United States Region 2 EPA/902/R-93-001 g
Environmental Protection 902 January 1993
Agency
&EPA Staten Island/New Jersey
Urban Air Toxics
Assessment Project
Report
Volume VI
Part A
Appendices
-------
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 Coiror.ittee,
whose members are listed in Volume II.
11
-------
PREFACE - DESCRIPTION OP 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 III, 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.
iii
-------
STATEN ISLAND/NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS ASSESSMENT PROJECT
VOLUME VI. APPENDICES
PART A, EPA/902/R-93-001g
PART B, EPA/902/R-93-001h
TABLE OP CONTENTS
PART A
1. DESCRIPTION OF APPENDICES 1-1
2. AIR QUALITY HISTORY IN THE PROJECT AREA 2-1
3. AIR QUALITY MONITORING PRIOR TO THE INITIATION
OF THE PROJECT 3-1
4. SUBCOMMITTEE WORKPLANS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PLANS 4-1
5. MEMORANDUM ON FIELD TRIP TO METEOROLOGICAL SITES . . 5-1
6. SAMPLING SITE DESCRIPTION REPORTS 6-1
7. QUALITY ASSURANCE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS 7-1
PART B
8. NYSDEC VOCS QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT 8-1
9. CSI VOCS QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT 9-1
10. NJIT VOCS QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT 10-1
11. PAPER ON EMISSIONS INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT
FOR PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT WORKS 11-1
12. SUPPORT DOCUMENTS FOR REFERENCE CONCENTRATIONS AND
INHALATION UNIT RISK FACTORS FROM THE INTEGRATED
RISK INFORMATION SYSTEM 12-1
13. SUPPORT DOCUMENTS FOR REFERENCE CONCENTRATIONS
FROM THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH . . 13-1
14. MEMORANDUM ON THE REFERENCE CONCENTRATION
FOR CHROMIUM 14-1
15. MEMORANDUM ON THE REFERENCE CONCENTRATION
FOR XYLENE 15-1
16. MEMORANDUM ON WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE CLASSIFICATIONS
OF TETRACHLOROETHYLENE AND TRICHLOROETHYLENE . . 16-1
17. TOXICOLOGICAL SUMMARIES FOR CHEMICALS NOT INCLUDED
IN THE QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE
SI/NJ UATAP 17-1
IV
-------
1. DESCRIPTION OF APPENDICES
The descriptions of the air quality history and the
preliminary monitoring done in the Staten Island/New Jersey area
provide the background information which the reader needs to
understand the development and design of the project.
The appendices include the following:
o the detailed Subcommittee Workplans and Quality Assurance
Plans which guided the day-to-day progress of the work,
o the Quality Assurance reports from the organizations that
did the air quality sampling and analysis,
o reports describing the siting and exposure of sampling
instruments at the monitoring sites,
o a paper serving as background for development of the
publicly owned treatment works emissions inventory for the
project, and
o a paper discussing the preparation and characteristics of
the aldehyde-specific cartridge used for sampling
formaldehyde
1-1
-------
2. AIR QUALITY HISTORY IN THE PROJECT AREA
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
has determined that significant amounts of airborne toxic
substances may exist in large, densely populated or
industrialized areas.
Problems and solutions relating to air toxics can vary
significantly from area to area; therefore, the identification,
investigation, and control of emissions of toxic substances must
involve the government agencies responsible for protection of the
environment in the affected areas, with the support and
assistance of the federal government.
The staten Island/New Jersey Urban Air Toxics Assessment
Project (SI/NJ UATAP) resulted from the expressed concern of the
public and the environmental protection agencies about the lack
of an appropriate population exposure data base from which to
determine whether or not the risks attributable to air toxics in
the project area are unacceptably high as compared to other
areas.
The odor/air pollution problem in Staten Island and parts of
New Jersey also was instrumental in moving the U.S. EPA and the
states to initiate this project.
The borough of Staten Island (Richmond County) is an island
of about 60 square miles in New York harbor immediately to the
east of New Jersey. Figure 1 is a map of the area around the
Arthur Kill, the border between New York and New Jersey. Many of
the sources of interest to this project are located here. Major
industries, the Linden-Roselle sewage treatment plant, and the
Fresh Kills landfill are indicated on the map because of their
potential for emitting volatile toxic air pollutants and odorous
substances which have an impact on Staten Island and adjacent
areas of New Jersey.
2-1
-------
APEX Chemicalf
Chemical
•x^sA^ifA:
tProctor and
Gamble Corp.
Bayvay Refinery
Treatment Plant
Con Edison
I
Fresh Kills Landfil
Fresh Kills Landfill
Hess Corp Refinery
PSE&G Gas^Turbine Generator
Woodbridfe Township POTW
^
*Port Mobil Terminal
Shell Oil Company
Figure 1 - Map Shoving Portion of the
Project Area with
Sources of Interest
2-2 ' •- • " •
-------
Staten Island, because of its low population density
relative to other parts of New York City, has generally
experienced lower concentrations of most of the "criteria"
pollutants generated by major population centers. On the other
hand, it is located near large industrial plants and the world's
largest landfill. Therefore, many of the inhabitants have
developed a high level of concern about the toxicity of their
ambient air.
The concern that exposure to toxic chemicals released by
industry in New Jersey and landfills on Staten Island may cause
significant damage to health has been reinforced by repeated
episodes involving malodorous substances.
One important aspect of the concern about noxious odors is
the nature of the relationship between odor incidents and
concurrent exposures to elevated concentrations of toxic
substances. In general, unpleasant odor incidents are caused by
substances which humans can detect at extremely low
concentrations. The prevalence of malodorous events creates
suspicion that releases of less-readily detectable substances,
possibly toxic, also occur with regularity and that the levels of
these substances can reach high concentrations before they are
detected and stopped.
Preliminary studies by the New York City Department of
Health and by The College of Staten Island found higher incidence
of lung cancer in Staten Island, New York, and in Hudson and
Middlesex Counties, New Jersey, than in surrounding areas.
The incident in December, 1984, at Bhopal, India which
killed about 2000 people who lived next to a chemical plant,
greatly increased the world's concern, including that of the
public in Staten Island and New Jersey, about the potential for
catastrophic events.
In view of these concerns one of the most important factors
causing disquiet among the public has been the scarcity of data
about both the short- and the long- term concentrations of toxic
substances in the outdoor air it must breathe. Therefore, a
strong demand developed for the application of modern measurement
techniques over an extended period for the purpose of documenting
the nature and extent of the toxic substances present in the
ambient air of Staten Island and nearby New Jersey as compared to
those found in other areas.
2-3
-------
3. AIR QUALITY MONITORING PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE PROJECT
In March of 1984 EPA, Region II requested that the EPA
Emergency Response Team in Edison, New Jersey use the latest
measurement techniques in an attempt to document the presence of
toxic substances in the ambient atmosphere. They performed a
one-week investigation throughout portions of New Jersey and
Staten Island which identified about 30 chemicals near sources
suspected of causing odor and toxics problems. They were not
able to link conclusively the chemicals identified to any odors
detected by the sampling team at any of the suspected sources.
The investigation was seriously hampered by gusty wind conditions
and the non-occurrence of serious odor events throughout its one-
week duration, thereby emphasizing the need for a longer-term
project.
In a related investigation later that year (September 1984),
the EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC)
visited locations identified as possible sources of odors. They
identified liquid effluent from a process line at a chemical
plant in New Jersey as a possible source of the "cat urine" odor
which has often been the basis for complaints. The discharge of
the offending liquid effluent into the sewage system has been
eliminated as a result of this investigation. In addition to the
current project, the following important actions, related to the
air toxics problem in the area, should be noted.
In late 1985 EPA announced the Chemical Emergency
Preparedness Program (CEPP). Over 1200 state, county, and local
officials in the NY/NJ area were trained in CEPF implementation.
A video tape lending library on chemical emergencies was
established and a directory of Hazardous Materials Response Teams
in Region II was distributed. In June, 1986, a presentation on
CEPP was made at a seminar for business and industry sponsored by
The Hazardous Materials Advisory Council of Union and Middlesex
counties.
New Jersey's Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act (TCPA) which
was signed in 1986 is a major law which focuses on prevention of
accidental releases of extremely hazardous substances (EHS).
Facilities in New Jersey which handle any substances identified
as extremely hazardous must submit a workplan which documents
their assessment of risks associated with accidents and the
management of the risks.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) developed a statewide air toxics program during the
1980's which was one of the first to control toxic substances
through a source permitting process.
3-1
-------
NYSDEC's Air Guide-1 established acceptable ambient air
levels for selected toxics and air toxics monitoring program in
1982-1984 sampled for a limited number of air toxics at two
stations in Staten Island.
The Arthur Kill Industrial Business Association (AKIBA) has
endeavored to correlate odor reports and meteorological data for
the purpose of identifying odor sources. AKIBA funded a study by
The Research Corporation of New England (TRC) which analyzed
meteorological data and odor reports to develop a methodology for
tracking odor incidents to their source. The AKIBA report
concluded, "Municipal odor sources (sewage and landfills) have
the highest consistent intensity in the Arthur Kill region and
often project into nearby communities." The report points 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. AKIBA has installed an odor hotline for
use during odor episodes to alert industries to check their
facilities for malfunctions when odor episodes occur.
New York City has held emergency preparedness drills on
Staten Island with the involvement of several city agencies,
hospitals and ambulance services to practice response to toxic
chemical emergencies.
As a result of the state and federal concerns as evidenced
above, the decision was made in 1986 by the States of New York
and New Jersey and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency to join forces in an investigation of the air toxics
problem in parts of New Jersey and in Staten Island. The first
meeting was held in October of 1986, at which time a workplan for
the joint effort began to be developed. The talents brought to
bear through this cooperative effort were strengthened
significantly by the added participation of the University of
Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, the College of Staten
Island, and the New Jersey Institute of Technology.
3-2
-------
4. SUBCOMMITTEE WORKPLANS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PLANS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.0 SUBCOMMITTEE WORKPLANS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PLANS
Table of Contents 4-1
List of Tables and Figures 4-2
4.1 Ambient Monitoring Workplan 4-4
4.1.1 Purpose 4-4
4.1.2 Objectives and Tasks 4-4
4.1.3 Implementation of Monitoring Systems 4-7
4.1.4 Attachments to Monitoring Workplan 4-8
4.2 Emissions Inventory Workplan 4-17
4.2.1 Introduction 4-17
4.2.2 Purpose (Project Objective #5) 4-17
4.2.3 Background . 4-17
4.2.4 Objectives and Tasks 4-18
4.3 Indoor Air Workplan 4-30
4.3.1 Background 4-30
4.3.2 Purpose 4-30
4.3.3 Objectives and Tasks 4-31
4.4 Modeling and Source Identification Workplan 4-35
4.4.1 Subcommittee Members 4-35
4.4.2 Purpose 4-35
4.4.3 Objectives and Tasks 4-35
4.5 Data Management Subcommittee Workplan 4-38
4.5.1 Subcommittee Members 4-38
4.5.2 Purpose 4-38
4.5.3 Objectives and Tasks 4-38
4.5.4 Data Management Quality Assurance Plan .... 4-41
4.6 Exposure and Health Assessment Workplan 4-46
4.6.1 Subcommittee Members 4-46
4.6.2 Purposes 4-46
4.6.3 Objectives and Tasks 4-46
4.6.4 Personnel 4-48
4.6.5 Quality Assurance Plan 4-63
4.7 Quality Assurance Subcommittee Workplan 4-65
4.7.1 Subcommittee Members 4-65
4.7.2 Purpose 4-65
4.7.3 Background 4-65
4.7.4 Objectives and Tasks 4-68
4.7.5 Internal Quality Assurance 4-69
4.7.6 Quality Assurance Plan 4-72
4-1
-------
LIST OF TABLES and FIGURES
AMBIENT MONITORING WORKPLAN
Attachment 1...List of EPA "Urban Soup" chemicals 4-10
Attachment 2...Target list of chemicals to be sampled
by the project participants 4-11
Attachment 3...List of chemicals to be sampled using
canisters 4-12
Attachment 4...List of chemicals to be sampled using
formaldehyde cartridges 4-13
Attachment 5...Map of monitoring sites and what
classes of chemicals are sampled at each site 4-14
Attachment 6...List of chemicals and CAS numbers..(see Tables 3
and 4 in the Emission Inventory workplan)
Attachment 7a...Project clock: Entire project 4-15
Attachment 7b...Project clock: Sampling portion of
project 4-16
EMISSIONS INVENTORY WORKPLAN
Figure 1...Emission Inventory Study Area Map 4-23
Figure 2...Emission inventory 2x2km grid map 4-24
Table 1.A..Review of the data base coverage for
boilers and incinerators 4-25
Table 2....Emission inventory data fields
presented in the unified data base for specific
substances 4-26
Table 2.A..Sample printout of the unified data base .... 4-27
Table 3....Air toxics emission inventory point and
area source substance list 4-28
Table 4....Air toxics emission inventory mobile
sources substance list 4-29
4-2
-------
EXPOSURE AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT WORKPLAN
Table I.... Summary of available risk estimates
(carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic) for potential
chemicals that will be sampled during the SI/NJ
Project 4-49
Table II...Summary of current NYSDOH, NJDEP and EPA
risk information on chemicals analyzed during the
NJ/SI Project 4-50
4-3
-------
4.1 Ambient Monitoring Workplan
4.1.1 Purpose
To provide the project with the measurements of the
concentrations of toxic pollutants that people are exposed to in
the outdoor air.
4.1.2 Objectives and Tasks
OBJECTIVE A
Determine which air toxics should be targeted for sampling.
Task Al. List air toxics that have been identified in ambient air
in previous studies.
Task A2. Determine which air toxics are considered as high
priority for sampling in ambient air. Use EPA's Urban Toxic
"Soup" list and other lists of carcinogens and acute toxics.
Task A2.1 Review information on odorous compounds to determine if
compounds related to odor events can be identified.
OBJECTIVE B
Select feasible consistent methods for measuring toxics in the
ambient air.
Task Bl. Determine which air toxics identified in Objective A can
be measured using state-of-the-art sampling and analysis methods.
Task B2. Review resources available to the project to determine
which methods can be used
Task B2.1 Review sampling and analytical resources of
participating organizations.
Task B2.2 Determine capabilities needed to monitor for air toxics
identified in Objective A.
Task B2.3 Identify additional resources needed by participating
organizations to measure air toxics selected by the project and
what procurement efforts are needed. Use these resources to meet
program goals as outlined by the project Management/Steering
Committee, e.g., consistent use of a common sorbent and
additional use of quality assurance (QA).
Task B3. Periodically review list of air toxics and methods to
determine what additions or deletions should be made on the basis
of the findings of the project, new literature or studies.
4-4
-------
OBJECTIVE C
Determine the geographical extent of the project's sampling
program, and the sites needed for statistically valid sampling of
its ambient air.
Task Cl. Determine the size of the airshed to be covered by the
monitoring portion of the project.
Task C2. Determine the number of samplers needed for each class
of substances to ensure proper representativeness over the whole
domain of the project.
Task C3. In cooperation with the QA Subcommittee, establish
siting criteria and guidelines for sampling sites.
OBJECTIVE D
Find representative sites.
Task Dl. In cooperation with the QA Subcommittee, inspect
potential sampling sites for conformance with the siting criteria
and guidelines.
OBJECTIVE E
Implement sampling program.
Task El. Carry out decisions made by the Management/Steering
Committee, the Project Work Group and EPA following guidance from
the Monitoring and QA Subcommittees as appropriate. See Appendix
A [Section 4.1.3] for a listing of tasks by pollutant class for
each organization in the project, as agreed to by the project
participants.
OBJECTIVE F
Make information available to project participants and other
users to facilitate verification of the sampling and analysis
programs.
Task Fl. All sampling and analysis organizations
* Provide EPA-Region II, AWMD with information on monitoring
deployment, site changes, and lapses in sampling.
* In sampling Quarter 1, provide the Data Management Subcommittee
with monthly reports on causes of loss of scheduled samples.
* Submit all air toxics and meteorological measurements to AWMD,
EPA Region II in project format for Data Management Subcommittee.
(See Data Management Subcommittee workplan for format. All
4-5
-------
exceptions to project format must be cleared with the Data
Management Subcommittee.)
OBJECTIVE G
Provide coordination of resource allocations and technical
expertise for project participants.
Task G.I. EPA-Region II, APB
* Coordinate and track monitoring activities.
* Provide contract services where needed, esp. for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and formaldehyde.
Task G.2. EPA-Region II, MMB
* Provide QA support including system audits, site inspections,
performance evaluation samples. (See QA workplan for details.)
Task G.3. EPA-RTP-EMSL
* Perform statistical analysis of Tenax confirmation using
canister data.
* Participate in project monitoring activities to support QA
activities, such as shootouts, audits and sampler comparisons.
(See EMSL memos in file for lists of assistance to be provided.)
Task G.4. Monitoring Subcommittee
* Meet periodically to review the operations and status of the
monitoring networks. Report to the Project Work Group any delays
in deployment, sampling or analysis problems.
* Review network deployment to assure proper coverage is
maintained.
* Review, and recommend to the Project Work Group, changes
to - methods used,
- sampling frequency,
- chemicals on project sampling list
for each method.
* Arrange for blank checks for canister sampling trains
periodically to assess possible contamination. (Plan with advice
from QA subcommittee and EPA-Region II.) Any corrective action
should be planned by the QA subcommittee in cooperation with EPA-
Region II, EPA-RTP-EMSL and the Monitoring Subcommittee.
* Assure that formaldehyde and canister samples are taken as
planned, shipped and data received and reported by the project
participants.
4-6
-------
4.1.3 Implementation of Monitoring Systems
Task 1. VOC Sampling and Analysis
Task 1.1 - NJDEF
* Provide 2-tube Tenax sampling and analysis for 4 sites in NJ
(once every 6 days [1/6]).
* Provide canister sampling and analysis from 2 NJIT sites (1/6).
Ship a canister to EPA contractor monthly (1/30) from each site
for confirmation analysis.
* Provide for pickup, delivery and deployment of canister
sampling trains and canisters at 2 UMDNJ sites (1/18). The
sampling at these sites may be done at a month per site as long
as a 1/18 sampling frequency is maintained.
* Provide for preparation and analysis of Tenax tubes for NYSDEC
or other sites as agreed to with EPA.
Task 1.2 - NYSDEC
* Provide for sampling and analysis using 2-tube Tenax at 4 sites
or more - make arrangements for contractor with EPA Region II
providing contract management services. Use NYSDEC's sampling
systems and contractor's Tenax tubes.
* Purchase and deploy canister samplers and canisters, provide
pickup, delivery so that canisters can be analyzed by EPA
contractor (1/6 at two sites, 1/18 at other 4 sites).
* Provide for NYSDEC multiple sorbent at 6 sites (1/6). Sorbent
will used at low (l tube) and high (2 tubes) flow rates.
Note: Sorbent is designated as "Envirochem" for use with
Envirochem manual thermal desorber and as "ATD-50" for use with
Automated Thermal Desorber.
* NYSDEC will run these two types of tubes in parallel at one
site or more to prove equivalency between these methods.
* Purchase and deploy automated GCs at three sites for 4-8
chemicals from project list (hourly data).
Task 1.3 - CSX
* Provide for sampling and analysis of 2-tube Tenax from 3 sites
(1/1).
* Deploy canister sampling train(s) supplied by EPA. Sample at
•ach site (1/18) on 5 sample per month per site basis using
monthly rotating schedule; pickup and return canisters to EPA for
shipping to EPA contractor for analysis.
4-7
-------
Task 1.4 - U.S. EPA-Region II, AWMO
* Assist NYSDEC with contract arrangements for Tenax prep and
analysis.
* Contract for analysis of canisters.
* Procure canister sampling trains for CSI and NJDEP (UMDNJ)
sites.
Task 1.5 - U.S. EPA-Region II, MMB
* Assist with shipping of canisters.
* Provide data from contractor for participants.
* Provide canister trains to CSI and NJDEP as procured by EPA-
Region II, AWMD and as needed by CSI and NJDEP to fulfill Tasks
1.3 and 1.2. Track the use of these trains to assure recovery at
the end of the project.
* Recommend methods for repair of malfunctioning canisters, as
needed.
Task 2. - Formaldehyde Sampling and Analysis
Task 2.1 - NJDEP
* Provide for sampling and analysis of formaldehyde cartridges at
two NJIT sites (1/6).
* Provide for parallel sampling using EPA formaldehyde cartridge
at NJIT sites (1/6). Send cartridges to EPA lab for analysis.
* Procure sampling trains and use EPA formaldehyde cartridges at
upwind site ("D"). Send cartridges to EPA lab for analysis.
Task 2.2 - NYSDEC
* Procure sampling trains and use EPA formaldehyde cartridges at
two sites (1/6). Send cartridges to EPA lab for analysis.
Task 2.3 - U.S. EPA-Region XI, AWMD
* Contract for preparation and analysis of formaldehyde
cartridges.
Task 2.4 - U.S. EPA-Region XI, MMB
* Hold cartridges for pickup by participants. Track number of
cartridges received and allocated to participants.
4-8
-------
Task 3. - Metals and BaP
Task 3.1 - NJDEP
* Provide for sampling and analysis of hi vol filters for metals
and BaP for two sites (1/6).
* Provide for sampling and analysis of hi vol filters for metals
and Bap for upwind site (1/6).
Task 3.2 - NYSDEC
* Provide for sampling and analysis of hi vol filters for metals
and BaP for two sites (1/6).
* Provide for sampling of hi vol filters at two sites. Ship to
EPA's RTP lab for analysis under the National Particulate Network
program (1/12).
Task 4. - Wind
Task 4.1 - NYSDEC
* Procure wind equipment for 4 sites.
* Install, operate and collect data from wind equipment at sites.
Task 4.2 - NJDEP
* Collect wind data from Elizabeth Trailer (NJDEP, near site A).
* Acquire wind data from NWS site at Newark Airport.
4.1.4 Attachments to Monitoring Workplan
1. List of EPA "Urban Soup" Chemicals.
2. Target list of chemicals to be sampled by the project
participants.
3. List of chemicals to be sampled using canisters
4. List of chemicals to be sampled using formaldehyde cartridges
5. Map of monitoring sites and what classes of chemicals are
sampled at each site.
6. Chart with CAS numbers and synonyms for chemical names in
sampling portion of project (in Emission Inventory workplan).
7. Project clocks: Entire project and sampling portion.
4-9
-------
Attachment 1
Toxic Substances Common In Urban Areas That May Be
Important Contributors To National Cancer Incidence
Chromium
Arsenic
Asbestos
Products of Incomplete Combustion
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Ethylene Oxide
Gasoline Vapors
Chloroform
Carbon Tetrachloride
Perchloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
4-10
-------
Attachment 2
Attachment 2 lists the toxic substances which have been included
the initial target list for the project. Others were added as
they were found to be present in the ambient air at
concentrations detectable using the available analytic methods.
Some were not done if the methods could not detect or resolve
them.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES MONITORED BY PROJECT
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Chloromethane
Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride)
Trichloromethane (Chloroform)
1,1,l-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloromethane (Carbon Tetrachloride)
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethy1ene
Dibromochloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene Dichloride)
Other Organic Compounds
Benzene
Toluene
Hexane
o-Xylene
Formaldehyde
Selected Carbonyl Compounds
Suspended Particulate Matter
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Lead
Vandium
Zinc
B(a)P
4-11
-------
Attachment 3
INITIAL TARGET COMPOUND LIST
for Contractors' voc Canister Analysis
Vinyl Chloride (Chloroethene)
Chloronethane (Methyl Chloride)
Vinylidene Chloride (1,1-Dichloroethene)
Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride)
1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene Dichloride)
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
Trichloromethane (Chloroform)
1,1,1-Trichloroethene (Methyl Chloroform)
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloromethane (Carbon Tetrachloride)
Tetrachloroethylene (Tetrachloroethene, Perchloroethylene)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
o-Xylene
m-Xylene
Styrene
Hexane
Octane
Nonane
4-12
-------
Attachment 4
List of Chemicals to be Sampled Using Aldehyde Cartridge
Formaldehyde*
Acetaldehyde*
Acrolein*
Acetone*
Prop ionaIdehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
o-Tolualdehyde
m-ToluaIdehyde
p-ToluaIdehyde
HexanaIdehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
x-Propionaldehyde
x-ButyraIdehyde
x-Valeraldehyde
x-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
x-Acrolein
x-HexanaIdehyde
x-AcetaIdehyde
Acrolein + x-Acrolein
Totals:
Formaldehyde
Other Carbonyls
Unknown Carbonyls
Total Carbonyls
*Due to laboratory problems, only these four Aldehydes were
routinely reported.
4-13
-------
ATTACHMENT 5
SI/NJ UATAP
Monitoring Locations
t.
1
4. Qrvot Mta
•. Oongon HB*
•• --- ICWton
A. EhoMti
ftCortmt
&
0.
L MghkmdPvfc
10.
V - totoflk Organic
P • ParticuMit-Troc* Mrtato * DaP
F -
4-14
-------
ATTACHMENT 7a
Staten Island/New Jersey
Urban Air Toxics Assessment Project
Clock of Activitiea
3/31/81 10/1/88
.Project Development
Data Analyst*
,8/1/87
ffMhootout
10/1/87
U-QJ Shootout I (10/18/87^
1/1/88
02
4/1/88
7/1/88
1/1/89
4-15
-------
ATTACHMENT 7b
Staten Island/New Jersey
Urban Air Toxics Assessment Project
Clock of Activities
9/30/89 6/1/87
7/1/89
Q7
4/1/89
1/1/89
Preahootout
10/1/S7
Sheetaut I (10/13/87)
1/1/88
4/1/88
05
10/1/88
03
7/1/88
Shootout II (7/30/88)
Data gathering period.
4-16
-------
4.2 Emissions Inventory Workplan
4.2.1 Introduction
A. Project Name: Staten Island/New Jersey
Urban Air Toxics Assessment Project -
Subcommittee on Emission Inventory
B. Project Requested By: The United States Environmental
Protection Agency - Region II
C. Date Of Request: September 1986
D. Subcommittee Members: Roch Baamonde, U.S. EPA-AWM-APB
Thomas Ballou, NJDEP
John Filippelli, U.S. EPA-AWM-APB
Alfredo Forte, U.S. EPA-AWM-APB
Michael Kormanik, NYSDEC
Sam Lieblich, NYSDEC
David MacPherson, NYSDEC (retired)
Andrew Opperman, NJDEP, chair
4.2.2 Purpose (Project Objective # 5)
To develop an inventory of toxic emissions from sources which
emit into the ambient atmosphere, including point, area, and
mobile sources, so as to formulate hypotheses linking major
contaminants to potential sources.
4.2.3 Background
The compilation of an air toxics emission inventory,
including point, area, and mobile sources is one of the more
resource-intensive objectives of the Urban Air Toxics Assessment
Project. The foundation of the Project inventory is the existing
databases of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The emission inventory
effort of this Subcommittee will encompass only emissions into
the ambient atmosphere. There is no intention to develop an
indoor inventory. The quantitative estimates of emissions into
the ambient environment will be presented in the context of "tons
per year". There will be no attempt to detail information
regarding: 1) peak environmental releases; 2)
diurnal/weekly/seasonal variation; nor 3) continuous versus batch
source operations. Upon special request, every effort will be
made by the appropriate agency to provide detailed information on
point source operations.
The available information is typically restricted to
permitted point sources. Therefore, the development of a
comprehensive inventory necessitates the generation of
4-17
-------
information previously unknown or unavailable to the project
participants. The objectives and tasks outlined on the following
pages present the plan developed by this Subcommittee to provide
the best information available within the limitations of the
existing resources and to identify areas where additional
information, and therefore resources, may be required. While the
generation of contaminant-specific reports and other point
source-related information will be the responsibility of NJDEP
and NYSDEC, the members of the Subcommittee have agreed to a
cooperative effort, thereby enlisting the support of the
participating agencies, in the development and production of all
final deliverables presented in this plan.
The project managers will be kept appraised of the
Subcommittee's progress through frequent communications,
including status reports presented at the Management/Steering
Committee meetings. It is important to note, that from this
Subcommittee's perspective communications are a "two-way street,"
i.e. we are information generators more so than users, and,
therefore, will require external input from various groups within
the project in order to optimize our efforts. Subsequently, we
have identified several tasks that require coordination with
other groups and those tasks will be given high priority.
While the Subcommittee expects to complete most of the tasks
by the end of calendar year 1989, it fully anticipates its
involvement in activities throughout the duration of the project.
4.2.4 Objectives and Tasks
Objective A: Establish the geographic area for which the
inventory will be prepared, including all of
Staten Island, NY, and Middlesex and Union
counties, NJ.
Task A.I. Identify "major" point sources beyond the above-
mentioned region, which may potentially impact the
monitoring sites, in order to delineate the emission
inventory study area.
Task A.2. Prepare a map of the recommended inventory region.
(Figure 1)
Task A.3. Solicit comments from the Project Work Group.
Task A.4. Prepare final map of the inventory area for inclusion
in final report.
4-18
-------
Objective B: Define/describe the regulatory framework,
databases, and applications of the existing
inventories (1) , and develop a unified data base.
Task B.I. Compare the regulatory requirements for boilers and
incinerators, and evaluate the impact on the databases
(2). (Table I.A)
Task B.2. Compare the regulatory requirements for other
commercial, industrial and manufacturing point sources,
and evaluate the impact on the databases (2). (Table
l.B - not attached)
Task B.3. Develop a unified data base using information
from NJDEP's and NYSDEC's management systems, and
present the data fields captured. (Table 2)
Task B.4. Identify the capabilities and limitations of the
unified data base.
Task B.5. Prepare periodic updates and submit to the Management/
Steering Committee and Project Work Group for
discussion and comment. Provide the results of Tasks
B.I through B.4 in the final report.
Objective C: Prepare and provide external reports for point
sources.
Task C.I. Generate summary reports from the existing inventories
(1) for point sources for the substances (Table 3} in
the monitoring study. Prepare a VOC/county matrix
(Table 5 - not included). The following sources are
specifically mentioned due to their original inclusion
under the area source category:
- hospital sterilizers
- industrial dry cleaning (SIC '7218)
- landfills
- publicly owned treatment works (4)
- treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities
Task C.2. Prepare and circulate for review a contaminant-specific
report for point sources of chloroform. (3)
Task C.3. Provide a list of carcinogenic unit risk factors to the
Exposure Assessment Subcommittee.
Task C.4. Prepare periodic updates and submit to the Management/
Steering Committee and Project Work Group for
discussion and comment.
4-19
-------
Objective D: Develop area source and mobile source inventory. (5)
Task D.I. Establish a compatible grid map for the mobile and area
source inventories of New Jersey and New York. The
grid cells will be 2 km X 2 km and will conform to the
UTM grid tics on the USGS topographic maps. (Figure 2)
Task D.2. Compile area source inventory for the substances
listed in Table 3 and assign emission values to each
cell within the grid for the following categories:
- "area" oil heating
- "area" wood heating
- architectural coating
- auto refinishing
- cold degreasing
- consumer solvent use
- dry cleaning (SIC '7215 - coin operated)
(SIC '7216 - commercial)
- gasoline distribution
Task D.3. Compile mobile source inventory for the substances
listed in Table 4 and assign emission values to each
cell within the grid.
Task D.4. Prepare periodic updates and submit to the Management/
Steering Committee and Project Work Group for
discussion and comment.
Objective E: Enhance the developed emission inventory.
Task E.I. Evaluate the inventory for various data applications
(modeling, risk evaluation) within 30 days of receipt
of such workplans. (6)
Task E.2. Conduct a qualitative/quantitative microinventory
within a radius of I km of each monitoring
site.
Task E.3. Prepare microinventory summary report based on Task
E.2.
Task E.4. Prepare selected contaminant-specific air emissions
maps based on the findings of the
comprehensive inventory. The format will be
emission density maps based on the 2 km X 2
km grid.
TASK E.5. Prepare periodic updates and submit to the Management/
Steering Committee and Project Work Group for
discussion and comment.
4-20
-------
Objective F: Provide to the study a quality assurance
assessment of the emission inventory.
TASK F.I. Engage in open dialogue with the identified potential
data users (e.g. Modeling Group), communicating the
types of information which can be provided, and gaining
an understanding of the intended applications of the
inventory.
TASK F.2. Prepare a comparison of the databases utilized to
develop the emission inventory, including the
capabilities and limitations of the information (Tasks
B.I, B.2, and B.4).
TASK F.3. Assess the relative levels of precision, accuracy,
representativeness, and completeness of the utilized
databases. (The level of detail will be dependent upon
the available resources.)
TASK F.4. The Subcommittee will conduct two case studies
regarding New Jersey POTW emissions, generating
emission estimates for comparison with NJDEP's
inventory (Task C.I).
TASK F.5. The^Subcommittee will conduct case studies regarding
mobile source emissions, comparing population-based
emission factors (NJDEP approach) versus county-wide
VMT (vehicle miles travelled) - emission factor
estimates.
TASK F.6. Through the performance of monitoring site micro-
inventories the Subcommittee will identify potential
"holes" in the point and area source coverage, and
attempt to provide any missing information.
TASK F.7. The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory developed under
SARA Title III, Section 313 (1987 and 1988) will be
utilized for comparison with APEDS and SMS
data, and can also provide information on
"fugitive" emissions from stationary source
facilities.
TASK F.8. U.S. EPA-Region II Air Compliance Branch (ACB) will
conduct a detailed review of select facilities
identified by the Subcommittee. The.
Subcommittee will develop a scope of work to
be implemented by the ACB. This information
will be compared with information from APEDS
and SMS on point sources.
4-21
-------
TASK F.9. Detailed documentation will be prepared. Periodic
updates will be submitted to the Management/Steering
Committee and Project Work Group for discussion and
comment.
ALL INFORMATION WILL BE PROVIDED IN A FINAL REPORT.
NOTES:
(1). Existing Data Bases:
APEDS - Air Pollution Enforcement Data System (NJDEP)
RTK - Right To Know Environmental Survey-Part
(NJDEP)
SMS - Source Management System (NYSDEC)
NEDS - National Emissions Data System (U.S. EPA)
TRI - Toxic chemical Release Inventory (SARA Section
313)
ASES - Area Source Emission System (NJDEP)
SIAIR - Staten Island Area Source Inventory (NYSDEC)
(2) Will not include NEDS.
(3) Present to the Project Work Group and technical
subcommittees for demonstration of the type of
information available.
(4) EPA-Region II will provide POTW inventory for NYSDEC
based on Baamonde R. C. and B. Martinovich (1987),
"Report on Emissions Inventory Development for Volatile
Organic Compounds from Publicly Owned Treatment Works
in the New York and New Jersey Ozone Nonattainment
Areas", paper presented at the APCA Specialty
Conference for Ozone, Hartford, CT, November
17 - 19, 1987. EPA-Region II will also
provide this information for sources in
New Jersey for comparison with NJDEP's inventory, which
is being developed independently.
(5) NJDEP's contribution is based upon a consulting
contract. The emission estimates have been developed
and the area source system (ASES) has been delivered.
The Subcommittee will work with the estimates and apply
quality assurance to as many or the source
categories as possible.
(6) Must have input from the end users (i.e. the modeling
group and the exposure assessment subcommittee).
4-22
-------
FIGURE 1. STATEN ISLAND/NEW JERSEY URBAN AIR TOXICS
ASSESSMENT PROJECT - EMISSION INVENTORY AREA
PROJECT
AREA
EMISSION /
INVENTORY /
.AREA -/-
4-23
-------
FIGURE 2
inventory 2km X 2KM fldd Map
with UTM Coordinates
_»*a^
. >
-'.
It
14! /
131 J
12l U'
"1 xKl
10| |
•L[Tn
e r i i
Ml 1 !
• N II
si rS i
41 TsL J
>l "VJ
'1 1 1 li
L n
r
X
r •
I
/,
p
' 1
1
1^7
/I
,'
r
/
'
• «
fro
i i SL.
i M s
\ \ \
\ \ \)
\ \A
M 1
A \
^ \
\
. i
• - T-
.L
I
SVC"
I
•7
I
I
I
I I
10,11 12 13 14 13.16 17 IB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
9SO"° S&T*0 3-70*00
4-24
-------
Specific
Requirements
Contaminants
Facility
Specific
Information
UTM
Coordinates
CAS /
Reference
SIC Code
SCC f
Grandfathered
Sources
Emission
Data Base
Permit
NOTES!
TABLE l.A.
REVIEW OF THE DATA BASE COVERAGE
FOR BOILERS (B) AND INCINERATORS (I)
APEDS
B /
RTK
(l)
B
>lMbtu/hr All
Particulates
N02/S02/CO/HC
N/A(2)
EHSL(3)
>lMbtu/hr All
Particulates
NO2/S02/CO/HC
Source-specific Facility-specific Source-specific
Y
(4)
Y
Y
Y
Y
(4)
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N/A
Y
Y
Y
Y
(5)
Y
Y
Y
Y
(5)
Actual
Allowables
<5yr
Actual/
Estimated
N/A
Actual
Allowables
<5yr
(1) RTK is a facility-specific data base and does not address boilers
or incinerators individually; however, where they exist, they are
covered in the total facility emissions
(2) "not applicable"
(3) EHSL - "Environmental Hazardous Substance List"
(4) cross-reference code system based on the 9th Edition Merck Index
Monograph numbers
(5) source code cross referenced to the SCC
4-25
-------
TABLE 2
Emission Inventory
Data Fields Presented in the Unified Data Base (l)
for Specific Substances
FACILITY NAME
STREET ADDRESS
CITY
ZIP CODE
UTM COORDINATES
- horizontal
- vertical
FACILITY-WIDE EMISSIONS
NOTES i
(l)The unified data base is in LOTUS 1-2-3 format. The data fields
contain information captured from NJDEP's Air Pollution
Enforcement Data System and NYSDEC's Source Management System.
See Sample Table 2.a. for a presentation of information for
TRICHLOROETHYLENE. New Jersey facilities are listed by name with upper and
lower case letters while New York facilities are listed in all upper case
letters.
4-26
-------
POLLUTANT NAMKl
Table 2a
Sample Printout of the Unified Data Base
Beniene
FACILITY NAME
AKZO Chemle
Hercules Inc.
GATX Terminals
American Home
Merck t Company
Reichhold Chemical
Chevron Chemical
Nuodex Inc.
FRESH KILLS METHANE
RECOVERY
STREET ADDRESS
Meadow Road
Minisink t Cheesequake Rds
78 Lafayette St
567 Ridge Rd
126 E Lincoln Ave
726 Rockfeller St
Summit Ave
830 Magnolia Ave
1010 H. SERVICE RD
t MULDOON
FACILITY-HIDE
CITY
Ediaon
Sayreville
Cartaret
Monmouth Jet
Rahway
Elizabeth
Berkely Hgts
Elizabeth
STATEN ISLAND
ZIP CODE
08817
08859
07008
08852
0706S
07202
07922
07202
10314
UTN-H
547.5
555.6
566.7
536.1
562.4
567.2
547.0
567.3
568. 1
UTM-V
4480.1
4477.5
4492.7
4468.8
4495.7
4498.7
4504.0
4501.8
4490.8
EMISSIONS
(toas/yr)
20.95
0.88
0.05
0.04
36.11
0.04
0.68
4.86
0.14
I
to
-J
POLLUTANT MAMBI
FACILITY HANK
Table 2a
Sample Printout of the Unified Data Base
(Page 2)
TriehloroethTlene
•TREE* ADDRB88
CITY
SIP CODB
FACILITY-VIDE
DTN-H OTM-V HUSSIONS
(tons/yr)
Squibb i Sons
Stolt Terminal
John B. Moore
Engelhard Corp.
Marisol Inc.
US Fuji Electric
MCI Home Comfort
Emerson Quiet Cool
South Brunswick pom
Teledyne Adams
Elizabethtown Water Co.
Hummocks Hellfield
Perk Chemical
Gibson Associates
Elizabethtown Water Co.
Charles St. Wells 11(2
Elizabethtown Water Co.
Netherwood Well field
FRESH KILLS METHANE
RECOVERY
ANTIQUE BRASS WORKS
Georges Rd.
92O State St.
Rt 9 0 Parkway
70O Blair Rd.
125 Factory Lane
240 Circle Dr. North
2170 Route 27
400 Woodbine Ave.
North Brunswick
Perth Amboy
Sayreville
Gartaret
Middlesex
Piscataway
Edison
Woodbridge Twp.
Route 522 t Dayton-Jamesburg Dayton
1110 Springfield Ave. Union
Morris Ave. t Rt. 22 Union
217 South First St.
90 Myrtle St.
Charles St.
North Ave.
1010 W. SERVICE RD.
t MULDOON
29O RICHMOND AVE.
Elizabeth
Cranford
Mountainside
Plainfield
STATEN ISLAND
STATEN ISLAND
08902
08862
08872
07008
08846
08854
08818
07095
08810
O7OB3
07083
07206
07016
07092
07061
10314
10301
547.5 4480.1
561.3 4484.8
559.4 4481.8
562.8 4491.4
540. 9 4489.9
543.9 4489.6
552.2 4486.5
56O.2 4493.3
541.8 4469.0
559.0 4504.9
582.0 4517.7
569.0 4499.0
559.7 4499.7
555.2 4502.6
549.2 4497.0
568.1 4490.8
577.7 4499.9
56.94
0.44
0.46
0.02
0.16
3.32
0.41
0.50
0.01
1.3O
0.22
0.93
0.02
0.4O
0.06
0.15
0.19
-------
TABLE 3
AIR TOXICS EMISSION INVENTORY
POINT AND AREA SOURCE SUBSTANCE LIST
HALOGENATED HYDROCARBONS
Tetrachloromethane (Carbon Tetrachloride)
Trichloromethane (Chloroform)
Dibromochloromethane
Ethylene Dibromide
1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene Dichloride)
Chloromethane (Methyl Chloride)
Dichlormethane (Methylene Chloride)
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,l-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
OTHER HYDROCARBONS
Acetone
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
n-Butyl alcohol
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene Oxide
Gasoline
Hexane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Styrene
Toluene
Xylene (mixed isomers)
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
SELECTED ALDEHYDES
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Formaldehyde
HI-VOL SPECIES
Arsenic & all compounds of arsenic
Barium & all compounds of barium
Benzo(a)pyrene
Beryllium 6 all compounds of beryllium
Cadmium & all compounds of cadmium
Chromium & all compounds of chromium
Cobalt & all compounds of cobalt
Copper & all compounds of copper
Iron & all compounds of iron
Lead & all compounds of lead
Manganese & all compounds of manganese
Molybdenum & all compounds of molybdenum
Nickel & all compounds of nickel
Vanadium & all compounds of vanadium
Zinc & all compounds of zinc
CAS NUMBER
56-23-5
67-66-3
124-48-1
106-93-4
107-06-2
74-87-3
75-09-2
127-18-4
71-55-6
79-01-6
75-01-4
67-64-1
71-43-2
106-99-0
71-36-3
100-41-4
75-21-8
8006-61-9
110-54-3
78-93-3
108-10-1
100-42-5
108-88-3
1330-20-7
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
75-07-0
107-02-8
50-00-0
50-32-8
4-28
-------
TABLE 4
AIR TOXICS EMISSION INVENTORY
MOBILE SOURCES SUBSTANCE LIST
TOXIC SUBSTANCE CAS NUMBER
Benzene 71-43-2
Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8
1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0
Cadmium & all compounds of cadmium
Ethylene Dibromide 106-93-4
Formaldehyde 50-00-0
Lead & all compounds of lead
Nickel & all compounds of nickel
Products of Incomplete Combustion/
Particulate Organic Matter (PICs/POMs)
Toluene 108-88-3
Xylene (mixed isomers) 1330-20-7
4-29
-------
4.3 Indoor Air Workplan
4.3.1 Background
The New Jersey/Staten Island area represents a highly
industrialized and urbanized section of the United States. Many
petrochemical industry facilities are located along the Arthur
Kill. To address public concern about air quality and adverse
health risks, the SI/NJ UATAP project is being conducted. The
overall purpose of the project is to characterize the
concentrations of several organic and inorganic compounds found
in the ambient air and to evaluate the relative risk from
inhalation exposure to these compounds. Ambient air sampling has
been conducted at several sites in New York and New Jersey since
1988 to characterize exposure to air contaminants in this area.
Many hours of a person's day are spent inside the home. The
ambient air is often the most important source of contaminants in
indoor air. However, indoor sources can predominate in some
circumstances. The indoor air portion of the SI/NJ UATAP project
is designed to provide information on the relative importance of
indoor air contaminant sources. Indoor air contaminant levels
will be determined in four homes, concurrently with sampling of
contaminant levels at nearby ambient monitoring stations.
Tentative sampling locations are residences close to PS 26 in
Travis on Staten Island and close to the police station in
Carteret, New Jersey, and at the ambient monitoring sites in
those locations. The residences will be selected as not atypical
in terms of construction and observable sources of indoor air
contaminants. Because there will be only a small number of
sample locations, the data collected will not be representative
in the sense of permitting extrapolation to the entire study
area. Data obtained from this investigation will aid in
characterizing the relative risks of indoor and outdoor exposure
for those homes tested in the New Jersey/Staten Island area.
4.3.2 Purpose
Determine how nearly indoor air contaminant levels in houses
near two of the project ambient air monitoring sites correspond
to ambient levels at the monitoring stations. If there is a
significant difference between indoor and ambient levels at
either site, characterize the difference in terms of exposure for
hypothetical residents of these houses.
4-30
-------
4.3.3 Objectives and Tasks
Objective A
Select homes to be used in this study.
Task A.I. NYSDOH will canvas the areas door-to-door to seek
volunteer homeowners. At least two homes in staten
Island and two homes in New Jersey will be identified
for sampling.
Task A.2. Criteria for selection will be based on the following:
a) Criteria for ideal sampling location:
(i) residence is located within 1/2 mile of an
outdoor air monitoring station presently used
in this study.
(ii) At least half of the organic chemicals of
interest (See Objective C) have been
regularly detected at the outdoor air
monitoring station.
(iii) residence has had no major heating oil spill
occurrence and all minor leaks to oil storage
tank have been repaired.
(iv) residence should not contain woodstove,
kerosene space heater, or kerosene lamps.
(v) residence does not contain large amounts of
paints, solvents, adhesives, etc. that may
contribute to concentrations of the specified
organic compounds.
(vi) residence should not be a mobile home.
(vii) residence should not contain
urea-formaldehyde foam insulation.
(viii) residence is not located within l/8th mile of
a gasoline station, oil storage facility,
propane storage and/or dispenser facility,
dry cleaning business or any other business
known to emit any of the organic chemicals
selected for analysis in this project.
(ix) residence should be greater than I/8th mile
from a large parking facility, bus garage,
airport or train station.
(x) occupants of residence do not smoke.
4-31
-------
(xi) residence has a detached garage or no garage
structure.
(xii) residence has not been remodeled in previous
12 months.
(xiii) residence should not have pressed wood
furniture, upholstered furniture, carpeting
or draperies purchased in the last 12 months.
(xiv) draperies and furniture coverings in the
residence should not have been dry cleaned
within the past six months; carpets should
not have been professionally cleaned within
past six months.
b) If a location cannot be found to meet all of the above
criteria, the following criteria will apply:
(i) criteria i-vii must be met.
(ii) residents must agree not to smoke indoors 12
hours prior to sampling and during sampling.
(iii) in a residence with an attached garage, the
garage should not be used to store chemicals,
oil or gasoline.
(iv) if residence has been recently remodelled or
new furniture, carpeting or draperies have
been added in the past 12 months, the sample
should be taken in a room away from the new
installations/furnishings.
(v) If any draperies or furniture coverings have
been dry cleaned or carpets commercially
cleaned in the past 6 months, the sample
should be taken in rooms where this had not
been done.
Objective B
Collect indoor air samples in selected homes.
Task B.I Prepare and distribute brief factsheet on the project
and permission forms for homeowners. Obtain written
permission from homeowner and provide to homeowner a
list of conditions for sampling which they must agree
to for the duration of the study.
Task B.2 Complete "Indoor Air Quality Residential Questionnaire"
for each home. Complete "Daily Activity/Product Use
Questionnaire" each day the home is sampled.
4-32
-------
Task B.3 Place evacuated canisters in homes (first floor living
space) with flow controller and timer set for a 12 hour
sampling interval. Two consecutive 12-hour samples
will be collected at a pre-determined hour every 12
days for eight months. Start and stop times will
coincide with the outdoor air monitoring. Filled
canisters will be transported to the New York State
Department of Health Wadsworth Center for Laboratories
and Research for analysis.
Task B.4 Conduct formaldehyde sampling simultaneously with
canister sampling. Cartridges for formaldehyde will be
obtained from and analyzed by EPA contract laboratory.
Objective C
Collect ambient air samples and meteorological data
concurrently with indoor air samples.
TASK C.I Conduct ambient air sampling utilizing the same methods
(tasks B.3 and B.4) every 12 days at two ambient
monitoring stations for eight months. This represents
18 days of sampling, each day composed of two 12-hour
samples at two ambient air monitoring stations.
Task C.2 Install recording meteorological instruments at each
ambient air monitoring station. Collect meteorological
data for an eight month sampling period.
