United States Region 2 EPA/902,/R-93-001b
Environmental Protection 902 January 1993
Agency
&EPA Staten Island/New Jersey
Urban Air Toxics
Assessment Project
Report
Volume II
Description of the Project
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report is a collaborative effort of the staffs of the
Region II Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and
Energy, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, the New York State Department of Health, the
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and the
College of Staten Island. The project was undertaken at the
request of elected officials and other representatives of Staten
Island concerned that emissions from neighboring industrial
sources might be responsible for suspected excess cancer
incidences in the area.
Other EPA offices that provided assistance included the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which provided
contract support and advice; and particularly the Atmospheric
Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, which provided
contract support, quality assurance materials, and sampling and
analysis guidance, and participated in the quality assurance
testing that provided a common basis of comparison for the
volatile organic compound analyses. The Region II Office of
Policy and Management and its counterparts in the States of New
York and New Jersey processed the many grants and procurements,
and assisted in routing funding to the project where it was
needed.
The project was conceived and directed by Conrad Simon,
Director of the Air and Waste Management Division, who organized
and obtained the necessary federal funding.
Oversight of the overall project was provided by a
Management Steering Committee and oversight of specific
activities, by a Project Work Group. The members of these groups
are listed in Volume II of the report. The Project Coordinators
for EPA, Robert Kelly, Rudolph K. Kapichak, and Carol Bellizzi,
were responsible for the final preparation of this document and
for editing the materials provided by the project subcommittee
chairs. William Baker facilitated the coordinators' work.
Drs. Edward Ferrand and, later, Dr. Theo. J. Kneip, working
under contract for EPA, wrote several sections, coordinated
others, and provided a technical review of the work.
The project was made possible by the strong commitment it
received from its inception by Christopher Daggett as Regional
Administrator (RA) for EPA Region II, and by the continuing
support it received from William Muszynski as Acting RA and as
Deputy RA, and from Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff, the current RA.
The project has received considerable support from the other
-------
project organizations via the Management Steering Committee,
whose members are listed in Volume II.
11
-------
PREFACE - DESCRIPTION OF THE STATEN ISLAND/NEW JERSEY URBAN AIR
TOXICS ASSESSMENT PROJECT REPORT
This report describes a project undertaken by the States of
New York and New Jersey and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency with the assistance of the College of Staten
Island, the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
and, as a contractor, the New Jersey Institute of Technology.
Volume I contains the historical basis for the project and a
summary of Volumes II, III, IV, and V of the project report.
Volume II of the report lists the objectives necessary for
achieving the overall purpose of the project, the organizational
structure of the project, and the tasks and responsibilities
assigned to the participants.
Volume III of the report presents the results and discussion
of each portion of the project for ambient air. It includes
monitoring data, the emission inventory, the results of the
source identification analyses, and comparisons of the monitoring
results with the results of other studies. Volume III is divided
into Part A for volatile organic compounds, and Part B for
metals, benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), and formaldehyde. Part B includes
the quality assurance (QA) reports for the metals, BaP, and
formaldehyde.
Volume IV presents the results and discussion for the indoor
air study performed in this project. It contains the QA reports
for the indoor air study, and a paper on the method for sampling
formaldehyde.
Volume V presents the results of the detailed statistical
analysis of the VOCs data, and the exposure and health risk
analyses for the project.
Volume VI, in two parts, consists of information on air
quality in the project area prior to the SI/NJ UATAP; quality
assurance (QA) reports that supplement the QA information in
Volume HI, Parts A and B; the detailed workplans and QA plans of
each of the technical subcommittees; the QA reports prepared by
the organizations that analyzed the VOC samples; descriptions of
the sampling sites; assessment of the meteorological sites; and a
paper on emissions inventory development for publicly-owned
treatment works.
The AIRS database is the resource for recovery of the daily
data for the project. The quarterly summary reports from the
sampling organizations are available on a computer diskette from
the National Technical Information Service.
111
-------
STATEN ISLAND/NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS ASSESSMEKT PROJECT
VOLUME II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT EPA/902/R-93-001b
TABLE OP CONTENTS
1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
1,1 Proj ect Origins 1
1.2 General Description of the Project 7
1.3 Ob j ectives 8
1,4 Air Toxics of Interest 8
1.5 Participating Organizations 9
2. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
2.1 Committee Structure 10
2.2.1 Management/Steering Committee 10
2.2.2 Project Work Group 10
2.2.3 Technical Subcommittees 13
2.2.4 Community Advisory Group 13
2.3 Interaction Between Committees and Participants 13
3. PROJECT OPERATION
3.1 Ambient Monitoring 15
3.1.1 Introduction 15
3.1.2 Purpose 16
3.1,3 Subcommittee Structure 16
3.1.4 Relation to Project Objectives 16
3.1.5 Summary of Project Plan 17
3.1.6 Summary of Anticipated Outputs 19
3 . 2 Indoor Air Monitoring 27
3.2.1 Introduction 27
3.2.2 Purpose 27
3.2.3 Subcommittee Structure 27
3.2.4 Relation to Project Objectives 28
3.2.5 Summary of Project Plan 28
3.2.6 Summary of Anticipated Outputs 29
-------
3 . 3 Emission Inventory 29
3.3.1 Introduction 29
3.3.2 Purpose 30
3.3.3 Subcommittee Structure 30
3.3.4 Relation to Project Objectives 31
3.3.5 Summary of Project Plan 31
3.3.6 Summary of Anticipated Outputs 33
3.4 Modeling and Source Identification 33
3.4.1 Introduction 33
3.4.2 Purpose 34
3.4.3 Subcommittee Structure 34
3.4.4 Relation to Project Objectives 34
3.4.5 Summary of Project Plan 35
3.4.6 Summary of Anticipated Outputs 35
3 .5 Data Management 36
3.5.1 Introduction 36
3.5.2 Purpose 36
3.5.3 Subcommittee Structure 36
3.5.4 Relation to Project Objectives 37
3.5.5 Summary of Project Plan 37
3.5.6 Summary of Anticipated Outputs 37
3.6 Exposure And Health Risk Assessment 38
3.6.1 Introduction 38
3.6.2 Purpose 38
3.6.3 Subcommittee Structure '38
3.6.4 Relation to Project Objectives 39
3.6.5 Summary of Project Plan 39
3.6.6 Summary of Anticipated Outputs 40
3.7 Quality Assurance 40
3.7.1 Introduction 40
3.7.2 Purpose 41
3.7.3 Subcommittee Structure 41
3.7.4 Relation to Project Objectives 41
3.7.5 Summary of Project Plan 42
3.7.6 Summary of Anticipated Outputs 43
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 44
-------
1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The SI/NJ UATAP is a study of the ambient levels of selected
volatile organic compounds and particulate matter species in the
county of Richmond (Staten Island), New York, and in neighboring
counties (Middlesex, Union, and Essex) of New Jersey to determine
the exposures (and associated risk) of residents of the area to a
variety of toxic air pollutants. The study was undertaken in
response to concerns of these residents that their health may be
at serious risk due to exposure to toxic air pollutants emitted
routinely by industrial sources in the area, as well as by
episodic releases often characterized by disagreeable odors.
Furthermore, a number of studies had concluded that residents of
Staten Island had experienced a higher incidence of cancers than
other communities of similar socioeconomic status.1 Reflecting
the concerns of their constituents, elected officials and other
representatives of Staten Island asked state and federal
officials to investigate the causes of recurrent odor episodes,
and to determine whether or not emissions from neighboring
industrial sources might be responsible for suspected excess
cancer incidences in the area.
Because of Staten Island's low population density relative
to other parts of New York City, it has generally experienced
lower concentrations of the criteria air pollutants than those
other areas of New York City. However, the Island is bordered on
the west by a complex of major industries including
pharmaceutical plants, oil refineries, and chemical storage
facilities. Other potential sources of toxic and/or odorous
organic compounds include sewage treatment plants and the 1400-
acre Fresh Kills Landfill, the world's largest landfill.
Therefore, many of the residents have developed a high level of
concern about the toxicity of the ambient air.
According to a 1985 series of articles in a local newspaper,
the Staten Island Advance. Staten Island residents had been
concerned about pollution from New Jersey for over 100 years. An
1882 report of the New York State Board of Health stated, "Most
of the buildings on the North Shore of Staten Island are private
Section 2.3 of this volume describes ATSDR (Agency for Toxics
Substances and Disease Registry) reviews of three of these
studies, and the findings that the studies were flawed and not
supportive of the asserted association between cancer
incidence and air pollution.
