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the Oklahoma monitoring sites.
(Please refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) At PCOK,
benzene, />-dichlorobenzene, and total xylenes exhibited moderately strong to very strong
negative correlations with maximum and average temperature, while carbon tetrachloride
exhibited moderately strong positive correlations with these parameters. With the exception of
carbon tetrachloride, the correlations with dew point and wet bulb temperatures were negative,
although carbon tetrachloride's correlations with these parameters were fairly strong (0.48 and
0.49, respectively). The strongest correlation with relative humidity was calculated for
16-4
-------
/7-dichlorobenzene (0.68). Several of the pollutants of interest at PCOK exhibited strong
negative correlations with the w-component of the wind and very strong negative correlations
with sea level pressure.
At POOK, all of the correlations between the pollutants of interest and maximum and
average temperature were negative. />-Dichlorobenzene had the strongest of these correlations
(with maximum temperature -0.62). /7-Dichlorobenzene also had moderately strong to strong
negative correlations with dew point and wet bulb temperatures (-0.27 and -0.38, respectively),
the M-component of the wind (-0.45), and sea level pressure (-0.73). Moderately strong positive
correlations were also calculated between relative humidity and 1,3-butadiene (0.44) and carbon
tetrachloride (0.32) as well as between the v-component of the wind and benzene (0.33) andp-
dichlorobenzene (0.37).
16.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figures 16-6 and 16-7 are composite back trajectory maps for the Oklahoma monitoring
sites for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along
which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. Each circle around
the site represents 100 miles.
As shown in Figure 16-6, the summer back trajectories originated predominantly from
the south and southeast at PCOK. The 24-hour airshed domain is smaller than most UATMP
sites, with trajectories originating as far away as the Texas Coast, or over 500 miles away. Over
50% of the trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site and 82% within 400 miles from the
PCOK monitoring site. The composite back trajectory map might look different if a full year of
sampling was included.
As shown in Figure 16-7, the summer back trajectories originated predominantly from
the south and southeast at POOK. The 24-hour airshed domain is smaller than most UATMP
sites, with trajectories originating as far away as the Texas Coast, or over 500 miles away.
Nearly 36% of the trajectories originated within 200 miles of the site; and 82% within 400 miles
16-5
-------
from the POOK monitoring site. The composite back trajectory map might look different if a
full year of sampling was included.
16.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from the Ponca City Regional Airport weather station were uploaded
into a wind rose software program, WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006). WRPLOT produces a graphical
wind rose from the wind data. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions about a 16-
point compass, and uses different shading to represent wind speeds. Figures 16-8 and 16-9 are
the wind roses for the Oklahoma monitoring sites on days sampling occurred.
As indicated in Figure 16-8, hourly winds near PCOK were predominantly out of the
southeast (21% of observations). Over 72% of wind direction observations originated from an
easterly, southeasterly, or southerly direction. Calm winds (<2 knots) were recorded for nearly
13% of the hourly measurements. For wind speeds greater than 2 knots, 49% of observations
ranged from 7 to 11 knots. The POOK percentages are very similar to PCOK's, as shown in
Figure 16-9. Twenty percent of the wind observations at POOK originated from the southeast,
and over 70% of wind direction observations originated from an easterly, southeasterly, or
southerly direction. Nearly 49% of observations ranged from 7 to 11 knots while calm winds
were recorded for nearly 13% of the hourly measurements.
16.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following spatial
analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; BTEX analysis; and
ethylene-acetylene ratio analysis.
16.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population in Kay County were obtained from the
Oklahoma Tax Commission and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in Table 16-6.
Table 16-6 also includes a vehicle registration to county population ratio (vehicles per person).
In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimation of 10-mile
vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile population surrounding the monitor and the
16-6
-------
vehicle registration ratio. Finally, Table 16-6 contains the average daily traffic information,
which represents the average number of vehicles passing the monitoring sites on the nearest
roadway to each site on a daily basis. With the two Oklahoma monitoring sites located so close
to each other, the population and vehicle registration data is the same. However, the PCOK site
experiences over twice the daily traffic volume than the POOK site. In comparison with other
UATMP sites, PCOK and POOK's population and vehicle ownership is on the low side. But
PCOK's daily traffic count falls in the middle of the range of UATMP sites.
16.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to Section 3.2.1.4). Table 3-11 presented
and Figure 3-4 depicted the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites in an effort to characterize the
impact of on-road, or motor vehicle, emissions. Both Oklahoma sites' ratios somewhat resemble
those of the roadside study. At PCOK, all three ratios are slightly lower than those of the
roadside study (1.38 ฑ 0.21 vs. 2.85 for benzene-ethylbenzene; 4.87 ฑ 0.87 vs 5.85 for toluene-
ethylbenzene; and 2.23 ฑ 0.47 vs 4.55 for xylenes-ethylbenzene). At POOK, the benzene-
ethylbenzene and xylenes-ethylbenzene ratios are slightly lower than those of the roadside study
(2.01 ฑ0.22 vs. 2.85 for benzene-ethylbenzene and 2.95 ฑ 0.19 vs 4.55 for xylenes-
ethylbenzene), while the toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is slightly higher (6.11 ฑ 0.57 vs. 5.85).
16.5.3 Mobile Tracer Analysis
As previously stated, PCOK and POOK sampled for SNMOCs in addition to VOCs.
Acetylene is a pollutant that is primarily emitted from mobile sources, while ethylene is emitted
from mobile sources, petroleum refining facilities, and natural gas distribution facilities. Tunnel
studies conducted on mobile sources have found that concentrations of ethyl ene and acetylene
are typically present in a 1.7 to 1 ratio. (For more information, please refer to Section 3.2.1.3.)
Listed in Table 3-10 is the ethylene to acetylene ratio for the Oklahoma monitoring sites.
16-7
-------
As shown, PCOK and POOK's ethylene-acetylene ratios, 1.53 ฑ 0.21 and 1.25 ฑ 0.23,
respectively, are somewhat lower than the 1.7 ratio. These ratios suggest that while mobile
sources may be influencing the air quality at the Oklahoma monitoring sites, there may also be
atmospheric chemical processes affecting the quantities of ethylene in this area. Known sinks of
ethylene include reactions with ozone, as well as soil (National Library of Medicine).
16.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 16-7 presents the 1999
NATA results for the census tracts where the Oklahoma monitoring sites are located. Only
pollutants that "failed" the screens are presented in Table 16-7. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
16.6.1 1999 NATA Summary
The PCOK monitoring site is located in census tract 40071000500 with a population of
4,232, which represents 8.8% of the Kay County population in 2000. The POOK monitoring site
is located in census tract 40071000400, with a population of 2,608, which represents 5.4% of
Kay County's 2000 population. The pollutants of interest at both sites with the highest cancer
risk are benzene and carbon tetrachloride. While the POOK cancer risk for benzene was higher
than at PCOK (9.38 in a million vs 5.69 in a million), the carbon tetrachloride risk was nearly the
same at both sites (3.13 and 3.18). Acrolein was the only pollutant in the POOK census tract to
have a noncancer hazard quotient greater than 1.0 (an HQ greater than 1.0 may lead to adverse
health effects). However, the acrolein noncancer risk at PCOK was just less than 1.0 (0.90). The
noncancer hazard quotients were less than 0.05, suggesting very little risk for noncancer health
affects.
16-8
-------
16.6.2 Annual Average Comparison
NATA-modeled concentrations are assumed to be the average concentration that a person
breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid annual average representing an entire year, including
detects and non-detects, needs to be calculated (refer to Section 16.2 on how a valid annual
average is calculated). Unfortunately, the Oklahoma sites did not begin sampling until May
2005 and ended in July 2005, therefore, valid annual averages could not be calculated.
Oklahoma Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest common to both Ponca City sites are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-
butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, andp-dichlorobenzene.
Total xylenes measured the highest daily average at PCOK, while acrolein measured
highest at POOK.
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at both sites.
16-9
-------
Figure 16-1. Ponca City, Oklahoma (PCOK) Monitoring Site
Sources: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
16-10
-------
Figure 16-2. Ponca City, Oklahoma (POOK) Monitoring Site
Sources: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
16-11
-------
Figure 16-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of PCOK and POOK
Kay
County
*
Noble
County
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed ma)1 not represent aH facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
"&> PCOK UATMP Site
jlr POOR UATMP site
10 mile radius
[ | County boundary
Source Category Group (No, of Facilities)
C Chemicals 8 Allied Products Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (2)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (2)
o Primary Metal Industries Facility {1)
# Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
8 Utility Boilers (1)
16-12
-------
Figure 16-4. Acrolein Pollution Rose at PCOK
o\
i
OJ
11
Ol
o
g 0
O
= 1
"5
ฐ~ 2
3
4
5
6
NW
W
iSW
N
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/rrr)
ATSDR MRL (0.11 |jg/m3)
NE
Ava Cone = 3.00 ฑ 2.07 ua/m3
SE
1 0 1
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 16-5. Acrolein Pollution Rose at POOK
1 U
14
12
10
8
6
c 4
0 4
S3
CO
1 2
a)
o
0 0
0
'c _
jS 2
! 4
6
8
10
12
14
NW N
"
W
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
sw
o
I ซ*
NE
Ava Cone = 7.36 ฑ 7.94 ua/m3
E
-
*
SE
16
14
12
10
420246
Pollutant Concentration
10 12 14 16
-------
Figure 16-6. Composite Back Trajectory Map for PCOK
0 25 50 100 150 200
-------
Figure 16-7. Composite Back Trajectory Map for POOK
0 25 50 100 150 200
Miles
-------
Figure 16-8. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the PCOK Monitoring Site
WEST!
NORTH'
25%
20%
15%
!EAST
SOUTH .-
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | *=22
17 - 21
EZI n -17
I I 7- 11
I I 4- 7
^0 2- 4
Calms: 12.53%
-------
Figure 16-9. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the POOK Monitoring Site
WEST!
oo
NORTH'
25%
20%
15%
!EAST
SOUTH .-
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | *=22
17 - 21
EZI n -17
I I 7- 11
I I 4- 7
^0 2- 4
Calms: 12.53%
-------
Table 16-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Oklahoma
Site
PCOK
POOK
WBAN
13969
13969
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(ฐF)
70.78
ฑ1.91
88.29
ฑ2.34
70.78
ฑ1.91
88.94
ฑ2.14
Average
Temperature
<ฐF)
59.97
ฑ1.88
77.92
ฑ2.63
59.97
ฑ1.88
78.69
ฑ2.38
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(ฐF)
47.16
ฑ1.8
65.55
ฑ1.82
47.16
ฑ1.8
66.07
ฑ1.87
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(ฐF)
53.03
ฑ1.67
69.71
ฑ1.73
53.03
ฑ1.67
70.28
ฑ1.67
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
66.26
ฑ1.25
68.36
ฑ4.50
66.26
ฑ1.25
67.84
ฑ4.23
Average
Sea Level
Pressure (mb)
1015.83
ฑ0.73
1012.60
ฑ1.80
1015.83
ฑ0.73
1012.71
ฑ1.79
Average
w-component
of the wind
-1.73
ฑ0.40
-4.08
ฑ1.37
-1.73
ฑ0.40
-4.11
ฑ1.37
Average
v-component
of the wind
1.17
ฑ0.58
3.76
ฑ1.60
1.17
ฑ0.58
3.56
ฑ1.75
-------
Table 16-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA
Screening Values at the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
%of
Detects
Failing
%of
Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Ponca City, OK- Site 1 - PCOK
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Xylenes
Tetrachloroethylene
Acrolein
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Acrylonitrile
Total
17
17
15
10
5
3
2
1
1
1
72
17
17
15
10
17
7
2
1
17
1
104
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
29.41
42.86
100.00
100.00
5.88
100.00
23.6%
23.6%
20.8%
13.9%
6.9%
4.2%
2.8%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
23.6%
47.2%
68.1%
81.9%
88.9%
93.1%
95.8%
97.2%
98.6%
100.0%
Ponca City, OK- Site 2 - POOK
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrolein
Tetrachloroethylene
Total
15
15
12
12
2
1
57
15
15
12
12
2
3
59
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
33.33
26.3%
26.3%
21.1%
21.1%
3.5%
1.8%
26.3%
52.6%
73.7%
94.7%
98.2%
100.0%
16-20
-------
Table 16-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Site #1 in Ponca City, OK - PCOK
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
2
15
17
17
10
7
17
6
17
17
17
17
17
17
3.00
0.08
3.49
0.67
0.24
0.18
17.56
2.07
0.02
1.87
0.05
0.05
0.07
11.48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
0.08
3.57
0.70
0.22
0.18
17.88
NR
0.01
2.10
0.05
0.04
0.03
12.94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Site #2 in Ponca City, OK - POOK
Acrolein
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
/>-Dichlorobenzene
2
12
15
15
12
7
15
15
15
15
7.36
0.08
1.16
0.66
0.27
7.94
0.01
0.14
0.04
0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
0.08
1.17
0.67
0.26
NR
0.01
0.15
0.04
0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
to
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
-------
Table 16-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites
Site
PCOK
POOR
Method
TO- 15
TO- 15
Pollutant
Acrolein
Acrolein
Daily
Average
(ug/m3)
3.00
ฑ2.07
7.36
ฑ7.94
ATSDR
Short-term
MRL (ug/m3)
0.11
0.11
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
2
2
CAL EPA
REL
Acute
(ug/m3)
0.19
0.19
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
2
2
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(ug/m3)
0.09
0.09
Winter
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
NA
Spring
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
NA
Summer
Average
(Ug/m3)
NR
NR
Autumn
Average
(ug/m3)
NA
NA
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
to
to
-------
Table 16-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Oklahoma
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
u-
Component
of the Wind
V-
Component
of the Wind
Sea
Level
Pressure
Ponca City, OK- Site 1 - PCOK
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
15
2
17
17
10
7
17
0.01
0.01
-0.22
-0.13
-0.21
0.31
-0.05
0.41
NA
-0.40
0.35
-0.84
0.16
-0.41
-0.33
0.40
-0.82
-0.07
-0.35
-0.04
0.48
-0.48
-0.47
-0.04
-0.18
0.49
-0.73
-0.37
-0.19
0.35
-0.10
0.68
-0.21
0.36
-0.68
-0.09
-0.66
0.22
-0.70
0.01
0.26
-0.22
-0.21
-0.01
-0.78
-0.24
-0.80
0.02
-0.78
Ponca City, OK- Site 2 - POOK
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
/>-Dichlorobenzene
12
2
15
15
12
-0.27
-0.49
-0.12
-0.36
0.44
0.16
-0.24
-0.05
NA
-0.10
-0.18
-0.62
-0.09
-0.19
-0.39
0.05
0.11
-0.27
0.01
-0.01
-0.38
0.14
0.32
0.20
0.01
-0.11
-0.45
0.33
-0.18
0.37
-0.23
-0.17
-0.73
to
-------
Table 16-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the Oklahoma Monitoring Sites
Site
PCOK
POOK
2005 Estimated
County Population
46,480
46,480
Number of
Vehicles
Registered
37,218
37,218
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
0.80
0.80
Population Within
10 Miles
33,081
33,081
Estimated 10 mile
Vehicle Ownership
26,489
26,489
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
8,100
3,800
to
-------
Table 16-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in
Oklahoma
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Annual Average
(Ug/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Ug/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Site #1 in Ponca City, OK - PCOK, Census Tract 40071000500
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Xylenes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.02
0.04
0.02
<0.01
0.73
0.21
0.01
0.06
1.30
1.11
1.41
1.08
~
<0.01
5.69
3.15
0.15
0.32
~
~
0.02
0.90
O.01
0.02
0.01
<0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
Site #2 in Ponca City, OK - POOK, Census Tract 40071000400
1,3-Butadiene
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.08
0.03
1.20
0.21
0.01
0.06
2.29
~
9.38
3.18
0.15
0.35
0.04
1.27
0.04
0.01
0.01
O.01
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
16-25
-------
17.0 Sites in Puerto Rico
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
sites in Puerto Rico (BAPR and SJPR). SJPR is located in San Juan, and BAPR is located
further west in Barceloneta. Both sites lie on the northern coast of Puerto Rico. Figures 17-1
and 17-2 are topographical maps showing the monitoring sites in their urban and rural locations.
Figures 17-3 and 17-4 identify point source emission locations within 10 miles of each site as
reported in the 2002 NEI for point sources. As Figure 17-3 shows, many of the emission sources
near BAPR are located just east of the monitoring site and are involved in pharmaceutical
production. Many of the emission sources near SJPR are also located just east of the monitoring
site and are involved in chemical and allied product and fabricated metal product industries.
Hourly meteorological data at weather stations near these sites were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather station closest
to the Puerto Rico monitoring sites is Luis Munoz Marin International Airport (WBAN 11641).
The island of Puerto Rico is located in the northern Caribbean and experiences a tropical
climate, where the air is warm and humid year-round and rainfall is abundant. Breezy winds
flow from the northeast to east on average with the aid of the sub-tropical high pressure that
resides over the tropical Atlantic Ocean. However, the sea-breeze is a daily occurrence (Ruffner
and Bair, 1987). Table 17-1 presents average meteorological conditions of temperature (average
maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average wet-bulb
temperature, and average relative humidity), pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind
information (average u- and v- components of the wind) for the entire year and on days samples
were taken. As shown in Table 17-1, average meteorological conditions on sample days are
fairly representative of average weather conditions throughout the year.
17.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Puerto Rico Monitoring Sites
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest
is a modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured
17-1
-------
pollutant concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily
concentration value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those in which the individual pollutant's total failed
screens contribute to the top 95% of the site's total screens. A total of 81 HAPs are listed in the
guidance document as having risk screening values. Table 17-2 presents the pollutants that
failed at least one screen at the Puerto Rico monitoring sites. Fourteen pollutants with a total of
284 measured concentrations failed the screen at BAPR and 14 pollutants with a total of 272
measured concentrations failed the screen at SJPR. Interestingly, the pollutants with at least one
failed screen are the same at both sites. However, the pollutants of interest varied by site; the
following six pollutants contributed to the top 95% of the total failed screens at each Puerto Rico
monitoring site: benzene, acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, l,3-butadiene,/>-dichlorobenzene,
and acrolein. It's important to note that the Puerto Rico sites sampled for carbonyl compounds
and VOC only, and that this is reflected in each site's pollutants of interest.
Also listed in Table 17-2 are the total number of detects and the percent detects failing
the screen. Of the six pollutants that were the same for both sites, five pollutants of interest,
benzene, carbon tetrachloride, l,3-butadiene,/>-dichlorobenzene, and acrolein had 100% of their
detects fail the screening values. Formaldehyde, a pollutant of interest at SJPR, failed 36 of 40
screens at SJPR, but failed only 5 of 49 screens at BAPR. Dichloromethane, a pollutant of
interest at BAPR, failed 37 of 48 screens at BAPR, but failed only 3 of 34 screens at SJPR.
17.2 Concentration Averages at the Puerto Rico Monitoring Sites
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of interest: daily,
seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the average
concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a
seasonal average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all
non-detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects
in a respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
17-2
-------
later than February and ended no earlier than November. The daily and seasonal averages are
presented in Table 17-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in
later sections.
Among the daily averages at BAPR, dichloromethane measured the highest concentration
by mass (6.63 ฑ 2.03 ug/m3), followed by acrolein (1.98 ฑ 1.00 ug/m3) and acetaldehyde (1.44 ฑ
0.23 ug/m3). As the Puerto Rico sites did not begin monitoring until late February, no seasonal
average is available for winter. The seasonal averages of the pollutants of interest at BAPR did
not vary much, although the spring acetaldehyde average is slightly higher than the other
computable seasonal acetaldehyde averages. Acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and
dichloromethane were detected in every sample taken at BAPR.
Among the daily averages at SJPR, total xylenes measured the highest concentration by
mass (10.47 ฑ1.31 ug/m3), followed by acetaldehyde (6.21 ฑ 2.22 ug/m3) and formaldehyde
(2.24 ฑ 0.24 ug/m3). Similar to BAPR, the seasonal averages of the pollutants of interest at SJPR
did not vary much, although the spring acetaldehyde average is slightly higher than the other
computable seasonal acetaldehyde averages. No seasonal average is available for winter.
Acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, and total xylenes were detected in
every sample taken at SJPR.
17.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Puerto Rico Monitoring Sites
Non-chronic risk for the concentration data at Puerto Rico monitoring sites was evaluated
using ATSDR acute and intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) and California EPA acute
reference exposure limit (REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as exposures from 1 to 14 days
while intermediate risk is defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. It is useful to compare daily
measurements to the short-term MRL and REL factors, as well as compare seasonal averages to
the intermediate MRL. Of the pollutants with at least one failed screen, only acrolein exceeded
either the acute and intermediate risk values, and each site's non-chronic risk is summarized in
Table 17-4.
17-2
-------
All acrolein detects at the Puerto Rico monitoring sites were greater than the ATSDR
acute value of 0.11 ug/m3, and all but one exceeded the California REL value of 0.19 ug/m3.
The average detected concentration was 1.98 ฑ 1.00 ug/m3 at BAPR and 1.59 ฑ 0.54 ug/m3 at
SJPR, which are an order of magnitude higher than either acute risk factor. No seasonal
averages for acrolein could be calculated, therefore intermediate risk could not be evaluated.
For the pollutants that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. For both Puerto Rico monitoring sites, only acrolein concentrations
exceeded the acute risk factors. Figures 17-5 through 17-6 are pollution roses for acrolein at the
Puerto Rico sites. The pollution rose is a plot of concentration and wind direction. As shown in
Figures 17-5 through 17-6, and discussed above, nearly all acrolein concentrations exceeded the
acute risk factors, which are indicated by a dashed line (CalEPA REL) and solid line (ATSDR
MRL).
Figure 17-5 is the acrolein pollution rose for the BAPR monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with winds generally
originating from the east-northeast or east. The highest concentration of acrolein occurred on
December 30, 2005 with an east-northeasterly wind. However, it's important to note that winds
originated out of the east at BAPR on a majority of the sample days. BAPR is located just north
of a major road through Barceloneta, a town that lies to the west of San Juan. The immediate
vicinity is classified as residential and rural. Several pharmaceutical industries are located east
of the monitoring site.
Figure 17-6 is the acrolein pollution rose for the SJPR monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that most of the concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with winds
originating from the east-northeast. The highest concentration of acrolein occurred on July 3,
2005 with an east-northeasterly wind. However, it's important to note that winds originated out
of the east at SJPR on a majority of the sample days. SJPR is wedged between several major
roadways, including Highway 22, 5, and 167, just west of Fort Buchanan and Luchetti Industrial
Park.
17-4
-------
17.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Puerto Rico Monitoring Sites
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
17.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 17-5 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the Puerto Rico monitoring sites.
(Please refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) Acetaldehyde,
acrolein, and hexachloro-l,3-butadiene exhibited moderately strong to very strong negative
correlations with maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures at BAPR. Very
strong negative correlations were calculated for hexachloro-1,3-butadiene and the wind
parameters, and a strong positive correlation was computed for this pollutant and sea level
pressure. However, the low number of hexachloro-l,3-butadiene detects should be considered
when reviewing these correlations. Most of the remaining correlations at BAPR were weak.
Moderately strong to strong negative correlations at SJPR were calculated for
acetaldehyde, />-dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, and total xylenes and maximum, average,
dew point, and wet bulb temperatures, while moderately strong positive correlations were
computed for acrolein and formaldehyde. Several of the pollutants of interest at SJPR exhibited
moderately strong correlations with relative humidity. While the correlations with the v-
component of the wind were very weak, 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, and tetrachloroethylene
exhibited moderately strong to strong correlations with the w-component of the wind. Acrolein,
1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and/?-dichlorobenzene each had moderately strong to strong
correlations with sea level pressure.
17.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figures 17-7 thru 17-8 are composite back trajectory maps for the Puerto Rico
monitoring sites for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour
17-5
-------
trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day.
Each circle around the site represents 100 miles.
As shown in Figure 17-7, the back trajectories originated predominantly from the east at
BAPR. The 24-hour airshed domain is somewhat smaller at BAPR than other UATMP sites,
with few back trajectories originating over 500 miles away. Thirty-seven percent of the
trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site; and 82% originated within 400 miles from the
BAPR monitoring site.
As shown in Figure 17-8, the back trajectories originated predominantly from the east at
SJPR. The 24-hour airshed domain is similar to BAPR. Some back trajectories originated over
500 miles away. Forty percent of the trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site; and
83% originated within 400 miles from the SJPR monitoring site.
17.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from the Luis Munoz Marin International Airport were uploaded into a
wind rose software program, WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006). WRPLOT produces a graphical wind
rose from the wind data. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions about a 16-point
compass, and uses different shading to represent wind speeds. Figures 17-9 through 17-10 are
the wind roses for the Puerto Rico monitoring sites on days sampling occurred.
As indicated in Figure 17-9, hourly winds were predominantly out of the east (22% of
observations) and east-northeast (18%) on days samples were taken near BAPR. Calm winds
were observed for 36% of the observations. Wind speeds of 7 to 11 knots were recorded for
24% of the wind measurements, while the 2 to 4, 4 to 7, and 11 to 17 knot ranges were observed
for 13% of observations each. Winds tended to be somewhat stronger out of the east-northeast.
As indicated in Figure 17-10, the wind rose for SJPR resembles the wind rose from
BAPR. Hourly winds were predominantly out of east (22% of observations) and east-northeast
(17%) on days samples were taken near SJPR. Calm winds were observed for 36% of the
observations. Wind speeds of 7 to 11 knots were recorded for 23% of the wind measurements,
17-6
-------
while the 2 to 4, 4 to 7, and 11-17 knot ranges were observed for 13% of observations each.
Winds tended to be somewhat stronger out of the east-northeast.
The meteorological data show a predominant east wind flowing across the island due to
the Trade Winds. On a typical day, air generally passes over the SJPR monitoring site first, and
then towards the BAPR monitoring site 34 miles away. The location and distances of these
monitors are optimal for a downwind analysis.
At BAPR, dichloromethane has the highest daily concentration (6.63 ฑ 2.03 ug/m3), often
exceeding its screening value (37 failures in 48 detects). In contrast, the dichloromethane daily
average concentration at SJPR is 0.90 ฑ 0.30 ug/m3 and rarely exceeded its screening value (3
failures in 34 detects). This significant difference in concentration is likely attributed to three
pharmaceutical plants located between the two monitoring sites: Abbott Health Products, Inc.;
Bristol-Myers Squibb Manufacturing; and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals. According to the NEI (US
EPA, 2006a), these three facilities are the only dichloromethane emission sources in this region,
and emitted nearly 345 tons of this pollutant in 2002.
17.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following spatial
analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; and BTEX analysis.
17.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population in Bayamon and Barceloneta Municipo
were obtained from the Air Monitoring Division of Puerto Rico's Air Quality Program and the
U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in Table 17-6. Table 17-6 also includes a vehicle
registration to county population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within
10 miles of each site is presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed
using the 10-mile population surrounding the monitor and the vehicle registration ratio. Finally,
Table 17-6 contains the average daily traffic information, which represents the average number
of vehicles passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
17-7
-------
Table 17-6 shows that the BAPR monitoring site has a significantly lower county and 10-
mile population than the SJPR site, as well as a significantly lower county and estimated 10-mile
vehicle ownership. Compared to other UATMP sites, Barceloneta County has one of the lowest
county populations and vehicle registrations. However, both sites have comparatively low
registration-populations ratios. Interestingly, SJPR has the fifth-highest 10-mile population of all
the UATMP sites. While the daily traffic flow near BAPR is significantly lower than at SJPR,
these two sites experience two of the lowest traffic volumes compared to other UATMP
locations.
17.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to Section 3.2.1.4.). Table 3-11 presented
and Figure 3-4 depicted the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compared
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites in an effort to characterize the
impact of on-road, or motor vehicle, emissions. The ratios for BAPR and SJPR resemble those
of the roadside study. Of all the UATMP sites, BAPR most resembles the roadside study. This
indicates that mobile sources may contribute appreciably to concentrations at the Puerto Rico
sites.
17.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 17-7 presents the 1999
NATA results for the census tracts where the Puerto Rico monitoring sites are located. Only
pollutants that "failed" the screens are presented in Table 17-7. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
17-8
-------
17.6.1 1999 NATA Summary
The BAPR monitoring site is located in census tract 72017590300 with a population of
6,625, which represents 29.7% of the Barceloneta County population in 2000. The SJPR
monitoring site is located in census tract 72021030103, with a population of 4,814, which
represents 2.1% of Bayamon County's 2000 population. In terms of cancer risk, the BAPR site
is located in a census tract with the highest calculated cancer risk of all the 2005 UATMP
monitoring sites. The top 3 pollutants identified by NATA in the BAPR census tract are
dichloromethane (71.00 in-a-million risk), followed by benzene (16.41), and carbon tetrachloride
(10.35). The next highest modeled cancer risk at any UATMP site is 39.5 in a million for
benzene at MTMN. Most cancer risks are less than 20 in a million. The top 3 pollutants
identified by NATA in the SJPR census tract are tetrachloroethylene (18.04 in-a-million risk),
followed by benzene (17.06), and carbon tetrachloride (10.48). As with most UATMP sites,
acrolein was the only pollutant in the Puerto Rico census tracts to have a noncancer hazard
quotient greater than 1.0 (an HQ greater than 1.0 may lead to adverse health effects). Most
noncancer hazard quotients were less than 0.10, suggesting very little risk for noncancer health
affects, with the exception of acrolein.
17.6.2 Annual Average Comparison
NATA-modeled concentrations are assumed to be the average concentration that a person
breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid annual average representing an entire year, including
detects and non-detects, needs to be calculated (refer to Section 17.2 on how a valid annual
average is calculated). With few exceptions, the annual averages of the pollutants of interest at
BAPR were within one order of magnitude of the NATA-modeled concentrations. The modeled
concentration of dichloromethane (151.06 //g/m3) is significantly higher than the annual average
(6.63 ฑ 2.03 jug/m3). However, the annual average of this pollutant is the highest of the BAPR
pollutants of interest. The annual averages of several of the BAPR pollutants, such as 1,3-
butadiene and carbon tetrachloride, are very similar to the NATA-modeled concentrations. Most
of the annual averages of the pollutants of interest at SJPR were also within one order of
magnitude of the NATA-modeled concentrations Total xylenes had the highest annual average
of the SJPR pollutants of interest, as well as the highest NATA-modeled concentration. The
17-9
-------
annual averages of several of the pollutants, such as benzene and carbon tetrachloride, are very
similar to the NATA-modeled concentrations.
Puerto Rico Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest common to each Puerto Rico site are acetaldehyde, acrolein,
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, andp-dichlorobenzene.
Dichloromethane measured the highest daily average at BAPR, while total xylenes
measured highest at SJPR.
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at both Puerto Rico sites.
17-10
-------
Figure 17-1. Barceloneta, Puerto Rico (BAPR) Monitoring Site
Sffsl A iPptffwp^M?
Vy ^1<ง&i&'\?"t (fj&&R\ '^-''JJ!0%&/zaisSfil ^ฎW&?^3 fPJi'^ZS*
C^ST.> A-^ v Wf -T Wif^j^^f^fifclif^i '.j:^B' :^515S'Sll
:-- ?^fi ^^MปZH^^V^^ i^:$*
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
17-11
-------
Figure 17-2. San Juan, Puerto Rico (SJPR) Monitoring Site
mi^^m^s^M^^
D^^*Sr'-'?$&;" .u,-'f'A- -v >\v:;'
57 '"f*"^'s?'' ;. f*i *;,
p ^"f j?S&MJ
^- - -T, AL.^.'^ it- .-^y\* * ^ f-i ?.i JL^S
K^SSLi^Ws&SBy
m"r*fe^^^
- ;:KV-L-._S.V. ,\_J r*;.; . . *:t?;- ' ..
^UtiCSV/BsSh
?-~:-~&ffi&"~<. ";iisri!.^j^4^
^-..^^TTNL.'")' ;WA/r;,-^
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
17-12
-------
Figure 17-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BAPR
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities wilhin (he area of interest.
Legend
T*r BAPRUATMPsite
10 mile radius
_] County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
* Agricultural Chemicals Production Industrial Facility (1 )
- Business Services Facility (1)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (2)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (1 )
I Incineration Industrial Facility (2)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (9)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
t Unknown (2)
17-13
-------
Figure 17-4. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SJPR
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
fr SJPR UATMP site
O 10 mile radius
^ County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (2)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (2)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (5)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (1)
P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (1)
o Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
u stone, Clay. Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
17-14
-------
Figure 17-5. Acrolein Pollution Rose at BAPR
Ol
o
g 0
O
I 1
NW
W
N
CAEPAREL(0.19|jg/mJ)
-ATSDRMRL(0.11 |jg/m3)
NE
* *
sw
Avg Cone =1.98 ฑ 1.00 ug/nr
SE
1 o 1
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 17-6. Acrolein Pollution Rose at SJPR
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
t Concentration
o o -^
b oi b
jf 0.5
S. 1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
A n
NW N
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
-
-
w ,,--;
-
-
-
-
Ava Cone =1 .59 ฑ 0.54 ua/m3
-
sw
S
NE
V ** * *
Jf.
*
SE
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5
Pollutant Concentration
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
-------
Figure 17-7. Composite Back Trajectory Map for Barceloneta, Puerto Rico (BAPR)
-------
Figure 17-8. Composite Back Trajectory Map for San Juan, Puerto Rico (SJPR)
oo
-------
Figure 17-9. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the BAPR Monitoring Site
WEST!
vo
SOUTH.-'
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | >=22
17 - 21
11 - 17
i | 7- 11
^| 2- 4
Calms: 35.65%
-------
Figure 17-10. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the SJPR Monitoring Site
WEST!
to
o
SOUTH
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | >=22
17 - 21
11 - 17
EH 7-11
n 4-7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 36.12%
-------
Table 17-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Puerto Rico
Site
BAPR
SJPR
WBAN
11641
11641
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(ฐF)
85.87
ฑ0.41
87.49
ฑ0.80
85.87
ฑ0.41
87.33
ฑ0.85
Average
Temperature
<ฐF)
80.02
ฑ0.33
81.13
ฑ0.73
80.02
ฑ0.33
80.98
ฑ0.77
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(ฐF)
72.06
ฑ0.38
73.15
ฑ0.74
72.06
ฑ0.38
73.09
ฑ0.73
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(ฐF)
74.57
ฑ0.32
75.59
ฑ0.64
74.57
ฑ0.32
75.51
ฑ0.65
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
77.50
ฑ0.59
77.55
ฑ1.28
77.50
ฑ0.59
77.78
ฑ1.33
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1014.49
ฑ0.21
1014.40
ฑ0.53
1014.49
ฑ0.21
1014.45
ฑ0.52
Average
w-component
of the wind
-3.86
ฑ0.34
-3.99
ฑ0.70
-3.86
ฑ0.34
-3.89
ฑ0.72
Average
v-component
of the wind
-1.49
ฑ0.25
-0.68
ฑ0.52
-1.49
ฑ0.25
-0.68
ฑ0.51
to
-------
Table 17-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values
at the Puerto Rico Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
% of Detects
Failing
% of Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico - BAPR
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dichloro methane
1,3 -Butadiene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrolein
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Formaldehyde
Xylenes
Tetrachloroethylene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Total
48
48
48
37
37
35
10
7
5
3
3
1
1
1
284
48
49
48
48
37
35
10
7
49
48
8
1
14
1
403
100.0
98.0
100.0
77.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
10.2
6.3
37.5
100.0
7.1
100.0
70.5
16.9%
16.9%
16.9%
13.0%
13.0%
12.3%
3.5%
2.5%
1.8%
1.1%
1.1%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
16.9%
33.8%
50.7%
63.7%
76.8%
89.1%
92.6%
95.1%
96.8%
97.9%
98.9%
99.3%
99.6%
100.0%
San Juan, Puerto Rico - SJPR
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
Acrolein
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Dichloro methane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Total
40
40
40
36
30
27
23
19
6
5
3
1
1
1
272
40
40
40
40
30
27
26
40
6
5
34
1
1
7
337
100.0
100.0
100.0
90.0
100.0
100.0
88.5
47.5
100.0
100.0
8.8
100.0
100.0
14.3
80.7
14.7%
14.7%
14.7%
13.2%
11.0%
9.9%
8.5%
7.0%
2.2%
1.8%
1.1%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
14.7%
29.4%
44.1%
57.4%
68.4%
78.3%
86.8%
93.8%
96.0%
97.8%
98.9%
99.3%
99.6%
100.0%
17-22
-------
Table 17-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Puerto Rico Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Barceloneta, PR - BAPR
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dichloromethane
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
37
49
10
48
48
48
7
35
48
49
28
48
48
48
48
48
0.18
1.44
1.98
1.20
0.66
6.63
0.15
0.63
0.03
0.23
1.00
0.14
0.04
2.03
0.04
0.11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
1.61
NA
1.24
0.57
6.86
NR
NR
NR
0.31
NA
0.17
0.05
4.65
NR
NR
0.19
1.11
NR
1.35
0.67
8.71
NR
0.55
0.06
0.15
NR
0.34
0.03
3.41
NR
0.18
0.16
1.04
NR
1.09
0.75
4.75
NR
0.64
0.02
0.22
NR
0.18
0.08
2.13
NR
0.17
SanJuan,PR-SJPR
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
30
40
6
40
40
40
27
26
40
40
40
20
40
40
40
40
40
40
0.28
6.21
1.59
2.14
0.63
2.24
1.11
0.33
10.47
0.05
2.22
0.54
0.25
0.05
0.24
0.29
0.05
1.31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
9.32
NA
2.07
0.54
2.30
NR
NR
11.69
NR
4.36
NA
0.27
0.06
0.57
NR
NR
1.71
0.26
3.88
NR
2.17
0.60
2.14
0.65
0.26
9.85
0.09
1.03
NR
0.60
0.08
0.33
0.29
0.07
2.55
0.33
3.01
NR
2.29
0.76
2.40
1.08
0.31
9.59
0.09
0.75
NR
0.45
0.07
0.24
0.40
0.05
2.59
to
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = No reportable due to the low number of detects.
-------
Table 17-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Puerto Rico Monitoring Sites
Site
BAPR
SJPR
Method
TO- 15
TO- 15
Pollutant
Acrolein
Acrolein
Daily
Average
(Mg/m3)
1.98 ฑ1.00
1.59 ฑ0.54
ATSDR
Short-term
MRL
(Mg/m3)
0.11
0.11
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
10
6
CAL EPA
REL Acute
(Mg/m3)
0.19
0.19
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
9
6
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(ug/m3)
0.09
0.09
Winter
Average
(ug/m3)
NA
NA
Spring
Average
(Mg/m3)
NA
NA
Summer
Average
(Mg/m3)
NR
NR
Autumn
Average
(Mg/m3)
NR
NR
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = No reportable due to the low number of detects.
to
-------
Table 17-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Puerto Rico
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
M-Component
of the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea
Level
Pressure
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico - BAPR
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dichloromethane
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
37
49
10
48
48
48
7
35
0.05
-0.51
-0.12
0.12
-0.10
-0.04
-0.72
0.19
0.08
-0.64
-0.27
0.10
-0.10
-0.06
-0.48
0.24
0.13
-0.59
-0.28
0.21
0.07
0.12
-0.32
0.11
0.12
-0.65
-0.29
0.18
0.02
0.07
-0.37
0.16
0.06
0.03
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.25
0.30
-0.21
-0.12
-0.04
0.12
0.28
0.01
-0.24
-0.79
-0.20
-0.09
0.01
0.06
0.10
-0.04
-0.01
-0.83
-0.20
0.24
0.23
-0.18
-0.01
-0.12
-0.03
0.54
0.04
San Juan, Puerto Rico - SJPR
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
30
40
6
40
40
40
27
26
40
-0.04
-0.18
0.33
-0.12
0.00
0.26
-0.22
-0.62
-0.23
-0.06
-0.43
0.39
-0.20
0.03
0.25
-0.17
-0.68
-0.33
0.18
-0.64
0.34
0.02
0.09
0.31
-0.29
-0.62
-0.30
0.12
-0.62
0.37
-0.04
0.08
0.32
-0.26
-0.67
-0.33
0.35
-0.33
-0.35
0.27
0.07
0.12
-0.23
0.22
-0.01
0.31
0.17
-0.56
0.20
-0.02
0.11
-0.09
0.40
0.11
0.05
0.15
0.03
-0.04
-0.03
0.10
-0.06
-0.04
-0.10
-0.25
0.24
0.33
-0.09
-0.24
-0.52
0.29
0.02
0.17
-------
Table 17-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the Puerto Rico Monitoring Sites
Site
BAPR
SJPR
2005 Estimated
County
Population
22,829
222,195
Number of
Vehicles
Registered
13,912
145,642
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
0.61
0.66
Population
Within 10 Miles
235,376
1,447,174
Estimated 10
mile Vehicle
Ownership
143,438
948,578
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
10
250
to
-------
Table 17-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites
in Puerto Rico
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico - BAPR, Census Tract 72017590300
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
0.15 ฑ0.01
0.09 ฑ0.01
0.16 ฑ0.03
1.44 ฑ0.23
NA
1.20 ฑ0.14
0.66 ฑ 0.04
6.63 ฑ 2.03
0.66 ฑ0.09
1.05 ฑ0.16
0.51 ฑ0.10
0.21 ฑ0.11
0.15 ฑ0.04
5.31 ฑ0.70
0.01
0.05
0.13
0.27
0.13
2.10
0.69
151.06
1.01
O.01
0.06
0.25
0.12
3.91
0.01
1.24
3.79
0.59
16.41
10.35
71.00
0.01
0.03
0.62
1.45
0.23
~
O.01
0.06
0.03
6.42
0.07
0.02
0.15
0.10
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.04
San Juan, Puerto Rico - SJPR, Census Tract 72021030103
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
0.15 ฑ0.01
0.10 ฑ0.01
0.23 ฑ 0.05
6.21 ฑ2.22
NA
2.14 ฑ0.25
0.63 ฑ 0.05
0.78 ฑ0.27
2.24 ฑ 0.24
1.01 ฑ0.27
0.80 ฑ0.24
0.27 ฑ 0.04
0.20 ฑ0.15
10.47 ฑ1.31
0.01
0.05
0.08
0.22
0.14
2.19
0.70
1.48
0.83
O.01
0.18
3.06
0.59
4.20
0.01
1.25
2.44
0.49
17.06
10.48
0.69
O.01
0.03
1.98
18.04
1.19
~
O.01
0.04
0.02
7.15
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.08
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
NA = Not available due to the short sampling duration.
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
17-27
-------
18.0 Sites in South Dakota
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
sites in South Dakota (CUSD and SFSD). One site is located in Sioux Falls, in southeastern
South Dakota, and the other is in Custer, in western South Dakota, south of Rapid City.
Figures 18-1 and 18-2 are topographical maps showing the monitoring sites in their urban and
rural locations. Figures 18-3 and 18-4 identify point source emission locations within 10 miles
of the sites that reported to the 2002 NEI for point sources. The CUSD map shows no point
source emission locations within 10 miles of the monitoring site. The SFSD map shows that
there are very few industrial facilities near the monitoring site; most of these facilities are to the
northwest of the site.
Hourly meteorological data at weather stations near these sites were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather station closest
to the CUSD monitoring site is Custer County Airport (WBAN 94032); the closest weather
station to SFSD is Sioux Falls Joe Foss Field Airport (WBAN 14944).
The Sioux Falls area has a continental climate, with cold winters, warm summers, and
often drastic day to day variations. Precipitation varies throughout the year, but is typically
sufficient for the springtime growing season. On average, a south wind blows in the summer and
a northwesterly wind blows in the winter. The weather in Custer is considered semi-arid
continental; annual precipitation is light. Warm summers and relatively mild winters are
characteristic of this area, thanks to the Black Hills to the west, allowing winters to be milder in
comparison to the rest of the state (Ruffner and Bair, 1987). Table 18-1 presents average
meteorological conditions of temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average
dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), pressure
(average sea level pressure), and wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind)
for the entire year and on days samples were taken. As shown in Table 18-1, average
meteorological conditions on sample days are fairly representative of average weather conditions
throughout the year.
18-1
-------
18.1 Pollutants of Interest at the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest
is a modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured
pollutant concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily
concentration value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those in which the individual pollutant's total failed
screens contribute to the top 95% of the site's total screens. A total of 81 HAPs are listed in the
guidance document as having risk screening values. Table 18-2 presents the pollutants that
failed at least one screen at the South Dakota monitoring sites. Ten pollutants with a total of 294
measured concentrations failed the screen at CUSD and 15 pollutants with a total of 289
measured concentrations failed the screen at SFSD. The pollutants of interest varied by site, yet
the following six pollutants contributed to the top 95% of the total failed screens at each South
Dakota monitoring site: benzene, acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, 1,3-
butadiene, and acrolein. It's important to note that the South Dakota sites sampled for carbonyl
pollutants, SNMOC, and VOC, and that this is reflected in each site's pollutants of interest.
Also listed in Table 18-2 are the total number of detects and the percent detects failing the
screen. Of the six pollutants that were the same among both sites, three pollutants of interest,
benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and acrolein had 100% of their detects fail screens.
18.2 Concentration Averages at the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of interest: daily,
seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the average
concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a
seasonal average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all
non-detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects
in a respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no earlier than November. The daily and seasonal averages are
18-2
-------
presented in Table 18-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in
later sections.
Among the daily averages at CUSD, acrolein measured the highest concentration by mass
(2.25 ฑ 0.61 ug/m3), followed by formaldehyde (1.73 ฑ 0.20 ug/m3) and acetaldehyde (1.30 ฑ
0.14 ug/m3). Seasonal averages for some of the pollutants of interest are not available due to the
low number of detects. The seasonal averages of some of the pollutants of interest at CUSD did
not vary much, although the autumn seasonal average of 1,3-butadiene is slightly higher than the
summer average. Acetaldehyde, benzene, and formaldehyde were detected in every sample
taken at CUSD.
Among the daily averages at SFSD, formaldehyde measured the highest concentration by
mass (4.11 ฑ 0.71 ug/m3), followed by acetaldehyde (3.22 ฑ 0.49 ug/m3), and acrolein (1.61 ฑ
0.78 ug/m3). Similar to CUSD, seasonal averages for some of the pollutants of interest are not
available due to the low number of detects. The seasonal averages of many of the pollutants of
interest at SFSD did not vary much, although the summer seasonal average of formaldehyde is
higher than the other seasonal averages. Acetaldehyde, benzene, and formaldehyde were
detected in every sample taken at SFSD.
18.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Non-chronic risk for the concentration data at the South Dakota monitoring sites was
evaluated using ATSDR acute and intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) and California EPA
acute reference exposure limit (REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as exposures from 1 to 14
days while intermediate risk is defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. It is useful to compare
daily measurements to the short-term MRL and REL factors, as well as compare seasonal
averages to the intermediate MRL. Of the pollutants with at least one failed screen, only acrolein
exceeded either the acute and intermediate risk values, and each site's non-chronic risk is
summarized in Table 18-4.
All acrolein detects at the South Dakota monitoring sites were greater than the ATSDR
acute value of 0.11 ug/m3 and the California REL value of 0.19 ug/m3. The average detected
18-2
-------
concentration was 1.61 ฑ 0.78 ug/m3 at SFSD and 2.25 ฑ 0.61 ug/m3 at CUSD, which are an
order of magnitude higher than either acute risk factor. With the exception of autumn at CUSD,
no seasonal averages for acrolein could be calculated. At CUSD, the autumn acrolein average
was 1.64 ฑ 0.81 ug/m3. This value is significantly higher than the ATSDR intermediate risk
value.
For the pollutants that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. For both South Dakota monitoring sites, only acrolein concentrations
exceeded the acute risk factors. Figures 18-5 through 18-6 are pollution roses for acrolein at the
South Dakota sites. A pollution rose is a plot of concentration and wind direction. As shown in
Figures 18-5 through 18-6, and discussed above, all acrolein concentrations exceeded the acute
risk factors, which are indicated by a dashed line (CalEPA REL) and solid line (ATSDR MRL).
Figure 18-5 is the acrolein pollution rose for the CUSD monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with a variety of wind
directions, although most frequently with winds from the west or northwest. The highest
concentration of acrolein occurred on September 19, 2005 with a westerly wind. Given that no
point sources are located within ten miles of the CUSD site, acrolein concentrations may be
attributable to mobile sources. The monitoring site is located near the intersection of two major
roadways in the area.
Figure 18-6 is the acrolein pollution rose for the SFSD monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with a variety of wind
directions, which is consistent with mobile source emissions, although the pollution rose shows
no concentrations of acrolein occurring with easterly winds. The highest concentration of
acrolein occurred on December 24, 2005 with a northwesterly wind. Most point sources within
10 miles of the SFSD site were located towards the northwest. As Figure 18-2 shows, the SFSD
site is located near major roadways, such as 1-229 and Highway 42.
18-4
-------
18.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
18.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 18-5 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the South Dakota monitoring sites.
(Please refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) Moderately strong
to strong negative correlations were calculated for 1,3-butadiene and benzene and maximum,
average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures at CUSD, while very strong positive correlations
were calculated for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane and these same parameters. It's important to note
that 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane was detected relatively few times at CUSD, which can skew the
correlations. Carbon tetrachloride also exhibited moderately strong positive correlations with the
moisture parameters, and formaldehyde exhibited moderately strong positive correlations with
maximum and average temperatures. Most of the remaining correlations were weak at CUSD.