Objective D
Analyses - See attached methodology, [in project files]
Task D.I Canisters: Analyze indoor and ambient air samples for
the specified twelve volatile organic compounds. These
compounds are:
chloromethane tetrachloroethylene
methylene chloride benzene
chloroform toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane hexane
carbon tetrachloride o-xylene, m,p-xylenes
trichloroethylene ethylbenzene
Task D.2 Cartridges: Analyze cartridges for formaldehyde.
Cartridges will be obtained from and analyzed by EPA
consultant. Collection and analysis procedures
obtained from EPA.
4-33
-------
Objective E
Implement a quality control procedure to insure
comparability and quality of the monitoring data.
Task E.I Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research will
undergo a "Shoot Out" with EPA's Edison Laboratory.
Task E.2 One canister will be treated as a field blank for every
ten sample canisters, as the standard quality control
practice. The house where the canister will be
"exposed" will be changed on different sampling
occasions.
Task E.3 On every third sampling day (36 calendar days)
duplicate canisters will be collected and sent to EPA's
Contract Laboratory for analysis.
Objective F
Prepare report summarizing data and drawing conclusions
regarding indoor/outdoor contaminant levels.
Task F.I Every three months, a status report will be issued by
the Indoor Air Sub-group based on data collected over
the previous quarter. Report will be distributed
within 45 days of end of quarter. Status report will
include a summary of analytical data regarding indoor
and outdoor contaminant levels.
Task F.2 Within 45 days of the last sampling event, a final
report will be prepared and distributed by the Indoor
Air Sub-group that will present the data compiled over
the period of the study and provide conclusions
regarding that data.
4-34
-------
4.4 Modeling and Source Identification Workplan
4.4.1 Subcommittee Members
Vito Pagnotti - NYSDEC
Joann Held - NJDEP
William Barrett - U.S. EPA
Raymond Werner - EPA, Chair
4.4.2 Purpose
TO PROVIDE THE PROJECT WITH THE CAPABILITY TO MAKE
ESTIMATES OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOURCES AREAS AND
RECEPTORS.
4.4.3 Objectives and Tasks
OBJECTIVE A
Identify and evaluate methods which can be used to relate
•ource areas and receptors in the project area.
TASK A.I. List available methods and review the literature for
applications similar to those needed for the project.
TASK A.2. Review the information collected in TASK A.I. to
identify methods which may be useful for the project.
OBJECTIVE B
Identify the type/ quality, and frequency of meteorological
data needed to implement each of the methodologies chosen to
relate ambient concentrations to possible source areas.
TASK B.I. Analyze, by 6/1/89, the appropriateness of existing
monitors of meteorological data for project needs in
terms of their locations, instrumentation and sampling
geometry. (DEC, DEP, EPA)
TASK B.2. Determine the need for the acquisition of upper-air
weather data.
TASK B.3. Obtain the data and establish the data bases in the
appropriate format.
4-35
-------
OBJECTIVE C
Identify possible source areas for air toxics using
comparisons of vind speeds and directions with concurrent ambient
concentrations.
TASK C.I. The Exposure and Health Assessment Subcommittee will
identify and prioritize sites and time periods for
which to generate vind roses and pollutant roses.
o Data Management Subcommittee will provide to the
Exposure and Health Assessment Subcommittee, by
8/1/89, tabulated summaries of all ambient
monitoring data accepted by the Quality Assurance
Subcommittee.
o The Modeling and Source Identification
Subcommittee, selects one to three candidates for
trial modeling runs. Time period selection
criteria will be clearly stated. Report results
and recommendations for further work to Project
Work Group or Management Steering Committee.
o Exposure and Health Assessment Subcommittee
provides prioritized list of sites and time
periods by 4/90.
TASK C.2. Analyze ambient concentrations, wind and emissions data
to identify probable source areas and to determine if
elevated concentrations can be associated with specific
wind and weather conditions or time of day, week or
season. Time of day parameters will be utilized only
if NYS is able to use its Gas Chromat©graphic
Analyzers.
o The Modeling Subcommittee will perform a trial run
by 7/89.
TASK C.3. Prepare preliminary evaluation results and include
proposed further work on modeling source-receptor
relationships.
TASK C.4. DEC, DEP, and EPA perform remaining analyses as
determined by the Management Steering Committee.
4-36
-------
OBJECTIVE D
Identify possible source areas for air toxics using a
surface trajectory model.
TASK D.I. The Exposure and Health Assessment Subcommittee will
identify and select case studies for back trajectory
analysis.
o Exposure and Health Assessment Subcommittee
provides prioritized list of sites and time
periods by 10/89.
TASK D.2. Apply the trajectory model for each selected case.
o The Modeling Subcommittee, with input from the
Data Management Subcommittee and Monitoring
Subcommittee, selects one to three candidates for
trial modeling runs, to be performed by 7/89.
TASK D.3. Prepare preliminary reports evaluating results and
including proposed further work using the trajectory
model.
TASK D.4. DEC, DEP, and EPA perform remaining analyses as
determined by the Management Steering Committee.
OBJECTIVE B
Develop strategies for evaluating odor episodes and/ if
possible, relate them to source areas and meteorological
conditions.
TASK E.I. Develop a definition of an odor event/episode and
criteria for their identification.
TASK E.2. Collect and review information relating to odor
episodes, and their investigation. Sources of
information include the AKIBA report and ISC data.
TASK E.3 DEC runs statistical correlations using information
collected under E.2 with time of day, day of week and
wind direction, to determine any patterns.
TASK E.4. Analyze meteorological conditions existing during odor
episodes to determine if correlations between
characteristics of the odor episodes and meteorological
conditions can be identified.
4-37
-------
4.5 Data Management Subcommittee Workplan
4.5.1 Subcommittee Members
Rudolph K. Kapichak, EPA (Chair)
Garry Boynton, NYSDEC
Phil Galvin, NYSDEC
Brian Lay, NYSDEC
Steve Quan, NJDEP
Cliff Weisel, UMDNJ
Barbara Kebbekus, NJIT
Joseph Bozzelli, NJIT
John Oppenheimer, CSI
4.5.2 Purpose
To establish a centralized operation for collection, storage
and distribution of data generated by the Staten Island/New
Jersey Urban Air Toxics Assessment Project (SI/NJ UATAP).
4.5.3 Objectives and Tasks
Objective A. Design forms and collection methods for raw and
reduced data generated by project participants.
Task A.I. Design form for "Concentrations from Individual
Two-tube Sorbent Samples."
Task A.2. Design form for "Concentrations from Individual
Canister, Hi-vol and Aldehyde Cartridge Samples."
Tasfc A.3. Design form for "Quarterly Data Report for All
Sampling Methods."
Task A.4. Design form for "Monthly Sample Collection
Report."
Task A.5. Develop standardized spreadsheets for input for
all toxics data and prepare diskettes for use with
IBM compatible personal computers.
Taafc A.6. Distribute a diskette containing spreadsheets and
examples of their use to each participant.
Task A.7. Develop a schedule for transmission of air toxics
monitoring data from the participants to the Data
Management Subcommittee.
Task A.8. Develop a method of transmission of meteorological
data (1).
4-38
-------
Task A.9.
Meet with participants performing indoor air
monitoring to determine if revisions of the
ambient air data forms and the reporting
procedures are required to handle their data.
Not*
(1) Meet with Monitoring Subcommittee and the Modeling
Subcommittee to develop a consistent format and method of
transmission for meteorological data.
Objective B.
Taafc B.I.
Task B.2.
Task B.3.
Tasfc B.4.
Task B.5.
Task B.6.
Tasfc B.7.
Taafc B.8.
Task B.9.
Task B.10.
Not«s
Develop systems for storage and organization of
data to facilitate use by project participants.
Enter monitoring data in the master and duplicate
diskette files.
Produce a hard copy file from data on diskettes.
Design layout for quarterly data listings (2).
Design layout for annual data listings (2) (3).
Design layout for final data report (2) (3).
Prepare quarterly data listings.
Prepare annual data listings.
Prepare final report incorporating quality
assurance data.
Distribute listings and report to the project
participants and others (4).
Establish master file of all data.
(2) Must have input from end users (i.e. Exposure Assessment
Subcommittee and Modeling Subcommittee) of data on exactly what
they require to be include in these reports.
(3) Must meet with Quality Assurance Subcommittee to finalize
presentation of data from this group.
(4) Input is needed from the Management/Steering Committee to
establish a comprehensive mailing list for data listings. This
is of particular importance for persons or groups not directly
involved in the project.
4-39
-------
Obiactive c.
Tasfc C.I.
Tasfc C.2.
Task c.3.
Task C.4.
Taafc C.5.
Review data submittals for data entry errors and
other anomalies and take action to correct errors.
Review data to verify that all required
information has been entered and that all rules
for entering data have been followed.
Check five to ten percent of the calculations of
average concentrations.
If any systematic typing errors are found they are
corrected.
In the case of other errors, the errors are noted
and the data are returned to the originating
organization for correction and resubmittal.
When a set of data satisfies the requirements of
this Subcommittee, a copy of the data diskette(s)
is(are) submitted to the Quality Assurance
Subcommittee for its use and for verification that
a Quality Assurance Report has been submitted for
these data.
Obiactive D. Analyze the collected data.
Tasks will be developed in conjunction with Cliff
Weisel.
4-40
-------
4.5.4 Data Management Quality Assurance Plan
Project Name: Data Management for the Staten Island/New Jersey
Urban Air Toxics Assessment Project
Responsible Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Project Officer's Signature/Date:
Project Officer's Name: Rudolph K. KapichaJc, 2AWM-AP
Project QA Officer's Signature/Date:
Project QA Officer's Name: Marcus Kantz, 2ES-MM
Project Requested by: Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, 2AWM
Dates of:
Request: December 1986
Project initiation: January 1987
Project termination: September 1990 (projected)
Project Description
The Staten Island/New Jersey Urban Air Toxics Assessment
Project is a two year study designed for the collection of
ambient air concentration data on approximately 26 volatile
organic compounds (VOC), 12 metals, benzo(a)pyrene B(a)P and
formaldehyde. The Data Management Subcommittee (DMS) has the
responsibility for receiving all of the monitoring data,
performing basic rearrangement and review, and providing usable
printouts.
Data are submitted by the five organizations listed below
according to schedules listed in their workplan and in the DMS
workplan:
New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) - VOCs, metals,
B(a)P, formaldehyde
College of Staten Island (CSI) - VOCs
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
.(NYSDEC) - VOCs, metals, B(a)P
PEI Associates (PEI) - VOCs
ASRL/Northrup - formaldehyde
Data are submitted within 45 days after the end of each
calendar quarter by NJIT, CSI, and NYSDEC. PEI submits data
after analyzing each batch of approximately 12 samples.
ASRL/Northrup submits data intermittently.
4-41
-------
Data are submitted by NJIT, CSI and NYSDEC on diskettes
using Lotus spreadsheets. The format for presenting the data was
specifically designed for this Project. PEI and ASRL/Northrup
are using their own formats; however, each enters the data into
Lotus spreadsheets and submits these as well as printouts. Prior
to the submittal of any data each organization is required to
verify that all data being submitted has been correctly entered
and follows all requirements of the data management plan for this
project.
Upon the receipt of data from an organization, the DMS makes
a backup copy of the data diskette(s). The data spreadsheets on
the diskette(s) are then rearranged and merged combining all data
in one spreadsheet. In the case of NYSDEC's VOC data, two
columns are hidden at this point. These are the columns that
contain data on the "Blank tubes", which are not included in data
reports. This spreadsheet is then printed to a file and
retrieved into WordPerfect 5.0. This facilitates the printing of
these multi-page spreadsheets. It is at this point that extra
blank lines are deleted and page breaks are inserted. The hiding
of the "blank tube" columns and the "cleaning up" of the print
files are the only editing performed by the DMS on the submitted
data.
Before printing the spreadsheet, the DMS reviews the data to
determine if all required information is entered and it is
correct, that the rules for entering data have been followed,
and, on a spot check basis, that average concentrations have been
calculated correctly.
The first category involves checking to determine such
things as: are the chemical and monitoring site correctly and
clearly identified, have the minimum detection levels (MDL) been
entered, and have all other requested information been supplied.
In the case of systematic typing errors and the failure to enter
site numbers, these will be corrected by the use of WordPerfect's
Search and Replace feature. In the case of missing information,
such as an MDL, the organization that submitted the data will be
contacted and asked either to supply the information or to
resubmit the entire diskette, depending on the number of errors
that are found.
To verify that the rules for entering data have been
followed, the data section of the spreadsheet is examined to
verify that no concentration has been entered as zero or less
than zero, that concentrations labeled as being less than the MDL
are in fact one half of the MDL (as stipulated in the workplan)
and that missing concentrations have been flagged to explain why
they are missing. The discovery of any errors in this section
will, in nearly every instance, require that the reporting
organization submit a revised data diskette. One exception is if
an error seems to be non-recurrent such as the discovery of
4-42
-------
several negative concentrations. In this case the responsible
agency will be contacted, and, if they, agree the concentrations
will be revised as will any affected summary statistics. These
values will be updated in all locations by both the Data
Management Subcommittee and the responsible organization.
Approximately five to ten percent of the calculations for
average concentrations are checked. If errors are discovered the
diskette will be returned to the responsible organization for
correction and resubmittal.
Once a satisfactory set of data is assembled, a copy of the
data diskette(s) is sent to Avi Teitz of the QA Subcommittee for
his records, use and verification that the responsible
organization has submitted a QA report for the time period
covered on the data diskettes.
4-43
-------
Responsible Parties
Data Management Subcommittee Chair: Rudolph K. Kapichak,
2AWM-AP (212) 264-2058.
Members of the Data Management Subcommittee
Garry Boynton - NYSDEC - VOCs (518) 457-7454
Phil Galvin - NYSDEC - Metals, B(a)P (518) 457-3676
Brian Lay - NYSDEC - VOCs (518) 457-3676
Barbara Kebbekus - NJIT - VOCs, Formaldehyde (201) 596-3676
Joseph Bozzelli - NJIT - Metals (201) 596-3676
John Oppenheimer - CSI - VOCs - (718) 390-7994
Steve Quan - NJDEP - (609) 633-1110
Cliff Weisel - UMDNJ (201) 463-4536
Project Schedule
Date Requested: December 1986
Date Initiated: January 1987
First Data Submitted: December 1987
first Data Listing (7/87-3/88): July 1988
First Annual Data Listing (10/87-9/88): August 1989
Second Annual Data Listing (10/88-9/89): September 1990
Parameter Table
The tables shoving the parameters are attached
(Attachment I and II).
Data Quality Assessments
The representativeness and comparability of the data are
ensured by the Monitoring and Quality Assurance Subcommittees.
Completeness will be determined by the Exposure and Health and
Quality Assurance Subcommittees. As the data are to be used for
determining lifetime estimates of risk annual averages are
required. These two subcommittees will determine the criteria
for what constitutes a valid annual average.
Reporting
Two annual data listings will be prepared. One in November
1989 and second in January of 1990. The first will cover the
period October 1987 through September 1988. The second will
cover October 1988 through September 1989. These will include
all available data from the participants for which quality
assurance reports have been submitted to the Quality Assurance
Subcommittee and for which all corrections requested by the Data
Management Subcommittee have been made. Addenda will be issued
for data that become available after the listings are released.
The second listing will also include all PEI canister data and
4-44
-------
ASRL/Northrup formaldehyde data. These listings will not include
any data analysis.
Data Validation
Although data will be reviewed and either edited or returned
to the originator for correction or verification, no data
validation will be done by the Data Management Subcommittee.
Corrective Actions
Corrective actions will result from reviews of the data and
requests by this subcommittee to the originator for revision for
verification.
Reports
Reports will be issued in December of 1989 and January of
1990 and will present the previously described information.
4-45
-------
4.6 Exposure and Health Assessment Workplan
4.6.1 Subcommittee Members
Paul J. Lioy, UMDNJ
John Hawley, NYSDOH
Joann Held, NJDEP
Marian Olsen, EPA
Robert Majewski, NYSDEC
4.6.2 Purposes
To estimate inhalation exposure from the toxic substances
measured in the ambient air and in a limited number of homes
within the project area, and to characterize potential health
risks associated with long term inhalation exposure as compared
to other urban centers.
4.6.3 Objectives and Tasks
1. Characterization of exposures at each site
Task A. Review the quality-assured outdoor and indoor
air monitoring data for each site provided to
the Subcommittee and select the database to
be employed in the exposure assessment.
Task B. Perform statistical analyses on each yearly
data set, and do intra-site and inter-site
comparisons as necessary.
Task C. Characterize average daily exposure of study
area residents to measured substances.
Task D. Compare outdoor exposures with indoor
exposures.
2. Comparison of the measured concentrations at the target
urban-commercial-industrial sites with the measured
concentrations at the background residential site. The
background location is upwind (for the prevailing wind
directions) of the northeast industrial-commercial corridor that
includes Staten Island and parts of New Jersey.
4-46
-------
3. Comparison of measured air contaminant data for the
study area with values reported in the scientific literature.
Task A. Assemble appropriate data from EPA and other
sources.
Task B. Prepare tables comparing measured air
contaminant levels to appropriate data from
other published studies.
4. Examine the data to determine if there is a significant
difference between the annual arithmetic mean concentrations of
any measured compounds at different study sites and/or between
the concentrations at a study site and concentrations frequently
found in other urban environments.
Task A. Complete statistical analyses on data as
necessary.
Task B. Compare with previously collected published
information from other studies.
5. Characterize difference in health risk associated with
any significant differences between exposure levels at study
monitoring sites and the background site or other areas for which
comparable data are available for both indoor and outdoor
exposures.
Task A. Characterize differences in exposure.
Task B. Characterize differences in risk, using risk
factors for carcinogens; and NOELS and
inhalation Reference Doses (RfDs) for non-
carcinogens.
Task C. Report results of Risk Assessments.
4-47
-------
4.6.4 Personnel
Exposure Assessment Lead: Paul J. Lioy
and Statistical Analyses Carol Bellizzi
Acquisition of Risk Factors Lead: John Hawley
Marian Olsen
Risk Assessment Lead: Paul J. Lioy
and Subcommittee
Acquisition and evaluation Lead: Joann Held
of toxic pollutant con-
centration data from other
studies
4-48
-------
Table I.
Summary of Available Risk Estimates (Carcinogenic and Non-
Carcinogenic) For Potential Chemicals That Will Be Sampled
During the SI/NJ Project.
Compounds
Carcino
-genie
Unit Risk
Non-Car-
cinogenic
Reference Dose
Halogenated
Hydrocarbons
Chloromethane
Methylene Chloride
Chloroform
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Dibromochloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Ethylene Dichloride
Other Hydrocarbons
Benzene
Toluene
Hexane
o-Xylene
Aldehydes
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrolein
Species
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Molybdenum
Ingestion value
available.
Inhalation value
available.
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
7
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
EPA*-b/DOHb
EPA1
EPA*
EpA..b
EPA1-"
7
EPA'-b
EPA*'"
EPA1
i.b
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
EPA'
EPA1
EpA..b
EPA*
EPA1
EPA1
EPA1>b
EPA1'6
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
EPAb/DOHb
EPA1
EPAb/DOHb
EPAb/DOHb
EPAb/DOHb
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DOHb
DOHb
EPA1-"
EPAYDOH"
EPA'-VDOH1'"
EPA1-"
EPA1>b/DOHb
EPAb
EPAYDOH"
4-49
-------
Table II. Summary of Current NYSDOH*, NJDEP^ and EPAe Risk Information on
Chemicals Analyzed During NJ/SI Project.
Chemical
i
en
o
Arsenic
(inorganic)
NYSDOH
EPA*
NJDEP
Barium
Benzo[a]pyrene
NYSDOH
EPA
NJDEP
Beryllium
NYSDOH
EPA
NJDEP
EPA Inhalation NYSDOH Inhalation Inhalation
Weight of RfD1 Criterion" Slope" Unit Risk1
CAS Number* Evidence' (mg/kg-day) (ug/m3) (mg/kg-day)'1 (ug/m p
7440-38-2
l.lxlO'* 4X10'1 3.2xlO'J
A 50 4.3x10'*
4.3xlO"J
7440-39-3 NO DATA
50-32-8
6 xlO'*
B2 1.7xlO'J
7440-39-3
7.5X10'' 2.6x10'* 2.5xlO'J
B2 8.4 2.4X10'*
Calculated
Exposure
Equal to
A Risk of
1 in a
million1
(ug/m1)
3.1x10'*
2 xlO'*
2 XlO*5
4 xlO"*
4 xlO'*
-------
Stunary of Currant NYSDOH*, NJDEP* and EPAe Risk Infomation on
Chealcala Analyred During MJ/SI Project.
Cheeical
CAB Number*
EPA Inhalation NYSDOH
Weight of RfDf Criterion*
Evidence* (ag/kg-day) 1
Inhalation
Slope"
(mg/kg-day) '
Inhalation
Unit Riek1
-------
Chaaical
Sunary of Currant NYSDOR*, NJDEP* and EPA* Risk Infonation on
Cheaicals Analyzed During NJ/SI Project.
CAS Umber*
Calculated
Exposure
Equal to
1C Rink of
EPA Inhalation NYSDOH Inhalation Inhalation 1 in a
Weight of RfD* Criterion* Slope11 Unit Risk1 Billion'
Evidence* (ag/kg-day) (ug/as) (ag/kg-day)-l (ug/aV (ug/a1)
Hickel refinery
dust
NYSDOH
EPA
HJDEP
Nickel
NYSDOH
EPA
NJDEP
Vanadiua
NYSDOH
EPA
NJDBP
Zinc phosphide
Chloronethane
00-02-0
7440-02-0
7440-62-0
0.64
2.4x10'* 4 XlO"s
1.3x10"* 4 X10'1
2.3x10*
8.0x10*
1314-84-7 NO DATA
NO DATA
-------
Chemical
Stunary of Current! NYSDOH*, NJDEP* and EPA* Risk Information on
Chemicals Analyzed During NJ/SI Project.
EPA Inhalation
Height of RfD1
CAS Number* Evidence* (mg/kg-day)
Calculated
Exposure
Equal to
A Risk of
NYSDOH Inhalation Inhalation 1 in a
Criterion' Slope" , Unit Risk1 Million1
(ug/m1) (mg/kg-day) •' (ug/m1)1 (ug/ms)
ui
to
Chloroform
NYSDOH
EPA
NJDEP
Carbon tetra-
chloride
NYSDOH
EPA
NJDBP
DlbroMochloro-
•ethane
Ethylene di-
chloride
NYSDOH
EPA
NJDEP
67-66-3
56-23-5
B2
8.1X10"1
B2
124-48-1 NO DATA
1.3X10*
2.3x10"?
2.3x10
-J
1.5X10*
1.5X10'
1.0x10
-*
4.0X10"2
7 XlO
-2
-------
I
Ul
Sunary of Current NYSDOH*, NJDEP* and EPA* Risk Information on
Chenicals Analyzed During HJ/SI Project.
Chemical CAS Number*
EPA
Weight of
Evidence*
Inhalation
RfD*
(•g/kg-day)
NYSDOH
Criterion*
-------
Summary of Current NYSDOH*, NJDEP* and EPAe Risk Information on
Chemicals Analyzed During NJ/SI Project.
EPA
Height of
Calculated
Exposure
Equal to
A Risk of
Chemical CAS Number4 Evidence* (mg/kg-day)
Inhalation MYSDOH Inhalation Inhalation 1 in a
RfD1 Criterion* Slope" . Unit Risk1 Million1
(mg/kg-day) (ug/m1) (mg/kg-day)'* (ug/«V
-------
I
Ul
Sunary of Current NYSDOH*, HJDEP^ and BPAC Ri»k Information on
Chemicals Analyzed During HJ/SI Project.
Calculated
Exposure
Equal to
A Risk Of
EPA Inhalation MYSDOH Inhalation Inhalation 1 in a
Height of RfD* Criterion* Slope11 Unit Risk1 Billion1
Chemical CAS Number* Evidence* (mg/kg-day) (ug/»J) (ag/kg-day)'' (ug/»V (ug/as)
Methylene
chloride
NYSDOH
EPA
MJDEP 4.7x10
1,1,1-Trl- 71-55-6
chloroethane
NYSDOH
EPA D
NJOEP
Tetrachloro- 127-18-4 NO DATA
ethylene
Vinyl chloride No DATA
-------
FOOTNOTES - TABLE II
Data provided by Dr. John Hawley of the New York State
Department of Health from draft ambient air criteria
documents being prepared by the Bureau of Toxic Substance
Assessment.
Data provided by Joann Held of the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection.
Data compiled using the Integrated Risk Information System
developed and maintained by the Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment of EPA's Office of Research and
Development.
Cftff Kwnfr?r- Specific number assigned to each chemical by
the Chemical Abstract Service.
EPA Weight of Evidence for Carcinogens. The EPA Guidelines
for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (51 FR 33992, September 24,
1986) provides the following classification system for
evaluating carcinogens.
A - Human Carcinogen.
Bl - Probable human carcinogen, with limited evidence
of carcinogenicity in humans.
B2 - Probable human carcinogen, with sufficient
evidence of carcinogenicity in animals but
inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.
C - Possible human carcinogen.
D - Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.
E - Evidence for non-carcinogenicity in humans.
Inhalation Reference Dose (RfD). An estimate with an
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude or
greater, of a daily exposure to the human population
(including sensitive populations) that is likely to be
without an appreciable risk of deleterious systemic effects
during a lifetime.
No Observed Adverse Effect Level
Reference Dose « —
Uncertainty Factor X Modifying Factor
4-57
-------
Uncertainty Factors are assigned using the following method.
10-fold factor when extrapolating from valid
experimental results in studies using prolonged
exposure to average health humans. This factor is
intended to account for the variation in sensitivity
among the members of the human population and is
referenced as "10H".
10-fold factor when extrapolating from valid results of
long-term studies on experimental animals when results
of studies of human exposure are not available or are
inadequate. This factor is intended to account for the
uncertainty involved in extrapolating from animal data
to humans and is referenced as "10A".
10-fold factor when extrapolating from less than
chronic results on experimental animals when there are
no useful long-term human data. This factor is
intended to account for the uncertainty involved in
extrapolating from less than chronic No Observed
Adverse Effect Levels (NOAELS) to chronic NOAELS and is
referenced as "10S".
10-fold factor when deriving a RfD from the Lowest
Observed Adverse Effect Levels (LOAELs), instead of the
NOAEL. This factor is intended to account for the
uncertainty involved in extrapolating from LOAELs to
NOAELS and is referenced as "10L".
The factors are multiplied to determine the total
uncertainty. The maximum uncertainty is 10,000 i.e., 10H X
10A X 10S X 10L.
Modifying Factors (MFs)f based on professional judgement,
are an additional uncertainty factor which is greater than
zero and less than or equal to 10. The magnitude of the MF
depends upon the professional assessment of the scientific
uncertainties of the critical study and databases of other
experimental studies on the chemical not explicitedly
treated by the above uncertainty factors, for example, the
completeness of the overall database of scientific evidence
and the number of species tested. The default MF value is
1.
Reference: Dourson, M. L. and J. F. Stara, 1983.
Recrulatorv Toxicology and Pharmacology 3:224-
238.
The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) also
generally follows this type of approach when developing
4-58
-------
RfDs. The NYSDOH inhalation RfDs listed in Table II are
specific for inhalation exposure and are based on draft
criteria documents which evaluate the toxic potential of
these compounds in ambient air. The RfD for cadmium
represents a total absorbed dose from all routes of
exposure.
NYSDOH Criterion. The New York State Department of Health
Criterion is an ambient concentration presented in
micrograms/m3 that corresponds to an exposure at the
inhalation RfD for a 70 kg person inhaling 20 m3/day
multiplied by the absorption fraction. The absorption
fraction is a dimensionless number that is assumed to be 1
unless there is specific experimental data to indicate that
it should be reduced.
The NYSDOH draft criterion for cadmium represents 20% of the
RfD (total absorbed dose) after accounting for background
exposure from food and water and assumes 50% absorption
across the lung. The draft air criterion for formaldehyde
is based on irritant effects following short-term exposure.
The Inhalation fllcoa (is) is the slope of the linear
relationship between the probability of an individual
developing cancer and the amount of a chemical absorbed over
a lifetime of 70 years expressed in terms of the average
number of milligrams absorbed each day per kilogram of body
weight.
The value of the slope is derived from animal laboratory
data or human epidemiological data using conservative models
(e.g., linearized multistage zero threshold model). These
models provide an upper limit on human risk which is not
likely to be exceeded or could be less.
Since the line passes through the origin, the slope is:
Probability
is -
mg
kg-day
The probability is expressed as a fraction, thus, a
probability of 1 represents a complete certainty of cancer.
For inhalation exposures, it is convenient to express
exposures in terms of the concentration of the chemical in
the inhaled air. Therefore, it is desirable to calculate
the probability of cancer corresponding to the lifetime
inhalation of air containing a specified average
4-59
-------
concentration of the chemical carcinogen. The Unit Risk
Value (URV) is the probability of cancer corresponding to an
exposure over a lifetime at an average concentration of 1
microgram per cubic meter of the chemical.
Probability
URV =
ug/m3
In making conversions between units; the Inhalation Slope is
in terms of mg/kg-day and the URV is in terms of ug/m3 it is
convenient to have conversion factors.
The conversion factor assumes a 70 kg individual inhales an
average of 20 m3 per day. Therefore,
mg kg mg
! x 70 « 70
kg-day person person-day
mg ug ug
70 X 1,000 — = 70,000
person-day mg person-day
If the individual inhales 20 m3 per day, then the amount of
the chemical in the air which will result in the inhalation
of 70,000 ug per day is:
ug person-day ug
70,000 X 1 - 3,500 —
person-day 20 m3 m3
In the absence of data to the contrary, a 100% absorption
efficiency is assumed. If the absorption of the chemical
from the air is known to be less than 100% efficient, then,
an absorption factor equal to the fraction absorbed is
required. If A is the fraction absorbed:
mg 3500 ug
1 » —
kg-day A m3
Therefore, to convert from mg/kg-day to ug/m3 when the
absorption factor is A, multiply mg/kg-day by 3500/A.
mg 3,500 ug
X
kg-day A m3
4-60
-------
The conversion factor between the Inhalation Slope (IS) and
Unit Risk Value (URV) can be derived from the above
calculations.
Probability Probability
3,500 mg ug
----- X ------
A kg-day m3
IS
----- = IS X (2.86 X 10"1) X A - URV
3,500
A
IS X 2.86 X 10"* X A = URV
An estimate of the increased lifetime cancer risks to
populations can be obtained from the following equation:
ug Number of possible cancers
URV X --------------------------
m' Population
The concentration which will potentially cause l cancer per
million people exposed (ug/m3)M is:
ug 1
URV X ---------
m3 1,000,000
M
ug 1
m3 1,000,000 x URV
u
4-61
-------
Sample Calculation
Given; IS = 50 for inorganic arsenic
A - 0.3
Calculation of URV and ua/m3M
mg
URV = 50 ( )-> X (2.86 X 10~*) X 0.3
kg-day
4.3 X 10'3 (ug/m3)'1
ug l
(--)•» =
m3 4.3 X 10'3 X 1,000,000
2 X 10^* ug/m3
4-62
-------
4.6.5 Quality Assurance Plan
Introduction
The Exposure and Health Assessment Subcommittee will be
using data collected and analyzed by other members of the Staten
Island/New Jersey Urban Air Toxics Assessment Project to make
exposure assessments and risk calculations. It is assumed that
all data received has passed through the quality assurance
procedures of the individual organizations and subcommittees
responsible for determining the validity of the values, but this
will be verified before use. The quality assurance procedures
will have three parts: A) verification that the data was
transmitted correctly, B) documentation of the criteria and
approaches for assessment and C) validation of the accuracy of
computer calculations.
A) Verification of the data transmission
1) Scatter plots of the concentration of each compound will be
prepared to check whether any values are vastly different from
the mean. Outliers (>3a) will be checked with previous
quality assurance data to ensure they are measured
concentrations.
2) Summary data will be calculated and compared with those used
in written reports.
B. Documentation of criteria and approaches
1) Selection of database for exposure assessment at a specific
site.
a) Compounds which are missing more than 50% of the data
points during two quarters will not be included in the database
for an annual exposure estimations. They may still be used for
semi-annual or seasonal estimations.
b) Samples collected on the every sixth day collection cycle
(every twelfth day for indoor samples) will be included in the
data base for calculating the annual average. Averages of daily
samples from the College of Staten Island sites will be compared
with the truncated 6th day average at the same sites to determine
if the annual mean and the 6th day mean are statistically
different. This would identify larger uncertainties for the
exposure assessment of specific compounds.
2) Calculation of annual statistics
The estimate of accuracy provided by the Quality Assurance
subcommittee and the individual organizations will be used as one
measure of the uncertainty in the exposure assessment.
4-63
-------
3} Comparison with literature values
a) Literature values will only be used when the quality
assured sample collection and analytical procedures are available
for review.
b) Estimates of uncertainty in literature values will be
included in any comparisons.
4) Health risk characterization
The estimates of the uncertainty in the health risk for
each organization will be discussed in the report.
C. validation of approaches
1) Exposure estimates
a) The indoor air values determined for this project and
TEAM studies will be compared to determine where the SI/NJ UATAP
indoor measurements fall within the distribution of indoor and
personal values measured at the over 800 homes studied in TEAM.
The methodology and QA of the TEAM data will be examined to
assure comparabiity with SI/NJ UATAP study.
b) All computer algorithms will be verified by hand
calculation to assure accuracy.
2) Health risk calculations
a) Inhalation RfD, when available, will be used by each
organization; when an RfD is not available, NOEL or LOEL will be
used. Appropriate estimates of uncertainty will be provided by
committee members from each organization making risk
calculations.
b) Uncertainty factors of 10-fold will be used to account
for variations in sensitivity among people, extrapolation from
animal data, extrapolation from chronic effects data, and when
deriving a RfD from a LOEL.
4-64
-------
4.7 Quality Assurance Subcommittee Workplan
4.7.1 Subcommittee Members
Clifford Weisel - UMDNJ
Charles Pietarinen - NJDEP
Garry Boynton - NYSDEC
John Oppenheimer - CSI
Marcus Kantz - U.S. EPA, Chair
4.7.2 Purpose
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.
4.7.3 Background
Quality Control (QC) may be understood as using internally
applied measures to give confidence in the data being gathered.
Typical quality control methods are periodic calibrations,
duplicate checks, split samples, and spiked samples. Quality
Assurance (QA), on the other hand, involves externally applied
measures to ensure that the level of Quality Control used in a
project is adequate for the task at hand. Quality Assurance
methods that are often used include on-site systems surveys,
independent performance audits, interlaboratory caparisons, and
periodic evaluations of internal Quality Control data. In
general, Quality Assurance activities are performed on a more
occasional basis than Quality Control activities, and by a person
outside of the normal day-to-day routine, using separate
equipment and supplies.
In the SI/NJ UATAP, each individual monitoring organization and
subcommittee has its own QA/QC procedures, aimed at providing
quality data for its individual needs. The QA/QC needs of the
project as a whole however, are different from the sum of the
QA/QC measures exercised by the individual organizations and
subcommittees participating in the project. Therefore, one of
the primary responsibilities of the QA Subcommittee has been to
develop and implement a QA program for the entire project,
utilizing the contributors' plans, and augmenting them as
necessary.
The Quality Assurance Subcommittee determined, from its
inception/ that the development of special and extra-ordinary
quality assurance methods was needed in this project the
following reasons:
4-65
-------
1) The sampling and analysis of air matrices for volatile
organics is a science still in its infancy. Modelling,
construction of emission inventories, and assessment of risk
from airborne exposure are also in a developmental stage.
As a result, there is a degree of variability that is
unavoidable. This variability is substantially greater than
that found when assessing the criteria pollutants (CO, 03,
SO2, NOZ, lead and particulates), for which Reference Methods
have been validated and extensive study has been done.
2) Many different organization were to be involved in sampling
and analysis of samples using their own equipment. As a
result, there was no standardization of sampling and
analysis equipment.
3) Some of the organizations involved in the study had no
prior experience in volatile organic sampling or were
evaluating new methods in sampling and analysis.
4) The data obtained from the different sites were to be
compared against each other to assess trends. However, site
responsibility was divided among the different
organizations with only one organization per site.
Therefore, variability between sites would be confounded by
variability between organizations.
5) In many cases, sample analysis was to be conducted by
personnel or institutions that were not involved in
sampling. As a result, there would be less overlap and
communication between those taking samples and those
conducting the analysis. Additionally, there would be
greater transportation of samples than would normally be
the case.
The QA Subcommittee considered various special QA procedures in
an attempt to account for these challenges to acceptable data
quality. The final list 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.
4-66
-------
Management Systems Audits
Technical Systems Audits
Performance Audits
Collocation of samples
Extended Collocation Experiments
Audits of the hierarchy and
plans of the data collecting
organization.
Audits of the sampling and
analytical procedures of the
organization.
Audits of analytical ability
Different samplers located at
the same site.
Multiple organizations
sampling at the same place and
time for several consecutive
days (a.k.a. "shootouts)
Detailed descriptions of these very important QA tools can be
found in the attached Quality Assurance Project Plan for the QA
Subcommittee.
4.7.4 Objectives and Tasks
Objective 1. Develop QA Program for Project
Part A. QA for each project subcommittee
Task I.A.I.
Require each subcommittee to submit a
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP)
addressing:
a. Quality Assurance needs
b. Data Quality Objectives
c. Quality Assurance Methods
d. Corrective Action to be taken
Part B. QA for each sampling/analysis institution
Task I.B.I.
Task 1.B.2,
Require a QAPjP from each organization
addressing:
a. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
for sampling, custody and analysis
b. Quality control measures taken
c. Documentation, data reduction, and
reporting
Require each organization to participate
in management audits and technical
systems audits
4-67
-------
Task l.B.3. Require analysis of performance audit
samples provided by EPA/AREAL
Task l.B.4. Require collocation of samplers
(including shootouts)
Task l.B.5. Require quarterly review of data by each
sampling/analytical institution
Part C. QA between sampling/analysis institutions
Task I.C.I. Require overall project QAPjP
Task l.C.2. Require shootouts
Task l.C.3. Require benchmark methods
Objective 2. Implementation of QA for the Project
Part A. Overall project QA
Task 2.A.I. Write overall project QAPjP
Task 2.A.2. Review Subcommittee QAPjPs
Part B. Sampling/analysis QA for project
Task 2.B.I. Review all required QAPjPs including:
a. SOPs for sampling, analysis and
custody
b. QA measures taken
c. Documentation, data reduction, and
reporting
Task 2.B.2. Coordinate performance evaluations and
review results
Task 2.B.3. Conduct management system audits and
technical systems audits on each
organization
Task 2.B.4. Conduct shootouts and report results
Task 2.B.5. Review and assess quarterly data review
submitted by sampling/analysis
institutions
4-68
-------
Objective 3. Documentation of QA Assessments
Task 3.A. Approved QAPjPs
Task 3.B. Report periodically on audits and other
QA measures
Task 3.C. Prepare a final QA report
Objective 4. Corrective Action
Task 4.A. Perform additional management systems
audits and technical system audits
Task 4.B. Arrange additional performance audits
Task 4.C. Conduct additional shootouts and
collocations
4.7.5 Internal Quality Assurance
Wind Measurements
This is provided by the National Weather Service for the Airport
Stations we use, the NJDEP for the Fleraington data, and NYSDEC
for the three wind sites located on Staten Island.
Quality Assurance procedures include system and performance
audits of instruments and recording systems.
Toxics Monitors
We expect that the air toxics data we use as input to pollution
rose models and the selection of "priority" days for the surface
trajectory model has undergone proper quality assurance
procedures as administered by the Monitoring Management Branch of
the Environmental Services Division. This includes quality
assurance for the instruments as veil as retrieved data.
Wind Instruments
Instrument Siting- The following principles are described in the
Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems
(Volume IV). In most cases they represent the ideal situation
which of course doesn't exist in the real world. Nevertheless we
have tried to follow these principles to the extent possible:
The primary objective of instrument siting is to place the
instrument in a location where it can make precise measurements
that are representative of the general state of the atmosphere in
that area, consistent with the objectives of the data collection
4-69
-------
program. Because most atmospheric properties change dramatically
with height and surroundings, certain somewhat arbitrary
conventions must be observed so that measurements can be
compared.
"The standard exposure of wind instruments over level, open
terrain is 10 meters above the ground" (World Meteorological
Organization, 1971), however optimum measurement height may vary
according to data needs. Open terrain is defined as an area
where the horizontal distance between the instrument and any
obstruction is at least ten times the height of the obstruction.
An obstruction may be man made (such as a building) or natural
(such as a tree). The wind instrument should be securely mounted
on a mast that will not twist, rotate, or sway. If it is
necessary to mount the wind instrument on the roof of a building,
it should be mounted high enough to be out of the area in which
the air flow is disturbed by the building. This is usually 1.5
times the height of the building above the roof so that it is out
of the wake of the obstruction. This is not a good practice,
however, and should only be resorted to when absolutely
necessary. Sensor height and its height above the obstructions,
as well as the character of nearby obstructions, should be
documented.
Meteorological Towers
Towers should be located in an open,level area representative of
the area under study. They should be of the open grid type of
construction, typical of most radio and television broadcast
towers. Enclosed towers, stacks, water storage tanks, grain
elevators, cooling towers, and similar structures should not be
used. (Mollo-Christensen, 1979). Towers must be rugged enough so
that they may be safely climbed to install and service the
instruments. Folding or collapsible towers that make the
instruments available to be serviced or calibrated at the ground
are desirable provided they are sufficiently rigid to hold the
instruments in the proper orientation and attitude during normal
weather conditions.
Wind instruments should be mounted above the top of the tower or
on booms projecting horizontally out from the tower. If a boom
is used it should support the sensor at a distance equal to twice
the maximum diameter or diagonal of the tower away from the
nearest point on the tower. The boom should project into the
direction which provides the least distortion for the most
important wind direction. For example, a boom mounted to the
east of the tower will provide least distortion for north or
south winds.
4-70
-------
Station Siting
It is important that care be taken in selecting station location
with respect to major man-made and topographic features such as
cities, mountains, and large bodies of water. Some of these
features are found within the project study area. Meteorological
variables are obviously affected by the large scale surrounding
features. The effect of cities has been studied extensively
(Ito, 1972; Vukovich, 1971; U.S.PHS, 1961). Documented effects
include a decrease in average wind speed, decrease in atmospheric
stability, increase in turbulence, increase in temperature, and
changes in precipitation patterns. These changes will obviously
have an effect on the evaluation and interpretation of
meteorological and air quality data taken in an urban area.
Almost any physical object has an effect on atmospheric motion.
It is probably impossible to find a site that is completely free
from obstruction (This was certainly the case with the
meteorological towers for the project). This being the case, it
is the responsibility of the person choosing a monitoring site to
have in mind the area of interest. If the area is in a valley or
sea coast, then the meteorological instruments should be in that
valley or near the coast; not on a nearby hilltop or inland 30km
at a more convenient airport site.
The meteorological sites for this project were chosen with the
different physical features in mind. These sites are
representative of the typical air flow regimes present on Staten
Island. The Tottenville site is representative of sea-breeze
flow from nearby Raritan Bay; the pump station site reflects
flat terrain conditions; the Susan Wagner High School site is
representative of hillier terrain.
4-71
-------
4.7.6 Quality Assurance Plan
1. Project Name; SI/NJ Urban Air Toxics Study - Subcommittee on
Quality Assurance
2. Prolect Requested Bv; The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
3. Date of Request; September 1986
4. Date of Pronect Initiation; January 1987
5. Project Directors: John Elston - NJDEP
Donald Gower - NYSDEC
Anders Carlson - NYSDOH
John Oppenheimer - CSI
Paul Lioy - UMDNJ
Linda Berrafato - UMDNJ
6. Quality Assurance Officers; Marcus Kantz - U.S. EPA
Garry Boynton - NYSDEC
Anders Carlson - NYSDOH
Clifford P. Weisel - CSI
Paul Lioy - UMDNJ
7. Project Description;
A. Objective and Scope
The objectives of the SI/NJ Urban Air Toxics Study are to:
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 an exposure assessment for various types of
commercial facilities and residences.
4. Evaluate indoor/outdoor concentration relationships for
selected VOCs.
5. Perform emission source inventory (including point, area,
and mobile sources),so as to formulate hypotheses linking
major contaminants to potential sources.
4-72
-------
6. Obtain air quality data for the purpose of identifying
potential sources using meteorological modelling.
7. Evaluate indoor air quality to identify possible sources.
8. Evaluate episodic odor occurrences and relate such episodes
to air quality data.
9. Evaluate some general abatement strategies.
The project is being managed and coordinated through a number of
Committees as follows:
Steering Committee
Work Group
Data Monitoring
Management Subcommittee
Subcommittee
Emissions Modeling
Inventory Subcommittee
Subcommittee
Quality Indoor
Assurance Air
Subcommittee Subcommittee
Risk
Assessment
Subcommittee
The objectives of this document are to present the coordinated
Quality Assurance (QA) aspects of the combined projects of the
various Subcommittees, Government Agencies and Departments, and
Universities, as prepared by the QA Subcommittee. This document,
when signed, will serve as the approval of the QA Subcommittee
for the coordination and overall QA aspects of the project. This
document does not address directly the plans of the individual
institutions of the project, or of any other Subcommittee.
B. Data Usage
The QA measures described here will be used to assess the quality
and appropriateness of the data and its use.
4-73
-------
C. Objective of QA Activity
This project presented a unique QA challenge because of the wide
variety of activities undertaken, such as: ambient air
monitoring, emissions inventory, modelling, risk assessment, and
indoor air. QA activities with respect to monitoring were
singled out for special treatment. This is because the various
participating organizations are not using standard sampling and
analytical methods, or even the same methods. As a result, the
QA Subcommittee, with cooperation from various EPA experts in
North Carolina, has developed extraordinary QA procedures for the
monitoring phase of the project. These methods will be used to
compare and verify the different monitoring techniques and to
try to determine the relative validity of the data points.
8. Schedule of Tasks and Products
The QA activities associated with each product will follow in
sequence with the schedule that is part of each Subcommittees
Workplan.
9. Project Organization and Responsibility
Each Subcommittee, and individual institutions under its
jurisdiction in this project, will prepare a QA Project plan
(QAPjP), which will clearly delineate the organization and
responsibility for its QA activities. It is appropriate to
include an abbreviated list of QA personnel and their areas of
responsibility. They are as follows:
A. Emissions Inventory Subcommittee
Andy Opperman, NJDEP - QA contact
B. Risk Assessment Subcommittee
Paul Lioy, UMDNJ, - QA contact
C. Modelling Subcommittee
Al Forte, U.S. EPA, QA contact
D. Data Management Subcommittee
Rudolph Kapichak, U.S. EPA, - QA contact
E. Monitoring Subcommittee
Cliff Weisel - QA contact
Institutions Conducting Monitoring:
College of Staten Island
Clifford Weisel - Analysis
John Oppenheimer - Field
4-74
-------
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(Management Only)
Charles Pietarinen, Bureau of Air Monitoring, - Siting and Sampling
Eric Rau, Bureau of Environmental Laboratories, - Volatiles Analysis
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Garry Boynton, Bureau of Toxic Monitoring - Analysis
Caz Czarkowski, Region II, - Field
ffr^iversity of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
Paul Lioy - Field and Analysis
Linda Berrafato - Field and Analysis
flew York State Department of Health
Hark Knudsen - Field
Ken Aldous - Analysis
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Arthur Greenberg - Particulate Analysis
Barbara Kebbekus - Analysis
Joseph Bozzelli - Field
The QA Subcommittee, made up of representatives from the various
organizations participating in the project, is as follows:
Clifford Weisel - CSI/UMDNJ
Linda Berrafato - UMDNJ
John Oppenhe inter - CSI
Charles Pietarinen - NJDEP
Garry Boynton - NYSDEC
Marcus Kantz - EPA, Chair
10. Data Quality Requirements and Assessments
The Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) for this study have not been
defined in quantitative terms. This, in part, represents
acknowledgement by the managers in the various organizations that
the methods and approaches being utilized are state-of-the-art
methods that are not easily amenable to concrete limits or data
quality criteria. Groups that are directly involved in sampling
and analysis are fully expected to develop some degree of
quantitative detection limits and data quality estimates for each
analytical method used. These estimates should be submitted with
the institution's QAPjPs, Standard Operating Procedures, and/or
quarterly data submitals. Subcommittees and institutions not
directly involved in sampling and analysis are expected to submit
a written narrative identifying their Data Quality Objectives,
significant QA decisions, and justifications or data in support
of their decisions.
4-75
-------
11.—13. Sampling. Analysis. Custody, and Calibration Procedures
These activities will be addressed in the QAPjPs of the
individual organizations conducting these activities. Briefly,
NYSDEC will sample at six sites on Staten Island. NJIT will
sample for NJDEP at two sites in New Jersey. CSI will sample at
three sites in Staten Island. NYSDOH will sample indoor air at
two sites in the project area. Analysis of a sample will be done
by the institution taking the sampling, with the exception of
canister samples which will be done by an independent EPA
contractor. All methods will follow SOPs contained in or
references by the respective QAPjPs.
14. Documentation. Data Reduction, and Reporting
This will be handled in each organization's QAPjP. In addition,
the Data Handling Subcommittee will cover the overall Study
considerations.