-------
residences, occupied by families long residing on the Island, and
from the causes here named, and for the first time, their homes
have been made uncomfortable and in the case of many of their
inmates, unhealthy, from causes beyond their reach, but wholly
under the control of a neighboring state and people."
In 1928, J. Meyers, writing in "The New York State Journal
of Medicine," said that in the period from 1911 to 1920, Staten
Island was ranked first in New York City in terms of cancer-
deaths with a rate of 92.5 in 100,000 people. The identified
cause was that "much of [Staten Island's] northern shore had
suffered for many years from smoke, fumes and vapors from the
great oil refineries, and chemical, metal and other works
situated on Constable Hook, Bayonne and adjacent territory."
In 1967, a study published in "Archives of Environment
and Health" concluded that respiratory cancer rates for Staten
Islanders exposed to the highest amount of air pollution from New
Jersey were higher than for Islanders in low pollution areas.
In 1983, the New York City Department of Health (NYCDOH)
found in a study on the trends in New York City's respiratory
cancer deaths that Staten Island's death rate was the highest of
the boroughs in the City between 1960 and 1980. The rate had
risen from 27 out of every 100,000 people to 42.3 out of every
100,000 people, an increase of more than 57 percent in the 20-
year period compared to a citywide death rate increase of 35
percent.
In May 1985, Staten Island Congressman Guy Molinari called a
special town meeting featuring a panel of scientists including a
toxicologist from the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jersey, a pulmonary specialist from the VA Medical Center in
Brooklyn, an industrial hygienist from Mt. Sinai Hospital, a
pulmonary specialist (physician) in private practice on Staten
Island, and a health effects researcher from the College of
Staten Island. The meeting was convened because many people in
the community had expressed increasing concern that toxic
contaminants in the Staten Island air were the cause of unusually
high respiratory cancer rates on Staten Island. The panelists
shared a common position that the residents were at considerable
risk due to emissions from the petrochemical complex in the
nearby New Jersey area. One of the panelists also asserted that
children raised on Staten Island and in New York City's other
boroughs exhibit disproportionately high incidences of pediatric
asthma.
-------
In the same year (1985), a study entitled "111 Winds,"
conducted by the staff of Congressman Molinari, used published
census data, cancer statistics, and prevailing wind pattern data
to demonstrate that in the United States, counties such as Staten
Island, located downwind from petrochemical plants, have a higher
incidence of respiratory cancer than those upwind.
In an effort to be responsive to these concerns, federal,
state, and local officials met from time to time during the early
1980's to determine what appropriate actions they might take to
address the concerns that had been expressed about the frequent
odor episodes, as well as the unscheduled or accidental release
of chemicals by industries bordering the Arthur Kill (the river
separating Staten Island from New Jersey). When, in a period of
months from October 1984 to January 1985, fifteen major chemical
release incidents occurred, officials again called for special
federal investigations. Among the officials who pressed for
these investigations, were the Borough President of Staten Island
and the Congressional representative for the area. Both made
personal appeals to the EPA Administrator to undertake the
necessary studies. These meetings and consultations led to the
undertaking of a number of specific initiatives.
In March of 1984, the EPA Region II Administrator sent the
EPA National Emergency Response Team (ERT) based in Edison, New
Jersey, into the field in an attempt to document the presence of
toxic substances in the ambient atmosphere on Staten Island and
neighboring New Jersey. The ERT performed a one-week
investigation of ambient air concentrations in areas using state-
of-the-art measurement techniques. It identified the presence of
about 30 toxic chemicals near many of the sources suspected of
causing odor and toxics problems. However, it could not quantify
the contaminant concentrations nor conclusively link the
identified chemicals with emissions or odors from any specific
source. Gusty wind conditions prevailed during the monitoring
period and no serious odor events occurred during the time.
In a related investigation later that year (September 1984),
the EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC)
agents visited locations identified as possible sources of odors.
They identified liquid effluent from a sewage treatment plant as
the possible source of the so-described cat-urine odor that had
often been the basis for complaints. From this effluent, it was
possible to trace the origin of the offending substance to a
nearby pharmaceutical plant. The discharge of the offending
liquid into the sewage system was discontinued as a result of
this investigation.
In the same year (1984), the EPA released a report referred
to as the Six-Month Study, which documented that significant
amounts of toxic substances existed in the air over large,
densely-populated urban areas. This provided further incentive
-------
for the EPA Regional Office to design and conduct an ambient air
quality monitoring and assessment project. Lacking sufficient
funding and resources to conduct an independent study, the
Regional Office set out to undertake a cooperative effort with
other units of government, with industry, and with environmental
and academic institutions.
Through its inquiries, the Regional Office discovered
that a number of agencies and organizations had themselves
independently planned to undertake some form of ambient air
monitoring activity in the Staten Island/Northern New Jersey
Area.
0 The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) had decided to undertake a $5
million statewide enhancement of its ongoing sampling
program with approximately $1 million of the total to be
used for airborne toxics throughout the state. NYSDEC
planned to set up monitoring sites for air toxics at four
locations in Staten Island.
0 The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP, now NJDEPE) was about to undertake an ambient air
monitoring program for a variety of volatile organic
compounds at two sites in northern New Jersey with technical
support from the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT).
0 The College of Staten Island (CSI) was about to undertake an
Island-wide ambient air monitoring program for volatile
organic compounds using funds provided by the Governor of
New York State. CSI also planned to undertake a health
effects study of the area.
0 The New York City Department of Environmental Protection
(NYCDEP) was planning to conduct ambient air monitoring
activities in the Staten Island area, but had not yet
formulated specific plans.
0 The Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC) which had over
the years received and responded to citizens' complaints
concerning interstate odors and pollution transport, was
interested in participating in the study.
0 The Arthur Kill Industrial Business Association (AKIBA), a
consortium of businesses, expressed an interest in joining a
cooperative effort provided that a major emphasis was placed
on odor tracking.
At the request of the EPA Region II Administrator
Christopher Daggett, representatives of these organizations and
agencies met on several occasions in 1984 to determine what kind
-------
of cooperative project could be put together using the pooled
resources of these organizations. It was agreed that an AKIBA-
developed odor tracking project2 should proceed on its own with
whatever assistance might be provided by the ISC because of the
common interest of both organizations in odor problems and
because of their experiences in addressing both odor episodes and
episode response. It was decided, as well, that those agencies
in a position to contribute resources and expertise for
performing air quality sampling and analysis using advanced
techniques would join together under the leadership of the EPA
Region II Office to develop an ambient air monitoring project.
The group decided to invite the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) and the New York State Department
of Health (NYSDOH) to participate in order to provide needed
expertise in risk assessment. The NYCDEP and the ISC failed to
obtain the necessary resources to join in the project.
In October 1986, the project's Steering Committee formulated
the objectives for the project, listing nine specific objectives.
Ambient air monitoring would be the most expensive and extensive
project activity, and would be used to address most of the
objectives. In addition, the Committee agreed to pursue indoor
monitoring, emission inventories, various levels of data
assessment and interpretation, and exposure and health risk
assessment, along with quality assurance and data handling for
all of the other phases of the project.
In 1987, the ambient air monitoring phase of the project was
initiated. Monitoring activities and other field work continued
until 1989. The ambient monitoring phase of the project included
15 sites (see Map I-l) at which the following parameters were
measured:
The AKIBA study was conducted by The Research Corporation of
New England (TRC) using meteorological data and odor reports
to develop a methodology for tracking the sources of odors
during odor incidents. Its final report (released in 1989)
concluded that municipal facilities (sewage treatment plants
and landfills) were the most frequent and the most intense
sources of odors in the Arthur Kill region and often had
adverse impacts on nearby communities. The report
specifically pointed to the Linden-Roselle sewage treatment
plant at Tremley Point and the Fresh Kills Landfill as making
major contributions to the regions's odor problems. As a
follow-up to the study, AKIBA installed an odor hotline for
use during odor episodes to alert industries to check their
facilities for malfunctions and potential unauthorized
releases.
-------
volatile organic compounds at 13 sites,
metals at 5 sites,
formaldehyde at 5 sites, and
meteorological data at 4 sites.
The indoor air monitoring phase of the project began in July
1990 and concluded in March 1991, encompassing four indoor sites
and two associated outdoor sites. The emission inventory portion
of the project spanned the period from October 1987 to December
1991. Once the monitoring and inventory data began to appear,
the data handling, data interpretation, and exposure and health
risk assessment phases were initiated.