With the exception of acetaldehyde, nearly all the correlations with maximum, average,
dew point, and wet bulb temperatures were moderately strong to strong, indicating that
temperature and moisture influence the concentrations of the pollutants of interest at SFSD.
Acrolein, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene exhibited moderately
strong positive correlations with relative humidity. The strongest correlations with the wind
components were computed for 1,3-butadiene (0.33 with the w-component and -0.38 with the
v-component). Benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde exhibited moderately strong
correlations with sea level pressure.
18.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figures 18-7 thru 18-8 are composite back trajectory maps for the South Dakota
monitoring sites for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour
18-5
-------
trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day.
Each circle around the site represents 100 miles.
As shown in Figure 18-7, the back trajectories originated predominantly from the
southwest, west, and northwest at CUSD. The 24-hour airshed domain is somewhat large at
CUSD, with trajectories originating as far away as Alberta, Canada, over 600 miles away.
Nearly 66% of the trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site; and 82% within 400 miles
from the CUSD monitoring site.
As shown in Figure 18-8, the back trajectories originated predominantly from the south,
northwest, and north at SFSD. The 24-hour airshed domain is larger at SFSD, with trajectories
originating as far away as Alberta, Canada, over 800 miles away. Nearly 44% of the trajectories
originated within 300 miles of the site; and 78% within 500 miles from the SFSD monitoring
site.
18.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from the Custer County and Foss Field Airports were uploaded into a
wind rose software program, WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006). WRPLOT produces a graphical wind
rose from the wind data. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions about a 16-point
compass, and uses different shading to represent wind speeds. Figures 18-9 through 18-10 are
the wind roses for the South Dakota monitoring sites on days sampling occurred.
As indicated in Figure 18-9, hourly winds were predominantly out of the west (16% of
observations), west-southwest (11%), and west-northwest (9%) on days samples were taken near
CUSD. Calm winds (< 2 knots) were observed for 16% of the observations. Wind speeds of 7
to 11 knots were recorded for 34% of the wind measurements.
As indicated in Figure 18-10, hourly winds were predominantly out of south (12% of
observations), west (10%), and northwest (9%) on days samples were taken near SFSD. Calm
winds were observed for 12% of the observations. Wind speeds of 7 to 11 knots were recorded
18-6
-------
for 39% of the wind measurements. Wind speeds greater than 22 knots were measured most
frequently with a west or northwesterly direction.
18.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following spatial
analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; BTEX analysis; and
ethylene to acetylene ratio analysis.
18.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population in Custer and Minnehaha Counties were
obtained from the South Dakota Department of Revenue and Regulation and the U.S. Census
Bureau, and are summarized in Table 18-6. Table 18-6 also includes a vehicle registration to
county population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each
site is presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile
population surrounding the monitor and the vehicle registration ratio. Finally, Table 18-6
contains the average daily traffic information, which represents the average number of vehicles
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
It's evident from Table 18-6 that the CUSD monitoring site has a significantly lower
county and 10-mile population than the SFSD site, as well as a significantly lower county and
estimated 10-mile vehicle ownership. CUSD has the lowest county and 10-mile population and
county and 10-mile vehicle registration of all participating UATMP sites. However, the CUSD
site has the highest registration-population ratio. While the daily traffic flow near CUSD is
significantly lower than at SFSD, these two sites' daily traffic counts are both on the low end
compared to other UATMP sites.
18.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to Section 3.2.1.4). Table 3-11 presented
and Figure 3-4 depicted the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compared
18-7
-------
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites in an effort to characterize the
impact of on-road, or motor vehicle, emissions. At both South Dakota sites, the benzene-
ethylbenzene ratio is higher than the xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio, which is the opposite of the
roadside study. At CUSD, the benzene-ethylbenzene ratio and toluene-ethylbenzene ratios (4.77
ฑ 0.59 and 5.25 ฑ 0.47, respectively) are much closer together than they are for the roadside
study (2.85 and 4.55, respectively).
18.5.3 Mobile Tracer Analysis
As previously stated, CUSD and SFSD sampled for SNMOC in addition to VOC.
Acetylene is a pollutant that is primarily emitted from mobile sources, while ethylene is emitted
from mobile sources, petroleum refining facilities, and natural gas distribution facilities. Tunnel
studies conducted on mobile sources have found that concentrations of ethyl ene and acetylene
are typically present in a 1.7 to 1 ratio. (For more information, please refer to Section 3.2.1.3.)
Listed in Table 3-10 is the ethylene to acetylene ratio for the South Dakota monitoring sites.
As shown, SFSD's ethylene-acetylene ratio, 1.38 ฑ 0.21, is somewhat lower than the 1.7
ratio. CUSD's ethylene-acetylene ratio, 1.58 ฑ 0.35 is closer to the 1.7 ratio, although still
lower. These ratios suggest that while mobile sources may be influencing the air quality at the
South Dakota monitoring sites, there may also be atmospheric chemical processes affecting the
quantities of ethylene in these areas. Known sinks of ethylene include reactions with ozone, as
well as soil (National Library of Medicine).
18.6 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2004, and are still participating in the
2005 program year (i.e., minimum 3 consecutive years), a site-specific trends analysis was
conducted. Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.3.4. The
CUSD monitoring site has participated in the UATMP since 2002, as shown in Figure 18-11.
The following observations can be made:
Formaldehyde concentrations seem to have decreased somewhat since 2002.
However, the large confidence interval, represented by the error bars, in 2004
18-8
-------
indicates that the formaldehyde concentration in 2004 may have been driven
upward by a few outliers.
Similarly, 1,3-butadiene concentrations appear to decrease over the four year
period, but the large confidence interval in 2002 indicates that the decrease is not
statistically significant.
Benzene concentrations have not changed significantly since 2002 at CUSD.
The SFSD has been a UATMP site since 2000. The following observations can be made:
Carbonyl compounds were not sampled for at SFSD until 2002, as indicated in
Figure 18-12. The large confidence interval, represented by the error bars in
2002, indicates that the formaldehyde concentration may have been driven
upward by a few outliers, which makes it difficult to determine if formaldehyde
concentrations actually decreased from 2002 to 2003. Formaldehyde
concentrations have remained roughly the same since 2003.
The 1,3-butadiene concentration was highest in 2002, similar to formaldehyde,
but again, the high confidence interval indicates that the formaldehyde
concentration may have been driven upward by a few outliers. In 2004, 1,3-
butadiene was detected only once at SFSD, as the absence of a confidence interval
indicates. If 2003 and 2004 are omitted, 1,3-butadiene concentrations seem to be
decreasing slightly.
Benzene concentrations have not changed significantly since 2000.
18.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 18-7 presents the 1999
NATA results for the census tracts where the South Dakota monitoring sites are located. Only
pollutants that "failed" the screens are presented in Table 18-7. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
18-9
-------
18.7.1 1999 NATA Summary
The CUSD monitoring site is located in census tract 46033995200 with a population of
2,758, which represents 37.9% of the Custer County population in 2000. The SFSD monitoring
site is located in census tract 46099001802, with a population of 7,498, which represents 5.1% of
Minnehaha County's 2000 population. In terms of cancer risk, the top 3 pollutants identified by
NATA in the CUSD census tract are carbon tetrachloride (3.11 in-a-million risk), followed by
benzene (2.07), and acetaldehyde (0.95). The top 3 pollutants identified by NATA in the SFSD
census tract are benzene (5.41 in-a-million risk), followed by carbon tetrachloride (3.12), and
1,3-butadiene (1.82). As with most UATMP sites, acrolein was the only pollutant in the South
Dakota census tracts to have a noncancer hazard quotient greater than 1.0 (an HQ greater than
1.0 may lead to adverse health effects). Most noncancer hazard quotients were less than 0.10,
suggesting very little risk for noncancer health affects, with the exception of acrolein.
18.7.2 Annual Average Comparison
NATA-modeled concentrations are assumed to be the average concentration that a person
breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid annual average representing an entire year, including
detects and non-detect, needs to be calculated (refer to Section 18.2 on how a valid annual
average is calculated). The annual averages of the South Dakota sites were generally within one
order of magnitude of the NATA-modeled concentrations. Many of the annual averages were
very similar to the modeled averages at the SFSD monitoring site. For example, the annual
average concentration of benzene is 0.70 ฑ0.10 jug/m3 while the NATA-modeled concentration
is 0.69 jug/m3. The concentrations were less similar at CUSD. For the pollutants whose
concentrations differ by more than one order of magnitude, the NATA-modeled concentration
was often <0.01 jug/m3.
18-10
-------
South Dakota Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest common to each of the South Dakota sites are acetaldehyde,
acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, and formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at SFSD, while acrolein measured
highest at CUSD. Formaldehyde was highest in summer at SFSD, while 1,3'-butadiene
was highest in autumn at CUSD.
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at both South Dakota sites.
A comparison of formaldehyde, benzene and 1,3-butadiene concentrations for all years
of UATMP participation shows that concentrations of formaldehyde have been
decreasing at CUSD since 2002.
18-11
-------
Figure 18-1. Custer, South Dakota (CUSD) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
18-12
-------
Figure 18-2. Sioux Falls, South Dakota (SFSD) Monitoring Site
X
V
1 : ^
is
.
2-
C'v-' i :t
$m
\
\ i'
\
' i;
,
.
, I
^. ปv
..A^O .
rv&?=^
-
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
18-13
-------
Figure 18-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CUSD
lOS'SB'O'W t03*3ffO"W ICS'Jfi'Cr'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent al facilities within the area of interest
Legend
T*T CUSD UATMP site
O 10 mile radius
~J County boundary
There were no facilities in the 2002 NEI within 10 miles of CUSD.
18-14
-------
Figure 18-4. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SFSD
Note: Due to-facility dimity and collocalicn, the total facilities
dsplayed may no- represent aM facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
^T SFSD UATM P site
0 10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (1)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (2)
Q Primary Metat Industries Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
T Transportation Equipment (1)
18-15
-------
Figure 18-5. Acrolein Pollution Rose at CUSD
oo
o
4=
11
Ol
o
ง 0
O
4-1
c
s 1
2
NW
W
sw
N
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDRMRL(0.11 |jg/m3)
NE
Ava Cone =2.25 ฑ 0.61 ua/m3
SE
1 0 1
Pollutant Concentration
234567
-------
Figure 18-6. Acrolein Pollution Rose at SFSD
oo
6
5
4
3
2
O
73
ฃ 1
Ol
o
ง 0
O
ollutant
2
3
4
5
6
7
NW N
*
,
w ป :
1 *
.
<
-
-
Ava Cone =1 .61 ฑ 0.78 ua/m3
sw
s
NE
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
-, E
.,'
SE
765432
1 0 1
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 18-7. Composite Back Trajectory Map for CUSD
D 25 50 100 150 200
Miles
-------
Figure 18-8. Composite Back Trajectory Map for SFSD
4-
0 50 100 200 300 400 !
Miles
-------
Figure 18-9. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the CUSD Monitoring Site
oo
to
o
NORTH'
20%
16%
12%
; EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
SOUTH .--'
17 - 21
d] 11 - 17
I j 7- 11
I I A- 7
H 2- 4
Calms: 15.83%
-------
Figure 18-10. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the SFSD Monitoring Site
NORTH1"'--.
oo
to
15%
SOUTH ,--"
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | *=22
17 - 21
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I I 4- 7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 12.20%
-------
Figure 18-11. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the CUSD Monitoring Site
oo
to
to
3.5
3 -
2.5
o
U
2 1.5
-------
Figure 18-12. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the SFSD Monitoring Site
10
I
o
U
6 --
oo
to
4 --
0 -I-
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
D 1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Table 18-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in South Dakota
Site
CUSD
SFSD
WBAN
94032
14944
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(ฐF)
55.73
ฑ1.94
55.59
ฑ4.72
58.05
ฑ2.40
57.05
ฑ6.03
Average
Temperature
(ฐF)
44.86
ฑ1.78
44.01
ฑ4.42
48.26
ฑ2.27
47.47
ฑ5.70
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(ฐF)
27.33
ฑ1.55
26.72
ฑ3.94
38.71
ฑ2.14
38.12
ฑ5.35
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
<ฐF)
36.97
ฑ1.45
36.29
ฑ3.70
43.54
ฑ2.07
42.85
ฑ5.21
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
55.72
ฑ1.64
55.98
ฑ3.52
72.48
ฑ1.18
72.92
ฑ2.76
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1014.00
ฑ0.71
1014.94
ฑ1.94
1015.31
ฑ0.80
1016.1
ฑ2.19
Average
ซ-component
of the wind
2.47
ฑ0.39
2.17
ฑ0.90
0.08
ฑ0.54
0.87
ฑ1.19
Average
v-component
of the wind
-0.84
ฑ0.30
-0.64
ฑ0.62
0.54
ฑ0.67
-0.45
ฑ1.49
oo
to
-------
Table 18-2. Comparison of Measured Concentration and EPA
Screening Values at the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
%of
Detects
Failing
%of
Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Custer, South Dakota - CUSD
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrolein
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Total
60
59
51
51
33
18
10
5
5
2
294
60
60
60
51
35
18
10
5
16
2
317
100.00
98.33
85.00
100.00
94.29
100.00
100.00
100.00
31.25
100.00
20.4%
20.1%
17.3%
17.3%
11.2%
6.1%
3.4%
1.7%
1.7%
0.7%
20.4%
40.5%
57.8%
75.2%
86.4%
92.5%
95.9%
97.6%
99.3%
100.0%
Sioux Falls, South Dakota - SFSD
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Acrolein
Tetrachloroethylene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Xylenes
Acrylonitrile
Chloromethylbenzene
Dichloro methane
Trichloroethylene
Total
59
59
56
53
21
12
12
4
o
J
3
2
2
1
1
1
289
59
59
59
53
27
12
12
14
12
3
59
2
1
36
5
413
100.00
100.00
94.92
100.00
77.78
100.00
100.00
28.57
25.00
100.00
3.39
100.00
100.00
2.78
20.00
20.4%
20.4%
19.4%
18.3%
7.3%
4.2%
4.2%
1.4%
1.0%
1.0%
0.7%
0.7%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
20.4%
40.8%
60.2%
78.5%
85.8%
90.0%
94.1%
95.5%
96.5%
97.6%
98.3%
99.0%
99.3%
99.7%
100.0%
18-25
-------
Table 18-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Custer, South Dakota - CUSD
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
10
35
60
18
60
51
60
60
60
60
31
60
60
60
0.15
0.10
1.30
2.25
0.78
0.55
1.73
0.03
0.03
0.14
0.61
0.13
0.04
0.20
NR
NR
1.47
NA
1.26
0.42
2.04
NR
NR
0.33
NA
0.23
0.08
0.49
NR
NR
1.03
NA
0.40
0.35
1.16
NR
NR
0.24
NA
0.12
0.08
0.26
NR
0.07
1.36
NR
0.55
0.63
2.08
NR
0.01
0.25
NR
0.07
0.06
0.33
NR
0.13
1.30
1.64
0.87
0.56
1.61
NR
0.03
0.21
0.81
0.29
0.07
0.26
Sioux Falls, South Dakota - SFSD
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
27
59
12
59
53
59
12
14
59
59
30
59
59
59
59
59
0.07
3.22
1.61
0.70
0.59
4.11
0.16
0.51
0.02
0.49
0.78
0.09
0.04
0.71
0.03
0.69
NR
3.24
NA
0.90
0.47
2.37
NR
NR
NR
1.31
NA
0.19
0.09
0.95
NR
NR
NR
2.71
NA
0.58
0.42
3.13
NR
NR
NR
0.88
NA
0.17
0.08
0.71
NR
NR
0.08
3.68
NR
0.62
0.69
7.16
NR
NR
0.01
1.00
NR
0.12
0.05
1.56
NR
NR
0.11
3.21
NR
0.69
0.62
3.64
0.89
0.11
0.02
0.64
NR
0.22
0.11
0.80
0.41
0.03
oo
to
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
-------
Table 18-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Site
CUSD
SFSD
Method
TO-15
TO-15
Pollutant
Acrolein
Acrolein
Daily Average
(ug/m3)
2.25
ฑ0.61
1.61
ฑ0.78
ATSDR
Short-term
MRL
(ug/m3)
0.11
0.11
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
18
12
CAL EPA
REL Acute
(Ug/m3)
0.19
0.19
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
18
12
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(Ug/m3)
0.09
0.09
Winter
Average
(Mg/m3)
NA
NA
Spring
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
NA
Summer
Average
(Mg/m3)
NR
NR
Autumn
Average
(Mg/m3)
1.64
ฑ0.81
NR
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
oo
to
-------
Table 18-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the South Dakota
Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
w-Component
of the Wind
V-
Component
of the Wind
Sea
Level
Pressure
Custer, South Dakota - CUSD
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
10
35
60
18
60
51
60
0.68
-0.47
0.15
0.09
-0.36
0.21
0.30
0.72
-0.52
0.07
0.02
-0.41
0.24
0.25
0.85
-0.59
-0.01
-0.06
-0.44
0.34
0.16
0.81
-0.55
0.03
0.00
-0.43
0.30
0.21
-0.02
-0.26
-0.18
-0.23
-0.09
0.27
-0.23
-0.10
0.27
-0.19
0.23
0.23
-0.19
-0.14
0.01
-0.01
0.30
0.21
0.06
0.14
0.22
0.09
0.31
0.20
-0.03
0.26
-0.10
0.22
Sioux Falls, South Dakota - SFSD
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
27
59
12
59
53
59
12
14
-0.47
0.06
0.20
-0.37
0.20
0.55
-0.67
0.45
-0.48
0.03
0.25
-0.36
0.24
0.58
-0.62
0.48
-0.45
0.03
0.30
-0.32
0.31
0.58
-0.54
0.45
-0.47
0.03
0.27
-0.35
0.27
0.59
-0.60
0.48
0.18
-0.01
0.27
0.25
0.26
-0.09
0.25
0.06
0.33
-0.04
0.12
0.14
-0.27
-0.20
0.30
-0.23
-0.38
0.25
-0.10
-0.25
0.19
0.28
0.10
-0.17
0.35
-0.02
-0.09
0.29
-0.12
-0.33
0.07
-0.05
oo
to
oo
-------
Table 18-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Site
CUSD
SFSD
2005 Estimated
County
Population
7,904
160,087
Number of
Vehicles
Registered
9,403
155,857
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
1.19
0.97
Population
Within
10 Miles
4,449
154,472
Estimated 10 mile
Vehicle Ownership
5,293
150,390
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
1,940
4,320
oo
to
VO
-------
Table 18-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Sites in
South Dakota
Pollutant
2005
UATMP
Annual
Average
(Ug/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Ug/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Custer, South Dakota - CUSD, Census Tract 46033995200
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
0.15 ฑ0.01
0.10 ฑ0.01
0.11 ฑ0.01
1.30 ฑ0.14
NA
0.78 ฑ0.13
0.50 ฑ0.05
1.73 ฑ0.20
1.11ฑ0.13
0.16 ฑ0.03
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.43
0.03
0.26
0.21
0.31
O.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.39
0.95
2.07
3.11
0.01
0.03
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.05
1.52
0.01
0.01
0.03
O.01
O.01
Sioux Falls, South Dakota - SFSD, Census Tract 46099001802
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethylbenzene
Dichloro methane
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
0.16 ฑ0.01
0.10 ฑ0.01
3.22 ฑ0.49
NA
0.09 ฑ0.04
0.70 ฑ0.10
0.55 ฑ0.05
0.11 ฑ0.01
0.22 ฑ 0.07
4.11 ฑ0.71
0.91 ฑ0.13
0.19 ฑ0.05
0.23 ฑ0.17
0.18ฑ0.10
1.73 ฑ0.65
0.03
0.06
0.68
0.02
0.01
0.69
0.21
0.01
0.24
0.80
O.01
0.02
0.09
0.06
0.91
0.67
1.82
1.50
0.02
5.41
3.12
0.01
0.11
0.01
0.03
0.17
0.51
0.12
~
O.01
0.03
0.08
1.21
0.01
0.02
0.01
O.01
0.08
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
NA = No available due to short sampling duration.
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
18-30
-------
19.0 Sites in Tennessee
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
sites in Tennessee (DITN and LDTN). One site is located west of Nashville in Dickson (DITN),
and one is located southwest of Knoxville (LDTN). Figures 19-1 and 19-2 are topographical
maps showing the monitoring sites in their urban locations. Figures 19-3 and 19-4 identify point
source emission locations within 10 miles of these sites as reported to the 2002 NEI for point
sources. The DITN site is surrounded by relatively few industrial sources, although most are
located just to the south of the site. The facilities closest to the site are involved in organic
chemical production, fabricated metal products, and polymer and resin production. The LDTN
site has a few more sources nearby than DITN, and several of these are involved in waste
treatment and disposal, polymer and resin production, or fuel combustion industries.
Hourly meteorological data at weather stations near these sites were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather station closest to
the DITN monitoring site is the Clarksville Outlaw Airport and weather station closest to the
LDTN monitoring site is the Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport (WBAN 13891 and 03894,
respectively).
Nashville=s climate is rather moderate in nature, lacking extreme fluctuations in
temperature. The city has a long growing season and boasts four distinct seasons. The Dickson
area has a climate similar to Nashville, although diurnal temperature fluctuations are probably
greater due to the loss of the urban heat island. Loudon is located to the southwest of Knoxville.
The Tennessee River and Watts Bar Lake run through town, influencing the area=s weather by
moderating temperatures and affecting wind patterns. The Appalachian Mountains lie to the east.
The area has ample rainfall year-round and, like Nashville, experiences all four seasons (Ruffner
and Bair, 1987 and http://www.blueshoenashville.com/weather.htmn. Table 19-1 presents the
average meteorological conditions of temperature (average maximum and average), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
19-1
-------
pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind information (average u- and v- components of the
wind) for the entire year and on days samples were taken. As shown in Table 19-1, average
meteorological conditions on sample days are fairly representative of average weather conditions
throughout the year.
19.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Tennessee Monitoring Sites
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest
is a modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured
pollutant concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily
concentration value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those in which the individual pollutant's total failed
screens contribute to the top 95% of the site's total screens. A total of 81 HAPs are listed in the
guidance document as having risk screening values. Table 19-2 presents the pollutants that failed
at least one screen at the Tennessee monitoring sites. Thirteen pollutants failed at least one
screen at the DITN; a total of 144 measured concentrations failed screens. At LDTN, 15
pollutants failed at least one screen and a total of 152 measured concentrations failed screens.
The same nine pollutants contributed to 95% of the total failed screens at both Tennessee
monitoring sites: acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride,
formaldehyde, hexachloro-l,3-butadiene,/?-dichlorobenzene, and tetrachloroethylene. It's
important to note that the Tennessee sites sampled for carbonyls compounds and VOC only, and
that this is reflected in Table 19-2.
Also listed in Table 19-2 are the total number of detects and the percent detects failing the
screen. Acrolein, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene concentrations
failed 100% of screens at each site. Acetaldehyde, benzene, and carbon tetrachloride accounted
for over 50% of the failed screens at both sites.
19.2 Concentration Averages at the Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of interest: daily,
seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the average
19-2
-------
concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a seasonal
average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all non-
detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects in a
respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no earlier than November. The daily and seasonal averages are
presented in Table 19-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in
later sections.
Acetaldehyde, benzene, and formaldehyde were detected in every sampled taken at the
Tennessee monitoring sites. Among the daily averages at DITN, formaldehyde measured the
highest concentration by mass (2.60 ฑ 0.62 //g/m3), followed by acrolein (2.30 ฑ 0.69 jug/m3).
Most of the pollutants of interest were not detected enough for many seasonal averages to be
calculated. For the ones that were, the seasonal averages did not vary much, with the exception
of formaldehyde. Formaldehyde was significantly higher in the summer (4.59 ฑ 0.96 jug/m3) than
in winter or spring (1.45 ฑ 0.53 jug/m3 and 2.16 ฑ 0.79 jug/m3, respectively). No autumn average
is available.
Similar to DITN, formaldehyde measured the highest concentration by mass (2.39 ฑ 0.52
jug/m3) at LDTN, followed by acetaldehyde (2.02 ฑ 0.34 jug/m3). Most of the pollutants of
interest were not detected enough for many seasonal averages to be calculated. For the ones that
were, the seasonal averages did not vary much, again with the exception of formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde was significantly higher in the summer (4.10 ฑ 0.56 jug/m3) than in autumn or
spring (2.00 ฑ 0.87 jug/m3 and 1.95 ฑ 0.72 //g/m3, respectively). No winter average is available.
19.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Non-chronic risk is evaluated using ATSDR acute and intermediate minimal risk level
(MRL) and California EPA acute reference exposure limit (REL) factors. Acute risk is defined
19-3
-------
as exposures from 1 to 14 days while intermediate risk is defined as exposures from 15 to 364
days. It is useful to compare daily measurements to the short-term MRL and REL factors, as
well as compare seasonal averages to the intermediate MRL. Of the pollutants with at least one
failed screen at either site, only acrolein exceeded the acute risk values, and its non-chronic risk
is summarized in Table 19-4.
All detects of acrolein at the Tennessee monitoring sites exceeded the ATSDR acute
value of 0.11 //g/m3and the California REL value of 0.19 jug/m3. The average acrolein
concentration at DITN was higher than at LDTN (2.30 ฑ 0.69 jug/m3 vs. 1.65 ฑ 0.63 //g/m3,
respectively). Seasonal acrolein averages could not be calculated, therefore intermediate risk
could not be evaluated.
For the pollutants that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. Figures 19-5 and 19-6 are pollution roses for acrolein at the Tennessee
monitoring sites. The pollution rose is a plot of daily concentration and daily average wind
direction. As indicated in Figure 19-5, all acrolein concentrations exceeded the acute risk factors
at DITN, indicated by a dashed (CalEPA REL) and solid line (ATSDR MRL). The
concentrations on the pollution rose are scattered around the center, a pattern characteristic of
mobile sources. The highest concentration of acrolein occurred on November 18, 2005 with a
south-southwesterly wind. DITN is located just south of a major roadway through town, and is
located in proximity to a local industrial park (Figure 19-1).
As indicated in Figure 19-6, all four acrolein concentrations exceeded the acute risk
factors at LDTN, indicated by a dashed (CalEPA REL) and solid line (ATSDR MRL). The
concentrations on the pollution rose occurred primarily with a west-southwesterly or westerly
wind, although the highest concentration of acrolein occurred on October 13, 2005 with a
northerly wind. However, the relatively low number of acrolein detects makes it difficult to
detect a concentration-wind direction pattern on the pollution rose. LDTN is located on a mile-
wide strip of land bounded on either side by the Tennessee River. A major roadway through
town runs just to the northwest of the monitoring site (Figure 19-2).
19-4
-------
19.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Tennessee Monitoring Sites
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
19.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 19-5 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the Tennessee monitoring sites.
(Please refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) At DITN,
moderately strong positive correlations were calculated between acetaldehyde and maximum,
average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures (0.43, 0.36, 0.25, and 0.31, respectively) and very
strong positive correlations were calculated between formaldehyde and these same four
parameters (0.84, 0.86, 0.81, and 0.84, respectively). This supports the high summer
formaldehyde average discussed in Section 19.2. Moderately strong to very strong negative
correlations were computed between 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and
hexchloro-l,3-butadiene and the aforementioned temperature parameters. It is important to
consider that acrolein and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, the pollutants with the strongest of these
negative correlations, were detected infrequently. This low detection rate can skew the
correlations. All of the correlations with relative humidity at DITN were moderately strong and
negative, with the exception of carbon tetrachloride and formaldehyde, indicating that as relative
humidity increases, concentrations of the pollutants of interest at DITN decrease. With the
exception of carbon tetrachloride, the correlations with the w-component of the wind were
moderately strong to strong, while this is true of relatively few pollutants and the v-component of
the wind. This indicates that westerly and easterly winds have a higher impact on concentrations
than northerly or southerly winds. Acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and
hexachloro-1,3-butadiene exhibited moderately strong correlations with sea level pressure.
The strongest correlations computed at LDTN were between acrolein and each of the
meteorological parameters. However, this pollutant was detected only four times, and this low
19-5
-------
detection rate may cause the correlations appear stronger than they would otherwise. However,
the very strong positive correlations calculated for formaldehyde and the maximum, average,
dew point, and wet bulb temperatures (0.88, 0.86, 0.77, and 0.82, respectively) are based on
nearly 30 detects. Similar to DITN, these formaldehyde correlations support the higher summer
formaldehyde averages discussed in Section 19.2. Acetaldehyde, />-dichlorobenzene, and
tetrachloroethylene exhibit this trend as well, but the correlations are not nearly as strong.
Moderately strong correlations were calculated between hexchloro-1,3-butadiene and the wind
components and sea level pressure. However, this pollutant was also detected very few times at
LDTN.
19.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figures 19-7 and 19-8 are composite back trajectory maps for the Tennessee monitoring
sites for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along
which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. Each circle around
the site represents 100 miles.
As shown in Figure 19-7, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
DITN. The 24-hour airshed domain is rather large at DITN, with trajectories originating as far
away as South Dakota or greater than 800 miles away. However, nearly 52% of the trajectories
originated within 200 miles of the site; and 86% within 400 miles from the DITN monitoring
site. The one trajectory originating from South Dakota occurred on a day when a strong frontal
system moved across the central and eastern US on November 24, 2005. This wind pattern is
also evident on several composite trajectory maps from other sites in the region including the
DEMI, INDEM, NBIL and SPIL, and MEVIN monitoring sites.
As shown in Figure 19-8, the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at
LDTN. The 24-hour airshed domain is somewhat smaller at LDTN than DITN, with trajectories
originating as far away as western Missouri, or nearly 500 miles away. Nearly 68% of the
trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site; and 90% within 400 miles from the LDTN
monitoring site.
19-6
-------
19.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from the Clarksville Outlaw Airport and Knoxville McGhee-Tyson
Airport weather stations were uploaded into a wind rose software program, WRPLOT (Lakes,
2006). WRPLOT produces a graphical wind rose from the wind data. A wind rose shows the
frequency of wind directions about a 16-point compass, and uses different shading to represent
wind speeds. Figures 19-9 and 19-10 are the wind roses for the Tennessee monitoring sites on
days sampling occurred.
As indicated in Figure 19-9, hourly winds were predominantly out of the west (11% of
observations), south (7%), and southwest (7%) on days samples were taken near DITN. Calm
winds (<2 knots) were recorded for 25% of the hourly measurements. For wind speeds greater
than 2 knots, 25% of observations ranged from 2 to 4 knots, 24% ranged from 7 to 11 knots, and
19% ranged from 4 to 7 knots. For wind speeds greater than 22 knots, the wind direction was
most frequently from the west and northwest.
Similar to DITN, as indicated in Figure 19-10, hourly winds were predominantly out of
west (10%), southwest (9%), and west-southwest (8%) on days samples were taken near LDTN.
Calm winds (<2 knots) were recorded for 26% of the hourly measurements. For wind speeds
greater than 2 knots, 27% of observations ranged from 2 to 4 knots, 20% ranged from 7 to 11
knots, and 19% ranged from 4 to 7 knots.
19.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following spatial
analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; and BTEX analysis.
19.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population in Dickson County and Loudon County
were obtained from the Tennessee Department of Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are
summarized in Table 19-6. Table 19-6 also includes a vehicle registration to county population
ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented.
19-7
-------
An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile population
surrounding the monitor and the vehicle registration ratio. Finally, Table 19-6 contains the
average daily traffic information, which represents the average number of vehicles passing the
monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
The county populations and vehicle registration in DITN and LDTN's respective counties
are fairly similar. However, LDTN has a higher vehicle-to-population ratio than DITN, even
though both ratios are on the high end compared to other UATMP sites. DITN has about two-
thirds the 10-mile population of LDTN, and roughly half the estimated 10-mile vehicle
ownership. The population and vehicle registration statistics for the Tennessee monitoring sites
are both on the low-end compared to other UATMP sites. The LDTN daily traffic count is three
times that of DITN. But both traffic counts are in the low to mid range compared to other
UATMP sites.
19.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to Section 3.2.1.4). Table 3-11 presented
and Figure 3-2 depicted the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compared
them to the concentration ratios at each of the Tennessee monitoring sites in an effort to
characterize the impact of on-road, or motor vehicle, emissions. Of the two sites, the LDTN
monitoring site's ratios most resemble those of the roadside study. The LDTN xylenes-
ethylbenzene ratio (3.46 ฑ 0.17) is somewhat less than the roadside study's (4.55), and the
toluene-ethylbenzene ratio (7.89 ฑ 0.69) at LDTN higher than that of the roadside study (5.85).
At DITN the toluene-ethylbenzene ratio (22.06 ฑ 5.61) is significantly higher than that of the
roadside study (5.85), as well as higher than any other UATMP site.
19.6 Site-Specific Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2004, and are still participating in the
2005 program year (i.e., minimum 3 consecutive years), a site-specific trends analysis was
19-8
-------
conducted. Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.3.4. The
Tennessee monitoring sites have participated in the UATMP since 2003.
DITN began sampling in December 2003, so very few samples make up the 2003
averages. 1,3-Butadiene was not detected during the 2003 and 2004 programs
years at DITN, as indicated in Figure 19-11. Benzene and formaldehyde
concentrations increased from 2003 to 2004. Although benzene and
formaldehyde concentrations appear to increase again in 2005, the 2004 and 2005
concentrations are not statistically different for DITN when confidence intervals
are considered.
Concentrations of formaldehyde appear to have decreased significantly since 2003
at the LDTN monitoring site. 1,3-Butadiene was not detected during the 2003
program year. Although difficult to discern in Figure 19-12, 2005 1,3-butadiene
concentrations decreased slightly from 2004. Concentrations of benzene have
been fairly steady at LDTN.
19.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 19-7 presents the 1999
NATA results for the census tracts where the Tennessee monitoring sites are located. Only
pollutants that "failed" the screens are presented in Table 19-7. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
19.7.1 1999 NATA Summary
The DITN monitoring site is located in census tract 47043060600 with a population of
8,647, which represents 20.0% of the Dickson County population in 2000. In terms of cancer
risk, the Top 3 pollutants identified by NATA in the DITN census tract are benzene (3.99 in-a-
million risk), carbon tetrachloride (3.17), and acetaldehyde (1.34). These cancer risks are low
when compared to other areas with UATMP monitoring sites. Acrolein was the only pollutant in
the DITN census tract to have a noncancer hazard quotient greater than 1.0 (an HQ greater than
19-9
-------
1.0 may lead to adverse health effects). Most noncancer hazard quotients were less than 0.10,
suggesting very little risk for noncancer health affects, with the exception of acrolein.
The LDTN monitoring site is located in census tract 47105060200, which had a
population in 2000 of 9,529, representing 24.4% of Loudon County's population. In terms of
cancer risk, the Top 3 pollutants identified by NATA in the LDTN census tract are benzene (6.95
in-a-million risk), carbon tetrachloride (3.19), and acetaldehyde (2.69). These cancer risks are
also low when compared to other areas with UATMP monitoring sites. Acrolein was the only
pollutant in the LDTN census tract to have a noncancer hazard quotient greater than 1.0.
Acrolein noncancer risk at LDTN was three times that of the DITN census tract. Most noncancer
hazard quotients were less than 0.10, suggesting very little risk for noncancer health affects, with
the exception of acrolein.
19.7.2 Annual Average Comparison
The Tennessee monitoring sites annual averages are also presented in Table 19-7 for
comparison to the 1999 NATA modeled concentrations. NATA-modeled concentrations are
assumed to be the average concentration that a person breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid
annual average representing an entire year, including detects and non-detects, needs to be
calculated (refer to Section 19.2 on how a valid annual average is calculated). With the
exception of hexacloro-1,3-butadiene at DITN, all the pollutants were within one order of
magnitude from each other. Acetaldehyde, benzene, formaldehyde, and total xylenes are
identified as the Top 4 pollutants by mass concentration from both the 1999 NATA-modeled and
2005 annual average concentrations at DITN (but not necessarily in that order). While toluene,
acetaldehyde, total xylenes, and benzene were identified as the top 4 pollutants in the LDTN
census tract by NATA, toluene, total xylenes, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the top 4
pollutants by measured mass concentration in 2005.
19-10
-------
Tennessee Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest common to each of the Tennessee sites are acetaldehyde,
acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, hexachloro-1,3-
butadiene, p-dichlorobenzene, andtetrachloroethylene..
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at both DITN andLDTN.
Formaldehyde was also highest during summer at both sites.
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at both Tennessee sites.
A comparison of formaldehyde, benzene and 1,3-butadiene concentrations for all years
of UATMP participation shows that concentrations of benzene and formaldehyde have
been increasing at DITN, while concentrations of formaldehyde have been decreasing
at LDTN since the onset of sampling in 2003.
19-11
-------
Figure 19-1. Dickson, Tennessee (DITN) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
19-12
-------
Figure 19-2. Loudon, Tennessee (LDTN) Monitoring Site
../... ... >: . --,;
f" .:. '" '-..*,' :- . -'''
g-
s^;''?/? i \
y%. 5 :; I
.-' i i :
i$\/'$-M
: . , , V-MJIW : ^.
^Vv-f ^v- w
.
:;^:r:;-|j;;-
X
:--v-^.'--:. s.m-: ^1 5
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
19-13
-------
Figure 19-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DITN
87ฐ35fl'W 37^30'0'W 87'25'OW S7030t3'W 87"15<0'W 87*10XI'W
87"tSO'W 87"10'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
fr DITN UATMP site
0 10 mile radius
J County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (1)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (2)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
-1 Vfeste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
19-14
-------
Figure 19-4. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of LDTN
84ฐ10'Q'W
Note: Due to facilSy density and collocation. lhe total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the
Legend
-& LDTN UATMP site
3 10 mile radius
_] County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
Apparel & Other Textile Products Facility (1)
Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (1)
Food & Agriculture Processes Industrial Facility (1)
Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (3)
Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (3)
Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (1)
Stone. Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (4)
19-15
-------
Figure 19-5. Acrolein Pollution Rose at DITN
VO
't.U
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
| 1'ฐ
13
ฃ 0.5
o
0 0.0
%
NW N
-
^
-
w ,,--;
V X*.
| 0.5 |
S. 1.0
1.5
Ava Cone =2.30ฑ 0.69 uq/m3
I
2.0 I
I
2.5 |
3.0 [
E
I *
35 1 sw
I s
An I
NE
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDRMRL(0.11 |jg/m3)
^\ * E
*
4
SE
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5
Pollutant Concentration
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
-------
Figure 19-6. Acrolein Pollution Rose at LDTN
VO
2.0
1.5
1.0
I0'5
0)
o
S n n
O \J.\J
O
3
0
Q.
1.0
1.5
2.0
o c
NW N
-
-
-
-
W * /'.
\^
-
-
Ava Cone =1 .65 ฑ 0.63 uq/m3
sw
s
NE
~\ N, E
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.11 |jg/m3)
SE
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5 0.0 0.5
Pollutant Concentration
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
-------
Figure 19-7. Composite Back Trajectory Map for DITN
-------
Figure 19-8. Composite Back Trajectory Map for LDTN
VO
ซ-?ซV
400
Miles
-------
Figure 19-9. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the DITN Monitoring Site
to
o
'NORTH"---.
15%
12%
9%.
SOUTH
; EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | >= 22
17 - 21
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
CH 4-7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 2457%
-------
Figure 19-10. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the LDTN Monitoring Site
to
'NORTH"---.
15%
12%
9%.
SOUTH
; EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | >= 22
17 - 21
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
CH 4-7
Calms: 26.03%
-------
Figure 19-11. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the DITN Monitoring Site
vo
to
to
2.5 -
2 -
.a
Q.
^-s
.0
I 1.5
o
U
L.
01
1
0.5 -
ฑ
2003
2004
Year
2005
D 1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 19-12. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the LDTN Monitoring Site
to
^o
9S
.a
Q.
a on
Toncentrati
t-
/i C
so
L.
01
in
-
T
ฑ
2003 2004 2005
Year
D 1 , 3 -Butadiene Benzene D Formaldehyde
-------
Table 19-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Tennessee
Site
DITN
LDTN
WBAN
3894
13891
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
<ฐF)
68.97
ฑ1.84
69.62
ฑ6.42
69.36
ฑ1.68
69.39
ฑ5.69
Average
Temperature
<ฐF)
58.68
ฑ1.71
59.12
ฑ5.76
59.41
ฑ1.62
59.83
ฑ5.37
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
<ฐF)
47.40
ฑ1.77
48.43
ฑ5.88
48.91
ฑ 1.76
49.65
ฑ5.49
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
<ฐF)
52.76
ฑ1.59
53.42
ฑ5.32
53.88
ฑ1.54
54.30
ฑ4.97
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
69.34
ฑ1.15
70.85
ฑ4.22
71.35
ฑ1.23
72.26
ฑ3.95
Average
Sea Level
Pressure (mb)
1017.05
ฑ0.65
1016.57
ฑ1.94
1017.01
ฑ0.62
1017.02
ฑ1.83
Average
w-component
of the wind
0.99
ฑ0.33
1.90
ฑ1.28
1.35
ฑ0.36
1.73
ฑ1.23
Average
v-component
of the wind
0.03
ฑ0.41
0.70
ฑ0.97
-0.20
ฑ0.32
-0.04
ฑ0.86
VO
to
-------
Table 19-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at
the Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
% Failing
% of total
failures
%
contribution
Dickson, Tennessee - DITN
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrolein
Tetrachloroethylene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Acrylonitrile
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
Total
28
27
27
21
13
7
7
5
5
1
1
1
1
144
28
27
28
28
14
7
10
14
5
1
1
10
28
201
100.0
100.0
96.4
75.0
92.9
100.0
70.0
35.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
10.0
3.6
71.6
19.4%
18.8%
18.8%
14.6%
9.0%
4.9%
4.9%
3.5%
3.5%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
19.4%
38.2%
56.9%
71.5%
80.6%
85.4%
90.3%
93.8%
97.2%
97.9%
98.6%
99.3%
100.0%
London, Tennessee - LDTN
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Acrolein
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
Toluene
Dichloromethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Total
27
27
25
22
16
15
6
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
152
27
27
25
27
16
16
6
4
9
10
27
27
22
1
1
245
100.0
100.0
100.0
81.5
100.0
93.8
100.0
100.0
44.4
10.0
3.7
3.7
4.5
100.0
100.0
62.0
17.8%
17.8%
16.4%
14.5%
10.5%
9.9%
3.9%
2.6%
2.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
17.8%
35.5%
52.0%
66.4%
77.0%
86.8%
90.8%
93.4%
96.1%
96.7%
97.4%
98.0%
98.7%
99.3%
100.0%
19-25
-------
Table 19-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Dickson, Tennessee - DITN
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
14
28
7
28
27
28
5
14
10
28
28
13
28
28
28
28
28
28
0.13
1.35
2.30
1.35
0.61
2.60
0.19
0.09
0.49
0.13
0.23
0.69
0.34
0.05
0.62
0.04
0.03
0.42
NR
1.20
NA
1.19
NR
1.45
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.60
NA
0.18
NR
0.53
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.34
NA
1.68
0.57
2.16
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.39
NA
1.11
0.14
0.79
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.43
NR
0.93
0.61
4.59
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.35
NR
0.17
0.04
0.96
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
London, Tennessee - LDTN
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
16
27
4
27
25
27
6
16
9
27
27
13
27
27
27
27
27
27
0.11
2.02
1.65
1.26
0.64
2.39
0.21
0.37
0.58
0.04
0.34
0.63
0.21
0.04
0.52
0.07
0.25
0.81
NR
NR
NA
1.54
0.63
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NA
0.49
0.07
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.31
NA
1.21
NR
1.95
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.84
NA
0.16
NR
0.72
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.31
NR
NR
NR
4.10
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.33
NR
NR
NR
0.56
NR
NR
NR
0.08
1.80
NR
0.98
0.66
2.00
NR
0.18
NR
0.02
0.64
NR
0.26
0.07
0.87
NR
0.04
NR
VO
to
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not reportable due to the low number of detects.
-------
Table 19-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Site
DITN
LDTN
Method
TO- 15
TO- 15
Pollutant
Acrolein
Acrolein
Daily
Average
(ug/m3)
2. 30 ฑ0.69
1.65 ฑ0.63
ATSDR
Short-term
MRL (ug/m3)
0.11
0.11
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
7
4
CAL
EPA
REL
Acute
(ug/m3)
0.19
0.19
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
7
4
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(ug/m3)
0.09
0.09
Winter
Average
(ug/m3)
NR
NR
Spring
Average
(Ug/m3)
NR
NR
Summer
Average
(ug/m3)
NR
NR
Autumn
Average
(ug/m3)
NR
NR
NR = Not reportable due to the low number of detects.
to
-------
Table 19-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
M-Component
of the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea Level
Pressure
Dickson, Tennessee - DITN
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
14
28
7
28
27
28
5
14
10
-0.30
0.43
-0.65
-0.28
-0.36
0.84
-0.73
0.23
0.10
-0.24
0.36
-0.78
-0.23
-0.29
0.86
-0.64
0.25
0.13
-0.33
0.25
-0.77
-0.30
-0.17
0.81
-0.76
0.15
-0.09
-0.28
0.31
-0.77
-0.26
-0.23
0.84
-0.70
0.20
0.02
-0.46
-0.25
-0.18
-0.28
0.28
0.03
-0.37
-0.27
-0.62
0.62
-0.50
0.34
0.41
0.02
-0.39
0.46
0.39
0.50
-0.13
0.07
0.31
0.07
-0.03
0.18
-0.05
0.45
0.34
-0.46
0.33
0.46
-0.26
-0.21
-0.05
-0.41
-0.12
-0.10
London, Tennessee - LDTN
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
16
27
4
27
25
27
6
16
9
0.18
0.46
0.95
0.07
0.19
0.88
0.15
0.38
0.44
0.13
0.38
0.92
0.06
0.11
0.86
0.26
0.41
0.50
0.16
0.20
0.93
0.10
0.00
0.77
0.28
0.44
0.52
0.15
0.30
0.93
0.08
0.06
0.82
0.24
0.44
0.52
0.19
-0.49
0.74
0.14
-0.37
-0.08
0.22
0.29
0.17
-0.07
-0.26
-0.87
-0.23
-0.20
-0.31
0.46
0.06
0.35
-0.20
0.20
-0.52
-0.20
-0.24
-0.01
0.47
0.04
0.35
-0.01
0.23
0.98
0.14
-0.07
0.06
-0.41
-0.01
0.04
VO
to
oo
-------
Table 19-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Site
DITN
LDTN
2005 Estimated
County
Population
45,894
43,387
Number of
Vehicles
Registered
43,784
46,656
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
0.95
1.08
Population
Within 10 Miles
29,214
46,750
Estimated 10 mile
Vehicle Ownership
27,871
50,272
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
4,420
13,360
VO
to
VO
-------
Table 19-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring
Sites in Tennessee
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Annual
Average
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Dickson, Tennessee - DITN, Census Tract 47043060600
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
/j-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
0.10 ฑ0.01
0.10 ฑ0.07
1.35 ฑ0.23
NA
0.09 ฑ0.04
1.35 ฑ0.34
0.60 ฑ0.06
2.60 ฑ0.62
0.93 ฑ0.18
0.14 ฑ0.02
0.27 ฑ0.16
0.16 ฑ0.08
3. 10 ฑ1.46
0.01
0.02
0.61
0.02
<0.01
0.51
0.21
0.47
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.67
0.20
0.65
1.34
0.03
3.99
3.17
0.01
0.03
0.08
0.06
0.09
O.01
0.01
0.07
1.01
O.01
0.02
0.01
0.05
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
Loudon, Tennessee - LDTN, Census Tract 47105060200
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
0.15 ฑ0.01
0.09 ฑ0.01
0.09 ฑ0.02
2.02 ฑ0.34
NA
1.26 ฑ0.21
0.61 ฑ0.06
0.46 ฑ0.27
2.39 ฑ0.52
0.88 ฑ0.19
0.30 ฑ0.15
0.29 ฑ0.28
6.17 ฑ5. 95
0.16 ฑ0.08
4.24 ฑ3.04
0.01
0.01
0.03
1.22
0.06
0.89
0.21
0.14
0.78
0.01
0.02
0.02
1.67
0.43
1.15
0.72
0.27
0.77
2.69
6.95
3.19
0.07
O.01
0.03
0.17
0.15
0.86
~
0.01
0.01
0.14
2.99
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
NA= Not available due to short sampling duration.
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
19-30
-------
20.0 Sites in Texas
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
sites in Texas (MUTX, PITX, RRTX, TRTX, WETX, and YDSP). Five sites are located in or
near the Austin area. One site, YDSP, is located in El Paso. Figures 20-1 thru 20-6 are
topographical maps showing the monitoring sites in their urban and rural locations. Figures 20-7
through 20-8 identify point source emission locations within 10 miles of each site as reported in
the 2002 NEI for point sources. As Figure 20-7 shows, four monitoring sites are located within
Travis County and the city of Austin (MUTX, PITX, TRTX, and WETX), while one is located
further north in the neighboring town of Round Rock in Williamson County (RRTX). The
monitoring sites are oriented in a line running roughly north-south, with RRTX the furthest north
and TRTX the furthest south. Most of the industrial sites within ten miles of the sites are located
fairly close to the sites. There are a variety of industries in the Austin area including, but not
limited to, rubber and miscellaneous plastic products, utility boilers, mineral product processing,
and chemical and allied products. YDSP is located within a mile of the US-Mexico border, as
shown in Figure 20-8. Most of the nearby industries are located to the north and northwest of the
monitoring site, and are primarily involved in fuel combustion industries, liquids distribution,
and petroleum and natural gas production and refining. It is important to note that across the
border in Mexico is Ciudad Juarez, a large industrial city.