15. Data Validation
All data will be considered valid unless they were subject to a
known and documented problem in sampling or analysis. In other
words, no data will be invalidated only because of apparent
discrepancies or large variations. Each organization will
validate its data according to its own SOPs. However, the QA
Subcommittee will periodically review the data resulting from
shootouts and other QA activities to determine whether any
corrective action might be pursued. This is addressed in Section
18.
Each organization will be responsible for its own Data
Validation, subject to the conditions described above. In
addition, the Exposure Assessment Subcommittee will evaluate the
usefulness of data for performing risk assessments, and the
Modeling Subcommittee will evaluate the data for modelling
purposes. However, it is the recommendation of this Subcommittee
that valid data be used in entire blocks and that individual or
small groups of data points not be eliminated.
16. Quality Assurance Activities
The QA activities of this project are broken down into two
groups; that which involves sampling and analysis to obtain data;
and that which takes existing data and processes the data to
obtain some useful product. The QA activities involved in
sampling and analysis will be discussed first.
The monitoring aspect of this project is unique in that it will
utilize several different organizations using different primary
sampling and analytical methods to try to characterize air
quality at many diverse permanent sites. Each organization will
4-76
-------
use the standard types of routine Quality Control (QC) procedures
to maintain the internal consistency of the data. However, the
question of Quality Assurance (QA) is much more difficult, since
it involves assessing the data validity and consistency both
within and between organizations.
Most monitoring projects utilize Performance Audits (PA) and
Systems Audits (SA) as the main, if not only, QA activities.
Since this Study encompasses so many organizations and so many
different state-of-the-art methods, a wider range of QA
activities will be needed to confirm the quality of the
monitoring data. In addition to PAs and SAs, the participants
will utilize "Shootouts", collocation of two benchmark methods,
and collocation of individual samplers. Each of these QA
activities is aimed at evaluating a specific part of the
measurement process.
One of the greatest uncertainties in this project concerns
sampling and analysis for volatile organic compounds.
Originally, the organization intended to utilize a variety of
different methods, as follows:
NYSDEC Tube containing multiple adsorbents
NJDEP (NJIT) Canisters
UMDNJ Tenax tubes
CSI Tenax tubes
In an effort to provide a measure of consistency between the
different methods, organizations, and sites, all of the
organizations have agreed to two specific methods in addition to
their own methods, as follows (if different). These methods are
Tenax tubes and Summa polished canister sampling. Even these
methods are not designated as "Reference" or "Standard", since no
such method exists. However, these two methods do represent the
present state-of-the-art for sampling volatiles in ambient air.
Through the use of these two benchmark methodologies, EPA and
other organizations hope to gain not only a better understanding
of air quality in the study region, but also the relative merits
of various methods under extended, real world conditions.
An important aspect of the sampling for this project is in the
selection of the monitoring sites consistent with the goals of
the project yet in secure, serviceable locations. The
participants agreed to utilize EPA's established SO2 criteria for
the volatile organics sampling. While it is agreed that
••breathing zone" sites would be preferable, most sites would need
to be placed on rooftops. It was agreed that every effort would
be made to avoid the influence of rooftop vent emissions and of
emissions from the roofs themselves.
A. Performance Audits (PAs)
4-77
-------
PAs use externally prepared performance evaluation (PE) samples
to assess the analytical capability of a given organization.
Each organization in this Study is encouraged to obtain and
utilize its own PE samples during development and debugging of
its own methods. This will be reflected in the individual QAPjPs.
In addition the subcommittee will arrange for the distribution of
PE samples for as many different parts of the analytical scheme
as are available. At present, it is anticipated that EPA/EMSL
will spike tubes and canisters with volatile organics,
disseminate particulate lead filters, and NBS urban dust filters.
These should be analyzed at least once per year per organization.
As soon as each organization comes on line, it is encouraged to
request PE samples to use as internal QC checks. Once the
systems are fully operational, additional sets will be available
as true audit PE samples. EPA will also arrange EMSL/RTP flow
audits for the high volume samplers which NYSDEC and NJDEP will
use for at least one site per year. In addition, EPA Region II
will perform flow audits on at least one sampler per state per
year.
EMSL/RTP, ESD, and the QA Subcommittee will conduct on-site
Technical Systems Audits during the first few months of the
project, and most likely, at yearly intervals thereafter.
B. Systems Audits
A Systems Audit is a review of the total data production process
of an organization. EPA Region II will perform at least one
systems audit on each organization involved in this Study, with
the possibility of a second if significant changes or increases
in effort are recognized. These audits will follow protocols
similar to those used by EPA in auditing the States' ambient air
monitoring networks and will be reviewed by this Subcommittee.
The results of the Shootouts and other QA activities will be
covered by these audits. EPA will be assisted on each SA by a
representative of one organization not being audited. It is
expected that a University representative will assist on State
audits, and vice versa. Audit results will include
recommendations, as appropriate; corrective action will be
tracked.
C. Use of Tenax Tubes and Summa Polished Canisters as Benchmarks
There is presently no method for collecting and analyzing
volatile organics that is considered "Reference" or "Standard".
However, there are two methods that are considered by most
researchers at EPA and elsewhere to be relative benchmarks. The
older of the two involves the collection of samples on Tenax
sorbent in tubes. Tenax has been used for many years and has
been found to be reasonably reliable when special precautions are
taken to compensate for potential artifact formation and sample
breakthrough. The main precaution is the use of Distributed
Volumes, in which two or more tubes are exposed, side by side, at
4-78
-------
different flow rates. The newer method involves the collection
of samples in specially polished stainless steel canisters.
There is not nearly as much experimental evidence concerning
canister sampling, but it appears to be at least as reliable as
the Tenax method. In an effort to improve the level of
confidence associated with the data from this study, the QA
Subcommittee agreed to utilize both of these methods as benchmark
methods. Each primary site will utilize Tenax samplers every 6
days. These same sites will utilize the Summa polished stainless
steel canisters at least every 18 days. The monitoring
Subcommittee has prepared a chart to show the details of the
number and frequencies of each type of sample for each
organization.
At the present time, it is expected that the results of the Tenax
sampling will be considered to be the primary sampling method,
with the canister samples serving as checks on consistency etc.
However, this may be modified, depending on the results of early
sampling.
D. Multi-day Collocation Studies (Shootouts)
A Shootout is being defined here as a sampling event in which all
of the organizations bring their sampling equipment to a single
site at the same time and sample as they would normally. Its
purpose is to offer a comparison of all the methods including the
EPA canisters. The particular value of a Shootout is that it can
be used to compare the entire measurement process, not just the
sampling or analytical portion.
At present it is anticipated that at least one three day Shootout
will be performed each year. It will be conducted at one of the
permanent sites, will match the normal sampling schedule and will
coincide with the EPA canister schedule. Should it prove
unfeasible to conduct a Shootout at one of the sites, it will be
done at the EPA Edison facility.
E. Additional QA activities
Sorbent sampling, while used for many years and in many types of
projects, has many inherent difficulties. One potential problem
involves the difficulty in choosing a suitable sampling rate and
duration, since breakthrough may occur for different compounds at
different rates. Another problem is the formation of artifacts
by chemical reaction on the sorbent. A third possibility is
"passive sampling" or the collection of additional materials with
possible artifact formation all after gas flow through the
cartridge has stopped. Each of the organizations sampling with
sorbents will take special precautions to minimize and assess the
occurrence of these problems. This will be addressed in detail
in the individual QAPjPs. This document will, therefore, contain
only a brief discussion of these techniques.
4-79
-------
1. Distributive volume (DV) - This technique involves collocating
two or more samplers but running them at different flow rates to
assess the possibility of breakthrough. EPA EMSL/RTP recommends
that all sorbent sampling, particularly when Tenax is the
sorbent, include 4 different sampling rates at each site until
and unless the data consistently show that this is not needed.
The recommendation for this complete DV sampling is based on the
assumption that the Tenax sampling would be the only sampling at
a site and that each data point might be used individually. In
this study however, neither assumption is valid. We will have a
variety of samplers at each site and will be using them,
essentially, to check each other. In addition, we will be using
many more QA activities than in most studies, including the use
of Shootouts and more frequent PE samples. Finally, we do not
expect that the risk assessments will utilize individual data
points but will, instead, examine trends from site to site and
from time to time. As a result, the QA Subcommittee has
determined that limited DV sampling is appropriate for this
study. We will utilize "2-Tube Tenax", in which a pair of
samplers are run side-by-side at different flow rates, with the
agreement that this protocol may be modified, depending on early
results.
2. Duplicate Samples - Duplicate samples will be taken for all
methods although fewer will be taken for particulates or for
canister samples because multiple analyses can be performed on
the initial sample. For example, duplicate filter strips are
analyzed for metals, and second analyses can be taken from the
canister gas sample. Duplicates will be used with other methods
to assess precision.
3. Adjusted Sampling Times - It was strongly desired that all
sampling for this Study correspond exactly to the midnight to
midnight schedule followed in the states' particulate network.
However, integrity of the organic samples has proven to be a much
greater concern. In order to allow field personnel to service
samplers immediately before and after each sampling period, all
non-particulate sampling will begin and end at 10 AM local time
±1 hour. Particulate sampling will continue to follow the
midnight to midnight regimen of the national networks.
There is still some uncertainty concerning the acceptability of
leaving volatile samples unattended for many hours after
sampling, even if the samplers are capped. NYSDEC presently
plans not to service samplers on weekend days. The potential
effects this might have on collected samples is being
investigated.
Project activities that do not require sampling and analysis will
also be required to complete a QAPjP. The reasons for this are
that Quality Assurance responsibilities are not strictly limited
to the sphere of sampling and analysis. For example, the Risk
Assessment Subcommittee must make decisions that will affect the
4-80
-------
quality and integrity of their contributions to the project.
Decisions will be made regarding the applicability and usefulness
of the data received with respect to the risk assessment models
being used, the accuracy of these risk assessment models, and the
degree of uncertainty that can be tolerated in making conclusions
based upon the data. Similar Quality Assurance issues apply to
greater or lesser degrees to the other Subcommittees in this
Study. As a result, each Subcommittee must outline in its QAPjP
the areas where the decisions affecting the quality of its work
are being made, the criteria for making these decisions, and how
these decisions are assessed. The Quality Assurance Subcommittee
offers its support to the other Subcommittees to identify the
areas where important QA issues need to be addressed.
18. corrective Action
Each individual organization will address this issue in its
QAPjP. In addition, the QA Subcommittee will review the quarterly
data reports and will recommend corrective actions, or at least
more extensive QA or Quality Control activities. These
recommendations will be based, in part, upon review of the
comparisons between organizations' data and the results of the
Tenax and Canister analyses, as well as the results of the PAs,
SAs, the Shootouts, and any other QA data that is available. It
is expected that the recommended Corrective Actions would consist
of increased frequency of QA activities such as calibrations,
duplicate samples, collocated samples, etc.
19. Reports
Data reports will be prepared by the Data Management
Subcommittee. This Subcommittee may produce occasional QA reports
in consultation with the Data Management Subcommittee.
4-81
-------
5. MEMORANDUM ON FIELD TRIP TO METEOROLOGICAL SITES
5-1
-------
Field Visit to Staten Island/New Jersey Urban Air Toxics
Assessment Project (SI/NJ UATAP) Meteorological Sites
William J. Barrett, Meteorologist
Impact Assessment Section, AWM-AP
Addressees
On June 1,1989, I visited four of the meteorological sites used
for the SI/NJ UATAP. I was accompanied by Michael Steineger
(NYSDEC-Region 2) on my tour of the three Staten Island sites.
The purpose of the visit was to determine the acceptability of
meteorological data collected at the three Staten Island
meteorological monitoring sites and the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection trailer, Elizabeth, New Jersey. The
sites visited included:
1) Susan Wagner High School, Site #1;
2) Richmond Hill Road Pumping Station, Site #7;
3) Tottenville Fire Station, Site #9;
4) NJDEP trailer, Exit 13, New Jersey Turnpike
Summary of Sites
1. Susan Wagner High School - This site merits final approval.
It ranks highest of all the wind sites in terms of exposure, with
very few obstructions. The instrument height is approximately
125 feet above the ground. Terrain is hilly with Todt Hill to
the east, dropping off to the west.
2. Richmond Hill Road Pumping Station - This site will also
supply acceptable data. Although some obstructions are rather
close (by textbook siting standards) to the instruments, the
prevailing wind of southwest through northwest is unobstructed.
The data received should be representative of the sampling
location. Instrument height is approximately 40-50 feet above
ground level, terrain is generally flat with the Arthur Kill
landfill to the southwest and a swamp to the northwest. Michael
Steineger said he will raise the tower site at this site by 10
feet in mid July.
3. Tottenville Fire Station - This site is also approved.
Several obstructions are within optimum distances defined by
traditional siting criteria, but they are generally not in the
direction of the prevailing wind. The instrument is mounted in
the most exposed area of the roof. The instruments are located
approximately 65 feet above ground level, terrain is flat,
Raritan Bay is located one half mile from the site.
4. NJDEP Elizabeth Trailer - The tower, by visual inspection, may
be inclined at an angle of 5-10 degrees from the vertical. In
addition, this site features the highest number of obstructions
close to the instruments. Consequently, this is not a site of
choice. We will rely more on Newark Airport wind data to
5-2
-------
characterize wind patterns typical of this general region. The
instruments are situated 25 feet above ground level, terrain is
flat.
5. Newark Airport. National Weather Service - I was unable to
visit this site, but will make the assumption that the data meets
Weather Service Quality Assurance standards, thus, it will be
suitable for project needs.
Summary
Of the four sites visited, the three Staten Island sites are
recommended for approval to the Modeling and Source
Identification Subcommittee. Data from the NJDEP Elizabeth
Trailer site will be used only to perform comparisons with data
from the approved sites. Unless written comments are received by
July 15 which oppose this, these sites will become the approved
meteorological sites.
Addressees:
Vito Pagnotti, NYSDEC
Joann Held, NJDEP
Mike Steineger, NYSDEC, Region 2
cc: D. Gower, NYSDEC
M. Kormanik, NYSDEC, Region 2
C. Pietarinen, NJDEP
A. Opperman, NJDEP
C. Weisel, NMDNJ
J. Hawley, NYSDOH
bcc: E. Ferrand, 2AWM
M. Kantz, 2ES-MM
R. Werner, AWM-AP
W. Lamason, MD-15, AQMD, OAQPS
R. Kapichak, 2AWM-AP
R. Kelly, 2AWM-AP
A. Forte, 2AWM-AP
R. Baamonde, 2AWM-AP
M. Gonzales, 2AWM-AP
5-3
-------
6. SAMPLING SITE DESCRIPTION REPORTS
6-
-------
STATEN ISLAND/ NORTHEASTERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY SITE REPORT
:TE INFORMATION
1. State -
2. City -
3. County / Section - rv\ /«fc *e* C^3Lj^
4. Site Code - hU st4g.
5. Site Address - UUlo^d Park
6. Names of Nearest Intersecting Streets -
7. Pollutants Monitored at this Site -
m'fc^ ^ fid P ; ^°^ •-"*
8. Date Inspected -
9. Outstanding Landmarks -
e-o
IS 3 O rv^
as
6- 2
-------
I
0
A
i
t«
TT
v
>
; ;
»w
;-;.v '-.'/..H
: '• • ' *.
\
f»^\/ed 1n\€*f\A\ (^0« '-.i.
f .
• 'i
-•-.J
"a^'^-v!,,,
-------
-------
New
Morth
6- 5
-------
6- 6
-------
Site
r k. F| r
| r e-i c>
-------
SITE CLASSIFICATION
1. Dominating Influence of site
Area
Mobile
2. Land Use within 1/4 mile radius from the site:
DISTANCE AND
URBAN DIRECTION FROM SITE
* / A
Residential \oo P
Commercial 'H **i y
Industrial
Mobile
Other (describe)
W
3. Predominant Land Use by Direction (2 to 3 Ion from the site]
(residential, commercial, industrial, suburban, and urban)
N £L* tfcA f loa*i r«.4 iJA*»4-% «L 1 .
NE
E
SE
s
sw
W
NW >
~ ± r^~ **M* * ^ *
£L~*' ^^ fli^^-^.
j
/
6-
-------
Mobile Source Worksheet
Names o' Prad^avs (ne*- 'c vu 1
Type- icieo cr
2 Dire-tion a< roadway from air inlet (g p«)
p Nu-nhpr nf na-k.nq lanes _, _
9 Arp parking ljnp«L g$?d for traffic part 0* day' (y?$ not
11 U rlui: wiSihly re-pnfram*d' (y*i nol
13 Doe* dust colled neat edqcs7 (yes, not
y/
7c/'
^
^
?r
^f
•L
_Qi
•f
y
^
Y
K
^
<
»wO
fj
^
ox
t<
^
Hb
Y
^
^^
I/
^/
UjAn'
TCrC
s
oyA
<*k
v(
7.
^0
y
^
y
^y
; i
1 *
1
i
|
i i
1
!: i
! '•
\ \
\ \
\
\ \
!
i
; !
i
1
i
moie ihan one
6-
-------
Topography
1 The general characteristics of the terrain over a 2 mile radius from the site are (check one)
-—^ Smooth. ________ Rolling, _______ Rough
2. Topographic features that influence the site:
ITypes - hills, valleys, depressions, bodies of water, ndges. cliffs)
(attach additional sheet if necessary)
Type
/W-k* fa*s
Size
Direction from
Site
Distance from
Site
Obstructions
List obstructions and complete information:
(Types — buildings, trees, ridges, cliffs)
Type
Size
Direction from
Site
Distance from
Site
^
S.'xe
^ S.re
6- 10
-------
Meteorology and Climatology
1. Source of representative rneieorolooicai aata (check oner
*S National Weather Service NtWar^
_ Airport Weamer Service
___ Site Weather Station
Other (specify)
_ Not available
2. Oeacnbe the annual and seasonal weather patterns that influence the site by summary wind rosas or a
table of frequency of occurrence for wind speeds and directions. Pollutant roses for the same periods
desired if available. Provide attachments.
3. UTM Coordina s Tone _ SH »• 31 / P«t tf Tat* 3 ft Mnrth
or Latitude and Longitude -____________^^____ ^___^^—^-^_^^_
4. Location of representative meteorological station from monitoring site.
Distance .^^^^__^_^_^^_____ Direction __^__^^_—^__
Probe Siting
Information Topic
2.
3-
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Location (top of building, ground level, other specify)
if on building, give height (Ml
width (M)
depth (M)
Horizontal distance from supporting structure (M),
Vertical distance above supporting structure (M)
Height of probe above ground (Ml
Distance from trees 'M>
Horizontal distance from edge of nearest traffic lane
(See Appendix E. Fig. 1 and Tables 1.2. 3 and 4] (M)
Horizontal distance from nearest parking let (M)
Horizontal distance from walls, parapets, penthouses,
Distance from obstadea. such as buildings
Distance from furnace or incineration flues (M)
Unrestricted air flow ________^_
Located in paved ana or vegetative ground cover
6- 11
-------
MONITOR INFORMATION
DOCUMENTATION OF MONITORING INFORMATION
Sampler Type
Instrument
Manufacturer
Date Sampling
Began
Sampling
Frequency
Tenax
/
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
VOCS
Canister
\
\
/
/
/
Portable
\
Carbonyls
NDPH
V
\
\
Metals
Hi-vol
"/*?
/U*
CUSTODY AND CONTROL Q£ DATA
l. Agency responsible for data collectionAtlfrgP *ng/J p^ss*
2. Individual's name
3. Phone Number
4. Agency analyzing samples
5. individual's Name y ~r** m
6. Phone number
7. Reports of data are made to (Agency Name) hiftw v
^s , ^ t f ii ^5 §
^•^^rT^tfeoT OT «tr%^1 r-a »»^s C.»^T
6- 12
-------
gITE EVALUATION
Site Identification number K J"
Individals responsible for site evaluation and report preparation
Sue Jacauett_and_Avi Teitz_(US_Environmentai Protection Agency)
Date of evaluation 12-/Jo /2t7
Date of report \j */
Signatures of Evaluators
Comments Cj\i»ti>it*
j oea^-*j
PL i'f/Jof- ^SLCJ-] OK
t _ f/ff-
A noil-
6- 13
-------
STATEN ISLAND/ NORTHEASTERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY SITE REPORT
SITE INFORMATION
1. State - (vJspJ
2. City - S-VftTE/\J
3. County / Section - ^HmpAjQ Cou/JT/, OSTEAL 5tffi£/0
4. Site Code - Oe^j
5. Site Address -
6. Names of Nearest Intersecting streets - 6ne\)e
7. Pollutants Monitored at this Site - Voc*.s
GC.
8. Date Inspected - lo/3
9. Outstanding Landmarks -
6- 14
-------
A. • -
V^AerlV^ir^^S
W^ierle^rr-Sai^-^^^-* ; - X.-./ r-:..-. /<-.<• -*X' y,tfv."
; r r^p£?3^ v :. -.-•> ^C / ]2 4 ^
-^.^^ifesS^t.-; V K-X/%3f'i
T~**~£. .nLiSSStt*-^ Tn.'«•:»•, -1 *"*• \S j
:.
l"WB'"w-^j i,/ |*-| -a
t>«M^
o-j^— /i-• i'-*-.vY: ;•
.•K- o "VKZA.WV
•
'j&Zr&ti^ ^
M^g»^HiH^f
i-^^fr^
«H
a^fe
^^9^
X*>J^y y v
•v- »*^p>> —^ ^^ jjl^L
^ •««fc-OO^po"«
^N?r*stt^
• •.-. :*S,^L: y
fi>' I' S MILITARY «E5
K^ MILLER HELD .'C
-------
15 Sketch a map to document the environment within a '/« mile radius of the site except for CO microscale,
when only immediate area information is nefided. Include the following information on the drawing where
applicable.
NAMS at Center of Drawing
Roadways with names (pawed
Parking Areas (paved and
Stationary Sources
Buildings (numoer of stories)
Undeveloped Land (ground caver)
Tree L;nes or Clusters
unpaved)
Residences
T-3ii.»r Parks
Recreation
Fields
Railroad Yaras
s of .Vater
North Direction
16. Attach separate sheet of labeled photographs
19
17. UTM Coordinates. Zone L£L
or latitude and longitude
R
G
— Require (shall) be regulation
- Guidance (should) by regulation, or guidance document
- Blocks are ieien»ed for site evaluation only .
6- 16
-------
u
-------
6- 18
-------
S-I
6- 19
-------
ic.
6- 20
-------
6-
-------
Topography
1. The general characteristics of the terrain over a 2 mile radius from the site are (check one):
y
Smooth,
Rolling,
Rough
2. Topographic features that influence the site:
(Types — hills, valleys, depressions, bodies of water, ridges, cliffs)
(attach additional sheet if necessary)
Type
one o F f^c
C>^ T^ \4tA*'C'
Size
Direction from
Site
Distance from
Si'e
Obstructions
List obstructions and complete information:
(Types - buildings, trws. ridges, cliffs)
Type
Size
Direction from
Site
Distance from
Site
PC
>sfc.ble Xnterfe rente;* (Loc.a.1 VOC Sources)
&ft *o r"i oTi a v\
S.'xe
Dire C*f>O 1*1 Tro /v, £>.'i'«.
C>"&T*r,c*
£ro~* ^«t"e
6- 22
-------
gITE CLASSIFICATION
1. Dominating Influence of site
Area Voc'3 pfo^ TMc Fftfrs di*), flyjqo TRAFFIC
Mobile
2. Land Use within 1/4 mile radius from the site:
DISTANCE AND
URBAN DIRECTION FROM SITE
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Mobile
Other (describe) ftl^c- F'€US
3. Predominant Land Use by Direction (2 to 3 km from the site)
(residential, commercial, industrial, suburban, and urban)
N
NE
E
SE
S
sw
W
NW
6- 23
-------
Mobile Source Worksheet
Mob ie Sources that may In'iuence the S.te
Names o< Roadways (nearest to site first)
Type (check one'
Arterial Highway
Freeway ,. ,
Traffic Activity (c
-------
Meteorology ind Climatology
1. Source of representative meteorological data (check one)
__/ National Weather Service,
.„ __ Airport Weather Service
___ Site Weather Station
J Other (specify)
«___ Not available
CtrYlVJ -
2. OeKribethe annual and seasonal weather patterns that influence the site by summary wind rotes or a
table of frequency of occurrence for wind speeds and directions. Pollutant reset for the same oeriods
desired if available. Provide attachments.
3. UTM Coordinates. Zone
East
. North.
or Latitude and Longitude
4. Location of representative meteorological station from monitoring site
Distance ** *L' Direction _
•VobeSifhif
Information Topic
1 . Location (top of building, ground level, other specify)
2. If on building, give height (M
' width (M
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Hori:ont>l distance from supporting structure (M)
Vertical distance above supporting structure (M)
Height of probe above ground (M)
Distance from trees
Horizontal distance from edge of nearest traffic lane
-------
MONITOR INFORMATION
DOCUMENTATION OF MONITORING INFORMATION
CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF DATA
1. Agency responsible for data collection
CF
2. Individual's name
3. Phone Number fcvft -
4. Agency analyzing samples
logy.
cr
5. Individual's Name
6. Phone number
7. Reports of data are made to (Agency Name) Md/j
8. Individual's Name Don G
9. Phone number
6- 26
-------
gITE EVALUATION
Site Identification number ftT£ ^ d.
Individals responsible for site evaluation and report preparation
sue Jacauett_and_Avi_Teitz_(US_Environmental Protection Agency)
Date of evaluation
Date of report 5 1 A1* I $8
Signatures of Evaluators
CwttAJjpv' Qtik
"3
Comments
6- 27
-------
STATEN ISLAND/ NORTHEASTERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY SITE REPORT
SITE INFORMATION
1. State -
2. City -
3. County / Section -
4. Site Code -
CouA/7y T6ft\JuS
SHE
5. Site Address -
PS
\Jicro fsy
6. Names of Nearest Intersecting Streets -
ftNr>
7. Pollutants Monitored at this Site - \)OC 5 ^s>rjc
g
PoRoFfti: S^nPiE^S. fner^ts v^M^fr ft HiG^
8. Date Inspected - /O/3I
9. Outstanding Landmarks - LocftT£t)
oP PS
6- 28
-------
.; -~ \
<:;
-------
Page 2 of 10
15 Sketch a map to document me environment within a '/. mile radius of the lite except for CO microscale,
' when only immediate area information is needed. Include the following information on the drawing where
applicable. I
Residences
Trailer Parks
Recreation Par**
Recreation Fields
Railroad Yards
Bodies of Water
North Direction
NAMS at Center of Drawing
Roadways with names (pawed and unpaved)
Parking Areas (paved and uroaved)
Stationary Sources (NEDS**>
Buildings (number of stories)
Undeveloped Land (ground cover)
Tree Lines or Clusters
16. Attach separate sheet of labeled photographs
/C>
17. UTM Coordinates. Zone. '°
or latitude and longitude
.East.
R
G
Require (shall) be regulation
Guidance (should) by regulatipn, or guidance document
Blocks are reserved for sin evaluation only
6- 30
-------
I O.
r~
\ v v ; i: u »«-.
/
-------
4 \ a
Co
- 32
-------
P5-2L6
\ o "? \/ i c-V-o i- w«
f\J
6- 33
-------
fS
Serr
6- 34
-------
Topography
1. The general characteristics of the terrain over a 2 mile radius from the site are (check one!:
__________ Smooth. _______ Rolling. _______ Rough
2. Topographic features that influence the site:
(Types - hills, valleys, depressions, bodies of water, ridges, cliffs)
(attach additional sheet if necessary)
Type
1 f^J^ \i F"l ^ » J
f p F* ^_*YL
Size
Direction from
Site
5- se - s
Distance from
Site
.,_.
Obctruction*
List obstructions and complete information:
(Types — buildings, inn. ridges, cliffs)
Type
Size
Direction from
Site
Distance from
Site
(Loc.a.1 VOC Sourfc«s)
6- 35
-------
SITE CLASSIFICATION
1. Dominating Influence of site
Area ^resW \.A\s lg*>A$t\\
Mobile
2. Land Use within 1/4 mile radius from the site:
DISTANCE AND
URBAN DIRECTION FROM SITE
Residential A/ g S
Commercial
Industrial
Mobile
Other (describe)
3. Predominant Land Use by Direction (2 to 3 tan from the site)
(residential, commercial, industrial, suburban, and urban)
N
NE
E £^S\0&>TTiftL IPILOUPE
SE £€StoteoTiK
S U)e?r Svtol^e £-s9gtSSuiiVf P^ES^ V-\\\5 C.
SW t=g&n \j\\S LA/JQ FILL
W
NW
6- 36
-------
Mobile Source Worksheet
Mot ie Sources f.at ma> l"'ijenc«- ne S te
Names o< Roadways (nearest to ute
Type (check one
Through £tri»«t nr Highway _,
Trjffic Actiuity frnmpletP as applicahlp) .„.,.,.
1 'Distance of roadway from air intake(ft)
•) Hirprtinn nf roadway from air inlet (S pts)
5 AuerarjP rlaily traffic (estimate)
fi Average vehicle speed (estimate moh)
7 Traffic is 1 or 9 way (1 or ?)
P NiiTiher nf parking lanes __
9 Are parking lanes used for traffic part of day? (yes.no)
10 Roadway pawed (yes, no)
13 Does roadw.a>< have curb? (yes no) .
13 Does dust collect neat edocs' (ves. no)
/
Rl
rJ^J
3<
SK
as
^
o
V/A
Scj,
(MO
^
Hes
/
\\^
'^
e\4pV
^
\^
^s-
a
^
Ma
Hs>
MO
H«.
>\ts
/
\v>
N)6
^Pv
2i
<\VL
<1$
3
^
/^O
s|p
rt)D
H^
Sc^
v/
See
»SfV
o
-------
Meteorology and Climatology
1. Source/of representative meteorological data (check one)
Nation,. Weather Serv.ce jJe^t
___^_ Airport Weather Service
___ Sit* Weather Station
____ Other (specify)
___ Not available
2. Describe the annual and saaional weather pattamt that influence the site by summarv wind rows or a
table of frequency of" occurrence for wind speeds and directions. Pollutant rests for the same periods
desired if available. Provide attachments.
3. UTM Coordinates, Zone
East.
or Latitude and Longitude
4. Location of representative mate'truiogical station
Distance ••
.North.
monitoring site.
Probe Siting
Information Topic
1. Location (top of building, ground level, other specify).
2. If on building, givt height (ML
f^width (ML
^ (M).
3. Horizontal distance from supporting structure (ML
4. Vertical distance above supporting structure (M).
5. Height of probe above ground (M)___
6. Distance from trees tut
7. Horizontal distance from edge of nearest traffic lane
(Se« Appendix E. Pig. 1 and Tablet 1.2.3 and 4) (M).
8. Horizontal distance from nearest parking lot (M).
9. Horizontal distance from walls, parapets, penthouses,
etc. (ML___
10. Distance from obstacles, such at buildings.
11. Distance from furnace or incineration flues (M).
12. Unrestricted air
13. Located in paved area or vegetative ground cover.
l». ftott* Composition "
6- 38
-------
MONITOR INFORMATION
DOCUMENTATION OF MONITORING INFORMATION
X
Sampler Type
Instrument
Manufacturer
Date Sampling
Began
fci.tfos.Y-
VOCS
Canister
Portable
GC
Carbonyls
NDPH
Metals
Hi-vol
Sampling
Frequency
CUSTODY AND CONTROL QF_ DATA
1. Agency responsible for data collection
2. Individual's name
3. Phone Number
4. Agency analyzing samples
-MVS QcfTof
5. Individual's Name by)
6. Phone number
(/>rioeC)
7. Reports of data are made to (Agency Name)
8. Individual's Name DcrJ
9. Phone number nf- V^q --3
OF
6- 39
-------
SITE EVALUATION
Site Identification number ^^ WK. Srrc
Individals responsible for site evaluation and report preparation
Sue Jacouett and Avi Teitz (US Environmental Protection Agency)
Date of evaluation
hi-
Date of report 5 )3S"I f?
Signatures of Evaluators
Comments
-J >NQ.
od~, I.e. 6Llt -Go.
7
- 40
-------
STATEN ISLAND/ NORTHEASTERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY SITE REPORT
SITE INFORMATION
1. State - Ne
w
2. City - Sreite^ X^la^d . NYC
3. County / Section - R'.c.w.r^o^.i / Ei-t.^ov. tie.
w
4. Site Code - M V c/.-h. it 3.
5. Site Address - EL\-t.^.w.
Ltn^
J\l
6. Names of Nearest Intersecting Streets - L^.v e. r-e.tr Ave.fMje.
g) rva Wf* W r^> n O Q \j£.. ^ff 15J f^
7. Pollutants Monitored at this Site - Voc 's
8. Date Inspected - n /xa /
9. Outstanding Landmarks - Locate.^
Rotj^-fop r\e.a«- H^^. e.^.J| o4
6- 41
-------
.•
S^\^ \rr3~ $ -S^^^^^
vrvv-;r/,. v~ M n ^ ^.--^^A ^r\
i^ Vi ^ SjTr- - ~tf%- «u»»*^ s>
,-£...<,/ •% 'I. "' • V^ 's •* *3*^'-'*J^**f~J}riT
^^\-\*\>^ „.•• -- n ^ r^",; ^--53^ v'
I: V-\\%j>\ j;_- v. -ri3^E^i3a®«r
?, *,.•-•- ,_^.^=—•*-• fc- •-. ,1. *^?^ o**»—^r^*--*^J(
v-^-r^o^i^=<^^.i ^;"^_ ^r ^
X \
\ \-V-. .
. \ . s.-
\ - • •
a
r,\ ' •-
- 42
-------
15 Sketch a map to document the environment within a V* mile radius of the site except for CO microscale,
when only immediate area information is needed. Include the following informat.on on the drawing whe
applicable.
NAMS at Center of Drawing
Roadways with names (paved and unpaved)
Parking Areas (paved and unoaved)
Stationary Sources (NEDS#)
Buildings (number of stories)
Undeveloped Land (ground cover)
Tree Lines or Clusters
Residences
Trailer Parks
Recreation Parks
Recreation Fields
Railroad Yards
Bodies of Water
North Direction
16. Attach separate sheet of labeled photographs
17. HTM r.QOrdin«t«« 7nn«
or latitude and
• R — Require (shall) be regulation
G — Guidance (should) by regulation, or guidance document
1 — Blocks are reserved for site evaluation only 6-
43
-------
o>
i
a
*
a.Tiw 11
|*i«|
-
Hb'*sr
TOP
I
str«|t 3_ incV«- 3 o>(-Vrs
W/.'
i i
1 1
i * kv
i Mil'
A^, LJ.U
«*!' ^ i
^^Bc
«^fci
1
iVWr
,}•.
V^i
i
/,<
-------
Ei-h^ v
A '~) <~» ^ —
bit ,
-------
t. I "T /> L
E I + i
r .
r e, |o o .
6- 46
-------
c_ I r
f\ ^
E. Vr.
_J
-J rj
-------
•O
oF
6- 48
-------
Topography
1. The general characteristics of the terrain over a 2 mile radius from the site are (check onel:
_________ Smooth, v Rolling. _______ Rough
2. Topographic features that influence the site:
(Types - hills, valleys, depressions, bodies of water, ridges, cliffs)
(attach additional sheet if necessary)
Type
Fre-sh K,Ub
i_a*><4(.U
Size
Direction from
Site
M-^W
Distance from
Site
2L rv"u
Obstructions
Lilt obstructions and complete information:
(Types — buildings, trees, ridges, cliffs)
Type
Size
Direction from
Site
os*ib\e I.nier'ferenctb (Loc.a.1 VOC
fc^c-^r;^
^* ^^ftA V^Y^T^> ^rt *rir-%KovA€.
S.'xe
MS^W^K
Soorc««>)
b,r.tt..-^fc S*A
w
Distance from
Site
•tro,-, S.Te
I5m«te-*
6- 49
-------
SITE CLASSIFICATION
1. Dominating influence of site
Area
Mobile
2. Land Use within 1/4 mile radius from the site:
DISTANCE AND
URBAN DIRECTION FROM SITE
Residential
Commercial N-?NE — -k rW.ig.
Industrial
Mobile RKcw^a^dPKw^ vi -» Sw ;
Other (describe) . .
3. Predominant Land Use by Direction (2 to 3 Ian from the site)
(residential, commercial, industrial, suburban, and urban)
N R.'^U^.-^^^ Parkway J Frg.&K K'. ll s. La.^f,\l
NE S^bmrba^- Ret.»de^t.ai ; 5T^Te-^ X^la^d Ma 1 1 -
E _ *
SE
S _ "_ _
SW R>c.Kr^o^ct Paf-ic^A ^ Svj ta^r- Karv Rg^'i^Je/^t'i -^ I
W Fre«.h k/llc, L*r%c3l-(Ml S^i^>irba^ Ret» icte r^+i 'a 1 R i
^^^^ ^^ ^
NW Svjk^-bdr.
6- so
-------
Mobile Source Worksheet
Mob-if Sources that may Influence the S ,.__ , _„_,._
g N\iTih*r of parking lanes
9 Are parking lanes used for traffic part of day? (yes.no)
10 Roadway paved (yes, nol
11 It dutt visibly re-entrained? (yet, not _
12 Poej roadway have curb? (ve» no)
i? Does dust collect near edQcs? (ves. no)
v/
Zflfl
w
^
u,
SO
2.
0
MM
1
1
i
"Identify probe, if more than one.
6- 51
-------
Meteorology ind Climatology
1. Source of representative meteorological data (check one):
National Weather Service 0 c*J P> f\ P> V
___ Airport Weathtr Service
___ Site Weather Station
__ Other (soeeify)
__ Not available
2. Describe the annual and seasonal weather patterns that influence the site by summary wind roses or a
table of frequency of occurrence for wind speeds and directions. Pollutant roses for the same periods
desired if available. Provide attachments.
3. UTM Coordinates, Zone
East.
. North.
or Latitude and Longitude
4. Location of representative meteorological station from monitoring site.
Distance _—_^___—^__ Direction __
Siting
Information Topic
1 . Location (top of building, ground level, other specify )_
2. If on building, give height (ML
width (ML
depth (M).
4 Vertical distance above supporting structure (Ml
S Haiaht at grab. ***» aratiiiri IM1
8, Bi*UM« tram *ra*« HUM
7. Horizontal distance from edgt of nearest traffic lane
(See Appendix E. Pig. 1 and Tables 1. 2, 3 and 4) (M)
8. Horizontal distance from naarMt narking lot (Ml
9. Horizon til distance from wills, parapeti, penthouses,
ME (M> O&rcvQfcX oi-ilwl l' K«e,K
1Q, Oi««i»e« fraiii atettelM, huildinat
1 1 . Dictane* from fumae* or inrinantian HUM (Ml
13. Located in paved area or vegetative ground cover
Hv RQPJ Compo«ihon
Tenax
root
l.T,
15.1
1.\.\
N/4
1.^
IO.O
>2-0
13m
N/A
N/A
N//^
i% m
Ye*
x^
T«. *
^^'1
Car»i«,Te>
rtfo-f
5,2.
»5 .«
Z\ S
*i/A
1.5"
«!.•?•
>ao
\3 rv>
rVM
N/A
N/A
If.^.
Yes,
Ves
T<»»- ^
&r^«(
bMPH
TSp
Envt'rxi
Ch«|»»
—
Portable
QC
6- 52
-------
MONITOR INFORMATION
DOCUMENTATION OF MONITORING INFORMATION
Sampler Type
Instrument
Manufacturer
Date Sampling
Began
Sampling
Frequency
Tenax
CSl
i.ly
VOCs
Canister
CUSTODY AHD CONTROL Q£ DATA
1. Agency responsible for data collection
^a,
Stat
2. Individual's name t>r
3. Phone Number "7ts - 3^0 -"79S4
4. Agency analyzing samples
5. Individual's Name t).-. Cl^tor
ct»Q
S.\i
6. Phone number ~7i%- -\ %-z.-
(cSi
.- M"7oc
7. Reports of data are made to (Agency Name) q/V \1PO
8. Individual's Name KoiAy \ic\
9. Phone number 3\3i-
6- 53
-------
SITE EVALUATION
Site Identification number M\ *>.Te **• 3
Individals responsible for site evaluation and report preparation
Sue_Jacauett_and_Avi_Teit2_(US_Environmental_Protection_AQencv)
Date of evaluation \\ Z3. S7
Date of report
-
Signatures of Evaluators
o
Comments
v.
3 dav
A ^.^
i >-< . ^tr*.r~>m_r
.
TK.'
f •. 1 1
ftre
. r "f T
6- 54
-------
STATE:-: ISLAND/ NORTHEASTERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY SITE REPORT
SITE INFORMATION
l. State -
2. City - State*,
3. County / Section - RltU^oKJ /
4. Site Code - ^Y c.fce. »
5. Site Address - Graaf KilU
6. Names of Nearest Intersecting Streets -
N| Strtftt
7. pollutants Monitored at this Site - VO c's ' ATb &
8. Date Inspected -
9 . Outstanding Landmarks - Ol
-------
I C H
"M 0 N
i
t'rt i />'
\># 'OS£-r •*•»'
I'V' \ ^ -V TV -
I - - O ' y ^
1 • •• i -, , Jis //
_BL vo .
&
86
- 56
•i.'IT
-------
Date 0:-.::^ 3' 1-
Pa?r 2 c' ic.
15 S'.e::- t nia- to bocume-^- tnt environment *.:n.r a '. fit* raous ot the site exceot 'o» CO rn crosca:e
whe1" o" » ;mmed ate srfc i"'?r~.6: 9" is neeseC incijoe the *o losing m
•ppiic*8!e
NA'.'S j- Ce-'te- o'
Roacv.s,". w.:1-. names Ipa^ed s-d
Parking Areas leaved and unsa.ea.
0* ITO"?:'
La^- (g'OjnC cowerl
Tret LI"?: r- C'-stfs
^ V
Residences
Trailer Parks
Recreation Parks
Recreation Fields
Railroad Yards
Bod es of Wa
Norti-.
"iS Attar
17. UTM Coord.nates. Zonf
o* latitude and long't^s? _
R - Reayre (shall) be regulation
G - Guidance (should) by regulation or g_tda*.c« do:jr*ie-.t
- B'OCM a'e reserved te eviration on:y
- 57
-------
Kt
po r ok-^M
' _
0,1 (wK.ti. ;
c ,/
Jl 6- 58
€. \"" •±*eJ"~ /'^
-------
/
6- 59
-------
£ast
6- 60
-------
6- 61
-------
SITE CLASSIFICATION
1. Dominating Influence of site
Area
Mobile
2. Land Use within 1/4 mile radius from the site:
DISTANCE AND
URBAN DIRECTION FROM SITE
*
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Mobile vjV"" eu J'
Other (describe)
100 - *V -nj
X
3. Predominant Land Use by Direction (2 to 3 km from the site)
(residential, commercial, industrial, suburban, and urban)
NE
E
SE
S
sw
w
NW
e. n u*. >M>. £.K r, i A / . r\a/-oo/*
\
(
4
' . H^At.iM.eWiAJ
j
6- 62
-------
Mos,i« Source Workshee*.
'Ciec« 0'.*
F repeal-
Are parking lanes used for trjtiic pan o- o*v iy=>."w
n n/%.« rf ,tt miiAr? n»ai edaes"1 (v*V no( — —
J
°fc'
Af*JC
<¥>
•y
^K
^£>
2-
0
M
^
f>J
Y
Kffi
\
\y
90'
Wwvl
*Vi
7,
/
/So'
se:
av^i
2-
«K
*S
^
^
. ,
*s
/v
Y
»{A
—\
/
v
I*
*&
«v*>
*/
^
2
a
t
V
/
^
c^
/ ,
IK
•
s .
n$
+&
'"fa
•2.
-------
Topography
1 The general characteristics of the terrain over a 2 mile radius ''om the site are icheck one
2 Topograoiic features trial influence tne site
(Types - h'lis. valleys, depressions, bodies o* water, noges. cliffsl
Ob>
(attach additional sheet if necessary)
Type
(•>/•€«.•* Kjls
Size
Direction from
Site
E-N6T -?
Distance from
Site
*~;
tractions
List obstructions and complete information:
(Ty
pes - buildings, trees, ridges, cliffs)
Type
~Tr«e s
fentK#uje
*f ( £** aa-TJ^*^ — •-
l|p ^9+9 ••• '^••Hrl
reef
Size
,<„•,»'
Direction from
Site
£SE
Distance from
Site
13.5'
PC
• st.ble, Interfe recces (LOC.A! VOC Sources)
S.'xe
O>VTar,c.e
^~— s-re
6- 64
-------
Meteorology and Climatology
1. Source of representative meteo.-slooicai flata icnecK onei
__ National Weather Service
____ Airport Weather Service
___ Site Weather Station
__ Other (specify)
. Not availaele
2. Deacnbe the annual and seasonal weather patterns that influence the site by summary wind roses or a
table of frequency of occurrence for wind speeds and directions. Pollutant roses for the same periods
desired if available. Provide attachments.
3. UTM Coordinates. Zone
East.
. North.
or Latitude and Longitude
4. Location of representative meteorological station from monitoring site.
Distance _______________^_ Direction •_
Probe Siting
Information Topic
2.
3
4.
5
5.
7
g
a
'
Location (top of buildinq ground level, other specify)
If on building, give height (Ml
width (Ml
dtoth(M)
Horizontal distance from supporting structure (M).
Vertical distance above supporting structure (M)
Height of probe above ground
Horizontal distance from edge of nearest traffic lane
(See Appendix E. Pig. 1 and Tables 1, 2. 3 and 4) (M)
Horizontal distance from nearest parking lot (M)
Horizontal distance from walls, parapets, penthouses.
«Q Distance from obstacles, such as buildings
Distance from furnace or incineration flues (M),
12.
13.
Located in paved area or vegetative ground cover
65
-------
MONITOR INFORMATION
DOCUMENTATION OF MONITORING INFORMATION
CUSTODY AND CONTROL Q_I DATA
1. Agency responsible for data collection rsfew
2. Individual's name Miifo.
3. Phcre Number *7l t-
g. &c) ! 5I3'T32.-H-7QQ ^E l)
/ ^ ^
7. Reports of data are made to (Agency Name)
8. Individual's Name
9. Phone number 2 la- ^tf ^f ^ a.gi"7 ' 5 i?-
D>
>o*i
6- 66
-------
SITE EVALUATION
Site Identification number M Y S fa
Incividals responsible for site evaluation and report preparation
Sue Jacauett_and Avi Teitz (USEnvironmental ProtectionAgencv)
Date of evaluation /3-/^Q /?%
/
Date of report I /I 7 / ??
Signatures of Evaluaiors
Comments
6- 67
-------
STATEN ISLAND/ NORTHEASTERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY SITE REPORT
SITE INFORMATION
l. State - Kifcw w,- k
2. City - '.States
3. County / Section - ^.c-h^ooej / Po>t
4. Site Code - KlX1 ^ ^
5. Site Address - Po.-r
Po.-t" Ric.K>v>o.-. J Ave.
6. Names of Nearest Intersecting Streets - i-Utf.«a.M
r ±\~**f**'
7. Pollutants Monitored at this Site - \/OCs
8. Date Inspected - 10/2.7.
9. Outstanding Landmarks -
.-ui
^^g^xs
I
tr> 3 Kfe. ^a , (>^-H "j* I i-\g. i c. V-i^ic..- c>c/ . TDfr <-i«-^o>d.e> c c; \«>,- 7a . €.
! j
- 68
-------
-------
Section Nu^be- 3.C
Rev.s^o- NJ-O£- 0
Date OCTOD" 3' 19"
Page 2 o' 10
15. Sketch 6 mas to document the environment witn:r a '•« rnile radius of the site exceo* for CO
when o" y immediate area irfo"~.at'O- is neetiec Include the 'oMowing information on the drawing whe>e
applicable
NAVS a: Center of Drawing
Roadwav'- with names (paved s^ti unpaved
Parking Areas (paved and unoavec
Sta:ionarv Sources (N'ECS*'
Buildings (number o< stones)
Undeveloped Land (ground coveri
Tree Lines or Cluster
Residences
Trailer Parks
Recreation Parks
Recreation Fields
Railroad Yards
Bod es of Wate-
North Direction
16 Attacr separate sheet of labeled
17. UTM Coordinates, Zone « 3
op latitude and longitLin* \O 3 "7
• R — Reouire (shall) be regulation
G - Guidance (should) by regulation, or guidance
— Blocks are reserved for site evaluation on!y
6— 7Q
-------
(V
\
-4 U
6- 71
-------
--T i. t
.n,
6- 72
-------
Po-T
.
V i > *-T> ^^'-J^^IB
£••: i.JV>^l^^**.-«Bt«
E*iA^*' •' i>
6- 73
-------
Topography
1. The general characteristics of the terrain over a 2 mile radius from the site are (check one):
^ Smooth, _____ Rolling, ______ Rough
2. Topographic features that influence the site:
(Types — hills, valleys, depressions, bodies of water, ridges, cliffs)
(attach additional sheet if necessary)
Type
K.lj V^ K^il
Size
Direction from
Site
NvA/ -hi NE
Distance from
Site
Obftmetioni
List obstructions and complete information:
(Types — buildings. trees, ridges, cliffs)
Type
Size
Direction from
Site
Distance from
Site
Possible Interferences. (Loc&l VOC Source*)
ifEiao.
m S.re
.0^
55 uv/
6- 74
-------
SITE CLASSIFICATION
1. Dominating Influence of site
Area VQCs.