In 1990, EPA also undertook an ancillary study, called the
Staten Island Citizen's Odor Network, to further address the
concerns of the Staten Islanders about air quality during odor
events. EPA supplied canister devices similar to those utilized
in the ambient monitoring phase of the project to six Staten
Island homeowners and asked them to activate the devices when
they detected odors of concern. There were few occasions in
which odor episodes triggered the use of these samplers. On no
occasions were unusually high concentrations of air toxics found
to correlate with odor episodes.
In an effort to address the health effects issues, EPA asked
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to
review the 1979 NYCDOH and the 1984 CSI cancer incidence studies,
and the 1985 111 Winds study developed by the staff of
Congressman Molinari. ATSDR determined that all three studies
were flawed in design, in the handling of statistical
information, and in the conclusions reached. Based on this, the
conclusions that there were links between reported cancer
incidence and air pollution could not be supported. CSI
expressed an interest in conducting further health-based studies.
It is important to realize that the incidence of cancer and
other diseases in a population is determined by the combined
effects of many genetic, socioeconomic and environmental factors
in addition to air contaminant exposure. Studies of other
communities with a concentration of petroleum refineries and
other industries, and cancer rates higher than in other nearby
communities, have failed to show statistically significant
correlations of cancer incidence and air contaminant levels. In
a study in Contra Costa County, California,3 for example, the
only variable identified as a significant factor in lung cancer
Personal communication of J. Wesolowski of the California State
Department of Health to T.J. Kneip in 1991 concerning the
results of an unpublished report of a study by California in
Contra Costa County.
-------
was smoking. Thus, the assignment of possible sources of cancer
may be difficult without a carefully planned epidemiological
study.
In studies of air pollution directed toward an understanding
of population exposures, risks, and health effects, it is
important to recognize (a) limitations in approaches to and,
hence, in results associated with estimation of lifetime
exposure; (b) the relative contributions of indoor air and
ambient air to total inhalation exposure; and (c) the relative
contribution of inhalation exposure to total exposure via all
routes. Studies (Wallace et al., 1987) have shown that personal
exposures to VOCs—that is, integrated, measured concentrations
for 24-hour personal air samples—are usually more closely
related to indoor air concentrations than to ambient air
concentrations. Nevertheless, the sources of concern in this
study were industrial and non-point sources whose impact would be
assessed by evaluating ambient air quality.
1.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The Staten Island/New Jersey Urban Air Toxics Assessment
Project (SI/NJ UATAP) was designed to assess potential long-term
exposures to various airborne toxics on the basis of measurements
of ambient air concentrations at sites throughout the project
area, and of indoor air at a limited number of sites.
The characterization of human health risk due to inhalation
of air pollutants in the project area addressed cancer and non-
cancer adverse effects. Information on adverse effects was based
on available cancer unit risk factors and non-cancer recommended
or regulatory reference concentrations. The unit risk factors or
reference concentrations were applied to concentration data using
selected exposure scenarios to estimate potential incremental
risk.
The measured concentrations were compared to those at a site
upwind of the industrialized area and to concentrations reported
for other locations nationwide. The objective of the comparison
was to assess whether risk arising from air pollutants in the
project area was substantially different from that arising from
these air pollutants in other urban areas.
In addition, possible relationships between air toxics
sources and the observed ambient air concentrations were examined
through the development of emission inventories and the use of
appropriate back-trajectory meteorological models.
-------
1.3 Objectives
The project objective as defined by the Management/Steering
Committee in December 1986 was to provide information about the
toxic substances in the ambient air in Staten Island and selected
areas of New Jersey; this information was to include a comparison
of population exposures to these substances in the study area
with such exposures in other areas, and an assessment of possible
sources of the toxic substances. This objective was formalized
as the nine objectives that follow.
Ob-iectives
1. Characterize air quality for selected volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) for the purpose of doing an exposure
assessment for various population, commercial, and
industrial interfaces.
2. Characterize air quality for the parameters identified by
EPA as high-risk urban toxics for the purpose of using
exposure assessment for comparison with other studies.
3. Characterize indoor air quality for selected VOCs for the
purpose of doing exposure assessment for various types of
commercial facilities and residences.
4. Evaluate indoor/outdoor concentration relationships for
selected VOCs.
5. Perform an emission source inventory (including point,
area, and mobile sources), so as to formulate hypotheses
linking major contaminants to potential sources.
6. Obtain air quality data for the purpose of identifying
potential sources using meteorological modeling.
7. Evaluate indoor air quality data to identify possible
sources.
8. Evaluate episodic odor occurrences and relate such
episodes to air quality data.
9. Evaluate some general abatement strategies.
1.4 AIR TOXICS OF INTEREST
A specific list of target pollutants was selected at the
outset of the project and modified slightly based on monitoring
8
-------
experience. Pollutants were included on the list for various
reasons, but generally because they
1. are chemicals identified by EPA as high risk urban air
toxics,
2. are known to cause or are suspected of causing harm,
3. are measurable using available methodologies, and
4. are known to be present or suspected of being present in the
air in the project area.
The pollutants measured are listed in Tables II-6 and 7.
1.5 PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS
One of the greatest strengths of this project has been the
interaction and support of the great variety of organizations
involved in the work: a federal agency, three state agencies,
and three universities. Another great strength has been the
ambitious scope of the project, including the study of many
different aspects of the interaction between air toxics and the
environment, from emissions, through air concentrations, to
health assessments. However, this multi-faceted project required
a well-designed operating structure to ensure
1. logical and consistent planning,
2. detailed and timely tracking of progress,
3. identification of shortcomings,
4. initiation of timely corrective action, and
5. coordination of the diverse participants.
Cognizant of this, the participating organizations designed
and implemented a structured committee system for dealing with
management and technical implementation. The interactions of the
participants through this committee structure was a primary
factor in the success of the project.
-------
2. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
2.1 COMMITTEE STRUCTURE
This project involved people in many organizations
performing overlapping functions over a period greater than three
years. (See Table II-l). The complexity of these interactions
required the development of an organizational structure that
could ensure effective project planning, timely performance, and
quality assurance at all stages of the program. Project
coordination and public communication were provided by EPA Region
II.
The participants designed and implemented this project
through a Management/Steering Committee, a Project Work Group and
Technical Subcommittees. The members, with their affiliations,
are listed in Tables II-2 through 4. The functions of these
three organizational units are as described in the following
paragraphs.
2.1.1 Management/Steerina Committee
Senior representatives from the participating agencies
served on this committee. The members are listed in Table II-2.
The function of this committee was to define the project and set
policy. It directed the project and acted as arbitrator and
decision-maker when major questions arose. It approved the final
report of the project.
2.1.2 Project Work Group
The Project Work Group (Table II-3) provided the project
management and technical oversight, and reported to the
Management/Steering Committee. It was responsible for ensuring
that the commitments made by the respective agencies were carried
out. The Project Work Group monitored and reported on progress;
it designed and applied management procedures for efficient and
expeditious implementation of the project.
10
-------
Table II-l; Project Participants
GOVERNMENT
Federal - U.S. EPA
Region II
Air and Waste Management Division (EPA Region II)
Environmental Services Division (EPA Region II)
Headquarters
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (EPA-OAQPS)
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory
(EPA-AREAL)
States
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)*
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC)
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH)
ACADEMIA
College of Staten Island of the City University of New York
(CSI)
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ)
New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) (contractor to
NJDEP)
* At the time of publication of this report, the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
(NJDEPE).
Table II-2; Management/Steering Committee
Conrad Simon EPA Region II - Chair
Thomas Allen NYSDEC
John Elston NJDEP
Paul Lioy UMDNJ
John Oppenheimer CSI
John Hawley NYSDOH
11
-------
Table II-3: Project Work Group
Theo. J Kneip EPA Region II - Chair, and
Project Manager
Charles Pietarinen NJDEP
Donald Gower NYSDEC
John Hawley NYSDOH
Clifford Weisel UMDNJ
Marcus Kantz EPA Region II
John Oppenheimer CSI
Table II-4; Technical Subcommittees
Project Coordination Robert Kelly, EPA Region II
Subcommittee chair
Ambient Monitoring Clifford Weisel, UMDNJ
Quality Assurance Marcus Kantz, EPA Region II
Emission Inventory Andrew Opperman, NJDEP
Data Management Rudolph K. Kapichak, EPA Region II
Modeling Raymond Werner, EPA Region II
Exposure and Health Paul Lioy, UMDNJ
Risk Assessment
Indoor Air Mark Knudsen, NYSDOH
Note: Some participants1 affiliations and roles changed
during the project. Dr. Weisel was CSI's Work Group
representative when the project began. Mr. Kapichak
coordinated the technical subcommittees from 1988 to 1990.