Hourly meteorological data at weather stations near these sites were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather station closest
to the MUTX and PITX monitoring sites is Camp Mabry Army National Guard (WBAN 13958);
the weather station closest to the TRTX and WETX monitoring sites is Austin-Bergstrom
International Airport (WBAN 13904); the closest weather station to RRTX is Georgetown
Municipal Airport (WBAN 53942); and El Paso International Airport (WBAN 23044) is closest
to YDSP.
The city of Austin experiences a modified subtropical climate, that is, mild winters with
only a handful of below freezing temperatures each year, and hot muggy summers, due in part to
20-1
-------
the flow from the Gulf of Mexico. Northerly winds are prevalent in the winter and southeasterly
winds are predominant in the summer. Precipitation is fairly evenly distributed throughout the
year, through most frequently in the form of thunderstorms in the spring and summer. In
contrast to Austin, El Paso's climate is more characteristic of the desert southwest. Winters are
very mild, summers are hot, often with large diurnal temperature fluctuations, and precipitation
is infrequent. Summertime thunderstorms tend to produce the heaviest rainfalls. Dust and
sandstorms occur occasionally (Ruffner and Bair, 1987). Table 20-1 presents average
meteorological conditions of temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average
dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), pressure
(average sea level pressure), and wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind)
for the entire year and on days samples were taken. As shown in Table 20-1, average
meteorological conditions on sample days are slightly different than average weather conditions
throughout the year. The sample days' maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb
temperatures are slightly higher, and relative humidities are slightly lower than the year-round
averages. This can potentially be attributed to the start dates of each monitoring site. YDSP
began sampling in March; MUTX, PITX, RRTX, and WETX in June; and TRTX in July. Please
note that RRTX has no sea level pressure averages in Table 20-1. The Georgetown Municipal
Airport weather station did not record sea level pressure.
20.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Texas Monitoring Sites
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest
is a modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured
pollutant concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily
concentration value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration
"failed the screen." Pollutants of interest are those in which the individual pollutant's total failed
screens contribute to the top 95% of the site's total screens. A total of 81 HAPs are listed in the
guidance document as having risk screening values. Table 20-2 presents the pollutants that
failed at least one screen at the Texas monitoring sites. The number of pollutants failing the
screen varies by site, as indicated in Table 20-2.
20-2
-------
Eleven pollutants with a total of 131 measured concentrations failed screens at
MUTX;
13 pollutants with a total of 121 measured concentrations failed screens at PITX;
13 pollutants with a total of 141 measured concentrations failed screens at RRTX;
19 pollutants with a total of 142 measured concentrations failed screens at TRTX;
13 pollutants with a total of 128 measured concentrations failed screens at
WETX; and
9 pollutants with a total of 179 measured concentrations failed screens at YDSP.
The pollutants of interest also varied by site, yet the following five pollutants contributed
to the top 95% of the total failed screens at each Texas monitoring site: acrolein, benzene, 1,3-
butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, and/>-dichlorobenzene. If YDSP is not included, the list of
pollutants of interest is even more similar, and includes arsenic, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and
manganese. It's important to note that the Austin sites sampled for carbonyls, VOC, and metals,
while the El Paso site sampled for VOC only. This is reflected in each site's pollutants of
interest. The Austin sites also sampled for total NMOC, but is not considered in the
determination of the pollutants of interest. Also listed in Table 20-2 are the total number of
detects and the percent detects failing the screen. Of the five pollutants that were the same
among all six sites, four pollutants of interest, acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and carbon
tetrachloride, had 100% of their detects fail the screening values.
20.2 Concentration Averages at the Texas Monitoring Sites
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the pollutants of interest: daily,
seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the average
concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a
seasonal average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all
non-detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects
in a respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
20-2
-------
later than February and ended no earlier than November. The daily and seasonal averages are
presented in Table 20-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in
later sections.
Among the daily averages at the Austin sites, acrolein measured the highest concentration
by mass, ranging from 5.50 ฑ 2.93 ug/m3 at PITX to 9.08 ฑ 3.70 ug/m3 at RRTX. Formaldehyde
measured the second highest daily average at each Austin site, ranging from 3.28 ฑ 0.77 ug/m3 at
MUTX to 3.72 ฑ 0.52 ug/m3 at RRTX. With the exception of WETX, acetaldehyde measured
the third highest daily average at each Austin site. As the Austin sites did not begin monitoring
until mid-June, late-June, or early July, no seasonal averages are available for winter, spring, and
summer (except for metals). With the exception of MUTX, acrolein autumn averages are not
available. The autumn seasonal averages that are available did not differ significantly from the
daily averages at the Austin monitoring sites.
The pollutants with the highest daily averages at YDSP were total xylenes (7.37 ฑ 1.37
ug/m3), acrolein (4.48 ฑ 4.09 ug/m3), and benzene (2.33 ฑ 0.34 ug/m3). The YDSP site began
sampling in March, and therefore has more computable seasonal averages than the Austin sites.
Although many of the pollutants of interest measured higher concentrations in autumn than
spring or summer, most of these differences were not statistically significant. The one exception
is the autumn benzene concentration. Acrolein has no seasonal averages.
20.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Texas Monitoring Sites
Non-chronic risk for the concentration data at Texas monitoring sites was evaluated using
ATSDR acute and intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) and California EPA acute reference
exposure limit (REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as exposures from 1 to 14 days while
intermediate risk is defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. It is useful to compare daily
measurements to the short-term MRL and REL factors, as well as compare seasonal averages to
the intermediate MRL. Of the pollutants with at least one failed screen, only acrolein exceeded
either the acute or the intermediate risk values, and each site's non-chronic risk is summarized in
Table 20-4.
20-4
-------
All acrolein detects at the Texas sites were greater than the ATSDR acute value of 0.11
ug/m3 and the California REL value of 0.19 ug/m3. The average detected concentration ranged
from 4.48 ฑ 4.09 ug/m3 (at YDSP) to 9.08 ฑ 3.70 ug/m3 (at RRTX), which are an order of
magnitude higher than either acute risk factor. An autumn seasonal average for acrolein could
only be calculated for MUTX. The autumn acrolein average at MUTX is 4.89 ฑ 2.63 ug/m3,
which is significantly higher than the ATSDR intermediate value of 0.09 ug/m3.
For the pollutants that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. For all six Texas monitoring sites, only acrolein concentrations
exceeded the acute risk factors. Figures 20-9 through 20-14 are pollution roses for acrolein at
the Texas sites. The pollution rose is a plot of concentration and wind direction. As shown in
Figures 20-9 through 20-14, and discussed above, all acrolein concentrations exceeded the acute
risk factors, which are indicated by a dashed line (CalEPA REL) and solid line (ATSDR MRL).
Figure 20-9 is the acrolein pollution rose for the MUTX monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with winds originating
from a variety of directions, which is a characteristic of mobile sources. The highest
concentration of acrolein occurred on August 26, 2005 with a southeasterly wind. The MUTX
monitoring site is located in a primarily residential area at Murchison Middle School. The
eastern edge of the school grounds is bordered by a major thoroughfare, the Mo-Pac expressway,
which is paralleled by a railway.
Figure 20-10 is the acrolein pollution rose for the PITX monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with winds originating
from a variety of directions, which is a characteristic of mobile sources. Interestingly, the
highest concentration of acrolein also occurred on August 26, 2005 with a southeasterly wind.
The PITX monitoring site is located at the University of Texas Pickle Research Center. The
Pickle Research Center is located near the intersection of two major roadways, the Mo-Pac
Expressway and Highway 183.
20-5
-------
Figure 20-11 is the acrolein pollution rose for the RRTX monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with winds originating
from a variety of directions, which is a characteristic of mobile sources, although primarily from
the east and south. The highest concentration of acrolein occurred on August 2, 2005 with an
east-southeasterly wind. The RRTX monitoring site is located on the northern edge of a
residential area. Just to the west of the monitoring site, running north-south is 1-35. The
Georgetown railroad parallels 1-35 on the west side.
Figure 20-12 is the acrolein pollution rose for the TRTX monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with winds originating
from a variety of directions, which is a characteristic of mobile sources. The highest
concentration of acrolein occurred on August 14, 2005 with a south-southeasterly wind. The
TRTX monitoring site is located at Travis High School, which is just off 1-35 on Oltorf Street, in
a highly residential area of Austin.
Figure 20-13 is the acrolein pollution rose for the WETX monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with winds originating
from a variety of directions, which is a characteristic of mobile sources, although primarily from
the southeast and south. The highest concentration of acrolein occurred on August 2, 2005 with
a south-southeasterly wind. This is the same date as the RRTX monitoring site. The WETX
monitoring site is located in a residential area off East 7th Street, which intersects 1-35 about a
mile and half west of the site. The Northwestern Railroad loops around the area where WETX is
located. Zaragosa Park and Recreation Center is very close to the monitoring site.
Figure 20-14 is the acrolein pollution rose for the YDSP monitoring site. The pollution
rose shows that concentrations exceeding the acute risk factors occurred with winds originating
from a variety of directions, which is a characteristic of mobile sources. The highest
concentration of acrolein occurred on July 5, 2005 with an east-southeasterly wind. The YDSP
monitoring site is located in a residential area on the southeast side of El Paso, TX. The 375
Loop, Americas Avenue, runs less than a mile to the south of the site. The Loop intersects I-10 a
couple miles east of YDSP. The US-Mexican border is less than a mile and a half from the site.
20-6
-------
20.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Texas Monitoring Sites
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
20.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 20-5 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the Texas monitoring sites. (Please
refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) It is interesting to note that
at each of the Austin sites, positive correlations were calculated between acrolein and
formaldehyde and maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures, and negative
correlations were calculated between 1,3-butadiene and manganese and these four parameters.
Its also important to note that the relatively low number of detects at the Austin sites, due to a
June or July start date as well as a 1 in 12 sample schedule, may cause the correlations appear
stronger than they would be with a larger number of detects.
At MUTX, 1,3-butadiene, manganese, and tetrachloroethylene exhibited moderately
strong to strong negative correlations with the temperature and moisture parameters, while
acrolein, benzene, formaldehyde, and/>-dichlorobenzene exhibited moderately strong to strong
positive correlations with these same parameters. Several pollutants also exhibited moderately
strong to strong correlations with the wind components and/or sea level pressure. This may
indicate that meteorological influences effect concentrations of the pollutants of interest at
MUTX.
At PITX, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, and manganese exhibited moderately strong
negative correlations with the temperature and moisture parameters, while acrolein, benzene,
formaldehyde, and/?-dichlorobenzene exhibited moderately strong to very strong positive
correlations with these same parameters. Several pollutants also exhibited moderately strong to
strong correlations with the wind components and/or sea level pressure. Interestingly, all of the
correlations with the v-component of the wind were negative, with the exception of
20-7
-------
/7-dichlorobenzene. Similar to MUTX, this may indicate that meteorological influences effect
concentrations of the pollutants of interest at PITX.
At RRTX, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, and manganese exhibited moderately strong to
strong negative correlations with the temperature and moisture parameters, while acrolein,
formaldehyde, and/>-dichlorobenzene exhibited moderately strong to strong positive correlations
with these same parameters. Moderately strong correlations were also calculated between
carbon tetrachloride and wet bulb temperature and relative humidity (0.41 and 0.49,
respectively). Interestingly, nearly all of the correlations with the w-component of the wind were
negative and most of the correlations with the v-component were positive. Similar to MUTX and
PITX, this may indicate that meteorological influences effect concentrations of the pollutants of
interest at RRTX.
At TRTX, hexachloro-l,3-butadiene, manganese, and tetrachloroethylene exhibited
moderately strong to strong negative correlations with the temperature and moisture parameters,
while acrolein, arsenic, benzene, cadmium, formaldehyde, and/>-dichlorobenzene exhibited
moderately strong to very strong positive correlations with these same parameters. Several
pollutants also exhibited moderately strong to strong correlations with the wind components
and/or sea level pressure. Interestingly, most of the correlations with the w-component of the
wind were negative. Similar to the other Austin sites, this may indicate that meteorological
influences effect concentrations of the pollutants of interest at TRTX. Correlations were not
computed for 1,2-dichloroethane because it was detected fewer than 4 times.
At WETX, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, arsenic, and manganese exhibited moderately
strong to strong negative correlations with the temperature and moisture parameters, while
acrolein, carbon tetrachloride, and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene exhibited moderately strong to very
strong positive correlations with these same parameters. Moderately strong negative correlations
were also calculated between benzene and/?-dichlorobenzene and average and wet bulb
temperatures. Several pollutants also exhibited moderately strong to very strong correlations
with the wind components and/or sea level pressure. Similar to the other four Austin sites, this
20-8
-------
may indicate that meteorological influences effect concentrations of the pollutants of interest at
WETX.
At YDSP, with few exceptions, all of the correlations between the pollutants of interest
and the temperature and moisture parameters were negative, which indicates that as temperature
and moisture content decrease, concentrations of the pollutants of interest tend to increase.
Correlations with the wind were fairly weak, although acrolein exhibited a moderately strong
negative correlations with the w-component of the wind (-0.40). Acrolein and hexachloro-1,3-
butadiene each exhibited a strong correlation with sea level pressure (-0.57 and 0.58,
respectively). However, these two pollutants were detected only nine times each, and this low
detection rate could skew the correlations.
20.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figures 20-15 thru 20-20 are composite back trajectory maps for the Texas monitoring
sites for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along
which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. Each circle around
the site represents 100 miles.
As shown in Figure 20-15, the back trajectories predominantly originated from the
southeast at MUTX. The 24-hour airshed domain is rather large at MUTX, with trajectories
originating as far away as northern Colorado, or over 700 miles away. However, 69% of the
trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site; and 84% within 400 miles from the MUTX
monitoring site.
As shown in Figure 20-16, the back trajectories predominantly originated from the
southeast at PITX. The 24-hour airshed domain is rather large at PITX, with trajectories
originating as far away as northern Colorado, or over 700 miles away. However, 65% of the
trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site; and 82% within 400 miles from the PITX
monitoring site.
20-9
-------
As shown in Figure 20-17, the back trajectories predominantly originated from the
southeast at RRTX. The 24-hour airshed domain is rather large at RRTX, with trajectories
originating as far away as northern Colorado, or over 700 miles away. However, 72% of the
trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site; and 89% within 400 miles from the RRTX
monitoring site.
As shown in Figure 20-18, the back trajectories predominantly originated from the
southeast at TRTX. The 24-hour airshed domain is rather large at TRTX, with trajectories
originating as far away as central Colorado, or over 700 miles away. However, 67% of the
trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site; and 87% within 400 miles from the TRTX
monitoring site.
As shown in Figure 20-19, the back trajectories predominantly originated from the
southeast at WETX. The 24-hour airshed domain is rather large at WETX, with trajectories
originating as far away as central Colorado, or over 700 miles away. However, 72% of the
trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site; and 89% within 400 miles from the WETX
monitoring site.
As shown in Figure 20-20, the back trajectories predominantly originated from the
southeast, southwest, and west at YDSP. The 24-hour airshed domain is somewhat smaller at
YDSP, with trajectories originating as far away as near Baja California, or over 400 miles away.
However, 76% of the trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site; and 93% within 400
miles from the YDSP monitoring site. The majority of the 24-hour back trajectories originated
from Mexico.
20.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
As mentioned in Section 20.0, weather data from the four closest weather stations to
monitoring sites were obtained to correlate concentrations and meteorological conditions.
Hourly wind data from these stations were uploaded into a wind rose software program,
WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006). WRPLOT produces a graphical wind rose from the wind data. A
wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions about a 16-point compass, and uses different
20-10
-------
shading to represent wind speeds. Figures 20-21 through 20-26 are the wind roses for the Texas
monitoring sites on days sampling occurred.
As indicated in Figure 20-21, hourly winds were predominantly out of the south (8% of
observations), southeast (8%), and south-southeast (6%) on days samples were taken near
MUTX. However, calm winds (<2 knots) were recorded for 45% of the hourly measurements.
For wind speeds greater than 2 knots, 27% of observations ranged from 7 to 11 knots. Figure 20-
21 shows that wind speeds greater than 11 knots tended to occur most frequently with
northwesterly and northerly winds.
As indicated in Figure 20-22, the wind rose for PITX looks similar to the one for MUTX.
Hourly winds were predominantly out of the south (9% of observations), southeast (8%), and
east-southeast (6%) on days samples were taken near PITX. However, calm winds (<2 knots)
were recorded for 44% of the hourly measurements. For wind speeds greater than 2 knots, 30%
of observations ranged from 7 to 11 knots. Figure 20-22 also shows that wind speeds greater
than 11 knots tended to occur most frequently with northwesterly and northerly winds.
As indicated in Figure 20-23, hourly winds were predominantly out of the south (16% of
observations) on days samples were taken near RRTX. Calm winds (<2 knots) were recorded for
27% of the hourly measurements. For wind speeds greater than 2 knots, wind observations were
more evenly distributed up to 11 knots: 26% of observations ranged from 2 to 4 knots, 18% of
observations ranged from 4 to 7 knots, 24% of observations ranged from 7 to 11 knots. The
frequency decreases significantly after 11 knots.
As indicated in Figure 20-24, the wind rose for TRTX looks similar to the one for RRTX.
Hourly winds were predominantly out of the south (17% of observations) on days samples were
taken near TRTX. However, calm winds (<2 knots) were recorded for 35% of the hourly
measurements. For wind speeds greater than 2 knots, 23% of observations ranged from 7 to 11
knots.
20-11
-------
As indicated in Figure 20-25, the wind rose for WETX looks similar to the one for RRTX
and TRTX. Hourly winds were predominantly out of the south (16% of observations) on days
samples were taken near WETX. Calm winds (<2 knots) were recorded for 34% of the hourly
measurements. For wind speeds greater than 2 knots, 23% of observations ranged from 7 to 11
knots.
As expected, the wind rose for YDSP is much different than the wind roses for the Austin
sites. Figure 20-26 shows that hourly winds were predominantly out of the east (13% of
observations), north (9%), and west (9%) on days samples were taken near YDSP. Calm winds
(<2 knots) were recorded for less than 12% of the hourly measurements. For wind speeds
greater than 2 knots, 30% of observations ranged from 7 to 11 knots. Figure 20-26 shows that
wind speeds greater than 22 knots tended to occur most frequently with southwesterly and
westerly winds.
20.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic volume comparison; and
BTEX analysis.
20.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Volume Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population in Travis, Williamson, and El Paso
Counties were obtained from the Texas Department of Transportation and the U.S. Census
Bureau, and are summarized in Table 20-6. Table 20-6 also includes a vehicle registration to
county population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each
site is presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile
population surrounding the monitor and the vehicle registration ratio. Finally, Table 20-6
contains the average daily traffic information, which represents the average number of vehicles
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
It's evident from Table 20-6 that the RRTX monitoring site has a significantly lower
county and 10-mile population than the other Austin sites, as well as a significantly lower county
20-12
-------
and 10-mile estimated vehicle ownership. Interestingly, the vehicle-population ratios are very
similar for Travis and Williamson Counties. The YDSP site has a higher population and vehicle
ownership than RRTX, yet lower than the remaining Austin sites. Due to its low vehicle per
person ratio, although the YDSP's 10-mile population is higher than RRTX, the 10 mile vehicle
ownership near YDSP is just slightly higher than at RRTX. Of the five Austin sites, PITX
experiences the most daily traffic, while MUTX experiences the least. Compared to other
UATMP sites, the four Austin-proper sites are on the lower end of the more populous locations.
The vehicle per person ratios for MUTX, PITX, RRTX, TRTX, and WETX are in the middle of
the range of UATMP sites, while the YDSP ratio is on the low-side.
20.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to Section 3.2.1.4). Table 3-11 presented
and Figure 3-4 depicted the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compared
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites in an effort to characterize the
impacts of on-road, or motor vehicle, emissions. Of the six Texas sites, the YDSP monitoring
site's ratios most resemble those of the roadside study, suggesting that mobile source emissions
are a major influence at this site, although its benzene-ethylbenzene and xylenes-ethylbenzene
ratios are closer together than the roadside study's (2.83 ฑ0.18 and 3.54 ฑ 0.10 for YDSP vs.
2.85 and 4.55 for the roadside study). Interestingly, the ratios for MUTX, PITX, TRTX, and
WETX look very similar to each other. The ratios are all lower than those of the roadside study
and the benzene-ethylbenzene and xylenes-ethylbenzene ratios are closer together than the
roadside study's. The RRTX ratios resemble the other Austin sites except that its toluene-
ethylbenzene ratio is significantly higher than those of the other sites as well as the roadside
study's (8.28 ฑ 1.73 for RRTX and 5.85 for the roadside study).
20.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
20-13
-------
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 20-7 presents the 1999
NATA results for the census tracts where the Texas monitoring sites are located. Only pollutants
that "failed" the screens are presented in Table 20-7. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
The MUTX monitoring site is located in census tract 48453001718 with a population of
5,550, which represents 0.7% of the 2000 county population. The PITX monitoring site is
located in census tract 48453001849, with a population in 2000 of 4,499, which represents 0.6%
of Travis County's population. RRTX is located in census tract 48491021502. The population
in 2000 in that census tract was 4,464, or just less than 1.8% of the Williamson County
population. The TRTX monitoring site is located in census tract 48453002308 with a population
in 2000 of 5,165, which represents 0.6% of the county population. The WETX monitoring site is
located in census tract 48453000802 with a population in 2000 of 3,356, which represents 0.4%
of the county population. Finally, YDSP is located in census tract 48141003902. In 2000, the
population in this census tract was 2,400 or 0.4 % of the El Paso County population.
20.6.1 1999 NATA Summary
In terms of cancer risk, the Top 3 pollutants identified by NATA in the MUTX, PITX and
WETX census tracts are benzene (13.63, 13.24, and 11.92 in-a-million risk, respectively), 1,3-
butadiene (4.94, 4.70, and 4.73 in-a-million risk, respectively), and acetaldehyde (3.45, 3.67, and
3.46 in-a-million risk, respectively). The Top 3 pollutants identified by NATA in the RRTX
census tract are benzene (10.61 in-a-million risk), 1,3-butadiene (3.34 in-a-million risk), and
carbon tetrachloride (3.21 in-a-million risk). Benzene (13.15 in-a-million risk), 1,2-
dibromoethane (5.15 in-a-million risk), and 1,3-butadiene (5.11 in-a-million risk) are the Top 3
pollutants identified by NATA in the TRTX census tract. Finally, benzene (6.79 in-a-million
risk), carbon tetrachloride (3.17 in-a-million risk), and 1,3-butadiene (2.63 in-a-million risk) are
the Top 3 pollutants identified by NATA in the YDSP census tract. Benzene risk was highest at
all six Texas sites, ranging from 6.79 in a million at YDSP to 13.63 in a million at MUTX.
20-14
-------
Acrolein was the only pollutant in the Texas census tracts to have a noncancer hazard
quotient greater than 1.0, ranging from 1.78 at YDSP to 6.64 at WETX. Hazard quotients
greater than 1.0 may lead to adverse health effects. Most noncancer hazard quotients were less
than 0.10, suggesting very little risk for noncancer health affects near the Texas monitoring sites,
with the exception of acrolein
20.6.2 Annual Average Comparison
NATA-modeled concentrations are assumed to be the average concentration that a person
breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid annual average representing an entire year, including
detects and non-detects, needs to be calculated (refer to Section 20.2 on how a valid annual
average is calculated). Unfortunately, the Texas sites did not begin sampling until after February
2005, therefore, valid annual averages could not be calculated.
Texas Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest common to each of the Texas sites are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-
butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, andp-dichlorobenzene.
Acrolein measured the highest daily average at all five Austin sites, while total xylenes
measured highest at the El Paso site.
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at all six Texas sites.
20-15
-------
Figure 20-1. Austin, Texas (MUTX) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
20-16
-------
Figure 20-2. Austin, Texas (PITX) Monitoring Site
'mtmrn
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
20-17
-------
Figure 20-3. Austin, Texas (RRTX) Monitoring Site
"^~"$fc-ฃrfll
Nฃ i
Bซd>e*vi
" X
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
20-18
-------
Figure 20-4. Austin, Texas (TRTX) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
20-19
-------
Figure 20-5. Austin, Texas (WETX) Monitoring Site
M I/I/ $M;\V4i
fjhfyk -yp-ra^
vซซ--.>; v-^.:..-._:...::::;-. . ฃ"- _|fe^&3*fj
'C'"""":; -: Si' -' -^:" 2 -i ^ -:::' fe^ซ
:iW ", t.^T-it"^ J lV%tw$^
BMX I.I:*^: =
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
20-20
-------
Figure 20-6. El Paso, Texas (YDSP) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
20-21
-------
Figure 20-7. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of the Austin, Texas Monitoring Sites
(MUTX, PITX, RRTX, TRTX, and WETX)
9/*45iyW 9?*40iQ"W 97'35'CrW 9T"3CrO'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent aH facilities vmlhin the area of interest.
Legend
T^> MUTX UATMP site
ฃ PITX UATMP site
RRTX UATMP site
TRTX UATMP site
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (2)
Z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (2)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (2)
Instruments & Related Products Facility (1)
r Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (2)
& Lumber & Wood Products Facility (1 )
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (2)
WETX UATMP site | County boundary
10 mile radius
Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (6)
Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (1)
Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (1}
Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1 )
Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (4)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
Utility Boilers (2)
1 Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
20-22
-------
Figure 20-8. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of YDSP
?o'trw iQ6*i ww ioe*iOTrw
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
l_GCJ GflCi displayed may not represent ad facilities within (he area of interest.
& YDSP UATMP site
10 mile radius
~2 County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
Z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (2)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (5)
H Furniture & Fixtures Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (4)
National Security & International Affairs (1)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2)
P Petroleum/Nat, Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (3)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (1)
20-23
-------
Figure 20-9. Acrolein Pollution Rose at MUTX
14
NW
N
Ava Cone =6.62 ฑ 2.08 ua/m3
to
o
to
Pollutant Concentration
w
CA EPA REL (0. 1 9 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
SW
14
NE
SE
14
12
10
202
Pollutant Concentration
10
12
14
-------
Figure 20-10. Acrolein Pollution Rose at PITX
to
o
to
1 U
14
12
10
8
6
1 4
IS
c 2
01
ง 0
O
= 2
_3
ฃ 4
6
8
10
12
14
1R
NW N
-
-
^ -
-
-
W *.
\
4
-
-
-
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
SW
s
NE
Ava Cone = 5.50 ฑ 2.93 UQ/m3
E
_, i i i i i i i
*
ป
SE
16
14
12
10
202
Pollutant Concentration
10
12
14
16
-------
Figure 20-11. Acrolein Pollution Rose at RRTX
to
o
to
18
15
12
9
6
O
4=
& 3
01
o
ง 0
O
c
ฐ~ 6
9
12
15
18
91
NW N
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
-
W ^
\
-
-
-
*
-
sw s
NE
Avd Cone - 9.08 ฑ 3.70 uq/m
* E
*
*
*
*
SE
21
18
15
12
303
Pollutant Concentration
12
15
18
21
-------
Figure 20-12. Acrolein Pollution Rose at TRTX
to
o
to
1 U
14
12
10
8
6
C 4
O H
73
1 2
01
o
ง 0
O
1 2
i 4
6
8
10
12
14
1R
NW N
-
-
-
-
W .
*
-
-
-
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
SW
s
NE
Ava Cone = 6.13 ฑ 3.27 UQ/m3
*
E
-'
SE
16
14
12
10
202
Pollutant Concentration
8 10 12 14 16
-------
Figure 20-13. Acrolein Pollution Rose at WETX
to
o
to
oo
14
12
10
8
NW
O
73
01
o
ง
O
w
10
12
sw
14
N
Avg Cone =6.39 ฑ 2.08 uq/nr
CAEPAREL(0.19|jg/mJ)
-ATSDRMRL(0.11 |jg/m3)
NE
SE
14 12
10
202
Pollutant Concentration
10
12
14
-------
Figure 20-14. Acrolein Pollution Rose at YDSP
to
o
to
VO
ฃ. 1
18
15
12
9
6
O
4=
: Concent
0 t
c
$ 3
ฐ~ 6
9
12
15
18
91
NW N
CA EPA REL (0. 1 9 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
W *
4
-
-
-
-
-
SW
s
NE
Ava Cone = 9.08 ฑ 4.09 ua/m3
ป E
i .
.4 * ' ' ' ป '
*
SE
21
18
15
12
303
Pollutant Concentration
6 9 12 15 18 21
-------
Figure 20-15. Composite Back Trajectory Map for MUTX
to
o
I I I
0 50 100 200 300 400
Miles
-------
Figure 20-16. Composite Back Trajectory Map for PITX
to
o
0 50 100 200 300 400
Miles
-------
Figure 20-17. Composite Back Trajectory Map for RRTX
to
o
to
0 50 100 200 300
-------
Figure 20-18. Composite Back Trajectory Map for TRTX
to
o
\ V
*x
\ v.
\
\
1 \
\ \
\
\
0 50 100 200 300 400
ZZHZZ^^^^^B^^^^D^^^^^B Miles
-------
Figure 20-19. Composite Back Trajectory Map for WETX
to
o
0 50 100 200 300 400
Miles
-------
Figure 20-20. Composite Back Trajectory Map for YDSP
to
o
0 25 50 100 150 200
Miles
-------
Figure 20-21. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the MUTX Monitoring Site
YlORTH'
to
o
WEST!
10%
SOUTH .--'
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | >=22
17 - 21
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I I 4- 7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 4485%
-------
Figure 20-22. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the PITX Monitoring Site
'NORTH"-
to
o
WEST!
10%
SOUTH
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
17 - 21
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I I 4- 7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 43.70%
-------
Figure 20-23. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the RRTX Monitoring Site
to
o
oo
WEST
20%
16%
12%
$> /'
8%.
SOUTH, -"
EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
^=22
17 - 21
CZl 11 - 17
I I 7- 11
2- 4
Calms: 27.01%
-------
Figure 20-24. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the TRTX Monitoring Site
to
o
vo
WEST!
""" NORTH"'
20%
16%
12%
SOUTH --"
I EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | s=22
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I I A- 7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 3450%
-------
Figure 20-25. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the WETX Monitoring Site
WEST ;
to
o
NORTH'"-'-,
20%
12%
SOUTH.-
:EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
17 - 21
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I I 4- 7
H 2- 4
Calms: 33.85%
-------
Figure 20-26. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the YDSP Monitoring Site
to
o
15%
12%
SOUTH
AST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
17 - 21
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
EH 4-7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 11.71%
-------
Table 20-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Sites in Texas
Site
MUTX
PITX
RRTX
TRTX
WETX
YDSP
WBAN
13958
13958
53942
13904
13904
23044
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(ฐF)
79.97
ฑ1.51
85.68
ฑ5.16
79.97
ฑ1.51
85.35
ฑ5.62
78.75
ฑ1.53
86.11
ฑ5.63
81.08
ฑ1.51
86.27
ฑ6.19
81.08
ฑ1.51
87.41
ฑ5.67
77.58
ฑ1.56
80.90
ฑ4.02
Average
Temperature
(ฐF)
69.21
ฑ1.40
73.88
ฑ5.54
69.21
ฑ1.4
73.76
ฑ5.97
67.49
ฑ1.46
73.35
ฑ6.39
68.96
ฑ1.42
72.59
ฑ7.01
68.96
ฑ1.42
73.90
ฑ6.41
66.21
ฑ1.53
69.12
ฑ3.94
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(ฐF)
54.25
ฑ1.52
55.04
ฑ7.27
54.25
ฑ1.52
55.24
ฑ7.70
50.95
ฑ1.49
53.71
ฑ7.52
56.58
ฑ1.53
56.97
ฑ8.82
56.58
ฑ1.53
58.61
ฑ8.07
37.40
ฑ1.54
38.14
ฑ4.96
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(ฐF)
60.65
ฑ1.26
63.13
ฑ5.57
60.65
ฑ1.26
63.18
ฑ5.94
59.46
ฑ1.34
64.20
ฑ5.96
61.69
ฑ1.32
63.56
ฑ7.09
61.69
ฑ1.32
64.88
ฑ6.49
51.36
ฑ1.14
53.11
ฑ3.28
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
62.97
ฑ1.41
55.68
ฑ4.70
62.97
ฑ1.41
56.28
ฑ4.87
59.59
ฑ1.25
54.52
ฑ3.36
69.02
ฑ1.25
63.08
ฑ5.51
69.02
ฑ1.25
63.72
ฑ4.97
40.37
ฑ1.86
37.21
ฑ5.32
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1016.00
ฑ0.62
1016.28
ฑ1.84
1016.00
ฑ0.62
1016.76
ฑ1.93
NA1
NA1
1015.75
ฑ0.61
1016.74
ฑ2.21
1015.75
ฑ0.61
1016.41
ฑ2.00
1012.39
ฑ0.57
1011.61
ฑ1.52
Average
ซ-component
of the wind
-0.77
ฑ0.22
-0.75
ฑ0.93
-0.77
ฑ0.22
-0.77
ฑ1.03
0.00
ฑ0.23
-0.29
ฑ1.04
-0.84
ฑ0.22
-1.01
ฑ1.10
-0.84
ฑ0.22
-0.94
ฑ1.00
0.77
ฑ0.55
0.61
ฑ2.00
Average
v-component
of the wind
0.68
ฑ0.41
0.55
ฑ1.38
0.68
ฑ0.41
0.52
ฑ1.54
1.35
ฑ0.54
1.62
ฑ1.83
0.89
ฑ0.57
0.94
ฑ2.10
0.89
ฑ0.57
1.20
ฑ1.89
0.38
ฑ0.33
0.79
ฑ1.03
to
o
to
This station did not record seal level pressure.
-------
Table 20-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the
Texas Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
%of
Detects
Failing
% of Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Murchison Middle School in Austin, TX - MUTX
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Arsenic (PM10)
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrolein
Tetrachloroethylene
Manganese (PM10)
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Total
16
16
14
13
13
13
12
12
11
6
5
131
16
16
14
17
13
13
14
12
13
17
5
150
100.0
100.0
100.0
76.5
100.0
100.0
85.7
100.0
84.6
35.3
100.0
87.3
12.2%
12.2%
10.7%
9.9%
9.9%
9.9%
9.2%
9.2%
8.4%
4.6%
3.8%
12.2%
24.4%
35.1%
45.0%
55.0%
64.9%
74.0%
83.2%
91.6%
96.2%
100.0%
Pickle Research Center in Austin, TX - PITX
Formaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Arsenic (PM10)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrolein
Mnganese (PM10)
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Nickel (PM10)
Total
15
15
15
15
14
12
12
9
8
2
2
1
1
121
15
15
15
15
14
15
14
9
15
2
10
4
15
158
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
80.0
85.7
100.0
53.3
100.0
20.0
25.0
6.7
76.6
12.4%
12.4%
12.4%
12.4%
11.6%
9.9%
9.9%
7.4%
6.6%
1.7%
1.7%
0.8%
0.8%
12.4%
24.8%
37.2%
49.6%
61.2%
71.1%
81.0%
88.4%
95.04%
96.7%
98.3%
99.2%
100.0%
Round Rock, TX - RRTX
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Arsenic (PM10)
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrolein
Tetrachloroethylene
Manganese (PM10)
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Acrylonitrile
Chloromethylbenzene
Total
16
16
15
15
14
14
13
11
11
10
4
1
1
141
16
16
15
15
14
18
14
11
15
18
4
1
1
158
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
77.8
92.9
100.0
73.3
55.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
89.2
11.3%
11.3%
10.6%
10.6%
9.9%
9.9%
9.2%
7.8%
7.8%
7.1%
2.8%
0.7%
0.7%
11.3%
22.7%
33.3%
44.0%
53.9%
63.8%
73.0%
80.9%
88.7%
95.7%
98.6%
99.3%
100.0%
20-43
-------
Table 20-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the
Texas Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
%of
Detects
Failing
% of Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Travis High School in Austin, TX - TRTX
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Acetaldehyde
Manganese (PM10)
Tetrachloroethylene
Acrolein
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Cadmium (PM10)
1,2-Dichloroethane
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Nickel (PM10)
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
Vinyl chloride
Chloromethylbenzene
Total
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
9
7
7
6
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
142
15
15
15
14
15
14
14
15
11
7
6
15
2
1
15
1
1
7
1
184
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
93.3
100.0
100.0
60.0
63.6
100.0
100.0
26.7
100.0
100.0
6.7
100.0
100.0
14.3
100.0
77.2
10.6%
10.6%
10.6%
9.9%
9.9%
9.9%
9.9%
6.3%
4.9%
4.9%
4.2%
2.8%
1.4%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
10.6%
21.1%
31.7%
41.5%
51.4%
61.3%
71.1%
77.5%
82.4%
87.3%
91.5%
94.4%
95.8%
96.5%
97.2%
97.9%
98.6%
99.3%
100.0%
Webberville Road in Austin, TX - WETX
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (PM10)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Manganese (PM10)
Acrolein
Tetrachloroethylene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Xylenes
1,2-Dichloroethane
Total
15
15
14
13
13
13
12
11
7
6
5
3
1
128
15
15
17
13
13
13
12
17
7
11
5
13
1
152
100.0
100.0
82.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
64.7
100.0
54.5
100.0
23.1
100.0
84.2
11.7%
11.7%
10.9%
10.2%
10.2%
10.2%
9.4%
8.6%
5.5%
4.7%
3.9%
2.3%
0.8%
11.7%
23.4%
34.4%
44.5%
54.7%
64.8%
74.2%
82.8%
88.3%
93.0%
96.9%
99.2%
100.0%
20-44
-------
Table 20-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the
Texas Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
%of
Detects
Failing
% of Total
Failures
%
Contribution
ElPaso, TX-YDSP
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Xylenes
Acrolein
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Total
40
40
34
28
9
9
9
8
2
179
40
40
34
29
9
40
9
17
19
237
100.0
100.0
100.0
96.6
100.0
22.5
100.0
47.1
10.5
75.5
22.3%
22.3%
19.0%
15.6%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
4.5%
1.1%
22.3%
44.7%
63.7%
79.3%
84.4%
89.4%
94.4%
98.9%
100.0%
20-45
-------
Table 20-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Texas Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Murchison Middle School in Austin, TX - MUTX
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese (PM10)
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
14
13
12
17
16
16
13
17
14
13
16
13
15
17
16
16
13
17
16
16
0.10
1.64
6.62
0.0005
1.10
0.68
3.28
0.0047
0.37
0.37
0.02
0.27
2.08
0.0002
0.14
0.07
0.77
0.0021
0.16
0.16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
0.0004
NR
NR
NR
0.0021
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.0003
NR
NR
NR
0.0009
NR
NR
0.11
1.83
4.89
0.0005
1.07
0.74
2.82
0.0071
0.21
0.42
0.02
0.32
2.63
0.0002
0.13
0.07
0.74
0.0037
0.07
0.22
Pickle Research Center in Austin, TX - PITX
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese (PM10)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
14
15
9
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
0.11
1.63
5.50
0.0004
1.02
0.68
3.35
0.0066
0.41
0.02
0.29
2.93
0.0001
0.14
0.05
0.66
0.0030
0.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.13
1.83
NR
0.0005
1.04
0.73
3.12
0.0095
0.20
0.03
0.36
NR
0.0001
0.23
0.08
0.62
0.0046
0.09
Round Rock, TX - RRTX
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese (PM10)
14
16
11
18
15
15
16
18
15
16
14
18
15
15
16
18
0.12
1.69
9.08
0.0004
1.18
0.68
3.72
0.0059
0.05
0.23
3.70
0.0001
0.14
0.08
0.52
0.0021
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
0.0004
NR
NR
NR
0.0029
NR
NR
NR
0.0002
NR
NR
NR
0.0013
0.11
1.77
NR
0.0005
1.10
0.73
3.41
0.0081
0.04
0.19
NR
0.0002
0.16
0.11
0.44
0.0034
to
o
-------
Table 20-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Texas Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
#
Detects
14
15
#
Samples
15
15
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
0.42
0.30
Conf.
Int.
0.17
0.10
Winter
Avg
(Hg/m3)
NA
NA
Conf.
Int.
NA
NA
Spring
Avg
(Hg/m3)
NA
NA
Conf.
Int.
NA
NA
Summer
Avg
(Hg/m3)
NR
NR
Conf.
Int.
NR
NR
Autumn
Avg
(Hg/m3)
0.24
0.30
Conf.
Int.
0.08
0.12
Travis High School in Austin, TX - TRTX
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Cadmium (PM10)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
2
15
14
7
15
15
15
15
14
6
15
14
11
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
0.26
0.20
1.63
6.13
0.0010
1.36
0.0004
0.70
3.35
0.20
0.0061
0.39
0.35
0.08
0.04
0.29
3.27
0.0007
0.22
0.0002
0.07
0.70
0.12
0.0019
0.14
0.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.21
1.81
NR
0.0012
1.31
0.0006
0.69
3.35
NR
0.0073
0.30
NR
NR
0.06
0.35
NR
0.0012
0.27
0.0003
0.12
0.59
NR
0.0033
0.10
NR
Webberville Road in Austin, TX - WETX
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
13
15
7
17
13
13
15
5
17
12
11
13
15
12
17
13
13
15
13
17
13
13
0.40
2.19
6.39
0.0014
2.20
0.67
3.57
0.18
0.0067
0.42
0.22
0.16
0.42
2.08
0.0017
0.55
0.06
0.54
0.05
0.0021
0.10
0.08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
NR
0.0004
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.0038
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.0002
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.0018
NR
NR
0.39
2.30
NR
0.0025
2.04
0.70
3.50
NR
0.0091
0.39
0.21
0.15
0.43
NR
0.0035
0.58
0.08
0.39
NR
0.0033
0.14
0.09
to
o
-------
Table 20-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Texas Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
ElPaso, TX-YDSP
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
34
9
40
40
9
29
17
40
40
26
40
40
40
40
40
40
0.35
4.48
2.33
0.62
0.19
0.60
0.20
7.37
0.08
4.09
0.34
0.04
0.04
0.22
0.06
1.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NR
NR
1.79
0.53
NA
NA
NA
5.24
NR
NR
0.33
0.06
NR
NR
NR
1.33
0.20
NR
1.65
0.59
NR
0.29
NR
5.85
0.08
NR
0.50
0.06
NR
0.13
NR
2.60
0.32
NR
2.68
0.72
1.02
0.72
0.13
7.81
0.08
NR
0.44
0.08
0.40
0.37
0.04
1.59
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not responsible due to low number of detects.
to
o
oo
-------
Table 20-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Texas Monitoring Sites
Site
MUTX
PITX
RRTX
TRTX
WETX
YDSP
Method
TO- 15
TO- 15
TO- 15
TO- 15
TO- 15
TO- 15
Pollutant
Acrolein
Acrolein
Acrolein
Acrolein
Acrolein
Acrolein
Daily
Average
(Mg/m3)
6.62
ฑ2.08
5.50
ฑ2.93
9.08
ฑ3.70
6.13
ฑ3.27
6.39
ฑ2.08
4.48
ฑ4.09
ATSDR
Short-term
MRL (ug/m3)
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
12
9
11
7
7
9
CAL EPA
REL Acute
(Ug/m3)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
12
9
11
7
7
9
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(Mg/m3)
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
Winter
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Spring
Average
(Ug/m3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Summer
Average
(Ug/m3)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Nr
Autumn
Average
(Ug/m3)
4.89
ฑ2.63
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
to
o
VO
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
-------
Table 20-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
Texas Monitoring Sites
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperataure
Relative
Humidity
w-Component
of the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea
Level
Pressure
Murchison Middle School in Austin, TX - MUTX
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese (PM10)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
14
13
12
17
16
16
13
17
14
13
-0.35
0.13
0.54
0.04
0.48
-0.18
0.67
-0.42
0.69
-0.33
-0.47
0.12
0.59
0.07
0.46
-0.17
0.69
-0.50
0.66
-0.26
-0.39
0.08
0.47
0.05
0.49
-0.14
0.60
-0.40
0.64
-0.29
-0.45
0.07
0.52
0.05
0.47
-0.16
0.62
-0.46
0.65
-0.28
-0.19
-0.03
0.04
-0.02
0.39
-0.07
0.31
-0.11
0.36
-0.30
-0.14
-0.22
-0.58
-0.14
-0.37
0.04
-0.48
0.25
-0.38
0.02
0.22
-0.05
0.28
-0.36
0.30
0.14
0.29
-0.06
0.29
-0.45
0.55
0.23
0.00
0.07
-0.07
0.20
-0.15
0.27
-0.41
0.46
Pickle Research Center in Austin, TX - PITX
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese (PM10)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
14
15
9
15
15
15
15
15
14
-0.21
-0.26
0.79
-0.07
0.39
-0.13
0.61
-0.36
0.76
-0.27
-0.24
0.75
-0.01
0.35
-0.05
0.63
-0.43
0.77
-0.26
-0.28
0.69
0.00
0.38
-0.02
0.56
-0.27
0.73
-0.28
-0.27
0.71
-0.01
0.35
-0.02
0.59
-0.35
0.74
-0.22
-0.32
0.41
0.00
0.32
0.09
0.26
0.11
0.43
-0.19
0.29
-0.42
0.02
-0.19
0.23
-0.24
0.30
-0.39
-0.04
-0.59
0.45
-0.40
-0.06
-0.31
-0.08
-0.11
0.27
0.58
0.26
-0.49
0.22
-0.10
-0.06
-0.34
0.12
-0.60
Round Rock, TX - RRTX
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
14
16
11
18
15
15
-0.33
-0.25
0.45
-0.05
0.15
0.06
-0.48
-0.33
0.54
-0.04
0.01
0.05
-0.44
-0.37
0.59
0.01
0.03
0.13
-0.51
-0.23
0.69
0.05
-0.01
0.41
-0.44
-0.25
0.66
0.11
-0.03
0.49
0.10
-0.33
-0.55
-0.41
-0.29
-0.61
0.24
-0.23
0.43
-0.24
0.06
0.66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table 20-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
Texas Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Manganese (PM10)
ฃ>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
#
Detects
16
18
14
15
Maximum
Temperature
0.61
-0.49
0.69
0.08
Average
Temperature
0.52
-0.66
0.64
-0.10
Dew Point
Temperature
0.48
-0.61
0.63
-0.06
Wet Bulb
Temperataure
0.47
-0.50
0.54
0.03
Relative
Humidity
0.32
-0.30
0.42
0.12
w-Component
of the Wind
-0.56
0.17
-0.28
0.03
v-Component
of the Wind
0.05
0.07
0.24
0.26
Sea
Level
Pressure
NA
NA
NA
NA
Travis High School in Austin, TX - TRTX
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Cadmium (PM10)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
2
15
14
7
15
15
15
15
14
6
15
14
11
NA
-0.11
-0.12
0.88
0.27
0.29
0.30
-0.01
0.50
-0.52
-0.46
0.60
-0.23
-0.27
-0.12
0.85
0.28
0.21
0.30
-0.09
0.51
-0.56
-0.57
0.53
-0.36
-0.20
-0.15
0.92
0.26
0.29
0.34
0.02
0.48
-0.45
-0.48
0.58
-0.28
-0.26
-0.15
0.90
0.27
0.25
0.32
-0.04
0.49
-0.51
-0.54
0.56
-0.33
0.01
-0.15
0.80
0.14
0.43
0.29
0.23
0.31
0.17
-0.15
0.54
-0.01
-0.18
-0.29
-0.68
-0.16
-0.36
-0.19
-0.09
-0.51
0.42
0.11
-0.46
0.02
0.24
-0.48
0.47
0.29
-0.16
0.36
0.58
-0.26
0.65
0.11
0.14
0.49
0.18
0.31
-0.55
-0.30
-0.05
-0.27
-0.24
-0.17
0.03
0.27
-0.49
0.13
Webberville Road in Austin, TX - WETX
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
13
15
7
17
13
13
15
5
17
-0.41
-0.40
0.81
-0.35
-0.17
0.43
0.13
0.36
-0.56
-0.55
-0.45
0.78
-0.46
-0.31
0.40
0.10
0.36
-0.69
-0.48
-0.45
0.83
-0.43
-0.23
0.45
0.09
0.33
-0.61
-0.53
-0.47
0.81
-0.45
-0.29
0.42
0.08
0.35
-0.67
-0.19
-0.33
0.65
-0.17
0.00
0.41
0.03
0.15
-0.27
0.16
0.06
-0.64
0.03
0.12
-0.39
-0.21
0.49
0.07
0.27
-0.23
0.25
-0.09
0.17
0.36
-0.12
0.82
0.04
0.27
0.42
0.12
0.40
0.10
-0.40
0.10
-0.47
0.43
-------
Table 20-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
Texas Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Pollutant
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
#
Detects
12
11
Maximum
Temperature
-0.15
0.00
Average
Temperature
-0.33
-0.20
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.23
-0.16
Wet Bulb
Temperataure
-0.30
-0.21
Relative
Humidity
0.08
-0.04
w-Component
of the Wind
0.05
-0.08
v-Component
of the Wind
0.12
0.49
Sea
Level
Pressure
0.10
-0.05
ElPaso,TX-YDSP
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
34
9
40
40
9
29
17
40
-0.53
0.58
-0.33
-0.19
-0.45
-0.04
0.10
-0.28
-0.61
0.51
-0.43
-0.18
-0.55
-0.12
0.09
-0.37
-0.74
0.16
-0.55
0.09
-0.48
-0.25
-0.12
-0.55
-0.73
0.28
-0.54
-0.03
-0.56
-0.22
-0.03
-0.51
-0.46
-0.29
-0.37
0.33
-0.27
-0.29
-0.34
-0.41
0.14
-0.40
0.08
-0.05
-0.20
0.08
-0.16
0.05
-0.03
0.10
-0.08
-0.21
-0.07
0.11
0.18
-0.07
0.35
-0.57
0.24
0.29
0.58
-0.04
-0.02
0.23
to
o
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
to
-------
to
o
Table 20-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the Texas Monitoring Sites
Site
MUTX
PITX
RRTX
TRTX
WETX
YDSP
2005 Estimated
County
Population
888,185
888,185
333,457
888,185
888,185
721,598
Number of
Vehicles Registered
707,976
707,976
269,253
707,976
707,976
505,459
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
0.80
0.80
0.81
0.80
0.80
0.70
Population
Within 10 Miles
679,750
649,314
365,870
553,117
666,062
430,692
Estimated 10
Mile Vehicle
Ownership
541,832
517,571
295,425
440,892
530,921
301,688
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
4,374
33,936
20,900
27,114
5,733
12,400
-------
Table 20-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring
Sites in Texas
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Ug/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Murchison Middle School in Austin, Texas - MUTX, Census Tract 48453001718
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.16
1.57
0.11
0.01
1.75
0.22
1.57
0.01
0.35
0.03
0.24
4.94
3.45
0.04
13.63
3.24
0.01
0.03
0.38
1.42
0.08
0.17
5.35
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.16
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
Pickle Research Center in Austin, Texas - PITX, Census Tract 48453001849
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.16
1.67
0.12
0.01
1.70
0.21
1.75
O.01
1.89
0.49
0.03
0.24
0.09
4.70
3.67
~
0.06
13.24
3.17
0.01
0.03
0.08
0.35
1.40
0.18
0.08
0.19
6.22
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.18
O.01
0.04
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
Round Rock, Texas - RRTX, Census Tract 48491021502
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
hloromethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.11
1.31
0.08
O.01
0.01
1.36
0.21
0.01
1.32
0.01
0.14
0.04
0.15
3.34
2.89
0.01
0.03
10.61
3.21
0.01
0.01
0.03
~
0.46
0.90
0.06
0.15
4.18
O.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.13
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
20-54
-------
Table 20-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring
Sites in Texas (Continued)
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Ug/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Travis High School in Austin, Texas - TRTX, Census Tract 48453002308
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloro ethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Cadmium (PM10)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
Nickel (PM10)
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.05
<0.01
0.02
0.04
0.17
1.42
0.10
0.01
1.69
<0.01
0.21
<0.01
1.52
0.01
0.18
0.19
0.03
0.23
0.05
3.12
O.01
5.15
0.93
5.11
3.12
~
0.03
13.15
0.01
3.18
O.01
0.01
0.03
~
0.03
0.36
1.36
0.46
~
O.01
0.03
O.01
0.09
0.16
4.85
0.01
0.06
O.01
0.01
~
0.15
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
Webberville Road in Austin, Texas - WETX, Census Tract 48453000802
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (PM10)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
Manganese (PM10)
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.04
0.16
1.57
0.13
0.01
1.53
0.22
1.65
0.01
0.19
0.04
0.21
2.10
0.94
4.73
3.46
0.02
11.92
3.24
0.01
0.03
~
0.39
1.25
~
0.01
0.08
0.17
6.64
O.01
0.05
0.01
0.17
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.02
El Paso, Texas - YDSP, Census Tract 48141003902
1,3-Butadiene
Acrolein
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
p-Dichlorobenzene
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.09
0.04
0.87
0.21
0.01
0.03
2.63
~
6.79
3.17
0.03
0.34
0.04
1.78
0.03
0.01
0.01
O.01
20-55
-------
Table 20-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring
Sites in Texas (Continued)
Pollutant
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
2005 UATMP
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
NA
NA
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
0.14
0.07
0.91
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
0.81
0.13
-
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
0.01
O.01
0.01
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
20-56
-------
21.0 Site in Utah
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Utah (BTUT), located in Bountiful, just north of Salt Lake City. Figure 21-1 is a
topographical map showing the monitoring site in its urban location. Figure 21-2 identifies point
source emission locations within 10 miles of this site as reported in the 2002 NEI for point
sources. Most of the industrial facilities near the Bountiful site are located south of the site. A
number of these sources are involved in fuel combustion industries, petroleum and natural gas
production and refining, and fabricated metal production.