Mobile
2. Land Use within 1/4 mile radius from the site:
DISTANCE AND
URBAN DIRECTION FROM SITE
Residential An d . r^x; Q,^ ^
^ .
Commercial -(ui
-------
Mobile Source Worksheet
Mobile Sources that may Influence tne S-te
Names of Roadways (nearest 10 site
Typs (check onei
13 Do»s dust collect ntai edqes? (yei, no) _ ___
y
70
56.
2-
toK
25
7
I
N-
Ve:
No-
V^
V.s
y
47
5bW
1
ik
*£
i
^
^/
Xs
Mt£
iK
sas
«/^
•2,
^
^
^^
^~
^
^
-*>
\
'identify probe, if more than one.
it
6- 76
-------
Meteorology and Climatology
1. Source of representative meteorological data (check one):
___ National Weather Service
_____ Airport Weather Service
_____ Site Weather Station
______ Other (specify)
_____ Not available
2. Describe the annual and seasonal weather patterns that influence the site by summary wind roses or a
table of frequency of occurrence for wind speeds and directions. Pollutant roses for the same periods
desired if available. Provide attachments.
3. UTM Coordinates. Zone
East.
.North.
or Latitude and Longitude
4. Location of representative meteorological station from monitoring site.
Distance _________________ Direction ___
Probe Siting
Information Topic
Tftna*
UmsTeri bMPH TSp
Etivi'rt, Portable
OK*m
1. Location (top of building, ground level, other speeify)___
2. If on building, give height (ML
width (M).
depth (M).
3> Horizontal distance from supporting structure (ML___
4< vertical distance above supporting structure (M)_____
5. Height of probe above ground
rttt
ro t'f
I.CT^
•j Horizontal distance from edge of nearest traffic lane
' (See Appendix E. Pig. 1 and Tables 1,2.3 and 4) (M).
g. Horizontal distance from nearest parking lot (Ml
g Horizontal distance from walls, parapets, penthouses.
•tC. 'M*
M
(v//A
from obttadas. such as buildings
10. Dist
1 1 . Distance from fumaea or incineration flues (M).
Y
-------
MONITOR INFORMATION
DOCUMENTATION OF MONITORING INFORMATION
Sampler Type
Instrument
Manufacturer
Date Sampling
Began
Sampling
Frequency
i
i
Tenax
/(£ days
VOCS
Canister
Not r^rtrt,^,cj
X\ days
Portable
\/
V
A
/ \
Carbonyls
NDPH
/
A
/ \
Metals
Hi-vol
~
—
*<--
yNl\rQ*>rr>gnVn^
\<"^ j
5. Individual's Name
6. Phone number
7. Reports of data are made to (Agency Name) US Elr»
8. Individual's Name
9. Phone number *.\-t, -
6- 78
-------
SITE EVALUATION
Site Identification number N V •yra+e -*- S
Individals responsible for site evaluation and report preparation
SueJacuettandAviTeitz(USEnvironmentalProtectionAaencv)
Date of evaluation
Date of report 2./2-C.-F?
Signatures of Evaluators
^^J^^^, ---
Comments TKi'& *a,+z. me.e.+'s* g.i't-i^c cr.f«-«a
»-' CT
'S Qn ^fluct. e.- 'ii^ rtfo"
6- 79
-------
STATEN ISLAND/ NORTHEASTERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY SJtl£ REPORT
SITE INFORMATION
1. State - NJ«».N~
2. City - States X^la^di } NYC.
3. County / Section - R^u^0^^ /
4. Site Code - N Y «,Tte jfc
5. Site Address - --ft^a^ H.'Ua
6. Names of Nearest Intersecting Streets -
r Corrns-ra Re^.
7. Pollutants Monitored at this Site - \QCs
8. Date Inspected - n j
-2,-*
9. Outstanding Landmarks - Olele<-
6- 80
-------
' .*>
x ••••. / x*
/'&*?*&
'vflMCo
$
• .'/•• \:
.vls \
"•* Oak wood ..'-.
6- 81
-------
Revision Number 0
Date: October 31. 1979
Page 2 o< 10
15. Sketch a map to document the environment within a Vi mile radius of the site except for CO microscale,
when only immediate area information is needed Include the following information on the drawing where
applicable.
NAMS at Center of Drawing
Roadways with names (paved and unpaged)
Parking Areas (paved and unsaved)
Stationary Sources (NEDS*)
Buildings (number of stories)
Undeveloped Land
Tree Lines or
\
\
Residences
Trailer Parks
Recreation Parks
Recreation Fields
Railroad Yards
Bodies of Water
Direction
16. Attach separate sheet of labeled photographs
17. UTM Coordinates. Zone
or latitude and
•R — Require (shall) be regulation
G - Guidance (should) by regulation, or guidance document
— Blocks are reserved for site evaluation only
6- 82
-------
_
rrrr
: 6- 83
-------
H,lls/ SZ NY
6- 84
-------
i OV-, r~^ O r-l d
o-^-j^ H.IU si
ou H> 6- 85
-------
M.lli
• C K 1-^.0^-1
Hill
- 86
-------
Topography
1. The general characteristics of the terrain over a 2 mile radius from the site are (check one)
________ Smooth, _______ Rolling, \/ Rough
2. Topographic features that influence the site:
(Types - hills, valleys, depressions, bodies of water, ridges, cliffs)
(attach additional sheet if necessary)
Type
6>tee.p Ri'^e
Size
Direction from
Site
W
Distance from
Site
~ •!»-».*.
Obstructions
List obstructions and complete information:
(Types — buildings, trees, ridges, cliffs)
Type
Size
Direction from
Site
Distance from
Site
PC
>s%ible Xnteffcrence:a (LO&&.! VOC Sources)
De*cr\c-*T_nc«
^ th^
3oo-Moo -f 4 .
6-
87
-------
SITE CLASSIFICATION
1. Dominating Influence of site
Area \] OCLe,
Mobile
2. Land Use within 1/4 mile radius from the site:
DISTANCE AND
URBAN DIRECTION EBQM. SITE
Residential A\\ di.>ee,r. jo 6 >oo'
Commercial C
Industrial
Mobile P.;c.*~o««4 «a \N_ N S _ s
" ^T"^^^ *" ^
Other (describe)
3. Predominant Land Use by Direction (2 to 3 km from the site)
(residential, commercial, industrial, suburban, and urban)
N «•> o la ^ «->=>?.*•> )R.e.t»id«.x1"''al , Co ^^f^e^c.'i'a I
NE S^k^/-t^a.
^-h'c. O
,nT I a I
CM C I l O "i i • , f • .
°" ^S\J O >-> r o a t-t *^g ^aigg.^-iTi'a.l V_0 »^> y*> g r* g. i ^ I
W *> ti
NW Sobw.
6- 88
-------
Mobile Source Worksheet
Mob if Soj'ces thai may In'luence tie S te
Names of Roadways (nearest to sue
Type (check one'
Traffic Activity (complete as applicable)—— ^_. , • •
9 Are parking lanes used for traffic part of day? (yes.no)
10 Roadway pawed (yet no)
11 It duct viiihly re-entrained? (yet no)
y
3o'
W
tlr
2-
Mo
•2-
Z-
No
M*
Nc
Me
Y*
y/
65'
N£
1
AS
1
2-
No
r
y
t-bo'
NW
1
25"
,
|
No
j
HeS
W
|
as*
o
W^
^
2
^
1
•
'identify P'Obe. if more than one.
6- 89
-------
Meteorology and Climatology
1. Source of representative meteorological data (check one!:
National Weather Service fM**3f>,£^ P
__ Airport Weather Service
___. Site Weather Station
__ Other (specify)
- Not available
2. Describe the annual and seasonal weather patterns that influence the site by summary wind roses or a
table of frequency of occurrence for wind speeds and directions. Pollutant roses for the same periods
desired if available. Provide attachments.
3. UTM Coordinate*. Zone
East.
.North.
or Latitude and Longitude
4. Location of representative meteorological station from monitoring site.
Distance —_^_____^-^_ Direction __
Probe Si tmf
Information Topic
1. Location (top of building, ground level, other specify)
2. If on building, give height (Ml
width (M)
depth (M)
Horizontal distance from supporting structure (Ml
V
al dis
ab
pporting structure (M),
Height of probe above ground (M).
Distance from trees (M)__
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
8. Horizontal distance from nearest parking lot (M)
9. Horizontal distance from walls, parapets, penthouses."*
1 t t_ . .M I M
etc.
Horizontal distance from edge of nearest traffic lane
(See Appendix E. Fig. 1 and Tables 1.2.3 and 4) (M)
10. Distance from obstacles, such as buildings
11.
12.
13. Located in paved area or vegetative ground cover
J±L
Distance from furnace or incineration flues (M)
Unrestricted air
-------
MONITOR INFORMATION
DOCUMENTATION OF MONITORING INFORMATION
Sampler Type
Tenax
VOCS
Canister
Portable
Carbonyls
NDPH
Metals
Hi-vol
Ins tr lament
Manufacturer
Csi
Anderson
Date Sampling
Began
A
A
Sampling
Frequency
Y\\
CUSTODY AMD CONTROL QE DATA
l. Agency responsible for data collection
2. Individual's name
r C\'.£fo,-,A Vvi'e,\
3. Phone Number "71 K -
4. Agency analyzing samples CSl -
Pe\ ^*>&oc>
5. Individual's Name
v/^a.lsa,\
o.M Jess. (PE
6. Phone number ~1\1 • ago - "7qq4
a^d »i-g>-"782,-^-7(gH
7. Reports of data are made to (Agency Name)
rN ^Q •& r^CU
8. Individual's Name
9. Phone number 2-» 2. - -a o, 4*3551
6- 91
-------
SITE EVALUATION
Site Identification number NY «b>te. •& cil.c.-a'Ha^ par^ae/l
W oof^^r of H»m- roof >^/ K«^r fc >T )'s Ts U o ^ I di
c>^g. en- -^Kt. a^ca
6- 92
-------
STATEN ISLAND/ NORTHEASTERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN ai£ TOXICS STUDY SITE REPORT
SITE INFORMATION
1. State -
2. City -
T*I*~J . N
3. county / section -
4. Site Code - r4 V S.fr*
5. Site Address - NYC
6. Names of Nearest Intersecting Streets -
7. Pollutants Monitored at this
Site - N/O C
8. Date Inspected -
9. Outstanding Landmarks - TKi* S
6- 93
-------
Section Number 3.0
Revision Number 0
Date: October 31, 1979
Page 2 of 10
15. Sketch a map to document the environment within a H mile radius of the site except for CO microscale,
when only immediate area information is needed. Include the following information on the drawing where
applicable.
NAMS at Center of Drawing
Roadways with names (paved and unpaved)
Parking Areas (paved and unpaved)
Stationary Sources (NEDS#i
Buildings (number of stones)
Undeveloped Land (ground cover)
Tree Lines or Clusters
Residences
Trailer Parks
Recreation Parks
Recreation Fields
Railroad Yards
Bodies of Water
North Direction
x-ta
16. Attacn separate sheet of labeled photographs
17. UTM Coordinates. Zone
or latitude and longitude
R — Require (shall) be regulation
G - Guidance (should) by regulation, or guidance document
- 6'ocks are reserved for sue evaluation only
i- 94
-------
'a*
*<*
SI
3-
O
i
i
i^sS^
>^*yte^
I/A*
-di<
*A
tut^
^1*'vvf
^^•OjTH-
4
2l*
±Mi'
u^-- '
«.
r^f^V/Atb
^^Tifc^=
^=
Seur^pT**-
ion
-------
Tslex^d Pur^p HO^*C n«*r SI
Ave •»- R.ch~
-------
N V
r/
Ave
' r.:-
6- 97
-------
6- 98
-------
Ktar SI
IO
fiie
fit l
ocncl
mitt
fkt vo^lj.
+00 olose
nearly ema
:~d
•""» rr\
CLnd is
x» I «, b ETC
I ^oot h,,
-------
Can,»t»./- Sampler
6- 100
-------
SITE CLASSIFICATION
1. Dominating Influence of site
Area
Mobile
2. Land Use within 1/4 mile radius from the site:
DISTANCE AND
1IBBM DIRECTION FROM SITE
Residential "*~/OOQ 44 -T"/-.« £
, J- . vl
Commercial ^Zoort- *t »w N
Industrial
Mobile "Wyp //" • J"/>.': g",
Other (describe) fr*»K s e
3. Predominant Land Use by Direction (2 to 3 Jon from the site)
(residential, commercial, industrial, suburban, and urban)
N S u /^^3 *
NE
E C^J «*•»•-»*•*•€. i «SL /
— «-^^^— ^^^M _«^_^«W«MI^_««_^V_*_«M1^^_^^MA_^_»~^
SE _ 2 _ , STufe^
S
~
SW
W Pr^lr.
-------
Mobile Source Worksheet
.? Soj-cei 'S.e'. rr.av Ir'ijenc* nt S te
Names of RoadAavs (nearer to *<«
TvDr
Arl«-.a- H,an*i>
pMOr.t^at
Frtewav
P.rln».v
M,lflfS, H,«h-,.v
Through £t»ft ea M.ghiu^y _ _,.._
1 nca! Str»ft nr Rnari ., .,. _
? Dir»-li*>" o' rfftM9\ f'0m *lr inlet (P pt|)
S AtPrun* daily iraff.r j«tim»tel „ .„„.„_,
6 Avfraq* MehiCi* io*ed
fa
1**
1"
I
i
i
I
f, o'ODf if moie than one.
6- 102
-------
Topography
1. The general characteristics of the terrain over a 2 mile radius from the site are (check one)
v Smooth, ______ Rolling, _____ Rough
2. Topographic features that influence the site:
(Types - hills, valleys, depressions, bodies of water, ridges, cliffs)
(attach additional sheet if necessary)
Type
L+*Mll
Size
Direction from
Site
55^ ^
Distance from
Site
Obttmctioni
List obstructions and complete information:
(Types - buildings, trees, ridges, cliffs)
Type
Size
Direction from
Site
Distance from
Site
Possible Interference* (Loc,eJ VOC Sources)
r''PT'gn
S.'ie
re*- S'ittf.
^. S.re
fmk Kills L»»
-------
Meteorology and Climatology
1. Source of representative meteor olooicai data (cheek one):
_.^^ National Weather Service
__^__ Airport Weather Ser/ice
__^_ Sitt Weather Sutioo
^_^_ Other (specify)
- Not available
2. Describe the annual and seasonal wearier patterns that influence the site by tummary wind rotii or a
table of frequency of occurrence for wind speeds and directions. Polluant row for the same periods
desired if available. Provide attachments.
3. UTM Coordinates, Zone
East.
.North.
or Latitude and Longitude
4. Location of representative meteorological station from monitoring site.
Distance _^__^^______ Direction __
Probe
•*/
Information Topic
3.
4,
5
6,
7
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13
Location (top of building, ground level, other specify)
f f on building, give heigh t (MI
width (M).
depth (M)
Horizontal distance from supporting structure (M).
Vertical distance above supporting structure (M)
Height of probe above ground IM1 TL.k»r *o'.~,i^g i.om
Distance from trets '**'
Horizontal distance from edge of nearest traffic lane
(S«a Apptndi> E. Fig. t and Tables 1.2.3 and 4} (M)
Horizontal distance from nearest parking let (Ml,
Horizontal distance from walls, parapets, penthouse*,
etc. (M) Ufr.or |y»r.f*1VV5"c/.
Distance from obstades. such as buildings
Distance from furnace or incineration flue* (M)^£
Unrestricted air ««-*
Located in paved area or vegetative ground cover
6- 104
-------
MONITOR INFORMATION
DOCUMENTATION OF MONITORING INFORMATION
Sampler Type j*
ATl>"5O
VOCs
Canister
Carbonyls
NDPH
! Al*t
Instrument
Manufacturer |
Date Sampling! , /
Began j ffaft?
Sampling
Frequency
j U.
CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF DATA
1. Agency responsible for data collection Ne.w
Do narT r>sg.r>'T Or P-r\\«i^ey\n^fc
M V f> D E C
2. Individual's name M
3. Phone Number HijQ 4?7.-
^e.Q
4. Agency analyzing samples
•C
Pg t
5. Individual's Name
u
7
; If
6. Phone number 5)9 - M g-? -It SH
r
7. Reports of data are made to (Agency Name)
A
8. individual's Name D
9. Phone number
> MSI -
; 2.11. -
-fo
»u
6- 105
-------
SITE EVALUATION
Site Identification number
Individals responsible for site evaluation and report preparation
Sue Jacouett and Avi Teitz (US Environmental Protection Aaencv)
Date of evaluation
Date of report \ At
iiyjo ftr
Signatures of Evaluator^
Comments - H»r\t4or.s skon/J \»* raised *A Ifca st I foot So
wa* preset at
ts
roof or>d i» run *•*• 1*5*
be
be
6-
-------
STATEN ISLAND/ NORTHEASTERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY SITE REPORT
SITE INFORMATION
1. State -
2. City -
3. County / Section - R\T6
5. Site Address - &cyvWs- Sg-^o^ V\ose>v
6. Names of Nearest Intersecting Streets - \/einA.«rVt\V a.y\A
7. Pollutants Monitored at this Site - \loOs u.tV CA^>r>Eg
8. Date Inspected -
9. Outstanding Landmarks - O'O
e>P
6- 107
-------
Revision Number 0
Date: Octooer 31. 1979
Page 2 of 10
15. Sketch a map to document the environment within a '/. mile radius of the site except for CO microscale,
when only immediate area information is needed. Include the following information on the drawing where
applicable.
NAMS at Center of Drawing
Roadways with names (paved and unpavedl
Parking Areas (paved and unpaved)
Stationary Sources (NEDS*)
Buildings (number of stories)
Undeveloped Land (ground cover)
Tree Lines or Clusters
Residences
Trailer Parks
Recreation Parks
Recreation Fields
Railroad Yards
Bodies of Water
North Direction
16. Attach separate sheet of labeled photographs
17. UTM r.nnrttinmtf* 7nnm
or latitude and longitude.
•R — Require (shall) be regulation
_G - Guidance (should) by regulation, or guidance document
— Blocks are rewrved for site evaluation only
6- 108
-------
-------
.«.-
e. •»-«=.„
6- 110
-------
TLs.lc.-ci,
>* WT» M!.^^ • _
6- 111
-------
Topography
1. The general characteristics of the terrain over a 2 mile radius from the site are (check one):
______ Smooth, ^ Rolling, ______ Rough
2. Topographic features that influence the site:
(Types - hills, valleys, depressions, bodies of water, ridges, cliffs)
(attach additional sheet if necessary)
Type
Size
Direction from
Site
Distance from
Site
rJ
Obstructions
List obstructions and complete information:
(Types - buildings, trees, ridges, cliffs)
Type
T&feik»le XnVer-ferenceb (Loc.a^l VOC
De«cr"ie>TioM
S.'-re
Sources)
birett(A^r_s^
fe^T
•F«-em s,re
3on
6- 112
-------
SITE CLASSIFICATION
1. Dominating Influence of site
Area
Mobile
2. Land Use within 1/4 mile radius from the site:
DISTANCE AND
URBAN DIRECTION FROM SITE
Residential "* 3oo v'n g\] ^^in^^ V) UOVAS./ fro- e
3. Predominant Land Use by Direction (2 to 3 Ion from the site)
(residential, commercial, industrial, suburban, and urban)
N
NE
E
SE VtoSPiTTfrLj rttg MAfifov*^ s^fe^gftM
S
SW
W
NW
6- 113
-------
Mobile Source Worksheet
Mob le Sources That may Influence tit S te
Names of Roadways (nearest to site fi'
Type (check onei
Artena! Highway
F TAP way
Majnr ptr»At nr Mirjhu/ay „,,.,.,,.
Through Str.oi nr Highu/ay
1 'Dittanr* n< rnaHway frnm air intaktfft) _ __
? Oir.rtinn <>f rnariuuay from air inl»t (ft pt«>
3 CorrpoTit'O" o* roadway
5 Au*rarjA riaily tr»«»ir (Mtim«tA>
6 Averaqe vehicle ip«ed («timit«, mph)
7 Traffic i« 1 or 9 uiay (1 nr 9) _, _._.. . ,
& MiiTihPr nf parking l»n»c M_
9. Are parking lanes used for traffic part of day? (yes.no)
10 Roadway paved lyes, no)
11 ft dust witihly r»-*ntrained>
^
\Afc
^
1*
-a
o
rVlty
V
NI
V
V
/
^
T*C
^
35"
-5
y
i^
y
y
!
'identify probe, if more than one.
6- 114
-------
Meteorology and Climatology
1. Source of representative meteorological data (check one):
National Weather Service, f\e*mCY. PuftrotfT
_____ Airport Weather Service
_____ Site Weather Station
_____ Other (specify)
_____ Not available
2. Describe the annual and seasonal weather patterns that influence the site by summary wind roses or a
table of frequency of occurrence for wind speeds and directions. Pollutant roses for the seme period*
desired if available. Provide attachments.
3. UTM Coordinates, Zone _____
East
North
or Latitude and Longitude
4. Location of representative meteorological station from monitoring site.
Distance ______________________ Direction _
Siting
on Topic
Terna* C>ni»T«t bMPH TSP
1 .
2.
3.
5.
6.
7.
Location (top of building, ground (aval, other specify)
If on building, give bright (Ml
width (M),
depth (M),
Horizontal distance from supporting structure (M),
Vertical distance above supporting structure (M)
HaigM of probe above ground (M)_______
Horizontal distance from edge of nearest traffic lane
(Saa Appendix E. Fig. 1 and Tables 1.2.3 and 4) (M)
Horizontal distance from nearest parking lot (M),
Horizontal distance from walls, parapets, penthouses.
ate. (Ml
Distance from obstacles, such as buildings
Distance from furnace or incineration flues (M),
Unrestricted air
13. Located in paved area or vegetative ground cover
115
-------
MONITOR INFORMATION
DOCUMENTATION OF MONITORING INFORMATION
Sampler Type
Instrument
Manufacturer
Tenax
CSI
VOCs
Canister
Portable
Carbonyls
NDPH
Metals
Hi-vol
Date Sampling
Began
A
A
Sampling
Frequency
v,
CUSTODY AND CONTROL Q£ DATA
1. Agency responsible for data collection Co\Uae
o
Xs\cxnA COST)
2. individual's name Dr.
3. Phone Number ^V?- Z°lo -
4. Agency analyzing samples T£/^ft*-csTJ
5. Individual's Name Dr. OvKbrSl
fe>'U
6. Phone number ?\g-3fto-WH CcSy)
Cf e±
7. Reports of data are made to (Agency Name) _-f£/ O6_pT, .- o«^._t».§jftlTH — ^
8. Individual's Name ftf^QE/?S
9. Phone number
6- 116
-------
SHE EVALUATION
Site Identification number
Individals responsible for site evaluation and report preparation
Sue_Jacguett_and_Avi_Teitz_(US_Environmental_Protection_Aaencv)
Date of evaluation W)2>/f?.
Date of report 3/3rf^
Signatures of Evaluators
Comments e SiTE >s
IS L^ng -f& f# ft D£ -*: flft'J TgftPftc AT TMc
6- 117
-------
STATEK ISL.Vra. NORTHEASTERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY SITE REPORT
• . State -
2. City -
KVC
3. County / Section - A«cJ\r«»n«sl./I*
4. Site Code - NV Vife. # ^
5. Site Address -
6. Names of Nearest Intersecting Streets -
7. Pollutants Monitored at this Site - \/Qc/
8. Date Inspected -
9. Outstanding Landmarks - O let Pi're^KouK*
Av
r ,Ja-g.
6- 118
-------
; -v—
Mapped edited and published by tne Geological Survey
Revised m cooperation with New Yor*< Department
o4 Transportation
Connoi by USGS. uSC&GS. and U5CE
'r0~ -wSliS5 Cna-ti T 5105. ' 5106 T 51C7. T 5106. T 5109. T 51 10.
ana T 8540 Topog'aon< •- Ne* vor« Sv choIog'aTiniet"C
^net^DOs tfO"i ae' ai ofo'og'apf.s ia«en 1 95e sjr.eys 1955
Pe^sea >.'0r" aena Dhotog'aDn5 ta-e^ 196'5 FrPia checkea 1966
Selectee ^yflfog'ac'1 c oaia co'-c^ed ''c™~ 'JSCiGS C-a'tc 285 1966
2S6 '1966, a^l 369 1967) ^'"S iio'-r.aiio^ .i re; iitenaec 'or
10 OOO-'oot
-------
Section ^u^bf 3.C
Revision fM'jr~-btr 0
Date Octooe- 31 1979
Page 2 of 10
15. Sketch a map to document the environment within a '« mile radius of the site except for CO microscaie,
when oi~iy immediate area in'ormat'On is needed Include the following information on the drawing '
applicable
NAYS = * Center of Drawing
Roadwov. '.•-••." names (paved :;"d
Parking Areas ipaved and .
Stationary Sources (r.EL'S
Buildings (number o
Undeveloped L?
Tree LT?S
Residences
Trailer Parks
Recreation Parks
Fields
= rds
16 Attacr. separate sheet of labeled photoaraohs
17. UTM Coordinates, Zone
or latitude and longiU"":-.
W'/S' ZT*
to* 1*'<*<*"
-R — Reauire (shall) be regulation
G - Guidance (should) by regulation, or guidance document 150
— Blocks are reserved for site evaluation only
-------
aft*
i)
>
c
.-9
H
c
p**tt»*w3,<.
x^^^^T^r^y*-^^*'^^^^^^7^^MT^^^^^^^'^rM^**^^^'^^^' * * ^
6- 121
-------
NX -site: #-
Av c
6- 122
-------
NX
Tot
A^b«
*«
,Te
r"i V
F.
,r Ave,
6- 123
-------
NY
f e^>-i o
~t*
c. ic »
6- 124
-------
FH-
6- 125
-------
SITE CLASSIFICATION
Dorr,; na t: r.c Influence or site
2. Lar.d Use within 1/4 mile radius from the site:
DISTANCE AITD
URBA:; DIRECTION FROK si:
Residential
Commercial^
Industrial
Mobile
Other (describe)
3. Predominant Land Use by Direction (2 to 3 km from the site)
(residential, commercial, industrial, suburban, and urban)
Su.bw.rban ,
N K«5 1 d
\
NE
E
SE
S
SW
w AJ
NW R&*
tnfl &/
'
W««t.^/
6- 126
-------
'.':o it Soj'ce i"»
^..^ i
7 D •*'' ~"~ IT 'oas.vay "E .ant? uipff for trjfdc pa't Q' fij,^ (yf>i no!
T B^-a. M..- UP- ne'.
•J^
7^
1
*•
y
Y
H/^
4^
7,
OK
^
2.
ft O
*^/
N/A
v
^
J
! 1
!
!
: ;
. i
1
1
1
1
6- 127
-------
Topography
gene'a: cnarac'.e''Stics o* The terrain over a 2 —'i>e -adius '-orr the S'ie a-e
_ Smooth _______ Rolling. ______ RcjC"1
2 To3ogfaDr-ic 'eatures ;"a' '"-uence me s.te
'Types - h '>s v-ai!e,-s. deo'essions. boaies o' watev 'icges. cuffsi
(anacn aaaitionai sne?: ' necessaryl
Type
:::;
Size
Direction from
Site
rJW
Soat^
Distance *'om
Sue
A ^'
Obttructiont
List ob»truction$ and complete information:
(Types - buildings, trees, ridges, cliffs)
Type
Tree
Size
Direction from
Site
N
%~i$~~.
Dlf
Distance from
Site
hf . cf
Kcib^.ble T.nterfc'-ent.ea (LOO&I VOC So^fce^.) ^
-be
Cron- s re
^ 4^ ^/i *._e v4 ]^\A*
DfJa\^l roeT (lVe,|
6- 128
-------
Meteorology and Climatology
1 Source of representative iteteorMoa'cai oata icnecx 0"ei
____ National Weatner Service
___^ Airport Weamer Se'vice
Site Weather Station
Other (specify)
__«_ Not available
2. Describe the annual and SMSonai weatner patterns that influence the siu bv summary wind roses or a
table of frequency of occurrence for wind ipeeds and directions. Pollutant roses for the same periods
detired if available. Provide attachments.
3 JTM Coordinates. Zone
East.
. North.
or Latitude and Longitude
4 Location of representative meteorological station from monitoring site.
Distance - Direction —
Probe Si 009
Informraon Topic
1 .
2.
Location (toe ''^ building, ground level, other specify)
l f on building, give heiont (Ml
width (Mi
dtotfi(M)
Horizontal distance from supporting structure (M)
Vertical diranet above supporting structure (M)
Mtignt of probe above ground IM1
Distance from trees 'M>
Horizontal distance from edga.of nearest traffic lane
(See Appendix E, Pig. 1 and Tablet 1, 2.3 and 4) (M)
Horizontal distance from nearest parking lot (M)
Horizontal distance from walls, parapets, penthouses.
etc. (M)
10. Distance from obit ad«, such as buildings
11 Distance from furnace or incineration flues (M),
12 i InfMtriftari air flam
Located m paved area or vegetative ground cover
c.o*.j*ef - H V
-------
f-ro.viToa ^FORMATION
DOCUMENTATION OF MONITOR I KG INFORMATION
' VOCs
rype ! Tenax. ! Canister
50
-nstrument
Manufacturer ',
i
Date Sampling!
Began !
Sampling |
Frequency !
"7/ ? ? iATb-50
Carbonyls
NBPH
CUSTODY AND CONTROL Q£ DATA
l. Agency responsible for data collection N*.i*J Yor^ Sf'g-fg
fnffnl __ of S^-iir o ^mfcrf oj Con gg
2. Individual's name
3. Phone Number _
- H8Z '
4. Agency analyzing samples
s Q c
C
5. Individual's Name
6i'l
6. Phone number 5*1? - 4^7 -
'4*7 O O
7. Reports of data are made to (Agency Name)
8, Individual's- Name
9. Phone number
St) \ Ru«^y
2-iX-
6- 130
-------
SITE EVALUATION
Site Identification number "v ~. ^
Individals responsible for site evaluation and report preparation
Sue Jacauett and Avi Teitz (US Environmental Protection Agency)
Date of evaluation I4/ /Sf _ g/\ d> S" /- •
"" ~~ "» " — — — — — ^ — — » —
Date of report * (••.
Signatures of Evaluators
Comments
6- 131
-------
STATEN ISLAND/ NORTHEASTERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY SITE REPORT
SITE INFORMATION
2- City -
ftoj .fcrS^u
3. County / Section - LL» > a•% /Ng" Mew Jfcrs
4. site Code - M3" S.+e. A
5. Site Address -
{A 0.4^ ~ ~ Po r k
6. Names of Nearest Intersecting Streets - A4ioy>4> c
7. Pollutants Monitored at this Site -
iO«*Uj 15
Cay*h»(lflae.S
8. Date Inspected -
» i v
9. Outstanding Landmarks - Logn>4>jJ t^si
-------
- 133
-------
I
-------
East
6- 135
-------
A
o Pa
- 136
-------
f
|Mor^
6- 137
-------
-from
6- 138
-------
Par K
Nl-J"
-------
S:TE CLASSIFICATION
I. Dominating Influence of site
Area .__
Mobile
2. Land Use within 1/4 mile radius from the site:
DISTANCE AND
URBAN DIRECTION FROM SITE
Residential Soo ^ N
Commercial
1. , „
Industrial t*«^< P
Mobile r* 7 T* ^~ i *•«- "fr
«i
Other (describe) PQ r K>- B>oJl -P.eJcJ O 8^. S Usj
3. Predominant Land Use by Direction (2 to 3 km from the site)
(residential, commercial, industrial, suburban, and urban)
N Sv bvi t b * <-> f€ Vi.
NE g^b^^Ue.^ r^,J^,^'J . u/fct^ r^"S. HTTP
E fc
SE (
S >%
NTT<°. I^rUn res.
w
NW
- 140
-------
Moon* Source V\orl'0ugh S:rpp; or H.g*ivay „ , ,„.
\ nra' ^'rpp- nr Rnart
T-a" r Ar- v.'i (complete ai anol icahlp>_ .,.. .._
1 'Distance o' roaoAav from air mtanelft*
? 3.re:t on o' roadway from air inlet 18 ots' ,
"? fnrrrv-niTinT n* rnariuuay , ,,
•
£ Nl^mfip' n' t'fff^'C 1 anps
5 A^pfaT^ n« '. ira^^c ieiTimjte'
S Averao? veh.cie soeec! (estimate mob).
7 Tra",f is 1 or 2 wav 1 1 O' ?' .... „
F f»u"he' o* oa-k.ng lanes
9 Are narking lanes used for traffic part o< day? (yes.noi
10 Roaai-.a>, oa.ei (ves no'
11 Is dus: v s.cv. re entrained' (ves no)_.
12 Does'oa^Aa' have curb' Ues no!
13 Doe1 djsi coi:?c: near edocs' lyes no1
How
I
?<>A
/'i
MK
Co
L
o
^
y
/v
/y
\s
i
sw
&>^
^
^x
fc
1,
o
M
»f
*y
n
N
s
310
£
W^A
7,
IS
t
1
^
*|
^
Y
S
p05
5C
>V^
7,
30
\.
0
N
Y
A/
y
1 - 1 i
i
i
i
i
1 !
i i
i
i ' :
i i
1 •
i
; i ,
•
i : ;
i '
i 1
i !
dent •, p'o^r ' mo'e than one
6- 141
-------
Topography
aene'a! cnaracter>stics of t*e terrain over a 2 mile 'adius '»om t^e s>te are icneck one1
2 Tooograonic features :*at 'n:;uence the site
(Types - n us. valleys, deoress.ons, bodies of water, ridges, cliffsl
(attach additional sneet if necessary)
Type
Levee.
£WW* *..*
Size
ft^ n.^.'f b'Jj.
S.te
7S C*r5
17. \-sr»r,c.«
fro^ S.TC
90;
^^^S n^i
i/
/fj r>-» i
6- 142
-------
aata ;c^ecK
Meteorology and Climatology
1 Source o* representative Tietec'
' J National Weatner Service
_____ Airport Weamer Service
____ Site Weather Station
_____ Other (specify) E/'icx
____ Not available
2. Describe rht annual and uasonai weather pattemi that influence the site by summary wind roses or a
tacit of frequency of occurrence for wind speeds and directions. Pollutant roses for the same oenods
desired if available. Provide attachments.
Coordinates. Zone
. 0 ? E.«t VV9*?. ?f Mnrrh
or Latitude and Longitude
A. Location of representative meteorological station from monitoring site.
Distance ___________________ Direction ___
Probe Siting
Information Topic
2.
Location (top of building, ground level, other specify)—
I f on building, give p ' ft-Vvo r^ height (Ml
width (M),
depth (M)
Horizontal distance from supporting structure (M),
Vertical distance above supporting structure (M)
Height of probe above ground (M)______.
Distance from trees
-------
MONITOR INFORMATION
DOCUMENTATION OF MONITORING INFORMATION
Sampler Type
Instrument
Manufacturer
Date Sampling
Began
Sampling
Frequency
Tenax
x<.
VOCs
Canister
NTiT
/<,
Portable
V /
A
/ \
Carbonyls
WPH
i ^
Metals
\
Hi-vol
G^/
/(,
CUSTODY AND CONTROL Q£ DATA
1. Agency responsible for data collection Ne.w
Xr>
2. Individual's name
3. Phone Number
4. Agency analyzing samples
\«
5. Individual's Name>r_
6. Phone number
7. Reports of data are made to (Agency Name)
8. Individual's Name CKar le. & P. «>« r .^
9. Phone number £QVl11~ "?lH?
i'Ji
-a.S I "7
6- 144
-------
SITE EVALUATION
Site Identification number
, [4,
Individals responsible for site evaluation and report preparation
Sue Jacouett_and Avi Teitz (US_Environmental Protection Aaencv)
Date of evaluation
Date of report I
/IT
ft
Signatures of Evaluator^
Comments TKJ.& ^fj\.
A«~d
e Qnu
'
145
-------
STATEN ISLAND/ NORTHEASTERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY SITE REPORT
SITE INFORMATION
1. State -
2. city - Ca.r-Vere"V
3. County / Section
- ' *"<*aVLS-2-'*
4. site Code - ^e^ "Oers^ S\-te. 8
5. Site Address - Cqr-Vc\re-V \o\\ee. Dgr \pryg
3 So
6. Names of Nearest Intersecting Streets - Kdose. \jeVV
td
7. Pollutants Monitored at this Site -
s
8. Date Inspected - \\ J >L) /?"?•
9. Outstanding Landmarks
- Lo cooV^A On ( p
o-f -VW FrcsV
X S\Q«1,
6- 146
-------
NJsVke- _ roim ,y.
A If c &* i^ma \. *..<£*
'
-------
S?C' '0' '>uT>- 3 I
Re..5 i- \.-r> C
Date O:-.co- 3' 1:
Page 2 c' 1C
15 S'.e::1" i ma~ to oocumen- tnt environment w T" r e '. "-Me raous o< the s.te ?>ce~T 'or CO m.
wher o" .• iTimedate arfc i-'r'~o'. o~ is neeaec iic.jae the 'o losing in1o>r>".a;iO" on Tie drav.
NAVE a- Ce-ie- o
cV- w.t^ name; Ipa^ed s~ti
Areas (paveo and
-* Soj'ces (NEDS*'
BuilOings Injmb?' o' s'or et'
UnoeveiopeC La^i ^o'OJnC cove
Residences
Trailer Parks
Recreation Parks
Recreation fields
Re iroad
es
15 Aitac" leta-ate sheet of labe'ed pholc>3-aDhs
17. UTM Coordinates
or latitude and
•R - Require (shall) be regulation
G - Guidance (should) by regulation, or gj:dar.c?
I — R'ork* Jk'rt r^^prvAH Ir^r tit* »wa!nat.nr nn'\/
-------
/r
?5i
to
131=0-=
rfn
/•r
"Ml
<•*>
6- 149
-------
3
-------
6- 151
-------
Pol.c
o.ce
6- 152
-------
je,VV
. •
6- 153
-------
Topography
1. The general characteristics of the terrain over a 2 mile radius from the site are (check one)
T Smooth, Rolling, Rough
2. Topographic features that influence the sue:
(Types — hills, valleys, depressions, bodies of water, ridges, cliffs)
(attach additional sheet if necessary!
Type
ftr*W Y>)1
FresV V-'^
Lan^fi\\
Size
Direction from
Site
Distance from
Site
^SG- toe; •Cet't
29to- I-*- -Qc-V-
Obt fractions
List ob»tructiom and complete information:
{Types - buildings, trees, ridges, cliffs!
Type
Size
Direction from
Site
Distance from
Site
(UocAt VOC Soi"-c«*»)
S.Ve
JTOO
6- 154
-------
SITE CLASSIFICATION
1. Dominating Influence of site
Area
Mobile
2. Land Use within 1/4 mile radius from the site:
DISTANCE AND
URBAN DIRECTION FROM SITE
Residential /Op' - '/4 W\\
-------
Mobile Source Worksheet
Wot ie Sources tha! may In'luenct the S :?
Names of Roadways (nearest to site f.r<:
Type (check. or?
fi AwPrago uPhiHp tppprl (etlimate, mph)^ _,
9 Are parking lanes used for traffic part of day? (yes,no)__
ID Roadway paved f moie than one.
On
'V
- 156
-------
Meteorology and Climatology
1. Source of representative meteorological data (check one):
V National Wettrter Service/ n£^ f>&-t ^
___ Airport Weather Service
___ Site Weather Station
___ Other (specify)
__ Not available
2. Describe the annual and seasonal weather pattemi that influence the sitt by summary wind roses or a
table of frequency of occurrence for wind speeds and directions. Pollutant roses for the same ptriodt
desired if available. Provide attachments.
3. UTM Coordinates, Zone
East.
.Norm.
or Latitude and Longitude
4. Lc«ation of representative meteorological ration from monitoring site.
Distance __—_——^_—_ Direction _
Probe Siting
Information Topic
Location (top of building, ground level, other specify)
if on building, give height (Ml
Horizontal distance from supporting structure (M),
Vertical dinance above supporting structure (M),
Height of probe above ground (M)
Distance from trees (M)
from edge of nearest traffic lane
Horizontal dista
(Sea Appendix E. Fig. 1 and Tables 1,2.3 and 4) (M)
Horizontal distance from nearest parking lot (M)
Horizontal distance from walls, parapets, penthouses,
etc. IMI
Distance from obstacles, such as buildings
Distance from furnace or incineration flues (M)
Uwastrieted air
Located in paved area or vegetative ground cover
6- 157
-------
MONITOR INFORMATION
DOCUMENTATION OF MONITORING INFORMATION
Sampler Type
Instrument
Manufacturer
Date Sampling
Began
Sampling
Frequency
Tenax
1/6
VOCS
Canister
1/6
Portable
GC j
\ /
\/
A
/ \
Carbonyls
NDPH
W ^ '1
Metals
Hi-vol
frtW
*l»*
I / fa
CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF DATA
1. Agency responsible for data collection fa** "3ef&?
2. Individual's name Pr. £o>r\»r<\
3. Phone Number fepft
4. Agency analyzing samples
5. Individual's Name tV.
6. Phone number (e)ofl
7, Reports of data are made to (Agency Name)
-TEO
8. individual's Name OwVs
9. Phone number fccx^) -
ew
6- 158
-------
SITE EVALUATION
Site Identification number tJCvJ 3g£sg s.>TE S
Individals responsible for site evaluation and report preparation
SueJacguettandAviTeit z ( USEnvi ronmentalProtect ionAaencv )
Date of evaluation
Date of report P/s?5
Signatures of Evaluators
Comments e. f^oy o^^a^^ -gqAoy/c J( *fre. s.v. i> -frt^ tv i's
PA
IS ci. PA "e vT^ ft * /yu^e so^-Vio^ t^ -\err. art, ro
6- 159
-------
STATEN ISLAND/ NORTHEASTERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY SITE REPORT
SITE INFORMATION
1. State -
2. City -
3. County / Section - Middle t?c.x CQV--^-U- / WoocA b.- .d<-
"j / " — j
4. Site Code - T\l J" •=><'**. CL
5. Site Address - M arK^^/ Jno.-./ Sc.v-soo\- Pt>
-» ^ A e. o
6. Names of Nearest Intersecting Streets - Cr\fcv,<.&ve
7. Pollutants Monitored at this Site -
8. Date Inspected - \i \5
. Outstanding Landmarks -
, V-*-
U •» 17- < X^ IS Or, Hxt. r-o u-f C.4 Q I a r >; C- U V- ft
»_3
j.4gj.r c, v.^^.c^ is '^ .a '
6- 160
-------
SHE CLASSIFICATION
1. Dominating Influence of site
Area \J PC-,
Mobile (i.e.,, HJ Tw- O^-K
V I- ^T-
2. Land Use within 1/4 mile radius from the site:
DISTANCE AND
SUBURBAN DIRECTION FROM SITE
Residential H -K^ ^>*J ^ I oo' -
Commercial
industrial (si
Mobile N -j"~n/--^0.»u
Other (describejftevjitt^e 5 (A/ 4-c NoJ SQQ'
3. Predominant Land Use by Direction (2 to 3 km from the site)
(residential, commercial, industrial, suburban, and urban)
N jto^-b'A^ e.-^.awf ,a ; ^to«."/ i-& f j.-r^n.
NE X^dLoatraA 'b^.b^-ba^ ^e ^ , «Jlewh a. I
E
SE X^^^^r.'-sl , S^b^ba^ Rfe^'.dtr^t/^l . Ar-fKu.' K
S S^to^/-ba.>- Re s i gj «a«-l't i T^ I "X^ ct^*>1'r i a I
^^^^^ f ^"^I^^"-^™IB^™1
SW
W
>? .
i
NW
6- 161
-------
^SVMT"^
•V'-^-VTtfr—
-------
15 S-.e-.c- c ma^ TO oocu-ne-- tru en\ irof--Tie'-.t w :-• ~ a • "" 't 'aO'u
whe^ o- v :-nmed ate a'fi c-4? — •«: 0" is neeoec ncuoe The 'o ;
applicable
NAVS a- Ce-te- o' DraA r,g
c,". w.;k-. names (pa.ei ?"0 w
Areas leaved and un^a.ec
Statiorar» Source: (NEDS*1
BuilOingi (number o' $tO"es'
Unoeveiop?d La~i iground cove'1
Tret LTO! •
tN
tnt site e»cesi 'o' CO
mg ir
-------
I
M
O\
-------
i> r
'
Ch
tn
I E.^
-------
Mobile Source Worksheet
Mot '-. Sources tr-ici may In'ijertct tie 5 te
i?«. o' Roadways (nearest to site f.-sr
V^^-"1-^/
Type (check
A'Ypr.a' man*-.
1 oca! Street nr Roar*
Traffic Activity (cornp'ffte as app'-caNpi
1 'Distanci. oi roadway from air intake/ fi>_
2 Direction of roadway from air inl»t IS nnl ... , .
5 Average daily traffic- (estimate)
6 Average vehicle weed (estimate, mph)_ ,„ „
B Number of parkinq lan«
9 Are parking lanes Uted 'or traffic part Q' day' (yf$ nO)
10. Roadway paved (yes, no)
11 Is dust visibly re-pntrairwH' (yft no)
12 Does roadmav have curb' lyes, nol
13 Does dust collect near edqcs' (v«. nol_
^
-?2C
fVl\/
tef»^
IZ.
&
2.
O
W
rio
./
Sb'
W
2-
Ab"
7-
-2.
rf-
^to
v/
W
s
^
3Lb"
-2^
^
•^i^"— '
v/
^
A/
^-
7
^
i^
-^
2,
^
^^
^>
I
I
"!denti*v DroDe il moie than one.
6- 166
-------
Topography
1. The general characteristics of the terrain over a 2 mile radius from the site are (check one)
\s
Smooth.
Rolling,
Rough
2. Topographic features that influence the site
(Types — hills, valleys, depressions, bodies of water, ridges, cliffs)
(attach additional sheet if necessary)
Type
Ar^iw^ 1C, |(
Size
Direction from
Site
Ea*f-»S£
Distance from
Site
^- 1 rv^le.
Obstructions
List obstructions and complete information:
(Types - buildings, trees, ridges, cliffs)
Type
Size
Direction from
Site
Distance from
Site
Po
>s%ib\e Interference.;* (Loo&l VOC Sources)
O* *c r'% oTi o *\
M3"Tu.'op,VC<_
S.'ie
V7-U««b
b»r«ct.ftn-f»-e*. Site.
<£*J +* M
fr'*Tamce
•^<-om S.Te
>-7oC/
6- 167
-------
Meteorology and Climatology
1. Source of representative meteorological data (check one):
National Weather Service N i*s-/ a.»-K Ai r£>&~1
___ Ai rport We ath er Ser/ tee
__^ Si te Weather S ration
____ Other (specify)
^_^_ Not available
2. Describe the annual and seasonal weather patterns that influence the site by summary wind roses or a
table of frequency of occurrence for wind speeds and directions. Pollutant roses for the same periods
desired if available. Provide attachments.
3. UTM Coordinates. Zone
East.
.North.
or Latitude and Longitude
4. Location of representative meteorological station from monitoring site.
Distance - Direction __
Siting
Information Topic
1 . Location (top of building, ground level, other specify)
2. If on building, give) height (ML
width (ML
depth IM).
3. Horizontal distance) from mioparting itmerur* (M)
4. Vertical diranea above Bupparting crrueturf fUl
S. Height of praba aba** ground (Ml
A Dictvw* from rr^ (M)
7. Horizontal distance from edge of nearest traffic lane
(See) Appendix E. Pig. t and Tables 1, 2. 3 and 4) (M)
8. Horizontal distance from nearest parking lot (M)
. Horizontal Distance from wails, parapets, penthouses.
10. Distance from otaatadat. men at huildinai
11. Oictane* from nmtaea ar ineinantian flua« iOrrs
(S.V.4
fjjft
^»00
V«S
V't^j
£ «
Can i«,T«>
rc^<-
A/M
>lo.^
^//)
/v7//!
' ittf
V*.^
Ves
bNOH
TSP
Envtrii
Ch«m
Pcrlawe
GC
i$ C.t
-------
MONITOR INFORMATION
DOCUMENTATION OF MONITORING INFORMATION
Sampler Type
Instrument
Manufacturer
Tenax
VOCS
CanisterJ Portable
Carbonyls
NDPH
Date Sampling
Began
Sampling
Frequency
CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF DATA
1. Agency responsible for data collection uo\j££.Si>V OF pecv-.-"^
2. Individual's name
3. Phone Number
4. Agency analyzing samples Ufno/7T
feg.
5. Individual's Name Dr. L.
6. Phone number 3o\ - ^k'3-
- V-?t.V
7. Reports of data are made to (Agency Name)
8. Individual's Name CW\g
-------
SITE EVALUATION
Site Identification number f\/ J *=>> i e
Individals responsible for site evaluation and report preparation
Sue_Jacouett and_Avi Teitz (US Environmental Protection Agency)
Date of evaluation } \ I 5/?•
Date of report <
Signatures of, Evaluators
Conunents
>,te .
r e.