Dr. Jorge Berkowitz, formerly with the NJDEP, was NJDEP's
Management/Steering Committee (M/SC) representative.
Dr. Edward Ferrand was the Project Manager and chaired the
Project Work Group while assigned to EPA Region II from 1986
to 1989, when he was succeeded by Dr. Theo. J. Kneip.
Ms. Carol A. Bellizzi coordinated the technical
subcommittees in 1991 and 1992.
12
-------
2.1.3 Technical Subcommittees
The subcommittees developed the specific procedures and
schedules for the project and incorporated them into documented
workplans and timetables. They were responsible for changes or
modifications of the workplans. The responsibilities of the
members included ascertaining that their respective organizations
approved of the workplan details before submission to the Project
Work Group.
2.1.4 Community Advisory Group
Elected officials, government agencies, community and
environmental groups, and other interested persons were to
participate in the project through the mechanism of an Advisory
Group.
The responsibilities of the Advisory Group were as follows:
1. To identify specific activities that group members could
perform in order to help and enhance the project.
2. To identify areas in which the current effort could be
helpful.
3. To identify supplemental activities already underway or
planned that would expand or supplement the project
activities.
4. To identify/provide services or funding to carry out any
additional work in the area.
After its first organizational meeting the Advisory Group
did not meet again.
2.2 INTERACTION BETWEEN COMMITTEES AND PARTICIPANTS
An outstanding feature of the project was the extent,
variety, and quality of the interactions between the participants
throughout its duration. Participating organizations were
closely integrated through grants, contracts, and the project
organization.
Each committee relied heavily upon the independent efforts
of the participating organizations. The final products in every
case were the direct result of those individual efforts carefully
13
-------
coordinated and combined through the technical and management
committees, and staffed by the participating organizations.
14
-------
3. PROJECT OPERATION
3.1 AMBIENT MONITORING
3.1.1 Introduction
The Monitoring Subcommittee was established to develop
overall guidance for the participating organizations and
laboratories on procedures to be used in monitoring and to
provide insight into the state-of-the-art methodologies that were
to be used during this project. Representatives from all of the
organizations participating in the SI/NJ UATAP were included.
The members were individuals technically trained in air sampling,
laboratory analysis, and/or quality assurance. They provided
necessary expertise for monitoring since guidelines for some of
the analyses, particularly volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
using both Tenax sorbent and canister sampling, and formaldehyde,
had not been formally established by any of the regulatory
agencies when this project commenced.
Additionally, the approaches, laboratory facilities and
goals of each of the organizations were different. Therefore, it
was decided that an exchange of information among the technical
individuals involved in the project would facilitate the
development of the procedures required for the collection and
analysis of the samples needed to meet the overall objectives of
the SI/NJ UATAP. This organizational format worked well, as the
exchange of ideas among the participants during the setup and
initial analysis was helpful to a number of organizations. The
Management/Steering committee also requested that the Monitoring
Subcommittee be responsible for site selection, siting criteria,
comparability of methodologies, setting a timetable for sample
collection, and tracking the progress of each organization.
The primary objectives of the Monitoring Subcommittee
included the following:
1) selection of ambient sampling sites that were spatially
distributed to meet the objectives of the SI/NJ UATAP;
2) determination of the criteria that would be used for
placement of the ambient air samplers;
3) assurance that the different analytical methodologies
used were comparable;
15
-------
4) selection of the target compounds and sampling frequency
used;
5) exchange of information among the different groups within
the project to provide the variety of expertise needed to
proceed with the project; and
6) establishment of a time schedule and tracking framework
for the setup and sampling at each site.
3.1.2 Purpose
The purpose of the Monitoring Subcommittee was to provide
technical expertise to facilitate the monitoring required to meet
the project's objectives, to track the progress of each
organization in setting up and operating the sites, to provide an
exchange of technical information among the members, and to
address technical issues concerning sampling and analysis raised
by the Management/Steering Committee or a work group.
3.1.3 Subcommittee Structure
The subcommittee consisted of one or more individuals from
each organization within the SI/NJ UATAP with expertise in sample
collection, analysis and quality assurance. The individuals who
were part of the subcommittee changed during the project. The
members included the following:
Clifford Weisel, Chair, CSI/UMDNJ Garry Boynton, NYSDEC
Cas Czarkowski, NYSDEC Mike Steiniger, NYSDEC
Andrew Opperman, NJDEP Charlie Pietarinen, NJDEP
Barbara Kebbekus, NJIT Linda Berrafato, UMDNJ
Robert Kelly, EPA Region II Rudolph K. Kapichak,
Marcus Kantz, EPA Region II EPA Region II
3.1.4 Relation to Project Objectives
The Monitoring Subcommittee's charge was to design a
sampling network and suggest analytical procedures that would
measure the ambient air concentrations of volatile organic
compounds, particulate trace metals, benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P), and
formaldehyde, and the meteorological conditions during sampling.
The concentrations would be used to calculate the annual average
concentrations, and their spatial and temporal variations as
needed to meet many of the project objectives.
16
-------
The data obtained would be used to address directly the
following six project objectives:
Objective 1.
Objective 2,
Objective 4.
Objective 6,
Objective 8,
Objective 9,
Characterize air quality for selected
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for the
purpose of having an exposure assessment for
various population, commercial, and
industrial interfaces.
Characterize air quality for the parameters
identified by EPA as high-risk urban toxics
for the purpose of using exposure assessment
for comparison with other studies.
Evaluate indoor/outdoor concentration
relationships for selected VOCs.
Obtain air quality data for the purpose of
identifying potential sources using
meteorological modeling.
Evaluate episodic odor occurrences and relate
such episodes to air quality data.
Evaluate some general abatement strategies.
3.1.5 Summary of Project Plan
The project workplan for the Monitoring Subcommittee
outlined the objectives and tasks required for a systematic
establishment of the monitoring network. Initial decisions
included which air toxics were to be measured, the spatial region
to be covered, the location of the sites for each organization,
and the establishment of a mechanism for exchanging information
and reporting progress.
The toxics to be examined were grouped into the following
three categories based on the required sampling technique:
volatile organic compounds (non-polar),
formaldehyde and other aldehydes, and
B[a]P and trace metals found on particulate matter.
Three substances on the EPA urban air toxics list were not
included in the project: asbestos, products of incomplete
combustion (other than B[a]P), and ethylene oxide.
17
-------
Asbestos was not included since asbestosis, the primary
cancer from exposure to asbestos, is not expected to be found at
elevated concentrations in the study area. Incomplete combustion
products, such as semi-volatile organic compounds, and ethylene
oxide were not included since the methodologies for their
collection and analysis were not available to the organizations
involved in the program, and development of these methodologies
was beyond the project funding commitments.
The analytical resources available to the project included
the following capabilities:
three laboratories for VOC analysis (CSI, NJIT, and NYSDEC),
two laboratories for trace metals and B[a]P (NJDEP and
NYSDEC),
two laboratories for aldehyde analysis (EPA-Research
Triangle Park (EPA-RTP), NJIT),
two organizations for meteorological data (NJDEP and
NYSDEC), and
several organizations for quality assurance capabilities.
(EPA Region II, EPA-RTP, and PEI as a contract laboratory).
In addition, field personnel were committed to the project
for sample collection (CSI, NJDEP, NJIT, NYSDEC, and UMDNJ) and
for oversight of quality assurance (EPA Region II).
The sampling region included Staten Island and the
industrialized region of New Jersey immediately west of Staten
Island. One New Jersey site not within the heavily
industrialized portion of New Jersey was designated the
background site for VOCs and formaldehyde; and another, for
particulate samples. Thirteen sites were chosen for the
collection of samples for VOC analysis, five for aldehydes, seven
for particulate matter, and four for meteorological measurements.
The sites were chosen to give optimal spatial coverage of the
region. More sites were sampled for VOCs than for the
particulate toxics since a greater variability in ambient air
concentrations was expected for these substances than for the
particulates.
A sampling frequency of once every sixth day was planned for
a duration of two years. Three of the VOC sites in Staten Island
were sampled daily during most of the program.
18
-------
3.1.6 Summary of Anticipated Outputs
3.1.6.1 Sampling sites
A total of fifteen sites, ten in Staten Island and five in
New Jersey, were used during this project. Figure II-l is a map
showing the location of the sites. The sites were chosen to be
representative of residential communities within the region. The
community name, assigned project number, type of sample
collected, sampling frequency, and start date for each site are
given in Tables II-5a and 5b. Sampling at each site commenced
when the organization responsible for sampling and analysis
indicated that it was ready. The sampling was continued until
September 30, 1989.