Hourly meteorological data at a weather station near this site were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather station closest
to the BTUT monitoring site is Salt Lake City International Airport (WBAN 24127).
The Salt Lake City area has a semi-arid continental climate, with large seasonal
variations. The area is dry, located on the west side of the Wasatch Mountains, and the Great
Salt Lake tends to have a moderating influence on the city's temperature. Moderate winds flow
out of the southeast on average (Ruffner and Bair, 1987). Table 21-1 presents average
meteorological conditions of temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average
dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), pressure
(average sea level pressure), and wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind)
for the entire year and on days samples were taken. As shown in Table 21-1, average
meteorological conditions on sample days are fairly representative of average weather conditions
throughout the year.
21.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Utah Monitoring Site
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest
is a modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured
pollutant concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily
concentration value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration
21-1
-------
"failed the screen." A total of 81 HAPs are listed in the guidance document as having risk
screening values. Table 21-2 presents the fifteen pollutants that failed at least one screen at
BTUT; a total of 458 measured concentrations failed screens. The pollutants of interest at BTUT
were identified as the pollutants that contributed to the top 95% of the total failed screens,
resulting in eleven pollutants: arsenic (60 failed screens), acetaldehyde (56), benzene (56),
formaldehyde (56), carbon tetrachloride (51), nickel (45), 1,3-butadiene (41), manganese (40),
tetrachloroethylene (21), hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (12), and acrolein (12). This site has the
largest number of failed screens of any UATMP site. It's important to note that the BTUT site
sampled for carbonyls, SNMOC, VOC, and metals, and that this is reflected in the site's
pollutants of interest. Also listed in Table 21-2 are the total number of detects and the percent
detects failing the screen. Of the eleven pollutants of interest, acetaldehyde, acrolein, arsenic,
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, and hexachloro-l,3-butadiene had
100% of their detects fail the screening values.
21.2 Concentration Averages at the Utah Monitoring Site
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the eleven pollutants of
interest: daily, seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the
average concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a
seasonal average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all
non-detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects
in a respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no earlier than November. Daily and seasonal averages are
presented in Table 21-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in
later sections.
Acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, manganese, and nickel were detected in
every sample taken at BTUT, while acrolein was detected in less than one-half of the samples
taken. Among the daily averages at BTUT, formaldehyde measured the highest concentration by
21-2
-------
mass (6.20 ฑ 1.00 ug/m3), followed by acetaldehyde (4.06 ฑ 0.51 ug/m3) and acrolein (1.78 ฑ
0.97 ug/m3). Seasonal averages did not vary much for each pollutant of interest at BTUT, with
the exception of benzene and formaldehyde. Benzene was highest in the winter, while
formaldehyde was highest in the summer and fall.
21.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Utah Monitoring Site
Non-chronic risk for the concentration data at BTUT was evaluated using ATSDR acute
and intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) and California EPA acute reference exposure limit
(REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as exposures from 1 to 14 days while intermediate risk is
defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. It is useful to compare daily measurements to the
short-term MRL and REL factors, as well as compare seasonal averages to the intermediate
MRL. Of the sixteen pollutants with at least one failed screen, only acrolein exceeded both the
acute and intermediate risk values, and its non-chronic risk is summarized in Table 21-4.
All twelve acrolein detects were greater than the ATSDR acute value of 0.11 ug/m3 and
the California REL value of 0.19 ug/m3. The average detected concentration was 1.78 ฑ 0.97
ug/m3, which is more than eight times the California REL value. For the intermediate acrolein
risk, seasonal averages were compared to the ATSDR intermediate value of 0.09 ug/m3. As
discussed in Sections 3.1.5, acrolein concentrations could only be evaluated beginning July 2005,
and a valid seasonal average (1.12 ฑ 0.95 ug/m3) could only be calculated for autumn. The
autumn seasonal average was significantly greater than the ATSDR intermediate risk level.
For the pollutants that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. Figure 21-3 is a pollution rose for acrolein at BTUT. The pollution rose
is a plot of daily concentration and daily average wind direction. As indicated in Figure 21-3, all
acrolein concentrations exceeded the acute risk factors, indicated by a dashed (CalEPA REL) and
solid line (ATSDR MRL). The concentrations on the pollution rose are scattered around the
center, a pattern characteristic of mobile sources. The highest concentration of acrolein occurred
on September 13, 2005 with a north-northwesterly wind. BTUT is located on the grounds of a
high school, which is just east of 1-15 (Figure 21-1).
21-2
-------
21.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Utah Monitoring Site
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
21.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 21-5 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the BTUT monitoring site. (Please
refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) Many of the pollutants of
interest had moderately strong to very strong correlations with the temperature and moisture
variables, indicating that meteorology plays an important part in air quality near BTUT. The
strongest correlations with temperature occurred with formaldehyde (0.71 with maximum
temperature and 0.69 with average temperature), indicating that formaldehyde concentrations
increase as temperatures increase. It is interesting to note that higher seasonal averages were
calculated for formaldehyde in the summer, when its warmest. Strong positive correlations with
temperature also occurred with acetaldehyde and manganese, while strong negative correlations
were calculated for 1,3-butadiene. Strong positive and negative correlations were also calculated
between the pollutants of interest and moisture variables. Formaldehyde exhibited the strongest
correlation with wet bulb temperature (0.61); 1,3-butadiene exhibited the strongest correlation
with dew point temperature (-0.46); and formaldehyde exhibited the strongest correlation with
relative humidity (-0.70). Acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and manganese exhibited moderately
strong negative correlations with the w-component of the wind. Correlations with the
v-component of the wind were weak. Moderately strong to strong positive correlations were
calculated between 1,3-butadiene, arsenic, and benzene and sea level pressure.
21.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 21-4 is a composite back trajectory map for the BTUT monitoring site for the days
on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of
air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in Figure 21-4, the back
trajectories predominantly originated from the south and northwest at BTUT. Each circle around
21-4
-------
the site in Figure 21-4 represents 100 miles. The 24-hour airshed domain is somewhat smaller at
BTUT than other UATMP sites, with trajectories originating as far away as northern California,
or over 400 miles away. However, 70% of the trajectories originated within 200 miles of the
site; and 82% within 300 miles from the BTUT monitoring site.
21.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from the Salt Lake City International Airport near the BTUT
monitoring site were uploaded into a wind rose software program, WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006).
WRPLOT produces a graphical wind rose from the wind data. A wind rose shows the frequency
of wind directions about a 16-point compass, and uses different shading to represent wind
speeds. Figure 21-5 is the wind rose for the BTUT monitoring site on days sampling occurred.
As indicated in Figure 21-5, hourly winds were predominantly out of the south-southeast (18%
of observations), southeast (15%), and south (11%) on sample days. Wind speeds tended to
range from 7 to 11 knots on day samples were taken (39% of observations). Calm winds (<2
knots) were observed for 10% of the measurements. Wind speeds greater than 22 knots were
most frequently observed with south-southeasterly winds.
21.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following spatial
analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; BTEX analysis; and
ethylene-acetylene ratio analysis.
21.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population in Davis County, UT were obtained
from the Utah State Tax Commission and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in
Table 21-6. Table 21-6 also includes a vehicle registration to county population ratio (vehicles
per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimation
of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile population surrounding the
monitor and the vehicle registration ratio. Finally, Table 21-6 contains the average daily traffic
information, which represents the average number of vehicles passing the monitoring sites on the
nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
21-5
-------
Compared to other UATMP sites, BTUT's county and 10-mile population count is in the
low to mid range as is its county-level and 10-mile vehicle registration. The average daily traffic
count falls in the middle of the range compared to other UATMP sites. The BTUT monitoring
site is considered a commercial area and is located in an urban-city center setting.
21.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to Section 3.2.1.4). Table 3-11 presented
and Figure 3-4 depicted the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compared
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites in an effort to characterize the
impact of on-road, or motor vehicle, emissions. At the BTUT site, the benzene-ethylbenzene
ratio (4.28 ฑ 0.30) is very similar to the xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio (4.25 ฑ 0.18), unlike that of
the roadside study. Similar to the roadside study, the BTUT toluene-ethylbenzene ratio (8.17 ฑ
0.64) is the highest concentration ratio.
21.5.3 Mobile Tracer Analysis
As previously stated, BTUT sampled for SNMOCs in addition to VOCs. Acetylene is a
pollutant that is primarily emitted from mobile sources, while ethylene is emitted from mobile
sources, petroleum refining facilities, and natural gas distribution facilities. Tunnel studies
conducted on mobile sources have found that concentrations of ethylene and acetylene are
typically present in a 1.7 to 1 ratio. (For more information, please refer to Section 3.2.1.3.)
Listed in Table 3-10 is the ethylene to acetylene ratio for BTUT; as shown, BTUT's ethylene-
acetylene ratio, 1.33 ฑ 0.22, is somewhat lower than the 1.7 ratio. This ratio suggests that while
mobile sources may be influencing the air quality at the Utah monitoring site, there may also be
atmospheric chemical processes affecting the quantities of ethylene in this area. Known sinks of
ethylene include reactions with ozone, as well as soil (National Library of Medicine).
21-6
-------
21.6 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2004, and are still participating in the
2005 program year (i.e., minimum 3 consecutive years), a site-specific trends analysis was
conducted. Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.3.4. The
following observations were made:
Concentrations of formaldehyde appear to have increased significantly over the
three year period, according to Figure 21-6.
Concentrations of 1,3-butadiene and benzene have changed little since 2003, as
shown in Figure 21-6.
21.7 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 21-7 presents the 1999
NATA results for the census tract where the Utah monitoring site is located. Only pollutants that
"failed" the screens are presented in Table 21-7. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
21.7.1 1999 NATA Summary
The BTUT monitoring site is located in census tract 49011126600. The population for
the census tract where the BTUT monitoring site is located was 5,116, which represents about
2.1% of the county population in 2000. In terms of cancer risk, the Top 3 pollutants identified
by NATA in the BTUT census tract are benzene (11.88 in-a-million risk), 1,3-butadiene (3.38),
and carbon tetrachloride (3.16). These cancer risks are low when compared to other urban areas,
such as near the BAPR and MTMN monitoring sites (71.0 and 39.5 in-a-million, respectively).
Acrolein was the only pollutant in the BTUT census tract to have a noncancer hazard quotient
greater than 1.0 (an HQ greater than 1.0 may lead to adverse health effects). Most noncancer
21-7
-------
hazard quotients were less than 0.10, suggesting very little risk for noncancer health affects, with
the exception of acrolein.
21.7.2 Average Annual Comparison
The Utah monitoring site annual averages are also presented in Table 21-7 for
comparison to the 1999 NATA modeled concentrations. NATA-modeled concentrations are
assumed to be the average concentration that a person breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid
annual average representing an entire year, including detects and non-detects, needs to be
calculated (refer to Section 21.2 on how a valid annual average is calculated). With a few
exceptions, the pollutants were within one order of magnitude from each other. In fact, the
modeled and measured concentrations of benzene and 1,3-butadiene are very similar.
Acetaldehyde, benzene, formaldehyde, and total xylenes are identified as the Top 4 pollutants by
mass concentration for both the 1999 NATA-modeled and 2005 annual average concentrations,
although not necessarily in that order.
Utah Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest at the Utah site are acetaldehyde, acrolein, arsenic, benzene,
1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene,
manganese, nickel, andtetrachloroethylene..
Formaldeyde measured the highest daily average at BTUT. Formaldehyde was highest
during the summer and autumn, and benzene was highest during the winter.
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at BTUT.
A comparison of formaldehyde, benzene and 1,3-butadiene concentrations for all years
of UATMP participation shows that concentrations of formaldehyde have been
increasing at BTUT since 2003, while concentrations of benzene and 1,3-butadiene
have changed little.
21-8
-------
Figure 21-1. Bountiful, UT (BTUT) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
21-9
-------
Figure 21-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BTUT
112ป15'0"W 112-10-0-W 112ฐS<
[1 i ir/v 111'55'0"w llt'50'U'W 11 t'JVII"V>/ 1H"4&C'W I I I' " ':':
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities \vilhin [he area of interest.
Legend
jif BTUT UATMP site ' 10 mile radius j _J County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
r Construction/Mining Machinery. Equipment. & Materials
Z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (4)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (9}
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (1)
= Instruments & Related Products Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (3)
& Lumber & Wood Products Facility (1)
* Membership Organizations (1)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (2)
(1) P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (4)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
P PetroleumVNat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (5)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
U Stone, Clay. Glass. S Concrete Products (2)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (3)
f Transportation by Air (1)
8 Utility Boilers (1)
r Waste Treatment 8, Disposal Industrial Facility (3)
21-10
-------
Figure 21-3. Acrolein Pollution Rose at BTUT
o
7
6
5
4
3
2
+j -t
c '
Ol
o
o 0
o u
o
4-1
c .
$ 1
_3
"5 T
Q. 2
3
4
5
g
7
8
NW N
^
-
-
-
-
A ^
w
v
-
-
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDR MRL (0.1 1 |jg/m3)
SW
s
NE
Ava Cone =1 .78 ฑ 0.97 ua/m3
E
^
* *
^
SE
1 0 1
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 21-4. Composite Back Trajectory Map for BTUT
to
K^
I
K^
to
0 37.5 75 150 225 300
Miles
-------
Figure 21-5. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the BTUT Monitoring Site
"WEST 1
SOUTH
20%
16%
12%
4%
^-xlฃHซl
EAST
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
EH ^22
111 17 - 21
11 - 17
I I 7- 11
I I 4- 7
H 2- 4
Calms: 9.ง3%
-------
Figure 21-6. Comparison of Yearly Averages of the BTUT Monitoring Site
6 -
5 -
^
.e
e.
x&
I 4 -
1
ง
u
o
U 3
|
-------
Table 21-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Site in Utah
Site
BTUT
WBAN
24127
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(ฐF)
63.50
ฑ2.05
64.78
ฑ4.69
Average
Temperature
(ฐF)
53.41
ฑ1.82
54.25
ฑ4.14
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(ฐF)
34.01
ฑ0.92
34.24
ฑ1.91
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(ฐF)
43.52
ฑ1.17
44.03
ฑ2.56
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
55.08
ฑ2.03
54.48
ฑ4.80
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1015.23
ฑ0.79
1014.75
ฑ1.91
Average
w-component
of the wind
-0.37
ฑ0.29
-0.46
ฑ0.64
Average
v-component
of the wind
2.02
ฑ0.50
1.78
ฑ1.12
-------
Table 21-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA
Screening Values at the Utah Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
%of
Detects
Failing
%of
Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Bountiful, UT - BTUT
Arsenic (TSP)
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Nickel (TSP)
1,3 -Butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Tetrachloroethylene
Acrolein
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Cadmium (TSP)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Acrylonitrile
Ethyl Acrylate
Total
60
56
56
56
51
45
41
40
21
12
12
3
2
2
1
458
60
56
56
56
51
60
41
60
31
12
12
60
16
2
1
574
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
75.00
100.00
66.67
67.74
100.00
100.00
5.00
12.50
100.00
100.00
13.1%
12.2%
12.2%
12.2%
11.1%
9.8%
9.0%
8.7%
4.6%
2.6%
2.6%
0.7%
0.4%
0.4%
0.2%
13.1%
25.3%
37.6%
49.8%
60.9%
70.7%
79.7%
88.4%
93.0%
95.6%
98.3%
98.9%
99.3%
99.8%
100.0%
21-16
-------
Table 21-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Utah Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Bountiful, UT - BTUT
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Nickel (TSP)
Tetrachloroethylene
41
56
12
60
56
51
56
12
60
60
31
56
56
28
60
56
55
56
55
60
60
55
0.15
4.06
1.78
0.001
1.53
0.56
6.20
0.20
0.007
0.004
0.29
0.04
0.51
0.97
0.0002
0.26
0.04
1.00
0.02
0.001
0.001
0.08
0.21
3.05
NA
0.0013
2.69
0.52
3.69
NR
0.0057
0.0036
0.34
0.09
0.83
NA
0.0005
0.68
0.08
0.93
NR
0.0014
0.0014
0.15
0.09
2.71
NA
0.0008
0.97
0.41
3.73
NR
0.0066
0.0055
NR
0.01
0.67
NA
0.0002
0.10
0.07
0.99
NR
0.0015
0.0033
NR
0.09
5.83
NR
0.0007
1.30
0.59
9.75
NR
0.0091
0.0034
0.21
0.01
0.94
NR
0.0002
0.21
0.05
2.09
NR
0.0017
0.0008
0.07
0.15
4.43
1.12
0.0010
1.25
0.60
7.13
0.86
0.0081
0.0035
0.23
0.03
0.68
0.95
0.0004
0.34
0.10
1.57
0.41
0.0018
0.0010
0.07
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
-------
Table 21-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Utah Monitoring Site
Site
BTUT
Method
TO- 15
Pollutant
Acrolein
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1.78
ฑ0.97
ATSDR
Short-
term
MRL
(Hg/m3)
0.11
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
12
CAL EPA
REL
Acute
(Hg/m3)
0.19
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
12
ATSDR
Intermediate-
term MRL
(Hg/m3)
0.09
Winter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
Spring
Average
(Hg/m3)
NA
Summer
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
Autumn
Average
(jig/m3)
1.12
ฑ0.95
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
oo
-------
Table 21-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Utah
Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#
detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
w-Component
of the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea
Level
Pressure
Bountiful, UT - BTUT
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Nickel (TSP)
Tetrachloroethylene
41
56
12
60
56
51
56
12
60
60
31
-0.53
0.64
0.36
-0.27
-0.29
0.07
0.71
-0.34
0.53
0.02
-0.04
-0.56
0.60
0.35
-0.30
-0.33
0.03
0.69
-0.25
0.48
-0.01
-0.07
-0.46
0.26
0.16
-0.25
-0.24
-0.18
0.34
-0.11
0.29
-0.05
0.22
-0.58
0.52
0.32
-0.32
-0.35
-0.05
0.61
-0.23
0.44
-0.01
0.00
0.51
-0.63
-0.40
0.27
0.34
-0.13
-0.70
0.27
-0.49
-0.02
0.30
0.04
-0.32
0.04
0.04
-0.03
-0.15
-0.31
0.01
-0.26
-0.01
0.07
-0.13
0.16
-0.15
-0.09
-0.03
0.06
0.21
0.18
0.14
0.00
-0.04
0.59
0.04
-0.30
0.45
0.45
0.23
-0.15
-0.08
0.05
0.05
-0.22
-------
Table 21-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the Utah Monitoring Site
Site
BTUT
2005 Estimated
County
Population
268,187
Number of
Vehicles
Registered
271,537
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
0.81
Population
Within 10 Miles
243,462
Estimated 10
mile Vehicle
Ownership
197,481
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
33,310
to
o
-------
Table 21-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Site in Utah
PM
Type
Pollutant
2005
UATMP
Annual
Average
fag/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Bountiful, Utah - BTUT, Census Tract 49011126600
NA
NA
NA
NA
TSP
NA
TSP
NA
NA
NA
NA
TSP
TSP
NA
NA
NA
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Cadmium (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Ethyl Acrylate
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Nickel (TSP)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
0.13 ฑ0.03
4.06 ฑ0.51
NA
0.08 ฑ0.02
0.01
1.53 ฑ0.26
0.01
0.53 ฑ0.04
0.12 ฑ0.002
6.20 ฑ1.00
0.89 ฑ0.13
0.01 ฑ0.001
O.01
0.06 ฑ0.01
0.23 ฑ0.05
3.68 ฑ0.58
0.11
1.15
0.08
0.01
0.28
1.52
0.07
0.21
0.01
1.23
O.01
0.29
0.32
0.03
0.12
2.25
3.38
2.53
~
0.05
1.22
11.88
0.12
3.16
0.01
0.01
0.03
~
0.05
0.37
0.68
-
0.06
0.13
4.05
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
~
0.13
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
21-21
-------
22.0 Site in Wisconsin
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Wisconsin (MAWI), located in Madison. Figure 22-1 is a topographical map showing the
monitoring site in its urban location. Figure 22-2 identifies point source emission locations
within 10 miles of this site as reported in the 2002 NEI for point sources. The map shows that
MAWI is surrounded by a number of industrial facilities, of which a majority are involved in
fuel combustion industries.
Hourly meteorological data at a weather station near this site were retrieved for all of
2005. These data are used to determine how meteorological conditions on sample days vary
from normal conditions throughout the year. They are also used to calculate correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements. The weather station closest
to the MAWI monitoring site is Dane County Regional - Traux Field Airport (WBAN 14837).
Madison is wedged between Lake Mendota and Lake Monona, in south-central
Wisconsin. Its Great Lakes location ensures that the area experiences frequent weather systems,
fairly typical of a continental climate. Temperatures can fluctuate drastically with potent
weather systems, and the frozen lakes offer little moderating effects in the winter. Spring and
summer tend to bring the most precipitation, but Madison receives its fair share of snow.
Average wind direction depends on season. Summer and fall tend to bring southerly winds,
while northwesterly winds are most common in the winter and spring (Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
Table 22-1 presents average meteorological conditions of temperature (average maximum and
average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average
relative humidity), pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind information (average u- and
v- components of the wind) for the entire year and on days samples were taken. As shown in
Table 22-1, average meteorological conditions on sample days are fairly representative of
average weather conditions throughout the year.
22-1
-------
22.1 Pollutants of Interest at the Wisconsin Monitoring Site
As described in Section 3.1.4, the new methodology for evaluating pollutants of interest
is a modification of guidance developed by EPA Region 4 (EPA, 2006b). Each measured
pollutant concentration was compared against a list of risk screening values. If the daily
concentration value was greater than the risk screening value, then the measured concentration
"failed the screen." A total of 81 HAPs are listed in the guidance document as having risk
screening values. Table 22-2 presents the sixteen pollutants that failed at least one screen at
MAWI; a total of 335 measured concentrations failed screens. The pollutants of interest at
MAWI were identified as the pollutants that contributed to the top 95% of the total failed
screens, resulting in nine pollutants: benzene (60 failed screens), acetaldehyde (59), carbon
tetrachloride (58), formaldehyde (56), arsenic (30), 1,3-butadiene (18), manganese (17),
tetrachloroethylene (13), and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (9). It's important to note that the
MAWI site sampled for carbonyls, VOC, and metals, and that this is reflected in the site's
pollutants of interest. Also listed in Table 22-2 are the total number of detects and the percent
detects failing the screen. Of the nine pollutants of interest, acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, arsenic, and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene had 100% of their detects fail the screening
values.
22.2 Concentration Averages at the Wisconsin Monitoring Site
Three types of concentration averages were calculated for the nine pollutants of interest:
daily, seasonal, and annual. The daily average of a particular pollutant is simply the average
concentration of all detects. If there are at least seven detects within each season, then a
seasonal average can be calculated. The seasonal average includes 1/2 MDLs substituted for all
non-detects. A seasonal average will not be calculated for pollutants with less than seven detects
in a respective season. Finally, the annual average is the average concentration of all detects and
1/2 MDLs substituted for non-detects. The resulting daily averages may therefore be inherently
higher than the annual averages where 1/2 MDLs replacing non-detects are incorporated into the
average. Annual averages will only be calculated for monitoring sites where sampling began no
later than February and ended no earlier than November. Daily and seasonal averages are
presented in Table 22-3. Annual averages will be presented and discussed in further detail in
later sections.
22-2
-------
Acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, and manganese were detected in every
sample taken at MAWI, while hexachloro-1,3-butadiene was detected in less than one-quarter of
the samples taken. Among the daily averages at MAWI, formaldehyde measured the highest
concentration by mass (2.49 ฑ 0.38 ug/m3), followed by acetaldehyde (1.64 ฑ 0.17 ug/m3) and
benzene (0.89 ฑ 0.13 ug/m3). Seasonal averages of the pollutants of interest did not vary much
from season to season, with the exception of formaldehyde. Formaldehyde concentrations
tended to be higher in the summer (4.15 ฑ 0.62 ug/m3) compared to other seasons (1.45 ฑ 0.22
ug/m3, 1.99 ฑ 0.31 ug/m3, and 2.27 ฑ 0.76 ug/m3 for winter, spring, and fall, respectively).
22.3 Non-chronic Risk Evaluation at the Wisconsin Monitoring Site
Non-chronic risk for the concentration data at MAWI was evaluated using ATSDR acute
and intermediate minimal risk level (MRL) and California EPA acute reference exposure limit
(REL) factors. Acute risk is defined as exposures from 1 to 14 days while intermediate risk is
defined as exposures from 15 to 364 days. It is useful to compare daily measurements to the
short-term MRL and REL factors, as well as compare seasonal averages to the intermediate
MRL. Of the sixteen pollutants with at least one failed screen, only acrolein exceeded the acute
risk values, and its non-chronic risk is summarized in Table 22-4.
All seven acrolein detects were greater than the ATSDR acute value of 0.11 ug/m3 and
the California REL value of 0.19 ug/m3. The average detected concentration was 1.71 ฑ 1.48
ug/m3, which is nearly ten times the California REL value. For the intermediate acrolein risk,
seasonal averages were compared to the ATSDR intermediate value of 0.09 ug/m3. As discussed
in Sections 3.1.5, acrolein concentrations could only be evaluated beginning July 2005, and a
valid seasonal average could only be calculated for autumn. However, intermediate risk could
not be evaluated because acrolein was not detected frequently enough to calculate an autumn
average for MAWI.
For the pollutants that exceeded the short-term (acute) risk factors, the concentrations
were further examined. Figure 22-3 is a pollution rose for acrolein at MAWI. The pollution rose
is a plot of daily concentration and daily average wind direction. As indicated in Figure 22-3, all
acrolein concentrations exceeded the acute risk factors, indicated by a dashed (CalEPA REL) and
22-2
-------
solid line (ATSDR MRL). The concentrations on the pollution rose are scattered around the
center, a pattern characteristic of mobile sources. The highest concentration of acrolein occurred
on September 22, 2005 with a northerly wind. MAWI is located on the athletic fields of a high
school wedged between several major roadways just south of Traux Field Airport (Figure 22-1).
A handful of industrial facilities are located within a half-mile of the MAWI monitoring site.
22.4 Meteorological and Concentration Analysis at the Wisconsin Monitoring Site
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following
meteorological analyses: Pearson Correlation Coefficients between meteorological parameters
(such as temperature) and concentrations of the pollutants of interest; sample-year composite
back trajectories; and sample-year wind roses.
22.4.1 Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 22-5 presents the summary of Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
pollutants of interest and select meteorological parameters at the MAWI monitoring site. (Please
refer to Section 3.1.6 for more information on Pearson Correlations.) The strongest correlations
at MAWI were calculated for formaldehyde with maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb
temperatures, and ranged from 0.73 (dew point) to 0.79 (maximum). This indicates that as
temperature and moisture increase, formaldehyde concentrations increase as well, and this
correlates well with the high formaldehyde summer average discussed in Section 22.2.
Manganese and hexachloro-l,3-butadiene each exhibited strong correlations with relative
humidity (-0.64 and 0.73, respectively). With one exception, all of the correlations with the u-
component of the wind were negative and all of the correlations with the v-component of the
wind were positive, indicating that wind speed and direction influence concentrations of the
pollutants of interest at MAWI. Pearson correlations with the sea level pressure were weak.
22.4.2 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 22-4 is a composite back trajectory map for the MAWI monitoring site for the
days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a
parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in Figure 22-4,
the back trajectories originated from a variety of directions at MAWI. However, there seems to
22-4
-------
be an absence of trajectories originating from the east of the site. Each circle around the site in
Figure 22-4 represents 100 miles. The 24-hour airshed domain is very large at MAWI, with
trajectories originating as far away as northern Manitoba, Canada, or over 1,000 miles away.
However, 51% of the trajectories originated within 300 miles of the site; and 89% within
500 miles from the MAWI monitoring site. The one trajectory originating from Manitoba
occurred on a day when a strong frontal system moved across the central and eastern US on
November 24, 2005. This wind pattern is also evident on several composite trajectory maps
from other sites in the region including the DEMI, INDEM, NBIL and SPIL, DITN, and MEVIN
monitoring sites.
22.4.3 Wind Rose Analysis
Hourly wind data from the Traux Field Airport near the MAWI monitoring site was
uploaded into a wind rose software program, WRPLOT (Lakes, 2006). WRPLOT produces a
graphical wind rose from the wind data. A wind rose shows the frequency of wind directions
about a 16-point compass, and uses different shading to represent wind speeds. Figure 22-5 is
the wind rose for the MAWI monitoring site on days sampling occurred. As indicated in Figure
22-5, hourly winds were predominantly out of the south (14% of observations) and north (10%)
on sample days. Calm winds (<2 knots) were observed for 17% of the measurements. Wind
speeds tended to range from 7 to 11 knots on day samples were taken (35% of observations).
22.5 Spatial Characteristics Analysis
The following sub-sections describe and discuss the results of the following spatial
analyses: population, vehicle ownership, and traffic data comparisons; and BTEX analysis.
22.5.1 Population, Vehicle Ownership, and Traffic Data Comparison
County-level vehicle registration and population in Dane County, WI were obtained from
the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in
Table 22-6. Table 22-6 also includes a vehicle registration to county population ratio (vehicles
per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimation
of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile population surrounding the
monitor and the vehicle registration ratio. Finally, Table 22-6 contains the average daily traffic
22-5
-------
information, which represents the average number of vehicles passing the monitoring sites on the
nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
Compared to other UATMP sites, the MAWI site's county and 10-mile population and
vehicle registration count falls in the middle of the range. However, MAWI has one of the
higher estimated vehicle registration-to-population ratios. The average daily traffic count also
falls in the middle of the range compared to other UATMP sites. The MAWI monitoring site is
considered a residential but urban-city center area.
22.5.2 BTEX Analysis
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to Section 3.2.1.4). Table 3-11 presented
and Figure 3-4 depicted the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites in an effort to characterize the
impact of on-road, or motor vehicle, emissions. At the MAWI site, the xylenes-ethylbenzene
ratio (3.31 ฑ 0.18) is lower than the benzene-ethylbenzene ratio (4.71 ฑ 0.40), which is the
reverse of the roadside study (4.55 and 2.85, respectively). The toluene-ethylbenzene ratio (6.34
ฑ 0.36) at MAWI is slightly higher than the roadside study (5.85).
22.6 1999 NATA Data Risk Assessment
Data from EPA's 1999 NATA were retrieved and are presented in this section. One
purpose of NATA is to help state and local agencies evaluate and identify potential areas of air
quality concern. NATA uses the NEI for HAPs as its starting point, along with ambient
monitoring data, geographic information, and chemical/physical transformation information to
model ambient concentrations at the census tract level. These census tract concentrations are
then applied to cancer unit risk estimate (URE) and noncancer reference concentration (RfC)
factors to yield census tract-level cancer and noncancer risk. Table 22-7 presents the 1999
NATA results for the census tract where the Wisconsin monitoring site is located. Only
pollutants that "failed" the screens are presented in Table 22-7. Pollutants of interest are bolded.
22-6
-------
22.6.1 1999 NATA Summary
The MAWI monitoring site is located in census tract 55025002100. The population for
the census tract where the MAWI monitoring site is located was 5,093, which represents about
1.2% of the county population in 2000. In terms of cancer risk, the Top 3 pollutants identified
by NATA in the MAWI census tract are benzene (13.30 in-a-million risk), 1,3-butadiene (4.98),
and carbon tetrachloride (3.17). These cancer risks are relatively low when compared to other
urban areas, such as near the BAPR and MIMN monitoring sites (71.0 and 39.5 in-a-million,
respectively). Acrolein was the only pollutant in the MAWI census tract to have a noncancer
hazard quotient greater than 1.0 (an HQ greater than 1.0 may lead to adverse health effects).
Most noncancer hazard quotients were less than 0.10, suggesting very little risk for noncancer
health affects, with the exception of acrolein.
22.6.2 Annual Average Comparison
The Wisconsin monitoring site annual averages are also presented in Table 22-7 for
comparison to the 1999 NATA modeled concentrations. NATA-modeled concentrations are
assumed to be the average concentration that a person breathed for an entire year. Thus, a valid
annual average representing an entire year, including detects and non-detects, needs to be
calculated (refer to Section 22.2 on how a valid annual average is calculated). With the
exceptions of nickel and hexachloro-l,3-butadiene, all the pollutants were within one order of
magnitude from each other. Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, and
benzene are identified as the Top 4 pollutants by mass concentration for the measured
concentrations, while benzene, nickel, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde were the highest 1999
NATA-modeled concentrations by mass.
Wisconsin Pollutant Summary
The pollutants of interest at MAWI are acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, manganese, and
tetrachloroethylene.
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at MA WI, and was highest during
the summer.
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at this site.
22-7
-------
Figure 22-1. Madison, Wisconsin (MAWI) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
22-8
-------
Figure 22-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of MAWI
I _ _C
j= r - i
" * ' "' *
I F f '
;,i i.i: .
Hole: Due to facility density and collocation. Ihe total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
10 mile radius County boundary
Legend
& MAWI UATMP Site
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
* Agricultural Chemicals Production Industrial Facility (1)
' Business Services Facility (1)
C Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (1)
S Educational Services Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (2)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (25)
+ Health Services Facility (1)
i- Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (3)
a Lumber & Wood Products Facility (1)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (3)
X Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (1)
V Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2)
* Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (1)
V Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (1)
R Printing & Publishing Facility (2)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (3)
1 Unknown (1)
8 Utility Boilers (1)
' Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (5)
I Wholesale Trade-Durable Goods (1)
* Wood Furniture Facility (1)
22-9
-------
Figure 22-3. Acrolein Pollution Rose at MAWI
to
to
/
6
5
4
3
c 2
0
ra
i: 1
c
01
o
o 0
O U
o
1 1
"5
ฐ- 2
3
4
5
6
7
NW N
-
-
-
_
-
-
W *^,
v ,
-
CA EPA REL (0.19 |jg/m3)
ATSDRMRL(0.11 |jg/m3)
sw
s
NE
E
/ ' ' ' ' ' '
ป
Ava Cone =1. 71 ฑ 1.48 ua/m3
SE
1 o 1
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 22-4. Composite Back Trajectory Map for MAWI
to
to
-*- x, /
0 75 150 300 450 600
Miles
-------
Figure 22-5. Wind Rose of Sample Days for the MAWI Monitoring Site
to
to
SOUTH.
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
| | s=22
Jill 17 - 21
11 - 17
EH 7-11
EH 4-7
^| 2- 4
Calms: 16.89%
-------
Table 22-1. Average Meteorological Parameters for Monitoring Site in Wisconsin
Site
MAWI
WBAN
14837
Type
All
2005
Sample
Day
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(ฐF)
57.64
ฑ2.35
57.19
ฑ5.75
Average
Temperature
<ฐF)
48.81
ฑ2.17
48.55
ฑ5.31
Average
Dew Point
Temperature
(ฐF)
38.07
ฑ2.03
37.46
ฑ5.07
Average
Wet Bulb
Temperature
(ฐF)
43.61
ฑ1.94
43.27
ฑ4.79
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
69.37
ฑ1.16
68.44
ฑ3.01
Average
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1016.38
ฑ0.75
1016.43
ฑ1.80
Average
w-component
of the wind
0.51
ฑ0.39
0.64
ฑ0.83
Average
v-component
of the wind
0.31
ฑ0.46
-0.28
ฑ1.24
to
to
-------
Table 22-2. Comparison of Measured Concentrations and EPA Screening Values at the
Wisconsin Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#of
Failures
#of
Detects
% of Detects
Failing
% of Total
Failures
%
Contribution
Madison, WI - MAWI
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Arsenic (TSP)
1,3 -Butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Tetrachloroethylene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Acrolein
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Cadmium (TSP)
Chloromethylbenzene
Acrylonitrile
Nickel (TSP)
Trichloroethylene
Total
60
59
58
56
30
18
17
13
9
7
o
5
335
60
59
58
59
30
26
30
26
9
7
17
30
1
1
30
7
450
100.0
100.0
100.0
94.9
100.0
69.2
56.7
50.0
100.0
100.0
17.6
3.3
100.0
100.0
3.3
14.3
74.4
17.9%
17.6%
17.3%
16.7%
9.0%
5.4%
5.1%
3.9%
2.7%
2.1%
0.9%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
17.9%
35.5%
52.8%
69.6%
78.5%
83.9%
89.0%
92.8%
95.5%
97.6%
98.5%
98.8%
99.1%
99.4%
99.7%
100.0%
22-14
-------
Table 22-3. Daily and Seasonal Averages for Pollutants of Interest at the Wisconsin Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#
Detects
#
Samples
Daily
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Winter
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Spring
Avg
(Hg/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Summer
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Autumn
Avg
(Ug/m3)
Conf.
Int.
Madison, Wisconsin - MAWI
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Tetrachloroethylene
26
59
30
60
58
59
9
30
26
60
59
30
60
60
59
60
30
60
0.06
1.64
0.0008
0.89
0.71
2.49
0.21
0.0126
0.21
0.02
0.17
0.0002
0.13
0.05
0.38
0.05
0.0040
0.05
NR
1.46
0.0005
1.10
0.63
1.45
NR
0.052
NR
NR
0.39
0.0001
0.28
0.06
0.22
NR
0.0043
NR
NR
1.38
0.0011
0.94
0.67
1.99
NR
0.0174
NR
NR
0.29
0.0008
0.30
0.17
0.31
NR
0.0094
NR
0.06
1.94
0.0008
0.79
0.73
4.15
NR
0.0119
0.17
0.01
0.24
0.0003
0.19
0.05
0.62
NR
0.0059
0.04
0.06
1.75
0.0006
0.74
0.75
2.27
1.08
0.0163
0.15
0.02
0.37
0.0002
0.18
0.08
0.76
0.38
0.0081
0.06
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
to
to
-------
Table 22-4. Non-Chronic Risk Summary at the Wisconsin Monitoring Site
Site
MAWI
Method
TO- 15
Pollutant
Acrolein
Daily
Average
(jig/m3)
1.71
ฑ1.48
ATSDR
Short-
term MRL
(Hg/m3)
0.11
# of ATSDR
MRL
Exceedances
7
CAL EPA
REL
Acute
(Hg/m3)
0.19
# of CAL
EPA REL
Exceedances
7
ATSDR
Intermediate
-term MRL
(Hg/m3)
0.09
Winter
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
Spring
Average
(jig/m3)
NA
Summer
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
Autumn
Average
(jig/m3)
NR
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
NR = Not reportable due to low number of detects.
to
to
-------
Table 22-5. Pollutants of Interest Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Wisconsin
Monitoring Site
Pollutant
#
Detects
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
M-Component
of the Wind
v-Component
of the Wind
Sea
Level
Pressure
Madison, WI-MAWI
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Tetrachloroethylene
26
59
30
60
58
59
9
30
26
-0.23
0.40
0.30
-0.04
0.18
0.79
0.08
0.44
0.11
-0.30
0.36
0.24
-0.08
0.20
0.77
0.12
0.36
0.07
-0.29
0.36
0.19
-0.07
0.23
0.73
0.21
0.19
0.05
-0.29
0.36
0.22
-0.07
0.21
0.75
0.16
0.29
0.07
0.12
0.04
-0.21
0.10
0.13
-0.17
0.73
-0.64
-0.02
-0.19
-0.34
-0.44
-0.47
-0.01
-0.21
0.08
-0.11
-0.23
-0.21
0.40
0.26
0.15
0.03
0.38
0.12
0.30
0.03
0.09
-0.04
-0.13
0.17
-0.24
-0.15
-0.17
-0.16
0.23
to
to
-------
Table 22-6. Motor Vehicle Information for the Wisconsin Monitoring Site
Site
MAWI
2005 Estimated
County
Population
458,106
Number of
Vehicles
Registered
420,070
Vehicles per Person
(Registration:Population)
0.92
Population
Within 10
Miles
356,676
Estimated 10 mile
Vehicle
Ownership
327,062
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
23,750
to
to
oo
-------
Table 22-7. 1999 NATA Data Census Tract Summary for the Monitoring Site in
Wisconsin
Pollutant
2005 UATMP
Annual
Average
(jig/m3)
1999 NATA
Modeled
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
1999 NATA
Cancer Risk
(in-a-million)
1999 NATA
Noncancer Risk
(hazard quotient)
Madison, Wisconsin - MAWI, Census Tract 55025002100
1,3-Butadiene
Acet aldehyde
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic (TSP)
Benzene
Cadmium (TSP)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
Manganese (TSP)
Nickel (TSP)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
0.06 ฑ0.01
1.64 ฑ0.17
NA
0.07 ฑ0.01
0.01
0.89 ฑ0.13
O.01
0.69 ฑ0.05
O.lliO.Ol
2.49 ฑ0.38
1.01 ฑ0.13
0.01 ฑ0.004
0.01
0.17 ฑ0.03
0.17 ฑ0.02
0.13 ฑ0.02
0.17
1.16
0.08
0.00
0.09
1.71
0.02
0.21
0.00
1.34
O.01
0.93
1.46
0.03
0.18
0.10
4.98
2.55
0.03
0.37
13.30
0.04
3.17
O.01
0.01
0.03
0.23
0.38
1.07
0.19
0.08
0.13
3.77
O.01
0.01
0.06
O.01
0.01
~
0.14
O.01
0.02
0.02
O.01
0.01
O.01
NA = Not available due to short sampling duration.
BOLD = pollutant of interest.
22-19
-------
23.0 Data Quality
This section discusses the data quality for the ambient air concentrations. In accordance
with the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), the following data calculations were
performed: completeness, precision, and accuracy (also called bias). Completeness statistics
were presented in Section 3 of this report. The QAPP goal of 85% completeness was met by
most sites. As indicators of the reliability and representativeness of experimental measurements,
both precision and bias are considered when interpreting ambient air monitoring data. The
quality assessment presented in this section show that the UATMP monitoring data are of a
known and high quality. All calculations are based on sample concentrations detected above the
method detection limits (MDLs) for each pollutant. The overall precision level (the average for
all sites) meets UATMP data quality objectives and adheres to the guidelines in the Compendium
Methods (US EPA, 1999a; US EPA, 1999b, US EPA 1999c), which are 15 percent coefficient of
variation.
Method precision for the UATMP is determined by repeated analyses of duplicate
samples or collocated samples. A duplicate sample is a sample collected simultaneously with a
primary sample using the same sampling system (i.e., two separate samples through the same
sampling system at the same time). This simultaneous collection is typically achieved by teeing
the line from the sampler to each of the two canisters and doubling the flow rate applied to
achieve integration over the 24-hour collection period. As outlined in the QAPP, ten percent of
all sample collections were duplicate samples. Collocated samples are samples collected
simultaneously using two independent collection systems at the same location.
Both approaches provide valuable, but different, assessments of method precision:
$ Replicate analysis of duplicate samples provides information on the potential for
variability (or precision) expected from a single collection system, but does not
provide information on the variability expected between different collection
systems (inter-system assessment).
$ Replicate analysis of collocated samples provide information on the potential for
variability (or precision) expected between different collection systems, but does
not provide information on the variability expected from single collection systems
(intra-system assessment).
23-1
-------
23.1 Precision
Precision refers to the agreement between independent measurements performed
according to identical protocols and procedures. Two types of precision will be discussed:
Analytical Precision and Analytical and Sampling Precision. To quantify "analytical precision"
(i.e., how precisely the analytical methods measure ambient air concentrations), concentrations
measured during analysis of duplicate samples are replicated. To quantify "sampling and
analytical precision" (i.e., how precisely the sampling and analytical methods measure ambient
air concentrations), concentrations measured during replicate analyses of duplicate samples are
compared.
Applied to ambient air monitoring data, precision is a measurement of random errors inherent to
the process of sampling and analyzing ambient air.
23.1.1 Analytical Precision
Analytical precision is a measurement of random errors associated with the process of
analyzing environmental samples. These errors may result from various factors, but typically
originate from random "noise" inherent to analytical instruments. Laboratories can easily
evaluate analytical precision by comparing concentrations measured during replicate analysis of
the same ambient air samples. This report uses three parameters to quantify random errors
indicated by replicate analyses of UATMP samples:
Average concentration difference simply quantifies how duplicate or replicate
analytical results differ, on average, for each pollutant and each sample. When
interpreting central tendency estimates for specific pollutants sampled during the
UATMP, participating agencies are encouraged to compare central tendencies to
the average concentration differences. If a pollutant's average concentration
difference exceeds or nearly equals its central tendency, the analytical method
may not be capable of precisely characterizing annual concentrations. Therefore,
data interpretation for these pollutants should be made with caution. Average
concentration differences are calculated by subtracting the first analytical result
from the second analytical result and averaging the difference for each pollutant.
Relative percent difference (RPD) expresses average concentration differences
relative to the average concentrations detected during replicate analyses. The
RPD is calculated as follows:
23-2
-------
X
Where:
X\ is the ambient air concentration of a given pollutant measured in one
sample;
X2 is the concentration of the same pollutant measured during replicate
analysis; and
X is the arithmetic mean of X\
As this equation shows, replicate analyses with low variability have lower RPDs
(and better precision), and replicate analyses with high variability have higher
RPDs (and poorer precision).