_ ,
<5 g^it't:. is r €_ p <~ €. se-
cfi <• fc---^ i
-------
STATEN ISLAND/ NORTHEASTERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS STUDY SITE REPORT
SITE INFORMATION
l. State - WEW
2. city - J
3. County / Section -
4. Site Code - K)£U ^ERSE'? S\TC"
5. Site Address - 3(t
6. Names of Nearest Intersecting Streets -
7. Pollutants Monitored at this Site -
CQ c>>
8. Date inspected - \\/1 /&?
9. Outstanding Landmarks - In
nogse. iQc^-WA AO
-------
15 Skeu" c ma^ to oocumen-. the environment A.fi;r i \ mle raoius o< the s,Te
wher o" v :mmed ate area i^4?'"*'. o^ ii neeoec IncuOe tht foio^mc irfo'
Re. < : - \ _ — r • C
Dau D-co*- 3' 1:
Pa?; 2 r' K
1:
-------
-1 1-
-lis
6- 173
-------
-
Ee.it
6- 174
-------
f. '
\J
26
-------
P .6. c.
6- 176
-------
,. fy
rf-C. 1.
6- 177
-------
u-
C
•=> - _• - p
fr_--
4 Cc c , ^ < t_
I- .. .- J
'w\. V\ b \M -J =>
I «-^> c< » & >-\ J
o ^ ^-J^t- r o ^T
c-< PS 2_C i^
-i.
6- 178
-------
Topography
1. The general characteristics of the terrain over a 2 mile radius from the site are (check one)
V
Smooth,
Rolling,
Rough
2. Topographic features that influence the site:
(Types — hills, valleys, depressions, bodies of water, ridges, cliffs)
(attach additional sheet if necessary)
Type
Size
Direction from
Site
Distance from
Site
Obstructions
List obstructions and complete information:
(Types — buildings, urns, ridoes, cliffs)
Type
Trees
Size
H -fe^Y 'taM
Direction from
Site
£
Distance from
Site
•* " • '•.» . A-
c
-------
SITE CLASSIFICATION
1. Dominating Influence of site
Area
Mobile
2. Land Use within 1/4 mile radius from the site:
DISTANCE AND
URBAN DIRECTION FROM SITE
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Mobile
Other (describe)
O-'fy mil
3. Predominant Land Use by Direction (2 to 3 Jon from the site)
(residential, commercial, industrial, suburban, and urban)
N
NE
E
SE
S
SW
W
NW
^
6- 180
-------
Mobile Source Worksheet
Mot it Soj'tei that may In'luenc* tnt S te
Names o< Roadways (nearest 10 sue
Type (check one'
Thrpyijh ?fff 1 0' Highly
1 ni-^l Ctr»»» nr RnaH IM|. ..„,
TfVfic ArT'uiiv' Cti1ifln 0* rn»flm«y
4 Wi.mk.r Mlr»«lr lan«c_ ,„__
5 Av^r>ij^ ri^.ly traffic (Mtimaff )
6 Average vehicle soeed (eiumste mohl_
7 Traffic it 1 or 2 way 11 or 51 _
P MumScrnf parking 1an*t
9. Are parking lines used for traffic part of day? (yes.no)
ID Roadway paved tve*. nol
11 It dutt visibly re-enirtined? (yes, no) _ ,„,___
12 DOM roadiMi" hav* curb? lyn, nn)
13 Does dust collect near edocs' tves. nol
S
*'l1
r>i.\*.
vJ
OvSfV,
^
MO
^
4»
W)A
-K,
r\o
1fc&
no
y
55m
\V
^^>
3;
\S
S
Mlft
wlft
Sts
00
S«
<"|O
'
probf. if more than one.
6- 181
-------
Meteorology and Climatology
1. Source of representative meteorological data (check onel:
M_^_ National Weather Service
_^_„ Airport Weather Service
_«^_ Site Weather Station
_.^_ Other (specify)
- Not available
2. Describe the annual and seasonal weather patterns that influence the site by summary wind roses or a
table of frequency of occurrence for wind speeds and directions. Pollutant roses for the same periods
desired if available. Provide attachments.
3. UTM Coordinates, Zone
East.
.North.
or Latitude and Longitude
4. Location of representative meteiruJoojcal station from monitoring site.
Distance ———^_—^——— Direction _
Siting
Informevon Topic
1 .
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Location (top of building, ground level, other specify)
If on building, give height (Ml
width (M),
depth (M)
Horizontal dimnce from supporting structure (M),
Vertical distance above supporting structure (M),
Height of probe above ground «..»i*t«H «
182
-------
MONITOR INFORMATION
DOCUMENTATION OF MONITORING INFORMATION
Sampler Type
VOCs
Tenax Canister Portable
Carbonyls
NDPH
Instrument
Manufacturer
Date Sampling
Began
Sampling
Frequency
CUSTODY Alffl CONTROL OF DATA
1. Agency responsible for data collection UrvvJgrs>A^
2. Individual's name Dr. Ur>&c\
3. Phone Number &ov
4. Agency analyzing samples
f£T
5. Individual's Name t>r. L\ry^t\
6. Phone number
t\loT>' M55C, f
umrw
7. Reports of data are made to (Agency Name)
^OA -»
8. Individual's Name
9. Phone number fcooTi feBft-
6>U
y.ftp^^.w>v: Q^e-P*)
6- 183
-------
SITE EVALUATION
Site Identification number Wj
Individals responsible for site evaluation and report preparation
Sue_Jacauett_and Avi Teitz (US Environmental Protection Aaencv)
Date of evaluation Wl /?^"
Date of report £/c?S7 8?
Signatures of Evaluators
Conunents
is
~ni\3 'n ESf£O*u.y
/Joof
6-
-------
7. QUALITY ASSURANCE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
7-
-------
Appendix A
Quality Assurance Assessments
of Volatile Organic Compound Data
As Reported by the
Individual Organizations
7-
-------
Throughout the project, Quality Assurance responsibilities were
carried out by the individual organizations and overseen by the
Quality Assurance Subcommittee. A format for reporting this
information, which included assessments of precision, accuracy,
contamination, and data variability was devised by the Quality
Assurance Subcommittee. This Appendix contains the QA
Subcommittee guidance for the QA Report and the reports from the
individual organizations. All of the reports has been reviewed
and approved by the QA Subcommittee.
The Quality Assurance data in these reports was done on a
quarterly basis. The purpose of this convention was that 1) This
follows the format for data reported to the Data Management
Subcommittee which was also done in quarterly increments, and 2)
It allowed for the examination of trends that might otherwise be
masked by the use of annual figures.
The need for the QA reports was especially acute in this project
for the following reasons:
1. Several of the organizations involved in the project had no
previous experience in ambient air VOC analysis.
2. The course of the project was long enough that changes in key
personnel and analytical methodologies occurred at several
organizations during the project.
3. The course of the project was long enough that equipment
problems were eventually discovered in all laboratories.
Thus, the QA reports document the changes in the quality of the
data as new personnel and equipment come on line, problems are
discovered and then corrected, and incremental improvements
increase the quality of the data submitted. Therefore the QA
Subcommittee strongly feels that data should not be used without
consulting the QA reports of the individual organizations. In
fact these reported should be should be treated as part and
parcel of the data itself.
7-
-------
6 1990.
Guidelines for the Preparation of
Quality Assurance Reports
for the
Staten Island/New Jersey Urban Air Toxics Assessment Project
7-
-------
The Quality Assurance/Quality Control report for the project
should be in the following format. There will be one final report
for the project comprised of eight chapters, rather than discrete
quarterly reports. However, quarterly data will be submitted as
part of the individual chapters as outlined below. The eight
chapters in the final report are:
1} Blanks
2} Duplicate samples
3) Distributed Volumes
4) Tenax vs. Canisters
5} Minimum Analytical Detection
6) Instrumental Accuracy
7) Chronological log of changes, alterations and improvements
8) Assessment of variability of the data
The logic behind the ordering of the chapters is to advance from
the statistical assessments of data quality (chapters 1-6} to the
narrative/descriptive assessments (chapter 7), to a an overall
project assessment (Chapter 8) combining all phases of the
project.
Chapters 1-4 are formatted in two parts; 1) An overall project
assessment listing the methods used, results found, discussion of
the data, and relevant conclusions and 2) Quarterly statistical
reports (i.e. mean, standard deviation, 95% confidence limits),
over the course of the project, with relevant notes and caveats.
Formats for Chapters 1-4 are attached to this document.
Chapter 5 should specify the method used to determine the
analytical detection limits, the result of these methods, and a
discussion of the impact this has on the data in the study should
be included. A table specifying analytical detection by compound,
in ng (absolute detection) and ppb (typical sample limits),
should be provided. A general guide to the discussion portion of
this chapter should be the question "Are concentrations reported
close to the detection limits less accurate or precise than those
reported 3-4 times above this limit"?
Chapter 6 should relate the data obtained from outside sources
(such as EPA/EMSL performance evaluation samples, PEI split
samples, Research Triangle Institute audit cylinders, etc.) and
the conclusions, explanations, or corrective actions resulting
from this data.
Chapter 7 is a chronological, by quarter, list of changes and
improvements in sampling and analysis that significantly affected
data quality. This log should include addition of new equipment,
changes in sampling procedure, changes in the way samples are
shipped, new tracking procedures, significant maintenance
(cleaning of the source, changing of columns etc.), findings of
instrument drift or unusual unexplained results, etc. Significant
problems detected (i.e. sample contamination) and resolution (new
cleaning procedure) should also be clearly specified. The format
7-
-------
for this log should be a cataloging of items followed by brief
annotations when necessary, allowing for an understanding of what
happened when. This log is to be used to document the rigor of QA
employed in this project, as veil as an aid for data review and
analysis.
Chapter 8 should present the researcher/institution's assessment
of the variability of the data. The format for this chapter is
appended to this document.
7-
-------
CHAPTER I
BLANKS
PROJECT SUMMARY
The project summary of the blank data should specify how the
blank data were used, an examination of the data and a discussion
of the results, and conclusions derived from this analysis.
Questions to be considered should include :
1) Was any gross contamination present?
2) Were any compounds of specific concern with regard to
contamination of samples?
3) Was there significant variation in the blanks during the
course of the project?
4) If there is significant variation in the blank levels, what
impact does this have on the quality of the data being reported?
QUARTERLY REPORT
The quarterly statistical format is attached. The following is an
explanation of the data requested in these forms.
I blanks run: how many blank samples were run during the
quarter?
# of contaminated samples: By compound, how many samples were
determined to be unusable due to contamination.
7-
-------
Organization:
Sorbent:
QUARTER OF
TO
, 198_
BLANK SAMPLES
I Blanks
Run
I of
Contaminated
Samples
Toluene
Benzene
M/P Xylene
o Xylene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Hexane
Notes Attached (Y/N):
QUARTER OF
TO
, 198_
BLANK SAMPLES
I Blanks
Run
I of
Contaminated
Samples
Toluene
Benzene
M/P Xylene
O Xylene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Hexane
Notes Attached (Y/N):
-------
CHAPTER II
DUPLICATE SAMPLES
PROJECT SUMMARY
The project summary of sample duplicates should be confined to
true duplicate samples, as opposed to distributed volume pairs.
The summary should include an examination of the data, a
discussion of the results, and pertinent conclusions.
Questions to be considered should include :
1) Does the difference between duplicate samples differ by
compound?
2) To what can these observed differences be ascribed to?
3) If the duplicate samples vary significantly, what impact does
this have on the quality of the data being reported?
QUARTERLY REPORT
The quarterly statistical format is attached. The following is an
explanation of the data requested in these forms.
# pairs run: how many distributed volume pairs were run during
the quarter?
Average Difference (ppb): This should be computed as
(low flow - high flow) for each individual
distributed volume sample pair in the quarter.
These differences should then be summed and
divided by the number of sample pairs.
Standard Deviation: This is computed by determining the standard
deviation of the differences between the
individual (low flow -high flow) sample pairs
computed above and dividing by the square root of
the number of samples. This is because this is the
standard deviation of an average. The statistical
reference for this is underlined in the enclosed
handout.
95% Confidence Limits: The purpose of this statistic is to give
the range of the differences between the low and
high flow tubes with a 95% degree of confidence.
Computation of this statistic is done using the T
statistic and is outlined in an attachment to this
document.
7-
-------
Organization:
Sorbent:
Toluene
Benzene
M/P Xylene
O Xylene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Tet r achl oroe thy 1 ene
Dichloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Hexane
Notes Attached (Y/N) :
Toluene
Benzene
M/P Xylene
O Xylene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Hexane
QUARTER OF TO ,
DUPLICATE SAMPLES
Average Std. Dev.
1 Pairs Difference Avg. Dif.
Run (ppb) (ppb)
x.x x.x
x.x x.x
x.x x.x
x.x x.x
x.x x.x
x.x x.x
x.x x.x
x.x x.x
x.x x.x
QUARTER OF TO ,
DUPLICATE SAMPLES
Average Std. Dev.
1 Pairs Difference Avg. Dif.
Run (ppb) (ppb)
x.x x.x
x.x x.x
x.x x.x
x.x x.x
x.x x.x
x.x x.x
x.x x.x
x.x x.x
x.x x.x
198
95% CL
Interval
(PPb)
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
198
95% CL
(PPb)
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
Notes Attached (Y/N):
-------
CHAPTER III
DISTRIBUTED VOLUMES
PROJECT SUMMARY
The project summary of the distributed volume data should include
an examination of the data, a discussion of the results, and
pertinent conclusions.
Questions to be considered should include :
1) Does the difference between distributed volume pairs differ by
compound?
2) Can the differences observed be ascribed to breakthrough?
3) If there is variation in distributed volume concentrations,
what impact does this have on the reported concentrations?
QUARTERLY REPORT
The quarterly statistical format is attached. The following is an
explanation of the data requested in these forms.
# pairs run: how many distributed volume pairs were run during
the quarter?
Average Difference (ppb): This should be computed as
(low flow - high flow) for each(individual
distributed volume sample pair in the quarter.
These differences should then be summed and
divided by the number of sample pairs.
Standard Deviation: This is computed by determining the standard
deviation of the average differences between the
individual (low flow -high flow) sample pairs
computed above and dividing by the square root of
the number of samples. This is because this is the
standard deviation of an average. The statistical
reference for this is underlined in the enclosed
handout.
95% Confidence Limits: The purpose of this statistic is to give
the range of the differences between the low and
high flow tubes with a 95% degree of confidence.
Computation of this statistic is done using the T
statistic and is outlined in an attachment to this
document.
Paired t Test: A standard test and statistic to determine whether
two means are from the same population or not. The
purpose of using the T Test in this portion of the
study is to determine whether the differences
between the high and low flow concentrations, are
statistically significant or not. The T test done
using the following equation using the following
values:
7- 11
-------
(D bar)
t «
SD btr
where
D bar - Quarterly mean of the difference between the
individual low flow and high flow concentrations.
SD bir « The standard deviation of the quarterly mean of
the difference between the individual low flow and high
flow concentrations. The standard deviation of a mean
is given above.
This value of T is then compared to the T Table for the
0.05 significance level. A value greater than the table
value indicates that the populations are different from
one another.
The powerful reasons for using this test are that:
1) It gives a yes/no answer on the significance of the
differences between low flow and high flow concentrations.
2) It is a common and respected statistic.
3) It uses as input calculations that have already been made.
This keeps extra computations down to a minimum, and readily
facilitates the use of spreadsheets in the calculation of this
statistic with a minimum of effort.
4) It is more reliable than a standard deviation since standard
deviations are biased with respect to the mean that they are
measuring, whereas the T statistic is independent of this bias.
5) It is robust, in that at the 5% significance level it
functions well for both normal and non normally distributed
populations.
7- 12
-------
Organization:
Sorbent:
QUARTER OF TO
198
DISTRIBUTED VOLUMES
Toluene
Benzene
M/P Xylene
O Xylene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Hexane
Notes Attached (Y/N) :
i Pairs
Run
Average
Difference
(PPb)
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
Std. Dev.
Avg. Dif.
(Ppb)
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
QUARTER OF TO ,
95% CL
Interval
(PPb)
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
198
T Test
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
T > 0.05
(Y/N)
Y
K
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
DISTRIBUTED VOLUMES
Toluene
Benzene
M/P Xylene
O Xylene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Hexane
f Pairs
Run
1
I
*
1
*
f
1
1
i
Average
Difference
(Ppb)
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
Std. Dev.
Avg. Dif.
(Ppb)
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
95% CL
(PPb)
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
T Test
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
T > 0.05
(Y/N)
Y
Notes Attached (Y/N):
-------
CHAPTER IV
TENAX VS. CANISTERS
PROJECT SUMMARY
The project summary of the tenax/canister comparison should
include an examination of the data, discussion of the results,
and pertinent conclusions.
Questions to be considered should include :
1) Does the difference between tenax and canisters differ by
compound?
2} To what can the differences observed be ascribed to?
3) If there is variation between tenax and canisters, what impact
does this have on the quality of the data being reported?
QUARTERLY REPORT
The quarterly statistical format is attached. The following is an
explanation of the data requested in these forms.
I pairs run: how many tenax/canister pairs were run during the
quarter?
Average Difference (ppb): This should be computed as
(tenax - canister) for each tenax/canister pair in
the Quarter, These differences should be summed
and then divided by the number of sample pairs.
Standard Deviation: This is computed by determining the standard
deviation of the average differences between the
individual (low flow -high flow) sample pairs
computed above and dividing by the square root of
the number of samples. This is because this is the
standard deviation of an average. The statistical
reference for this is underlined in the enclosed
handout.
95% confidence Limits: Same logic and method used for distributed
volumes.
T Test: Same logic and method used for distributed
volumes.
Average % Difference: This should be computed as
[(canister - tenax)/tenax] * 100 for each
tenax/canister pair in the quarter. These
differences should be summed and then divided by
the number of sample pairs.
7- 14
-------
Organization:
Sorbent:
Toluene
Benzene
M/P Xylene
O Xylene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloronethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Hexane
71 Notes Attached (Y/N) :
Ul
Toluene
Benzene
M/P Xylene
O Xylene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichlororoethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Hexane
QUARTER OF . Tl
TENAX VS. CANISTER
Average
f Pairs Difference
Run (PPb)
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
QUARTER OF T<
TENAX VS. CANISTER
Average
f Pairs Difference
Run (PPb)
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
3
Std. Dev.
Avg. Dif.
(PPb)
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
)
Std. Dev.
Avg. Dif.
(PPb)
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
198
95% CL
Interval
(PPb)
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
198
95% CL
Interval
(PPb)
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
x.x - x.x
T Test
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
T Test
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
T > 0.05
(Y/N)
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
T > 0.05
(Y/N)
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Average %
Difference
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
Average %
Difference
x.x
x.x
x.x
X«*
. X
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
Notes Attached (Y/N):
-------
CHAPTER VIII
ASSESSMENT OF DATA VARIABILITY
PROJECT SUMMARY
The narrative portion of this chapter is the executive summary of
the entire QA document. All of the most important points and
caveats relevant to the quality of the data gathered for the
project should be stated here, even if they appeared previously
in the report. A general guide to this chapter should be the
question "If a data user would read only one chapter of the QA
report, what is it imperative for him to know about the quality
of the data being provided?"
DATA REPORTED
The format is attached. Note that the data are reported in terms
of the entire project, rather than quarter by quarter. If there
was significant variability in the data at a given time, the data
reported should be broken down by the dates that significant
changes are being noted. For example, in the handout enclosed,
the Tenax data is being reported for three separate time periods
during the project and each would have its own mean and standard
deviation. If the data was more homogenous, there would only be
one entry for this method.
The purpose of the data is to show the overall variability of the
relationship between the supposedly identical paired
measurements.
The following is an explanation of the data requested in these
forms.
I samples run: How many samples were used in the computation
to determine the variability of the data for
this compound (a distributed volume pair
would be considered as one sample)
Mean Sample Concentration (ppb):
The mean compound concentration of all the
paired samples collected during the reported
period. This number is important as a
reference point when examining relative data
variability and is needed here because this
chapter will be treated as an executive
summary 'by those who are not intimately
familiar with the project data.
Mean difference between paired samples (ppb):
For the reported period, what was the mean
concentration of the difference in
concentration between the duplicates or
distributed volume pairs used to determine
the variability of the data? This is computed
by summing the individual distributed volume
or duplicate pair differences and dividing by
7- 16
-------
the number of samples run that was given
above.
Standard Deviation: This is computed by determining the standard
deviation of the differences between the
individual (low flow -high flow) sample pairs
computed above and dividing by the square root of
the number of samples. This is because this is the
standard deviation of an average. The statistical
reference for this is underlined in the enclosed
handout.
7- 17
-------
Organization:
Compound name:
DATA VARIABILITY FOR PROJECT
Method
Tenax (2/1/88-9/3/88)
Tenax (9/7/88-9/30/88)
Tenax (10/6/88-9/3/89)
Notes Attached (Y/N):
f Samples Mean
Run Sample
Concentration
(Ppb)
I
*
x.x
x.x
x.x
Mean Difference
Between Paired
Samples (ppb)
x.x
x.x
x.x
Standard Deviation
of the Mean
Differences Between
Paired Samples (ppb)
x.x
x.x
x.x
Compound name:
DATA VARIABILITY FOR PROJECT
Method
Tenax (2/1/88-9/3/88)
Tenax (9/7/88-9/30/88)
Tenax (10/6/88-9/3/89)
f Samples Mean
Run Sample
Concentration
(PPb)
I
I
I
Mean Difference
Between Paired
Samples (ppb)
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
x.x
Standard Deviation
of the Mean
Differences Between
Paired Samples (ppb)
x.x
x.x
x.x
-------
Appendix B
Inter-organization Comparisons
via
Canister Collocations
7- 19
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Descriptive Summary Statistics 4
Annotated Example of ANOVA and LSD 11
Analysis of Variance and LSD 16
Data Sets Used in Computations 25
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Table of Tables
Year 1 Comparison Between Organizations and PEI...
Year 2 Comparison Between Organizations and PEI...
PEI Precision Analysis ]
Year 1 ANOVA for Toluene :
1 Anova for Benzene :
1 ANOVA for M/P Xylene :
1 ANOVA for Ortho Xylene :
1 ANOVA for 1,1,1 Trichloroethane :
Year 1 ANOVA for Tetrachloroethene :
Year 1 ANOVA for Hexane :
ANOVA for Toluene :
for Benzene :
for M/P Xylene :
ANOVA for Ortho Xylene :
2 ANOVA for 1,1,1 Trichloroethane ;
2 ANOVA for Tetrachloroethene :
ANOVA for Hexane :
LSD for Toluene :
1 LSD for M/P Xylene :
LSD for Ortho Xylene :
LSD for Toluene :
LSD for Benzene :
Year 2 LSD for 1,1,1 Trichloroethane ;
Table of LSD Rankings Where 'F' is Significant...;
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year 2
Year 2 Anova
Year 2 ANOVA
Year 2
Year
Year
Year 2
Year 1
Year
Year 1
Year 2
Year 2
7- 20
-------
Introduction
Sampling and analysis of volatile organics (VOCs) for the SI/NJ
UATAP was conducted by three organizations; the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the New Jersey
Institute of Technology (NJIT) and the College of Staten Island
(CSI). Each organization had sole jurisdiction over its sampling
sites'and used unique sampling and analytical methodologies.2
Since this resulted in the isolation of the sampling/analytical
organizations from each other, it would not have been possible to
assess the intercomparability of the results produced by the
various organization. In order to mitigate the effects of this
isolation and to provide a basis for statistical comparison, the
QA Subcommittee developed and implemented two strategies.
The first approach was to have "shootouts", where all project
participants gather collocated samples at one location for
several days. The resulting data could then be analyzed to
determine the degree of comparability evident between
organizations. However, shootouts are labor intensive, requiring
extra sampling equipment, analytical capacity, and monitoring
personnel not always available. As a result, shootouts could only
be scheduled infrequently. Another consideration is that
shootouts provide only a "snapshot" of an organization's
capabilities over a short period of time, rather than a long term
assessment.
The second approach involved more routine collocation of Summa
canisters with the sorbent tubes normally used by each
organization. By assessing the collocation results on an annual
basis, comparisons between organizations could then be made. In
practice, NYSDEC and CSI collected canister samples at the rate
of one canister collocation for every three tube samples taken.
Canisters were analyzed by PEI, a contractor to EPA/AREAL. NJIT
was already collocating canister and sorbent tube samples, but in
contrast to NYSDEC and CSI, was analyzing both the sorbent tube
and the canister samples. To ensure consistent comparison of the
NJIT data with that of NYSDEC and CSI, NJIT agreed to split
canister samples with PEI on a monthly basis. Sample splitting
was accomplished by having NJIT analyr-> an aliquot of gas from a
sample canister and then sending the canister, still filled with
sampled ambient air, to PEI for analysis.
This Appendix contains the results of the canister collocation
data, and contains the data sets used to intercompare
1 See Data Management Subcommittee report for a full listing
of site jurisdictions.
'Details of sampling and analytical methodologies can be
found in QA Appendix C, Management Systems Audits.
'Shootout results are reported in QA Appendix D.
7- 21
-------
organizations, the statistics and tables derived from these data,
and a discussion of the results of the statistical analysis. The
purpose of this analysis is to compare the NJIT, CSI, and NYSDEC
results and to determine if any significant differences exist
between them.
The first data year is defined as October 1987 - September 1988,
and the second data year as October 1988 - September 1989. This
convention is consistent with the annual averages reported by the
Data Management Subcommittee and submitted to the Risk Assessment
Subcommittee.
Caveats and Notes
1. All calculations were made on collocated data pairs for
individual compounds.
2. Concentrations below the detection limit was deleted from the
data set and resulted in the invalidation of the collocated data
pair for the compound not detected.
3. Comparisons were made between all organizations for toluene,
benzene, meta and para xylene, ortho xylene, tetrachloroethene,
and 1,1,1 trichloroethane.
4. Dichloromethane data are presented for NYSDEC only.
Computations on CSI's dichloromethane data were not included
because they were computational artifacts resulting from the
convention of reporting data below the detection limit as one
half the detection limit. NJIT had analytical problems with
dichloromethane that made its analysis subject to a variation of
greater than an order of magnitude. As a result these data were
withdrawn from consideration in the collocation comparisons.
5. Trichloroethene, chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride
concentrations were almost always below the detection limit of
PEI; therefore comparison with collocated sorbent tubes are
omitted.
6. The PEI numbers for hexane in the s'lrst year of the project
are suspect. Large concentrations (>SO ppb), were reported by PEI
for these samples. CSI's collocated Tenax showed concentrations
typically at 1 ppb or less, which was typical for all
organizations throughout the project. Additionally, these high
concentrations were only reported by PEI for a short period of
time. Subsequent collocations revealed close agreement between
PEI and CSI, as evidenced by the second year's data. However,
there was no basis to disqualify PEI's results. Therefore the
data has been included in the tables presented.
7. Hexane data were not reported by NYSDEC.
8. Ethyl benzene was not reported by NJIT.
-------
3
9, There was insufficient NJIT tetrachloroethene data above the
detection limit in the first year of the project to warrant
inclusion.
10. PEI analysis is not a true "reference" or "standard" for any
compound. However, it does represent a valid basis for comparison
in this project. PEI analysis of collocated or split canister
samples is the only available means for comparing continuing
performance. PEI's consistently good precision results solidify
this process. However, the resulting assessments should not be
interpreted to represent true comparisons with a "reference" or
"standard" but only for what they are, a comparison with a
consistent, available basis.
7- 22
-------
Descriptive summary statistics
7- 23
-------
This section summarizes the statistics obtained from the
evaluation of collocation or split analysis of canisters analyzed
by PEI with samples analyzed by the participating organizations.
The statistics are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Table 3 shows the
standard deviation of collocated PEI canisters and is included
here to show the precision of the PEI reference. The descriptions
below outline how the components of these tables were computed.
% of Reference: This represents the degree of agreement between
the PEI reference and the individual organizations. A value of
100% indicates total agreement. The NYSDEC and CSI results were
derived by first computing annual means for the collocated
canister and sorbent samples. Then, the annual means for the
sorbent tube concentrations were divided by the PEI canister mean
and multiplied by 100. NJIT's results were derived by first
determining the annual means for NJIT and PEI that resulted from
the NJIT/PEI split canister analyses. An annual mean was then
computed for the NJIT Tenax samples that were collocated with the
canisters used in the NJIT/PEI split analysis. The annual mean
for NJIT canisters was then divided by the PEI annual mean and
multiplied by 100. The same procedure was also applied to the
annual means of the collocated Tenax samples.
When using the % of standard calculations to make inferences
about the data, care must be used because the variability of the
individual comparisons that make up the averages are not evident.
This variability is dealt with in detail in the next section, in
analysis of variance.
Average Concentration: This represents the annual mean
concentration, in parts per billion, obtained by the individual
sampling organization (NJIT, CSI, or NYSDEC) during collocation
sampling.
Standard Deviation: This represents a measure of the variability
between the sample and the collocated PEI reference. This
statistic was generated by taking the differences between the
samples and the collocated PEI references and determining the
standard deviation of these differences.
Standard Error: This represents the standard error associated
with the standard deviation reported above. It is obtained by
taking the square root, of the quantity (standard
deviation/sample size).
n: This is the number of collocated samples taken or the sample
size. This number is a function of the way the study was
constructed. NYSDEC had many sampling sites and therefore had the
most collocated canister samples. NJIT was doing its own canister
analysis and therefore sent a limited numbers of canisters to PEI
for split analysis.
FEI Precision Analysis, Table 3: The standard deviation of
duplicate PEI samples is included as a measure of PEI precision.
7- 24
-------
It was derived fron two separate experiments that were pooled,
after statistical testing indicated it was appropriate to do so.
Findings
Tables 1 and 2 show several clear and consistent patterns when
comparing NJIT, CSX, and HYSDEC to the collocated PEI reference.
In almost all cases, the results of the organizations were within
± 50 of the PEI reference, with the important exceptions noted
below. The differences relative to the PEI reference were greater
in the first year of the project than in the second year of the
project. NYSDEC had the most consistent response from year to
year and NJIT was the most variable. NJIT's variability may be
due in part to its snail collocation/split sample size. Specific
findings for each organization are presented below.
NJIT Canisters! The benzene results were very close to the PEI
reference for both years of the study. The NJIT canisters were
109% of the standard during the first year of the study and 116%
during the second year. However, toluene, meta and para xylene,
and ortho xylene results were 187%, 240%, and 144% of the PEI
reference during the first year of the study. During the second
year of the study, these sane compounds were 91%, 75%, and €7% of
PEI. The response of 1,1,1 trichloroethane also varied from the
first year of the study to the second. During the first year,
1,1,1 trichloroethane was 78% of PEI, but this increased to 133%
in the second year of the project.
NJIT Tenax: During the first year, response relative to the PEI
reference was within 95% to 116% for all compounds examined.
During the second year of the study toluene and benzene response
changed substantially relative to PZI, while meta and para xylene
and ortho xylene results remained constant. Specifically, toluene
and benzene response relative to PEI for the first year was 116%
and 97%, respectively. During the second year of the study,
toluene and benzene were 143% and 136% of the PEI reference. Meta
and para xylene and ortho xylene were within 6% of PEI during the
first year of the project, and within 7% the second year. The
response of 1,1,1 trichloroethane declined from 101% of the PEI
concentration the first year of the study to 66% of the reference
the second year.
NYSDEC sorbent Tubes; For each year of the study, NYSDEC response
was within 20% of the PEI reference for benzene, toluene, and
meta and para xylene. Ortho xylene, dichloromethane,
tetrachloroethene and 1,1,1 trichloroethane were 61% to 76% of
the PEI reference the first year of the project and 57% to 79%
of the PEI reference during the second year of the project. More
remarkably, NYSDEC maintained an extremely consistent
relationship to the PEI reference over the two years. A
comparison with the first year percent of standard values with
the second year values shows a difference of -16% for toluene,
+12% for benzene, and less than +9% for all other compounds
reported.
7- 25
-------
CSI Tenax; Benzene response was close to the PEI reference for
both years of the project. CSI was 89% of PEI the first year of
the project and 107% the second. Meta and para xylene and 1,1,1
trichloroethane responses were also consistent for both years
relative to the PEI reference. The neta and para xylene results
were 130% of PEI for the first year of the project and 121% for
the second year. 1,1,1 trichloroethane results were 58% of PEI
the first year and 53% the second year. Toluene, ethyl benzene
and tetrachloroethene showed declines in the relative % of
reference data of at least 34% between the first year of the
project and the second. Toluene and tetrachloroethene were 128%
and 129% of PEI the first year of the project and declined to 94%
and 95% of the reference during the second year of the project.
Ethyl benzene was 169% of PEi the first year of the project, and
declined to 120% the second year.
7- 26
-------
Table 1.
Comparison Between Organizations and PEI Canisters
Tear Nunber of 1 Study
Organization
NJIT Tens* (vs.
X of Reference
Avg. Cone.
Std. Dev.
Std. Error
n
Toluene Benzene
PEI collocation)
116 97
4.78 1.51
1.63 0.90
0.64 0.47
4 4
VP
Xylene
104
1.58
1.49
0.61
4
0- Xylene
94
0.62
0.57
0.44
3
Dichloro
nethane
withdrawn
withdrawn
withdrawn
withdrawn
withdrawn
Tetra
chloro
ethylene
Insuffi-
cient
data due
to PEI
MDL
1.1,1
Trlchloro
ethane
101
0.71
0.68
0.63
2
Mexane
95
1.71
....
....
1
Ethyl
Benzene
not done
not done
not done
not done
not done
Trlchloro
ethylene
Insufficient
insufficient
insufficient
insufficient
insufficient
Chlorofom Carbor
data due
data due
data due
data due
data due
Tetra
chlorl
to HDL
to HDL
to HDL
to MOL
to HDL
NJIT Canister (vs. PEI collocation)
X of Reference
Avg. Cone.
Std. Dev.
Std. Error
n
NTSOEC Tubes
X of Reference
Avg. cone.
Std. 0*v.
Std. Error
n
CSI Tubes
X of Reference
Avg. Cone.
Std. Dev.
Std. Error
n
X of Reference
Avg. Cone.
Std. Dev.
Std. Err.
n
NTR
187 109
7.73 1.07
4.24 0.75
1.03 0.43
4 4
104 110
2.46 0.98
0.97 0.60
0.14 0.11
48 47
128 89
3.90 1.13
1.51 0.71
0.21 0.14
34 34
(Mean Organization
240
3.67
2.49
0.79
4
92
1,15
0.55
0.11
42
130
1.87
1.20
0.20
31
144
0.96
0.66
0.41
4
61
0.38
0.32
0.09
40
60
0.39
0.21
0.10
23
Concentration/Mean PEI
withdrawn
withdrawn
withdrawn
withdrawn
withdrawn
71
0.58
0.41
0.11
33
artifact
artifact
artifact
artifact
artifact
Insuffi-
cient
data due
to PEI
MDL
66
0.25
0.36
0.15
17
129
0.67
0.15
0.11
13
78
0.55
....
....
1
76
0.48
0.32
0.16
12
58
0.34
0.30
0.13
18
111
2.00
....
1
not done
not done
not done
not done
not done
4
0.90
36.11
1.34
20
not done
not done
not done
not done
not done
NYR
NYR
NYR
NYR
NYR
169
0.95
0.64
0.20
16
Insufficient
Insufficient
insufficient
insufficient
Insufficient
Insufficient
Insufficient
Insufficient
Insufficient
Insufficient
Insufficient
Insufficient
Insufficient
Insufficient
Insufficient
data due
data due
data due
data due
data due
data due
data due
data due
data due
data due
data due
data due
data due
date due
dati due
to MDL
to HDL
to HDL
to MDL
to MOL
to HDL
to HDL
to HDL
to HDL
to HDL
to MDL
to HDL
to MOL
to HDL
to MOL
Concentrat Ion)* 100
Mean Annual Organization Concentration
Standard Deviation of the Difference Between the Collocated PEI
and Organization Concentrations
Standard Error; Square RootCStd. Dev./n)
Sample size
Data not yet received
-------
Table 2.
Compart ion Between Organizations and PEI emitters
Tear (timber 2 of Study
Organization
•J
1
to
00
UJIT
X of
Avg.
Std.
Std.
n
HJIT
Xof
Avg.
Std.
$td.
Tenax
Reference
Cone.
Dev.
Error
Canister
Reference
Cone.
Oev.
Error
14]
5.50
4.17
0.83
6
91
3.51
0.71
0.34
6
NTSOEC Tube*
f of
kvg.
Std.
Std.
n
Reference
"one.
•Jev.
Error
120
1.76
1.31
0.10
130
Toluene Benzene
136
2.44
1.61
0.52
6
116
2.00
0.27
0.21
6
9fl
1.14
0.56
0.05
127
H/P
Xylene
97
1.35
1.75
0.54
6
75
1.05
0.44
0.27
6
95
1.47
1.00
0.09
123
Dichloro Tetra
methane ehloro
ethylene
96
0.55
0.62
0.32
6
67
0.38
0.14
0.15
6
57
0.40
0.96
9.09
109
withdrawn
withdrawn
wi thdraun
wi thdraun
withdrawn
withdrawn
withdrawn
withdrawn
w1 thdrawn
withdrawn
79
0.76
0.68
0.08
114
92
0.18
0.05
0.11
4
61
0.12
0.06
0.12
4
57
0.52
1.08
0.15
5f
1.1,1
Triehtoro
ethane
76
0.59
0.46
0.28
6
133
1.04
0.23
0.20
6
70
0.40
0.34
0.06
108
Hexane Ethyl
Benzene
128 not done
1.84 not done
1.42 not done
0.53 not done
5 not done
101 not done
1.46 not done
0.60 not done
0.35 not done
5 not done
not done NY*
not done NYft
not done NTH
not done NTH
not done m
TMchloro Chlorofom Carbon
ethylene Tetra
chloride
Insufficient data due to HDL
insufficient data due to HOL
insufficient data due to HOI
Insufficient data due to HOI
insufficient data due to HDL
Insufficient data due to HDL
Insufficient data due to HDL
Insufficient data due to HDL
Insuffrelent data due to HDL
Insufficient data due to HDL
Insufficient data due to HDL
insufficient data due to HDL
insufficient data due to HDL
Insufficient data due to HDL
Insufficient d*t» due to HDL
CSI Tube*
X of
Avg.
Std.
Std.
n
X of
Avg.
Std.
Std.
n
NTH
Reference 94 107 12t 65
Cone. 3.14 1.39 1.69 0.38
Dev. 2,01 0.45 0.63 0.15
Error 0.25 0.12 0.14 0.0«
31 30 30 25
Reference
Cone.
Oev.
Err.
artifact
artifact
artifact
artifact
artifact
95
0.86
0.30
0.15
13
(Hean Oroanliatlon Concentration/Mean PEI Concentration)*100
dean Annual Organization Concentration
Standard Deviation of the Difference Between the Collocated PEt
Standard Error; Square Root(Std. Dev./n)
Sample site
Data not yet received
53
0.48
0.50
0.14
25
101
0.84
0.32
0.11
25
120
0.53
0.23
0.10
25
Insufficient
Insufficient
Insufficient
Insufficient
Insufficient
data
data
data
data
data
due
due
due
due
due
to HDL
to HDL
to H>L
to KL
to HDL
and Organization Concentrations,
-------
Table 3.
PCI Precision Analysis
vj
1
Toluene
Benzene
N/P Xylene
Ofchloronethanfr
Kenans
0-Xylene
1,1.1 Trlchloroethane
Ethyl Benzene
Tetraehloroethylene
Average
Concentration
3.01
0.84
0.93
0.89
0.79
0.50
0.37
0.2*
0.16
Standard
Deviation
0.34
0.06
0.25
0.22
0.26
0.25
0.10
0.11
0.03
Based on 2 studies.
M
Study 1 Involved three collocated'canisters over s p
of four seperate days during Shootout 92.
Study 2 was based on the punp/punpless collocations
conducted with three collocated canisters en
two seperate days.
The dsta fro* the studies were pooled after analysis
and homogeneity of variance tests Indicated the acce
such an approach.
further statistics available upon request.
-------
Annotated Example and References
of ANOVA and LSD
7- 30
-------
Approach to the Analysis of Variance
The analysis of variance is presented for seven compounds. These
are toluene, benzene, meta and para xylene, ortho xylene,
tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1 trichloroethane, and hexane. There were
insufficient sample sizes for each of the other compounds. The
reasons for this data insufficiency for these compounds are
explained in the "Caveats and Notes" section of this Appendix.
Calculations were done for each year of the project.
The sample set used for the analysis of variance was developed
from the collocated samples as fellows: For each collocation
event, the concentration reported by the individual sampling
organization was subtracted from the FEZ canister result
reported. This was done for all compounds examined, and for each
organization. The transformation of data in this manner allows
for the direct comparison of NJIT, CSI, and NYSDEC because the
transformed data reflects only the variability between each
organization, independent of the concentration evident at the
time of sampling. This treatment of PEI as the "standard"
although not technically true, still forms a legitimate reference
for comparison. The approach of data transformation used here as
well as the statistical methods applied have been developed in
consultation with EPA/AREAL in Research Triangle Park, NC.
The results of the statistical analysis presented offer several
important and different pieces of information. The analysis of
variance (ANOVA) partitions the variance of the data set into the
variance occurring between treatments and the variance occurring
within treatments. In our case, the term treatment refers to the
organizations and therefore, the ANOVA partitions the variance
into the components attributable to the differences between CSI,
NYSDEC and NJIT and the variance attributable to variability
within the individual organizations themselves.
The F statistic is used to determine if these variance components
determined in the ANOVA procedure indicate that the differences
between treatments are statistically significant. If significance
is indicated by the F test, further analysis may be done. The
Least Significant Difference (LSD) can then be computed. The
advantage of the LSD is that it allowi. a determination of which
organizations are similar to one another and which are different.
The F test, in contrast, only signifies that differences exist
between all of the organizations analyzed. Th« LSDs presented
here should only be used to compare the performance of the
organizations, They should not be used to compare differences
observed between individual sites operated by the different
organizations. The limitations of the data set and the
experimental design require the use of advances statistical
models and computer programs as well as extensive statistical
consultation to understand the inherent limitations, caveats, and
assumptions inherent in an analysis of inter-site comparisons.
Such comparisons may be performed during subsequent evaluations
in the SI/NJ UATAP.
7- 31
-------
•'3
Annotated Example
2nd Tear of Study
Samples (n)
Sun (Xi)
Sun (Xi-2)
(Sun (Xi»*2/n
(Individual SS
(Individual Mean
Total SS •
Treatment SS
Error SS •
CSI
TUBES
31
6.50
117.71
1.36
116.35
0.21
•
Toluene
HJIT
CANS
6
2.10
2.83
0.73
2.09
0.35
439.09
29.84
409.25
HJIT
TUBES
6
-9.90
88.42
16.32
72.10
-1.65
HYSOEC
TUBES
130
-81.34
269.61
50.89
218.71
-0.63
Y.. -82.64 {
478.56
C • 39.47
df • 172
df • 3
df • 169
Source of
Variation
Between treatments
[Within treatments
df
3
169
Sun of lean© Fflg)
Squares Square ^"^
29.84 9.95 4.11 «*
409.25 2.42
f>
©
<$>
2nd Tear ISO Comparisons: Toluene
HJIT HJIT NYSOEC CSI
Tenax Caniste Tubes Tubes
HJIT Tenax 1.76 1.27 1.36
HJIT Canisters 1.76 1.27 1.36
HYSOEC Tubes 1.27 1.27 0.61
CSI Tubes 1.36 1.36 0.61
7- 32
-------
XNOVA & LSD Explanations
Samples. The number of data points. Data points are taken from
collocated PEI/sampling organization samples by subtracting the
results reported by the organization from the results reported
by PEI.
(T) Sum (Xi) » Sum of all the data points for each organization.
(Q Sum (XiA2) - Sum of each data point squared
(^ (Sum (Xi)A2)/n - (Sum of all data points) A2/number of samples
@ Individual SS - Individual Sum of Squares (SS) , obtained by
subtracting @ from (j>t
(£) Individual Mean * Sun of data points (^^), divided by sample
size ( 1 ).
Y.. « Sum of all data points for all organizations, i.e. all
(^ 's summed up. This will be used to determine the Total Sum
of Squares for the analysis. See page 140, Table 7.1 in the
reference supplied for further information and an illustration of
this.
This number is the sum of all the( 's for each organization.
is number is used in computing the Total SS.
C - Correction factor for SS. It is obtained by taking
squared and dividing by the number of samples in the study r"See
equation 7.1 on page 140 for the general case, and equation 7.4
on page 146 for the case of unequal replication.
(±]p Total SS » Computed by @ minus ^. Also shown in equation
7.2, page 140.
Degrees of freedom for the Total SS - number of samples in study
-1.
Treatment SS - See equation 7.3, page 141 for the general
case (and table 7.1 to se^here they net the numbers from) and
equation 7..9, page 146 for the specific case of unequal
replication.
Degrees of freedom « Number of treatments - 1. Degrees of freedom
in unequal replication can be found in table 7.5, page 147. No
formula is given but it can be inferred from the calculation.
Degrees of freedom for the standard case may be found in table
7.2, page 142.
7- 33
-------
Error SS « Computed as (\jp minus (Tp . See equation 7.4,
page 141. Equation 7.5, Ease 141 can be used as a check (This is
dine by summing all the v£/ 's.
Degrees of freedom « Total sum of squares degrees of freedom -
Treatment sum of squares degrees of freedom.
Qp Between treatments « Variation due to sampling organization.
It is the Treatment SS, (T^) . See table 7.3, page 142 and
associated textfor the further explanations and use of items
and
Within Treatment - Intra-organization variation. It is the
Error SS, U2~) .
(£5) Mean Square - Obtained by dividing the relevant sun of squares
by its degrees of freedom.
Q6) F » F Statistic. It is obtained by dividing Between Treatment
Mean Square by the Error Mean Square. An Asterisk means
significance at the 0.05 level, two asterisks indicate
significance at the 0.01 level.
(Tp Least significant difference (LSD).- It is obtained in the
general case by equation 8.1 on page 173. This example uses the
data from table 7.1, page 140 and Table 7.3, page 142. The case
dealing with unequal replication is addressed on pages 191-192 in
equation 8.20.
7- 34
-------
AKOVA and LSD Tables
7- 35
-------
Findings
This section includes the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Least
Significant Difference statistics for all sampling events that
included collocation (or splits) with PEI canisters. Estimates of
bias are between organizations relative to the PEI reference and
not against an absolute standard.
First Year Data
The results of the analysis of variance and F tests are presented
in Tables 4-10. Examination of this data shows that no
significant differences existed between organizations for the
analysis of benzene, 1/1>1 trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene,
and hexane. Significant differences, were found for toluene, meta
and para xylene, and ortho xylene.
LSDs are presented for results shown to be significant by the F
test in Tables 18-20. Analysis of the data using the LSDs is
presented in Table 24. This table shows that for toluene and meta
and para xylene, the NJIT canisters were biased high and showed
significantly greater amounts of bias than all other
organizations for these parameters. In the case of ortho xylene,
the NJIT canisters were significantly different from the CSI and
NYSDEC tubes. However, the magnitude of NJIT's bias for ortho
xylene is almost equivalent to that of NYSDEC and CSI, the
difference being that NYSDEC and CSI were biased low while the
NJIT canisters were biased high. No significant difference was
observed between the NJIT canisters and the NJIT Tenax for ortho
xylene.
The NJIT tenax tubes were statistically indistinguishable from
the CSI or NYSDEC tubes for all three cases shown to be different
by the F test. The CSI tubes were statistically equivalent to the
NYSDEC tubes in the case of ortho xylene, but were significantly
different for toluene and meta and para xylene.
Second Year Data
The results of the analysis of variance and F tests are presented
in Tables 11-17. Examination of this .-*->ta shows no significant
differences existed for meta and para xylene, ortho xylene,
tetrachloroethylene, and hexane. Significant differences were
found with toluene, benzene, and 1,1,1 trichloroethane.
LSDs are presented for results shown to be significant by the F
test in Tables 21-23. Analysis of the data using the LSDs is
presented in Table 24. Considering the benzene and toluene, this
table shows that the NJIT tubes were biased high and were
significantly different than either the CSI or NYSDEC tubes. The
NJIT canisters were statistically indistinguishable from any
other treatment for these two compounds. In the case of toluene,
the NYSDEC tubes were significantly different from the CSI tubes,
with the CSI tubes were biased high and the CSI tubes were biased
low. For benzene, both CSI and NYSDEC were biased high and were
7- 36
-------
statistically equivalent. For the 1,1,1 trichloroethane data, the
NJIT canisters were significantly biased high, whereas all other
treatments were biased low. The NJIT canisters were significantly
different from the CSI and NYSDEC tubes. The NJIT tubes were not
significantly different from all the other treatments. The CSI
and NYSDEC tubes were also significantly different from each ,
with the CSI tubes being biased low to a greater extent than the
NYSDEC tubes.
Discussion
The findings elucidated by the above statistical analysis
indicate that real biases did exist in the sampling/analysis of
certain compounds. Furthermore, these biases were suggested by
the descriptive statistics found in Tables 1 and 2. Other
differences may exist, however they are obscured by the
limitations of the data set and the inherent variability in the
sampling/analysis methodology. The limitations of the data set
are evident particularly when examining the data of NJIT. The
limited sample size raises two problems. One, are these samples
truly representative of the organization's ability? Two, the
small sample size forces the estimation of the bounds of
variability for this organization to be excessively wide
obscuring all but the largest trends.