The sites (except the background sites) were selected to
provide the largest spatial distribution within the region
downwind of primary sources. The background sites were selected
to be upwind of the suspected source regions and away from local
sources. The general source regions considered were the
industrial complex bordered by the Raritan River, the New Jersey
Turnpike, the City of Bayonne, and Fresh Kills Landfill. Stations
were selected to be as close to breathing height as possible,
with all, except the Susan Wagner site, located at or below third
story height.
Thirteen sites were chosen for collection of VOCs. The
samplers were placed using EPA's accepted sulfur dioxide siting
criteria, since no siting criteria had been established for VOCs.
Of the seven sites chosen for particulate matter samplers using
siting criteria for particulates sampling, only five generated
useful data. Five sites were used for formaldehyde sampling.
Four meteorological stations were established specifically
for this project. Additional meteorological data were expected
to be available from stations collecting data for other purposes
during the same time period as this project.
3.1.6.2 'Sampling and analytical procedures
Two major sampling techniques were used to collect VOC
samples, and two general methods were used to analyze the
samples. For VOC sample collection, ambient air was drawn by a
low-volume pump through tubes containing adsorbent material, or
pumped into specially polished evacuated stainless steel
canisters. Three different sorbents were used during the project
- Tenax and two different gradient sorbent combinations. The
sampling trains were equipped with various flow controllers,
timers, and solenoid-controlled valves.
19
-------
After the sorbent samples were picked up and returned to the
laboratory, they were thermally desorbed from the adsorbent,
cryogenically focused, and transferred to a capillary gas
chromatograph (GC) for analysis. The GC peaks were quantified
and verified by mass spectrometry in all laboratories but one.
For that laboratory, the GC peaks were quantified with either a
flame ionization detector or an electron capture detector, with
10% of the samples analyzed by mass spectrometry for peak
verification. The canister samples were analyzed in an analogous
manner to the adsorbent samples, but without thermal desorption.
Details of each laboratory's procedures are given in the
individual Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) developed by the
respective laboratories. The VOCs analyzed during the project
are given in Table II-6. Not all compounds were analyzed by all
organizations. From time to time during the project, changes
were made in the pollutants monitored and analyzed by each
organization.
Since the collection and analytical procedures were not
identical across the organizations, inter-comparison procedures
were followed to determine the comparability. These included
coincident sampling by all groups at a single site during several
periods, and collocation of both Tenax and canister collection
systems periodically at all sites. Details of these procedures
are in the Quality Assurance section of this volume (Section
3.7); and in the QA workplan, reports, and discussion in Volume
VI.
The trace metals and B[ot]P were (collected using a high-
volume sampler and analyzed by two laboratories according to
established regulatory procedures. Details are given in the
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) supplied by the individual
organizations and found in Volume VI. The list of metals
analyzed for the project is given in Table II-7.
Formaldehyde and other aldehydes were collected using a
cartridge coated with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine. Analyses were
performed by two laboratories using the same methodology based on
a high-performance liquid chromotography separation after elution
of the aldehydes from the sampling cartridge. This method was
based on an experimental methodology which, during the course of
the project, was found to have an ozone interference; i.e., the
presence of ozone results in an under-reporting of formaldehyde
concentrations in ambient air that was not amenable to use of a
correction factor4. Since completion of the ambient air sampling
4 Memorandum of July 13, 1989, J.E. Sigsby (MSERB/CPCD/AREAL) to
R. Kelly (U.S. EPA Region II), "Ozone Interference in the
Determination of Aldehydes using DNPH Cartridges."
20
-------
for this project, the sampler was modified to prevent ozone
interference.
3.1.6.3 Tracking of progress
EPA Region II had the major responsibility for tracking the
starting dates for the establishment of the sampling sites.
After the majority of the sites was established, the subcommittee
restricted meetings to conference calls, and relied upon the
Region II office for updates of the status of the sites. Each
organization was contacted quarterly to ascertain the status of
its sites, and whether any change in sampling protocol or
frequency had occurred. The sites were established as
permission, manpower, and equipment allowed. Thus, the setting-
up of some of the sites was delayed.
3.1.6.4 Reporting of the results
The reports of the concentrations and meteorological data
for each site were sent to the Data Management Subcommittee.
21
-------
Figure II-1
SI/NJ UATAP
Monitoring Locations
SITES:
1. Westerleigh
2. Travis
3. Annadale
4. Great Kills
5. Port Richmond
6. Dongan Hills
7. Pumping Station
8. Clifton
9. Tottenville
A. Elizabeth
B. Carteret
C. Sewaren
D. Piscataway
E. Highland Park
10. Rossville
KEY:
V - Volatile Organic Compounds
P - Partlculotes-Troce Metah ft BaP
W - Meteorology
f •• Formaldehyde
-------
Table II-5a; Sampling Sites - Staten Island
Sampling Type
Site Community
code site Name
1 Westerleioh
Susan Wagner H.S.
Travis
P.S. 26
Annadale. Eltinoville
Fire Station 167
Great Kills
Fire Station 162
Port Richmond
Post Office
6 Donaan Hills
Fire Station 159
7 Pumping Station
Near Landfill, near
Staten Island Mall
8 Clifton
Bayley Seton Hospital
9 Tottenville
Fire Station 151
10 Arthur Kill. Rossville
New York Telephone
NYSDEC Sorbent
Tenax
Canister
Hi Volume Filter
Formaldehyde
Meteorology
NYSDEC Sorbent
Tenax
Canister
Hi Volume Filter
Tenax
Canister
NYSDEC Sorbent
Canister
NYSDEC Sorbent
Tenax
Canister
Formaldehyde
Tenax
Canister
NYSDEC Sorbent
Canister
Meteorology
Tenax
Canister
NYSDEC Sorbent
Tenax
Canister
Meteorology
Frequency
every sixth day
H
It
II
H
continuous
every sixth day
Operating dates
10/87- 9/89
10/87-12/87
4/88- 9/89
10/87- 9/89
7/88- 9/89
4/88- 9/89
10/87- 9/89
5/88-10/881
8/88- 9/89
10/87- 9/89
every day1
every eighteenth day2
every sixth day
every eighteenth day
every sixth day
every day1
every eighteenth day2
every sixth day
every eighteenth day
continuous
every day'
every eighteenth day2
every sixth day
H
every eighteenth day
continuous
High Volume Filter every sixth day
1 Through 3/89. Every sixth day to 9/89.
1 Rotated among sites 3, 6, and 8 on a monthly basis.
* Data did not meet QA requirements.
k Some data did not meet QA requirements.
" Samples taken only occasionally, not enough data to report.
10/87- 9/89
12/87- 9/89
9/88- 9/89
9/88- 9/89
10/87- 9/89
6/88- l/89k
6/88- 9/89
7/88- 9/89
10/87- 9/89
1/88- 9/89
10/88- 9/89
10/88- 9/89
10/88- 9/89
10/87- 9/89
2/88- 9/89
10/87- 9/89
6/88- l/89k
7/88- 9/89
4/88- 9/89
3/88-9/89"
23
-------
Table II-5b: Sampling Sites - New Jersey
Sampling Type Frequency
Site Community
Code Site Name
A Elizabeth
Mattano Park
B Carteret
Police Station
Sewaren
Glen Cove School
Piacataway
Pvt. Residence
E Highland Park
Fire Station
Newark Airport
Elizabeth
NJDEP Trailer
Operating
dates
Tenax
Canister
High Volume Filter
Formaldehyde
Tenax
Canister
High Volume Filter
Formaldehyde
Tenax
Canister
Tenax
Canister
Formaldehyde
every sixth day
every sixth day
every sixth day
every eighteenth day1
every sixth day
every eighteenth day1
every sixth day
5/89'
5/88-
5/88-
5/88-
5/88-
10/87-
10/87-
10/87-
11/87-
11/88-
12/87-
11/88-
11/87-
11/88-
- 9/893
9/89
9/89
9/89
9/89
9/89
9/89
9/89
9/89
9/89
9/89
9/89
9/89
4/892
High Volume Filter every sixth day
Meteorological Data
Meteorological Data
hourly
continuous
11/88- 9/89
routine NWS* data
1 Rotated between sites C and D on a monthly basis.
2 Analysis by EPA contractor lab.
3 Analysis by NJIT.
* National Weather Service
b Data were not used due to equipment problems.