Coefficient of Variation (CV) provides a relative measure of data dispersion
compared to the mean.
CF = = xlOO
X
Where:
ปis the standard deviation of the sets of duplicate or replicate results;
X is the arithmetic mean of the sets of duplicate or replicate results;
The CV is used to measure the imprecision in survey estimates introduced from
analysis. A coefficient of 1 percent would indicate that the analytical results
could vary slightly due to sampling error, while a variation of 50 percent means
that the results are more imprecise.
The following approach was employed to estimate how precisely the central laboratory
analyzed UATMP samples:
CVs, RPDs and concentration differences were calculated for every replicate
analyses performed during the program. In cases where pollutants were not
detected during replicate analyses, these parameters were not calculated.
To make an overall estimate of method precision, program-average CVs, RPDs,
and absolute concentration differences were calculated for each pollutant by
averaging the values from the individual replicate analyses.
It is important to note that EPA has recently revised the methodology for assessing
analytical precision in "Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations; Final Rule," finalized
October 17, 2006 (US EPA, 2006d). The new methodology will be applied to the 2006 UATMP
report.
OO "
ZJ-J
-------
The tables in this section use absolute average concentration differences, RPDs, and CVs
to characterize the analytical precision for all sites sampling for VOC, CARB, and SNMOC
representing all replicate analyses of duplicate and collocated samples, of collocated samples,
and of duplicate samples, respectively. Acrolein was added to the VOC list in July 2005,
therefore this pollutant analysis is based on 6 months of data.
Collocated samples were collected for metals, which provide sampling precision.
However, replicate analyses were not performed for metals; therefore, metals will not be
discussed in the analytical precision section. Duplicate/collocated and replicate samples were
not collected for semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC) because there were no collocate
samplers and the samplers used were not equipped to collect duplicate samples. Therefore,
precision for SVOC is not discussed in this section.
The GRMS site had one set of duplicate samples, yet there were no analytical replicates
for those duplicates. The duplicates will be included in the sampling and analytical precision
section, but not in the analytical precision section. MEVIN also had one set of duplicate samples,
yet one of the duplicates was invalidated, and could not be included in this section. The APMI,
ITCMI, PITX, RRTX, MUTX, SPIL, TRTX, and YFMI sites did not collect duplicate samples,
and were not included in this section. PCOK and POOK collected samples for only three months
and were not included in this section.
23.1.2 VOC Analytical Precision
In Table 23-1, the replicate analyses of duplicate and collocated samples show that for
most of the pollutants, the VOC analysis precision was within the control limits of 15 percent for
CV. Pollutants exceeding the 15 percent control limit are bolded. The method is most precise
when measuring air concentrations for the pollutants consistently found at levels exceeding their
detection limits. In terms of average concentration difference, the precision of the VOC
analytical method ranges from 0.004 ppbv for dichlorotetrafluoroethane to 2.80 ppbv for
acetonitrile.
23-4
-------
Table 23-2 shows the results from replicate analyses of collocated VOC samples taken at
NBIL, DEMI, MAWI, NBAL, ETAL, PVAL, SIAL, LDTN, DITN and WETX. The replicate
results from collocated samples shows variation for the pollutants ranging from 0.01 (several
pollutants) to 2.04 percent (acetonitrile), as indicated by average concentration differences. The
overall estimate of method precision, using program-average CVs, RPDs, and absolute
concentration differences, is within the program's objectives. The overall average variability is
12.60 percent.
Table 23-3 shows the results from replicate analyses of duplicate VOC samples,
including all post-Katrina data. The replicate results from duplicate samples variation ranges
from 0.42 (1,2-dichloroethane) to 27.78 percent (1,2-dibromoethane), as represented by the
coefficient of variation. The overall average variability is 8.23 percent. The average CV is
within the control limits of 15 percent.
Tables 23-4 through 23-8 present results from VOC replicate analyses for all of the
duplicate and collocated samples at the NATTS sites (BTUT, DEMI, GPCO, NBIL, and S4MO,
respectively). The replicate results from duplicate samples show low to mid-level variability
among the sites, as represented by CV, ranging from 1.06 to 47.14 percent (both at DEMI), with
an average of 9.35 percent. This is within the NATTS requested 15 percent overall CV per site.
Table 23-9 shows the VOC results for the replicates for duplicate samples only,
excluding all post-Katrina data. It should be noted that the averages presented in Tables 23-3
and 23-10 for GPMS, PGMS, and TUMS include post-Katrina data. As a result, the averages in
these tables may differ from those presented in Table 23-9. Table 23-10 shows the average CV
per pollutant and per site. The average CVs of all the sites ranged from 4.80 at YDSP to 14.22 at
LDTN. The VOC analytical precision, in terms of overall average CV, is 8.46 percent.
23.1.3 SNMOC Analytical Precision
zo.i.o amvuj^ Analytical rrecision
Table 23-11 presents replicate analytical data for all duplicate SNMOC samples,
including all post-Katrina data. Nearly all of the CVs are within the control limits of 15 percent.
The average concentration differences observed for replicate analyses of SNMOC ranges from
23-5
-------
0.004 (n-tridecane) to 14.04 ppbC (2-methyl-l-pentene). The total speciated and total
hydrocarbons (speciated and unspeciated) show greater average concentration differences, 10.50
and 13.94 ppbC, respectively, but low-to mid-range variability at 3.21 and 7.16 percent.
Tables 23-12 through 23-13 present results from SNMOC replicate analyses for all of the
collocated and duplicate samples at the NATTS sites (BTUT and NBIL). Many of the pollutants
sampled at NBIL exhibited an average variability greater than 15 percent. Fewer pollutants
exceeded this control limit at BTUT.
Table 23-14 shows the SNMOC results for the replicates of duplicate samples only,
excluding all post-Katrina data. It should be noted that the averages presented in Tables 23-11
and 23-15 for GPMS include post-Katrina data. As a result, the averages in these tables may
differ from those presented in Table 23-14. The PGMS site did not collect any post-Katrina
SNMOC duplicate/replicate samples. Table 23-15 presents the average CV per pollutant for
each site that sampled SNMOC. The replicate results from collocated and duplicate samples
show low to mid level variability among the pollutants, ranging from 0.19 (propane at PGMS) to
60.69 (1-undecene at CUSD) percent. The average variability at sites sampling for SNMOC
ranged from 7.17 at BTUT to 15.46 at NBIL. The SNMOC analytical precision, in terms of
overall average CV, is 9.06 percent.
23.1.4 Carbonyl Compound Analytical Precision
In Table 23-16 the replicate analyses for duplicate and collocated samples show that
laboratory carbonyl compound analysis precision is within the control limits of 15 percent CV.
In terms of average concentration difference, the precision of the carbonyl analytical method
ranges from 0.001 ppbv for benzaldehyde, valeraldehyde, and hexaldehyde to 0.01 ppbv for
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde.
Table 23-17 shows the results from replicate analyses of collocated carbonyl samples
taken at DEMI, CANC, RTPNC, MAWI, NBIL, ETAL, NBAL, PVAL, SIAL, LDTN, DITN
and WETX. The replicate results from collocated samples show variation for the pollutants
23-6
-------
ranging from 0.39 (acetone) to 4.44 (tolualdehydes) percent. The overall average variability is
2.18 percent.
Table 23-18 shows the results from replicate analyses of duplicate carbonyl samples,
including all post-Katrina data. The replicate results from duplicate samples vary little for the
majority of the pollutants, ranging from 0.46 (acetaldehyde) to 3.69 percent (tolualdehydes).
The overall average variability was 2.15 percent.
Tables 23-19 through 23-25 present results from carbonyl replicate analyses for all of the
duplicate and collocated samples at the NATTS sites (BTUT, DEMI, GPCO, NBIL, S4MO,
SKFL, and SYFL, respectively). The average CV is within the NATTS requested 15 percent
overall CV per site.
Table 23-26 shows the carbonyl results for the duplicate samples only excluding all post-
Katrina data. It should be noted that the averages presented in Tables 23-18 and 23-27 for
GPMS, PGMS, and TUMS include post-Katrina data. As a result, the averages in these tables
may differ from those presented in Table 23-26. Table 23-27 presents the average CV per
pollutant and per site. The replicate results from duplicate samples show low-level variability
among the sites, ranging from 0.04 (acetone at NBAL) to 15.57 percent (tolualdehydes at
B APR), and an average variability ranging from 1.3 5 at NBNJ to 3.76 at NBIL. The analytical
precision for carbonyl compounds, in terms of overall average CV, is 2.19 percent.
Overall, replicate analyses, both duplicate and collocated, of VOC, SNMOC, and
carbonyl compounds suggest the analytical precision level is within the UATMP data quality
objectives and guidelines in the Compendium Methods.
23.2 Sampling and Analytical Precision
Sampling and analytical precision quantifies random errors associated not only with
analyzing ambient air samples in the laboratory but also with collecting the samples. This type
of precision is most easily evaluated by comparing concentrations measured in duplicate samples
collected from the same air parcel. During the UATMP, duplicate and collocated samples were
23-7
-------
collected at least 10 percent of the scheduled sampling days. Most of these samples were
analyzed in replicate.
To calculate sampling and analytical precision, data analysts compared the concentrations
between the two replicates with each respective duplicate or collocated sample. Also, the CV for
two duplicate samples was calculated for each pollutant and each site with the target recovery
being 15 percent, similar to the replicate analyses. Tables 23-28 through 23-36, 23-38 through
23-41, 23-43 through 23-53, 23-55 through 23-57 present average concentration differences,
RPDs, and C Vs as estimates of duplicate and collocated sampling and analytical variability for
VOC, SNMOC, carbonyls, and metals, respectively. Tables 23-37, 23-42, 23-54, and 23-58
present the average CVs per pollutant and per site. The number of observations from Tables 23-
1 through 23-27, in comparison to the respective tables listed for duplicate analyses in Tables 23-
28 through 23-49, is approximately twice as high.
Duplicate/collocated and replicate samples were not collected for SVOC due to sampling
occurring at only three sites. Therefore, precision for SVOC is not discussed in this section.
23.2.1 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision
Table 23-28 presents the sampling and analytical data precision for duplicate and
collocated VOC samples. Twenty-four out of 59 VOC show greater variation than the target
15 percent. Due to the variation, duplicate sample data is being closely scrutinized in 2006 and
those with large variations will be resampled. The average concentration differences observed
for duplicate and collocated analyses of VOC range from 0.01 (several pollutants) to 7.96 ppbv
(acetonitrile).
The collocated VOC sampling and analytical data are presented in Table 23-29, and the
duplicate samples are shown in Table 23-30, including all post-Katrina data. Again, average
CVs greater than 15 percent are present for each collection type (duplicate and collocated). This
shows that the CVs in Table 23-28 were affected by both sampling techniques. However, more
pollutants in the collocated comparisons had CVs greater than 15 percent than those presented in
the duplicate comparisons. The range of variability was 6.87 (dichlorodifluoromethane) to 56.01
-------
percent (acrolein) for the collocated samples, and 4.00 (dichlorodifluoromethane) to 37.59
percent (methyl ethyl ketone) for duplicate samples.
Tables 23-31 through 23-35 present the results from VOC duplicate analysis for all of the
NATTS sites (BTUT, DEMI, GPCO, NBIL, and S4MO, respectively). The CV at the NATTS
sites ranged from 0.69 (acetonitrile at BTUT) to 88.39 percent (chloroform at DEMI). Table 23-
36 shows the VOC results for the duplicate samples only, excluding all post-Katrina data. It
should be noted that the averages presented in Tables 23-30 and 23-37 for GPMS, PGMS, and
TUMS include post-Katrina data. As a result, the averages in these tables may differ from those
presented in Table 23-36. Table 23-37 presents the average CV per pollutant and per site. The
results from duplicate samples show low- to high- level variability among sites, ranging from
8.87 at GRMS to 38.10 at DITN. The VOC sampling and analytical precision, in terms of
overall average CV, is 16.35 percent. This is slightly higher than the NATTS requested 15
percent overall CV per site.
23.2.2 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision
The SNMOC precision for duplicate samples is presented in Table 23-38, including all
post-Katrina data. Coefficient of variation for duplicate samples ranged from 2.91 percent for n-
butane to 56.01 percent for 1-dodecane. The pollutants with the highest variation are ones with a
non-target peak eluting very close to the elution time of the target peak, which can interfere with
the correct concentration determination for that analyte. For example, a target analyte, 2-methyl-
2-butene, has methylene chloride, a non-target analyte, eluting in close proximity which can
interfere with the integration of the analyte peak. The VOC and SNMOC sampling and
analytical precision data differs from the analytical precision data as presented in tables above.
This difference suggests that limitations associated with laboratory analysis of the VOC and
SNMOC samples during the UATMP did not affect random errors associated with sampling
procedures.
Tables 23-39 and 23-40 present the results from SNMOC duplicate analysis for the
NATTS sites (BTUT and NBIL). As seen for the replicate analyses, many of the pollutants
sampled at NBIL exhibited an average variability greater than 15 percent. Fewer pollutants
23-9
-------
exceeded this control limit at BTUT. The overall average variability at BTUT is 11.39 percent,
while the overall average variability at NBIL is 9.83. Table 23-41 shows the SNMOC results for
the duplicate samples only, excluding all post-Katrina data. It should be noted that the averages
presented in Tables 23-38 and 23-42 for GPMS include post-Katrina data. As a result, the
averages in these tables may differ from those presented in Table 23-41. The PGMS site did not
collect any post-Katrina SNMOC duplicate samples. Table 23-42 presents the average CV per
pollutant and per site, NATTS sites included. The results from duplicate samples show low to
high-level variability among sites, ranging from 0.26 (isobutane at PGMS) to 107.92 percent
(2,3,4-trimethylpentane at PGMS). The average CV for sites sampling SNMOC ranged from
9.83 at NBIL to 19.80 percent at S4MO. The SNMOC sampling and analytical precision, in
terms of overall average CV, is 15.08 percent.
23.2.3 Carbonyl Compounds Sampling and Analytical Precision
Table 23-43, presenting the sampling and analytical data for carbonyl compounds, shows
that the total duplicate and collocated samples precision was within the control limits of
15 percent CV. The average concentration difference ranged from 0.005 ppbv for benzaldehyde
to 0.33 ppbv for formaldehyde.
The collocated carbonyl sampling and analytical data are presented in Table 23-44 and
the duplicate samples results are shown in Table 23-45. Formaldehyde, hexaldehyde,
valeraldehyde, and tolualdehydes exceeded the 15 percent criterion for the collocated samples
and isovaleraldehyde, valeraldehyde, and tolualdehydes exceeded the 15 percent criterion for the
duplicate samples.
Tables 23-46 through 23-52 present results from carbonyl duplicate sample analyses for
the NATTS sites (BTUT, DEMI, GPCO, NBIL, S4MO, SKFL, and SYFL, respectively). Table
23-53 shows the carbonyl results for the duplicate samples only, excluding all post-Katrina data.
It should be noted that the averages presented in Tables 23-45 and 23-54 for GPMS, PGMS, and
TUMS include post-Katrina data. As a result, the averages in these tables may differ from those
presented in Table 23-53. Table 23-54 presents the average CV per pollutant and per site. The
duplicate sample results show low to high level variability among the sites, ranging from 0.22
23-10
-------
(acetaldehyde at ETAL) to 101.65 percent (hexaldehyde at RTPNC). The average CV at the
sites sampling carbonyls ranged from 4.67 at ETAL to 46.03 percent at CANC. The sampling
and analytical precision for carbonyl compounds, in terms of overall average CV, is 13.43
percent. The carbonyl sampling and analytical precision data differs from the analytical replicate
precision data as presented in tables above. This difference suggests that limitations associated
with laboratory analysis of the carbonyl samples during the UATMP did not affect random errors
associated with sampling procedures.
23.2.4 Metals Sampling and Analytical Precision
The sampling and analytical variation for collocated metals samples are presented in
Tables 23-55, including all post-Katrina data. The average CV values, as well as the average
RPD values, show low to high-level variability among the sites, with average CVs ranging from
4.10 for arsenic to 40.49 percent for mercury.
Table 23-56 presents the results from collocated metals sample analyses for the NATTS
site (BOMA). The average concentration difference ranges from 0.001 (beryllium) to 0.51
(lead). The overall average CV at BOMA is 13.35 percent. This is within the NATTS requested
15 percent overall CV per site. No replicate analytical data were available for the collocated
metals samples.
Table 23-57 shows the metals results for the collocated samples only, excluding all post-
Katrina data. It should be noted that the averages presented in Tables 23-55 and 23-58 for
GPMS include post-Katrina data. As a result, the averages in these tables may differ from those
presented in Table 23-57. Table 23-58 presents the average CV per metals and per site (BOMA,
BTUT, GPMS, MAWI, S4MO). The results from collocated samples show low to high level
variability among sites, ranging from 0.68 (lead at MAWI) to 120.53 (manganese at GPMS)
percent. The average CV at each site that sampled metals ranged from 2.29 at MAWI to 40.97 at
GPMS. The metals sampling and analytical precision, in terms of overall average CV, is 17.13
percent.
23-11
-------
23.3 Bias
Laboratories typically evaluate their accuracy by analyzing external audit samples and
comparing the measured concentrations obtained to the known concentrations of the audit
samples.
Accuracy indicates the extent to which experimental measurements represent their
corresponding "true" or "actual" values.
The accuracy of the UATMP monitoring data can also be assessed qualitatively by
reviewing the accuracy of the monitoring methods and how they were implemented:
The sampling and analytical methods used in the UATMP (i.e., Compendium
Methods TO-11A and TO-15) have been approved by EPA for accurately
measuring ambient levels of VOC and carbonyl compounds, respectivelyan
approval that is based on many years of research into the development of ambient
air monitoring methodologies.
When collecting and analyzing ambient air samples, all field sampling staff and
laboratory analysts strictly followed quality control and quality assurance
guidelines detailed in the respective monitoring methods. This strict adherence to
the well-documented sampling and analytical methods suggests, though certainly
does not prove, that the UATMP monitoring data accurately represent ambient air
quality.
23.3.1 Proficiency Test (PT) Studies
Laboratories participating in NATTS are provided with PT audit samples on a quarterly
basis for VOC, carbonyls, and metals. These PT samples can be used as a measure of analytical
accuracy.
Tables 23-59 through 23-61 present results from the 2005 NATTS PT audit samples for
VOC, carbonyls, and metals, respectively. The acceptable percent difference from the true
values is ฑ 25%, and the values exceeding this criteria are bolded in the tables. While there are a
few values outside the limits, there are no compounds that are consistently out over for multiple
audits.
23-12
-------
Table 23-1. VOC Analytical Precision:
540 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
)ichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
)ichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Jromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1-Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
frichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
,2-Dichloropropane
ithyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Prichloroethylene
VIethyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
540
538
539
540
340
52
326
310
273
195
134
537
3
10
471
540
6
4
76
120
5
4
4
239
5
13
374
540
505
7
2
2
9
141
17
4
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
9.72
7.63
4.49
5.85
12.72
34.52
9.22
18.40
17.62
10.78
9.99
5.23
9.30
13.67
14.38
8.11
10.28
1.49
9.70
14.83
10.40
1.90
7.36
22.45
19.37
0.58
12.86
7.67
7.48
NA
2.67
23.26
8.25
23.93
9.50
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.18
0.09
0.05
0.07
0.004
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
2.80
0.12
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.29
0.06
0.43
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.06
0.02
0.10
0.02
0.01
0.03
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.12
5.56
3.20
4.20
7.76
17.62
6.45
13.21
11.27
6.82
6.82
3.73
6.29
10.31
9.88
5.79
7.69
1.07
6.99
10.40
7.82
1.36
5.51
15.21
12.07
0.42
9.00
5.38
5.38
NA
1.91
18.61
5.60
17.12
7.14
NA
23-13
-------
Table 23-1. VOC Analytical Precision:
540 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples (Cont.)
Pollutant
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
Petrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
3romoform
Styrene
, 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
, 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
lexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
78
4
4
540
11
8
332
327
22
527
538
4
411
13
527
411
440
19
10
258
23
72
116
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
12.75
2.17
8.59
8.15
50.35
36.67
13.78
18.87
8.33
9.98
9.16
6.25
16.69
50.00
9.76
15.09
13.54
29.94
16.20
13.77
36.07
28.47
27.57
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.10
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
9.40
1.55
5.75
5.75
23.82
27.78
9.40
13.98
5.33
6.82
6.24
4.16
9.58
23.57
6.79
10.17
8.96
16.15
12.13
9.33
19.33
23.35
18.51
23-14
-------
Table 23-2. VOC Analytical Precision:
122 Replicate Analyses for all Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
)ichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
)ichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
iromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1-Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
[ ,2-Dichloropropane
ithyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
rrichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
122
120
121
122
94
13
77
78
66
34
28
119
1
0
104
122
0
0
4
36
0
0
0
70
0
2
100
122
122
0
0
0
4
47
2
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
10.11
7.93
3.67
5.12
23.07
41.67
9.05
21.69
29.54
6.76
11.67
4.32
NA
NA
16.67
6.99
NA
NA
12.50
14.25
NA
NA
NA
31.48
NA
NA
16.72
6.76
6.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.72
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.18
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
2.04
0.18
0.04
NA
NA
0.03
0.02
NA
NA
0.01
0.31
NA
NA
NA
0.02
NA
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.04
0.01
0.01
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.35
5.73
2.64
3.68
12.11
21.89
7.05
18.85
18.51
4.59
8.00
3.07
NA
NA
11.02
4.99
NA
NA
7.86
10.01
NA
NA
NA
21.06
NA
NA
12.76
4.86
4.38
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.47
NA
NA
23-15
-------
Table 23-2. VOC Analytical Precision:
122 Replicate Analyses for all Collocated Samples (Cont.)
Pollutant
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
)ibromochloromethane
[ ,2-Dibromoethane
^-Octane
fetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
[ , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
[ ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
iexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
34
0
0
122
6
0
62
77
15
118
122
0
93
0
118
102
105
6
2
71
6
22
21
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
11.26
NA
NA
8.07
100.00
NA
14.06
27.08
9.38
10.22
8.94
NA
25.85
NA
10.27
20.99
13.18
57.14
25.00
12.75
57.14
32.64
30.36
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.04
NA
NA
0.07
0.01
NA
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
NA
0.01
NA
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.84
NA
NA
5.77
47.14
NA
9.75
20.20
5.89
6.77
6.08
NA
12.39
NA
7.26
13.53
8.98
28.28
20.20
8.59
29.01
27.79
18.86
23-16
-------
Table 23-3. VOC Analytical Precision:
418 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples, Including all Post-Katrina Data
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
)ichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
)ichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Jromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1-Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
frichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
,2-Dichloropropane
ithyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Prichloroethylene
VIethyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
418
418
418
418
246
39
249
232
207
161
106
418
2
10
367
418
6
4
72
84
5
4
4
169
5
11
274
418
383
7
2
2
5
94
15
4
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
9.46
7.43
5.03
6.34
5.83
27.38
9.27
16.75
8.69
12.22
9.38
5.83
9.30
13.67
13.15
8.86
10.28
1.49
9.24
15.08
10.40
1.90
7.36
17.19
19.37
0.58
10.76
8.27
8.35
NA
2.67
23.26
8.25
28.13
9.50
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.18
0.10
0.05
0.06
0.004
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
3.06
0.10
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.28
0.06
0.43
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.06
0.02
0.10
0.02
0.01
0.04
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
6.97
5.44
3.58
4.54
4.86
13.36
6.28
10.39
5.84
7.62
6.39
4.17
6.29
10.31
9.28
6.33
7.69
1.07
6.84
10.58
7.82
1.36
5.51
11.80
12.07
0.42
6.95
5.73
6.05
NA
1.91
18.61
5.60
17.78
7.14
NA
23-17
-------
Table 23-3. VOC Analytical Precision:
418 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples (Cont.)
Pollutant
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
Petrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
3romoform
Styrene
, 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
, 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
lexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
44
4
4
418
5
8
270
250
7
409
416
4
318
13
409
309
335
13
8
187
17
50
95
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
13.64
2.17
8.59
8.20
0.70
36.67
13.64
13.40
6.25
9.83
9.29
6.25
11.81
50.00
9.49
11.65
13.75
11.80
11.81
14.28
15.00
26.08
26.17
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.12
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
10.34
1.55
5.75
5.74
0.50
27.78
9.23
9.83
4.22
6.85
6.33
4.16
8.08
23.57
6.54
8.21
8.94
8.06
8.09
9.70
9.64
20.82
18.34
23-18
-------
Table 23-4. VOC Analytical Precision:
32 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT)
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
)ichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
)ichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Jromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1-Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
frichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
,2-Dichloropropane
ithyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Prichloroethylene
VIethyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
32
32
32
32
19
0
17
12
12
6
6
32
0
0
27
32
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
8
0
0
20
32
29
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
9.21
4.36
4.83
8.71
11.11
NA
19.20
NA
4.17
3.75
16.91
5.97
NA
NA
14.03
11.80
NA
NA
NA
2.13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.50
7.25
13.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.11
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.004
NA
0.01
NA
0.002
0.22
0.08
0.02
NA
NA
0.02
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.001
0.04
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
6.98
3.25
3.60
6.59
8.38
NA
11.36
NA
3.37
2.68
10.49
4.34
NA
NA
9.78
8.57
NA
NA
NA
1.52
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.57
5.07
11.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23-19
-------
Table 23-4. VOC Analytical Precision:
32 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT) (Cont.)
Pollutant
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
Petrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
3romoform
Styrene
, 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
, 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
lexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
0
0
32
0
0
24
20
1
32
32
0
20
0
32
21
24
0
0
8
0
0
4
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
NA
8.12
NA
NA
15.92
10.00
NA
12.09
8.61
NA
7.08
NA
9.95
17.96
14.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
NA
NA
NA
0.08
NA
NA
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.04
NA
0.02
NA
0.02
0.01
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
NA
5.70
NA
NA
11.22
7.43
NA
8.24
6.12
NA
5.18
NA
7.06
11.06
10.79
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23-20
-------
Table 23-5. VOC Analytical Precision:
18 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in Detroit, MI (DEMI)
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
)ichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
)ichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Jromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1-Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
frichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether
,2-Dichloropropane
ithyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Prichloroethylene
VIethyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
18
18
18
18
15
4
15
14
14
14
8
17
0
0
18
18
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
16
0
1
17
18
18
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
4.65
5.91
3.91
5.58
4.76
50.00
2.38
14.29
2.86
11.27
5.02
3.17
NA
NA
2.58
6.29
NA
NA
NA
8.85
NA
NA
NA
3.90
NA
NA
12.29
6.27
9.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.004
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.001
2.25
0.04
0.06
NA
NA
0.004
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.48
NA
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.01
0.02
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
3.33
3.97
2.81
3.87
2.89
23.57
1.55
6.73
1.84
7.52
3.66
2.25
NA
NA
1.95
4.61
NA
NA
NA
6.59
NA
NA
NA
2.42
NA
NA
8.91
4.33
6.57
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23-21
-------
Table 23-5. VOC Analytical Precision:
18 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in Detroit, MI (DEMI) (Cont.)
Pollutant
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
Petrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
3romoform
Styrene
, 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
, 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
lexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
9
0
0
18
2
0
12
18
9
18
18
0
15
0
17
18
18
2
0
11
3
2
4
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
9.19
NA
NA
4.44
100.00
NA
11.67
4.03
6.25
6.04
5.61
NA
1.43
NA
4.56
10.71
4.11
100.00
NA
NA
100.00
50.00
25.00
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.03
NA
NA
0.05
0.01
NA
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
NA
0.01
NA
0.01
0.004
0.01
0.01
NA
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
6.18
NA
NA
3.17
47.14
NA
8.08
2.85
3.93
4.20
4.04
NA
1.06
NA
3.36
9.27
2.83
47.14
NA
NA
47.14
47.14
23.57
23-22
-------
Table 23-6. VOC Analytical Precision:
30 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Grand Junction, CO (GPCO)
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
)ichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
)ichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Jromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1-Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
frichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
,2-Dichloropropane
ithyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Prichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
30
30
30
30
18
0
19
16
15
16
6
30
0
0
26
30
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
10
0
0
17
30
29
0
0
0
0
6
10
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
6.16
5.85
4.76
6.28
NA
NA
9.87
6.25
NA
6.43
14.19
4.53
NA
NA
11.57
9.22
NA
NA
NA
10.08
NA
NA
NA
19.17
NA
NA
3.13
4.53
6.76
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.59
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.44
0.19
0.10
0.10
0.01
NA
0.05
0.001
0.001
3.48
0.10
0.05
NA
NA
0.03
0.02
NA
NA
NA
0.51
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
0.01
0.09
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.10
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
4.55
4.35
3.47
4.48
NA
NA
6.90
5.89
NA
4.91
9.55
3.30
NA
NA
6.36
6.33
NA
NA
NA
6.86
NA
NA
NA
12.98
NA
NA
2.53
3.31
4.66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.11
NA
23-23
-------
Table 23-6. VOC Analytical Precision:
30 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Grand Junction, CO (GPCO) (Cont.)
Pollutant
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
Petrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
3romoform
Styrene
, 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
, 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
lexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
6
0
0
30
0
0
25
18
0
30
30
0
29
4
30
26
26
0
0
10
0
4
8
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
14.29
NA
NA
5.75
NA
NA
7.32
1.79
NA
4.97
6.30
NA
9.24
NA
4.34
8.75
7.61
NA
NA
25.00
NA
16.67
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.05
NA
NA
0.20
NA
NA
0.02
0.01
NA
0.04
0.13
NA
0.06
NA
0.05
0.02
0.05
NA
NA
0.01
NA
0.01
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
11.79
NA
NA
4.06
NA
NA
5.68
1.36
NA
3.43
4.42
NA
6.43
NA
3.09
6.19
5.79
NA
NA
11.79
NA
14.14
NA
23-24
-------
Table 23-7. VOC Analytical Precision:
16 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL)
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
)ichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
)ichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
iromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1-Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether
[ ,2-Dichloropropane
ithyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
frichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
16
14
15
16
12
0
4
4
2
0
0
16
0
0
16
16
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
15
0
0
8
16
16
0
0
0
4
14
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
3.33
17.58
2.85
5.94
20.83
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.96
NA
NA
23.44
3.90
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.26
NA
NA
29.17
3.53
3.77
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.50
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.44
0.23
0.22
0.28
0.01
NA
0.03
0.07
0.02
NA
NA
0.13
NA
NA
0.07
0.04
NA
NA
NA
0.34
NA
NA
NA
0.07
NA
NA
0.02
0.11
0.05
NA
NA
NA
0.04
0.02
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
2.38
12.84
1.99
4.30
14.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.09
NA
NA
14.36
2.94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.03
NA
NA
24.24
2.51
2.76
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.91
NA
NA
23-25
-------
Table 23-7. VOC Analytical Precision:
16 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL) (Cont.)
Pollutant
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
)ibromochloromethane
[ ,2-Dibromoethane
^-Octane
fetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
[ , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
[ ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
iexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
2
0
0
16
4
0
3
16
0
16
16
0
11
0
16
14
15
1
0
3
0
1
1
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
NA
13.19
NA
NA
NA
20.83
NA
21.67
20.73
NA
95.83
NA
18.80
65.63
36.78
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.04
NA
NA
0.18
0.02
NA
0.05
0.02
NA
0.03
0.09
NA
0.02
NA
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.01
NA
0.03
NA
0.04
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
NA
8.07
NA
NA
NA
13.47
NA
11.72
11.95
NA
43.60
NA
12.64
32.72
21.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23-26
-------
Table 23-8. VOC Analytical Precision:
26 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO)
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
)ichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
)ichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Jromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1-Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
frichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
,2-Dichloropropane
ithyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Prichloroethylene
VIethyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
26
26
26
26
13
0
13
12
12
5
0
26
0
1
20
26
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
8
0
1
13
26
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
9.68
10.90
6.57
8.43
NA
NA
4.76
53.11
9.38
10.67
NA
10.61
NA
NA
16.73
11.88
NA
NA
NA
33.76
NA
NA
NA
16.67
NA
NA
8.33
16.33
6.49
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.30
0.15
0.13
0.14
0.004
NA
0.02
0.04
0.003
0.26
NA
0.08
NA
NA
0.07
0.02
NA
NA
NA
0.50
NA
NA
NA
0.02
NA
NA
0.004
0.11
0.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.72
8.67
4.61
5.90
NA
NA
3.93
33.65
8.62
7.45
NA
7.89
NA
NA
13.62
8.22
NA
NA
NA
22.73
NA
NA
NA
9.43
NA
NA
4.71
10.98
4.42
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23-27
-------
Table 23-8. VOC Analytical Precision:
26 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO) (Cont.)
Pollutant
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
Petrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
3romoform
Styrene
, 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
, 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
lexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
1
0
0
26
0
0
10
11
0
26
26
0
15
0
26
18
18
0
0
10
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
NA
17.79
NA
NA
33.33
15.28
NA
14.79
13.28
NA
20.83
NA
18.95
10.21
13.56
NA
NA
23.75
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
NA
NA
NA
0.52
NA
NA
0.08
0.03
NA
0.04
0.09
NA
0.03
NA
0.04
0.02
0.04
NA
NA
0.08
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
NA
12.58
NA
NA
15.71
13.86
NA
10.32
9.35
NA
10.48
NA
13.25
7.99
11.08
NA
NA
25.14
NA
NA
NA
23-28
-------
Table 23-9. VOC Analytical Precision:
342 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
)ichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
)ichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Jromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1-Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
frichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
,2-Dichloropropane
ithyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Prichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Number of
Observations
342
342
342
342
170
29
177
156
143
100
61
342
2
8
292
342
6
4
72
84
5
4
4
102
5
8
203
342
307
7
2
2
4
63
14
4
44
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
9.41
7.76
5.00
6.32
6.37
4.76
9.09
20.16
9.19
11.72
NA
6.24
9.30
16.94
14.33
9.24
10.28
1.49
9.24
15.08
10.40
1.90
7.36
20.70
19.37
0.58
12.35
8.42
9.57
NA
2.67
23.26
8.25
28.13
9.50
NA
13.64
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.18
0.11
0.05
0.06
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
1.71
NA
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.28
0.06
0.43
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.06
0.02
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.05
NA
0.04
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.08
5.74
3.54
4.52
5.25
3.14
6.16
12.26
6.04
7.80
NA
4.42
6.29
12.84
9.82
6.63
7.69
1.07
6.84
10.58
7.82
1.36
5.51
13.82
12.07
0.42
8.57
5.94
6.75
NA
1.91
18.61
5.60
17.78
7.14
NA
10.34
23-29
-------
Table 23-9. VOC Analytical Precision:
342 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples (Cont.)
Pollutant
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
)ibromochloromethane
,2-Dibromoethane
^-Octane
Petrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
3romoform
Styrene
, 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
, 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
w-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
4
4
342
5
8
194
186
7
333
340
4
242
12
333
233
261
11
8
131
14
26
39
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
2.17
8.59
8.54
0.70
36.67
13.77
13.89
6.25
10.57
10.02
6.25
13.46
50.00
9.85
12.53
12.71
11.80
11.81
16.23
15.00
26.72
36.63
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.04
0.02
0.13
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
1.55
5.75
6.20
0.50
27.78
9.47
10.09
4.22
7.55
7.21
4.16
9.65
23.57
7.12
8.96
8.59
8.06
8.09
10.86
9.64
21.27
21.51
23-30
-------
Table 23-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
,3 -Butadiene
3romomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
, 1 -Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
trans -1,2 -
Dichloroethylene
,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
VIethyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
3romochloromethane
Average
7.72
5.56
3.20
4.20
7.76
17.62
6.45
13.21
11.27
6.82
6.82
3.73
6.29
10.31
9.88
5.79
7.69
1.07
6.99
10.40
7.82
1.36
5.51
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
5.87
5.93
4.66
6.16
3.93
NA
5.05
15.71
NA
6.59
NA
5.13
NA
NA
9.56
10.65
NA
NA
NA
19.80
NA
NA
NA
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
6.98
3.25
3.60
6.59
8.38
NA
11.36
NA
3.37
2.68
10.49
4.34
NA
NA
9.78
8.57
NA
NA
NA
1.52
NA
NA
NA
^
Z
-,
1^
? Z
1 <
u$i
6.62
5.75
2.02
4.22
NA
NA
7.91
15.71
15.71
3.80
NA
3.91
NA
NA
14.55
3.50
NA
NA
6.09
NA
NA
NA
NA
^
Z
^
JS
6^
4.61
5.73
2.83
3.64
1.35
3.14
1.62
0.78
0.16
7.24
3.25
2.25
6.29
8.44
6.99
4.30
7.69
1.07
8.61
13.74
7.82
1.36
5.51
Q
VI
ฃ&
ซ 53
3 &
u^
5.47
7.05
2.80
3.14
NA
NA
8.29
NA
1.49
7.62
0.63
3.10
NA
17.25
7.52
6.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HH
ง
*J~ HH
'l^
ฃ UJ
Qซ
3.33
3.97
2.81
3.87
2.89
23.57
1.55
6.73
1.84
7.52
3.66
2.25
NA
NA
1.95
4.61
NA
NA
NA
6.59
NA
NA
NA
Dickson, TN
(DITN)
10.09
9.61
3.02
3.03
NA
20.20
NA
NA
NA
3.28
8.05
6.27
NA
NA
18.96
3.54
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
6.44
4.09
4.67
6.26
9.43
NA
7.73
8.23
9.86
11.86
NA
5.19
NA
NA
8.73
9.43
NA
NA
8.80
NA
NA
NA
NA
East Thomas,, AL
(ETAL)
8.82
5.09
1.67
3.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.57
NA
NA
2.21
NA
NA
9.43
4.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Grand Junction,
CO (GPCO)
4.55
4.35
3.47
4.48
NA
NA
6.90
5.89
NA
4.91
9.55
3.30
NA
NA
6.36
6.33
NA
NA
NA
6.86
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table 23-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 -
Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
^-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Average
15.21
12.07
0.42
9.00
5.38
5.38
NA
1.91
18.61
5. 60
17.12
7.14
9.40
1.55
5.75
5.75
23.82
27.78
9.40
13.98
5.33
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
14.14
NA
NA
NA
6.27
5.41
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.92
NA
NA
15.71
NA
NA
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
NA
NA
NA
1.57
5.07
11.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.70
NA
NA
11.22
7.43
NA
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
20.20
NA
NA
NA
4.10
4.53
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.81
NA
NA
1.89
10.07
NA
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
0.76
3.93
0.42
10.24
5.39
2.67
NA
1.91
18.61
5.60
3.52
4.16
NA
12.16
1.55
5.75
3.30
0.50
NA
29.94
20.35
4.22
Q
VI ^
ฃ O
"83
% ^
U^
47.14
NA
NA
5.66
4.41
6.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.82
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Detroit, MI
(DEMI)
2.42
NA
NA
8.91
4.33
6.57
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.18
NA
NA
3.17
47.14
NA
8.08
2.85
3.93
Dickson, TN
(DITN)
14.14
NA
NA
NA
5.10
2.08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.09
NA
NA
6.15
NA
NA
14.14
47.14
NA
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
7.54
NA
NA
10.37
6.91
11.48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.48
NA
NA
5.10
10.67
NA
East Thomas,, AL
(ETAL)
47.14
NA
NA
14.14
3.28
2.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.95
NA
NA
NA
47.14
NA
Grand Junction,
CO (GPCO)
12.98
NA
NA
2.53
3.31
4.66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.11
NA
11.79
NA
NA
4.06
NA
NA
5.68
1.36
NA
-------
Table 23-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
ithylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
v - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
[ ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
iexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Average
Average
6.82
6.24
4.16
9.58
23.57
6.79
10.17
8.96
16.15
12.13
9.33
19.33
23.35
18.51
8.46
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
9.16
5.80
NA
12.04
NA
4.90
18.38
10.51
NA
NA
16.63
NA
NA
NA
9.33
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
8.24
6.12
NA
5.18
NA
7.06
11.06
10.79
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.86
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
4.23
4.51
NA
9.29
NA
5.95
11.00
9.56
NA
NA
3.21
NA
NA
NA
7.25
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
7.71
4.05
4.16
9.88
NA
5.90
0.37
13.47
6.43
7.86
7.19
6.43
17.25
21.51
6.47
Q
VI ^
ฃ O
"83
% ^
U^
6.39
4.53
NA
6.99
23.57
4.58
NA
7.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.43
Detroit, MI
(DEMI)
4.20
4.04
NA
1.06
NA
3.36
9.27
2.83
47.14
NA
NA
47.14
47.14
23.57
10.30
Dickson, TN
(DITN)
NA
10.73
NA
3.63
NA
12.70
20.95
5.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.78
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
7.59
6.33
NA
5.19
NA
7.81
10.11
11.22
NA
NA
11.61
NA
47.14
NA
9.64
East Thomas,, AL
(ETAL)
2.44
3.26
NA
NA
NA
2.14
10.10
2.83
NA
NA
7.86
NA
NA
NA
10.24
Grand Junction,
CO (GPCO)
3.43
4.42
NA
6.43
NA
3.09
6.19
5.79
NA
NA
11.79
NA
14.14
NA
5.92
to
oo
-------
Table 23-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
,3 -Butadiene
3romomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
, 1 -Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 -
Dichloroethylene
,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
3romochloromethane
Average
7.72
5.56
3.20
4.20
7.76
17.62
6.45
13.21
11.27
6.82
6.82
3.73
6.29
10.31
9.88
5.79
7.69
1.07
6.99
10.40
7.82
1.36
5.51
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
6.03
3.66
2.93
3.06
NA
NA
11.50
2.95
NA
4.64
4.64
2.54
NA
NA
7.64
3.54
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nashville, TN
(LDTN)
5.45
6.45
4.67
5.80
NA
NA
14.28
47.14
47.14
NA
11.84
4.58
NA
NA
13.90
5.22
NA
NA
NA
16.09
NA
NA
NA
Madison, WI
(MAWI)
5.23
8.71
2.72
4.13
7.86
NA
9.43
11.79
23.57
NA
NA
3.88
NA
NA
13.86
6.99
NA
NA
NA
6.15
NA
NA
NA
North
Birmingham, AL
(NBAL)
12.74
3.07
4.00
5.29
NA
NA
NA
23.57
NA
6.06
NA
2.53
NA
NA
NA
7.57
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-J
HH
^
o
o
ซ ~
ฃd
1 M
zฃ
2.38
12.84
1.99
4.30
14.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.09
NA
NA
14.36
2.94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
New Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
5.47
4.20
3.03
5.45
NA
NA
4.71
NA
NA
10.27
5.67
3.88
NA
NA
8.76
5.07
NA
NA
9.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
VI
ง
J5~
If
%o
ฃ%
9.60
5.18
3.78
5.19
2.95
NA
3.67
2.95
4.46
11.35
6.57
4.11
NA
NA
8.63
5.31
NA
NA
NA
2.77
NA
NA
NA
Providence, AL
(PVAL)
5.41
2.62
1.88
1.15
23.57
NA
NA
NA
2.83
1.61
NA
2.44
NA
NA
11.14
4.76
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O
ง
7.72
8.67
4.61
5.90
NA
NA
3.93
33.65
8.62
7.45
NA
7.89
NA
NA
13.62
8.22
NA
NA
NA
22.73
NA
NA
NA
Q
VI
(/3
"sS
U
It
4.52
5.68
3.17
3.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.86
4.93
3.06
NA
NA
9.13
5.66
NA
NA
NA
10.71
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table 23-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
,2 - Dichloroethane
,1,1 - Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether
,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
3romodichloromethane
rrichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 -
Dichloropropene
,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
Petrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
Average
15.21
12.07
0.42
9.00
5.38
5.38
NA
1.91
18.61
5. 60
17.12
7.14
NA
9.40
1.55
5.75
5.75
23.82
27.78
9.40
13.98
5.33
6.82
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
5.80
NA
NA
10.39
5.99
6.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.02
NA
NA
8.12
7.78
NA
5.36
Nashville, TN
(LDTN)
6.58
NA
NA
14.14
5.07
5.23
NA
NA
NA
NA
33.67
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.59
NA
NA
15.71
NA
NA
10.07
Madison, WI
(MAWI)
NA
NA
NA
13.23
8.92
6.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.27
NA
NA
NA
9.43
NA
10.19
North
Birmingham, AL
(NBAL)
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.45
6.73
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.83
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.32
NA
NA
7.86
NA
NA
6.43
-J
HH
^
o
o
ซ ~
ฃd
1 M
zฃ
8.03
NA
NA
24.24
2.51
2.76
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.07
NA
NA
NA
13.47
NA
11.72
New Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
9.43
NA
NA
10.13
4.41
6.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
47.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.56
NA
NA
8.26
5.66
NA
5.59
VI
ง
J5~
If
%o
ฃ%
2.02
NA
NA
10.02
6.23
5.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.88
NA
35.36
8.66
NA
NA
8.06
Providence, AL
(PVAL)
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.53
2.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.14
NA
NA
10.10
NA
NA
4.71
O
ง
9.43
NA
NA
4.71
10.98
4.42
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.58
NA
NA
15.71
13.86
NA
10.32
Q
VI
(/3
"sS
U
It
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.07
6.39
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.68
NA
NA
4.31
NA
NA
3.14
NA
NA
10.74
-------
Table 23-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
v - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
[ ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Average
Average
6.24
4.16
9.58
23.57
6.79
10.17
8.96
16.15
12.13
9.33
19.33
23.35
18.51
8.46
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
7.65
NA
8.01
NA
6.34
4.20
11.16
NA
NA
6.93
NA
12.80
11.79
6. 61
Nashville, TN
(LDTN)
4.51
NA
14.94
NA
10.30
5.24
9.43
NA
NA
7.86
NA
47.14
NA
14.22
Madison, WI
(MAWI)
4.19
NA
23.57
NA
7.58
11.22
17.41
9.43
20.20
14.63
10.88
5.66
NA
10.25
North
Birmingham, AL
(NBAL)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.89
-J
HH
Cs
-*.
O
o
M ^
ฃd
og
Z ^
11.95
NA
43.60
NA
12.64
32.72
21.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.43
New Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
7.34
NA
14.53
NA
7.07
6.34
6.38
NA
NA
7.07
NA
NA
NA
8.28
vi
ง
Cv
ซ
If
ฃ ^
ฃfe
8.83
NA
10.48
NA
10.59
12.98
10.68
8.32
8.32
12.18
9.15
16.50
8.39
Providence, AL
(PVAL)
NA
NA
5.44
NA
NA
NA
3.72
NA
NA
6.43
NA
NA
NA
5.39
0
ง
*v
X ^_^
'5 o
0 *H
hJ ง
. -^
35ฃ
9.35
NA
10.48
NA
13.25
7.99
11.08
NA
NA
25.14
NA
NA
NA
11.24
Q
VI
**
X
"ซ
11
J&
9.17
NA
5.66
NA
4.75
NA
8.16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.59
to
oo
a\
-------
Table 23-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Average
7.72
5.56
3.20
4.20
7.76
17.62
6.45
13.21
11.27
6.82
6.82
3.73
6.29
10.31
9.88
5.79
7.69
1.07
6.99
10.40
7.82
1.36
5.51
Birmingham, AL
(SIAL)
11.96
0.77
0.57
1.59
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.48
NA
1.16
NA
NA
NA
4.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ซ
0.
Cv
a
ซ _
^ฃ
งฃ
$ฃ
10.58
5.56
5.41
3.86
NA
NA
4.58
11.79
NA
17.33
9.18
7.23
NA
NA
12.74
9.20
NA
NA
5.49
12.56
NA
NA
NA
VI
s
ll
ฃ1
4.76
5.20
4.11
3.67
NA
23.57
5.05
NA
NA
5.12
9.72
3.74
NA
5.24
7.47
3.70
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Austin, TX
(WETX)
8.05
4.16
3.12
4.46
NA
NA
2.94
5.03
12.12
NA
8.46
3.32
NA
NA
4.55
5.97
NA
NA
7.86
11.20
NA
NA
NA
lฃ.
C5 O Q_
"S 2 <ฃ
~ % p
>ฃ*
15.36
7.36
2.54
3.34
3.14
NA
5.68
6.29
3.09
NA
5.67
2.85
NA
NA
7.65
5.30
NA
NA
2.20
4.51
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table 23-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
[,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
[,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
rrichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
)ibromochloromethane
[ ,2-Dibromoethane
^-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Average
15.21
72.07
0.42
9.00
5.38
5.38
NA
1.91
18.61
5. 60
17.12
7.14
NA
9.40
1.55
5.75
5.75
23.82
27.78
9.40
13.98
5.33
6.82
6.24
Birmingham, AL
(SIAL)
47.14
NA
NA
NA
6.68
5.66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.89
NA
NA
7.07
NA
7.86
7.88
6.43
ซ
0.