The results of table 1 and 2 show that almost no compounds
deviated from the PEI reference by ± 50%. Deviations beyond this
range were clearly shown to be significantly biased, as was the
case with the NJIT canisters in the first year of the study.
Additionally, the maximum amount of difference between any two
organizations that was not found to be statistically significant
was 53%. Thus, a reasonable rule of thumb for assessing the
amount of bias that could go undetected for the seven compounds
examined in this study would be a factor of 2.
Further Approaches
Approaches that may be tried to further evaluate the differences
between organizations and sites include the following:
1. A) Examine the enclosed analyses of variance. B) In cases
where significance was observed, adjust all data for that
organization by the mean difference for each organization as
stated in the ANOVA table. C) For each organization, construct
95% confidence bands around the data reported for each
organization/site based on the QA information provided by the
organizations.
2. Perform an analysis of variance, segregated by site, for each
collocated pair. This will allow for the determination of the
variability inherent within an organization that occurs at each
site. (It is this "interaction" term of site and organization
that complicated the analysis of variance so extensively to
preclude its being presented here. The ANOVA is further made more
difficult by the fact that each site was sampled by only one
7- 37
-------
organization with unequal replication of sites and collocations
for each organization. Additionally the NJIT data is very sparse,
and therefore the determination of site differences for NJIT is
made more complex.)
7- 38
-------
Analysis of Variance Betwen Organizations
4th Quarter 1967 • 3rd Quartar 1988
Table 4. Toluene 1st Tear of Study
CSI NJIT NJIT NTSOEC
TUBES CANS TUBES TUBES
Samples (n> 31 4 4 48
Sun (XI) -27.50 -14.40 -2.60 -4.77
Sum 31 4 4 47
Sun (XI) 5.10 -0.60 0.20 -4.15
Sun (XI*?) 15.98 1.34 1.96 16.65
(Sum (Xl)r2/n 0.84 0.09 0.01 0.37
Individual SS 15.14 1.25 1.95 16.29
Individual Mean 0.16 -0.15 0.05 -0.09
Total SS • 35.93 df *
Treatment SS • 1.30 df •
Error SS - 34.63 df *
of Study
Y.. 0.55
35.93
C « 0.00
85 ,
3
82
Source of df Sun of
Variation Squares
Between treatment* 3 1.30
Within treatment* 82 34.63
Mean F
Square
0.43 1.0!
0.42
table 6. X/P Xylene 1st Year
CSI NJIT NJIT NTSOEC
TUBES CANS TUBES TUBES
S»i*}l«* ri»tion Square*
Between treatment* 3 20.82
wJthin treatment* 77 71.56
of Study
Y.. -18.33
96.53
C - 4.15
80
3
77
Mean F
Square
6.94 7.47 ••
0.93
Table 7. 0- Xylene 1st Year of Study
CSI NJIT NJIT HYSOEC
TUBES CANS TUBES TUBES
Sanple* (n) 23 3 3 40
Sun (X<) 5.30 -0.90 0.10 10.20 Y.. 14.70
Sun (Xr2) 2.15 0.83 0.51 6.52 10.01
(Sun (Xi»*2/n 1.22 0.27 0.00 2.60 C - 3.13
Individual SS 0.93 0.56 0.51 3.92
Individ- at Mean 0.23 -0.30 0.03 0.26
Total SS • 6.88 df > 68
Treatment SS • 0.96 df • 3
Error SS « 5.91 df • 65
Source of df Sun of Mean F
Variation Square* Square
Between treatment* 3 0.96 0.32 3.33 *
WithlT treatment* 65 5.91 0.09
7- 39
-------
Analysis of Variance Betwen Organizations
4th Quarter 1987 - 3rd Quarter 1988
Table 8. 1st Year of Study
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
CSI NJIT NJIT NYSOEC
TUBES CANS TUBES TUBES
Sample* (n) 18 1 2 12
Son (Xi) 4.00 0.80 -0.10 1.86 Y.. 6.56
Sun (Xi-ZJ 2.28 0.64 0.25 1.32 4.49
(Sun (Xi))-2/n 0.89 0.64 0.00 0.29 C • 1.30
Individual SS 1.39 0.00 0.25 1.03
Individual Mean 0.22 0.80 -0.05 0.16
Total SS « 3.18 df - 32
Treatment SS * 0.52 df • 3
Error SS • 2.66 df • 29
Source of df Sun of Mean F
Variation Squares Square
Between treatments 3 0.52 0.17 1.88
Within treatments 29 2.66 0.09
Table 10. 1st Year of Study
Hexane
CSI NJIT NJIT NYSOEC
TUBES CANS TUBES TUBES
Samples (n) 20 1 1
SUB (Xi) 393.70 -0.20 0.10 Y.. 393.60
Sun (XC2) 31290.7 0.04 0.01 31290.76
(Sun (Xi))*2/n 7749.98 0.04 0.01 C • 7041.86
Individual SS 23540.7 0.00 0.00
Individual Mean 19.69 -0.20 0.10
Total SS * 24248.90 df • 21
Treatment SS » 708.17 df • 3
Error SS • 23540.73 df • IB
Source of Sun of Mean F
Variation Squares Square
Between treatments 708.17 236.06 0.18
Within treatments 23540.73 1307.82
Table 9. 1st Year
Tetrachloroethylene
CSI NJIT NJIT NYSOEC
TUBES CANS TUBES TUBES
Sample* (n) 13 0 0 17
Sun (Xi) -2.10 2.20
Sun (Xi-2) 0.63 2.22
(Sun (Xi))A2/n 0.34 0.28
Individual SS 0.29 1.94
Individual Mean -0.16 0.13
Total SS * 2.85 df •
Treatment SS • 0.62 df >
Error SS • 2.23 df »
Source of df Sum of
Variation Squares
Between treatments 3 0.62
Within treatments 26 2.23
of Study
Y.. 0.10
2.85
C • 0.0003
29
3
26
Mean F
Square
0.21 2.43
0.09
7- 40
-------
Analysis of Variance Betuen Organizations
4th Quarter 1987 - 3rd Quarter 1988
Table 11. Znd Tear
Toluene
CSI NJIT NJIT NYSOEC
TUBES CAMS TUBES TUBES
Samples (n) 31 6 6 130
Sun (XI) 6.50 2.10 -9.90 -81.34
Sun 30 6 6 127
SUM (XI) -2.90 -1.80 -4.00 3.10 Y.. -5.60
Sun (XI "2 ) 5.75 0.80 13.58 16.51 36.64
(Sua (Xi»-2/n 0.28 0.54 2.67 0.08 C • 0.19
Individual SS 5.47 0.26 10.91 16.43
Individual Mean -0.10 -0.30 -0.67 0.02
Total SS • 36.45 df • 168
Treatment SS * 3.38 df » 3 '
Error SS » 33.08 df » 165
Source cf df Sun of Mean F
Variation Square* Square
Between treatment* 3 3.38 1.13 5.62 ••
Within treatment i 165 33.08 0.20
T(ble 13. 2nd Year
M/P Xylene
CSI NJtT NJIT NYSOEC
TUBES CANS TUBES TUBES
Samples (n) 30 6 6 123
sum (XI) -9.00 2.10 0.21 9.90
SUB (Xi*2) 14.00 1.63 12.91 121.93
(Sun> (Xi))*2/n 2.70 0.74 0.01 0.80
Jfldfvidual SS 11.30 0.90 12.91 121.13
[f|dfviduil Mean -0.30 0.35 0.03 0.08
TOttl SS » 150.41 df •
tre>tmnt SS • 4.18 df •
6rr0f SS - 146.23 df •
eoUf*' °* d* Su* **
'^i at ion Square*
* t-«en treatments 3 4.18
w,tn(n treatment* 161 146.23
of Study
•
Y.. 3.21
150.47
C - 0.06
164
3
161
Mean F
Square
1.39 1.53
0.91
Table 14. 2nd Year of Study
0-Xylene
CSI NJIT NJIT NYSOEC
TUBES CANS TUBES TUBES
Satples (n) 25 6 6 109
Sui (Xi> 5.30 1.10 0.20 38.50 Y.. 45.10
Sun (XP2) 1.69 0.31 1.60 115.77 119.37
(Su* (Xl>r2/n 1.12 0.20 0.01 13.60 C * 13.93
Individual ft 0.57 0.11 1.S9 102.17
Individual Mean 0.21 0.18 0.03 0.35
Total SS • 105.44 df • 145
Treatment SS • 1.00 df « 3
Error SS • 104.44 df • 142
Source of df Sun of Mean F
Variation Squares Square
Between treatment* 3 1.00 0.33 0.4S
Within treatment* 142 104.44 0.74
7- 41
-------
Analysis of Variance Betuen Organizations
4th Quarter 1987 • 3rd Quarter 1988
Table 15.
1.1.1
CSI
TUBES
Samples (n) 25
Sum (Xi) 10.20
Sum (Xi*2) 10.44
(Sum (Xt»*2/n 4.16
Individual SS 6.28
Individual Mean 0.41
Total SS »
Treatment SS •
Error SS *
2nd Year of Study
Trichloroethane
NJIT
CANS
6
•1.70
0.71
0.48
0.23
•0.28
22.08
2.44
19.63
NJIT
TUBES
6
1.10
0.97
0.20
0.77
0.18
NYSOEC
TUBES
108
21.82
16.77
4.41
12.36
0.20
Y.. 31.42
28.89
C • 6.81
df • 144
df » 3
df • 141
Source of
Variation
Between treatments
Within treatments
Table 17.
CSI
TUBES
Samples (n) 25
Sun (Xi) -0.30
Sun (Xi'2) 2.25
(Sun (Xi))*2/n 0.00
Individual SS 2.25
Individual Mean -0.01
Total SS >
Treatment SS •
Error SS •
Mexane
NJIT
CANS
5
0.00
1.16
0.00
1.16
0.00
10.62
0.59
10.03
df
3
141
NJIT
TUBES
5
•1.90
7.35
0.72
6.63
•0.38
Sun of Mean F
Squares Square
2.44 0.81 5.85 •*
19.63 0.14
2nd Year of Study
NYSOEC
TUBES
Y.. -2.20
10.76
C * 0.14
df - 34
df • 3
df • 31
Source of
Variation
Between treatments
Within treatments
df
3
31
Sun of Mean F
Squares Square
0.59 0.20 0.60
10.03 0.32
Table 16. 2nd Year
Tetrachloroethylene
CSI NJIT NJIT NYSOEC
TUBES CANS TUBES TUBES
Samples (n) 13 4 4 51
Sun (Xi) 0.50 0.20 0.00 20.05
Sum 5.98
Individual Mean 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.39
Total SS « 59.61 df >
Treatment SS • 1.93 df >
Error SS • 57.68 df •
71
3
66
Source of df Sum of
Variation Squares
Between treatments 3 1.93
Within treatments 68 57.68
Mean F
Square
0.64 0.76
0.85
7- 42
-------
Least Significant Differences bttwttn Organizations
(All units are ppb)
First Year of Study
Fable 18.
1st Year ISO
HJIT Tenax
MJIT Caniste
NYSOEC Tubes
CSI Tubes
Compar i sons : Toluene
MJIT MJIT
Tenax Canisters
1.45 1.45
1.48 1.48
NYSOEC
Tubes
1.45
1.45
0.64
CSI
Tubes
1.48
1.48
0.64
Table 20.
Fable 19.
1st Year ISO
NJIT Tenax
NJIT Canistei
NYSOEC Tubes
CSI Tubes
Comparisons:
NJIT
Tenax
•s 1.36
1.00
1.02
M/P Xylene
NJIT
Canisters
1.36
1.00
1.02
NYSOEC
Tubes
1.00
1.00
0.45
CSI
Tubes
1.02
1.02
0.45
Kt Year ISO Conp
MJIT Tenax
MJIT Canisters
NYSOEC Tubes
CSI Tubes
arisons:0-Xylene
NJIT NJIT NYSOEC CSI
Tenax Canisters Tubes Tubes
0\7 n T? n i£ ......
Second Year of Study
Fable 21.
2nd Year LSD
NJIT Tenax
MJIT Caniste
NYSOEC Tubes
CSI Tubes
Conparisons:Toluene
NJIT NJIT
Tenax Canisters
...... 1 7*
1.27 1.27
1.36 1.36
NYSOEC
Tubes
1.27
1.27
0.61
CSI
Tubes
1.36
1.36
0.61
Fable 22.
2nd Year ISO
NJIT Tenax
NJIT Caniste
NYSOEC Tubes
CSI Tubes
Conpar i sons : Benzene
NJIT NJIT
Tenax Canisters
0.37 0.37
0.39 0.39
NYSOEC
Tubes
0.37
0.37
0.18
CSI
Tubes
0.39
0.39
0.18
Fable 23.
2nd Year LSD
NJIT Tenax
NJIT Caniste
NYSOEC Tul— >
CSI Tubes
Conpar (sons:
NJIT
Tenax
rs 0.42
0.31
0.33
1,1,1 Trichloroethi
NJIT NYSOEC
Canisters Tubes
0.42 0.31
0.33 0.16
ine
CSI
Tubes
0.33
0.33
0.16
7- 43
-------
5.45
Table 24.
Table of LSD Rankings by Organization For Compounds Where «F» is Significant
1st Year
Organization
NYSOEC Tubes
NJIT Tubes
CSI Tubes
NJIT Canisters
Organization
NJIT Tubes
NYSOEC Tubes
CSI Tubes
NJIT Canisters
Organization
NJIT Tubes
CSI Tubes
NYSOEC Tubes
NJIT Canisters
Data
TOLUENE
Average Difference
From PEI (in ppb)
•0.10 a
-0.65 a,b
-O.B9 b
•3.60 c
M/P XYLENE
Average Difference
From PEI (in ppb)
•0.05 a,b
0.10 a
-0.44 b
-2.15 c
0-XYLENE
Average Difference
From PEI (in ppb)
0.03 a,b
0.23 a
0.26 a
-0.30 b
2nd Year
Organization
CSI Tubes
NJIT Canisters
NYSOEC Tubes
NJIT Tubes
Organization
NYSOEC Tubes
CSI Tubes
NJIT Canisters
NJIT Tubes
Organization
NJIT Tubes
NYSOEC Tubes
CSI Tubes
NJIT Canisters
Data
TOLUENE
Average Difference
Fro* PEI (in ppb)
0.21 •
0.35 a.b.c
•0.63 b
-1.65 c
BENZENE
Average Difference
From PEI (in ppb)
0.02 •
-0.10 a
-0.30 a,b
-0.67 b
1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE
Average Difference
From PEI (in ppb)
0.18 a,b,c
0.20 a
0.41 b
•0.28 c
The letters following the "Average Difference From PEI"
are used to indicate statistically significant differences.
Organizations that have the same letters are considered statistically
indistinguishable from one another.
7- 44
-------
Data Beta used in Computations
7- 45
-------
College of Ststen Island
PEI Canisters vs. Tenax Data
4th Quarter 87 - 3rd Ouartar 88
(AU wits ara ppb)
Conpxnd: 111-Trichloroethane
Canister Tenax Difference
Compound: Carbon TetrecMoride
Canister Tenax Difference
CoMpound: Ethylbetuene
Canister Tenax Difference
Compound: Mexane
Canister Tenax Difference
1.3
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.1
0.4
0.2
O.S
O.S
o.:
0.5
1.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.4
•0.2
0.1
0.2
-0.2
0.1
0.3
0.0
Conpotnd: lenzene
Canister Tenax Difference
1.7
0.9
1.3
0.6
1.6
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.6
2.3
1.5
1.1
0.8
0.8
1.6
0.7
0.5
1.4
1.2
1.9
2.0
1.4
1.9
2.4
2.6
1.2
1.3
0.6
1.3
0.9
0.6
1.4
0.7
0.9
3.0
0.7
0.6
1.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.9
1.2
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.7
1.3
1.6
1.9
0.8
1.5
1.7
3.1
2.7
1.8
2.2
0.7
0.8
1.4
0.9
1.6
0.9
0.8
•2.1
0.6
0.0
0.5
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.4
1.9
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.4
•0.2
0.1
•0.4
0.0
1.2
•0.1
0.2
•0.7
•0.1
-0.6
-0.9
-0.1
0.5
•0.5
•0.3
-0.2
•0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
Compound.
Canister
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.9
0.6
1.0
0.4
0.7
Compound.
Canister
0.7
0.5
1.3
1.3
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.0
2.5
1.9
0.6
1.3
1.3
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.8
1.8
2.0
2.4
1.6
1.8
2.7
1.2
1.4
5.8
1.1
0.9
0.7
1.6
0.9
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
Tetrachloroethene
Tenax
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.7
1.1
1.2
0.9
1.1
0.5
0.6
Difference
0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
•0.4
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.1
-0.1
0.1
M/P Xylene
Tenax
0.6
1.0
0.8
O.S
0.7
0.6
1.6
1.4
2.9
2.6
1.0
2.5
1.9
1.5
2.6
2.0
2.4
3.5
3.3
3.4
2.6
3.1
4.3
1.6
2.3
0.9
0.9
1.6
1.1
1.8
1.0
Difference
0.1
-0.5
O.S
0.8
•0.2
0.1
•0.6
-0.4
-0.4
-0.7
•0.4
-1.2
-0.
-0.
-1.
-0.
-1.
-1.7
-1.3
-1.0
-1.0
-1.3
•1.6
•0.4
-0.9
4.9
0.2
-0.7
-0.4
•0.2
•0.1
0.2
0.7
0.5
. 0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.3
Conpound:
Canister
O.S
0.2
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
.7
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.6
1.0
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
1.1
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.3
3.2
0.2
0-Xyltoe
•0.3
•0.3
•0.3
•0.5
•0.4
-0.7
-0.4
•0.2
-0.5
-0.2
-0.4
•0.2
-0.4
•0.7
•2.2
1.1
Tanax Difference
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
O.S
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.7
O.S
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.8
4.8
0.6
1.2
0.5
0.7
0.9
0.8
1.2
68.2
132.0
74.8
59.0
27.2
17.9
10.2
9.0
Compound:
Canister
1.6
1.9
1.5
6.4
2.9
1.0
1.4
1.7
1.9
5.7
3.9
1.6
4.3
2.3
2.5
3.8
2.0
1.S
3.4
4.3
S.2
5.0
3.3
3.7
5.8
7.0
2.8
3.5
1.0
2.3
1.7
1.5
3.6
1.9
0.4
1.7
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.4
1.4
0.8
O.S
0.5
0.7
1.6
1.4
1.2
3.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.5
•1.1
0.2
0.2
4.3
0.2
•0.2
•0.3
0.2
0.4
0.1
-0.4
66.8
130.8
71.3
58.6
26.8
17.4
9.4
8.5
Toluene
Tenax
1.7
7.5
1.8
1.6
2.7
0.9
1.2
2.1
2.7
6.0
4.6
1.4
5.5
2.9
3.1
5.4
3.1
2.9
4.2
.3
.1
.7
.0
.0
.0
7.8
5.0
5.8
1.5
2.4
4.5
1.9
4.1
2.S
Difference
-0.1
•5.6
-0.3
4.8
0.2
0.1
0.2
•0.4
•0.8
•0.3
•0.7
0.2
•1.2
•0.6
•0.6
•1.6
•1.1
•1.4
•0.8
•2.0
•0.9
•0.7
•1.7
•1.3
•2.2
•0.8
•2.2
•2.3
•0.5
•0.1
•2.8
•0.4
•0.5
•0.6
7- 46
-------
College of Staten Island
PEI Canisters vs. Tenax Data
4th Ouarter 88 - 3rd Ouarter 89
(All units art ppb)
Conpound: 111-TrlcMorocthant
Canister Tenax Difference
Compound: Carbon TetrechloMde
Canister Tenax Difference
Compound: Ethylbenzene
Canister Tenax Difference
Compound: Htxsnt
Canister Tenax Difference
1.2
0.6
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.4
2.3
0.9
2.0
1.3
1.0
0.6
0.9
O.I
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
1.1
0.4
O.S
2.7
O.S
0.8
onpeund:
Ca*
-------
Hew York State Department of Environmental Conservation
PEI Canisters vs. Envirochea Sorbent Tubes
4th Quarter 1987 • 3rd Quarter 1988
(All units in ppb)
Compound:Toluene
Canister Tube Difference
Compound:Benzene
Canister Tube Difference
Compound:H/P Xylenet
Canister Tube Difference
Compound:0-Xylent
Canister Tube Difference
0.9
2.8
1.8
0.6
1.7
1.9
1.7
3.5
1.8
1.7
2.9
2.8
1.7
2.7
1.4
1.3
5.5
3.7
4.2
2.0
5.8
2.7
6.7
1.8
2.4
2.9
2.0
4.2
2.9
3.3
2.7
1.1
1.9
2.4
1.7
3.3
2.5
0.8
0.3
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.3
2.2
5.4
0.7
0.9
1.1
0.3
1.3
1.6
0.7
1.8
2.5
1.0
3.1
2.4
1.8
4.4
4.8
1.1
2.5
4.4
1.7
4.5
2.3
3.6
1.4
4.4
1.4
4.4
2.1
2.8
3.5
2.0
4.2
2.9
4.1
2.5
1.5
1.8
2.7
1.5
3.3
2.0
1.0
1.8
1.4
1.4
2.4
1.4
2.4
6.9
1.4
0.9
2.9
0.6
1.5
0.2
-0.1
•0.1
•0.6
0.7
0.4
-0.6
•0.1
-1.5
•2.0
0.6
0.2
•3.0
-0.4
1.0
1.4
0.6
0.6
1.4
1.3
2.3
•0.3
-0.4
-0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
•0.8
0.2
-0.4
0.1
-0.3
0.2
0.0
0.5
•0.2
•1.5
-0.2
-0.2
•1.0
•0.1
•0.2
•1.5
•0.7
0.0
•1.8
0.8
1.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.2
0.6
1.1
0.5
0.7
1.7
1.9
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.5
0.7
1.3
0.9
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.8
1.5
1.2
1.0
0.5
0.7
1.1
0.6
1.3
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.9
2.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.2
2.6
1.1
0.8
0.1
0.3
1.0
1.7
2.1
0.3
1.3
1.8
0.6
1.8
0.7
1.5
0.3
0.7
1.0
0.5
1.3
0.5
0.6
1.8
0.6
0.9
0.9
1.4
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.4
1.2
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.9
0.7
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.5
-0.2
0.1
0.0
-2.3
•0.6
•0.2
0.8
0.3
-0.4
•0.7
•0.9
0.3
•0.2
•1.3
0.1
•0.1
1.2
•0.5
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.4
-0.6
0.3
0.9
0.6
•0.2
0.0
•0.4
0.2
0.3
•0.3
-0.1
0.3
-0.4
0.0
-0.2
-1.0
•0.4
0.2
•0.9
•0.1
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.2
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.7
3.9
1.4
0.7
1.3
1.2
0.7
2.1
2.0
.5
.4
.0
.9
.0
.2
.3
.0
.9
.6
.5
2.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.7
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.6
1.0
3-0
0.3
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.8
1.1
0.4
1.0
0.9
0.7
1.9
2.4
0.5
1.3
2.0
0.8
1.8
1.1
1.2
0.7
0.5
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.1
2.2
1.1
2.0
1.3
0.9
0.9
1.2
0.9
1.7
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
1.0
3.5
0.2
0.3
-0.2
0.1
-0.3
-0.4
0.6
0.0
0.2
1.0
2.0
-1.0
0.2
0.0
•0.8
-0.1
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.1
-0.3
0.5
-0.5
1.3
-0.2
0.0
-0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
-0.3
•0.3
0.0
•0.1
0.0
-0.5
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
1.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.3
1.1
1.5
1.2
1.1
0.7
1.1
1.2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.6
1.1
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
1.1
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.6
1.0
•0.2
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.1
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
•0.2
0.4
0.0
0.7
•0.1
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
7- 48
-------
7- 49
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
PE1 Canisters vs. Envirochan Sorbent Tubes
4th Quarter 1987 • 3rd Quarter 1988
(All units in ppb)
Compound:1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Canister Tube Difference
Compoind:DichLoraBethane
Canister Tube Difference
Compocnd:Tetrachloroethane
Canister Tube Difference
0.7
1.0
1.3
0.3
0.5
1.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.3
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.7
•0.2
•0.2
0.0
0.7
•0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.7
0.5
1.2
0.8
1.4
0.5
1.4
1.5
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.7
0.8
0.6
1.2
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.2
1.3
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.7
2.0
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
1.1
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.5
•0.1
0.3
0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0.8
-0.6
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.2
1.1
1.1
-0.1
-0.4
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.8
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.3
-0.2
0.7
1.5
0.2
0.3
-0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.6
1.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
7- 50
-------
New Tork State Department of Environmental Conservation
•El Canisters v». ATDSO Tub»»
4th Ouirter 1988 • 3rd Quarter 1989
(All units art ppb)
Compound: Telutne
Canister Tube Difference
Compound: Toluene (Continued)
Canister Tube Difference
Compound: lenitne
Canister Tube Difference
Conpound: Benzene (Continued)
Canister Tube Difference
2.4
2.2
2.8
4.3
2.9
4.2
3.3
1.1
3.3
2.4
1.7
3.3
3.0
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.4
3.4
5.4
0.7
2.7
3.9
2.4
2.8
3.2
4.6
2.2
1.1
1.8
1.0
4.1
1.3
4.8
4.1
3.2
2.9
1.3
1.6
3.8
1.1
2.8
6.6
3.4
6.9
8.1
B.I
6.1
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.6
1.8
9.7
1.9
10.9
1.0
3.3
2.0
A.2
0.8
4.5
3.7
1.8
7.2
2.6
3.0
1.S
4.6
3.6
5.2
7.2
1.9
5.1
3.4
1.9
4.9
4.9
2.2
0.9
0.9
1.8
2.9
.0
.6
.5
.6
.6
.2
.7
.2
.1
.6
.8
.0
7.0
5.0
4.1
10.1
4.2
4.0
1.
2.
2.
1.
3.
9.
5.
7.
9.
7.
6.
1.
2.
1.
1.4
1.
2.
8.
0.
10.
0.
3.
2.
7.
0.
7.
4.0
1.7
9.9
-0.2
•0.8
1.3
-0.3
-0.7
-1.0
-3.9
-0.8
-1.8
-1.0
-0.2
-1.6
-1.9
-0.5
0.3
0.3
-0.4
0.5
•0.6
-0.9
-0.8
•1.7
•1.2
•1.4
-0.5
•1.6
-5.9
•0.5
0.0
0.0
•2.9
•3.7
0.7
-6.0
•1.0
•1.1
-0.6
-0.7
1.2
•0.4
•0.7
•2.S
•1.6
•0.8
•1.2
0.8
•0.8
•0.3
•0.3
•0.2
•0.2
0.0
•0.4
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.4
0.2
•0.9
•3.1
•0.1
•2.8
•0.3
0.1
•2.7
3.
0.
5.
2.
1.
6.7
6.4
6.0
1.7
2.5
1.1
0.5
0.7
1.1
1.1
3.4
2.0
3.9
1.4
3.8
9.9
2.3
6.1
1.6
2.2
1.3
1.6
1.5
3.8
1.9
2.2
3.0
2.S
3.1
1.7
1.6
2.9
3.5
2.3
3.3
1.9
3.7
3.3
2.9
2.6
2.8
2.4
2.5
8.2
1.1
3.9
2.9
8.6
10.0
2.0
1.2
1.2
4.5
4.2
2.8
4.1
0.9
1.9
3.1
1.8
1.9
0.4
2.7
2.8
2.3
7.6
7.4
5.8
4.0
2.2
2.3
0.7
1.3
1.0
1.1
3.1
1.9
3.6
1.3
4.7
11.0
1.9
2.9
2.8
3.8
1.9
2.8
2.3
5.3
2.7
4.4
3.9
3.4
4.1
3.8
2.1
3.0
4.7
1.5
3.9
1.9
1.9
3.6
2.7
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.7
9.8
5.0
4.0
2.6
7.6
10.8
2.1
1.3
1.4
4.9
3.9
4.0
5.2
1.0
2.3
3.8
2.6
2.0 1.0
0.2 0.9
3.2 0.8
•0.3 1.9
•0.8 1.2
-0.9 1.8
•1.0 1.2
0.2 0.5
-2.3 1.4
0.3 1.1
-1.2 0.6
-0.2 1.3
-0.6 0.9
0.1 0.8
0.0 0.5
0.3 0.3
0.1 O.S
0.3 1.1
0.1 2.1
-0.9 O.S
-1.1 O.S
0.4 0.!
3.2 0.4
-1.2 2.1
-1.6 O.C
•0.6 M
-1.2 2.1
•0.8 1.C
•1.5 1.C
•0.8 O.I
•2.2 0.(
•0.9 1.4
•0.9 0.1
•1.0 0.1
•2.1 0.1
•0.5 0.1
•0.1 2.2
-1.2 1.(
0.8 2.4
•0.6 2.1
0.0 1.
1.8 1.
•0.3 1.
0.2 0.
•0.6 4.
0.0 0.
0.0 0.
•0.2 0.
•1.6 0.
•3.9 1.
•0.1 1.
0.3 1.
1.0 0.
•0.8 2.
•0.1 1.
•0.1 0.
•0.2 0.
•0.4 2.
0.3 1.
•1.2 0.
•1.1 2.
•0.1 3.
•0.4 2.
•0.7 0.
•0.8
1.0 0.0 0
1.1 -0.2 0
0.9 -0.1 0
1.4 0.5 0
0.9 0.3 0
1.5 0.3 0
0.9 0.3 1
0.6 -0.1 0
1.2 0.2 1
1.1 0.0 0
0.6 0.0 1
1.8 -0.5 1
1.2 -0.3 0
0.9 -0.1 1
0.4 0.1 0
0.4 -0.1 1
0. -0.3 0
0. 0.3 C
2. -0.2 C
0. -0.1 1
0. 0.0 C
0. 0.2 (
. 0.5 0.1 1
2.3 -0.2 1
1 1.7 -0.9 1
i 1.0 0.6 (
t 3.6 •O.S (
) 1.1 0.7 (
) 0.8 0.2
t 0.7 0.1
I 0.8 0.0
> 0.8 0.6
1 0.6 0.2
' 0.7 0.0
» 1.4 -0.5
> 1.0 -0.1
! 3.0 -0.8
> 1.7 -0.7
2.2 0.2
2.5 -0.4
2.2 -0.6
1.3 0.2
2.2 -0.3
0.4 0.5
3.8 0.4
O.S 0.1
0.7 0.0
0.7 0.0
0.4 -0.1
1.4 0.0
1.9 0.0
1.1 0.2
0.9 0.0
2.8 -0.3
0.1 1.4
0.6 0.3
0.4 -0.1
0.9 1.7
1 1.1 0.0
T .7 0.0
r .7 o.o
B .5 -0.5
t> .2 -0.2
r .6 o.i
.7
.6
.3
.4
.4
.6
.3
.8
.3
.6
.1
.9
.6
.6
.6
.0
.8
.6
.7
.3
.7
I.7
.2
.1
.4
1.7
).5
).8
.3
.7
.4
.8
.8
.1
.2
.7
.1
.8
.0
.7
.6
.5
.1
.7
.4
.7
.5
.5
.7
.4
.4
.1
1.3
B.4
B.S
0.8
0.6
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.6
1.8
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.2
0.6
1.2
0.7
1.3
2.2
0.4
0.8
0.7
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.8
2.2
1.2
1.0
1.4
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.6
1.2
0.4
1.2
0.3
0.4
0.9
1.1
0.6
1.1
0.7
0.7
2.9
0.9
1.5
1.0
2.2
3.2
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.8
1.3
0.8
1.2
1.1
0.2
0.4
0.9
0.5
1.5
2.0
1.4
1.4
1.6
2.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
-0.1
•0.2
•0.3
0.2
0.8
•0.1
•0.2
0.1
•0.1
•0.1
-0.9
•0.5
•0.3
•0.2
0.0
0.3
•0.1
•0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.3
•0.2
•0.3
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
•0.1
0.1
0.6
•0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
•0.1
0.1
•0.3
•0.3
•0.2
•0.2
0.0
•0.4
7- 51
-------
Mew York State Department of Envirm Mental Conservation
PE1 Canisters vt. ATDSO Tit**
4th Quarter 1988 • 3rd Quarter 1989
Compound: M/P Xylene
Canister Tube Difference
(All unite art ppb)
Compound: M/P Xylene (Continued)Compound: 0-xylene
Canister Tube Difference Canister Tube Difference
CompotJid: 0-jryl«n* (Continued)
Canister Tube Difference
1.2
1.1
0.8
1.9
1.3
1.9
1.5
0.7
1.5
1.0
0.9
1.7
1.3
0.7
0.6
1.1
0.7
1.2
3.0
0.1
1.1
1.8
1.1
1.1
1.6
2.0
0.4
0.9
0.5
2.1
0.5
t.B
1.9
1.3
1.3
0.6
0.5
1.6
0.9
0.4
1.0
2.6
2.6
1.3
3.4
3.5
2.3
2.4
2.6
0.9
3.3
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.4
1.7
2.7
1.S
0.9
3.0
6.6
0.4
2.9
1.1
1.2
1.7
0.9
1.7
1.3
2.4
2.1
0.9
2.2
1.2
0.9
2.0
1.4
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.1
2.9
0.7
1.2
2.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
2.7
0.7
0.9
0.6
2.9
1.7
1.5
4,4
1.8
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.5
1.2
3.6
1.4
1.4
3.0
3.6
2.8
2.3
3.0
0.6
3.S
0.6
0.8
1.6
0.2
2.0
2.0
1.6
0.9
4.3
0.9
0.2
1.2
1.3
0
-0
-0
0
0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
0
•0
-0
-0
0
0
-0
0
0
-0
•0
-0
•0
-0
0
•0
•0
0
•0
•0
-1
0
-2
•0
0
-0
•0
0
0
•0
-0
•1
1
•0
0
-0
•0
0
•0
0
-0
-0
-0
•1
0
-0
0
-0
0
•1
5
0
1
-0
.0 0.8 0.9 -0.1
.6 3.3 3.8 -0.5
.1 3.4 4.1 -0.7
.2 2.8 2.5 0.3
.0 0.9 0.9 0.0
.5 0.9 1.0 -0.1
.6 0.3 0.3 0.0
.2 0.3 0.4 -0.1
.7 0.6 O.S 0.1
.2 O.S 0.8 -0.3
.0 1.4 1.6 -0.2
.3 0.9 1.0 -0.1
.1 1.7 1.8 -0.1
.1 0.6 0.6 0.0
.0 1.2 1.5 -0.3
.5 2.4 3.0 -0.6
.4 0.7 0.5 0.2
.1 2.3 0.9 1.4
.1 0.6 0.7 -0.1
.6 1.9 1.5 0.4
.1 0.5 0.7 -0.2
.6 0.6 0.8 -0.2
.3 0.5 0.6 -0.1
.4 2.3 2.1 0.2
.1 0.8 0.9 -0.1
.7 0.7 1.0 -0.3
.3 2.1 1.3 0.8
.0 2.9 1.1 1.8
.1 2.9 1.6 1.3
.8 0.5 0.8 -0.3
.2 0.6 0.7 -0.1
.3 1.5 .3 0.2
.5 1.6 .3 0.3
.5 0.6 .6 0.0
.1 1.3 .4 -0.1
.1 0.9 .0 -0.1
.2 1.1 .3 0.8
.6 2.6 .0 1.6
.1 2.9 .1 1.8
.1 0.8 .0 -0.2
.2 4.0 .2 2.8
.0 0.8 .8 0.0
.2 1.9 .1 0.8
.1 3.1 .1 -1.0
.4 0.4 .1 -0.7
.1 1.5 .6 -0.1
.5 1.0 .1 -0.1
.1 9.0 .9 6.1
.4 4.0 3.7 0.3
.3 0.6 0.7 -0.1
.2 0.5 0.5 0.0
.1 0.4 O.S -0.1
.1 1.7 1.9 -0.2
.1 2.3 1.S 0.0
.2 1.4 2.0 -0.6
.3 2.5 2.8 -0.3
.7 0.5 0.5 0.0
.1 0.7 0.9 -0.2
.0 2.7 1.3 1.4
.3 0.8 1.0 -0.2
.7
.2
.7
.2
0.3 0.3 0.0 0.7 O.S
0.6 0.7 -0.1 0.3 0.2
0.2 0.3 -0.1 0.6 0.6
0.6 0.7 -0.1 0.9 1.0
0.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.2
0.6 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.3
0.6 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.2
O.S 0.5 0.0 1.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2
0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3
0.7 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2
0.3 0.4 -0.1 1.6 0.6
0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3
1.1 0.9 0.2 1.7 0.4
0.4 0.4 0.0 2.3 0.4
0.7 0.8 -0.1 2.3 0.5
0.5 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2
0.5 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.2
0.6 0.5 0.1 0.9 0.3
0.8 0. 0.0 1.2 0.5
0.4 0. 0.1 0.2 0.3
0.2 0. 0.0 2.5 0.4
0.8 0. -0.1 0.4 0.3
0.7 0. 0.2 4.8 0.4
0.7 1. -0.6 0.4 0.3
0.5 0. 0.0 2.2 0.3
0.6 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.3
0.5 0.2 0.3 O.S 0.0
0.5 0.2 0.3 2.1 0.4
0.4 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.3
1.2 1.2 0.0 0.6 0.4
1.2 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.3
1.5 1.3 0.2 8.6 0.8
0.8 0.8 0.0 2.1 1.1
0.9 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.3
1.1 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.2
0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1
1.4 1.1 0.3 0.8 0.6
0.2 0.2 0.0 1.9 0.5
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.7
0.7 0.5 0.2 1.2 0.6
0.2 0.7 -0.5 0.2 0.2
0.7 0. 0.1 0.3 0.3
1.0 0. 0.2 3.0 0.5
0.6 0. 0.1 0.3 0.3
0.4 0. 0.1
1.2 1. -0.1
0.5 0. 0.2
0.2 0. 0.1
1.2 0. 0.8
0.5 0. 0.1
0.3 0. 0.0
1.4 1. 0.2
1.4 1. 0.1
1.5 0. 0.7
0.3 0. 0.0
0.3 0. 0.0
0.3 0. 0.0
0.3 0. 0.1
0.2 0. 0.0
0.5 0. 0.0
0.3 0. 0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
•0.1
0.1
0.6
0.0
1.0
0.0
•0.1
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.3
1.9
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.7
-0.1
2.1
0.1
4.4
0.1
1.9
0.1
0.1
0.5
1.7
-0.1
0.2
0.1
7.8
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
1.4
•0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
7- 52
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
PEI Canittert v*. AT050 Tube*
4th Quarter 1988 • 3rd Ouarttr 1989
(All units art ppb)
Compound: 1,1,1-Triehloroethene Compound: 1,1.1-Trlchloroethane Compound: DicMorome thane
Canitter Tub* Difftrmcc Canitter Tube Difference Canitter Tube Difference
Compound: DicMoromethane (Cntd)
Canitttr Tube Difference
0.6
0.6
0.3
O.S
1.7
1.1
0.6
0.2
0.4
o.r
0.2
0.7
0.7
0.5
O.S
0.6
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.7
1.0
0.7
1.3
0.6
0.1
0.4
0.9
0.5
0.3
1.3
2.6
1.7
1.1
1.8
0.4
1.3
0.3
0.5
0.9
0.3
1.2
1.6
1.0
0.3
0.3
O.S
0.2
1.1
O.S
0.4
o.r
0.5
0.8
0.4
O.S
o.s
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
1.2
0.3
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
O.S
0.5
O.S
0.4
0.3
O.S
0.3
0.3
0.4
1.2
1.6
1.1
0.7
1.4
0.2
1.9
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.1
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.1
2.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.4
O.S
0.4
0.4
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.1
.3
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.3
-0.1
0.1
0.7
O.S
0.3
•0.1
•0.8
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
•0.1
0.3
0.3
•0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.8
0.2
-0.2
•0.1
0.6
0.2
•0.1
0.1
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
-0.6
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.2
•2.0
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
1.3
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.3
1.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
O.S
0.8
0.4
O.S
0.6
0.7
0.5
O.S
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.7
1.S
1.0
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.3
0.8
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.8
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
1.2
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.3
.3
.7
.0
.3
.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
1.6
0.6
0.8
0.7
1.1
0.6
1.2
1.3
0.5
1.5
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.4
1.8
0.7
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.7
2.4
1.8
2.6
2.2
1.5
2.6
0.7
6.4
0.2
0.4
2.2
0.2
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.3
3.4
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.9
3.1
2.9
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.3
3.2
0.5
0.8
1.3
0.7
0.7
0.3
2.2
1.0
0.3
0.9
0.2
1.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.4
1.2
0.5
1.2
0.3
1.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.2
0.9
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.2
0.5
3.9
0.9
2.9
3.0
0.8
2.3
0.3
3.2
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.3
1.9
0.8
0.3
0.3
7.0
0.1
0.3
1.0
0.4
0.8
4.6
1.6
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.3
•0.1
0.1
0.4
-1.1
•0.4
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
-0.1
O.S
-0.1
0.2
-0.6
0.4
•0.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
•0.3
0.6
•0.2
0.8
0.4
•0.1
0.3
0.2
-1.5
0.9
•0.3
•0.8
0.7
0.3
0.4
3.2
0.0
0.3
1.5
-0.1
•1.2
0.5
0.2
0.0
•3.6
0.5
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.1
•1.5
1.3
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.2
2.9
0.3
1.0
0.6
2.4
0.4
1.0
1.9
0.7
2.0
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.4
1.3
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.9
0.9
.4
.7
.6
.4
.2
.8
.3
.7
.7
.1
.3
.5
.5
0.4
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.8
0.4
1.3
0.2
0.8
1.9
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.1
1.1
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
O.S
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.5
1.0
2.1
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
-0.1
0.2
0.2
1.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.3
1.4
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.0
•0.1
0.3
O.S
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.2
1.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
O.S
0.2
0.2
0.4
7- 53
-------
Mew York Stttc Department of Environment*I Con»erv«tion
PE! Ctniiter* vc. ATD50 Tube*
4th Ouerter 1969 - 3rd Quarter 1989
(All initf tre ppb)
Conpound: Tetriehloroethtne
Canister Tube Difference
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.2
o.s
0.3
0.3
0.4
5.1
0.2
O.S
0.7
0.3
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.8
0.8
0.4
6.7
0.6
1.1
1.4
0.2
5.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.2
3.7
0.5
0.5
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.3
0.1
3.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
4.4
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.1
-0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
3.8
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
•0.1
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.1
6.4
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
2.4
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
•0.7
0.3
•0.1
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
7- 54
-------
CC188L
Hew Jersey Institute of Technology
PEI Canisters vs. HJIT Canisters end Tenax
4th Quarter 87 - 3rd Quarter 8B
(Ail units ere ppb)
Compound:
PEI
Canister
Toluene
MJIT
Canister
MJIT
Tenax
3.1
3.0
S.I
S.3
11.9
3.3
7.3
8.4
3.2
4.2
4.1
7.6
Conpound:
PEI
Canister
2.S
0.9
1.0
1.8
•eruene
MJIT
Canister
2.5
0.2
1.7
2.4
HJIT
Tenax
1.3
1.3
1.0
2.4
Conpomdi
PEI
Canister
M/P Xylene
MJIT
Canister
MJIT
Tenax
0.6
1.8
2.3
1.4
Conpound:
PEI
Canister
3.8
6.4
3.1
1.4
0* Xylene
MJIT
Canister
0.9
1.3
1.0
3.1
MJIT
Tenax
0.6
0.9
0.5
1.5
1.0
0.4
0.5
0.4
1.0
Difference
Canister Tenax
•8.8 -0.1
•0.3 -1.2
•2.2 1.0
•3.1 -2.3
Difference
Canister Tenax
0.0 1.2
0.7 -0.4
•0.7 0.0
•0.6 -0.6
Difference
Canister Tenax
-3.2
-4.6
-0.8
0.0
-0.3
0.5
1.3
-1.7
Difference
Canister Tenax
•0.9 0.1
•0.1 0.5
0.1 -0.5
Conpound: Mexane
PEI MJIT HJIT
Canister Canister Tenax
1.8
2.0
1.7
Difference
Canister Tentx
-0.2 0.1
Confounds
PEI
Canister
0.8
0.6
Compound:
PEI
Canister
nd
nd
nd
nd
1,1,1-THchloroethane
' HJIT MJIT
Canister Tenax
O.S
0.5
1.0
Tetrachloroethene
MJIT HJIT
Canister Tenax
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
Difference
Canister Tenax
0.8 0.3
•0.4
Difference
Canister Tenax
7- 55
-------
CC188L
Compound:
PEI
Canister
3.4
3.1
6.8
1.9
2.3
5.6
Compound:
PEI
Canister
2.0
1.7
3.1
0.9
1.0
2.1
Conpoind:
PEI
Canister
0.8
0.7
3.2
0.7
0.9
2.1
Compound:
PEI
Canister
0.3
0.3
1.2
0.3
0.4
0.9
Toluene
HJIT
Canister
3.4
3.8
5.7
1.5
1.9
4.7
•enzene
HJIT
Canister
2.5
2.2
3.3
0.9
1.1
2.6
M/P Xylene
MJIT
Canister
0.6
0.7
2.2
0.8
0.6
1.4
0-Xylene
HJIT
Canister
0.2
0.2
•0.8
0.3
0.2
0.6
HJIT
Tenax
4.8
11.6
9.5
1.0
2.9
3.2
HJIT
Tenax
2.3
4.4
5.4
0.6
0.9
1.2
MJIT
Tenax
1.6
3.4
1.2
0.2
0.4
1.4
HJIT
Tenax
0.6
1.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.8
Ntw Jersey Institute of Technology
PEI Canisters vt. HJ1T Canisters and Tenax
4th Quarter 88 - 3rd Quarter 89
(All wits arc ppb)
Dfffcrtnce
Canister Tenax
0.0
-0.7
1.1
0.4
0.4
0.9
-1.4
-8.5
-2.7
0.9
-0.6
2.4
Difference
Canister T
-0.5
-0.5
-0.2
0.0
-0.1
-0.5
-0.3
-2.7
-2.3
0.3
0.1
0.9
Difference
Canister Tenax
0.2
0.0
1.0
-0.1
0.3
0.7
-0.8
-2.7
2.0
0.5
o.s
0.7
Difference
Canister Tenax
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.3
-0.3
-0.8
0.9
0.2
0.1
0.1
Conpound:
PEI
Canister
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.0
2.2
CcMpound:
PEI
Canister
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
1.2
Conpound!
PEI
Canister
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Nexane
HJIT
Canister
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.1
1.3
HJIT
Tenax
1.2
3.1
2.8
0.5
1.2
Difference
Canister Tenax
-0.3 0.0
•0.5 -2.1
0.0 -1.3
-0.1 0.5
0.9 1.0
1,1,1>Trichloroethane
HJIT
Canister
1.0
1.0
1.3
0.7
0.7
1.7
HJIT
Tenax
0.7
1.2
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.4
Difference
Canister Tenax
•0.1 0.2
•0.2 -0.4
•0.6 0.0
•0.1 0.3
•0.2 0.2
•0.5 0.8
Tetrachloroethene
HJIT
Canister
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
HJIT
Tenax
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Difference
Canister Tenax
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.1 0.0
0.1 0.0
7- 56
-------
Appendix C
Management Systems Audits
7- 57
-------
This Appendix contains the management systems audits of the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the
New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) and the College of
Staten Island (CSI). All audits were conducted by the QA
Subcommittee.
7- 58
-------
STATEN ISLAND/NORTHERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS ASSESMENT PROJECT
QUALITY ASSURANCE SUBCOMMITTEE
AUDIT REPORT
OF THE
COLLEGE OF STATEN ISLAND
Auditors:
Avrahan Teitz, USEPA (j Region II
Monitoring Management Branch, USEPA - Region II
//I
Joseph Soroka, Ph.D
Technical Support Branch, USEPA - Region II
•-1 •?,
Paul Brown '
Monitoring Management Branch, USEPA - Region II
Sue Jacquet^/ 7
Monitoring Management Branch, USEPA - Region II
Approved by:
Marcus Kantz, QA Subct^nunittee Chairman
Monitoring Management''Branch, USEPA - Region II
7- 59
-------
Background
This audit report contains information on the performance of the
College of Staten Island (CSI) in carrying out its duties and
responsibilities for the Staten Island/New Jersey Urban Air Toxics
Assessment Project (SI/NJ UATAP). Specific areas evaluated were the
implementation of field and laboratory procedures used by CSI. The
findings reported are the result of data submitted by CSI,
conversations and meetings with CSI researchers and an on-site audit.
Conclusions and recommendations are included at the end of this
document. This report has been prepared by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency - Region II for the Quality Assurance
Subcommittee of the SI/NJ UATAP.
Agency audited: College of Staten Island
50 Bay Street
Staten Island, New York
(718) 390-7994
On site portion of audit: Hay 18, 1988
Personnel present at audit:
Joseph Soroka, Ph.D - USEPA - Region II
Paul Brown - USEPA - Region II
Sue Jacquett - USEPA - Region II
Avraham Teitz - USEPA - Region II
Clifford Weisel, Ph.D - CSI
Organization responsibilities for the SI/NJ UATAP:
1. Prepare, sample, and analyze Tenax traps at three
sites on Staten Island.
2. Operate canister sampler for EPA.
3. Design, construct and maintain Tenax and
samplers.
Project Director: Dr.
Monitoring Network Manager: Dr.
Quality Assurance Officer: Dr.