24
-------
Table II-6; VOCs Analyzed During Project
Chloromethane1
Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride)
Trichlorome thane (Chloroform)
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
Tetrachloromethane (Carbon Tetrachloride)
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene (Tetracholoroethene, perchloroethylene)
Dichloroethane , 1,1-
Dichloroethane, 1,2- (Ethylene Dichloride)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
Benzene
Toluene
Hexane
Xylene, p_-
Xylene, a- and
Ethlybenzene
Chlorobenzene
Styrene
Dichlorobenzene, o- (1,2 - dichlorobenzene)
Dichlorobenzene, m- (1,3 - dichlorobenzene)
Dichlorobenzene, JD- (1,4 - dichlorobenzene)
- 2
No valid data obtained.
Not separated by analytical method.
25
-------
Table II-7; Particulate Species Analyzed During Project
Arsenic
Barium
Benzo[a]pyrene
Beryllium'
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium2
Vanadium
Zinc
1 Never detected.
2 No valid data were obtained.
26
-------
3.2 INDOOR AIR MONITORING
3.2.1 Introduction
The Indoor Air Subcommittee was created to formulate and
oversee execution of the indoor air component of the SI/NJ UATAP.
Three of the primary objectives of the project required
systematic analysis of indoor air. In order to fulfill these
objectives an indoor air study consistent with the theory and
methodology of the project was developed. The indoor air study
was implemented in three stages: (1) selection of sampling
sites, (2) sample collection and analysis, and (3) interpretation
of results.
Because of the small number of sampling locations, the data
collected were not expected to be representative in the sense of
permitting extrapolation to the entire study area, but were
intended to aid in characterizing the relative risks of indoor
and outdoor exposure for those homes tested in the SI/NJ area.
3.2.2 Purpose
The indoor air study was designed to provide information
about what may be a significant source of the exposure of project
area residents to toxic air pollutants—indoor air. Also, a time
series of indoor/outdoor measurements would help further
understanding of how indoor concentrations are related to outdoor
air. Some sources of indoor air pollution were to be identified,
if possible.
3.2.3 Subcommittee Structure
The Indoor Air Subcommittee membership was as follows:
Mark Knudsen NYSDOH, Chair
Marlon Gonzales EPA Region II
Brian Lay NYSDEC
Joann Held NJDEP
Elizabeth Agle EPA - Air & Radiation
NYSDOH staff was responsible for field work related to air
sampling and preparation of the final -report. NYSDOH Wadsworth
Center for Laboratories and Research was responsible for all
analysis of air samples for VOCs. Formaldehyde samples were
analyzed by the EPA contract laboratory. Subcommittee members
27
-------
reviewed all plans, reports, and data; assisted in obtaining
equipment; and aided in the selection of sampling sites.
3.2.4 Relation to Project Objectives
Results obtained from the indoor air study were to be used
to address project objectives concerning characterization of
levels of selected VOCs in indoor air, estimation of indoor air
contribution to an individual's inhalation exposure to airborne
VOCs, evaluation of indoor/outdoor air concentration
relationships, and identification of possible indoor air sources.
3.2.5 Summary of Project Plan
Indoor air samples were collected in two homes in Staten
Island and two homes in New Jersey located within one half mile
of project ambient air monitoring stations. These homes met the
selection criteria identified in the workplan. Samples were
collected every twelve days for eight months. Ambient air
sampling was conducted concurrently with indoor air sampling.
All samples were analyzed for the specified VOCs. The chemicals
analyzed for the indoor air portion of the project were a subset
of the chemicals in the ambient air sampling portion of the
project; their selection was based on the analytical ability of
the NYSDOH laboratory, and reports that the chemicals had been
found in indoor air.
The list of target VOCs is as follows:
chloromethane tetrachloroethylene
methylene chloride benzene
chloroform toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane hexane
carbon tetrachloride m-,p-xylenes
trichloroethylene o-xylene
ethylbenzene
In addition to the VOCs, radon and formaldehyde, two
important contributors to indoor air pollution, were sampled.
Meteorological instruments were utilized at both sites to
aid in identification of any dominant pollutant sources.
Special questionnaires were developed to ensure collection
of all pertinent data for each house. Residential indoor air
quality questionnaires were completed for each home. A daily
activity/product use questionnaire was completed for each
sampling episode.
28
-------
Data reports were to be issued every three months during
sampling. Within 45 days of the last data report, a final
reportwas to be prepared to present all data gathered during the
study and to provide conclusions regarding the data.
3.2.6 Summary of Anticipated Outputs
Conclusions drawn from the indoor air quality data were to
provide information regarding the following:
indoor sources of VOCs and formaldehyde;
levels of contaminants in indoor air;
relationships between indoor and outdoor air pollutant
concentrations;
indoor sources of the air pollutants;
seasonal changes in indoor air contamination and in
indoor/outdoor relationships;
contribution of indoor air to total inhalation exposure;
the effects of personal activity/product use on indoor air
quality; and
impact of any predominant sources affecting one or more of
the study homes.
3.3 EMISSION INVENTORY
3.3.1 Introduction
The development of a VOC/air toxics emission inventory was
considered essential to enhancing our understanding of the urban
air toxics problem and facilitating the evaluation of general
abatement strategies for toxic air pollutants.
The compilation of an air toxics emission inventory
including point, area, and mobile sources was a highly resource-
intensive effort. The foundation of the project inventory was to
be the existing data bases of NJDEP and NYSDEC.
A review of the available information in October 1986, at
the start of the Subcommittee's efforts, showed that the existing
29
-------
inventories were restricted to point sources. Therefore, the
development of a comprehensive inventory necessitated the
generation of information previously unknown or unavailable to
the project participants. The objectives and tasks outlined in
the Subcommittee's workplan present the scope of work developed
to provide the best information available within the limitations
of the available resources. Further, the workplan identifies
areas where additional information and resources were required.
While the generation of contaminant-specific reports and other
point source-related information were the responsibility of NJDEP
and NYSDEC, the members of the Subcommittee agreed to a
cooperative effort, thereby enlisting the support of the
participating agencies in the development and production of all
final deliverables committed to in this plan.
3.3.2 Purpose
The subcommittee was charged with the development of an
inventory of toxic substance emissions from traditional and non-
traditional sources, including point, area, and mobile sources,
so as to formulate hypotheses linking major contaminants to
potential sources.
3.3.3 Subcommittee Structure
The subcommittee was comprised of staff from the three major
agencies that managed emission inventories for the study area—
the NJDEP, NYSDEC, and EPA Region II.
The structure of the subcommittee was as follows:
Chair; Andrew Opperman
Role: Coordinate and oversee all subcommittee
activities; prepare quarterly reports and the
workplan.
NJDEP; Tom Ballou
Andrew Opperman
Role: Provide Air Pollution Enforcement Data System
(APEDS) data; provide Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) Section 313 data i.e.,
data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data
base; generate and provide New Jersey area and
mobile source data; perform microinventories at
New Jersey sites; perform quality assurance.
30
-------
NYSDEC; Sam Lieblich
Mike Kormanik
Dave MacPherson (retired)
Role: Provide Source Management System (SMS) data;
generate and provide New York area and mobile
source data; perform microinventories at New York
sites; perform quality assurance.
EPA Region II; Roch Baamonde
John Filippelli
Al Forte
Role: Compile states' inventories and SARA data; map
point, area, and mobile sources; perform
microinventories for both states and prepare
microinventory reports; prepare quarterly reports;
perform quality assurance.
Additional personnel from each of the three agencies
provided support for specific tasks.
3.3.4 Relationship to Project Objectives
The work of the subcommittee was directed at providing the
information required for project objective 5.
Objective 5.
Perform emission source inventory (including
point, area, and mobile sources), so as to
formulate hypotheses linking major
contaminants to potential sources.
The emission inventory generated by the subcommittee was to
be used to address four additional project objectives primarily
in the purview of other subcommittees:
Objective 6.
Objective 7.
Objective 9.
Obtain air quality data for the purpose of
identifying potential sources using
meteorological .modeling;
Evaluate indoor air quality data to identify
possible sources;
Evaluate some general abatement strategies.
3.3.5 Summary of Project Plan
The members of the subcommittee, with input from other
project participants, particularly the Quality Assurance
Subcommittee, developed an extensive workplan to address Project
31
-------
Objective 5. The workplan details six objectives through which
its purpose would be fulfilled:
A. Define the study area. Identify the geographic area for
which sources would or might impact the monitoring stations
and contribute to the so-called toxics soup in the study
area.
B. Assess the foundation for the existing data bases and
develop a unified project data base. (1) Draw comparisons
among the participating agencies' existing data bases so as
to present the information as uniformly as possible; (2)
develop a limited-capability unified data base; and (3)
define the capabilities and limitations of the unified data
base.