Cv
a
ซ _
^ฃ
งฃ
ซ5 &
2.72
NA
NA
NA
7.71
6.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.81
NA
NA
7.09
NA
NA
7.74
11.31
NA
9.44
7.30
VI
s
if
ฃ1
9.43
NA
NA
2.53
5.06
6.60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.45
NA
20.20
5.17
NA
NA
3.47
6.86
Austin, TX
(WETX)
22.00
NA
NA
1.89
3.69
3.53
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.23
NA
NA
3.14
NA
NA
5.30
1.17
NA
3.33
3.50
_
s
*
sฃ~
C5 O Q_
"S 2 <ฃ
~ % P
>ฃ*
NA
20.20
NA
8.32
4.07
3.42
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.67
NA
NA
0.27
NA
NA
3.11
NA
NA
2.86
NA
NA
3.07
2.75
to
00
oo
-------
Table 23-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -Butadiene
Average
Average
4.16
9.58
23.57
6.79
10.17
8.96
16.15
12.13
9.33
19.33
23.35
18.51
8.46
Birmingham, AL
(SIAL)
NA
4.16
NA
5.89
NA
12.56
NA
NA
7.86
NA
NA
NA
7.89
(*
0.
Cv
a
ซ _
^ฃ
งฃ
$ฃ
NA
8.57
NA
6.73
7.97
7.65
NA
NA
10.47
NA
28.28
NA
9.09
VI
s
ll
ฃ1
NA
5.29
NA
6.52
NA
7.80
9.43
NA
2.02
12.86
16.97
23.57
7.95
Austin, TX
(WETX)
NA
2.72
NA
3.46
5.19
5.36
NA
NA
6.91
NA
11.22
14.14
6.20
h,
ซ ฃ (In
"S 2 <ฃ
~ % P
>ฃ*
NA
3.25
NA
3.66
1.91
2.63
NA
NA
2.11
NA
NA
NA
4.80
to
00
VO
-------
Table 23-11. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
136 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples, Including all Post-Katrina Data
Pollutant
ithylene
Acetylene
Ethane
'ropylene
Propane
Propyne
sobutane
sobutene/ 1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
rc-Butane
trans -2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3 -Methyl - 1 -butene
sopentane
-Pentene
2-Methyl-l -butene
rc-Pentane
Isoprene
trans -2-Pentene
cis -2 -Pentene
2 -Methyl -2 -butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
t-Methyl-1 -pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-l -pentene
l-Hexene
2-Ethyl-l -butene
^-Hexane
trans -2-He-aene
c/s-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Number of
Observations
128
135
135
136
136
0
136
136
71
136
100
100
19
135
100
91
136
118
108
101
96
121
21
3
127
127
136
135
25
99
0
136
15
1
136
111
136
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
11.87
10.67
14.42
8.12
2.53
NA
3.49
7.87
26.96
2.49
13.71
10.46
9.97
5.85
41.59
11.43
6.49
10.26
11.70
12.35
8.62
12.26
33.61
NA
19.71
11.24
5.69
18.53
13.54
21.65
NA
10.08
21.67
NA
7.64
12.89
6.15
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.61
0.34
1.24
0.16
0.64
NA
0.28
0.10
0.06
0.64
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.95
0.34
0.08
0.39
0.20
0.07
0.05
0.08
0.07
0.13
0.14
0.07
0.12
0.31
0.23
14.04
0.09
NA
0.18
0.07
NA
0.10
0.11
0.16
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.48
6.49
4.63
4.82
1.81
NA
2.37
5.08
17.40
1.68
10.06
7.88
7.35
3.40
18.15
7.26
3.48
7.01
8.27
8.19
6.11
8.18
21.79
NA
11.50
7.07
3.89
10.75
9.26
13.62
NA
6.45
13.02
NA
4.84
8.01
4.11
23-40
-------
Table 23-11. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
136 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples (Cont.)
Pollutant
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
rc-Heptane
VIethylcyclohexane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3 -Methylheptane
-Octene
rc-Octane
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
.-Nonene
rc-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
rc-Propylbenzene
w-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
&-Pinene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
p?-Decane
[, 2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
l-Undecene
p?-Undecane
Number of
Observations
122
118
126
135
58
130
135
126
53
108
136
97
101
51
126
136
136
102
136
67
115
65
88
101
111
110
106
100
9
113
0
104
82
59
72
11
85
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
19.33
34.17
22.26
12.64
9.14
10.19
56.62
14.86
10.62
22.16
6.79
14.42
21.84
11.71
13.24
8.94
9.89
15.01
9.66
22.08
11.33
12.47
8.28
14.68
22.62
13.97
9.35
17.43
8.60
9.05
NA
14.44
18.36
23.38
21.50
24.77
16.99
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.10
0.24
0.26
0.16
0.03
0.23
0.12
0.08
0.10
0.11
0.33
0.05
0.07
0.04
0.05
0.11
0.19
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.03
0.22
0.07
0.11
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.34
0.12
NA
0.13
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.19
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
12.15
23.88
14.68
7.89
6.76
6.15
9.00
7.45
7.12
8.70
4.31
8.89
13.27
7.74
7.03
6.21
6.21
10.59
6.71
13.87
8.76
8.26
6.09
11.49
12.33
10.76
6.87
14.48
5.59
7.35
NA
11.47
12.26
15.09
14.20
22.54
10.64
23-41
-------
Table 23-11. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
136 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples (Cont.)
Pollutant
1-Dodecene
rc-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
rc-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Number of
Observations
9
54
0
2
136
136
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
17.84
18.56
NA
2.48
7.86
4.78
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.47
0.27
NA
0.004
10.50
13.94
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
14.91
14.93
NA
1.74
7.16
3.21
23-42
-------
Table 23-12. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
32 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT)
Pollutant
ithylene
Acetylene
Ethane
'ropylene
Propane
Propyne
sobutane
sobutene/ 1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
n-Butane
trans -2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3 -Methyl - 1 -butene
sopentane
-Pentene
2-Methyl-l -butene
n-Pentane
Isoprene
frara-2-Pentene
cis -2 -Pentene
2 -Methyl -2 -butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l -pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3 -Methylpentane
2-Methyl-l -pentene
-Hexene
2-Ethyl-l -butene
n-Hexane
frara-2-Hexene
cis -2 -Hexene
VIethylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
benzene
Number of
Observations
32
32
32
32
32
0
32
32
20
32
32
30
8
31
24
28
32
28
28
28
28
28
5
0
31
31
32
32
7
24
0
32
5
1
32
28
32
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
11.75
7.63
3.70
2.60
2.34
NA
2.00
5.58
16.52
2.04
12.55
7.53
7.87
1.88
49.65
6.56
2.46
13.15
8.20
6.58
4.83
6.30
21.43
NA
18.89
4.62
4.37
7.69
10.70
15.33
NA
6.63
34.40
NA
3.12
3.17
8.40
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.27
0.27
0.34
0.07
0.29
NA
0.29
0.07
0.03
0.23
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.67
0.17
0.04
0.15
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.13
NA
0.05
0.06
0.09
0.16
0.05
0.07
NA
0.16
0.08
NA
0.04
0.03
0.18
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
10.23
5.54
2.69
1.87
1.70
NA
1.46
3.72
11.27
1.48
8.53
5.25
5.38
1.36
16.35
4.79
1.74
8.98
5.83
4.59
3.46
4.54
19.28
NA
7.56
3.31
2.97
5.45
8.14
10.61
NA
4.45
19.28
NA
2.28
2.17
5.54
23-43
-------
Table 23-12. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
32 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT) (Cont.)
Pollutant
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
rc-Heptane
VIethylcyclohexane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
-Octene
rc-Octane
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
.-Nonene
r?-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
rc-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
, 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
&-Pinene
,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
rc-Decane
,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
/-Undecene
^-Undecane
Number of
Observations
29
32
31
32
14
30
32
32
16
28
32
28
28
18
28
32
32
22
32
19
27
13
13
23
27
27
26
26
0
27
0
24
22
11
8
0
18
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
5.90
14.97
7.78
9.67
10.81
4.13
272.83
4.59
7.71
66.26
5.98
8.34
18.61
16.48
3.21
4.72
4.17
15.99
5.99
51.96
5.81
13.08
11.68
9.21
6.95
6.34
8.76
9.29
NA
6.77
NA
9.43
15.25
32.12
28.81
NA
7.21
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.10
0.10
0.14
0.12
0.06
0.15
0.24
0.06
0.04
0.09
0.28
0.04
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.24
0.06
0.17
0.05
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
NA
0.10
NA
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.12
NA
0.12
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
4.15
8.68
5.31
5.94
7.87
2.77
12.55
3.21
5.33
11.57
4.12
5.29
11.40
10.64
2.24
3.26
2.86
16.09
4.08
21.18
3.92
8.46
9.48
6.32
4.98
4.23
6.44
6.68
NA
4.95
NA
7.10
10.03
21.36
25.01
NA
5.47
23-44
-------
Table 23-12. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
32 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT) (Cont.)
Pollutant
1-Dodecene
rc-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
rc-Tridecane
TOMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Number of
Observations
1
12
0
0
32
32
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
28.39
NA
NA
2.07
5.96
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
NA
0.34
NA
NA
2.66
9.12
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
21.63
NA
NA
1.49
3.90
23-45
-------
Table 23-13. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
16 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL)
Pollutant
ithylene
Acetylene
Ethane
'ropylene
Propane
Propyne
sobutane
sobutene/ 1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
rc-Butane
trans -2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3 -Methyl - 1 -butene
sopentane
-Pentene
2-Methyl-l -butene
rc-Pentane
Isoprene
trans -2-Pentene
cis -2 -Pentene
2 -Methyl -2 -butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
t-Methyl-1 -pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-l -pentene
l-Hexene
2-Ethyl-l -butene
^-Hexane
trans -2-He-aene
c/s-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Number of
Observations
16
16
16
16
16
0
16
16
8
16
11
11
0
16
14
10
16
16
15
15
11
16
1
0
16
16
16
16
0
13
0
16
0
0
16
16
16
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
38.40
4.83
3.72
23.05
5.33
NA
7.91
21.12
56.67
4.54
33.02
22.08
NA
21.37
34.78
15.64
25.23
9.91
23.58
33.20
8.57
25.48
NA
NA
43.35
27.12
9.44
39.97
NA
22.47
NA
21.31
NA
NA
20.11
30.38
8.49
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
1.66
0.86
4.60
0.61
2.94
NA
1.06
0.37
0.12
3.01
0.11
0.12
NA
4.39
0.21
0.20
1.83
0.84
0.21
0.13
0.21
0.20
NA
NA
0.19
0.50
1.46
0.65
NA
0.12
NA
0.61
NA
NA
0.41
0.41
0.47
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
22.23
3.28
2.84
11.49
4.27
NA
5.29
12.52
31.22
3.04
26.68
18.92
NA
10.94
36.20
11.96
11.39
7.76
16.56
21.15
6.15
17.28
NA
NA
24.80
15.27
6.25
20.35
NA
14.70
NA
12.85
NA
NA
11.17
15.00
5.57
23-46
-------
Table 23-13. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
16 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL) (Cont.)
Pollutant
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
rc-Heptane
VIethylcyclohexane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3 -Methylheptane
-Octene
rc-Octane
ithylbenzene
w,p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
.-Nonene
rc-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
rc-Propylbenzene
w-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
&-Pinene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
p?-Decane
[, 2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
l-Undecene
p?-Undecane
Number of
Observations
16
15
16
16
0
16
16
16
12
16
16
16
16
0
16
16
16
16
16
9
16
6
15
16
16
16
15
16
1
16
0
15
13
4
5
1
13
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
29.46
66.88
46.86
19.58
NA
25.41
15.22
50.96
23.80
32.53
16.40
46.91
48.54
NA
19.79
16.08
23.78
13.73
11.96
34.58
21.68
3.70
8.08
14.38
27.11
19.89
11.40
47.11
NA
13.58
NA
23.61
20.78
NA
58.19
NA
12.79
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.18
0.33
0.65
0.41
NA
0.99
0.23
0.27
0.18
0.33
1.08
0.12
0.11
NA
0.15
0.23
0.61
0.13
0.26
0.11
0.23
0.05
0.62
0.09
0.22
0.16
0.16
0.21
NA
0.31
NA
0.44
0.15
0.23
0.13
NA
0.17
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
17.58
33.98
24.18
11.23
NA
12.40
8.81
17.89
14.49
16.59
9.01
26.47
25.47
NA
10.74
9.64
12.51
9.13
8.50
29.17
21.12
2.68
5.93
11.09
20.21
18.34
10.21
47.74
NA
11.71
NA
23.80
15.28
NA
31.87
NA
9.25
23-47
-------
Table 23-13. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
16 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL) (Cont.)
Pollutant
1-Dodecene
rc-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
rc-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Number of
Observations
1
8
0
0
16
12
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
10.85
NA
NA
29.29
4.54
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
NA
0.13
NA
NA
45.18
7.00
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
8.11
NA
NA
29.62
3.20
23-48
-------
Table 23-14. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
88 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples Only
Pollutant
ithylene
Acetylene
Ethane
'ropylene
Propane
Propyne
sobutane
sobutene/ 1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
rc-Butane
trans -2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3 -Methyl - 1 -butene
sopentane
-Pentene
2-Methyl-l -butene
rc-Pentane
Isoprene
trans -2-Pentene
cis -2 -Pentene
2 -Methyl -2 -butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
t-Methyl-1 -pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-l -pentene
l-Hexene
2-Ethyl-l -butene
^-Hexane
trans -2-He-aene
c/s-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Number of
Observations
88
88
88
88
88
0
88
88
38
88
65
61
12
87
58
53
88
73
66
61
56
75
16
3
83
79
88
87
12
63
0
88
11
1
88
67
88
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
5.26
10.47
1.89
4.92
1.43
NA
2.09
5.10
23.08
1.71
9.51
7.98
5.37
2.51
49.07
6.49
2.25
11.04
10.06
7.89
7.25
8.96
33.21
NA
15.57
7.84
4.40
15.35
16.02
20.59
NA
8.15
22.95
NA
4.81
8.64
5.57
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.11
0.15
0.14
0.06
0.14
NA
0.10
0.04
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.24
0.44
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.13
0.14
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.15
21.03
0.09
NA
0.10
0.09
NA
0.03
0.05
0.08
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
4.19
6.62
1.36
3.40
1.02
NA
1.48
3.57
16.08
1.21
6.47
5.61
3.69
1.80
15.38
4.75
1.63
7.18
7.16
5.39
5.26
5.80
22.92
NA
8.89
5.39
3.11
9.20
10.73
13.14
NA
5.33
13.36
NA
3.40
6.05
3.73
23-49
-------
Table 23-14. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
88 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples Only (Cont.)
Pollutant
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
rc-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
[-Octene
rc-Octane
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
[-Nonene
r?-Nonane
sopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
rc-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
e>-Ethyltoluene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
&-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
rc-Decane
1,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
^-Undecane
Number of
Observations
74
75
82
87
36
82
87
78
22
64
88
53
57
39
78
88
88
54
88
33
68
37
41
57
63
63
61
56
8
65
0
61
45
32
35
6
54
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
17.79
32.70
19.31
12.04
6.87
6.61
78.94
7.87
6.48
22.84
4.56
7.94
18.09
12.76
12.61
7.22
7.03
16.41
8.43
19.77
10.24
13.10
8.83
15.67
25.78
13.98
9.37
11.95
8.60
7.77
NA
11.42
18.96
20.31
13.62
27.98
18.17
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.09
0.27
0.21
0.13
0.03
0.07
0.11
0.05
0.09
0.07
0.13
0.03
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.05
0.08
0.04
0.02
0.14
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.03
0.03
0.35
0.07
NA
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.10
0.09
0.21
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
11.43
26.04
14.32
7.62
5.05
4.56
9.79
5.50
4.62
7.23
3.19
5.38
11.61
8.29
6.23
5.44
4.97
11.96
5.83
10.09
6.92
8.82
6.53
12.43
12.46
10.13
6.45
8.17
5.59
6.09
NA
8.42
12.01
13.91
10.51
26.36
10.82
23-50
-------
Table 23-14. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
88 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples Only (Cont.)
Pollutant
1-Dodecene
rc-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
rc-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Number of
Observations
7
35
0
2
88
88
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
17.84
21.39
NA
2.48
2.36
4.39
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.63
0.34
NA
0.004
1.90
6.11
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
14.91
17.76
NA
1.74
1.67
2.97
23-51
-------
Table 23-15. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites
Pollutant
Ethylene
Acetylene
ithane
'ropylene
'ropane
Propyne
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
rc-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis -2 -Butene
3 -Methyl - 1 -butene
sopentane
-Pentene
2-Methyl-l -butene
rc-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-2-Pentene
cis -2 -Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
t-Methyl-1 -pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3 -Methylpentane
2-Methyl-l -pentene
-Hexene
2-Ethyl-l -butene
^-Hexane
frara-2-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
VIethylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
benzene
Average
7.48
6.49
4.63
4.82
1.81
NA
2.37
5.08
17.40
1.68
10.06
7.88
7.35
3.40
18.15
7.26
3.48
7.01
8.27
8.19
6.11
8.18
21.79
NA
11.50
7.07
3.89
10.75
9.26
13.62
NA
6.45
13.02
NA
4.84
8.01
4.11
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
10.23
5.54
2.69
1.87
1.70
NA
1.46
3.72
11.27
1.48
8.53
5.25
5.38
1.36
16.35
4.79
1.74
8.98
5.83
4.59
3.46
4.54
19.28
NA
7.56
3.31
2.97
5.45
8.14
10.61
NA
4.45
19.28
NA
2.28
2.17
5.54
Q
VI
ฃ&
% 53
% ^
u^
2.15
9.09
0.91
4.30
1.10
NA
1.44
3.27
15.94
1.11
6.88
9.04
2.01
2.37
27.44
8.11
1.79
13.74
11.08
5.54
7.57
6.59
20.23
NA
9.43
7.16
2.99
10.24
13.33
10.03
NA
6.57
7.43
NA
4.07
7.88
5.47
Gulf Port, MS
(GPMS)
5.90
9.17
19.53
3.82
2.48
NA
2.98
3.64
8.86
2.22
7.84
5.95
14.66
2.26
11.16
12.61
2.96
5.57
4.40
6.43
8.61
8.59
18.40
NA
8.66
5.60
4.66
7.35
6.32
14.48
NA
4.55
12.34
NA
4.28
8.85
4.15
North Brook, IL
( NBIL)
22.23
3.28
2.84
11.49
4.27
NA
5.29
12.52
31.22
3.04
26.68
18.92
NA
10.94
36.20
11.96
11.39
7.76
16.56
21.15
6.15
17.28
NA
NA
24.80
15.27
6.25
20.35
NA
14.70
NA
12.85
NA
NA
11.17
15.00
5.57
vi
ง
Cv
ซ
If
2 O
ฃfe
2.38
3.68
0.46
3.42
0.19
NA
1.44
2.89
28.41
0.52
6.16
3.33
NA
1.93
13.67
2.94
0.39
2.61
4.64
4.42
NA
2.16
NA
NA
5.96
2.57
0.97
5.30
NA
17.18
NA
2.59
NA
NA
2.97
10.19
0.64
Q
VI
(/3
"sS
*=!
o to
ฃฃ
1.98
8.15
1.38
3.99
1.11
NA
1.60
4.42
8.70
1.74
4.30
4.82
NA
1.55
4.08
3.16
2.60
3.40
7.08
7.01
4.75
9.91
29.25
NA
12.61
8.49
5.53
15.80
NA
14.76
NA
7.70
NA
NA
4.29
3.98
3.27
23-52
-------
Table 23-15. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
rc-Heptane
VIethylcyclohexane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
-Octene
^-Octane
ithylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
.-Nonene
rc-Nonane
sopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
rc-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
, 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
&-Pinene
,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
rc-Decane
,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
-Undecene
rc-Undecane
Average
12.15
23.88
14.68
7.89
6.76
6.15
9.00
7.45
7.12
8.70
4.31
8.89
13.27
7.74
7.03
6.21
6.21
10.59
6.71
13.87
8.76
8.26
6.09
11.49
12.33
10.76
6.87
14.48
5.59
7.35
NA
11.47
12.26
15.09
14.20
22.54
10.64
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
4.15
8.68
5.31
5.94
7.87
2.77
12.55
3.21
5.33
11.57
4.12
5.29
11.40
10.64
2.24
3.26
2.86
16.09
4.08
21.18
3.92
8.46
9.48
6.32
4.98
4.23
6.44
6.68
NA
4.95
NA
7.10
10.03
21.36
25.01
NA
5.47
Q
VI
ฃ&
ซ 53
% ^
u^
14.17
21.28
12.49
6.94
3.69
7.18
9.26
8.09
NA
7.08
5.24
7.20
15.67
7.97
6.01
12.64
8.50
10.60
7.60
9.12
7.83
7.54
7.00
7.71
5.95
9.99
10.17
14.88
1.77
12.38
NA
9.03
30.62
10.51
9.44
60.69
19.09
Gulf Port, MS
(GPMS)
9.60
5.14
6.61
5.63
13.61
6.26
6.06
4.81
7.26
6.67
4.09
5.37
7.69
5.52
6.57
5.85
4.88
7.95
8.46
13.67
3.77
11.59
4.52
8.17
3.91
5.68
5.18
6.45
NA
8.01
NA
11.34
10.24
19.81
11.30
11.09
11.32
North Brook, IL
( NBIL)
17.58
33.98
24.18
11.23
NA
12.40
8.81
17.89
14.49
16.59
9.01
26.47
25.47
NA
10.74
9.64
12.51
9.13
8.50
29.17
21.12
2.68
5.93
11.09
20.21
18.34
10.21
47.74
NA
11.71
NA
23.80
15.28
NA
31.87
NA
9.25
vi
ง
Cv
ซ
If
2 O
ฃfe
15.23
55.41
21.76
6.91
5.27
2.85
4.05
3.59
6.10
7.09
0.67
2.50
4.88
5.12
2.72
1.95
3.98
NA
4.69
0.88
6.95
4.64
1.35
27.33
34.57
17.70
2.50
5.87
13.62
2.61
NA
7.32
0.76
12.58
3.88
14.89
2.73
Q
VI
(/3
"sS
*=!
o to
ฃฃ
12.16
18.80
17.75
10.71
3.37
5.44
13.30
7.10
2.41
3.21
2.73
6.52
14.49
9.42
13.93
3.92
4.55
9.19
6.94
9.19
8.99
14.62
8.28
8.35
4.34
8.60
6.69
5.24
1.37
4.43
NA
10.22
6.62
11.19
3.69
3.51
15.97
23-53
-------
Table 23-15. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
1-Dodecene
rc-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
rc-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Average
Average
14.91
14.93
NA
1.74
7.16
3.21
9.06
H
Cs
= H
NA
21.63
NA
NA
1.49
3.90
7.77
&
Vl
U
Q
Vl
Cs
'_.
+J
u
2.14
18.15
NA
1.74
1.80
4.72
9.32
i? <^^s
o ^
NA
10.42
NA
NA
6.67
5.36
7. 69
-J
HH
O
o
pa ^
z &
NA
8.11
NA
NA
29.62
2.03
15.46
VI
Cs
"3 ^
1 ^
27.68
13.47
NA
NA
1.63
0.84
7.35
Q
M d/5
o fe
* ^ ^^
^O s^^
NA
17.80
NA
NA
1.78
2.41
7.40
23-54
-------
Table 23-16. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
708 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples
Pollutant
"ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
folualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
708
708
708
702
694
704
700
249
682
642
693
12
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
0.79
0.81
0.68
2.52
3.11
2.67
3.79
4.68
3.87
5.06
4.33
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.55
0.57
0.48
1.79
2.19
1.89
2.68
3.40
2.75
3.35
2.92
NA
Table 23-17. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
224 Replicate Analyses for all Collocated Samples
Pollutant
"ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
'ropionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
[sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
folualdehydes
iexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
224
224
224
222
215
220
216
88
214
211
214
1
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
0.61
0.57
0.56
1.97
3.75
1.97
4.88
5.63
4.24
6.17
3.59
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.01
0.005
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.43
0.40
0.39
1.37
2.63
1.39
3.41
3.98
3.03
4.44
2.51
NA
23-55
-------
Table 23-18. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
484 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples, Including all Post-Katrina Data
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
'ropionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
3utyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
lexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
484
484
484
480
479
484
484
161
468
431
479
11
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
0.74
0.66
0.68
2.66
3.05
2.84
3.52
4.84
3.83
6.10
3.83
4.50
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.52
0.46
0.48
1.90
2.15
2.02
2.49
3.46
2.72
3.69
2.66
3.22
Table 23-19. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
26 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT)
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
'ropionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
folualdehydes
iexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
14
26
25
26
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
0.46
0.36
0.34
1.70
4.09
2.94
2.57
4.06
2.89
2.00
2.69
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.004
0.002
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.005
0.003
0.002
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.32
0.26
0.24
1.21
2.98
2.06
1.82
2.91
2.07
1.38
1.85
NA
23-56
-------
Table 23-20. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
80 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in Detroit, MI (DEMI)
Pollutant
7ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
3enzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Polualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
22
80
78
80
1
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
0.59
0.90
1.06
1.88
3.02
3.09
4.70
2.74
3.72
3.53
3.50
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.002
0.002
0.004
0.001
0.01
0.001
0.001
0.001
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.42
0.64
0.76
1.32
2.09
2.16
3.30
1.97
2.59
2.53
2.47
NA
Table 23-21. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
30 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in Grand Junction, CO (GPCO)
Pollutant
7ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
3utyr/Isobutyraldehyde
3enzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
10
30
28
30
0
Average RPD for
Replicate
Analyses (%)
0.73
0.87
0.46
2.37
3.81
2.43
3.93
8.00
4.63
5.09
4.53
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.001
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.52
0.60
0.33
1.65
2.65
1.74
2.83
5.86
3.22
3.92
3.25
NA
23-57
-------
Table 23-22. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
8 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in Northbrook, IL (NBIL)
Pollutant
"ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
folualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
8
8
8
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
0.15
0.28
0.71
0.87
4.31
1.27
6.71
12.22
7.97
12.29
10.59
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.0005
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.10
0.20
0.51
0.62
2.95
0.89
4.97
8.57
6.08
9.28
7.23
NA
Table 23-23. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
30 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO)
Pollutant
"ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
3utyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
30
30
30
30
28
30
30
12
30
30
30
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
0.75
0.52
0.84
2.81
2.49
2.42
3.44
0.98
4.61
44.85
4.68
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.01
0.005
0.01
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.0002
0.001
0.003
0.001
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.53
0.36
0.59
1.96
1.72
1.73
2.44
0.71
3.23
12.49
3.22
NA
23-58
-------
Table 23-24. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
16 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in Tampa, FL (SKFL)
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
'ropionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
3utyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
lexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
5
16
13
16
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
1.05
0.84
0.45
1.85
5.01
3.37
4.50
NA
3.48
4.18
5.32
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.02
0.01
0.002
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.002
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.73
0.59
0.32
1.30
3.41
2.39
3.14
NA
2.40
3.05
3.83
NA
Table 23-25. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
20 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in Tampa, FL (SYFL)
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
'ropionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Polualdehydes
lexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
0
20
15
20
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
1.38
2.61
1.46
4.41
4.21
3.14
4.16
NA
2.68
4.39
4.30
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
NA
0.001
0.003
0.001
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.97
1.84
1.03
3.21
2.98
2.20
2.95
NA
1.87
3.12
3.12
NA
23-59
-------
Table 23-26. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
408 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples Only
Pollutant
"ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
folualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
408
408
408
404
403
408
408
133
392
359
403
11
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
0.78
0.66
0.73
2.89
3.14
2.84
3.59
4.97
4.06
6.69
4.11
4.50
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.55
0.46
0.52
2.07
2.22
2.02
2.54
3.55
2.89
4.04
2.84
3.22
23-60
-------
Table 23-27. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
0.49
0.44
0.45
1.71
2.33
1.80
2.81
3.65
2.83
3.95
2.61
3.22
2.19
St. Petersburg, FL
(AZFL)
1.36
0.28
0.78
4.02
1.74
3.69
3.11
NA
1.48
4.37
1.11
NA
2.79
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
0.46
0.40
0.39
2.27
2.31
2.56
2.54
5.66
6.77
15.57
0.94
NA
3.62
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
0.32
0.26
0.24
1.21
2.98
2.06
1.82
2.91
2.07
1.38
1.85
NA
7.55
Candor, NC
(CANC)
0.66
0.74
0.33
0.20
3.42
1.00
2.69
5.24
2.61
4.52
1.53
NA
2.09
^
Z
Cv
c ^
II
0.59
0.49
0.29
6.30
NA
0.22
1.57
NA
2.21
3.67
2.85
NA
2.02
Chester, NJ (CHNJ)
0.44
0.31
0.35
2.09
1.20
1.70
2.58
3.34
2.94
3.49
2.56
NA
7.97
&
U
Q
-^
3
u
0.53
0.60
0.43
2.31
2.65
2.66
3.72
3.50
2.31
2.25
3.44
NA
2.22
Detroit, MI (DEMI)
0.42
0.64
0.76
1.32
2.09
2.16
3.30
1.97
2.59
2.53
2.47
NA
1.84
Dickson, TN (DITN)
0.45
0.52
0.35
2.30
1.76
1.92
3.49
NA
2.00
5.59
1.97
NA
2.03
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
0.25
0.22
0.33
1.62
1.02
2.01
1.63
3.93
1.85
1.63
2.59
NA
7.55
to
-------
Table 23-27. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
7ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
3enzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Polualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
0.49
0.44
0.45
1.71
2.33
1.80
2.81
3.65
2.83
3.95
2.61
3.22
2.19
-J
<
e
ซ
OK ^
a _i
'*$
SB
0.46
0.37
NA
1.58
4.10
1.12
3.02
NA
1.00
4.09
2.53
NA
2.03
Boward Co., FL
(FLFL)
0.36
NA
0.81
0.84
2.04
1.21
2.99
NA
2.68
2.69
1.81
NA
7.72
-J
to
<
O
-J
to
et
O.
ซ
H
0.60
0.78
1.37
1.28
2.36
1.51
2.44
NA
3.42
2.30
2.29
NA
1.84
Grand Junction, CO
(GPCO)
0.52
0.60
0.33
1.65
2.65
1.74
2.83
5.86
3.22
3.92
3.25
NA
2.42
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
0.52
0.63
0.52
1.07
1.89
1.19
1.67
3.81
2.14
1.15
1.91
NA
1.50
Grenada, MS
(GRMS)
0.33
0.17
0.09
0.85
NA
5.16
3.07
NA
4.16
NA
4.29
NA
2.27
Loudon, TN (LDTN)
0.52
0.16
0.27
1.36
1.72
1.23
2.74
3.68
5.27
5.92
2.47
NA
2.31
Madison, WI
(MAWI)
0.47
0.50
0.43
0.70
1.88
2.13
1.85
1.29
3.98
1.81
2.62
NA
1.61
Cv
ซ
S/j
e
B?
ซ ซ
43 Z
i:r
z <
0.32
0.13
0.04
1.81
3.72
0.48
3.86
4.16
3.54
4.56
1.72
NA
2.27
Northbrook, IL
(NBIL)
0.10
0.20
0.51
0.62
2.95
0.89
4.97
8.57
6.08
9.28
7.23
NA
3.76
to
to
-------
Table 23-27. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
3utyr/Isobutyraldehyde
3enzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
0.49
0.44
0.45
1.71
2.33
1.80
2.81
3.65
2.83
3.95
2.61
3.22
2.19
New Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
0.42
0.27
0.33
1.39
2.17
1.79
2.19
1.31
1.88
0.76
2.40
NA
1.35
Orlando, FL
(ORFL)
0.54
0.25
0.46
1.18
0.93
1.39
1.80
4.44
2.78
3.10
2.58
NA
7.77
w
ง
Cv
ซ
if
2 O
ฃ &
0.40
0.35
0.59
1.45
2.97
2.46
2.96
2.00
2.66
1.51
1.69
NA
1.73
Providence, AL
(PVAL)
0.16
0.09
0.33
0.34
2.14
0.96
3.82
2.28
1.57
2.53
1.57
NA
1.43
Research
Triangle Park,
NC (RTPNC)
0.73
0.39
0.52
4.56
3.23
1.94
5.45
NA
1.31
NA
0.43
NA
2.06
it
"* TT
ปr cซ
ง4
hJ V
%'&
0.53
0.36
0.59
1.96
1.72
1.73
2.44
0.71
3.23
12.49
3.22
NA
2.64
-J
to
|ฃ
II
0.73
0.59
0.32
1.30
3.41
2.39
3.14
NA
2.40
3.05
3.83
NA
2.11
-J
to
cf Ij
aS
S ง
Si
0.28
0.32
0.27
0.80
1.87
0.81
1.93
1.54
2.91
2.86
4.53
3.22
1.78
-J
u.
S? ^
Q. "
a ^
ll
0.97
1.84
1.03
3.21
2.98
2.20
2.95
NA
1.87
3.12
3.12
NA
2J3
Q
tf)
IK
"sS
&=l
o to
X^
0.33
0.12
0.40
1.99
2.91
1.78
2.44
7.44
1.81
3.17
2.19
NA
2.23
to
CK
-------
Table 23-27. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
7ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
3enzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Polualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
0.49
0.44
0.45
1.71
2.33
1.80
2.81
3.65
2.83
3.95
2.61
3.22
2.19
-J
<
f*
ซ
S/j
I J
ง <
ซฃ
0.35
0.52
0.22
0.56
2.47
0.34
3.52
NA
3.05
5.22
3.48
NA
7.97
tf
0.
e
h5 Ctf
c ฃ;
ซ5 Q
0.26
0.66
0.56
0.54
1.97
1.64
1.96
1.95
2.46
3.61
2.43
NA
1.64
&
|
*i
^
ซ
o.
H
0.78
0.26
0.15
2.48
1.19
2.56
2.95
NA
2.52
1.44
3.56
NA
7.79
X
H
W
ฃ
X
H
e
-^
(/3
-------
Table 23-28. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
272 Duplicate and Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
fraซ5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloromethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Number of
Observations
272
271
271
272
169
22
163
149
127
95
61
270
0
3
233
272
2
0
37
63
1
1
0
116
1
4
187
272
254
1
0
0
5
74
7
0
39
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
20.05
17.44
8.04
10.04
34.52
25.00
25.64
28.91
71.82
36.24
53.13
8.62
NA
NA
36.64
17.24
NA
NA
14.37
62.89
NA
NA
NA
52.12
NA
NA
26.84
15.34
15.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
33.93
28.85
NA
44.40
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.21
0.11
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
7.96
0.53
0.03
NA
0.13
0.09
0.04
0.03
NA
0.08
0.39
NA
NA
NA
0.02
NA
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.02
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
0.09
NA
0.07
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
12.90
12.71
5.11
6.56
21.78
23.57
18.33
22.67
34.47
24.38
24.98
5.56
NA
NA
19.95
12.59
NA
NA
9.85
36.69
NA
NA
NA
26.11
NA
NA
14.12
10.75
9.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.79
18.93
NA
25.56
23-65
-------
Table 23-28. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
272 Duplicate and Collocated Samples (Cont.)
Pollutant
trans -1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1,1,2 -Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
[ ,2-Dibromoethane
w-Octane
fetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
[ , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
[,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
[ ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
0
272
6
2
165
158
9
266
271
0
205
5
267
207
222
9
3
128
8
37
55
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
18.93
NA
NA
120.25
24.16
20.00
19.91
19.50
NA
25.19
100.00
20.02
21.72
22.79
NA
NA
31.85
NA
54.17
58.33
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
NA
NA
0.15
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.06
NA
0.06
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
12.98
NA
NA
24.64
15.07
17.68
15.40
14.53
NA
19.74
47.14
14.96
15.34
16.76
NA
NA
20.89
NA
24.92
28.60
23-66
-------
Table 23-29. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 58 Collocated Samples
Pollutant
Acetylene
'ropylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
[ , 1 -Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
[ , 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
[ ,2-Dichloromethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether
[ ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
frichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
58
57
57
58
45
5
35
35
28
15
11
56
0
0
47
58
0
0
2
19
0
0
0
34
0
0
48
58
58
0
0
0
4
27
1
0
16
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
29.87
25.46
12.06
14.05
47.22
NA
38.70
35.65
73.89
59.81
194.89
12.86
NA
NA
65.70
28.14
NA
NA
25.00
53.85
NA
NA
NA
101.01
NA
NA
53.50
21.60
18.21
NA
NA
NA
NA
43.15
NA
NA
46.17
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.30
0.13
0.07
0.07
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
7.74
1.18
0.04
NA
NA
0.06
0.07
NA
NA
0.01
0.43
NA
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.01
0.07
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
0.06
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
18.81
18.20
6.87
8.30
25.30
NA
29.06
26.33
33.08
31.81
56.01
7.60
NA
NA
27.84
20.55
NA
NA
15.71
35.12
NA
NA
NA
39.21
NA
NA
23.92
14.36
9.52
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.36
NA
NA
23.14
NA
23-67
-------
Table 23-29. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 58 Collocated Samples (Cont.)
Pollutant
, 1 ,2 -Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
,2-Dibromoethane
^-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
[ , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
[ ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
iexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
58
5
0
27
35
7
56
58
0
43
0
56
47
49
3
1
35
3
12
9
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
NA
26.71
NA
NA
37.87
51.52
20.00
27.69
28.56
NA
34.79
NA
29.33
31.81
32.44
NA
NA
44.66
NA
25.00
33.33
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
NA
0.23
0.01
NA
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.10
NA
0.03
NA
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.03
NA
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
18.39
NA
NA
33.19
24.85
17.68
21.63
21.74
NA
25.13
NA
22.36
20.61
23.88
NA
NA
30.37
NA
14.82
15.71
23-68
-------
Table 23-30. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 214 Duplicate Samples,
Including all Post-Katrina Data
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
)ichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
iromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
, 1 -Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether
[ ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
frichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
214
214
214
214
124
17
128
114
99
80
50
214
0
3
186
214
2
0
35
44
1
1
0
82
1
4
139
214
196
1
0
0
1
47
6
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
13.90
12.43
5.54
7.54
18.65
25.00
16.14
26.89
71.20
27.82
27.36
5.96
NA
NA
21.14
10.44
NA
NA
11.71
68.06
NA
NA
NA
27.67
NA
NA
12.30
11.43
13.58
NA
NA
NA
NA
27.02
28.85
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.16
0.10
0.04
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
8.03
0.37
0.02
NA
0.13
0.12
0.01
0.03
NA
0.10
0.37
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.12
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
9.21
9.28
4.00
5.47
17.38
23.57
10.53
21.57
34.88
21.73
19.34
4.29
NA
NA
15.74
7.62
NA
NA
8.39
37.59
NA
NA
NA
19.55
NA
NA
8.77
8.49
10.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.61
18.93
NA
23-69
-------
Table 23-30. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 214 Duplicate Samples (Cont.)
Pollutant
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
[ ,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
fetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,/>-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
[ , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
w-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
[ ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
23
0
0
214
1
2
138
123
2
210
213
0
162
5
211
160
173
6
2
93
5
25
46
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
42.02
NA
NA
14.07
NA
NA
158.27
14.21
NA
14.72
14.40
NA
20.07
100.00
14.78
15.84
17.01
NA
NA
21.89
NA
83.33
64.58
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.08
NA
NA
0.10
NA
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.04
NA
0.08
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.09
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
28.78
NA
NA
9.59
NA
NA
20.69
11.52
NA
11.24
10.47
NA
16.87
47.14
10.80
12.27
12.49
NA
NA
13.52
NA
35.02
31.82
23-70
-------
Table 23-31. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
16 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT)
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
)ichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
)ichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
iromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1-Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether
[ ,2-Dichloropropane
ithyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
frichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
c/5- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Number of
Observations
16
16
16
16
10
0
9
6
6
3
3
16
0
0
14
16
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
4
0
0
10
16
15
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
7.99
6.11
6.64
7.70
10.00
NA
1.92
16.67
50.00
0.97
19.30
5.46
NA
NA
14.17
8.53
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.00
NA
NA
13.33
6.12
26.79
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.67
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.10
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.004
NA
0.02
0.002
0.01
1.30
0.25
0.02
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.36
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
0.001
0.03
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
5.99
4.52
5.22
6.11
9.43
NA
1.41
15.71
31.43
0.69
15.10
4.26
NA
NA
11.00
6.52
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.14
NA
NA
14.14
4.50
18.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.10
NA
NA
NA
23-71
-------
Table 23-31. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
16 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT) (Cont.)
Pollutant
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
[ ,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
fetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,/>-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
[ , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
[ ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
0
16
0
0
12
11
1
16
16
0
11
0
16
11
12
0
0
4
0
0
2
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
6.49
NA
NA
14.08
NA
NA
6.57
7.19
NA
3.33
NA
10.11
5.00
14.71
NA
NA
50.00
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
NA
NA
0.08
NA
NA
0.03
0.003
NA
0.01
0.04
NA
0.01
NA
0.02
0.01
0.05
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
4.65
NA
NA
11.66
NA
NA
4.63
5.16
NA
2.57
NA
7.52
4.04
9.23
NA
NA
23.57
NA
NA
NA
23-72
-------
Table 23-32. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
6 Collocated Samples in Detroit, MI (DEMI)
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
)ichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
)ichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
iromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1-Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether
[ ,2-Dichloropropane
ithyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
frichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Number of
Observations
6
6
6
6
6
2
6
5
5
5
3
5
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
5
0
0
6
6
6
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
4
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
57.72
50.28
3.61
10.93
11.11
NA
37.04
12.50
120.00
193.98
237.93
14.44
NA
NA
23.31
8.86
NA
NA
NA
65.12
NA
NA
NA
333.33
NA
NA
25.00
45.95
8.83
NA
NA
NA
NA
77.78
NA
NA
114.58
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.42
0.18
0.02
0.07
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
23.17
0.56
0.14
NA
NA
0.03
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.56
NA
NA
NA
0.14
NA
NA
0.01
0.13
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
0.10
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
25.22
22.18
2.53
7.15
9.43
NA
18.19
10.10
53.03
67.00
76.84
9.41
NA
NA
14.03
6.16
NA
NA
NA
34.74
NA
NA
NA
88.39
NA
NA
16.16
20.46
6.70
NA
NA
NA
NA
33.00
NA
NA
46.41
23-73
-------
Table 23-32. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
6 Collocated Samples in Detroit, MI (DEMI) (Cont.)
Pollutant
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
[ ,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
fetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,/>-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
[ , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
[ ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
0
6
1
0
4
6
4
6
6
0
6
0
6
6
6
1
0
5
1
1
2
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
77.06
NA
NA
55.00
72.73
20.00
50.82
62.24
NA
56.11
NA
61.11
41.45
55.09
NA
NA
112.50
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
NA
NA
1.23
NA
NA
0.03
0.31
0.01
0.09
0.36
NA
0.06
NA
0.10
0.02
0.06
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.02
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
33.51
NA
NA
27.29
26.54
17.68
24.07
28.61
NA
22.84
NA
28.96
21.09
23.66
NA
NA
45.46
NA
NA
NA
23-74
-------
Table 23-33. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
16 Duplicate Samples in Grand Junction, CO (GPCO)
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
)ichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
)ichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
iromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1-Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether
[ ,2-Dichloropropane
ithyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
frichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Number of
Observations
16
16
16
16
10
0
11
8
7
8
3
16
0
0
14
16
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
5
0
0
9
16
16
0
0
0
0
3
4
0
3
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
3.36
20.28
5.24
4.43
NA
NA
5.93
28.57
16.67
20.69
3.77
6.04
NA
NA
19.99
8.01
NA
NA
NA
46.88
NA
NA
NA
30.56
NA
NA
5.00
10.54
23.73
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
28.85
NA
64.71
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.06
0.14
0.03
0.03
NA
NA
0.04
0.01
0.01
15.85
0.58
0.02
NA
NA
0.02
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.39
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
0.01
0.06
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.13
NA
0.07
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
2.22
14.50
3.61
3.15
NA
NA
3.91
14.50
15.71
12.98
2.72
4.30
NA
NA
11.86
5.11
NA
NA
NA
43.29
NA
NA
NA
18.30
NA
NA
3.93
7.76
14.56
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.93
NA
34.57
23-75
-------
Table 23-33. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
16 Duplicate Samples in Grand Junction, CO (GPCO) (Cont.)
Pollutant
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
[ ,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
fetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,/>-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
[ , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
[ ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
0
16
0
0
13
9
0
16
16
0
16
2
16
14
14
0
0
5
0
2
4
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
5.61
NA
NA
12.57
6.25
NA
8.22
6.22
NA
23.49
NA
7.61
16.75
20.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
NA
NA
0.07
NA
NA
0.04
0.01
NA
0.03
0.06
NA
0.09
NA
0.03
0.02
0.04
NA
NA
0.004
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
3.91
NA
NA
8.87
4.26
NA
5.79
4.29
NA
21.63
NA
5.34
12.38
12.67
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23-76
-------
Table 23-34. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
10 Collocated Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL)
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
)ichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
)ichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
iromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1-Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether
[ ,2-Dichloropropane
ithyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
frichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Number of
Observations
10
9
9
10
8
0
4
4
2
0
0
10
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
9
0
0
6
10
10
0
0
0
4
9
0
0
2
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
9.80
19.06
6.94
7.82
8.33
NA
37.50
44.44
NA
NA
NA
5.62
NA
NA
11.86
6.97
NA
NA
NA
48.89
NA
NA
NA
21.70
NA
NA
27.78
13.52
12.19
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.33
NA
NA
25.00
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.11
0.18
0.16
0.05
0.002
NA
0.02
0.04
0.02
NA
NA
0.02
NA
NA
0.02
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.22
NA
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.01
0.04
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.78
15.61
5.21
5.86
7.07
NA
33.67
21.76
NA
NA
NA
4.24
NA
NA
9.85
5.27
NA
NA
NA
45.75
NA
NA
NA
17.24
NA
NA
16.16
8.16
8.23
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.89
NA
NA
20.20
23-77
-------
Table 23-34. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
10 Collocated Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL) (Cont.)
Pollutant
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
[ ,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
fetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,/>-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
[ , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
[ ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
0
10
4
0
2
10
0
10
10
0
7
0
10
9
10
1
0
3
0
1
1
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
14.82
NA
NA
NA
16.67
NA
27.33
21.84
NA
25.00
NA
17.14
21.88
11.30
NA
NA
25.00
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate
Analyses (ppbv)
NA
NA
0.06
NA
NA
0.04
0.01
NA
0.02
0.05
NA
0.01
NA
0.02
0.01
0.01
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
11.52
NA
NA
NA
12.84
NA
22.74
19.82
NA
16.16
NA
14.71
15.23
8.56
NA
NA
20.20
NA
NA
NA
23-78
-------
Table 23-35. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Two Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO)
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
)ichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
)ichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
iromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1-Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether
[ ,2-Dichloropropane
ithyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
frichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Number of
Observations
14
14
14
14
7
0
7
6
6
2
0
14
0
0
12
14
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
4
0
0
7
14
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
7.21
17.96
9.92
12.85
NA
NA
26.19
54.31
250.00
33.22
NA
12.00
NA
NA
15.74
10.67
NA
NA
NA
38.27
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.67
9.98
7.50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.11
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.01
NA
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.98
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.02
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.80
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
0.01
0.03
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
4.75
12.46
6.63
8.72
NA
NA
16.20
34.29
52.38
28.17
NA
7.88
NA
NA
9.47
6.80
NA
NA
NA
33.47
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.43
6.76
5.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23-79
-------
Table 23-35. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Two Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO) (Cont.)