Field Operations Supervisor: Dr.
Laboratory Supervisor: Dr.
Data Management Supervisor: Dr.
John Oppenhiemer
Cliff Weisel
John Oppenhiemer
John Oppenhiemer
Cliff Weisel
Cliff Weisel
7- 60
-------
FINDINGS
SAMPLING OPERATIONS
1. The College of Staten Island (CSI) operates three sites on Staten
Island. Sampling equipment consists of a Tenax sampler at each site,
and one canister sampler that rotates among the three sites. Tenax
samples are collected each day at every site. Canister samples are
collected every six days, with each site is sampled for one month of
each quarter.
2. All three of the CSI's sites are complete and operational with
regard to the requirements of the project. One operator is
responsible for all sample handling at all the sites. Each site is
visited daily to collect samples that have been run and to set-up new
ones.
3. standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) have been submitted to the QA
Subcommittee for all field sampling. These SOPs are available to all
field personnel although they are not physically present at the
sampling sites. Training for sampling personnel is given on the job.
4. Flow rates used in sampling are calibrated before and after every
sampling period using a rotameter that has been calibrated against a
mass flow meter that has in turn been checked with a Gillian bubble
flow apparatus. The field rotameter is recertified when it is dirty,
the ball inside the rotameter is sticking or flow rates vary
appreciably from the norm. No parameters exist to specify the
tolerances in variation of rotameter flows before recalibration is
necessary. In practice, recalibration of the rotameter occurs every
three months. Flow rates are determined in the sampling line. Leak
detection to determine sampling system integrity is carried out daily
before sampling, to ensure the accuracy of air volume measurements.
5. Travel and handling blanks and are taken to every site each day.
Duplicate samples are not taken currently, although they may be done
in the future.
6. Sample information, including sample volumes, site number, dates,
weather conditions, and comments are logged on data sheets on site at
the time of sample collection. Data sheets are then stored in a binder
in the laboratory for three months and are then archived. No logbooks
are kept on site, and records are not kept on preventive maintenance
taken, site operational problems, or corrective action taken.
7. Sampling occurs regardless of weather. The laboratory has no
particular problems with either sampling or analysis of Tenax air
samples due to moisture. Problems have occurred in the past with the
canister sampler. The pump of the sampler burned out once and had to
be replaced. This was followed by the inability of the sampler to
pressurize sample canisters. This problem was alleviated by the
replacement of the entire sampler by EPA.
7- 61
-------
LABORATORY OPERATIONS
Sample analysis: Tenax tubes only; Canisters are analyzed by
outside contractors.
The equipment being used in the laboratory is as follows:
Desorber: Perkin Elmer ATD-50
Gas Chromatograph: Hewlett Packard 5890A
Mass Spectrophotometer: Hewlett Packard 5970 USD with Chemstation data
analysis package
GC/MS interface: Capillary direct from GC
Chromatographic column: J & w Scientific DBS, 0.25 mm i.d., 1.0 urn
thick film, 60 meter capillary
Tenax Cleaning System: Heating oven with nitrogen purge
1.
ana
Standard operating procedures for all aspects of laboratory
•lytical work have been submitted by CSI to the QA subcommittee.
2. Tenax used for sampling is first cleaned using a Soxhlet extraction
procedure using methanol and pentane. The exact procedure is listed in
the appropriate SOP. Tenax is cleaned prior to each use by heating at
250C for 10 hours. The cleaning oven has a capacity of 26 tubes. One
tube is analyzed as an oven blank after each cleaning run. After
cleaning, tubes are stored in a closed paint can for approximately one
week at ambient temperature until they are to be used for sampling.
Samples are analyzed the same day that they are collected. The Tenax
in a sample tube is replaced after 30 cycles of cleaning and sampling
or if degradation of the Tenax is evident. Degradation is
ascertained by the appearance of compounds in the blanks after
cleaning.
3. The laboratory analyzes only Tenax samples. Canister samples are
delivered to EPA Region II where they are shipped to FEI, one of the
contract analysts for canisters in this study. All Tenax analysis is
done by GC/MS. Compounds used as standards are obtained commercially
and consist of 98% pure compounds dissolved in methanol, and a gas
cylinder that contains 10 compounds of interest (all compounds
originally agreed upon at the start of the study with the exception of
toluene) at concentration of 20 ppm. No special tests are conducted to
determine the purity and accuracy of the standards obtained.
Standard stability is checked by comparing daily calibration runs.
4. Calibration curves are prepared using five calibration points.
Calibration standards are prepared using a six port valve, loops of
known volumes, inert carrier gas, a liquid spike and a Tenax tube as
follows: The valve is rotated to connect the gas cylinder containing
the compounds of interest and the loop of known volume. After the loop
7- 62
-------
is filled the valve is then rotated to connect the carrier gas and the
Tenax tube via the loop. Thus carrier gas moves the spike from the
loop and onto the Tenax tube. Additional compounds not in the gas are
placed onto the Tenax with a syringe. Different calibration points
are obtained by varying the volume of gas and liquids placed on the
cartridge. This is done by spiking a tube several times, changing the
amount of gas put onto the tube with each spike by using gas loops of
different volumes, and/or changing the concentration of the liquid
injection. The calibration range is 0.15 - 35 ng for benzene and the
xylenes, 6 - 140 ng for toluene, and 0.1 - 15 ng for the remaining
compounds of interest. All calibration and daily standards are
prepared in a separate room on a different floor from the GC/MS
instrument.
Minimum detection limits (MDL) are determined in two ways? For
compounds which appear as background in oven blank samples (benzene,
toluene, xylene, ethyl benzene), the detection limit is twice the
level found in the travel blank. If compounds are not detectable at
all in the oven samples, varying concentrations are made up until 5
samples of a given concentration give a peak ion count of 500-1000. At
these levels, there are generally no secondary ions seen. This then
becomes the MDL for this particular compound, and the value remains
fixed.
5. Tuning is checked daily using the procedures specified in EPA
Method 624 (GC/MS methods for volatile organics in water) utilizing
bromofluorobenzene (BFB). Ion ratios are examined to see if the
specifications described in the Method are met. If these
specifications are not met, adjustments are made manually and another
run is made.
6. Daily standards are used to ensure that the calibration curve is
still in effect. Daily standards are prepared from liquid reference
standards and injected by syringe onto a Tenax cartridge. The daily
standards contain compounds in proportion to their prevalence in a
typical ambient air sample, but at slightly elevated concentrations.
The tolerance for the daily calibration run is ± 20% of the mean
response for each compound. Approximately once a month, a multipoint
calibration series is run. The results of this multipoint run is used
in conjunction with the existing calibration curve to provide a
rolling average calibration. In this way the instrument is fine tuned
to account for subtle drift. This rolling average method is not used
if the instrument was tuned during the interim. Should the slope of
the multipoint calibration run vary from that of the original
calibration curve by more than 5% or any one point exceed the mean
response by more than 20%, the old calibration curve is invalidated
and a new one must be run.
7. Desorption of organic compounds from the Tenax tube and subsequent
cryofocussing are carried out using the Perkin Elmer ATD-50. Samples
are transfered to the GC from the Perkin Elmer unit via a heated
transfer line. Analysis by mass spectrometry is done using the total
ion chromatogram. The particular ions used for quantitation are
attached in Appendix A. Water in the sample has not been a problem.
7- 63
-------
The water peak has been observed to elute at 8-10 minutes and does not
appreciably interfere with the analysis. The laboratory has an
acknowledged problem with detection of methylene chloride at
concentrations under 0.3-0.6 ppb. CSI believes that this is because
background levels in its building are too high to allow them to
analyze at lower levels.
No internal standards or surrogates are used to spike any samples.
Attempts to spike samples with BFB prior to analysis were
unsuccessful. However, external standards are used at the start of
every run and after every 10 samples to insure the accuracy of
instrument calibration. Results from the travel and handling blanks
are subtracted from the results of samples. The criterion for
acceptance of samples are that the a blank must contain less than 20%
of what is detected in a sample, unless that level is a typical
background concentration.
9. Laboratory equipment is maintained by Or. Weisel. Additionally,
service contracts are in place for all equipment with the appropriate
manufacturer. Criteria for column replacement are that peak shapes and
retention times differ substantially from the norms. To date, this has
not occurred. The ion source in the mass spectrometer is cleaned if,
after tuning, tuning parameters indicate a dirty source.
10. Samples are logged in and assigned a unique sample number as they
are received in the laboratory. Logbooks are kept for all instruments
in the laboratory. These logbooks are used to keep track of
calibration data, but data pertaining to number of samples run or
hours that the machine has been run are not recorded as maintenance is
driven by machine performance.
11. Data from the GC/KS are automatically logged into a personal
computer. A users manual has been prepared for the automated data
acquisition and is kept in the analyst's or user's possession. Data is
backed up nightly on tape, then archived after.
7- 64
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The CSI sampling and analytical programs are a model of efficiency.
Samples are collected and analyzed daily, machines are calibrated,
data is collected, tubes are cleaned, and performance is monitored
with a minimum of down time. This is especially remarkable in that
all laboratory work is done by one person. Data received from the CSI
laboratory have been complete and timely. Analysis of these data,
which includes Shootout results, performance evaluation samples, and
quarterly data reports, show that the performance of the CSI
laboratory has been generally good to excellent. Data are analyzed
thoroughly and problems are singled out for corrective action
promptly. Additionally, all problems and progress have been
communicated promptly. CSI personnel should also be singled out for
the help they have offered other organizations in this project by
sharing their expertise with them. This has even included personal
visits to other organizations to help iron out difficulties and share
techniques.
7- 65
-------
APPENDIX A
JONS USED FOR OU ANT I TAT I ON
COMPOUND
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
1,1 - DICHLOROETHANE
n-HEXANE
CHLOROFORM
1,1,1 - TRICHLOROETHANE
1,2 - DICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TOLUENE
1,1,2 - TRICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHANE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYL BENZENE
M/P XYLENE
BROMOFORM
STYRENE
0 - XYLENE
M - DICHLOROBENZENE
P - DICHLOROBENZENE
O - DICHLOROBENZENE
RETENTION TIME
7.5
9.0
9.8
10.6
11.8
11.9
12.5
12.5
14.1
17.2
17.3
19.1
20.7
21.3
21.6
22.4
22.5
22.7
27.3
27.5
28.4
QUANTIFIER
ION
49
63
56
83
97
62
78
117
95
91
97
94
112
91
91
173
104
91
146
146
146
QUALIFIER
ION
84,86
65
56
85,47
61,99
49,64
51,77
47,119,82
132,130
92,65,51
83,99
166,168,129
77,114
105,106,77
105,106,77
171,81
103,78
106,105,77
148,11,75
148,11,75
148,11,75
7- 66
-------
STATEN ISLAND/NORTHERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS ASSESSMENT PROJECT
QUALITY ASSURANCE SUBCOMMITTEE
AUDIT REPORT
OF THE
NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Auditors:
Avraham Teitz (1
Monitoring Management Branch, USEPA - Region II
Joseph •'Soroka
Technical Support Branch, USEPA - Region II
J" i ' "
' 'I' /.. .; ..'y » .'r .. >.>.
Paul Brown
Monitoring Management Branch, USEPA - Region II
Approved by:
Marcus Kantz, QA Subcommittee Chairman
Monitoring Management'Branch, USEPA - Region II
7- 67
-------
BACKGROUND
This Audit report contains information on the performance of the New
Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) in carrying out its duties and
responsibilities for the Staten Island/New Jersey Urban Air Toxics
Assessment Project (SI/NJ UATAP). Specific areas evaluated were the
implementation of field and laboratory procedures used by NJIT, with
an emphasis on Tenax and canister methods. Formaldehyde sample
preparation and analysis are not examined in great detail. However,
the basic quality assurance measures taken with formaldehyde samples
are outlined where they parallel similar methods used for the
analysis of volatile organics. NJIT also performs analyses of high
volume air samples for metals but this was beyond the scope of the
audit. The findings reported are the result of the review of data
submitted by NJIT, conversations and meetings with NJIT researchers,
and an onsite audit. Conclusions and recommendations are included at
the end of this document. This report has been prepared by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency - Region II for the Quality
Assurance Subcommittee of the SI/NJ UATAP.
Agency audited: New Jersey Institute of Technology
Air Pollution Research Laboratory
323 King Boulevard
Newark, New Jersey 07012
(201) 596-3587
On site portion of Audit: September 19, 1988
Personnel present at audit:
Joseph Soroka, Ph.D - USEPA - Region II
. Paul Brown - USEPA - Region II
Avrahan Teitz - USEPA - Region II
Swroop Sahota - USEPA - Region II
Steve Quan - NJDEP
Barbara Kebbekus, Ph.D - NJIT
Joseph Bozzelli, Ph.D - NJIT
Organization responsibilities for the SI/NJ UATAP:
1. Prepare, sample, and analyze Tenax traps,
canisters, formaldehyde cartridges, and high
volume air samples at two sites in New Jersey.
2. Design, construct and maintain all samplers used
in the study.
3. Periodically collocate canister trains and
formaldehyde samplers and send duplicates to EPA
or its contractors.
7- 68
-------
Project Director:
Monitoring Network Manager:
Quality Assurance Officer:
Field Operations Supervisor:
Laboratory Supervisor:
Data Management Supervisor:
Dr. Barbara Kebbekus
Dr. Joseph Bozzelli
Dr. Barbara Kebbekus
Dr. Joseph Bozzelli
Dr. Barbara Kebbekus
Dr. Joseph Bozzelli
Dr. Joseph Bozzelli
Edward Ritter
Lillian Hung
7- 69
-------
FINDINGS
SAMPLING OPERATIONS
1. The New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) operates two sites
in New Jersey. Sampling equipment at each site consists of a two
tube Tenax sampler, a canister sampler, a formaldehyde sampler, and a
high volume particulate sampler. A second formaldehyde sampler is at
one site using cartridges prepared and analyzed by EPA/RTP. A second
Tenax sampler is rotated between sites to collect samples for mass
spectrometric analyses.
2. Both sites are complete and operational with regard to the
requirements of the project. Each site is visited twice every six
days; once to set up fresh samples, and a second time 24 hours later
to retrieve samples taken. The same team that placed each sample in
the field is responsible for sample pickup at the conclusion of
sampling.
3. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) have been submitted to the QA
Subcommittee for all field sampling. These SOPs are available to all
personnel both in the laboratory and in the field.
4. Flow rates used in Tenax and formaldehyde sampling are calibrated
with rotameters in line behind the respective tubes before and after
sampling. The rotameters are calibrated against wet test meters or
bubble meters in the laboratory every 2-3 months. Leak testing is
done at regular service intervals. With canister samples, flow rate
is regulated by a critical orifice and is monitored in the field by
measuring the pressure of the canister after sampling. This value
is recorded and then compared to previous measurements to determine
whether flow rates have been changing. Sampler inlet filters are
also changed periodically.
5. Travel and handling blanks are taken each sampling day.
Duplicates are taken as follows: Tenax samples are duplicated 10% of
the time. However, these duplicate samples are analyzed by MS to
identify the character of the compounds as opposed to the standard
sample which is used for guantitation by GC. A duplicate
formaldehyde sample is taken every sampling day at one of the two
sites. One set of formaldehyde samples uses NJIT traps in series,
and is analyzed by NJIT, and the other set uses EPA/RTP traps and is
analyzed by EPA/RTP. Canister samples are not duplicated, although
each sample analysis is. Additionally, once a month a canister
sample that has been analyzed by NJIT is sent to PEI, an EPA
contractor, for a duplicate analysis.
6. Sample information, including sample volumes, site number, dates
weather conditions, and comments are logged on data sheets on site at
the time of sample collection. Data sheets are stored in a binder in
the laboratory. No logbooks are kept on site.
7- 70
-------
7. Weather is not usually a factor in the ability to collect and
analyze samples. Generally, only weather that would preclude travel
to the site is sufficient to cancel a sampling run. Occasionally, in
heavy rain, some water does get into the samples, but better than 95%
of all samples have been collected and analyzed.
8. Specific problems that have been faced with sampling and sampling
apparatus has been the appearance of fine black particulate matter
on the inside of the bellows of the canister sampler, and in the
inside of some canisters. The pump was cleaned with some difficulty
using methylene chloride, which contaminated subsequent samples, thus
invalidating the nethylene chloride analysis for a period of a few
weeks.
Sample analysis:
LABORATORY OPERATIONS
Tenax tubes, formaldehyde cartridges, and
canister samples
The equipment used in the laboratory is as follows:
Tenax analysis;
Desorber:
Gas Chromatograph:
Column:
Tetanar 5000
Varian 3700 with Electron capture (ECD) and
flame ionization (FID) detectors
Hewlett Packard PONA Crosslinked methyl
silicone, 50 meter capillary, 0.21 mm i.d.,
film thickness 0.5 urn
Mass Spectrophotometer: Kratos MS25
GC/MS interface: Direct
Chromatography used with MS analysis is similar to that used with the
GC/FID/ECD system, using the same columns, but a different model of
GC.
Canister analysis:
GC/Canister interface: In-house designed cryogenic inlet system.
Gas Chromatograph: Same as for Tenax analysis
Column: Same as for Tenax analysis
Formaldehyde analysis;
High Prformance Liquid Chromatography:
LDC Milton-Roy with UV detection
7- 71
-------
1. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) have been received by the QA
subcommittee for most of the laboratory's operation.
2. Tenax used for sampling is prepared by heating at 225C for three
days and blank checked before use. It is felt by NJIT staff that the
new Tenax currently being received is sufficiently clean to eliminate
the need for long Soxhlet extractions with organic solvents. Used
Tenax tubes are cleaned by heating for 24 hours at 225C. NJIT feels
that cleaning times for Tenax must be substantial, as experience with
shorter cleaning times have resulted in dirty blanks. The cleaning
oven has a capacity of 12 tubes, of which 2 are used for oven
blanks. Cleaned sample tubes are used within 2-3 days of cleaning
and are stored in glass culture tubes with teflon lined caps. Caps
must be boiled as toluene has been found in the glue used to attach
the teflon to the cap. Samples are picked up immediately after
sampling and are stored as they were before sampling. Analysis of
Tenax tubes is within 1-2 days of sampling. Tenax is used until one
of these conditions are satisfied: 30 cycles of sampling and
cleaning, until background levels of contaminants in cleaned tubes
start to rise, or the pressure drop across the tube increases
sufficiently to indicate channelling.
Canisters used in sampling are obtained commercially. The NJIT
apparatus allows four canisters to be cleaned simultaneously. Zero
air for the cleaning procedure is obtained commercially. Canisters
are prepared by pumping them to a vacuum at 35C. They are then filled
with zero air and reevacuated. This process is repeated three times.
One of the four canisters is left filled with air which is analyzed
by GC to check for any residual contamination.
Formaldehyde samples are prepared according to the method of Tejada
at EPA/RTP. As a result of communication with Tejada, NJIT changed
its SOP slightly, and purifyied the clean nitrogen flow used in
drying the forroalfehyde traps. This resulted in a dramatic shift in
the amount of formaldehyde reported by NJIT. This shift brought what
was previously high levels of formaldehyde (15 ppb and subsequently
invalidated) to more typically observed levels (3-4 ppb). Traps
prepared by EPA/RTP that have been collocated with NJIT traps are
sent to EPA/RTP for analysis in order to ascertain the quality of
NJIT analysis. No data has been received to date.
3. A cylinder of standard gas is prepared from commercially available
liquids and gaseous chloromethane by placing the compounds of
interest in the cylinder at ppm levels, and then pressurizing with
helium. The cylinder is then analyzed against NBS traceable standards
in the NJIT laboratory and by a commercial laboratory. The compounds
used as standards and their concentrations are listed in Appendix A.
In general, the mixture in the standards is not similar to that found
in ambient air, with chloroform, methylene chloride, and carbon
tetrachloride being at concentrations greater than those of benzene,
toluene or the xylenes. The same standards cylinder is used for all
analyses of canister and Tenax samples.
7- 72
-------
Standards for formaldehyde analysis are synthesized by KJIT. NJIT has
also received pure standards froa EPA/RTP to -use in preparation of
cartridges and analysis to compare results obtained from the
different standards. It was noted that the standard crystals of
dinitrophenylhydrazone (DNPH) that NJIT synthesized were a different
color than those supplied by EPA/RTP. Results of the use of
different standards is not known due to the lack of results from
EPA/RTP.
4. There are identical but separate GC/detector set-ups for tenax and
canister samples. Calibrations for Tenax and canister samples are
done by injecting standard gas into the GC with a gas sampling
valve. The calibration spike for the Tenax GC is introduced into
the system at the Tekxnar furnace, whereas for the canister GC the
spike is introduced at the sample line. Initially, four points are
run three times for each compound to determine system linearity.
After this is established, calibration is done at one point daily
(about 10 ng for each compound) with a 2 ml injection of standard
gas. Quantitation is obtained from the FID. The ECD is generally used
for helping to identify peaks. The criterion for acceptance of the
daily calibration check is ± 10% of the calibration average for each
compound. Minimum detection limits are computed to 0.01 ppb by
interpolating the results of the line formed by the daily calibration
level and the origin. Such low levels are possible because of the
sensitivity of the FID and ECD. Very little drift has been observed
in any of the detectors, and they are kept running 24 hours a day.
5. As with the calibrations, daily analysis is primarily accomplished
with the GC and the FID. Tenax samples are analyzed as follows:
First, the tube is desorbed by heating, and the compounds purged
from the Tenax are cryofocussed twice inside the Tekmar unit, once in
the sample line and again at the column head. All transfer lines in
contact with the sample are heated. A splitter is used such that 90%
of the sample is run to the FID and 10% of the sample goes to the
ECD.
Canister samples are run by first heating the canister to 35C. The
canister valve is then opened and the sample travels down a heated
sample line where the volatile organics are cryofocussed at -HOC
with a liquid propanol slush. The air in the sample passes through
the focussing trap into a ballast that is of known volume and
pressure. By measuring the difference in pressure the volume of air
that is to be analyzed is determined. Hot water is then applied to
the sample trap and the sample moves via carrier gas to the GC
column where it is cryofocussed again with liquid nitrogen. The
sample is then run on the GC using the same approach as with the
Tenax samples. Canister samples are run two or three times to
insure the accuracy of the analysis, and the data reported are the
average of the runs.
Samples to be used for analysis by MS are prepared in a desorption
system consisting of a nitrogen gas inlet, the sampled Tenax tube in
an oven, and a 10 ml container. The Tenax tube is connected to the
7- 73
-------
10 ml container under reduced pressure, with the nitrogen gas inlet
closed. The 10 ml container is kept at -60C in a methanol bath while
the Tenax tube is heated to 210C. This is allowed to continue for a
half hour. After this tine the nitrogen gas inlet is turned on and
the remainder of any volatiles from the Tenax tube is swept into the
10 ml container. Final pressure in the 10 ml sample vessel is 60
PSIA. Samples are injected into the MS by heating the 10 ml
container and allowing sample to fill a 2 ml loop. Since no pressure
measurements are made, the results are not guantitated. From the
loop, the sample is transferred to a GC where it is cryofocussed at
the head of the column. The output of the GC is connected directly
to the MS.
6. There have been several problems in the past with the analysis
for volatile organics in both the Tenax and the canister systems.
With Tenax, it was discovered in February/March 1988 that the Tekmar
furnace did not cool to the proper temperature at the base of the
sample oven. As a result, compounds were desorbing from the Tenax
traps from the moment they were placed in the Tekmar unit, while
desorption was expected to start during the ballistic heating of the
sample. This resulted in low recoveries of compounds from Tenax
traps. This problem has been solved by not filling the bottom inch
of the sampling tubes with Tenax. In this way, no sorbent is heated
prior to when it is expected to be.
Canisters samples analyzed prior to March 1988 were of poor quality,
as compound peaks were not well resolved. This was attributed to the
use of liquid argon (-160C) in the cryofocussing step, causing C02
from the sample to freeze and be focussed with the organics in the
sample. When liquid argon was replaced with liquid propanol slush (-
HOC), peak resolution was improved.
The results of the steps taken above have been evidenced by a
dramatic improvement in the analysis of the performance evaluation
(PE) samples provided by EPA/RTP. Whereas previously there were
biases as great as 90%, current samples have been within 40% or less
for most compounds for both Tenax and canister samples. This
performance is equivalent to other laboratories involved in this
study. Additionally, results from the second Shootout show that NJIT
is within the bounds expected for data from this study for most
compounds.
However, one problem that appears to be continuing is that data from
canisters analyzed by NJIT appear to have high levels of carbon
tetrachloride. The evidence for this is from Shootout data, split
analysis of NJIT sampled and analyzed canisters by an EPA contractor,
PEI, and consistently higher levels reported by NJIT compared to
other organizations. This problem is limited to canisters, as the
results of Tenax analysis at the Shootout did not show this trend. A
major difference between the analysis of Tenax and canisters by NJIT
is that with Tenax samples, carbon tetrachloride is quantitated using
the ECD rather than the FID because interference is suspected.
However with canisters the FID alone iu used for the quantitation of
7- 74
-------
carbon tetrachloride. Currently NJIT is in the process of changing
over to the ECD for carbon tetrachloride analysis of canisters.
8. Acceptance criteria of oven blanks, travel blanks and handling
blanks used in the Tenax system are identical. Tubes are considered
acceptable if benzene and toluene in the blanks are 10% or less than
the amount found in exposed samples. All canister analysis is done
in duplicate or triplicate. Acceptable results between duplicates is
agreement within 25% or less. The results between the two tubes of
Tenax used at every site are examined for obvious discrepancies.
9. Laboratory equipment is maintained by NJIT personnel. Major
repairs are done by the manufacturer of the associated equipment,
although no service contracts are currently in place. Funds for
spare parts are not as plentiful as at other laboratories, and
replacement parts are needed for some pieces of equipment that are
currently in use.
10, The GC and MS are interfaced directly to a personal computer
allowing all chromatographic runs to be saved electronically. All GC
runs are recorded on chart paper with a chart recorder to allow
chromatographic traces and peak identification to be done manually.
After all peaks have been identified and the data have been found to
be acceptable, the results of GC runs are manually entered into a
Lotus spreadsheet file. As a result, all data is available for
retrieval should the need arise.
7- 75
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The New Jersey Institute of Technology has a very diverse program in
place for this project. The laboratory performs four different types
of analysis, whereas most other laboratories perform only one type of
analysis. The complexity involved in this endeavor results in
greater possibilities for problems to crop up, and in the past some
have. However KJIT has had a long history of maintaining an
analytical air pollution program and thus is able to draw upon its
past experience in examining problems and correcting them. This has
been especially evident in the analysis of volatile organic
constituents where problems in the earlier part of 1988 has resulted
in the invalidation of some data. However, the nature and extent of
the problems were known to the leaders of the project, corrective
measures were taken, and the problems were addressed. This was done
internally by NJIT, and points to the fact that the quality
assurance system in practice by the organization was performing its
function.
The recent decision reached jointly by NJIT and NJDEP, its contract
manager for this project, to invalidate blocks of data generated
before the implementation of significant proces correction is very
positive. It strongly supports a fundamental basis of this project
that each organization will perform its own QA and will act to reject
or qualify questionable data and to implement corrective action.
Current data being generated by NJIT has been within the bounds of
expectations for a project of this type. However, two important
points exist:
1) Concentrations of carbon tetrachloride in canisters are too high.
As a result, the data generated for this compound are suspect. There
is also a trend toward relatively high levels of 1,1,1-
trichloroethane and trichloroethylene being found in canisters. This
was true when comparing NJIT canisters to PEI analysis of the same
canister (split analysis), NJIT Tenax, or Shootout results. This
trend, although apparent, is not significant enough to warrant the
invalidation of data for these compounds, but it should be examined
to determine if there are any underlying causes to this observation.
2) Canisters should continue to be sent to PEI once a month for split
analysis. This has not been done conscientiously in the past,
although NJIT performance in this aspect has been much better
lately.
Quality assurance methods with respect to formaldehyde samples have
been in place. Exchanges of standards, duplicates sent to EPA/RTP,
and ongoing analysis of data are being carried out. However, the
accuracy of NJIT data is currently unknown due to the fact that no
results from the tubes sent by NJIT to EPA/RTP have been reported.
Discussions and feedback between EPA/RTP and NJIT have been ongoing,
and as a result of these consultations, methods of preparation of
tubes has changed from the original NJIT SOP. After instituting small
changes, the results that have been obtained by NJIT for formaldehyde
7- 76
-------
have decreased from 15 ppb to 3 - 5 ppb, which is similar to results
obtained for similar studies in urban air.
7- 77
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPOUNDS AND CONCENTRATIONS IN NJIT STANDARD GAS
COMPOUND CONCENTRATION
Chioromethane 2.98 ppm
Methylene Chloride 11.86 ppm
Chloroform 12.66 ppm
•
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane 7.89 ppm
Carbon Tetrachloride 10.5 ppm
Trichloroethylene 9.15 ppm
Tetrachloroethylene 6.49 ppm
Benzene 9.50 ppm
Toluene 9.05 ppm
Hexane 7.54 ppm
0 - Xylene 4.46 ppm
M/P - Xylene 3.51 ppm
7- 78
-------
STATEN ISLAND/NORTHERN NEW JERSEY
URBAN AIR TOXICS ASSESSMENT PROJECT
QUALITY ASSURANCE SUBCOMMITTEE
AUDIT REPORT
OF THE
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Auditors:
Avraham Teitz ^
Monitoring Management' Branch, USEPA - Region II
Joseph S or oka, Ph.D
Technical Support Branch, USEPA - Region II
Monitoring Management Branch, USEPA - Region XI
Approved by:
7? .Vst ;»,... £' X'^
Marcus Kantz, QA Subcommittee Chairman
Monitoring Managemeijt^^Branch, USEPA -Region II
7- 79
-------
BACKGROUND
This Audit report contains information on the performance of the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (KYSDEC), in
carrying out their duties and responsibilities for the Staten
Island/New Jersey Urban Air Toxics Assessment Project (SI/NJ UATAP).
Specific areas evaluated were the implementation of field and
laboratory procedures used by NYSDEC. The findings reported are the
result of data submitted by NYSDEC, conversations and meetings with
NYSDEC researchers and an onsite audit. Conclusions and
recommendations are reported at the end of this document. This report
has been prepared by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency - Region II for the Quality Assurance Subcommittee of the
SI/NJ UATAP.
Agency audited: New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation
Air Resources
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-3527
(518) 457-7454
On site portion of Audit: September 15, 19B3
Personnel present at audit:
Joseph Soroka, Ph.D
Paul Brown
Avrahaa Teitz
Garry Boynton
Brian Lay
- USEPA - Region II
- USEPA - Region II
- USEPA - Region II
- NYSDEC
- NYSDEC
Organization responsibilities for the SI/NJ UATAP:
1. Collect samples of Tenax, sorbent traps,canisters
formaldehyde, and metals at appropriate sites.
2. Prepare and analyze sorbent traps from NYSDEC
sites in Staten Island.
3. Maintain all samplers used in the study.
Project Director:
Monitoring Network Manager:
Quality Assurance Officer:
Field Operations Supervisor:
Laboratory Supervisor:
Data Management Supervisor:
Don Gower
Will Smith
Ray McDernot
Mike Steineger
Garry A. Boynton
Brian Lay
7- 80
-------
FINDINGS
SAMPLING OPERATIONS
1. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) maintains six monitoring sites on Staten Island. The types
of samples that are collected are: sorbent traps; i.e. Tenax tubes,
Envirochem tubes, ATD-50 tubes, and Poropak tubes; canisters;
formaldehyde cartridges; and high volume air filters for trace
metals. The exact configuration at each site is attached in Appendix
A. Most of the samples that are collected are not analyzed or
prepared by NYSDEC. In addition, tubes that are analyzed by NYSDEC
(Envirochem and ATD-50 tubes) originate from Albany, NY. Thus,
almost all samples are transported to and from the analytical
laboratories to the field office by mail. As a result, the field
office devotes considerable time to tracking, distributing,
packaging and mailing samples.
2. All six sites are completely operational with regard to the
requirements of the project with the exception of the real time gas
chromatographs which have not yet been implemented. One primary
operator is responsible for all sites, but backups are currently
being trained. Each site is visited at last every six days, except
weekends, to retrieve samples that have been run and to replace them
with new samples. In practice, site visits are more frequent due to
the need to maintain equipment, distribute sampling material, and
insure the smooth operation over such a large sampling network.
Currently, samples are often left in the field for several days,
either before or after sampling, prior to being picked up and sent
for analysis. This is of particular concern with the sorbent tubes,
in that samples must be protected from passive sampling and artifact
formation. To deal with this, NYSDEC has developed a ball trap that
seals the sample after vacuum has stopped flowing through the tube.
Although some preliminary laboratory analysis on this technique has
suggested that passive sampling has been stopped, a rigorous study of
this method has not been conducted. This trap is being used with all
sorbent media with the exception of the Poropak traps.
3. Standard operating procedures specific to this project have not
been submitted to the QA Subcommittee for all field sampling.
However, many of the same general techniques that apply to the NYSDEC
air sampling system already in existence apply to this project.
Sampling methods, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and quality
assurance procedures for methods that were in use prior to the SI/NJ
UATAP are in EPA's possession. Modifications by NYSDEC to the
existing documentation for methods in use for the SI/NJ UATAP are
currently under way.
Training to field personnel is complete and thorough and involves a
stagewise progression in a supervised program. The first stage of
training involves site location, familiarization with personnel
associated with the site, and the rudiments of equipment operation.
Complexity is gradually added until in the later stages, the fine
7- 81
-------
points of each method are demonstrated. This includes special
handling to avoid contamination and hands on experience. Training
culminates with the trainee demonstrating proficiency with the use of
the equipment while being monitored by the Field Operations
Supervisor.
4. The samplers for all sorbent trap media, and the high volume metal
samplers, function on the same principles, and are calibrated in the
same fashion. The principle of operation is a vacuum drawing air
through a critical orifice. After every sampling run, a manometer is
used to measure the pressure drop across the orifice. This number is
recorded, and using the calibration equation for the orifice and the
time that the sampler was run, the volume of air sampled is computed.
The critical orifice is audited quarterly by the Field Operations
Supervisor using a mass flow controller whose calibration is
traceable to a primary standard. Audits are conducted by NYSDEC
Quality Assurance personnel to monitor field performance of the
samplers. The criterion for acceptable performance of any sampler is
+_10* of the actual level.
The formaldehyde and canister samplers used by NYSDEC are housed
together, but use different sampling lines. Flows for both are
regulated by mass flow controllers. The flow rates were measured at
the start of the study, but QA/QC measures have not yet been
implemented for insuring the calibration of the mass flow
controllers. This is more important with formaldehyde samples
because canister performance can be judged by the final pressure
after sampling. Also, measurements of flow rate are not needed to
determine concentrations of pollutants in a canister sample, as the
whole air sampled is contained in the canister; this is not the case
with formaldehyde samples.
5. Travel blanks for Tenax, Envirochem, and ATD-50 samples are
handled as follows. Samples are received by the field office in bulk,
with generally 10-30 tubes per shipment. One sealed tube of each
type is taken to a site where that particular tube will be sampled
that day. After sampling, the sealed travel blank is sent to the
appropriate laboratory together with all the sorbent tubes of the
same type that were run that day. In the case that not enough
sampling tubes are available, travel blanks can not be sent, although
this has been the exception rather than the rule.
Travel blanks for the Poropak samples are handled differently. Upon
receipt of a shipment of Poropak tubes, two tubes are selected as
travel blanks. These blanks are taken to a site and left sealed on
site for four to five days. After this time they are sent to the
laboratory for analysis. Poropak tubes from regular sampling runs are
not accompanied by a travel blank on the return trip from the field
to the laboratory. Travel blanks are not used for canister and
formaldehyde samples. Duplicate samples for sorbent media are taken
at each sampling run as follows: Two tubes are run at different flow
rates, as are all sorbent tubes throughout the study, and a third
tube is run at the higher of the two flow rates. Formaldehyde and
canister samples are not duplicated.
7- 82
-------
6. Sample information, including sample volumes, site number, sample
number, dates, weather conditions, and comments are logged on data
sheets on site at the time of sample collection. Data sheets are
then stored by the operator in his office, and a copy is sent to
Albany where it is archived in a notebook by the Data Management
Supervisor. A logbook is kept at each site, and all data that is
written on the data sheets is duplicated in the logbook.
Additionally records are kept in the logbook on preventive
maintenance taken, site operational problems, or corrective action
taken.
7. Sampling occurs regardless of weather. The sampling portion of the
NYSDEC system is separate from the analytical laboratories involved
in this study with respect to personnel, geography and in many cases
organization. As a result samples are sent to each lab with a report
on weather conditions at sampling. The laboratory, upon examination
of samples determines whether they can be run.
LABORATORY OPERATIONS
Sample analysis: Envirochem and ATD-50 tubes only; All other
analyses are conducted by outside
contractors.
The equipment being used in the laboratory is as follows:
Desorber: Perkin Elmer ATD-50
Envirochem
Gas Chromatograph: Hewlett Packard 5890A
Mass Spectrophotometer: Hewlett Packard 5970 MSD with Chemstation
data analysis package
GC/MS interface: Capillary direct from GC
Chromatographic column: SGE BP-1, 0.23 mm i.d., 0.5 um thick film
50 meter capillary, bonded face
1. Standard Operating Procedures have not been received by the QA
Subcommittee for any portion of the laboratory work being done.
However, flow diagrams of analytical procedure have been promised by
NYSDEC in the future.
2. The only laboratory analysis currently undertaken by NYSDEC is the
analysis of the Envirochem and ATD-50 sorbent tubes. The sorbent
being used, in both cases, is a combination of Ambersorb B, tenax and
charcoal. The ATD-50 tube is a metal tube designed for use with the
Perkin Elmer automatic thermal desorber (ATD), while the Envirochem
trap is a more conventional glass tube. With both traps, the initial
7- 83
-------
sorbent cleaning and the packing of sorbent into the tubes is carried
out by a contractor to the state. When new tubes are received by the
NYSDEC, they twice undergo the standard cleaning procedure used to
clean sampled tubes.
After tubes have been sampled and analyzed, they are cleaned by
heating them for 10 minutes at 290C and are then purged for 10
minutes with an nitrogen. Six tubes are cleaned at one time and 10%
of all cleaned tubes are treated as oven blanks. This cleaning has
been found by NYSDEC to be sufficient, with background levels of
cleaned blanks having < 60 ng of benzene and < 12-20 ng toluene.
Tubes are replaced when background levels of organic compounds begin
to rise in the oven blanks. This has not been observed to date, and
this has been attributed to the fact that each tube has only been
recycled 15-16 times.
3. Analysis of all sorbent tubes is by GC/MS. Compounds used as
standards are obtained as NBS certified liquid permeation tubes and
placed in permeation ovens. Calibration of the tubes is taken per
the manufacturers specifications. Direct weighing of permeation
tubes, to give direct gravimetric determinations of permeation
efficiency was attempted, but fluctuations in the weight of the
tube, due to heating effects, static electricity and humidity
rendered this approach impractical.
4. The NYSDEC calibration system is set up as follows: Permeation
tubes are first grouped according to the temperature that is
specified in their calibration. Each group of tubes is then placed in
an oven set at the appropriate temperature. Currently there are four
Metronix ovens in 18 tubes in use. All the ovens outputs are ganged
together by copper tubing that was cleaned with hexane and nethanol
and air then dried. A pump is in constant operation which sucks zero
air through the permeation ovens. Zero air is obtained by cooling air
to a dew point of -100C and then passing it through two canisters of
carbon, one canister of molecular sieve, and one canister of
Drierite. Air flow through the system is controlled with mass flow
controllers. This zero air is checked daily through the calibration
process. When a tube is to be calibrated, it is connected to a 1/4"
Swagelok fitting and the output of the permeation ovens are diverted
through the tube. The calibration system is set-up in such a manner
that the output of any of the four permeation ovens in any
combination may be diverted through the tube to be calibrated. Up to
four sorbent tubes may be spiked at one time. Spike concentration
is a function of the time that the oven outputs flow through the
sorbent tube and the quantity of dilution air.
Minimum detection limits (HDL) are determined as follows. Injections
of 25 ng of each compound are made into the GC/MS system. Then data
are examined from previous runs where lower levels (0-20 ng) of
compounds were observed. These two sets of data were compared for
their relationship and consistency and determinations of MDL made.
System linearity has also been checked and found to hold for levels
up to 300 ng for the Envirochem tubes and at least 200 ng with the
ATD-50 tubes.
7- 84
-------
5. The MS is tuned daily using the Hewlett Packard autotune procedure
with perfluorotributylamine (PFTBA). After tuning, the GC/MS system
in use with the ATD-50 tubes is calibrated for all compounds at three
levels (0, 100, 200 ng). The Envirochem system is calibrated_for all
compounds at two points, 0 and 200 ng. It has been the experience of
NYSDEC laboratory personnel that the daily recalibration is necessary
as ion counts and areas were found to change after the execution of
the autotune procedure.
6. There is no daily calibration check as the calibration curve is
redone every day. No criteria currently exist, for the invalidation
of any calibration run, except for the operators discretion. To test
the stability of the GC/MS unit, Fluoro-2-iodobenzene (FIB) is spiked
onto every tube as an internal standard. This standard is not used
for quantitation, but rather, as a timing check, by monitoring the
time of elution of this compound over the course of time. In
practice, the elution time of FIB has varied less than 3%. Peak area
counts of FIB with ATD-50 tubes has varied by less than 10-15% over a
period of several months, whereas a variation of 30% was observed
with the Envirochem tubes over the same time period. Stability of
the permeation tubes is accomplished by monitoring the instrument
response of the daily calibration tests and by inspecting the
permeation tubes twice annually to insure that they are more than one
quarter full.
7. Analysis of both types of tubes is'carried out in identical GC/MS
systems with each GC/MS dedicated to one type of sampling tube.
Desorption procedures are different for the two types of sorbent
traps used. With the ATD-50 tubes, each sample is desorbed and
cryofocused (-20C) , in the ATD-50 unit. The sample is then
transferred via a heated transfer line to the head of the GC column.
With the Envirochem tube/desorber system, the sample is desorbed and
retrapped three separate times, with each desorption followed by a
trap of a smaller volume, thus concentrating the sample. Purging
from one trap to the other is done at 200C, and each trap is
maintained at a temperature of about 40C. Cryofocussing is not used.
Analysis by mass spectrometry is done using selected ion monitoring.
The ions used for identifying each compound are listed in Appendix B.
Water in the sample line is not usually a problem, although if there
is standing water in a tube it will not be run. The laboratory has
an acknowledged problem with the analysis of 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(1,1,1-TCA) in the ATD-50 tubes, manifested by negatively biasing
the quantisations of this compound by 80 - 90 %. Performance
evaluation and Shootout data confirm this bias. This problem has
recently been traced to the MS in the ATD-50 system not seeing the 97
ion on 1,1,1-TCA. Currently, analysis of 1,1,1-TCA is being done
with the ATD-50 MS using the secondary ions for quantitation. Tuning
of the MS by Hewlett Packard personnel is planned. Misidentification
of peaks is a problem that occurs infrequently, but is handled by
examining results of all generated data.
8. Results of travel and handling blanks are used to determine a
rolling average of the last five runs. These levels are then
determined to be background and subtracted from the results of field
7- 85
-------
samples. Oven blanks are examined to insure that their levels do not
exceed criteria that were established during a cleaning study at the
beginning of the project. Contamination of tubes is determined at the
discretion of the laboratory supervisor.
9. Laboratory equipment is maintained by Garry Boynton. Repairs of
equipment is done by the appropriate manufacturer although no service
contracts are in place. Criteria for column replacement are that
peak shapes and retention times differ from the norm. Parameters for
repair of the MS are evident from the results of the daily autotune
procedure. To date, no columns have been replaced and neither source
has yet had to be cleaned.
10. Documentation of samples received by the laboratory includes a
unique sample number and the field data sheet. Logbooks are kept for
most laboratory instruments. Data transfer from the GC/MS to a
personal computer for data manipulation is done automatically. Raw
data is stored on a Hewlett Packard minicomputer for a period of two
years and is then archived on tape.
7- 86
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The NYSDEC system in the SI/NJ UATAP is larger, more complex, and
more diversified than any other organization in this study. The
sampling and analytical portions of the NYSDEC network are completely
segregated with respect to geography, personnel, and in many cases
organizations. The quality assurance currently being exercised by
the sampling portion of the NYSDEC is exemplary. The rigorous
training of new personnel, the on site documentation and duplication
of all data, and the maintenance and auditing of sampling equipment
all give confidence in data reported with regard to sampling. Due to
the responsibilities of the field office to obtain, distribute,
sample and ship such a wide variety of samples to many different
laboratories, if the proper measures were not instituted and carried
out, chaos would quickly result. The training of the NYSDEC field
personnel in managing networks previously is a great advantage to
them in recognizing potential problems and instituting corrective
action.
The analytical portion of the NYSDEC system is also performing well.
This is based on the data from shootouts, performance evaluation
samples from EPA/RTP, and data from the study. NYSDEC is also the
only organization that has one duplicate sample for each sorbent tube
pair that is sampled. As a result, the precision of NYSDEC data can
be measured to a degree that is unobtainable by other organizations.
The analysis of data by the laboratory has also been thorough, and as
a result problems are quickly noted and corrective action
implemented. This has been the case specifically with the lack of
detection of 1,1,1-TCA. The laboratory however, has not yet submitted
SOPs for procedures currently in use, although they are currently in
the process of being generated.
The following recommendations are intended to improve a well
functioning system.
1. All field and laboratory SOPs must be completed and submitted.
2. The potential positive sampling/artifact formation problem should
be addressed through a more rigorous study, since sorbent tubes
are left so long in the field both before and after sampling.
3. Procedures for checking the mass flow controllers on the
formaldehyde sampling system should be developed and implemented.
7- 87
-------
NTS Department of EnvircnoEntal Conservation
Statcn Island
Toxic Air Nonitorini Status
f )
Site
S. Wagner H.S.
«z
P.S. «6
Travis
Fir* Station
>j Crest Kids
1
00
00 *5
Post Office
Port Richmond
97
Punp Station
S.I. Mall
•9
Fire Station
Tottenville
8/23/88
88-3-141
2 Tube Crad.
Poropak Tenax Adsorbent
4/85 10/87 7/87
(6M/UHONJ) (Envlrochen)
^HN-*
4/85 5/27/88 7/87
(UHDNJ) (EnvirocheM)
N.A. N.A. 8/88
START 8/31
(AID- SO)
N.A. 10/87 7/87
(«•*/'' (EnvlrocheoV
Texas AtM) ATO-50)
N.A. N.A. 9/88
START 9/30
ATO-50
N.A. 5/27/88 7/88
(OM/ START
Texas ACM) (ATO-50)
EPA Auto Hi- Uird Spd
CAN. PC's Vol formaldehyde Wind Olr
4/27/88 3-Oper Ongoing 7/88 Ongoing
(Every 7/87-7/88 (Trace
6 days) (HOtO) Metals)
8/88 H.A. Ongoing N.A. N.A.
(Every • (Trace
18 days) Metals)
8/88 N.A. H.A. N.A. N.A.
(Every
18 days)
6/88 HOLD TSP only 7/88 Optional
(Every
6 days)
9/88 HOLD N.A. N.A. 9/30/88
(Every
18 days)
4/88 N.A. N.A. N.A. 4/27/88
(Every I also R.H.)
18 days)
Met. Data Sorbent TU>e Trace Metals Poro-
Reporting Pata Reporting patt Data Reporting
Through 7/88 10/87 7/88
6/1/88 EPA Format All Data
2nd Otr. 1983
«.A. 10/87 7/88 <
6/1/88-EPA Format All Data *
2nd Otr. 1988 *
5
N.A. 10/1/88 EPA Format H.A.
3rd Otr. 1988
Optional 10/87 N.A.
6/1/88 EPA Format
9/30/88 10/1/88 EPA format N.A.
3rd Qtr. 1988
Through 7/88 10/1/88 EPA Format N.A.
3rd Qtr. 1988
-------
APPENDIX B
IONS
COMPOUND
DICHLOROMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1,2 DICHLOROETHANE
1, 1, 1-TRICHLROETHANE
BENZENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
TRICHLOROETHENE
1,1,2 -TRI CHLOROETHANE
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYL BENZENE
M/P - XYLENE
0 - XYLENE
1,3 - DICHLOROBENZENE
1,4 - DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2 - DICHLOROBENZENE
USED FOR OUANTITATION
QUANTIFYING ION
49
83-85
62
97-99
78
117-119
130-134
95-99
91
164-170
112-114
91
91
91
146-148
146-148
146-148
QUALIFYING ION
84
47
49, 64
61-63 *
77
95-97, 60-62
83-87
92
129-133
77
105-107
105-107
105-107
74-76,111
74-76,111
74-76,111
* The qualifying ions for this compound are used for quantitation in
the ATD-50 system. This is discussed at greater length in the audit.