C. Prepare, summarize, and provide external reports for point
sources. (1) Generate point source summary reports in
various formats to identify the types of information
available; (2) use contaminant-specific summary reports as
the foundation for the point source inventory; (3) identify
data fields to be incorporated into the unified data base.
D. Develop area source and mobile source inventories. Provide
information for such non-traditional source types. Develop
a 2 Jon X 2 km grid system for both area and mobile source
inventories. Generate area source inventories based upon
population-based emission factors, and a mobile source
inventory based on population and vehicle-miles-traveled
(VMT) emission factors.
E. Enhance the developed emission inventory. Conduct a
microinventory around the 15 monitoring sites to (1)
identify and account for influences of nearby sources, (2)
assess the comprehensiveness of the point source
inventories, (3) identify obvious non-complying sources for
future enforcement actions, and (4) assess the needs of the
Modeling and Source Identification Subcommittee.
F. Provide to the project a quality assurance assessment of the
emission inventory. Assess the capabilities and limitations
of the various data bases; and assess the relative levels of
precision, accuracy, representativeness, and completeness of
the utilized data bases, including record reviews and
limited plant inspections. (Quality Assurance was developed
as a component of the subcommittee's workplan. See Volume
VI.)
32
-------
3.3.6 Summary of Anticipated Outputs
The Emission Inventory Subcommittee initiated the inventory
development with the list of monitored substances. This list was
expanded as information became available from other air toxics
studies, as the existing inventories for the region were
reviewed, and as results from the ambient air samples were
produced. The complete list of substances to be included in the
emission inventory is in the subcommittee's workplan. (See
Volume VI).
Only direct releases into the ambient atmosphere were to be
inventoried. For area and mobile sources, emissions were to be
developed and apportioned over the study area.
The results of this effort were to be summarized in tables,
graphs, and maps to facilitate their use by the other
subcommittees.
3.4 MODELING AMD SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
3.4.1 Introduction
The Modeling and Source Identification Subcommittee (MSIS)
was established to provide a bridge between the efforts of the
Monitoring and Emissions Inventory Subcommittees and the
completion of one of the project's goals—identification of
potential source areas of toxic air contaminants.
The principal resources used by the MSIS to aid in
accomplishing this goal were a surface trajectory model and a
pollutant rose. With the surface trajectory model, the
geographical position of a parcel of air can be traced backwards
in time toward its source area using meteorological data as input
to drive the model. It was decided that these trajectories would
be generated for sampling days that were found to have high air
toxics concentrations, or for days representative of frequent
ambient concentration conditions. The specific days, pollutants,
and sites were chosen by both the Data Management Subcommittee
and the MSIS.
Pollutant/wind direction relationships on an annual average
basis were presented graphically through use of a pollutant rose.
33
-------
3.4.2 Purpose
The work of this subcommittee was to provide the project
with the capability to relate air toxics source areas to
potential receptors using surface trajectory and pollutant rose
computer models.
3.4.3 Subcommittee Structure
The MSIS was composed of a chairman and three members as
follows:
Chair; Raymond Werner
Role: Integrate workplan efforts and direct and guide
members in completion of their tasks.
EPA Region II; William Barrett
Role: Gather meteorological/other data from various
sources and use the data to drive surface
trajectory and wind/pollutant rose computer
models.
NYSDEC; Vito Pagnotti
Role: Provide technical guidance to subcommittee
regarding model selection, implementation, and
result interpretation.
NJDEP; Joann Held
Role: Provide a link between the MSIS and the Exposure
and Health Risk Assessment Subcommittee to help
integrate the work of the two subcommittees.
3.4.4 Relation to Project Objectives
The subcommittee was particularly concerned with the
following project objective:
Objective 6. Obtain air quality data for the purpose of
identifying potential sources using
meteorological modeling.
The subcommittee was to attempt to identify potential air
toxics source areas by using surface trajectory modeling, and,
for longer-term data, pollutant and wind rose models. The models
were to be adapted for use with the pertinent, available
meteorological data, and the ambient concentration data.
34
-------
3.4.5 Summary of Subcommittee Workplan
The subcommittee workplan is composed of four project
objectives. The first objective concerns the identification of
applicable methods. The second concerns the collection of
meteorological data using sources such as the National Climatic
Data Center, NYSDEC, and NJDEP. The third and fourth objectives
involve procedures used to identify potential air toxics source
areas.
3.4.6 Summary of Anticipated Outputs
The subcommittee was to generate pollutant roses and surface
back-trajectories, analyze them in conjunction with the project's
emission inventory, and discuss the results in the context of
possible source areas for the pollutant/site combinations
addressed.
3.4.6.1 Surface trajectory model
Analyses were performed using a surface trajectory model.
This model assumes low-level transport of air parcels with no
vertical motion. Parcels are adverted from one location to
another in accordance with a resultant wind field, which is
generated by input of wind data from up to 10 locations in the
immediate region.
The model uses three input parameters. They are as follows:
(1) UTM coordinates of atmospheric parcel ending point.
(2) UTM coordinates of all wind stations used to create the
resultant wind field.
(3) Wind data (direction and velocity) for each station for
the hours of interest. Stations used included six
National Weather Service Offices and three NYSDEC sites
located on Staten Island.
Several trial runs of the model using two-,four-, and nine-
hour parcel travel times showed the influence of short-term
fluctuations in wind direction and the need for careful
application of the model to actual project situations.
3.4.6.2 Pollutant rose
A pollutant rose, an adaption of a wind rose calculation,
was used to depict longer-term concentration and wind direction
35
-------
information, and thus, help in identifying potential air toxics
source areas.
3.5 DATA MANAGEMENT
3.5.1 Introduction
The Data Management Subcommittee was formed during the
planning stages for the project to provide a single point of
contact for the collection, storage, and distribution of data.
This was especially critical since six different project
participants and contractors were to be reporting ambient data.
The subcommittee initially consisted of one representative of
each participant (EPA, NJDEP, NYSDEC, CSI, and UMDNJ) plus one
representative from NJIT, which would be reporting data as a
contractor for NJDEP. The subcommittee membership changed since
its formation. The changes in membership reflected the changes
in activities of the subcommittee as the focus of the project
progressed from collection of data to use of the data.
3.5.2 Purpose
The original purpose of the Subcommittee was to establish a
centralized operation for the collection, storage, and
distribution of data generated by the SI/NJ UATAP. During the
course of the project, two additional purposes were added:
review of data submittals for data entry errors and other
anomalies, and initial analysis of the project data.
3.5.3 Subcommittee Structure
The following were members of the subcommittee:
Rudolph K. Kapichak, EPA Region II (Chair)
Stan Stephansen, EPA Region II
Garry Boynton, NYSDEC
Phil Galvin, NYSDEC
Brian Lay, NYSDEC
Steve Quan, NJDEP
Cliff Weisel, UMDNJ (formerly of CSI)
John Oppenheimer, CSI
Barbara Kebbekus, NJIT
Joseph Bozzelli, NJIT
36
-------
Linda Berrafato, UMDNJ, was a member while UMDNJ conducted
sampling and analysis for the Piscataway and Sewaren sites.
3.5.4 Relation to Project Objectives
While this subcommittee did not directly fulfill any of the
nine objectives of the project, its formatted data and data
analysis serve assisted the subcommittees in fulfilling
Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6.
3.5.5 Summary of Project Plan
The subcommittee began with two primary objectives. These
were to design forms and collection methods for raw and reduced
data generated by project participants, and to develop systems
for storage and organization of data to facilitate use by the
project participants.
The project participants were to use the forms to submit
each quarter's air quality data for review within 45 days after
the end of the calendar quarter. The project plan was changed to
allow submittal on an annual basis because the participants
needed longer than anticipated to review and properly format the
vast amount of data they had collected.
Due to the participants' problems with reviewing and
formatting the data, an additional review step was added to the
plan. EPA Region II staff were to review the data for data entry
errors and other anomalies. Erroneous or incomplete data were to
be returned to the organization that submitted it. After the
organization corrected the data, the subcommittee was to accept
the data for processing into final reports.
3.5.6 Summary of Anticipated Outputs
This subcommittee's products were to be the initial
quarterly data listings, and a final data summary. As noted, the
subcommittee modified the plan to provide for review and release
of the data on an annual basis. Additional data from EPA
contractors, and data submitted late from participants, were to
be produced as supplements to the two annual data sets. The data
were to be made available on diskettes when authorized for
distribution.
37
-------
Additional products, generated as a result of the data
analysis effort, included plots of the annual averages for
selected analytes; and daily data plots for selected analytes,
sites, and periods of sampling.