Pollutant
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
[ ,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
fetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,/>-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
[ , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
[ ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
0
14
0
0
6
6
0
14
14
0
8
0
14
10
10
0
0
6
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
42.22
NA
NA
41.59
9.72
NA
7.30
8.99
NA
3.13
NA
18.04
16.00
8.04
NA
NA
13.60
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
NA
NA
0.27
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
NA
0.01
0.02
NA
0.002
NA
0.01
0.01
0.01
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
16.20
NA
NA
22.10
7.06
NA
5.44
6.29
NA
2.08
NA
12.04
10.43
5.75
NA
NA
8.69
NA
NA
NA
23-80
-------
Table 23-36. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
176 Duplicate Samples
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
)ichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
)ichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Jromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1,1-Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
frichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether
,2-Dichloropropane
ithyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Prichloroethylene
VIethyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
176
176
176
176
86
12
92
76
69
50
29
176
0
2
149
176
2
0
35
44
1
1
0
50
1
2
103
176
158
1
0
0
0
31
5
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
12.61
13.04
5.85
7.50
22.78
25.00
17.82
29.19
67.38
27.94
NA
6.16
NA
NA
19.49
10.98
NA
NA
11.71
68.06
NA
NA
NA
30.61
NA
NA
16.79
10.99
13.73
NA
NA
NA
NA
24.91
28.85
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.15
0.11
0.04
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
5.21
NA
0.02
NA
0.13
0.12
0.01
0.03
NA
0.10
0.37
NA
NA
NA
0.02
NA
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.02
0.17
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
8.88
9.85
4.24
5.45
21.21
23.57
11.58
23.32
35.49
21.79
NA
4.44
NA
NA
15.25
8.03
NA
NA
8.39
37.59
NA
NA
NA
21.52
NA
NA
11.49
8.12
10.20
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.91
18.93
NA
23-81
-------
Table 23-36. VOC Analytical Precision:
176 Duplicate Samples (Cont.)
Pollutant
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
retrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
3romoform
Styrene
, 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
, 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
lexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
23
0
0
176
1
2
100
92
2
172
175
0
124
4
173
122
136
4
2
66
3
12
18
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
42.02
NA
NA
13.84
NA
NA
200.73
14.69
NA
14.21
13.85
NA
22.33
100.00
15.63
17.48
16.78
NA
NA
25.05
NA
NA
100.00
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.08
NA
NA
0.10
NA
0.04
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.04
NA
0.07
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.09
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
28.78
NA
NA
9.32
NA
NA
23.07
11.70
NA
10.70
9.93
NA
16.56
47.14
11.46
13.02
12.16
NA
NA
15.52
NA
NA
47.14
23-82
-------
Table 23-37. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Average
12.90
12.71
5.11
6.56
21.78
23.57
18.33
22.67
34.47
24.38
24.98
5.56
NA
NA
19.95
72.59
NA
NA
9.85
36.69
NA
NA
NA
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
17.64
8.42
4.43
9.21
NA
NA
6.43
23.57
NA
47.34
NA
7.80
NA
NA
39.17
10.84
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
5.99
4.52
5.22
6.11
9.43
NA
1.41
15.71
31.43
0.69
15.10
4.26
NA
NA
11.00
6.52
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
14.00
2.83
1.47
6.40
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
29.87
NA
3.79
NA
NA
11.00
6.01
NA
NA
6.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
8.82
10.43
2.88
5.50
NA
NA
23.57
23.57
47.14
7.65
36.57
2.10
NA
NA
19.49
7.16
NA
NA
NA
74.87
NA
NA
NA
Q
VI
P
U
Q
VI
**
_
o>
-fcj
X
3
u
5.47
12.73
5.17
7.78
NA
NA
28.28
NA
NA
4.74
8.84
3.76
NA
NA
10.43
8.92
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HH
ง
*J~ HH
2^
ฃ UJ
3a
25.22
22.18
2.53
7.15
9.43
NA
18.19
10.10
53.03
67.00
76.84
9.41
NA
NA
14.03
6.16
NA
NA
NA
34.74
NA
NA
NA
Dickson, TN
(DITN)
37.03
56.69
3.33
8.01
NA
NA
94.28
NA
NA
4.25
NA
2.89
NA
NA
69.43
3.72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
9.54
5.65
5.95
8.71
30.64
23.57
9.69
20.74
24.58
30.52
NA
5.48
NA
NA
13.75
20.22
NA
NA
10.53
17.68
NA
NA
NA
East Thomas,, AL
(ETAL)
35.08
16.27
6.84
5.24
NA
NA
10.88
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.42
NA
NA
NA
22.93
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Grand Junction,
CO (GPCO)
2.22
14.50
3.61
3.15
NA
NA
3.91
14.50
15.71
12.98
2.72
4.30
NA
NA
11.86
5.11
NA
NA
NA
43.29
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table 23-37. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Average
26.11
NA
NA
14.12
10.75
9.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.79
18.93
NA
25.56
NA
NA
12.98
NA
NA
24.64
15.07
17.68
15.40
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
28.28
NA
NA
NA
17.55
11.07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
26.74
NA
NA
47.14
NA
NA
24.09
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
14.14
NA
NA
14.14
4.50
18.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.65
NA
NA
11.66
NA
NA
4.63
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
NA
NA
NA
10.10
4.01
5.51
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.66
NA
NA
NA
13.71
NA
4.61
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
28.28
NA
NA
9.43
12.88
13.26
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.74
NA
NA
81.10
15.71
NA
18.45
Q
VI
P
U
Q
VI
**
_
o>
-fcj
X
3
u
47.14
NA
NA
NA
6.94
10.50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.89
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HH
ง
*J~ HH
2^
ฃ UJ
3a
88.39
NA
NA
16.16
20.46
6.70
NA
NA
NA
NA
33.00
NA
NA
46.41
NA
NA
33.51
NA
NA
27.29
26.54
17.68
24.07
Dickson, TN
(DITN)
28.28
NA
NA
NA
34.96
3.72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.78
NA
NA
31.84
NA
NA
103.71
NA
NA
53.97
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
10.10
NA
NA
NA
5.75
10.40
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.76
NA
NA
10.07
10.92
NA
7.88
East Thomas,, AL
(ETAL)
NA
NA
NA
28.28
5.11
5.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.14
NA
NA
NA
47.14
NA
10.88
Grand Junction,
CO (GPCO)
18.30
NA
NA
3.93
7.76
14.56
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.93
NA
34.57
NA
NA
3.91
NA
NA
8.87
4.26
NA
5.79
-------
Table 23-37. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
m,p-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
[ , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
[ ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
iexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Average
Average
14.53
NA
19.74
47.14
14.96
15.34
16.76
NA
NA
20.89
NA
24.92
28.60
16.35
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
29.11
NA
14.14
NA
29.55
11.79
23.93
NA
NA
10.10
NA
NA
NA
20.38
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
5.16
NA
2.57
NA
7.52
4.04
9.23
NA
NA
23.57
NA
NA
NA
9.33
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
5.98
NA
13.80
NA
7.47
NA
7.49
NA
NA
28.28
NA
NA
NA
9.47
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
12.33
NA
23.57
NA
15.25
NA
8.98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.79
VI
U
Q
tT
-^
VI
U
12.41
NA
43.79
47.14
16.68
23.57
33.88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.30
HH
+^ HH
"ฃ S
o a
28.61
NA
22.84
NA
28.96
21.09
23.66
NA
NA
45.46
NA
NA
NA
27.96
Dickson, TN
(DITN)
46.12
NA
70.71
NA
39.28
28.28
70.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
38.10
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
7.75
NA
9.87
NA
8.07
15.64
17.02
NA
NA
24.43
NA
NA
47.14
14.79
East Thomas,, AL
(ETAL)
13.69
NA
15.71
NA
9.43
NA
6.15
NA
NA
47.14
NA
NA
NA
17.09
Grand Junction,
CO (GPCO)
4.29
NA
21.63
NA
5.34
12.38
12.67
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NAN
11.25
to
OJ
oo
-------
Table 23-37. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/s-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Average
12.90
12.71
5.11
6.56
21.78
23.57
18.33
22.67
34.47
24.38
24.98
5.56
NA
NA
19.95
12.59
NA
NA
9.85
36.69
NA
NA
NA
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
4.78
4.78
2.95
3.05
NA
NA
7.03
NA
NA
28.54
13.28
2.95
NA
NA
22.57
4.13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Grenada, MS
(GRMS)
6.53
4.04
5.05
1.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.67
NA
NA
NA
7.44
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nashville, TN
(LDTN)
23.92
22.28
28.00
29.14
47.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
28.92
NA
NA
70.71
34.03
NA
NA
NA
23.53
NA
NA
NA
Madison, WI
(MAWI)
9.64
9.84
4.14
8.31
15.71
NA
12.86
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.74
NA
NA
5.07
7.80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
North Birmingham,
AL (NBAL)
12.55
3.01
1.30
5.14
NA
NA
47.14
47.14
NA
56.99
NA
2.48
NA
NA
12.86
22.10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-J
HH
^
o
o
PQ
:Sd
og
Z ฃ-
7.78
15.61
5.21
5.86
7.07
NA
33.67
21.76
NA
NA
NA
4.24
NA
NA
9.85
5.27
NA
NA
NA
45.75
NA
NA
NA
New Brunswick, NJ
(NBNJ)
6.02
7.17
3.60
4.02
NA
NA
NA
28.28
16.16
28.53
7.20
3.74
NA
NA
15.05
6.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
w
ง
Cv
ซ
if
2 O
ฃ&
6.93
7.63
3.41
7.71
5.89
NA
4.58
5.89
29.41
10.55
8.18
4.15
NA
NA
4.74
6.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Providence, AL
(PVAL)
6.53
18.86
7.44
3.45
47.14
NA
NA
NA
6.15
19.96
NA
9.75
NA
NA
32.64
29.60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O
ง
(/3
'3 n"
ฎ *H
J ง
. Tt
ฃฃ
4.75
12.46
6.63
8.72
NA
NA
16.20
34.29
52.38
28.17
NA
7.88
NA
NA
9.47
6.80
NA
NA
NA
33.47
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table 23-37. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Average
26.11
NA
NA
14.12
10.75
9.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.79
18.93
NA
25.56
NA
NA
12.98
NA
NA
24.64
15.07
17.68
15.40
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
12.57
NA
NA
5.77
6.16
8.98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.64
NA
NA
12.22
4.04
NA
9.28
Grenada, MS
(GRMS)
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.88
8.32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.43
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
28.28
Nashville, TN
(LDTN)
38.57
NA
NA
70.71
25.21
30.30
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.92
Madison, WI
(MAWI)
NA
NA
NA
7.47
8.20
13.59
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.45
NA
NA
NA
12.86
NA
10.89
North Birmingham,
AL (NBAL)
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.11
NA
NA
15.71
NA
NA
12.86
-J
HH
^
o
o
PQ
:Sd
og
Z ฃ-
17.24
NA
NA
16.16
8.16
8.23
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.89
NA
NA
20.20
NA
NA
11.52
NA
NA
NA
12.84
NA
22.74
New Brunswick, NJ
(NBNJ)
NA
NA
NA
11.79
9.37
6.20
NA
NA
NA
NA
47.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.35
NA
NA
12.89
9.70
NA
9.96
w
ง
Cv
ซ
if
2 O
ฃ&
10.77
NA
NA
2.53
6.92
8.38
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.47
NA
NA
12.15
3.93
NA
7.11
Providence, AL
(PVAL)
NA
NA
NA
NA
26.94
5.66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
39.60
NA
NA
28.28
NA
NA
47.14
O
ง
(/3
'3 n"
ฎ *H
J ง
. Tt
ฃฃ
NA
NA
NA
9.43
6.76
5.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.20
NA
NA
22.10
7.06
NA
5.44
-------
Table 23-37. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
m,p-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
[ ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
iexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Average
Average
14.53
NA
19.74
47.14
14.96
15.34
16.76
NA
NA
20.89
NA
24.92
28.60
16.35
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
7.58
NA
8.72
NA
6.99
9.66
12.85
NA
NA
7.33
NA
9.43
15.71
9.08
Grenada, MS
(GRMS)
11.79
NA
NA
NA
10.88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.87
Nashville, TN
(LDTN)
19.82
NA
30.46
NA
26.74
38.57
32.20
NA
NA
22.33
NA
NA
NA
32.03
Madison, WI
(MAWI)
7.42
NA
NA
NA
7.10
6.73
10.68
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.20
NA
9.44
North Birmingham,
AL (NBAL)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.15
-J
HH
^
o
o
PQ
:Sd
og
Z ฃ-
19.82
NA
16.16
NA
14.71
15.23
8.56
NA
NA
20.20
NA
NA
NA
14.91
New Brunswick, NJ
(NBNJ)
7.77
NA
11.00
NA
5.47
7.95
5.59
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.55
w
ง
Cv
ซ
if
2 O
ฃfe
6.08
NA
6.77
NA
7.50
14.00
10.56
NA
NA
5.66
NA
60.61
17.28
10.26
Providence, AL
(PVAL)
43.51
NA
31.43
NA
58.23
28.28
40.41
NA
NA
47.14
NA
NA
NA
27.53
O
ง
(/3
'3 n"
ฎ *H
J ง
. Tt
ฃฃ
6.29
NA
2.08
NA
12.04
10.43
5.75
NA
NA
8.69
NA
NA
NA
13.54
to
oo
oo
-------
Table 23-37. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
3romomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
rrichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
, 1 -Dichloroethene
VIethylene Chloride
rrichlorotrifluoroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
, 1 -Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
VIethyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
c/5-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Average
12.90
12.71
5.11
6.56
21.78
23.57
18.33
22.67
34.47
24.38
24.98
5.56
NA
NA
19.95
72.59
NA
NA
9.85
36.69
NA
NA
Q
VI
(/3
"sS
11
o to
33 ฃ>
6.95
14.06
3.44
4.30
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.57
14.29
36.65
2.95
NA
NA
32.36
5.23
NA
NA
NA
24.96
NA
NA
Birmingham, AL
(SIAL)
20.09
4.61
4.64
5.40
NA
NA
9.43
NA
NA
10.85
NA
4.56
NA
NA
NA
50.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ซ
0.
Cv
a
ซ _
^ฃ
งฃ
$ฃ
11.49
7.56
2.68
3.49
23.57
NA
1.39
14.14
84.85
NA
9.64
5.47
NA
NA
15.74
12.16
NA
NA
10.35
42.53
NA
NA
VI
s
If
ฃ1
17.90
12.18
3.63
2.65
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
38.79
39.28
3.64
NA
NA
7.03
2.35
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Austin, TX
(WETX)
10.27
12.69
5.31
5.34
NA
NA
6.05
NA
40.07
NA
35.19
5.60
NA
NA
8.12
23.00
NA
NA
15.71
36.45
NA
NA
_
s
X
sฃ~
III
~ % p
> ฃb
18.37
19.47
3.92
5.55
NA
NA
13.38
35.02
23.58
21.57
35.31
3.72
NA
NA
12.44
6.50
NA
NA
6.30
26.37
NA
NA
-------
Table 23-37. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
iromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
3romodichloromethane
rrichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
,2-Dibromoethane
rc-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Average
NA
26.11
NA
NA
14.12
10.75
9.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.79
18.93
NA
25.56
NA
NA
12.98
NA
NA
24.64
15.07
Q
VI
(/3
"sS
11
o to
33 ฃ>
NA
14.14
NA
NA
NA
6.20
14.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.88
NA
NA
5.44
NA
Birmingham, AL
(SIAL)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.08
NA
NA
14.14
NA
ซ
0.
Cv
a
ซ _
^ฃ
งฃ
$ฃ
NA
11.79
NA
NA
11.79
7.49
8.38
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.92
NA
NA
5.41
NA
NA
13.27
30.46
VI
s
If
ฃ1
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.05
9.79
4.28
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.00
NA
NA
13.86
25.14
Austin, TX
(WETX)
NA
23.57
NA
NA
4.71
6.15
2.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.19
NA
NA
4.10
NA
NA
10.01
NA
_
s
X
sฃ~
III
~ % p
> ฃb
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.57
12.86
12.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.50
NA
NA
37.87
NA
NA
14.77
NA
NA
18.18
1.81
-------
Table 23-37. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
Chlorobenzene
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
3romoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
, 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Average
Average
17.68
15.40
14.53
NA
19.74
47.14
1 4.96
15.34
16.76
NA
NA
20.89
NA
24.92
28.60
16.35
Q
VI
(/3
"sS
11
o to
33 ฃ>
NA
9.17
17.91
NA
17.86
NA
9.93
NA
11.79
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
47.14
15.07
Birmingham, AL
(SIAL)
NA
8.32
10.48
NA
8.32
NA
11.79
NA
17.68
NA
NA
20.20
NA
NA
NA
12.40
(*
0.
Cv
a
ซ _
^ฃ
งฃ
$ฃ
NA
4.97
3.34
NA
10.36
NA
5.33
7.48
3.18
NA
NA
9.16
NA
NA
NA
13.50
VI
s
If
ฃ1
NA
12.78
14.46
NA
49.53
NA
8.86
12.12
6.40
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.46
Austin, TX
(WETX)
NA
7.57
6.23
NA
5.39
NA
5.02
6.07
4.89
NA
NA
10.12
NA
9.43
15.71
12.24
_
s
M X
sฃ~
III
~ % p
> ฃb
NA
16.10
15.27
NA
17.34
NA
15.93
18.17
18.08
NA
NA
4.44
NA
NA
NA
15.62
to
-------
Table 23-38. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
70 Duplicate Samples, Including all Post-Katrina Data
Pollutant
ithylene
Acetylene
Ethane
'ropylene
Propane
Propyne
sobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
^-Butane
trans -2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3 -Methyl - 1 -butene
sopentane
-Pentene
2-Methyl-l -butene
^-Pentane
Isoprene
fraซs-2-Pentene
cis -2 -Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l -pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3 -Methylpentane
2-Methyl-l -pentene
l-Hexene
2-Ethyl-l -butene
rc-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
VIethylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Number of
Observations
66
70
70
70
70
0
70
70
37
70
51
51
10
70
50
46
70
62
54
51
50
62
11
1
66
65
70
69
13
49
0
70
7
0
70
57
70
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
14.61
5.51
20.85
12.79
4.70
NA
4.96
15.68
37.97
3.90
15.38
10.02
12.15
8.19
62.40
13.65
14.58
13.15
11.58
12.00
11.92
18.59
59.81
NA
12.47
8.29
17.58
16.64
14.90
19.39
NA
19.86
17.98
NA
7.93
18.16
8.92
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.36
0.10
0.43
0.16
0.38
NA
0.16
0.19
0.08
0.26
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.51
0.38
0.06
0.31
0.12
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.09
0.21
NA
0.05
0.06
0.42
0.26
0.03
0.13
NA
0.19
0.04
NA
0.05
0.10
0.13
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
9.30
3.95
6.10
9.79
3.27
NA
3.68
12.14
25.54
2.91
10.48
6.81
9.24
6.34
34.38
9.17
8.81
9.54
8.04
8.78
9.31
14.04
28.62
NA
8.80
6.37
12.16
13.51
9.63
15.40
NA
12.14
15.05
NA
5.96
15.36
6.63
23-92
-------
Table 23-38. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 70 Duplicate Samples (Cont.)
Pollutant
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
rc-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3 -Methylheptane
-Octene
n-Octane
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
.-Nonene
^-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
r?-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
&-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
l-Decene
rc-Decane
1,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
^-Undecane
Number of
Observations
64
59
64
69
28
67
70
66
27
56
70
51
53
24
65
70
70
53
70
34
59
33
46
54
58
58
55
52
5
59
0
56
44
32
35
6
46
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
20.03
27.67
24.66
24.90
22.06
14.84
13.35
23.20
16.79
25.10
8.12
20.07
14.93
21.03
13.51
20.11
17.54
28.75
18.54
28.19
28.12
15.45
58.21
22.97
45.10
29.10
20.62
22.45
NA
17.97
NA
39.90
53.60
38.18
20.27
12.33
21.82
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.09
0.13
0.35
0.58
0.14
0.17
0.14
0.15
0.08
0.29
0.24
0.07
0.06
0.13
0.06
0.17
0.25
0.27
0.09
0.12
0.09
0.06
1.39
0.08
0.17
0.19
0.07
0.09
2.11
0.14
NA
0.24
0.18
0.27
0.18
0.19
0.43
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
12.11
15.01
24.16
20.45
18.99
11.95
10.90
19.51
13.31
27.48
5.80
15.72
10.55
17.21
9.97
15.10
12.10
22.11
11.61
19.08
16.19
11.69
31.31
17.82
21.65
23.68
14.09
15.51
NA
11.81
NA
19.02
25.94
39.54
17.81
9.29
15.07
23-93
-------
Table 23-38. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 70 Duplicate Samples (Cont.)
Pollutant
1-Dodecene
rc-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
rc-Tridecane
TOMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
Number of
Observations
4
30
0
1
70
70
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
56.74
53.07
NA
NA
8.53
12.95
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.48
0.50
NA
NA
6.96
21.44
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
56.01
49.40
NA
NA
6.08
9.07
23-94
-------
Table 23-39. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
16 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT)
Pollutant
ithylene
Acetylene
Ethane
'ropylene
Propane
Propyne
sobutane
sobutene/ 1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
^-Butane
trans -2-Butene
as -2 -Butene
3 -Methyl - 1 -butene
sopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl-l -butene
^-Pentane
Isoprene
trans -2-Pentene
cซ -2 -Pentene
2 -Methyl -2 -butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l -pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-l -pentene
I -Hexene
2-Ethyl-l -butene
rc-Hexane
trans -2-He-aene
cis -2 -Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Number of
Observations
16
16
16
16
16
0
16
16
10
16
16
15
4
16
12
14
16
14
14
14
14
14
2
0
15
15
16
16
4
12
0
16
2
0
16
14
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
9.14
6.15
6.16
7.02
4.88
NA
4.05
17.68
21.73
4.75
9.53
10.66
12.04
10.54
11.65
16.59
5.11
17.84
11.54
9.97
7.91
7.09
NA
NA
9.27
7.08
5.84
10.18
34.64
29.01
NA
7.52
38.78
NA
5.29
5.57
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.30
0.19
0.48
0.17
0.39
NA
0.33
0.45
0.05
0.41
0.04
0.06
0.02
1.32
0.06
0.07
0.23
0.15
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.28
NA
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.23
0.04
0.15
NA
0.19
0.08
NA
0.06
0.04
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
6.69
4.71
4.95
5.24
3.96
NA
3.26
16.48
17.62
3.81
6.70
8.49
8.77
8.94
10.14
12.02
4.05
15.20
8.02
7.25
6.07
5.28
NA
NA
6.91
5.23
4.55
7.29
22.17
22.67
NA
5.62
34.01
NA
4.25
4.17
23-95
-------
Table 23-39. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
16 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT) (Cont.)
Pollutant
benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
rc-Heptane
VIethylcyclohexane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
rc-Octane
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Styrene
o-Xylene
.-Nonene
rc-Nonane
sopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
rc-Propylbenzene
w-Ethyltoluene
e>-Ethyltoluene
, 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
&-Pinene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
l-Decene
r?-Decane
[, 2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
Number of
Observations
16
15
16
16
16
7
15
16
16
8
14
16
14
14
9
14
16
16
11
16
9
13
7
7
12
14
14
13
13
0
14
0
12
11
6
4
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
6.11
9.04
7.78
6.23
18.28
19.10
11.01
19.50
6.03
8.08
21.18
3.85
13.70
15.01
26.11
7.45
6.88
4.57
28.86
6.15
16.49
10.20
20.02
30.51
19.22
14.49
14.20
9.87
20.16
NA
12.85
NA
13.56
6.79
33.11
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.15
0.16
0.07
0.08
0.53
0.13
0.24
0.45
0.08
0.03
0.18
0.28
0.08
0.08
0.16
0.07
0.07
0.15
0.59
0.07
0.12
0.10
0.05
0.13
0.07
0.07
0.12
0.06
0.11
NA
0.13
NA
0.07
0.04
0.16
0.25
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
4.49
7.06
6.19
4.75
16.60
12.46
7.81
22.29
4.55
5.64
22.70
2.69
10.73
11.44
22.88
5.61
5.00
3.24
30.93
4.32
11.10
7.69
13.08
17.80
14.29
12.20
12.20
7.37
15.34
NA
9.72
NA
11.34
5.01
28.07
NA
23-96
-------
Table 23-39. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
16 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT) (Cont.)
Pollutant
1-Undecene
rc-Undecane
1-Dodecene
^-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
rc-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
Number of
Observations
0
9
0
7
0
0
16
16
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
NA
31.09
NA
93.19
NA
NA
5.95
10.76
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
NA
0.41
NA
1.05
NA
NA
8.44
21.36
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
26.59
NA
74.16
NA
NA
4.52
8.29
23-97
-------
Table 23-40. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
10 Duplicate Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL)
Pollutant
ithylene
Acetylene
Ethane
'ropylene
Propane
Propyne
sobutane
sobutene/ 1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
^-Butane
trans -2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3 -Methyl - 1 -butene
sopentane
I -Pentene
2-Methyl-l -butene
^-Pentane
Isoprene
fraซs-2-Pentene
c/'s -2 -Pentene
2 -Methyl -2 -butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l -pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-l -pentene
l-Hexene
2-Ethyl-l -butene
rc-Hexane
trans -2-He-aene
c/s-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Number of
Observations
10
10
10
10
10
0
10
10
5
10
7
7
0
10
8
6
10
10
9
9
7
10
1
0
10
10
10
10
0
7
0
10
0
0
10
10
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
42.40
7.97
6.16
14.30
9.13
NA
6.43
15.02
23.86
5.91
33.68
19.21
NA
12.68
44.80
4.81
21.39
11.91
14.73
30.83
11.02
14.90
NA
NA
31.55
16.28
43.36
22.52
NA
7.14
NA
18.66
NA
NA
16.06
22.25
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.56
0.15
0.50
0.15
0.38
NA
0.09
0.11
0.04
0.21
0.07
0.06
NA
0.53
0.21
0.08
0.47
0.14
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.05
NA
NA
0.08
0.12
1.09
0.28
NA
0.12
NA
0.13
NA
NA
0.10
0.10
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
22.22
5.93
4.07
13.04
5.71
NA
4.79
12.89
14.19
4.55
22.65
10.62
NA
11.33
46.08
3.34
17.39
7.49
9.67
25.07
7.85
11.81
NA
NA
20.99
14.21
23.46
19.52
NA
5.44
NA
13.40
NA
NA
13.49
19.01
23-98
-------
Table 23-40. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
10 Duplicate Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL) (Cont.)
Pollutant
benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
rc-Heptane
VIethylcyclohexane
2, 2, 3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3 -Methylheptane
1-Octene
rc-Octane
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Styrene
o-Xylene
l-Nonene
rc-Nonane
sopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
rc-Propylbenzene
w-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
&-Pinene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
l-Decene
r?-Decane
[, 2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
Number of
Observations
10
10
9
10
10
0
10
10
10
6
10
10
10
10
0
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
3
9
10
10
10
10
10
1
10
0
10
8
3
2
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
10.63
23.14
53.86
22.73
20.53
NA
20.38
16.06
21.76
12.55
13.74
16.91
32.00
29.19
NA
18.88
16.86
24.45
38.69
15.16
33.20
59.11
21.11
23.33
37.99
13.71
40.96
54.31
36.78
NA
33.29
NA
149.58
72.76
74.33
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.10
0.07
0.18
0.26
0.22
NA
0.26
0.07
0.11
0.03
0.06
0.31
0.05
0.05
NA
0.06
0.08
0.28
0.15
0.10
0.09
0.17
0.07
0.45
0.07
0.06
0.10
0.14
0.10
NA
0.15
NA
0.53
0.14
0.26
0.16
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
8.09
17.28
24.68
19.93
19.01
NA
17.10
12.34
21.13
10.44
11.96
13.19
23.15
20.07
NA
15.07
14.29
21.44
33.73
11.88
20.10
20.75
13.50
21.07
26.95
10.29
22.02
31.71
19.34
NA
17.32
NA
39.94
32.43
83.65
NA
23-99
-------
Table 23-40. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
10 Duplicate Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL) (Cont.)
Pollutant
1-Undecene
rc-Undecane
1-Dodecene
^-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
rc-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
Number of
Observations
1
8
1
4
0
0
10
10
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
NA
7.97
NA
34.29
NA
NA
5.99
5.35
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
NA
0.22
NA
0.19
NA
NA
3.82
5.58
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
5.33
NA
29.26
NA
NA
4.44
3.98
23-100
-------
Table 23-41. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
44 Duplicate Samples Only
Pollutant
ithylene
Acetylene
Ethane
'ropylene
Propane
Propyne
sobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
^-Butane
trans -2-Butene
cis-2-Butene
3 -Methyl - 1 -butene
sopentane
-Pentene
2-Methyl-l -butene
^-Pentane
Isoprene
fraซs-2-Pentene
cis -2 -Pentene
2-Methyl-2-butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l -pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3 -Methylpentane
2-Methyl-l -pentene
l-Hexene
2-Ethyl-l -butene
rc-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
VIethylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Number of
Observations
44
44
44
44
44
0
44
44
19
44
32
30
6
44
28
26
44
37
32
30
28
37
8
1
42
39
44
43
6
30
0
44
5
0
44
33
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
10.75
5.35
3.91
14.54
4.26
NA
5.55
17.66
46.58
3.95
11.47
7.23
9.50
8.53
62.49
13.66
15.16
14.79
11.82
9.07
13.91
22.54
79.58
NA
7.32
7.08
14.34
17.23
17.69
24.96
NA
21.43
25.02
NA
6.51
19.17
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.25
0.08
0.26
0.19
0.41
NA
0.20
0.23
0.10
0.29
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.58
0.47
0.04
0.27
0.13
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.11
0.28
NA
0.03
0.05
0.33
0.30
0.02
0.16
NA
0.20
0.06
NA
0.04
0.11
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.99
3.76
2.88
10.64
3.11
NA
4.13
13.36
31.52
2.92
7.55
5.26
6.76
6.29
30.57
9.31
7.89
11.00
8.31
6.06
11.24
16.89
34.95
NA
5.32
5.12
11.51
13.71
11.35
20.13
NA
11.55
21.23
NA
4.53
16.34
23-101
-------
Table 23-41. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
44 Duplicate Samples Only (Cont.)
Pollutant
benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
rc-Heptane
VIethylcyclohexane
2, 2, 3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3 -Methylheptane
1-Octene
rc-Octane
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Styrene
o-Xylene
l-Nonene
rc-Nonane
sopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
rc-Propylbenzene
w-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
&-Pinene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
l-Decene
r?-Decane
[, 2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
Number of
Observations
44
38
36
40
43
18
41
44
40
11
32
44
27
29
18
39
44
44
27
44
17
34
19
21
30
32
32
31
28
4
33
0
31
23
17
17
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
9.78
21.07
26.44
30.16
29.85
24.07
15.45
14.07
28.03
17.50
32.23
6.78
18.94
11.22
23.16
13.32
23.18
18.29
31.90
21.49
27.19
24.59
16.14
77.58
20.43
61.67
29.01
14.38
18.13
NA
15.00
NA
17.38
57.68
30.80
23.03
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.14
0.10
0.13
0.45
0.79
0.15
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.09
0.41
0.18
0.09
0.06
0.16
0.06
0.22
0.24
0.38
0.09
0.13
0.09
0.04
1.90
0.07
0.21
0.23
0.05
0.08
2.70
0.13
NA
0.19
0.13
0.29
0.20
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.24
11.53
15.19
30.45
24.26
21.48
12.37
11.91
23.02
13.82
36.84
4.55
15.41
8.19
19.15
9.55
16.83
11.37
22.96
12.57
18.61
16.70
12.93
38.40
15.18
27.94
25.94
10.78
12.91
NA
10.67
NA
14.30
27.69
30.72
20.89
23-102
-------
Table 23-41. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
44 Duplicate Samples Only (Cont.)
Pollutant
1-Undecene
rc-Undecane
1-Dodecene
rc-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
rc-Tridecane
TOMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
Number of
Observations
3
28
3
19
0
1
44
44
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
NA
27.77
56.74
53.55
NA
NA
10.28
15.49
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.28
0.55
0.64
0.64
NA
NA
8.72
27.47
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
18.97
56.01
47.74
NA
NA
7.29
10.93
23-103
-------
Table 23-42. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Analyses, All Sites
Pollutant
ithylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Jropyne
sobutane
sobutene/ 1 -Butene
[, 3 -Butadiene
rc-Butane
trans-2-Butene
cis -2 -Butene
3 -Methyl - 1 -butene
sopentane
I -Pentene
2-Methyl-l -butene
r?-Pentane
Isoprene
fraซs-2-Pentene
c/'s -2 -Pentene
2 -Methyl -2 -butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl-l -pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl-l -pentene
l-Hexene
2-Ethyl-l -butene
ซ-Hexane
trans -2-He-aene
c/s-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Average
9.30
3.95
6.10
9.79
3.27
NA
3.68
12.14
25.54
2.97
10.48
6.81
9.24
6.34
34.38
9.77
8.81
9.54
8.04
8.78
9.31
14.04
28.62
NA
8.80
6.37
12.16
13.51
9.63
15.40
NA
12.14
15.05
NA
5.96
15.36
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
6.69
4.71
4.95
5.24
3.96
NA
3.26
16.48
17.62
3.81
6.70
8.49
8.77
8.94
10.14
12.02
4.05
15.20
8.02
7.25
6.07
5.28
NA
NA
6.91
5.23
4.55
7.29
22.17
22.67
NA
5.62
34.01
NA
4.25
4.17
&
VI
U
Q
VI
iT
o>
-^
VI
3
u
4.64
2.93
1.44
7.89
1.85
NA
4.73
18.40
44.17
4.35
9.71
1.71
4.75
4.11
49.22
12.58
7.75
13.54
11.12
3.48
19.12
22.16
10.35
NA
8.36
4.70
21.48
18.79
0.52
13.77
NA
8.39
8.44
NA
4.86
12.90
VI
ง
Cs
+J
0 VI
*1
3l
1.59
2.75
21.04
3.14
1.46
NA
0.80
6.48
12.98
1.22
10.01
9.22
14.21
1.59
37.92
14.45
3.90
5.79
5.32
3.37
4.97
4.88
15.96
NA
10.52
3.52
3.46
6.73
6.20
6.44
NA
13.29
2.70
NA
4.11
7.81
-J
HH
Cv
-ฑ
o
o
M ^
43 H-l
+3
1 M
ฎ ^
Z &
22.22
5.93
4.07
13.04
5.71
NA
4.79
12.89
14.19
4.55
22.65
10.62
NA
11.33
46.08
3.34
17.39
7.49
9.67
25.07
7.85
11.81
NA
NA
20.99
14.21
23.46
19.52
NA
5.44
NA
13.40
NA
NA
13.49
19.01
VI
ง
J5~
If
ฃo
ฃfe
13.21
1.91
2.08
14.01
4.12
NA
0.26
2.07
48.74
2.07
5.95
3.78
NA
3.41
48.50
2.49
1.55
4.30
1.65
0.65
NA
24.27
NA
NA
0.35
2.97
12.18
20.80
NA
43.07
NA
9.90
NA
NA
0.86
38.55
Q
VI
**
X
~ฃ
H&
iฃ
ฃ&
7.44
5.48
3.04
15.40
2.53
NA
8.25
16.51
15.57
1.44
7.86
7.05
NA
8.67
14.44
10.15
18.19
10.95
12.46
12.87
8.53
15.84
59.56
NA
5.68
7.60
7.83
7.96
NA
1.00
NA
22.28
NA
NA
8.17
9.74
23-104
-------
Table 23-42. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
l-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
^-Heptane
VIethylcyclohexane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3 -Methylheptane
l-Octene
^-Octane
ithylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Styrene
o-Xylene
l-Nonene
ซ-Nonane
sopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
^-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
e>-Ethyltoluene
[ , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
&-Pinene
[ ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
l-Decene
r?-Decane
[, 2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
Average
6. 63
12.11
15.01
24.16
20.45
18.99
77.95
10.90
19.51
13.31
27.48
5.80
15.72
70.55
17.21
9.97
15.10
12.10
22.11
11.61
19.08
16.19
11.69
31.31
17.82
21.65
23.68
14.09
15.51
NA
11.81
NA
19.02
25.94
39.54
17.81
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
4.49
7.06
6.19
4.75
16.60
12.46
7.81
22.29
4.55
5.64
22.70
2.69
10.73
11.44
22.88
5.61
5.00
3.24
30.93
4.32
11.10
7.69
13.08
17.80
14.29
12.20
12.20
7.37
15.34
NA
9.72
NA
11.34
5.01
28.07
NA
&
VI
U
Q
VI
iT
o>
+J
VI
3
u
12.49
14.03
19.39
2.86
12.52
2.75
5.94
7.18
14.76
NA
10.31
5.20
32.36
12.63
9.16
8.79
9.20
12.35
14.83
13.68
NA
26.88
24.44
46.00
20.85
18.71
25.03
19.49
20.59
NA
14.97
NA
29.69
38.21
8.10
36.62
-J
HH
.ซ"
o
o
ซ ^
43 H-l
+3
1 ซ
ฎ ^
Z ฃ-
2.76
9.27
4.64
3.23
6.64
9.03
5.16
5.43
3.83
15.17
5.59
3.42
9.54
10.50
9.44
6.56
9.01
5.70
7.95
7.49
19.47
9.63
4.94
13.23
19.28
7.86
16.30
9.71
22.05
NA
9.73
NA
16.97
14.20
30.71
11.64
Vl
ง
J5~
If
ฃo
ฃ%
8.09
17.28
24.68
19.93
19.01
NA
17.10
12.34
21.13
10.44
11.96
13.19
23.15
20.07
NA
15.07
14.29
21.44
33.73
11.88
20.10
20.75
13.50
21.07
26.95
10.29
22.02
31.71
19.34
NA
17.32
NA
39.94
32.43
83.65
NA
i!
ฃV1
14
J ฃ
3a Q
7.81
6.12
9.50
86.89
50.30
62.99
31.82
6.00
45.64
22.00
107.92
2.34
8.22
2.02
37.62
14.25
34.00
9.37
NA
9.46
22.13
11.90
8.58
21.26
13.08
69.96
52.02
7.98
8.47
NA
NA
NA
6.53
NA
84.96
5.17
Q
VI
**
in
"ซ
H&
iฃ
ฃฃ
4.17
18.93
25.69
27.30
17.64
7.74
3.91
12.16
27.15
NA
6.43
7.96
10.33
6.66
6.93
9.53
19.11
20.51
23.12
22.84
22.58
20.31
5.60
68.52
12.49
10.91
14.49
8.26
7.25
NA
7.32
NA
9.64
39.85
1.73
NA
23-105
-------
Table 23-42. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
1-Undecene
rc-Undecane
1-Dodecene
rc-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
^-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Average
Average
9.29
15.07
56.01
49.40
NA
NA
6.08
9.07
15.08
H
^
^2
ฃP
e S
o H
pq w.
NA
26.59
NA
74.16
NA
NA
4.52
8.29
11.39
t/3
U
Q
Vl
+j
VI
u
NA
20.29
56.01
71.97
NA
NA
6.65
11.84
15.64
-J
HH
O
o
PQ ^
5 HH
~ CO
z 5^
9.29
9.24
NA
76.16
NA
NA
2.87
6.70
9.83
v
-------
Table 23-43. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
320 Duplicate and Collocated Samples
Pollutant
7ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
3enzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Polualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
320
320
320
317
313
318
316
116
306
288
313
6
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
82.51
18.42
25.57
21.79
11.71
36.01
14.48
46.17
21.57
31.38
16.45
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.33
0.10
0.11
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
9.64
8.29
12.92
8.92
8.77
13.55
10.60
24.65
15.23
19.44
12.75
NA
Table 23-44. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
74 Collocated Samples
Pollutant
7ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Polualdehydes
lexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
74
74
74
73
70
72
70
33
69
68
69
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
173.74
38.01
59.51
58.34
12.06
10.92
15.80
14.74
23.60
22.81
23.67
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.31
0.11
0.10
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.005
0.002
0.01
0.01
0.01
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
19.16
14.51
13.65
13.44
11.35
9.24
12.94
10.86
16.53
16.03
21.56
NA
23-107
-------
Table 23-45. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
246 Duplicate Samples, Including all Post-Katrina Data
Pollutant
7ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
3enzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Polualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
246
246
246
244
243
246
246
83
237
220
244
6
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
9.17
12.90
17.52
16.92
15.33
25.21
14.75
29.92
22.69
42.69
17.15
9.01
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.34
0.17
0.13
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.05
8.52
13.19
9.96
10.65
12.89
10.52
19.92
15.66
23.48
13.08
6.07
Table 23-46. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
14 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT)
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
'ropionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
3utyr/Isobutyraldehyde
3enzaldehyde
[sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
14
14
14
14
13
14
14
7
14
14
14
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
3.06
3.09
12.08
2.22
21.69
7.37
15.09
22.27
13.88
19.01
25.91
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.08
0.04
0.23
0.003
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
2.26
2.24
9.47
1.61
20.99
5.60
12.73
14.31
11.64
14.08
21.62
NA
23-108
-------
Table 23-47. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
2 Collocated Samples in Detroit, MI (DEMI)
Pollutant
7ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
3enzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Polualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
6.54
4.27
2.86
4.23
9.09
3.26
11.76
NA
7.14
30.77
30.00
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.20
0.03
0.03
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.002
NA
0.001
0.004
0.003
NA
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
4.48
2.96
1.99
3.05
6.15
2.27
7.86
NA
5.24
18.86
18.45
NA
Table 23-48. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
16 Duplicate Samples in Grand Junction, CO (GPCO)
Pollutant
7ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
3utyr/Isobutyraldehyde
3enzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
5
16
15
16
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
14.97
13.43
15.11
15.45
14.17
19.66
17.52
50.99
29.84
27.98
24.42
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.59
0.23
0.36
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
17.19
15.39
17.49
16.37
13.96
18.01
16.84
36.38
20.94
22.60
17.71
NA
23-109
-------
Table 23-49. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
4 Duplicate Samples in Northbrook, IL (NBIL)
Pollutant
7ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
3enzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Polualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
1562.92
273.01
582.05
582.54
6.25
1.89
26.32
16.67
11.76
13.33
11.76
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.48
0.29
0.23
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
67.35
57.67
60.67
62.16
4.56
1.35
16.44
12.86
8.84
8.84
8.84
NA
Table 23-50. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
16 Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO)
Pollutant
7ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
3utyr/Isobutyraldehyde
3enzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
16
16
16
16
15
16
16
7
16
16
16
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
13.63
15.76
14.38
16.47
20.21
16.67
25.92
23.74
26.09
33.95
13.35
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.74
0.38
0.10
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
12.72
15.64
8.85
14.35
10.53
13.60
19.77
19.87
20.94
29.81
11.06
NA
23-110
-------
Table 23-51. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
8 Duplicate Samples in Tampa, FL (SKFL)
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
'ropionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
3utyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
iexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
2
8
7
8
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
4.76
1.63
4.84
2.19
2.35
10.17
8.67
20.00
5.49
24.75
15.48
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.09
0.01
0.02
0.002
0.002
0.01
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.01
0.01
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
3.20
1.15
3.52
1.59
1.63
6.76
6.69
15.71
3.61
20.03
12.90
NA
Table 23-52. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
10 Duplicate Samples in Tampa, FL (SYFL)
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
'ropionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
3utyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
10
8
10
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
13.62
10.60
16.49
17.76
11.74
201.31
10.19
NA
45.69
40.92
20.77
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.10
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.09
0.001
NA
0.01
0.01
0.01
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
8.90
6.81
14.92
11.51
7.68
46.47
7.09
NA
32.42
22.61
12.94
NA
23-111
-------
Table 23-53. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
210 Duplicate Samples Only
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
'ropionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
3utyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
iexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
210
210
210
208
207
210
210
69
201
186
208
6
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
9.18
13.43
17.06
17.91
14.52
25.90
16.73
32.93
24.17
42.57
17.30
9.01
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.32
0.17
0.13
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.03
8.86
13.01
10.53
10.07
13.12
12.02
21.89
16.46
22.59
13.02
6.07
23-112
-------
Table 23-54. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Analyses, All Sites
Pollutant
"ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
folualdehydes
iexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
11.11
10.63
13.35
11.19
10.58
11.67
11.37
17.04
15.93
20.77
16.07
6.07
13.43
St. Petersburg, FL
(AZFL)
11.37
13.02
29.08
25.38
22.72
29.56
13.21
NA
42.70
50.03
40.50
NA
27.76
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
3.74
4.96
7.97
7.87
19.17
16.09
15.31
NA
43.51
59.77
5.51
NA
18.39
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
2.26
2.24
9.47
1.61
20.99
5.60
12.73
14.31
11.64
14.08
21.62
NA
10.60
U
Z
o Z
a <
" r "i
u y,
65.16
54.97
53.17
49.08
70.62
49.67
46.38
12.86
26.60
12.57
65.25
NA
46.03
^
Z
Cv
ง c*
IB
8.69
22.87
18.19
51.55
6.99
24.04
6.27
NA
19.61
34.02
13.26
NA
20.55
Z
Cs ^^^
^ ^^
VI ^ (
12.75
18.99
11.41
14.15
11.25
11.70
13.44
40.41
16.80
14.02
9.47
NA
15.85
Q
VI
% <ฃ
x ^
7.58
9.56
5.88
7.36
5.24
4.91
13.43
21.03
11.09
23.36
11.01
NA
10.95
HH
."t? HH
! ^^
4.48
2.96
1.99
3.05
6.15
2.27
7.86
NA
5.24
18.86
18.45
NA
7.13
Z
H
Cv
O ^
^ H
.a s
5 a
0.44
1.02
0.50
1.99
2.48
3.68
4.85
NA
6.95
23.38
5.14
NA
5.04
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
12.11
11.97
13.72
12.14
15.13
11.78
6.72
21.21
11.17
23.50
10.21
NA
13.61
to
-------
Table 23-54. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
"ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
'ropionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
iexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
11.11
10.63
13.35
11.19
10.58
11.67
11.37
17.04
15.93
20.77
16.07
6.07
13.43
to
1
OK ^
.5 ^
SB
0.69
0.22
0.64
2.11
6.58
NA
5.98
NA
NA
11.38
9.75
NA
4. 67
Boward Co., FL
(FLFL)
1.41
2.66
8.41
0.92
1.87
3.11
6.23
7.07
10.53
15.68
2.47
NA
5.49
to
to
et to"
s"<;
cs rh
3.97
3.99
18.98
4.41
8.22
7.03
6.65
6.73
8.40
26.11
15.40
NA
9.99
Grand Junction,
CO (GPCO)
17.19
15.39
17.49
16.37
13.96
18.01
16.84
36.38
20.94
22.60
17.71
NA
19.35
cv ^5
^ซ ^^
2.04
2.60
7.89
3.19
6.46
5.24
3.32
5.59
4.22
16.66
7.60
NA
5.89
Grenada, MS
(GRMS)
NA
0.79
11.28
3.45
NA
19.51
20.20
NA
8.32
NA
14.43
NA
8.66
Loudon, TN
(LDTN)
1.14
0.99
3.29
3.44
2.69
3.60
4.75
1.13
10.68
24.48
1.93
NA
5.28
HH
Cv
C ฃ^
&2 ^
"^ -^
0.59
2.22
0.69
2.58
5.16
2.76
3.05
12.58
11.69
24.71
5.54
NA
6.51
North
Birmingham, AL
(NBAL)
2.29
1.11
13.60
0.75
2.40
0.95
2.67
8.32
NA
12.48
3.45
NA
4.80
Northbrook, IL
(NBIL)
67.35
57.67
60.67
62.16
4.56
1.35
16.44
12.86
8.84
8.84
8.84
NA
28.14
to
-------
Table 23-54. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Pollutant
"ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
'ropionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
3utyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
folualdehydes
iexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
11.11
10.63
13.35
11.19
10.58
11.67
11.37
17.04
15.93
20.77
16.07
6.07
13.43
New Brunswick, NJ
(NBNJ)
11.21
12.96
11.17
13.81
13.05
12.46
9.71
19.63
18.42
23.34
17.76
NA
14.86
Orlando, FL
(ORFL)
3.92
10.75
28.95
2.48
16.85
9.75
4.72
18.30
4.27
23.83
4.98
NA
11.71
Pascagoula, MS
(PGMS)
6.17
3.85
12.23
5.73
6.34
6.73
8.74
8.64
9.29
9.90
14.37
NA
8.36
Providence, AL
(PVAL)
4.38
4.34
13.51
4.65
4.56
4.81
3.82
15.71
6.15
10.48
25.38
NA
8.89
Research Triangle
Park, NC (RTPNC)
53.44
23.43
5.97
13.49
11.83
12.26
30.53
NA
58.14
9.43
101.65
NA
32.02
0
hJ 03
^j i
12.72
15.64
8.85
14.35
10.53
13.60
19.77
19.87
20.94
29.81
11.06
NA
16.10
to
-J
to
o.
i
H
7.89
16.64
16.22
9.09
16.62
14.77
9.09
NA
16.37
16.90
14.86
NA
13.85
03,
-J
to
o.
i
H
17.94
15.68
2.71
15.47
16.78
16.55
21.21
NA
25.71
26.19
10.35
NA
16.86
to
03,
-J
to
o.
i
H
2.83
6.08
7.07
2.29
5.24
2.56
7.71
8.52
10.73
8.26
11.99
NA
6. 66
Q
O3
to ^
gg
II
3.20
1.15
3.52
1.59
1.63
6.76
6.69
15.71
3.61
20.03
12.90
NA
6.98
to
-------
Table 23-54. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
to
Pollutant
7ormaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
'ropionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
3utyr/Isobutyraldehyde
3enzaldehyde
sovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Polualdehydes
lexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
11.11
10.63
13.35
11.19
10.58
11.67
11.37
17.04
15.93
20.77
16.07
6.07
13.43
-J
<
ซ
OK
i!
a ฃ>
3.69
3.75
5.46
4.79
5.75
8.08
8.72
55.34
8.78
13.77
5.96
6.07
10.85
&
0.
ซ _
^ฃ
^
^^
8.90
6.81
14.92
11.51
7.68
46.47
7.09
NA
32.42
22.61
12.94
NA
17.14
w
ง_
o~ ^
Is
ap
^b
4.35
0.79
21.98
5.05
7.90
5.80
14.80
NA
10.67
24.79
11.73
NA
10.79
Austin, TX (WETX)
12.03
9.52
7.04
2.46
2.45
3.75
7.72
12.57
5.30
9.60
2.98
NA
6.86
-------
Table 23-55. Metals Sampling and Analytical Precision:
98 Collocated Samples, Including all Post-Katrina Data
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
xad
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Number of
Observations
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
59
98
95
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
60.33
5.79
30.30
23.63
7.30
13.97
17.56
235.51
138.26
32.36
10.08
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ng/m3)
0.08
0.06
0.00
0.10
0.15
0.02
0.51
0.44
0.04
0.70
0.04
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
23.36
4.10
21.55
16.19
5.15
10.78
10.78
27.49
40.49
18.09
6.50
Table 23-56. Metal Sampling and Analytical Precision:
60 Collocated Samples in Boston, MA (BOMA)
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Number of
Observations
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
36
60
60
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
11.28
6.74
34.04
58.47
10.78
7.78
9.97
7.63
58.27
9.48
9.14
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ng/m3)
0.12
0.03
0.001
0.25
0.22
0.01
0.51
0.35
0.04
0.25
0.04
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.87
4.81
21.25
38.16
7.28
5.38
6.97
5.36
36.92
6.48
6.34
23-117
-------
Table 23-57. Metals Sampling and Analytical Precision:
96 Collocated Samples Only
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
^ead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Number of
Observations
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
57
96
95
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
9.43
5.79
30.30
28.85
6.74
13.97
8.57
5.94
170.82
28.62
10.08
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ng/m3)
0.10
0.06
0.002
0.13
0.19
0.02
0.64
0.55
0.05
0.87
0.04
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
6.83
4.10
21.55
19.77
4.67
10.78
6.00
4.23
46.03
15.84
6.50
23-118
-------
Table 23-58. Metals Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Collocated Samples, All Sites
to
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Average
Average
23.36
4.10
21.55
16.19
5.15
10.78
10.78
27.49
40.49
18.09
6.50
17.13
"ฃ Q
7.87
4.81
21.25
38.16
7.28
5.38
6.97
5.36
36.92
6.48
6.34
13.35
H
Cv
ซ5 ^
= H
7.69
3.12
26.54
9.98
3.84
16.09
8.45
5.59
57.24
41.90
13.27
17.61
Gulf Port, MS
(GPMS)
72.94
NA
NA
5.42
7.08
NA
29.87
120.53
23.85
27.07
NA
40.97
HH
Cv
&2 ^
NA
2.51
NA
NA
2.55
NA
0.68
1.98
NA
4.29
1.75
2.29
St. Louis,
MO(S4MO)
4.93
5.94
16.86
11.18
5.02
10.89
7.91
3.99
43.93
10.72
4.63
11.45
-------
Table 23-59. Accuracy VOC NATTS Audit Samples - Percent Difference from
True (Acceptable Difference is 25%)
Pollutant
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrolein
Methylene Chloride
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Trichloroethylene
cis- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans -1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
March, 2005
-10.0
-6.9
Not included
5.5
7.5
3.5
17.2
23.3
10.1
16.4
14.4
23.2
13.6
3.9
3.1
June, 2005
4.1
15.8
Not included
10.9
15.2
13.2
30.0
18.4
26.5
10.2
17.5
18.5
24.7
20.3
11.4
Nov., 2005 (1)
12.0
Not included
Not included
Not included
23.7
25.6
Not included
37.7
Not included
14.0
9.1
16.4
Not included
10.4
Not included
Nov., 2005 (2)
Not included
27.8
22.3
Not included
Not included
Not included
Not included
Not included
Not included
Not included
Not included
Not included
Not included
Not included
Not included
Table 23-60. Carbonyl NATTS Audit Samples - Percent Difference from True
(Acceptable Difference is 25%)
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Jan., 2005
-9.6
-10.5
Not included
July, 2005
5.2
13.9
12.0
Oct., 2005
-5.3
3.7
2.6
Nov., 2005
2.5
9.2
3.7
Table 23-61. Metals NATTS Audit Samples - Percent Difference from True
(Acceptable Difference is 25%)
Pollutant
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Jan., 2005
-16.7
-25.9
-30.0
12.5
-36.6
-19.4
-77.8
May, 2005
13.1
25.4
-1.9
-0.4
1.2
-0.1
-1.1
Sept., 2005
9.5
22.8
12.2
4.4
13.0
0.6
2.0
Nov., 2005
15.5
13.6
5.1
10.2
5.1
2.3
21.8
23-120
-------
24.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
As indicated throughout this report, UATMP monitoring data offer a wealth of
information for evaluating trends, patterns, and the potential for health risk in air quality and
should ultimately help a wide range of audiences understand the complex nature of urban and
rural air pollution. The following discussion summarizes the main conclusions of this report and
presents recommendations for ongoing urban air monitoring efforts.
24.1 Conclusions
Analyses of the 2005 UATMP monitoring data identified the following notable trends
and patterns in national-level and state-level urban air pollution:
24.1.1 National-level Conclusions
$ Ambient air concentration data sets generally met data quality objectives for
completeness. Completeness, or the number of valid samples collected compared to the
number expected from a 6 or 12 day sampling schedule, measures the reliability of the
sampling and analytical equipment as well as the efficiency of the program. Typically, a
completeness of 85-100% is desired for a complete data set. Eleven of 110 data sets
failed to comply with the data quality objective of 85% completeness. Twenty-three data
sets achieved 100% completeness.
$ Several UATMP sites are also NATTS sites. Eight of the forty-seven sites are EPA-
designated NATTS sites (NBIL, BOMA, DEMI, GPCO, S4MO, SKFL, SYFL, and
BTUT).
$ Total number of samples for UATMP pollutants. Nearly 169,487 measurements of urban
air toxics were made. Samples from the sites commissioned to the Hurricane Katrina
monitoring effort account for an additional 33,932 measurements.
$ Ambient air concentrations of urban air toxics. Approximately 72% of the measured
concentrations were less than 1 //g/m3. Less than 4% of the concentrations were greater
than 5 //g/m3.
$ Detects. Detection of a UATMP pollutant is subject to the analytical methods used and
the limitations of the instruments. Method detection limits are the lowest concentration
an instrument can reliably quantify with a certain level of confidence. For 2005, five
pollutants (1,2-dichloropropane, bromoform, 1-decene, 1-tridecene, and propyne) were
not detected at any of the participating sites.
$ Nationwide Pollutants of Interest. The pollutants of interest at the national level, based
on the number of exceedances, or "failures", of the preliminary screening values,
included: acetaldehyde, acrolein, arsenic, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride,
24-1
-------
/>-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, manganese, nickel,
tetrachloroethylene, and total xylenes. At each site, the pollutants of interest varied.
Risk. Three pollutants of interest (acrolein, benzene, and formaldehyde) had daily
measurements that exceeded one or both of the short-term risk factors. Acrolein
exceeded the ATSDR short-term MRL on 283 occasions and the CAL EPA REL on 279
occasions; benzene exceeded the ATSDR short-term MRL twice; and formaldehyde
exceeded the ATSDR short-term MRL on 30 occasions and the CAL EPA REL on 22
occasions. Formaldehyde exceeded the ATSDR intermediate MRL twice, both during
the summer season. Acrolein exceeded the ATSDR intermediate MRL on nine
occasions.
$ Pearson Correlations. Pearson Correlations were computed at each site between each
pollutant and various meteorological parameters. Generally, the meteorological
parameters had poor correlations with the nationwide pollutants of interest across all the
sites. The Pearson Correlations were much stronger at the individual sites.
$ Automobile Impacts. Cook County, IL had the highest vehicle registration, while
Jefferson County, AL had the highest hydrocarbon average concentration of all the
UATMP counties. The Schiller Park site (SPIL) near Chicago had the highest daily
traffic passing by the monitor (214,900), and Cook County, IL also had the highest
nonroad emissions of all the participating sites, while Wayne County, MI had the highest
on-road emissions of all the sites. The Barceloneta site (BAPR) in Puerto Rico had the
lowest daily traffic volume (100).
24.1.2 State-level Conclusions
$ Alabama.
The Alabama sites began sampling in mid-July for VOC, carbonyl compounds,
SVOC, and metals.
The pollutants of interest common to each Alabama site are: acrolein, arsenic,
formaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, manganese, acetaldehyde, benzene,
naphthalene, and p-dichlorobenzene.
Total xylenes measured the highest daily average at each of the three Birmingham
sites, while the pollutants of interest with the highest daily average at PVAL was
formaldehyde. Seasonal averages were only available for summer and autumn,
and no annual averages could be calculated.
Acrolein was the only pollutant to exceed either of the short-term risk factors at
any of the Alabama sites. Because seasonal averages for acrolein were not able to
be calculated, an intermediate risk-assessment could not be performed.
The strongest Pearson Correlations computed are listed as follows:
24-2
-------
ETAL: -0.95 between hexachloro-1,3-butadiene and dew point
temperature.
NBAL: -0.89 between hexachloro-1,3-butadiene and the w-component of
the wind.
PVAL: 0.78 between formaldehyde and maximum temperature.
SIAL: 0.81 between dibenz (a,h) anthracene and average temperature.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back traj ectory maps, the back traj ectories
originated from a variety of directions at the Alabama sites. The airshed domain
is smaller than most sites, as the farthest away a back trajectory originated is
nearly 500 miles. However, these sites sampled for only the second half of the
year, and this is reflected in the trajectory maps.
The wind roses for the Alabama sites show that northerly and south-southeasterly
to southerly winds are predominant near the sites. However, these sites sampled
for only the second half of the year, and this is reflected in the wind roses.
Benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde had the highest NATA-modeled cancer
risk for the three Birmingham census tracts, while benzene, carbon tetrachloride,
and acetaldehyde had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risk for the PVAL
census tract.
$ Colorado.
GPCO sampled year-round for VOC and carbonyl compounds.
The pollutants of interest at GPCO are: acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, 1,3-butadiene, tetrachloroethylene, xylenes, acrolein, and
hexachloro-1,3 -butadiene.
Total xylenes measured the highest daily average at GPCO.
Acrolein was the only pollutant to exceed either of the short-term risk factors at
GPCO. Seasonal averages for acrolein were only calculated for autumn. The
autumn acrolein average was nine times the intermediate risk factor.
The strongest Pearson Correlation computed at GPCO was between hexachloro-
1,3-butadiene and average temperature (-0.81).
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, back trajectories
originated from a variety of directions at GPCO. The airshed domain for GPCO
is somewhat smaller than most sites, as the farthest away a back trajectory
originated is nearly 500 miles.
24-3
-------
The wind rose for GPCO shows that easterly and southeasterly winds are
predominant near the site.
Benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane had the highest
NATA-modeled cancer risk for the GPCO census tract. With the exception of
total xylenes and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, the NATA-modeled and annual
average concentrations of the pollutants that failed at least one screen were within
one order of magnitude from each other. Formaldehyde had the highest NATA-
modeled concentration while total xylenes had the highest annual average
concentration.
$ Florida.
With the exception of FLFL, which began sampling in October, the Florida sites
sampled year-round. These sites sampled for carbonyl compounds only.
The pollutants of interest at each Florida site are acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
These are the only two carbonyl compounds with risk screening values.
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at GAFL, ORFL, SKFL,
SMFL, and SYFL, while acetaldehyde measured the highest daily average at
AZFL and FLFL. Seasonal trends show that acetaldehyde and formaldehyde did
not differ significantly from season to season in most cases. This is not
unexpected as the Florida sites experience less seasonal fluctuations than sites in
most other locations.
Formaldehyde exceeded one or both of the short-term risk factors at GAFL,
SKFL, and SMFL. Seasonal averages of formaldehyde at these sites did not
exceed the intermediate risk factor.
The strongest Pearson Correlations computed are listed as follows:
AZFL: 0.25 between acetaldehyde and sea level pressure.
FLFL: -0.80 between acetaldehyde and average temperature.
GAFL: 0.26 between acetaldehyde and both wind components.
ORFL: -0.40 between acetaldehyde and both dew point and wet bulb
temperature.
SKFL: 0.41 between acetaldehyde and sea level pressure.
SMFL: 0.25 between formaldehyde and the w-component of the wind.
SYFL: -0.38 between acetaldehyde and relative humidity.
24-4
-------
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, back trajectories
originated from a variety of directions at the Florida sites. The airshed domain for
these sites is rather large, as the farthest away a back trajectory originated is over
700 miles. The airshed domain of FLFL appears smaller than at other sites, but
represents the three months of sampling.
The wind roses for the sites in the Tampa/St. Petersburg area show that generally
north, northeasterly and easterly winds are predominant, although the two sites on
the east side of Tampa Bay experience westerly winds as well. The Orlando and
Ft. Lauderdale sites tend to more commonly experience winds from a variety of
directions.
A comparison of formaldehyde concentrations for all years of UATMP
participation show that:
at AZFL, formaldehyde concentrations have decreased since 2001, but
have been fairly consistent since 2003.
at GAFL, formaldehyde concentrations decreased from 2002 to 2003, but
increased from 2004 to 2005. However, the large confidence interval in
2005 shows that this increase may have been driven by a few outliers.
at ORFL, formaldehyde concentrations have held fairly steady since 2003.
Acetaldehyde had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risk for the each of the
Florida monitoring site census tracts, although each was less than 5 in a million.
With a few exceptions, the NATA-modeled and annual average concentrations of
the pollutants of interest were within one or two microns of each other.
$ Illinois.
The Chicago sites sample year-round for VOC and began sampling carbonyl
compounds in the spring. In addition, NBIL also sampled SNMOC and metals.
The pollutants of interest common to both Chicago sites are: benzene,
formaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde,
tetrachloroethylene, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, />-dichlorobenzene, and
tri chl oroethyl ene.
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at both NBIL and SPIL.
Seasonal trends show that most of the seasonal averages for the pollutants of
interest did not differ significantly from season to season. A full year of carbonyl
sampling at these sites will allow a better evaluation of seasonal carbonyl trends
in the future.
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at both Chicago sites, while
formaldehyde exceeded the short-term risk factors at SPIL. Because seasonal
24-5
-------
averages for acrolein could only be calculated for autumn at SPIL, a more
complete intermediate risk-assessment may be performed in the future. However,
the one seasonal average is more than seven times the intermediate risk factor.
The summer formaldehyde average at SPIL exceeded the intermediate risk factor.
The strongest Pearson Correlations computed are listed as follows:
NBIL: -0.88 between hexachloro-l,3-butadiene and dew point and wet
bulb temperature.
SPIL: 0.65 between formaldehyde and average temperature. This
correlates well with the seasonal formaldehyde averages.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, back trajectories
originated from a variety of directions at the Chicago sites, although less
frequently from the east. The airshed domain for these sites is rather large, as the
farthest away a back trajectory originated is over 1000 miles. However, most
trajectories originated within 600 miles of the sites.
The wind roses for the sites in the Chicago area show that westerly and southerly
winds are most predominant, and least common from the east and southeast.
A comparison of 1,3-butadiene and benzene concentrations for all years of
UATMP participation shows that these pollutants have been holding steady since
2003. The seemingly high concentration at NBIL in 2004 seems to have been
driven by a few outliers based on the confidence interval.
Benzene had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risk for both Chicago site census
tracts, over 20 in a million. Total xylenes had the highest NATA-modeled
concentration at both sites' census tracts, and the highest annual average at NBIL.
However, formaldehyde exhibited the highest annual average at SPIL.
Unfortunately, an annual formaldehyde average could not be calculated at NBIL.
$ Indiana.
INDEM sampled year-round for carbonyl compounds only.
The pollutants of interest at INDEM are acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. These
are the only two carbonyl compounds with risk screening values.
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at INDEM and its summer
average was ten times higher than the winter and spring averages. Acetaldehyde
tended to be higher in winter and spring. Unfortunately, autumn average could
not be calculated due to sampling equipment problems at the site.
24-6
-------
Formaldehyde exceeded both of the short-term risk factors thirteen times at
INDEM. The summer formaldehyde average was nearly five times the
intermediate risk factor.
The strongest Pearson Correlation computed at INDEM was between
formaldehyde and dew point temperature (0.73).
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory map, back trajectories
originated from a variety of directions at INDEM, although less frequently from
the east. The airshed domain for this site is rather large, as the farthest away a
back trajectory originated is over 1000 miles. However, most trajectories
originated within 600 miles of the site.
The wind rose for INDEM shows that westerly and southerly winds are most
predominant, and least common from the east.
Acetaldehyde had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risk for the INDEM census
tract. The acetaldehyde NATA-modeled concentration and annual average are
very similar, while the formaldehyde annual average is significantly higher than
the NATA-modeled concentration.
$ Massachusetts.
BOMA sampled year-round for metals only.
The pollutants of interest at BOMA are arsenic, nickel, manganese, and cadmium.
Manganese measured the highest daily average at BOMA. Seasonal averages of
nickel varied the most, with winter having the highest nickel average.
The strongest Pearson Correlation computed at BOMA was between nickel and
average temperature (-0.47). This correlates well with the seasonal average
calculations.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back traj ectory map, back traj ectories
originated from a variety of directions at BOMA. The airshed domain for this site
is somewhat large, as the farthest away a back trajectory originated is over 600
miles.
The wind rose for BOMA shows that winds with an westerly component are
mostly common.
The NATA-modeled cancer risk for the pollutants of interest in the BOMA census
tract are all less than 1 in a million. The NATA-modeled concentrations for the
pollutants of interest are all higher than their respective annual averages.
24-7
-------
$ Michigan.
DEMI and APMI sampled for VOC and carbonyls, while ITCMI and YFMI
sampled for VOC and SVOC. ITCMI sampled through September, YFMI
sampled through October, and APMI sampled through November.
The pollutants of interest common at each Michigan site are: benzene, 1,3-
butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, /?-dichlorobenzene, and tetrachloroethylene.
Tetrachloroethylene measured the highest daily average at APMI; formaldehyde
measured the highest daily average at DEMI; benzene measured the highest daily
average at YFMI and ITCMI. Seasonally, the averages of the pollutants of
interest did not vary much.
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at each Michigan site, while
benzene exceeded the short-term risk factor at YFMI. Because seasonal averages
for acrolein could not be calculated, a more complete intermediate risk-
assessment may be performed in the future. Benzene averages could be
calculated for all seasons, but autumn. Unfortunately, the highest benzene
concentrations measured occurred in autumn.
The strongest Pearson Correlations computed are listed as follows:
APMI: 0.60 between formaldehyde and maximum temperature.
DEMI: 0.56 between hexachloro-1,3-butadiene and relative humidity.
ITCMI: -0.98 between tetrachloroethylene and wet bulb temperature.
YFMI: 0.63 between benzene and the v-component of the wind.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, back trajectories
originated from a variety of directions at the Detroit sites. The airshed domains
for these sites are rather large, as the farthest away a back trajectory originated is
over 1000 miles. However, most trajectories originated within 600 miles of the
sites. The airshed domain for ITCMI is slightly smaller, with all trajectories
originating within 600 miles of the site.
The wind roses for the sites in the Detroit area show that winds come from a
variety of directions, although north, south, and west are most common. Easterly
and west-northwesterly winds are predominant in the Sault Ste. Marie area.
Formaldehyde concentrations increased at APMI in 2005, while 1,3-butadiene
and benzene changed little. A few outliers are likely responsible for the high
formaldehyde concentration at DEMI in 2004. Little has change is noted at
ITCMI.
24-8
-------
Benzene had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risk at APMI, DEMI, and
ITCMI. No risk was calculated for the YFMI census tract due to a population of
zero. Annual averages could not be calculated for ITCMI and YFMI. Xylenes
had the highest NATA-modeled concentrations at APMI and DEMI, while
tetrachloroethylene and formaldehyde had the highest annual averages at these
two sites, respectively.
$ Minnesota.
MEVIN began sampling in March for VOC, carbonyl compounds, and metals.
There were twelve pollutants of interest at MEVIN, including three metals, two
carbonyl compounds, and seven VOC.
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at MEVIN. No winter averages
could be calculated for MEVIN. Formaldehyde was highest in the summer, and
nickel and manganese were highest in the summer and autumn.
Acrolein exceeded both of the short-term risk factors at MEVIN. The autumn
acrolein average was nine times the intermediate risk factor.
The strongest Pearson Correlation computed at MEVIN was between
formaldehyde and maximum temperature (0.65). This correlates well with the
seasonal average calculations.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back traj ectory map, back traj ectories
originated from a variety of directions at MEVIN, although hardly at all from the
west and east. The airshed domain for this site is rather large, as the farthest away
a back trajectory originated is over 900 miles. However, most trajectories
originated within 600 miles of the site.
The wind rose for MEVIN shows that westerly and southeasterly winds are most
predominant, and least common from the northeast.
Benzene had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risk for the MEVIN census tract.
This is the second highest calculated cancer risk for any of the UATMP site
census tracts.
Mississippi.
The Mississippi sites sampled for VOC and carbonyl compounds. In addition,
PGMS also sampled for SNMOC.
The pollutants of interest common at each Mississippi site are: acetaldehyde,
benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and formaldehyde.
24-9
-------
Acetaldehyde measured the highest daily average at GRMS and TUMS, while
benzene had the highest daily average at PGMS. Seasonal averages are not
available for GRMS or PGMS. Seasonal averages of the pollutants of interest at
TUMS show little seasonal variability.
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at PGMS and TUMS. Because
seasonal averages for acrolein could not be calculated except at TUMS in autumn,
a more complete intermediate risk-assessment may be performed in the future.
The strongest Pearson Correlations computed are listed as follows:
GRMS: 0.77 between formaldehyde and average temperature.
PGMS: 0.54 between formaldehyde and average temperature.
TUMS: 0.48 between tetrachloroethylene and maximum temperature.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, back trajectories
originated from a variety of directions at the Mississippi sites. The airshed
domains for GRMS and PGMS appear smaller than for TUMS. However, its
important to note that these two sites' maps do not encompass a full year of
sampling like the TUMS map does.
The wind roses for GRMS and TUMS, the two northern Mississippi sites, show
that winds are predominantly out of the north or south. At PGMS, northwesterly
to northerly winds are prevalent. It is important to remember that the wind roses
for GRMS and PGMS do not encompass and entire year's worth of sampling.
Formaldehyde concentrations at the Mississippi sites have been steadily
decreasing since the onset of UATMP participation. Benzene concentrations have
decreased slightly at TUMS since sampling began in 2002, and have been
relatively consistent at the other two sites. 1,3-Butadiene concentrations have
changed little at PGMS and TUMS. This compound has never been detected at
GRMS.
Benzene had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risk at all three Mississippi sites.
Acetaldehyde had the highest annual average at TUMS, while dichloromethane
had the highest NATA-modeled concentration. Annual averages were not
available for GRMS and PGMS.
PGMS and GPMS (a previous UATMP site) began sampling daily in October to
measure the air quality impacts in response to Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast
region. VOC, carbonyls, and metals were sampled for at PGMS and GPMS. In
addition, GPMS also sampled for SNMOC and SVOC.
Fifteen pollutants of interest were common to both sites: 1,2-
dichloroethane, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, benzene, beryllium (PMio
24-10
-------
and PM2.s) 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, arsenic (PMio and
hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, acrolein,/>-dichlorobenzene, manganese
(PMio), and tetrachloroethylene.
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at both sites during the
90 day sampling period, although the daily average was nine times higher
atPGMSthanatGPMS.
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at both PGMS and GPMS,
as well as the intermediate risk factor at both sites. Formaldehyde
exceeded the short-term risk factors six times at PGMS, although the
intermediate average did not exceed the intermediate risk factor.
$ Missouri.
S4MO sampled year-round for VOC, carbonyl compounds, and metals.
The pollutants of interest at S4MO are: benzene, acetaldehyde, arsenic, carbon
tetrachloride, formaldehyde, manganese, 1,3-butadiene, cadmium,
tetrachloroethylene,/>-dichlorobenzene, and hexachloro-l,3-butadiene.
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at S4MO. Seasonal trends
show that formaldehyde and acetaldehyde tend to be highest in spring and
summer, while carbon tetrachloride is highest in the summer and autumn.
Acrolein was the only pollutant to exceed either of the short-term risk factors at
S4MO. Seasonal averages for acrolein could not be calculated. A more complete
intermediate risk-assessment may be performed in the future.
The strongest Pearson Correlation computed at S4MO was between formaldehyde
and maximum temperature (0.68). This correlates well with the seasonal average
calculations.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, back trajectories
originated from a variety of directions at S4MO, although less frequently from the
east. The airshed domain for S4MO is rather large, as the farthest away a back
trajectory originated is over 700 miles.
The wind rose for S4MO shows that generally southeasterly and northwesterly
winds are predominant near the site.
Formaldehyde concentrations appear to have decreased from 2004 to 2005,
although the confidence interval shows that this decrease is not statistically
significant. Additionally, benzene and 1,3-butadiene did decrease slightly from
2004 to 2005.
24-11
-------
Benzene had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risk for the S4MO census tract,
although manganese had the highest NATA-modeled concentration. In 2005,
formaldehyde had the highest annual average.
$ New Jersey.
The New Jersey sites sampled year-round for VOC and carbonyl compounds.
The pollutants of interest common at each New Jersey site are: acetaldehyde,
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, and
tetrachl oro ethyl en e.
Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde measured the highest daily averages at the New
Jersey sites, although acrolein was also the highest with formaldehyde at CFINJ.
Generally, seasonal concentrations of the pollutants of interest did not vary much
statistically at the New Jersey sites, although there are a few exceptions.
Formaldehyde was highest during the summer at CFINJ and acetaldehyde was
highest in the summer at NBNJ.
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at all four New Jersey sites.
Seasonal averages for acrolein could not be calculated except for autumn at CFINJ
and NBNJ. But both of these autumn averages exceeded the intermediate risk
factors. A more complete intermediate risk-assessment may be performed in the
future.
The strongest Pearson Correlations computed are listed as follows:
CANJ: -0.78 between hexachloro-1,3-butadiene and dew point
temperature.
CFINJ: 0.72 between formaldehyde and maximum temperature, as well as
acrolein and dew point temperature.
ELNJ: -0.68 between hexachloro-l,3-butadiene and maximum
temperature.
NBNJ: 0.77 between formaldehyde and acetaldehyde and maximum
temperature.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, back trajectories
originated from a variety of directions at the New Jersey sites. The airshed
domains are rather large, with trajectories originating over 700 miles away at each
site.
The wind roses for the New Jersey sites show that the wind regimes are different
at each site. Winds from every direction except from the southeast are common at
CANJ; northerly winds are prevalent at CFINJ and NBNJ although calm winds
24-12
-------
were observed almost half of the time; and northeasterly, southerly, and westerly
winds are most common at NBNJ.
Concentrations of formaldehyde appear to fluctuate from year to year at C ANJ;
have been decreasing at CHNJ; and have been increasing at ELNJ and NBNJ.
Benzene and 1,3-butadiene have changed little over the various years of sampling
at the New Jersey sites.
Benzene had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risk at all four New Jersey sites.
Total xylenes had the highest NATA-modeled concentration at CANJ and ELNJ,
while formaldehyde the highest NATA-modeled concentration at CFINJ and
NBNJ. Formaldehyde had the highest annual average concentration at CANJ and
CFINJ, while acetaldehyde had the highest annual average concentration at ELNJ
and NBNJ.
The acrolein noncancer hazard quotient in the ELNJ census tract was the highest
noncancer hazard quotient at any UATMP site.
North Carolina.
The North Carolina sites sample year-round for carbonyl compounds.
The pollutants of interest at the North Carolina sites are acetaldehyde and
formaldehyde. These are the only two carbonyl compounds with risk screening
values.
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at both CANC and RTPNC,
although they didn't vary much statistically from the acetaldehyde concentrations.
Seasonal concentrations were not available for every season at the North Carolina
sites, making seasonal trends difficult to gage.
The strongest Pearson Correlations computed are listed as follows:
CANC: 0.36 between formaldehyde and average temperature.
RTPNC: 0.61 between formaldehyde and maximum and average
temperature.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, back trajectories
originated from a variety of directions at the North Carolina sites. The airshed
domain for these sites is rather large, as the farthest away a back trajectory
originated is over 600 miles.
The wind rose for the CANC site shows that southwesterly, westerly and
northeasterly winds are most predominant, and least common from the southeast
and northwest. The wind rose for RTPNC is fairly similar.
24-13
-------
Formaldehyde concentrations at CANC appear to have decreased from 2004 to
2005, although the confidence interval shows that this decrease is not statistically
significant.
The RTPNC census tract has twice the acetaldehyde cancer risk of the CANC
census tract, although both are fairly low. The NATA-modeled concentrations for
the RTPNC census tract are similar to the 2005 annual averages.
$ Oklahoma.
The Oklahoma sites sampled during the summer months only for VOC and
SNMOC.
The pollutants of interest common to both Ponca City sites are: acrolein, benzene,
1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, and/>-dichlorobenzene.
Total xylenes measured the highest daily average at PCOK, significantly higher
than any other pollutant. Interestingly, POOK, only a few blocks away, had a
daily average that was about a quarter of the total xylenes daily average at PCOK.
Acrolein was the only pollutant to exceed either of the short-term risk factors at
the Ponca City sites. Seasonal averages for acrolein could not be calculated. A
more complete intermediate risk-assessment may be performed in the future.
The strongest Pearson Correlations computed are listed as follows:
PCOK: -0.84 between/>-dichlorobenzene and maximum temperature.
POOK: -0.62 between/>-dichlorobenzene and maximum temperature.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, back trajectories
originated predominantly from the southeast and south at the Oklahoma sites.
The airshed domain for these sites is slightly smaller than other UATMP sites, as
the farthest away a back trajectory originated is over 500 miles. The map,
however, only presents the summer trajectories and may look differently if based
on an entire year of sampling.
The wind roses for the Oklahoma sites show that southeasterly winds are most
predominant during the summer season.
Benzene had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risk in both Oklahoma sites'
census tracts.
$ Puerto Rico.
The Puerto Rico sites began sampling in February for VOC and carbonyl
compounds.
24-14
-------
The pollutants of interest common to both Puerto Rico sites are: acrolein,
benzene, acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, and
p-di chl orob enzene.
Dichloromethane measured the highest daily average at the BAPR site, while this
was not even a compound of interest at the SJPR site. Total xylenes had the
highest daily average at the SJPR site, while this was not even a pollutant of
interest at the BAPR site. The seasonal acetaldehyde concentrations were higher
in the spring than in other seasons, while the other pollutants of interest did not
vary much statistically from season to season.
Acrolein was the only pollutant to exceed either of the short-term risk factors at
the Puerto Rico sites. Seasonal averages for acrolein could not be calculated. A
more complete intermediate risk-assessment may be performed in the future.
The strongest Pearson Correlations computed are listed as follows:
BAPR: -0.83 between hexachloro-1,3-butadiene and the v-component of
the wind.
SJPR: -0.68 between tetrachloroethylene and average temperature.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, back trajectories
originated predominantly from the east at the Puerto Rico sites. The airshed
domain for these sites is slightly smaller than other UATMP sites, as the farthest
away a back trajectory originated is just over 500 miles.
The wind roses for the Puerto Rico sites show that winds from the northeast and
east are predominant near the sites.
Dichloromethane had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risk in the BAPR site's
census tract. This cancer risk (71.0 in a million) is the highest of any pollutant
that failed at least one screen at a UATMP site. This pollutant also had both the
highest NATA-modeled and annual average at this site. Tetrachloroethylene and
benzene had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risk in the SJPR census tract.
Total xylenes had both the highest NATA-modeled and annual average at SJPR.
Tranport of dichloromethane emissions from three nearby pharmaceutical
companies are likely being captured at the BAPR site.
$ South Dakota.
The South Dakota sites sample year-round for VOC, SNMOC, and carbonyl
compounds.
The pollutants of interest common to both South Dakota sites are: benzene,
formaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, and acrolein.
24-15
-------
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at SFSD, while acrolein
measured the highest daily average at CUSD. Seasonal trends show that the
formaldehyde summer average was higher than the other seasons at SFSD. At
CUSD, 1,3-butadiene was highest in autumn.
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at both South Dakota sites. Because
seasonal averages for acrolein could only be calculated for autumn at CUSD, a
more complete intermediate risk-assessment may be performed in the future.
However, the one seasonal average is significantly higher than the intermediate
risk factor.
The strongest Pearson Correlations computed are listed as follows:
CUSD: 0.85 between 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene and dew point
temperature.
SFSD: -0.67 between hexachloro-1,3-butadiene and maximum
temperature.
The back trajectories at the South Dakota sites illustrate how different wind
regimes can be on opposite sides of a state. Back trajectories originated primarily
from a west and northwest direction at CUSD, and primarily from a south,
northwest and northerly direction at SFSD. The airshed domain for CUSD is a
somewhat smaller than at SFSD.
The wind roses for the sites in South Dakota correlate well with the back
trajectory maps. West winds are predominant near CUSD, while south and west
winds are most predominant near SFSD.
Formaldehyde concentrations have been decreasing at CUSD since 2002.
Concentrations of 1,3-butadiene and formaldehyde in 2002 at SFSD may have
been driven by a few outliers, which makes it difficult to identify a trend.
Benzene and carbon tetrachloride had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risks for
the CUSD and SFSD census tracts. The NATA-modeled concentrations in both
census tracts were all less than 1 jug/m3. Only two pollutants at CUSD and three
pollutants at SFSD had annual averages greater than 1 jug/m3.
$ Tennessee.
The Tennessee sites sample year-round for VOC and carbonyl compounds.
The pollutants of interest common to both Tennessee sites are: acetaldehyde,
acrolein, benzene, formaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, 1,3-butadiene, hexachloro-
l,3-butadiene,/?-dichlorobenzene, and tetrachloroethylene.
24-16
-------
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at both DITN and LDTN.
Formaldehyde was highest in summer compared to other seasons at both sites.
Acrolein exceeded the short-term risk factors at both Tennessee sites. Seasonal
averages for acrolein could not be calculated. A more complete intermediate risk-
assessment may be performed in the future.
The strongest Pearson Correlations computed are listed as follows:
DITN: 0.86 between formaldehyde and average temperature. This
correlates well with the seasonal formaldehyde averages.
LDTN: 0.88 between formaldehyde and maximum temperature. This
correlates well with the seasonal formaldehyde averages.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, back trajectories
originated from a variety of directions at the Tennessee sites. The airshed domain
for DITN appears larger than for LDTN. This is mostly due to the presence of
one trajectory. Most trajectories originated within 500 miles of the sites.
The wind roses for the sites in Tennessee show that the back trajectories originate
primarily from the southwest and west. Interestingly, northeasterly winds were
uncommon at DITN but common at LDTN, and southeasterly winds were
uncommon at LDTN, but common at DITN.
Formaldehyde and benzene concentrations have been increasing since DITN
began sampling as part of the UATMP in 2003. In 2005, 1,3-butadiene was
detected at DITN for the first time. Formaldehyde concentrations have been
decreasing steadily since LDTN began sampling as part of the UATMP in 2003.
Benzene had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risk for both Tennessee sites'
census tracts. All NATA-modeled concentrations for the DITN census tract were
all less than 1 //g/m3, and all NATA-modeled concentrations for the LDTN census
tract were all less than 2 jug/m3. Xylenes had the highest annual average at DITN,
while toluene had the highest annual average at LDTN.
$ Texas
The Austin, TX sites began sampling between mid-June and early July for VOC,
carbonyls, TNMOC, and metals. The El Paso site began sampling in late March
for VOC.
The pollutants of interest common to each Texas site are: acrolein, benzene, 1,3-
butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, and/>-dichlorobenzene.
Acrolein measured the highest daily average at each of the five Austin sites, while
the pollutant of interest with the highest daily average at YDSP was total xylenes.
24-17
-------
With the exception of metals, no seasonal averages are available at the Austin
sites until autumn. Seasonal averages are available for a few pollutants at YDSP
beginning in the spring, but do not vary much statistically.
Acrolein exceeded both of the short-term risk factors at all of six Texas sites.
Seasonal averages for acrolein could only be calculated at MUTX in autumn. The
MUTX autumn acrolein average was significantly higher than the intermediate
risk factor, and was the highest seasonal average of acrolein calculated at any
UATMP site.
The strongest Pearson Correlations computed are listed as follows:
MUTX: 0.69 between formaldehyde and average temperature, and
/>-dichlorobenzene and maximum temperature.
PITX: 0.79 between acrolein and maximum temperature.
RRTX: 0.69 between acrolein and wet bulb temperature, and
/>-dichlorobenzene and maximum temperature.
TRTX: 0.92 between acrolein and dew point temperature.
WETX: 0.83 between acrolein and dew point temperature.
YDSP: -0.74 between 1,3-butadiene and dew point temperature.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back traj ectory maps, the back traj ectories
originated primarily from the southeast and south at the Austin sites. The airshed
domain is large at these sites, as the farthest away a back trajectory originated is
over 700 miles. However, most trajectories originated within 400 miles. It is
important to note that these sites sampled for only the second half of the year, and
this is reflected in the trajectory maps. At YDSP, trajectories tended to originate
from the southeast or southwest, and mostly across the border in Mexico.
The wind roses for the Austin sites show that southeasterly to southerly winds are
predominant near the sites. However, these sites sampled for only the second half
of the year, and this may be reflected in the wind roses. At YDSP, easterly winds
are most common.
Benzene had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risk for the six Texas census
tracts, although the cancer risk at YDSP was roughly half of the risk at each of the
Austin sites.
$ Utah.
BTUT sampled year-round for VOC, SNMOC, metals, and carbonyl compounds.
24-18
-------
The pollutants of interest at BTUT are: acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, benzene,
hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, 1,3-butadiene,
tetrachloroethylene, acrolein, arsenic, nickel, and manganese.
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at BTUT. Seasonal trends
show that benzene tends to be highest in winter, and formaldehyde is highest in
the summer and autumn.
Acrolein was the only pollutant to exceed either of the short-term risk factors at
BTUT. Seasonal averages for acrolein were only calculated for autumn. The
autumn acrolein average significantly higher than the intermediate risk factor.
The strongest Pearson Correlation computed at BTUT was between formaldehyde
and maximum temperature (0.71). This correlates well with the formaldehyde
seasonal average tendency.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, back trajectories
originated from a variety of directions at BTUT, although less frequently from the
northeast or east. The airshed domain for BTUT is somewhat smaller than most
sites, as the farthest away a back trajectory originated is less than 500 miles.
The wind rose for BTUT shows that southeasterly and southerly winds are
predominant near the site.
A comparison of formaldehyde, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene concentrations for all
years of UATMP participation shows that formaldehyde has increased since 2003
while benzene and 1,3-butadiene have changed little.
Benzene had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risk for the BTUT census tract.
Total xylenes had the highest NATA-modeled concentration of the pollutants that
failed at least one screen, yet formaldehyde had the highest annual average at
BTUT.
$ Wisconsin.
MAWI sampled year-round for VOC, metal, and carbonyl compounds.
The pollutants of interest at MAWI are: acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, 1,3-butadiene, tetrachloroethylene, arsenic, hexachloro-1,3-
butadiene, and manganese.
Formaldehyde measured the highest daily average at MAWI. Seasonal trends
show that formaldehyde is highest in the summer.
Acrolein was the only pollutant to exceed either of the short-term risk factors at
MAWI. Seasonal averages for acrolein could not be calculated.
24-19
-------
The strongest Pearson Correlation computed at MAWI was between
formaldehyde and maximum temperature (0.79). This correlates well with the
formaldehyde seasonal average tendency.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, back trajectories
originated from a variety of directions at MAWI, although less frequently from
the east. The airshed domain for MAWI is the largest of all UATMP sites, with
one back trajectory originating over 1100 miles away. However, most trajectories
originated within 600 miles of the site.
The wind rose for MAWI shows that southerly winds are prevalent near the site.
Benzene had the highest NATA-modeled cancer risk and NATA-modeled
concentration for the MAWI census tract. Yet, formaldehyde had the highest
annual average of the pollutants that failed at least one screen at MAWI.
24.1.3 Additional National-Level Observations
$ Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were the two most common pollutants of interest at the
UATMP sites. Only one site that sampled carbonyls did not have acetaldehyde as a
pollutant of interest; only two sites that sampled carbonyls did not have formaldehyde as
a pollutant of interest. Benzene and carbon tetrachloride were the two most common
VOC pollutants of interest. Every site that sampled VOC had these two pollutants as
pollutants of interest.
$ Formaldehyde frequently had the highest daily average at the UATMP sites; this
pollutant had the highest daily average at nineteen sites. Xylenes followed with nine
sites.
$ Pearson Correlations calculated between formaldehyde and the temperature parameters
(maximum and average temperature) at many UATMP sites were at least moderately
strong and positive. This indicates that as temperatures increase, concentrations of
formaldehyde also increase. At some of these same sites, the summer formaldehyde
average tended to be higher than other seasons, supporting this observation. This trend
may become more apparent when more sites have valid seasonal averages for all four
seasons.
$ Pearson Correlations calculated between benzene and the temperature parameters
(maximum and average temperature) at many UATMP sites were at least moderately
strong and negative. This indicates that as temperatures decrease, concentrations of
benzene increase. At a few of these sites, the winter benzene average tended to be higher
than other seasons, supporting this observation. This trend may become more apparent
when more sites have valid seasonal averages for all four seasons.
$ Pearson Correlations calculated between hexachloro-l,3-butadiene and the
meteorological parameters at many UATMP appear to be strong. It must be noted that
this compound was detected fairly infrequently at most sites, and that this low number of
24-20
-------
samples may skew the correlations into appearing stronger than they might be with a
large sample population.
$ Acrolein was the only site-specific pollutant of interest that had a NATA noncancer
hazard quotient greater than one at any UATMP site.
$ Benzene tended to have highest NATA cancer risk at many of the sites, although the
highest cancer risk calculated for any of the sites was dichloromethane.
24.1.4 Data Quality
The precision of the sampling methods and concentration measurements was analyzed for
the 2005 UATMP using relative percent difference (RPD), coefficient of variation (CV), and
average concentration difference calculations based on duplicate and collocated samples. The
overall precision was well within UATMP data quality objectives and Monitoring Method
guidelines. Sampling and analytical method accuracy is assured by using proven methods and
following strict quality control and quality assurance guidelines.
24.2 Recommendations
In light of the lessons learned from the 2005 UATMP, a number of recommendations for
future ambient air monitoring are supported:
$ Incorporate/Update Risk in State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Use risk calculations to
design State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to implement policies that will reduce the
potential for human health risk.
$ Encourage state/local/tribal agencies to develop and/or verify HAP and VOC emission
inventories. State/local/tribal agencies should use the data collected from the UATMP to
develop and validate an emissions inventory, or at the very least, identify and/or verify
emission sources of concern. Ideally, state/local/tribal agencies would compare the
ambient monitoring results with an emission inventory for source category completeness.
The emissions inventory would then be used to develop modeled concentrations useful to
compare against ambient monitoring data.
Continue to identify and implement improvements to the sampling and analytical
methods. The improvements made to the analytical methods prior to the 1999-2000
UATMP allowed for measurement of ambient air concentrations of 11 pollutants that
were not measured during previous programs. This improvement provides sponsoring
agencies and a variety of interested parties with important information about air quality
within their urban areas. Further research is encouraged to identify other method
improvements that would allow the UATMP to characterize an even wider range of
components in urban air pollution.
24-21
-------
$ Continue to strive to develop standard conventions for interpreting air monitoring data.
The lack of consistent approaches to present and summarize ambient air monitoring data
complicates or invalidates comparisons between different studies. Additional research
should be conducted on the feasibility of establishing standard approaches for analyzing
and reporting air monitoring data. The new approach in determining "pollutants of
interest" and the presentation of daily, seasonal, and annual averages are attempts at this
standardization.
$ Prepare a report characterizing all years of the UATMP and then update it yearly to
better assess trends and better understand the nature of U.S. urban air pollution.
$ Consider more rigorous study of the impact of automobile emissions on ambient air
quality using the complete UATMP data set. Because the UATMP has monitoring sites
where years of continuous data are collected, a real opportunity exists to evaluate the
importance and impact of automobile emissions on ambient air quality. Suggested areas
of study include:
1. Signature Compound Assessment. Sample data from each site should be
evaluated to look for signature pollutants from mobile sourcesthat is, species
typically associated with only diesel and/or gasoline combustion. If the
appropriate pollutants are included in the UATMP speciation, sites lacking these
pollutants can be excluded from subsequent analyses.
2. Parking Lot Characterizations. Several monitoring locations are situated in or
near parking lots. Evaporative emissions from parked gasoline vehicles could
have a very significant impact on the monitors for these sites (depending upon the
species of concern). Therefore we recommend determining the size of the lots in
question in terms of number of spaces, as well as an average occupancy rate with
total vehicles per day (to determine the number of start episodes). The occupancy
rate should be a 24 hour annual average, and can be established either through
observation or local "experts" (e.g., the lot operator). Also, it should be
determined if the parking is covered or opencovered lots can significantly
decrease crankcase temperatures and therefore lower evaporative emissions rates.
$ Encourage continued participation in the UATMP. Ongoing ambient air monitoring at
fixed locations can provide insight into long-term trends in urban air quality and the
potential for urban air pollution to cause adverse health effects among the general
population. Therefore, state and local agencies should be strongly encouraged either to
develop and implement their own ambient air monitoring programs or to participate in
future UATMP monitoring efforts.
$ Encourage year-round participation in the UATMP. Many of the analyses presented in
the 2005 UATMP require a full year of data to be most useful and representative of
conditions experienced at each specified location. Therefore, state and local agencies
should be strongly encouraged to implement year-long ambient air monitoring programs
in addition to participating in future UATMP monitoring efforts.
24-22
-------
25.0 References
Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Minimal Risk Levels for
Hazardous Substances. December 2005. Internet address:
http: //www. atsdr. cdc. gov/mrl s. html
California Air Resources Board (ARB). Consolidated Table of OEHHA / ARB Approved Risk
Assessment Health Values. April 25, 2005. Internet address:
http ://www. arb. ca. gov/toxics/healthval/healthval. htm
Conner, et al., 1995. ATransportation-Related Volatile Hydrocarbon Source Profiles Measured in
Atlanta.ฎ Teri L. Conner, William A. Lonneman, Robert L. Seila. Journal of the Air and
Waste Management Association, 45: 383-394. 1995.
Draxler, R.R. and Rolph, G.D., 2003. HYSPLIT (Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated
Trajectory) Model access via NOAA ARL READY Website
(http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html). NOAA Air Resources Laboratory. Silver
Spring. MD.
Eastern Research Group, Inc., 2004. ASupport for the EPA National Monitoring Programs
(NMOC, UATMP, PAMS, HAPs, and NATTS), Quality Assurance Project Plan,
Category 1, 2004/2005.ฎ Internet address:
http ://www. ergweb2.com/uatmp/user/index.cfm
EIA, 2004. Energy Information Administration. Car Registration by State. October 2004.
Lakes, 2006. Lakes Environmental, WRPLOT View, http://www.weblakes.com/lakewrpl.html.
2006.
NRC, 1991. ARethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution.ฎ National
Research Council: National Academy Press, 1991.
Rogers and Yau, 1989. AA Short Course in Cloud Physics.ฎ R. R. Rogers and M. K. Yau.
Pergamon Press. 1989.
Ruffner and Bair, 1987. AThe Weather Almanac.ฎ James A. Ruffner and Frank E. Bair. Gale
Research Company. 1987.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). SIP Modeling Document. June 2002.
Internet address:
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/sipdocs/2002-12-
HGB/tsdpartl.pdf
Topozone. Maps a la Carte, Inc. 2003. www.topozone.com
USEPA, 1997. ANational Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1900- 1996.ฎ U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. December, 1997.
25-1
-------
USEPA, 1998. "Technical Assistance Document for Sampling and Analysis of Ozone
Precursors." US Enivronmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Laboratory.
EPA/600-R-98/161. September 1998.
USEPA, 1999a. ACompendium Method TO-11 A: Determination of Formaldehyde in Ambient
Air Using Adsorbent Cartridge Followed by High Performance Liquid Chromatography
(HPLC).@ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research
and Information. EPA/625/R-96/010b. January, 1999.
USEPA, 1999b. ACompendium Method TO-15: Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC) in Ambient Air Collected in Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed by Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS).ฎ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Center for Environmental Research and Information. EPA/625/R-96/010b.
January, 1999.
USEPA, 1999c. "Compendium Method TO-13: Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Ambient Air Using Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
(GC/MS)." US Enivronmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research
and Information. EPA/625/R-96/010b. January 1999.
USEPA, 1999d. "Compendium Method IO-3.5: Determination of Metals in Ambient Parti culate
Matter Using Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry (ICP/MS)." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research and Information.
EPA/625/R-96/010a. June 1999.
USEPA, 2006a. 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Data and Documentation. Data
retrieved from ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2002fmalnei/
USEPA, 2006b. A Preliminary Risk-based Screening Approach for Air Toxics Monitoring Data
Sets. Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division. Atlanta, GA. February 2006.
Internet address: http://www.epa.gov/docs/region04/air/airtoxic/Screening-041106-
KM.pdf
USEPA, 2006c. The National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NAT A) for 1999. Internet address:
http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/nata_l 999/
USEPA, 2006d. Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations; Final Rule. 40 CFR Parts
53 and 58. October 17, 2006. Internet address:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/pt535806.pdf
U.S. National Library of Medicine. Hazardous Substances Data Bank. Internet address:
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen7HSDB
Warneck, 1988. AChemistry of the Natural Atmosphere.ฎ Peter Warneck Academic Press, Inc.
1998.
25-2
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-454/R-07-001
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
2005 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP)
Final Report
5. REPORT DATE
December 2006
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
OAQPS-EMAD
7. AUTHOR(S)
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
1600 Perimeter Park
Morrisville, NC 27560-8421
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D-03-049
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD
COVERED
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Annual 2005
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Reporting and data characterization results for the Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP) for
2005.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Carbonyls, SNMOC, VOC,
Semivolatiles, Dioxins,
Metals, Hexavalent
chromium, Analysis and
Monitoring, Risk, Trends
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution control
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
901 + 2090
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
United States Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Publication No. EPA-454/R-07-001
Environmental Protection Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division December 2006
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-454/R-07-001
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
2005 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP)
Final Report
5. REPORT DATE
December 2006
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
OAQPS-EMAD
7. AUTHOR(S)
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
1600 Perimeter Park
Morrisville, NC 27560-8421
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D-03-049
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD
COVERED
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Annual 2005
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Reporting and data characterization results for the Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP) for
2005.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Carbonyls, SNMOC, VOC,
Semivolatiles, Dioxins,
Metals, Hexavalent
chromium, Analysis and
Monitoring, Risk, Trends
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution control
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
901 +2090
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
United States Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Publication No. EPA-454/R-07-001
Environmental Protection Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division December 2006
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
------- |