3.6 EXPOSURE AND HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
3.6.1 Introduction
The Exposure and Health Assessment Subcommittee was
established to focus on exposure, hazard, and risk arising from
exposure to the pollutants measured. This required reaching
agreement on a systematic approach to examining and
characterizing the health risk arising from the pollutants
measured at each outdoor and indoor site.
3.6.2 Purpose
The subcommittee was to estimate the direct inhalation
exposure to toxic substances measured in the ambient air and in a
limited number of homes within the project area, to characterize
potential health risks associated with long-term inhalation of
these toxic substances in the study area, and to compare these
risks to these resulting from such exposures in other urban
centers.
3.6.3 Subcommittee Structure
The committee members, individuals appointed by each
organization and representing a wide range of expertise, were as
follows:
Chair; Dr. Paul J. Lioy
Role: Provide exposure assessment for use in risk
assessment and participate in evaluation of risk.
NYSDOH! Dr. John Hawley
Role: Participate in conducting the risk assessment for
the project, and provide dose-response factors for
use in the analysis of carcinogens and non-
carcinogens.
38
-------
Ms. Joann Held
EPA Region II: Ms. Marian Olsen,
NYSDEC: Mr. Robert Majewski
Role: Participate in the risk assessment and provide
background data on VOCs in other cities within the
U.S.
G. Anders Carlson of the NYSDOH originally co-chaired the
subcommittee with Dr. Lioy.
3.6.4 Relationship to Project Objectives
The work of the subcommittee was to satisfy Project
Objectives 1 and 2:
Objective l. Characterize air guality for selected
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for the
purpose of doing an exposure assessment for
various population, commercial, and
industrial interfaces.
Objective 2. Characterize air quality for the parameters
identified by EPA as high risk urban toxics
for the purpose of using exposure assessment
for comparison with other studies.
3.6.5 Summary of Project Plan
The work plan for the Exposure and Health Risk Assessment
Subcommittee is composed of two major sections—exposure
characterization and risk estimation. Completion of each
involved achieving five major objectives:
1. Characterization of exposure at each site.
2. Comparisons of exposure with the selected background
site.
3. Comparison of the SI/NJ values with similar information
reported in the scientific literature.
4. Comparisons of the annual arithmetic means for the
contaminants measured at each site.
5. Estimation of the health risks associated with the
significant differences recorded between the urban SI/NJ
UATAP sites and other urban background sites.
39
-------
The exposure assessment was to be conducted using the
following two approaches: Level 1, where an individual is assumed
to spend the entire year outdoors or in environments "only
marginally affected by indoor sources; and Level 2, where each
assessment takes into account the time spent indoors at the homes
located near the outdoor sites. The homes were selected for
sampling by the Indoor Air Subcommittee.
Both non-cancer and cancer risks were to be characterized.
Toxicological dose-response data and risk factors were to be
obtained from each governmental agency and summarized in a
composite table for both the non-cancer and cancer hazards
associated with substances selected for study. For the purposes
of the SI/NJ UATAP, the risks were to be summed only for those
compounds identified as having the same target organs or similar
metabolic pathways.
Risk calculations were to be conducted for both Level 1 and
Level 2 exposure estimates. The results from the risk analyses
were to be compared among the project site locations, and with
results for other urban locations.
3.6.6 Summary of Anticipated Outputs
An initial risk analysis (Level 1) was to be prepared to
characterize risk to an individual maximally exposed to
pollutants in the ambient air of the SI/NJ UATAP study area, and
to suggest the compounds and intersite comparisons of greatest
importance to the ongoing data analyses.
The Level 2 analysis, to be conducted after completion of
the indoor air portion of the project, was to add to the Level 1
analysis the impacts of exposure to indoor air pollutants, and of
variation in ambient air pollutant concentrations across the
project area.
3.7 QUALITY ASSURANCE
3.7.1 Introduction
The Quality Assurance Subcommittee was formed in the initial
stages of the project to oversee the quality assurance and
quality control of the monitoring organizations providing data
for the project. This was essential due to the variation in
experience, organizational structure, and instrumentation
available to each of these monitoring organizations. A change to
40
-------
require the inclusion of quality assurance concepts by all
subcommittees, in addition to the requirements already in place
for monitoring organizations, was effected midway through the
project.
The responsibilities of the subcommittee included review of
Quality Assurance Project Plans; conduct of performance audits,
management system audits, collocation experiments; and quality
assurance data reviews. During the course of the project, it
became evident that the subcommittee would have to take on the
responsibility of reviewing some raw data. This resulted in the
timely discovery of errors and successful implementation of
corrective action.
3.7.2 Purpose
The purpose of the subcommittee was to develop and implement
the quality assurance program for the SI/NJ UATAP, assess and
document the quality of the data generated in the project, and
recommend corrective action.
3.7.3 Subcommittee Structure
The members of the subcommittee were as follows:
Marcus Kantz, EPA Region II (Chair)
Randall Coon, NYSDEC
Charles Pietarinen, NJDEP
John Oppenheimer, CSI
Barbara Kebbekus, NJIT
Clifford Weisel, UMDNJ
There were few changes in membership during the course of
the project.
3.7.4 Relation to the Proiect Objectives
The subcommittee's work related directly to the first four
objectives of the project, those concerning characterization and
evaluation of indoor and outdoor air in the project area.
Through the use of the methods enumerated in the subcommittee
workplan and described in the subcommittee Quality Assurance
Project Plan QAPjP), assessments of the quality of the indoor and
outdoor air monitoring data were made.
41
-------
The subcommittee was indirectly involved in the
implementation of the last five project objectives through the
requirement for and review of QAPjPs from each of the other
subcommittees in the project. These QAPjPs required that every
subcommittee identify and examine the significant choices
affecting the quality of their work, and determine the
appropriateness of their decisions. For example, the Modeling
and Source Identification Subcommittee examined its modeling
programs; and the Emission Inventory Subcommittee, its data-
gathering methodology, to determine appropriateness for the
intended uses.
3.7.5 Summary of Project Plan
The basic tenet of the subcommittee was that each
organization involved in data collection and/or manipulation
maintain primary responsibility for ensuring that the results of
its work satisfy the needs of the project. However, to ensure a
certain degree of consistency and to enhance overall confidence
in the results, the subcommittee would oversee the data quality
aspects of the organizations' operation.
The subcommittee determined that special external quality
assurance measures would have to be taken in the SI/NJ UATAP
project. This was because of the wide variation in equipment,
experience, organizational structure, manpower, and objectives
between the institutions participating in the project, as well as
the experimental and state-of-the art technology that was to be
used.
The subcommittee considered various special procedures in an
attempt to address these challenges to acceptable data quality.
The final list which was chosen in an effort to cover all phases
of the project included the following:
Quality Assurance Project Plans Specification of data quality
objectives, methods of
achieving these objectives,
QA/QC measures to be
implemented, personnel
responsible for QA/QC, and a
plan for taking corrective
action.
Management Systems Audits Audits of the hierarchy and
plans of the data collecting
organization.
42
-------
Technical Systems Audits Audits of the sampling and
analytical procedures of the
organization.
Performance Audits Audits of analytical ability.
Collocation of sampling equipment Locating different
samplers at the same site
for a specified period.
Extended Collocation Experiments Multiple organizations
sampling at the same place and
time for several consecutive
days, events called shootouts.
Detailed descriptions of these QA tools can be found in the
Quality Assurance Subcommittee workplan in Volume VI.
3.7.6 Summary of Anticipated Outputs
The anticipated products of this subcommittee were the
following:
1. Reviews and approvals of the Quality Assurance Project
Plans submitted by each of the monitoring organizations
and subcommittees.
2. Management and Technical System Audits of the
organizations responsible for data collection.
3. Performance Audits of the organizations responsible for
data analysis to determine the proficiency and accuracy
of each organization.
4. Multi-day Collocation Experiment reports containing the
data gathered and an explanation of the results.
5. Periodic review of pertinent data quality trends,
presented at Steering Committee meetings, to determine if
the project data objectives have been met.
6. Recommendations for corrective action to be taken.
7. Assessment of the acceptability of the data submitted for
inclusion in the project data base.
8. Overall assessments of the quality and usefulness of the
data and the validity of the data manipulations.
43
-------
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This volume was prepared by Dr. Theo. J. Kneip, Mr. Rudolph
K. Kapichak, Mr. Marcus Kantz, Mr. Avraham Teitz, and Mr. Robert
Kelly of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II from
information provided by the Subcommittee Chairs.
44
------- |