7- 89
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
ON THE RESULTS OF
SHOOTOUT «2
CONDUCTED ON
JULY 25 - 28. 1988
7- 90
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
Results 2
Discussion 6
Conclusion 12
Explanation of Abbreviations used in Figures and Tables 12a
Tables and Figures 13
Appendix A 43
Appendix B 46
ii
7- 91
-------
Tables and Figures
Page
Table A - Mean Concentration for all Compounds
for the Duration of the Shootout I2b
Table 1. - Benzene Concentrations 13
Figure 1. - Benzene Concentrations 14
Table 2. - Toluene Concentrations 15
Figure 2. - Toluene Concentrations 16
Table 3. - M/P - Xylene Concentrations 17
Figure 3. - M/P - Xylene Concentrations 18
Table 4. - 0-Xylene Concentrations 19
Figure 4. - 0-Xylene Concentrations 20
Table 5. - Dichloromethane Concentration 21
Figure 5. - Dichloromethane Concentrations 22
Table 6. - Carbon Tetrachloride Concentrations 23
Figure 6. - Carbon Tetrachloride Concentrations 24
Table 7. - 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane Concentrations 25
Figure 7. - 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane Concentrations 26
Table 8 . - Tetrachloroethylene Concentrations 27
Figure 8. - Tetrachloroethylene Concentrations 28
Table 9. - Ethyl Benzene Concentrations 29
Figure 9. - Ethyl Benzene Concentrations 30
Table 10. - Trichloroethylene Concentrations 31
Figure 10. - Trichloroethylene Concentrations 32
Table 11. - Chloroform Concentrations 33
Figure 11. - chloroform Concentrations. 34
Table 12. - Benzene - % Difference from the mean 35
Table 13. - Toluene - % Difference from the mean 35
Table 14. - M/P - Xylene - % Difference from the mean 36
Table 15. - 0-Xylene - % Difference from the mean 36
Table 16. - Dichloromethane - % Difference from the mean.... 37
Table 17. - carbon Tetrachloride - % Difference from the
mean. 37
Table 18. - 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane - % Difference from the
mean 38
Table 19. - Tetrachloroethylene - % Difference from the
mean 38
Table 20. - Ethyl Benzene - % Difference from the mean 39
Table 21. - Average of All compounds - % Difference from
the mean. 40
Table 22. - Average of all compounds - Absolute %
Difference from the mean 40
Table 23. - All compounds - % Difference between low and
high flow tubes 41
Table 24. - All compounds - % Difference of data reported
below MDL 42
iii
7- 92
-------
-1-
INTRODUCTION
The Staten Island/Northern New Jersey Urban Air Toxics Assessment
Project (SI/NJ UATAP) Quality Assurance subcommittee has been
charged with the task of assessing the validity and quality of data
that is being generated in the SI/NJ UATAP project. Toward this
end, a workplan and Quality Assurance Project Plan were submitted
to the Steering Committee.. One of the important facets of this
plan called for the scheduling and implementation of collocation
experiments, termed "shootouts," whereby all participants in the
study would sample ambient air at the same location and at the same
time. The need for collocation is required to estimate the
variability between the organizations conducting sampling, allowing
comparisons in measurements conducted by these organizations at
different locations to be estimated.
The purpose of a Shootout is to determine the ability, variability,
and comparability within and between organizations to collect,
analyze and report data. The first Shootout was held October 21-
23, 1987 at the beginning of the SI/NJ UATAP study. As the
midpoint of the project approached, it was felt that a second
Shootout was necessary. This was to monitor the progress and
abilities of the organizations involved in the project at a time
when any startup problems evident at the beginning of the project
should have been eliminated.
The participants present at the second Shootout were the
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL) of the
Environmental Protection Agency at Research Triangle Park
(EPA/RTP), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC), College of Staten Island (CSI), University of Medicine
and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), and the New Jersey Institute
of Technology {NJIT}. The University of Texas A&M, although not
present at the Shootout, was responsible for analyzing some of
NYSDEC'S Tenax samples.
Every organization took sorbent and canister samples. NJIT, CSI,
and UMDNJ analyzed the Tenax samples they had taken. NYSDEC
analyzed the Envirochea and ATD-50 sorbent samples it had taken,
but its Tenax samples were analyzed by Texas A&M. EPA/RTP Tenax
and canister samples were analyzed by Battelle Inc. in Columbus,
Ohio. NJIT analyzed its own canister samples, canisters sampled
by UMDNJ, CSI, and NYSDEC were analyzed by PEI Inc. in Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Each organization within Region II involved in the project was
requested to bring a duplicate sampling train for sorbent media.
CSI and UMDNJ complied with this request fully. NYSDEC .took two
duplicate high flow sorbent samples with Envirochem tubes and a
single duplicate high flow sample with ATD-50 and Tenax tubes. NJIT
had only one sampling train for Tenax at the Shootout. EPA/RTP had
a four tube distributed volume train for Tenax samples and 2
canister sampling trains operating each day.
7- 93
-------
-2-
RESULTS
Weather data gathered at Newark airport shows that the weather over
the course of the Shootout was typical for this time of year.
Daytime highs were in the 80's with humidities greater than 50%.
As a result of weather, mechanical and human factors, the data set
for the shootout was not complete for every organization. The
following, data are missing: NYSDEC ATD-50 samples for day 1 of the
Shootout, NJIT data for all samplers on day 2, duplicates of all
CSI samples, CSI's benzene and carbon tetrachloride high flow tube
samples, and EPA/RTP Tenax samples for day 3. EPA/RTP was only
scheduled to sample for three days, and therefore no EPA/RTP data
are presented for day 4 of the shootout.
The results of the shootout are presented in Tables 1 through 11,
and Figures 1 through 11. Sorbent data were obtained by averaging
the results of the high and low flow tubes that were reported. If
one of the two sorbent tubes was reported as below the detection
limit, the detection limit was averaged with the results of the
second tube. If however, the difference between the two tubes was
such that the minimum detection limit had been found with one tube,
but, the second tube reported a concentration that was 20 times
greater, it was assumed that an error had been made in sampling or
analysis. In such a case, the data reported by all organizations
for that compound and day were examined, and a judgement was made
to see which data point fit best, The best fitting point was then
reported and the second point discarded. This happened 4 times in
the shootout, three times with UMDNJ and once with Texas ASM. Each
time, the tube that was reported at the MDL was discarded. An
asterisk was placed in Tables 1-11 whenever this procedure was
done. It should be emphasized again that this procedure was only
done when a laboratory's data were internally inconsistent. This
approach described above was predicated on experience and knowledge
obtained in the auditing of the laboratories in this study and is
precisely the reason high and low flow tubes are used.
No judgement was made on the validity of data if both data points
from each of the Tenax tubes were in agreement, regardless of the
levels reported by other organizations. In the instance that the
MDL was reported for both the high and low flow tubes, or an MDL
was reported with any of the canister samples, a < symbol precedes
the number in Tables 1-11. KYSDEC did not flag levels below the
MDL. However, as NYSDEC reported the nanograms found for each tube
as well as a ppb concentration, when the mass reported was recorded
as "not found" the data were treated as below the MDL. Canister
data were reported as received.
Given the limitations of time and resources, it was felt that the
best method for comparison of data was through the use of percent
difference. There is historical precedent for this statistic, as
percent differences have traditionally been used as a measure to
evaluate the accuracy of ambient air monitors. Although there is
no standard against which to measure each organization's
performance in the shootout/ the relationship of an organization's
7- 94
-------
-3-
reported concentration to the mean of all reported concentrations
could be assessed. The percent difference was computed for each day
of the Shootout for each compound according to the formula:
(Organization's Reported Concentration - Mean Concentration)*100
Mean Concentration
The organization's reported concentration was derived by the
method described above to obtain the values for Tables 1-11.
Sorbent and canister samples were treated separately. The mean
concentration was derived by averaging all of the reported
concentrations for each compound and day. The data for the two
EPA/RTP canisters and the three PEI canisters sampled by CSI,
NYSDEC, and UMDNJ were each counted separately. However, as the
result of the large sample size and the values of the data reported
in the Shootout, changing the computations for determining the
percent difference by pooling the EPA/RTP canisters or the PEI
canisters did not substantially change the mean.
Percent differences for each day and for the entire Shootout are
presented in Tables 12-20 for all of the compounds in the study,
with the exception of chloroform and trichloroethylene. Chloroform
and trichloroethylene percent differences are not reported because
these compounds were reported at such low levels that differences
of 0.15 ppb could result in >100% difference from the mean. Values
that were reported below the MDL were ignored in determining the
mean and in determining the percent difference. If an organization
reported that a compound was below the detection limit, the letters
MDL appear in place of a number in the appropriate column in Tables
12-20. The reason for this approach is that although an MDL
indicates the maximum level for a compound, the actual level may
be orders of magnitude less. Therefore comparisons between
organizations based on data derived from the MDL would be hampered
by the uncertainty of this number. Thus, the percent differences
shown in this report are actually a comparison between
organizations that reported a quantifiable data point for a
particular compound.
Table 21 is the average of the percent differences from the mean
for all compounds for each organization. It was computed for each
organization by averaging the percent difference from the mean of
each compound for every day of the Shootout. Table 22 shows the
average of the absolute value of the percent difference from the
mean for all compounds for each organization. It was computed the
same way as for Table 21, with the exception that the absolute
value of the percent difference from the mean was used for each
compound for every day of the Shootout. Table 22 is useful because
it reveals variability that may be masked or cancelled by the
normal technique used in Table 21 can be thought of as a
demonstration of accuracy error (or bias), while Table 22 can be
thought of as a demonstration of precision accuracy (or scatter).
For example, if the data for a reporting organization showed that
compound A had a percent difference from the mean of 40% and
compound B had a percent difference from the mean of -40% the
7- 95
-------
-4-
average that would be reported in Table 21 would be 0%. However the
absolute value of the average difference from the mean that would
be reported in Table 22 would be 40%.
The average percent differences between the low and high flow tubes
for each organization and compound are presented in Table 23. The
percent differences between low and high flow tubes are broken down
for each day of the Shootout and shown in Appendix A. There are
several factors that may cause differences to occur between the low
and high flow sorbent tubes, but, based on the pattern and
consistency of the results obtained, the results may be interpreted
as one of the following:
1) As a measure of laboratory precision; This is because
both low and high flow tubes sample air at the same
location and time, and therefore they are also crude
duplicate samples. Thus differences between tubes may be
indicative of a laboratory's precision in analyzing
identical samples;
2) As breakthrough or tube saturation. This would be
indicated if concentrations in the high flow tube are
less than in the low flow tube. This would indicate that
compounds were being desorbed from the high flow tube.
The greater a compound's volatility and concentration,
the greater the likelihood of breakthrough occurring. As
presented in Table 23, this would be indicated by a
negative percent difference;
3) As an estimate of analytical sensitivity. When low levels
of a compound are present, it is possible that the high
flow tube will be shown to contain a greater
concentration of a compound than the low flow tube. This
is because the low flow tube, having sampled less air,
may not have trapped a sufficient amount of compound to
be detected by the analytical instrumentation. The high
flow tube on the other hand, having sampled a greater
volume of air, may contain sufficient amounts of a
compound to be detected. Thus, sensitivity limits would
typically be expected at low concentrations (>0.2 ppb).
As presented in Table 23, this would be indicated by a
positive percent difference.
One last caveat in examining Table 23 is that at low compound
concentration (0.1-0.2 ppb) high percentage differences are easily
obtained. Therefore, high percentage differences with chloroform
trichloroethylene, and carbon tetrachloride should not be assigned
as much weight as similar results with toluene, benzene, xylene,
tetrachloroethylene, and 1,1,1 trichloroethane. As with the means,
if levels below the MDL were reported, the statistic could not be
computed.
7- 96
-------
-5-
The amount of data that were reported below the MDL varied greatly
for organization and compound. Table 24 summarizes these results
for all tube samples taken, including duplicates when available.
7- 97
-------
-6-,
DISCUSSION
From Tables 1-12, it can be seen that, although there were some
technical difficulties, the data set for the Shootout was complete
for most of the participating organizations. However, complete sets
of duplicate sorbent samples were unavailable for any organization
through a combination of errors in planning, judgement or analysis,
From previous Shootout experience and after discussion with EPA/RTP
EMSL personnel, it was expected that even with proper quality
assurance, the data for any one organization could vary by +50%
from the mean. This is because of the heterogenous nature of the
methods, sampler designs, personnel and laboratory facilities that
were being used. If the data varied from the mean by more than ±50%
or 0.2 ppb, whichever was greater, a bias was suspected and further
investigation was warranted. Differences from the mean greater than
±25% are reported as trends, especially when these differences were
uniform for an organization across all the compounds examined.
Differences from the mean of less than ±25% were considered
insignificant.
The significant points derived from the Shootout were:
1) The point of greatest variation was seen between organizations
and, at times, between the different days of the Shootout for
the same organization, rather than between sampling method.
This is evidenced by the following:
As seen in Table 21, Texas A&M Tenax samples had an average percent
difference from the mean of -44,58. However, percent differences
from the mean of -57.45 and -90.35 were recorded for day 1 and day
2 of the Shootout respectively. In contrast, percent differences
from the mean for day 3 and 4 of the Shootout were -25.21 and
-4.84. Percent differences from the mean were particularly high
with benzene and dichloromethane. Concentrations closer to the mean
occurred with i,l,l-trichloroethane,and tetrachloroethylene.
However, even for the compounds for which the overall data were
closer to the mean, the concentrations reported on the first two
days of the Shootout were very low relative to the mean.
Table 21 also shows that NJIT canisters were an average of 77.63%
above the mean for all compounds. This difference was greatest on
day 1 of the Shootout, when the canisters were 116.5% greater than
the mean, although a substantial degree of deviation from the mean
is also evident on day 3. Examining each compound separately shows
that results greater than the mean occurred consistently for all
compounds with the exception of o-xylene. The results with carbon
tetrachloride were >140% of the mean for all days, as can be seen
in Tables 6 and 17. The results for 1,1,1-trichloroethane are also
substantially greater than the mean, as can be seen in Tables 7 and
18.
NYSDEC Envirochem data were on average consistently lower than the
mean during the first day of sampling. As shown in Table 21, the
percent difference from the mean was -61.52% for the first day of
7- 98
-------
-7-
the Shootout. On the other days, the percent difference from the
mean was 41% or less. Examination of the individual compounds in
Tables 1-20 corroborates that this finding was true for all
compounds evaluated by NYSDEC.
2) Canisters and Tenax did not differ substantially from one
another. Typically, for each compound, the pooled canister
mean concentrations were 0.1 to 0.2 PPB greater than the
pooled mean Tenax concentrations. The exception to this was
with dichloromethane, for which canister concentrations were
about 0.4 PPB greater than Tenax concentrations. This result
can be explained by the greater potential for breakthrough
with dichloromethane when Tenax is used, due to its high
volatility and greater concentration relative to the other
target compounds.
Another finding is that the results of the NYSDEC sorbent system
(Tenax, Ambersorb, and charcoal) was equivalent to the results
obtained from Tenax. The NYSDEC sorbent is used in both the ATD-50
and Envirochem tubes. As seen in Table 21, the ATD-50 tubes were
an average of -16.52% from the mean, which was comparable to the
NJIT Tenax results. When examining the performance of the ATD-50
tubes it was apparent tha.t there was very little detection of
1,1,1- trichloroethane, but this problem has since been traced to
the mass spectrometer. Although the Envirochem tubes averaged
35.04% from the mean, this may be due to the analytical system used
to desorb the Envirochem tubes; This system does not feature a
cryofocussing step and thus may lose some volatiles. As can be seen
in Table 22, the absolute difference from the mean for the NYSDEC
sorbent system was equivalent to that of many of the other
organizations in the study. Evaluating the results of the NYSDEC
sorbents compound by compound showed no uniform pattern of bias
that was different from that expected of Tenax.
3) There were some significant differences from the mean that
were compound specific. As seen in Table 15,the NYSDEC PEI
canisters concentrations for o-xylene were greater than the
mean by 100.4%. Table 17 shows that NJIT canister results for
carbon tetrachloride were 247.9% greater than the mean. Table
18 shows that NYSDEC ATD-50 analysis of 1,1,1-trichloroethane
was <90% of the mean, whereas NJIT canisters were 110.7%
greater than the mean for the same compound.
4) The typical percent difference between low and high flow
sorbent tubes was 20-40%. This much variation can be explained
by analytical precision alone. As seen in Table 23, these
results varied by organization and compound. With the NYSDEC
Envirochem tubes, the difference between the high and low flow
tubes was 200% for benzene. These results are not indicative
of a lack of sensitivity in analysis because benzene is found
at high levels. Breakthrough can not be suspected because it
was the high flow tubes that contained larger amount of
material in each case. An analytical error is suspected
because the benzene results were skewed by the results of the
7- 99
-------
-8-
third day of sampling, when there was an 800% difference
between the tubes. On other days, the results were more in
line with expectations.
Table 23 also shows that Texas ASM had consistent differences
between its high and low flow tubes that were greater than 100%.
Examining the day by day results in Appendix A shows that for all
compounds the differences between the tubes varied greatly from day
to day. Analysis of Texas A&M raw data shows wide differences in
duplicate high flow samples as well as between the low and high
flow tubes during the course of the Shootout. The magnitude of the
problem and the consistency that is observed with all compounds
seems to indicate that the differences observed between the low
and high flow tubes are due to analytical technique.
The UMDNJ results presented in Table 23 shows that the differences
between low and high flow tubes was greater for this organization
than any other. These results are primarily due to the toluene,
benzene, and dichloromethane results. This occurred because the
high flow tubes had significant concentrations of target compounds
whereas little or no target compound was observed in the low flow
tubes. These results are most likely a result of analytical
technique because of the magnitude of difference in the
concentrations observed in the high and low flow tubes. It is
important to note that only 14 valid tube pairs are included in
this analysis. That is far fewer than for any other organization
and represents 32% of the available pairs. The remaining 68% of
the pairs were excluded because the results were reported below the
MDL. The results include more than one data point for only 3 out
of 11 compounds.
5) There was a substantial amount of difference in the fraction
of data reported as being below the detection limit. Table
24 shows that 80.17% of all data reported by UMDNJ was
reported as below the MDL. with PEI, 40.2% of the data was
below the MDL. CSI had 9.9% of its data below the MDL. NYSDEC
did not flag any data as being below the MDL. However, as it
did report both the amount in nanograms and the ppb levels,
if a compound was reported as "not found" the amount listed
in the ppb column was assumed to be the detection limit.
NYSDEC, had 8.52% of its Envirochem data and 10.10% of its
ATD-50 data considered below the MDL. NJIT and EPA/RTP
reported no data below the MDL. The reasons for the amount
of data below the MDL that was reported varied by
organization.
UMDNJ reported levels below the MDL for almost all compounds on all
days for all tubes with the exception of the xylenes and ethyl
benzene. This was the case even for compounds for which the
average concentration during the Shootout were close to or exceeded
1 ppb (benzene,toluene). UMDNJ has acknowledged that it has
problems in its analytical process and admits that these trace
amounts are false. In fact, UMDNJ has since resubmitted some
7- 100
-------
-9-
shootout data; they have not been included in the body of the
report, but are included in Appendix B.
PEI had levels below the MDL that depended on the compound being
analyzed. Generally levels below the MDL were recorded only when
the mean was less than 0.4 ppb. PEI's stated detection limit is 0.2
ppb for most target compounds. It must be borne in mind that a
canister system is inherently less sensitive than a sorbent system,
particularly when a mass spectrometer is used for detection. This
is because with canisters, ambient concentrations of air are
analyzed whereas with Tenax, the compounds present in 10-20 liters
of air are concentrated prior to analysis. Comparisons between NJIT
and PEI canister analysis regarding the MDL are not valid as NJIT
uses an FID/ECD detection system that is more sensitive then the
MS detection system used by PEI. However, the Battelle GC/MS system
used to run EPA/RTP samples was more sensitive than the system used
by PEI.
The majority of the CSI data reported below the MDL were with
dichloromethane. This is because CSI is unable to eliminate the
interference caused by the use of dichloromethane in the building
where they are housed; thus, only high levels of dichloromethane
can be detected. The few other times that MDL's were cited by CSI
were for trichloroethylene and chloroform. In these instances only
one out of the pair of Tenax tubes used for a sample was reported
as below the MDL.
NYSDEC Envirochem tubes had data below the MDL only with compounds
that were found in the smallest amounts. This was with carbon
tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, and chloroform. The ATD-50 tubes,
on the other hand, had some data that were reported below the MDL
with 1,1,1-trichloroethane. As explained earlier, the reason for
this was traced to faulty detection in the MS. However, the ATD-50
tubes were more sensitive with trichloroethylene and chloroform
compared to the Envirochem tubes.
6) The absolute percent difference from the mean, as shown in
Table 22, is useful for comparing the overall precision of the
organizations, rather than the overall accuracy, as shown in
Table 21. All organizations were able to achieve absolute
percent differences less than 45% except for UMDNJ, Texas ASM,
and.NJIT (canister only). NJIT canisters and Texas ASM also
showed the highest percent difference in Table 21, indicating
that most of the deviation was in one direction (high for NJIT
canisters, low for Texas A&M) . UMDNJ's low percent difference
in Table 21 indicates a general lack of agreement with the
mean in either direction (although it must be remembered that
most of UMDNJ's data are not included), due to its failure to
detect target compounds.
7) The results of the Performance Evaluation fPEl samples
foreshadowed the results of the Shootout in many instances.
Texas ASM PE results showed a negative bias that varied from
-40% to -80% below the spike level. Texas A&M's Shootout
7- 101
-------
-10-
results also reflected a negative bias of this magnitude.
NYSDEC's PE results with 1,1,1-trichloroethane using the ATD-
50 tubes was negatively biased by >90%. NYSDEC Shootout
results for the same compound and tube type was -93% below the
mean. The latest PE samples submitted by CSI showed a
negative bias with carbon tetrachloride and benzene that was
variable and was often 30-50%. Shootout results showed that
CSI results for benzene and carbon tetrachloride had a
variable negative bias that sometimes exceeded 50%. UMDNJ
results could not be compared with their Shootout performance
because UMDNJ did not submit their PE samples. NJIT's Tenax
PE results also reflected on its results at both shootouts.
Prior to the first Shootout, NJIT's PE results indicated a
negative bias for all compounds > 50%. Results from the first
Shootout showed that NJIT was, on average, 43% below the mean
for most compounds. A second set of PE samples that were
analyzed prior to the second Shootout showed that NJIT's
performance with Tenax tubes had improved and that, on
average, its results had a positive bias close to 39%. NJIT's
performance in the Shootout was 25.3% above the mean. The one
case in which the PE samples did not correlate with the
Shootout was with the NJIT canisters. The PE results
indicated that the average bias with the canisters was less
than 25% and that carbon tetrachloride results in particular
were biased only -4.3%. At the second Shootout, the NJIT
canisters were consistently high by 70-80%, and the carbon
tetrachloride results in particular were 247.9% above the
mean. Split analysis of NJIT field canister samples by PEI
also corroborated NJIT's bias with regard to carbon
tetrachloride.
8) Comparing the results of this Shootout with the previous
Shootout shows that the variability of the data has not
changed dramatically, although some differences should be
noted. In the previous Shootout PEI did not detect any
compounds. As a result of an EPA/RTP audit and subsequent
advice, they have been reporting data reliably for compounds
with concentrations above 0.2-0.4 ppb. NYSDEC and CSI are
little changed from the previous Shootout, providing data that
have been setting the standard for the study.
NJIT has improved substantially with respect to its Tenax analysis.
As a result of its PE samples and its recent Shootout performance,
the Tenax data currently being generated by NJIT can be given a
high degree of confidence, equivalent to that for NYSDEC and CSI.
As can be seen in Table 22, NJIT Tenax had an absolute percent
difference from the mean less than any other organization. This was
not the case in the first Shootout when NJIT's Tenax results were
greater than 40% below the mean on a consistent basis. The absolute
percent difference from the mean for NJIT canisters was little
changed from the previous Shootout and was about 80%. However, the
variation from the mean for the NJIT canisters at the second
Shootout was always greater than the mean. In contrast, NJIT's
7- 102
-------
-11-
canister results from the first Shootout were more evenly
distributed above and below the mean.
UMDNJ performed slightly better at this Shootout than at the
previous one. At the- previous shootout there were very few
compounds reported due to problems with the samplers. At this
Shootout, approximately 80% of the total samples were reported as
MDL, although useable data sets were available for two compounds.
Analytical problems are very evident.
The EPA/RTP results are the reverse of the last Shootout with
regard to the performance of the Tenax and canister samples.
Although the results at both shootouts were well within the
acceptance criteria of the data, during the first Shootout the
Tenax samples had an absolute difference form the mean of 20% and
the canisters were nearly 40%. In shootout 2 these numbers were
reversed.
7- 103
-------
-(2,-
CONCLUSION
The results of this Shootout bear out a number of points that are
relevant to the SI/NJ UATAP. There are clear differences between
the capabilities of the various organizations participating in the
study. It also seems apparent that the variability in the reporting
of pollutant concentrations is affected more by laboratory
analytical ability than by the particular sampling method. There
was also a high correlation between the results of the performance
evaluation samples and the results of the Shootout. The same
magnitude and type of problems manifested in the performance
evaluation samples were also seen in the Shootout. Additionally,
the results of Shootout I were close to that of Shootout II.
The most important facet of the Shootout is that in conjunction
with performance audit samples and laboratory audits, an assessment
of the quality of data being generated for the project can be
ascertained. Although not every problem may be caught, the methods
outlined above have detected important problems that have been
corrected or are currently being addressed. Had these methods not
been carried out, the data collected would have been of entirely
unknown quality.
As a result of all the extensive QA activities undertaken for the
project, it is reasonable to expect up to an 80% difference between
the data of any two organizations. This is derived from the fact
that most organizations had data from the shootouts and PE samples
that were within ±40% of the mean. When comparing the data from
different sites under the auspices of the same analytical
laboratory, a difference of up to 45% between sites can be
expected. This is derived from the fact that the variation from the
mean for each organization tended to be in the same direction. This
is revealed when examining the absolute value of the difference
from the mean. The level of confidence in the data expressed above
would be the case even if all performance evaluation samples,
laboratory audits and Shootout results were in order. Greater
differences may exist for isolated individual points due to
sampling, analytical or human error or if comparisons are made with
laboratories where problems have been shown to exist.
7- 104
-------
-12a-
Explanation of Abbreviations Used in Tables and Figures Tables:
NJIT - New Jersey Institute of Technology
NYDEC - New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
CSI - College of Staten Island
EPA/RTP - Environmental Protection Agency at Research
Triangle Park
PEI - PEI Inc.
UMDNJ - University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
Figures:
NJ - New Jersey Institute of Technology
NYe - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Envirochem Sorbent Tubes
NYa - New York Department of Environmental Conservation
ATD-50 Sorbent Tubes
SI - College of Staten Island
MD - University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
AM - Texas A&M
RTP - Environmental Protection Agency at Research Triangle Park
7- 105
-------
-12b-
Table A.
AVERAGE CONCENTRATION LEVELS OF TARGET COMPOUNDS IN PPB
DURING THE COURSE OF THE SHOOTOUT (JULY 25 - JULY 29, 1988)
COMPOUND CONCENTRATION (PPB)
TOLUENE 3.55
M/P XYLENE 1.13
BENZENE 0.96
DICHLOROMETHANE 0.84
0-XYLENE 0.53
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 0.50
ETHYL BENZENE 0.31
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.28
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 0.26
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 0.17
CHLOROFORM 0.10
7- 106
-------
SHOOTOUT #2
ALL CONCENTRATIONS REPORTED IN PPB
Table 1.
SORBENT TUBES: BENZENE
NJIT
NYSDEC
TENAX ENVIROCHEM
AVERAGE AVERAGE
2-TUBES 2-TUBES
DAY # 1
DAY # 2
DAY # 3
DAY # 4
CANISTERS :
DAY # 1
DAY | 2
DAY | 3
DAY | 4
KEY:
0.61
N/S
0.83
1.35
0.10
1.40
0.54
0.92
NYSDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
N/S
1.71
1.57
1.87
CSI
LOW FLOW
TUBE
0.52
1.20
0.33
0.77
UMDNJ
TENAX
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
0.97
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
TEXAS A&M
TENAX
2 TUBE
AVERAGE
0.18
0.03
0.32
0.50
EPA/RTP
TENAX
4 -TUBE
AVERAGE
0.99
1.34
N/S
N/S
BENZENE
NJIT
CANISTER
1.39
N/S
1.31
1.63
NYSDEC
PEI
CANISTER
0.40
1.00
0.80
1.40
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
0.60
1.00
0.80
1.50
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
0.40
1.00
0.80
1.30
< = BELOW MDL, THEREFORE MDL REPORTED
N/S = NO SAMPLE TAKEN
N/R = SAMPLE TAKEN, COMPOUND NOT REPORTED
* = ONE OF THE TWO TUBES WAS BELOW THE MDL
EPA/RTP
CAN 1
0.81
1.22
0.85
N/S
EPA/RTP
CAN 2
0.82
1.22
0.81
N/S
GRAND
MEAN
0.65
1.11
0.82
1.24
AND DISQUALIFIED
OJ
J3
10
-------
Figure 1.
SORBENT COMPARISONS
BENZENE
14
z -
1 Q •
1 ft -
17 —
1 A -
ffi 1 .4
n 1 Tt -
2 i o
Z 11-
o M
P i -
F n Q •
rj n • -
tu 0.8
§n 7
n A
Oc _
Oj _
0^ _
0*? — i
04 _
,-'
/
'
r .
/
'
V
1
-T|
"
5
-
:'
1
i
>
>
•
.
•
•
>
>•'•
,
x
•
i
•
-
•
,
V
\
s
\
.
•(
\
, t
'
•
•
'
'
'
\
,'
?
/
-
:
r
-
-
,
"l
s
s
5
•
'
>
~r
-
7
\
•
t
/
/
i
'
,••
^
',
•
-
'--
;
;
1
\
,
'
'•
'
"
' 4
/
-
C^ j
3
^ *
<>
••:
y
•;"
-^
.•
.-
,
•
-
/_
-
?
.
/
/
/
•
\
s
•
•-.
S
!
k
2
/
-.'
•'•
:•
'
\
•
,
:
•
'
:
\
r:
•:
\
. i
1
j
3
^N
Oi
*O V
OJ IQ
"\i M
-> S
^ X
VVrfV
1
[ZZ
NY.
DAY OF SHOOTOirr
NYo R^53 SI
AM
RTF
I
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
7
CANISTER COMPARISONS
BENZENE
/
/\
mm
/\
/\
i^\
/\^
2SL
il
^^
vv<
/x^
2S.
k^s
KN^S
> sf
M
<:^-
si
NJ
NY
DAY OF SHOOTOirr
SI MD
RTF
RTP 7- 108
* = Reported below MDL, therefore MDL is shown
-------
SHOOTOUT #2
ALL CONCENTRATIONS REPORTED IN PPB
Table 2.
SORBENT TUBES:
NJIT
TOLUENE
NYSDEC NYSDEC
TENAX ENVIROCHEM ATD-50
AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE
2 -TUBES 2 -TUBES 2 -TUBES
DAY | 1
DAY | 2
DAY # 3
DAY | 4
CANISTERS :
DAY # 1
DAY | 2
DAY # 3
DAY # 4
KEY:
1.74
N/S
2.99
7.04
NJIT
CANISTER
5.47
N/S
4.01
4.46
0.91
3.68
1.67
4.30
TOLUENE
NYSDEC
N/S
3.79
2.36
5.01
CSI
PEI PEI
CANISTER CANISTER
2.00
4.20
2.70
6.70
1.80
4.30
2.50
6.20
CSI
TENAX
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
2.43
4.65
2.75
7.10
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
1.00
3.90
2.50
5.20
< = BELOW HDL, THEREFORE MDL REPORTED
N/S - NO SAMPLE TAKEN
N/R = SAMPLE TAKEN, COMPOUND NOT REPORTED
* = ONE OF THE TWO TUBES WAS BELOW THE MDL
UMDNJ TEXAS A&H
TENAX TENAX
AVERAGE 2 TUBE
2 -TUBES AVERAGE
1.43 * 1.12
<0.01 0.68
<0.01 1.87
<0.01 5.49
EPA/RTP EPA/RTP
CAN 1 CAN 2
1.92 1.91
4,73 4.83
2.65 2.54
N/S N/S
AND DISQUALIFIED
EPA/RTP
TENAX
4 -TUBE
AVERAGE
1.83
4.42
N/S
N/S
GRAND
MEAN
1.96
3.92
2.59
5.72
o
T-l
I
-------
Figure 2.
I
u
^
2
/\
SORBENT COMPARISONS
TOLUENE
m
^$
K S
$
^k
m
Al
;
I
x\!
v 0<
^
LI
ZZ3 NJ
NY-
OF SHOOTOOT
NYo |^S SI
rt RIP
ZZ
1
CANISTER COMPARISONS
TOLUENE
NY
si
KZ3
* = Reported below MDL, therefore MDL is shown
,
/\
4
RTF
-------
SHOOTOUT #2
ALL CONCENTRATIONS REPORTED IN PPB
Table 3.
SORBENT TUBES: M
NJIT
& P - XYLENE
NYSDEC
TENAX ENVIROCHEM
AVERAGE AVERAGE
2 -TUBES 2 -TUBES
DAY # 1
DAY # 2
DAY # 3
DAY # 4
CANISTERS :
DAY | 1
DAY | 2
DAY # 3
DAY # 4
KEY:
0.49
N/S
0.66
1.34
M
NJIT
CANISTER
2.02
N/S
0.69
0.92
0.53
1.31
0.63
1.33
NYSDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
N/S
1.47
0.82
0.49
CSI
TENAX
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
0.90
2.35
1.30
3.05
UMDNJ
TENAX
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
0.96
0.52
0.30
0.80
TEXAS A&M
TENAX
2 TUBE
AVERAGE
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
EPA/RTP
TENAX
4 -TUBE
AVERAGE
0.61
1.84
N/S
N/S
& P - XYLENE
NYSDEC
PEI
CANISTER
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.90
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
0.60
1.30
0.70
1.50
UtfDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
0.50
1.20
0.70
1.30
< = BELOW MDL, THEREFORE MDL REPORTED
N/S = NO SAMPLE TAKEN
N/R = SAMPLE TAKEN, COMPOUND NOT REPORTED
* = ONE OF THE TWO TUBES WAS BELOW THE MDL
EPA/RTP
CAN 1
0.91
1.49
0.83
N/S
EPA/RTP
CAN 2
0.86
1.58
0.76
N/S
GRAND
MEAN
0.90
1.46
0.76
1.40
AND DISQUALIFIED
-------
Figure 3.
i
J.B
2.5
1.6
0.6
SORBENT COMPARISONS
U & P - XYLENE
KS
z, „>>
;
ii
1
I
^
IN
•
§
DAY OF SHOOTOUT
^ NYg S SI [XXI UD
RTF
S
CANISTER COMPARISONS
U it P - XYLENE
* =
3R —
2_
1 "i — c
1 _
OK
/
/
/
/
/
f
•
^ ,
> -5
^ \/
\ x| s^
N ^ •*• n ^ ^
fra ^
S^"<2 ^',
—i
•-1
.
f.
••
•:
•
•
.•
:•
^
.-.
;;
•
I
:5
•:
2
1 2
DAY
NJ (\M NY V//A SI
i
^
/
.'
,
,
;
i
• '
>a
•
<
.1
30
»
S
1
S
i
3
OF SHOOTOUT
fo^g WD
orted below MDL, therefore MDL is shown
C
•:
:•
:
7-
RTF ^^
112
,"
1
, *
,
S
\
'
-.
3
1
si
i
s
M
4
RTF
-------
en
SHOOTOUT #2
ALL CONCENTRATIONS REPORTED IN PPB
Table 4.
SORBENT TUBES:
DAY # 1
|DAY # 2
DAY # 3
DAY ft 4
CANISTERS:
DAY | 3.
DAY S 2
DAY # 3
DAY f 4
NJIT
TENAX
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
0.14
N/S
0.24
0.43
NJIT
CANISTER
0.69
N/S
0.29
0.42
0 - XYLENE
NYSDEC
ENVIROCHEM
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
0.18
0.51
0.20
0.43
0 - XYLENE
NYSDEC
PEI
CANISTER
1.10
1.20
0.70
1.10
NYSDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
N/S
0.70
0.27
0.49
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
0.20
0.80
0.20
0.60
CSI
TENAX
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
0.20
0.52
0.20
0.50
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
0.20
0.70
0.30
0.50
UMDNJ
TENAX
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
1.41
1.51
0.40
0.76
EPA/RTP
CAN 1
0.36
0.84
0.33
N/S
TEXAS ASM
TENAX
2 TUBE
AVERAGE
0.14
0.05
0.22
0.44
EPA/RTP
CAN 2
0.38
0.85
0.32
N/S
EPA/RTP
TENAX
4 -TUBE
AVERAGE
0.28
1.20
N/S
N/S
GRAND
MEAN
0.44
0.81
0.31
0.57
*
o>
xs
KEY:
BELOW MDL, THEREFORE MDL REPORTED
N/S = NO SAMPLE TAKEN
N/R = SAMPLE TAKEN, COMPOUND NOT REPORTED
* - ONE OF THE TWO TUBES WAS BELOW THE MDL AND DISQUALIFIED
-------
Figure 4.
n
d
a
2
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
20
SORBENT COMPARISONS
0 - XYLENE
Q
I
x
rflf
/Nl
ff
3
^2
S
3
sfa
5
NJ
DAY OF SHOOTOUT
NYa t^3 SI
AJJ
RTP
CANISTER COMPARISONS
0 - XYLENE
2 -
"
.a ~
A •
.7
.6 ~
.D ~
.4 —
.3 -
.2
.1
r1
•-1
/
/
[
/'
r-
'.
^
,
,
S
,,
/r\
'yr ^
T
1
r
•~t
I
,-
„•"
n
•
<
'
:-\
s
1 NY EZ^l
N
S
'
-
1
K.
s
I
1 \
A
A
-
I
*
;i
!
!
"-
<
•'
•
x
;
,«
,1
X
<
i«
.'»
S
1
•:;
1
1
8
v
^
r
OF SHOOTOUT
ESS MD
t
:
/
/
S
1
,
,
•.
r
-
:
•
5
2
_
^H
,-"
•
3
S
,
/
•
r-
]
,
p
-
^
i
ir
;\j
^
3
1
1
*
P
* = Reported below MDL, therefore MDL is shown
7- 114
-------
SHOOTOUT #2
ALL CONCENTRATIONS REPORTED IN PPB
Table 5.
SORBENT TUBES: DICHLOROMETHANE
NJIT NYSDEC
DAY #
DAY |
DAY |
DAY #
TENAX
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
1 0.16
2 N/S
3 0.58
4 1.62
NYSDEC
ENVIROCHEM ATD-50
AVERAGE AVERAGE
2 -TUBES 2 -TUBES
0.29
0.83
0.48
0.44
N/S
0.46
0.52
0.68
CSI
TENAX
LOW FLOW
TUBE
<0.45
0.43
<0.60
0.43
UMDNJ TEXAS A&M
TENAX
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
>4.94
0.11 *
<0.02
<0.02
TENAX
2 TUBE
AVERAGE
0.11
0.02 *
0.28
0.79
EPA/RTP
TENAX
4 -TUBE
AVERAGE
0.11
0.10
N/S
N/S
CANISTERS : DICHLOROMETHANE
DAY #
DAY #
DAY |
DAY #
KEY:
NJIT
CANISTER
1 0.71
2 N/S
3 0.86
4 2.20
NYSDEC
CSI
PEI PEI
CANISTER CANISTER
0.50
1.40
1.40
1.50
0.70
0.80
1.40
1.30
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
<0.2
0.70
1.20
1.30
< = BELOW MDL, THEREFORE MDL REPORTED
N/S = NO SAMPLE TAKEN
N/R = SAMPLE TAKEN, COMPOUND NOT REPORTED
* = ONE OF THE TWO TUBES WAS BELOW THE MDL
EPA/RTP
CAN 1
0.39
0.80
0.46
N/S
EPA/RTP
CAN 2
0.41
0.81
0.67
N/S
GRAND
MEAN
0.83
0.59
0.79
1.14
AND DISQUALIFIED
-------
22
Figure 5.
B
5
B
0
5
u
SORBENT COMPARISONS
DICHLOROMETHANE
t
DAY OF SHOOTOUT
1771 NJ 3 NY« Z] NYa 3 SI (XXI UD
AW
RTP
CD
I
6
u
o
u
CANISTER COMPARISONS
DICHLOROWETHANE
DAY OF SHOOTOUT
r/23 SI MD
1771 NJ IV\1 NY
= Reported below MDL, therefore MDL is shown
* =
1- 116
/\
/\
1
W
4
RTP
-------
oo
CXJ
Table 6.
SORBENT TUBES
: CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
NJIT NYSDEC NYSDEC
ENVIROCHEM ATD-50
AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE
2 -TUBES 2 -TUBES 2 -TUBES
DAY # 1
DAY | 2
DAY # 3
DAY # 4
CANISTERS :
0.19
N/S
0.13
0.40
0.07
0.12
0.05
0.05
N/S
0,11
<0.03
<0.03
CSI
LOW FLOW
TUBE
0.19
0.08
0.04
0.05
UMDNJ TEXAS A&M
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
0.34 *
<0.24
<0.26
<0.28
2 TUBE
AVERAGE
0.11
0.02
0.11
0.44
EPA/RTP
4-TUBE
AVERAGE
0.35
0.19
N/S
N/S
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
NJIT
CANISTER
DAY # 1
DAY # 2
DAY # 3
DAY # 4
KEY : <
N/S =
N/R =
* =
1.10
N/S
1.04
0.88
NYSDEC
CSI
PEI PEI
CANISTER CANISTER
<0.2
-------
:
Figure 6,
a
2
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
c
IZZ)
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
O.B
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
G
NJ
SORBENT COMPARISONS
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
NY«
DAY OF SHOOTOUT
SI
AJJ
RTP
CANISTER COMPARISONS
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
DAY OF SHOOTOUT
rr\i NY ESS si
* = Reported below MDL, therefore MDL is shown
PO3 RTP
7- 118
RTP
-------
m
Table
7.
SORBENT TUBES: 1, 1, 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
DAY #
DAY #
DAY #
DAY #
NJIT
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
1 0.21
2 N/S
3 0.29
4 0.57
CANISTERS : 1
DAY #
DAY *
DAY #
DAY #
KEY:
NJIT
CANISTER
1 0.90
2 N/S
3 0.83
4 1.11
NYSDEC
ENVIROCHEM
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
0.19
0.51
0.21
0.48
NYSDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
N/S
0.07
<0.03
0.02
CSI
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
0.17
0.53
0.22
0.41
UMDNJ
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
<0.26
<0.24
<0.29
<0.26
TEXAS A&M
2 TUBE
AVERAGE
0.36
0.07
0.43
0.67
EPA/RTP
4 -TUBE
AVERAGE
0.38
1.71
N/S
N/S
, 1 , 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
NYSDEC
PEI
CANISTER
<0.20
0.60
<0.20
0.50
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
<0.20
<0.20
0.30
0.50
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
<0.20
<0.20
0.30
0.50
< = BELOW MDL, THEREFORE MDL REPORTED
N/S = NO SAMPLE TAKEN
N/R = SAMPLE TAKEN, COMPOUND NOT REPORTED
* = ONE Ob THE TWO TUBES WAS BELOW THE MDL
EPA/RTP
CAN 1
0.48
0.92
0.61
N/S
EPA/RTP
CAN 2
0.51
0.94
0.60
N/S
GRAND
MEAN
0.40
0.66
0.42
0.53
AND DISQUALIFIED
-------
•
Figure 7,
5
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
o.e
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
SORBENT COMPARISONS
1.1.1 - TRICHLOROETHANE
DAY OF SHOOTOUT
NYa (S533 SI
2
E^X
/\:
^J
'is*s
IXXl UD
RTP
CANISTER COMPARISONS
1.1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
•
ZZ1
NY
DAY OF SHOOTOUT
SI UD
* =
Reported below MDL, therefore MDL is shown
RTP
7- 120
RTP
-------
SHOOTOUT #2 ALL CONCENTRATIONS REPORTED IN PPB
Table
8.
SORBENT TUBES: TETRACHLOROETHENE
DAY f
DAY |
DAY |
DAY *
NJIT
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
1 0.19
2 N/S
3 0.18
4 0.33
NYSDEC
ENVIROCHEM
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
0.12
0.31
0.13
0.22
NYSDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
N/S
0.36
0.12
0.22
CSI
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
0.25
0.56
0.17
0.47
UMDNJ
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
0.32
<0.27
<0.33
<0.30
TEXAS A&M
2 TUBE
AVERAGE
0.12
0.04
0.32
0.30
EPA/RTP
4 -TUBE
AVERAGE
0.22
0.74
N/S
N/S
CANISTERS : TETRACHLOROETHENE
DAY *
DAY #
DAY f
DAY #
KEY:
NJIT
CANISTER
1 0.40
2 N/S
3 0.37
4 0.31
NYSDEC
PEI
CANISTER
0.20
0.30
<0.20
<0.20
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
<0.20
0.30
<0.20
0.20
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
<0.20
0.30
<0.20
0.20
< = BELOW MDL, THEREFORE MDL REPORTED
N/S = NO SAMPLE TAKEN
N/R = SAMPLE TAKEN, COMPOUND NOT REPORTED*
* = ONE OF THE TWO TUBES WAS BELOW THE MDL
EPA/RTP
CAN 1
0.21
0.53
0.17
N/S
EPA/RTP
CAN 2
0.20
0.53
0.17
N/S
GRAND
MEAN
0.22
0.40
0.20
0.28
AND DISQUALIFIED
-------
28
Figure 8.
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
•
SORBENT COMPARISONS
TFTRACHLOROETHYLENE
DAY OF SHOOTOUT
3 NY« U77X NYo S SI
UD
CANISTER COMPARISONS
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
I "
Z n K -
ft R -
o
o
o ft T -
01 _
,1
1
I
'
/
4
J
'
'
^ 1
"|^ ^
\^\XX \/,
,
•
,
r~r
s
/
/
-
•
•
-
.
•
•
X
1 R
i- 1
53 ^ ^ ^ S nr. K^5
a /xx^| p?
1 ^11 ^
1
\ \ \
1234
DAY OF SHOOTOUT
1771 NJ fV\l NY V77X SI 5^53 MD EQ3 RTF ES3 RTF
r = Reported below MDL, therefore MDL is shown
7- 122
-------
SHOOTOUT #2
ALL CONCENTRATIONS REPORTED IN PPB
Table 9.
SORBENT 1
DAY 1 1
DAY | 2
DAY # 3
DAY | 4
CANISTERS
DAY it 1
DAY # 2
DAY ft 3
DAY * 4
KPV • <•
TJBES:
NJIT
TENAX
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
t
NJIT
CANISTER
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
= T»T?T /^
ETHYL BENZENE
NYSDEC
ENVIROCHEM
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
0.07
0.21
0.10
0.26
ETHYL BENZENE
NYSDEC
FBI
CANISTER
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.40
hU \ir\T nmr^TNT^Tij
NYSDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
N/S
0.36
0.11
0.22
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
<0.20
0.20
<0.20
0.40
CSI
TENAX
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
0.18
0.72
0.41
0.93
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
<0.20
0.30
<0.20
0.20
UMDNJ
TENAX
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
0.40
0.24
<0.22
<0.21
EPA/RTP
CAN 1
0.30
0.46
0.28
N/S
TEXAS A&H
TENAX
2 TUBE
AVERAGE
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
EPA/RTP
CAN 2
0.25
0.49
0.25
N/S
EPA/RTP
TENAX
4 -TUBE
AVERAGE
0.1S
0.51
N/S
N/S
GRAND
MEAN
0.23
0.38
0.23
0.40
N/S = NO SAMPLE TAKEN
N/R = SAMPLE TAKEN, COMPOUND HOT REPORTED
* - ONE OF THE TWO TUBES WAS BELOW THE MDL AND DISQUALIFIED
-------
-
Figure 9.
CD
-------
Table
10.
SORBENT TUBES: TRICHLOROETHYLENE
DAY #
DAY #
DAY #
DAY #
NJIT
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
1 0.03
2 N/S
3 0.04
4 0.06
NYSDEC
ENVIROCHEM
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.03
NYSDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
N/S
0.07
0.03
0.02
CSI
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
0.02
0.08
0.02
0.07
UMDNJ
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
<0.23
<0.20
<0.24
<0.23
TEXAS A&M
2 TUBE
AVERAGE
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
EPA/RTP
4 -TUBE
AVERAGE
0.10
0.16
N/S
N/S
CANISTERS : TRICHLOROETHYLENE
DAY |
DAY |
DAY #
DAY #
KEY:
NJIT
CANISTER
1 0.47
2 N/S
3 0.23
4 0.45
NYSDEC
PEI
CANISTER
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
< = BELOW MDL, THEREFORE MDL REPORTED
N/S = NO SAMPLE TAKEN
N/R = SAMPLE TAKEN, COMPOUND NOT REPORTED
* = ONE OF THE TWO TUBES WAS BELOW THE MDL
EPA/RTP
CAN 1
0.51
0.10
0.61
N/S
EPA/RTP
CAN 2
0.31
0.12
0.29
N/S
GRAND
MEAN
0.24
0.09
0.20
0.13
AND DISQUALIFIED
-------
Figure 10.
SORBENT COMPARISONS
TRICHLDROETHYLENE
* -
OB
Oil _
n 7 —
0.
0.
Z n (\ —
I
P 05-
tj n A —
s °-4
O 03-
09 —
01 —
0-
Z
i _
OQ _
OB _
m 07-
I
SOB-
P 05-
&
D 04
o B
0 03 _
02 _
01 _
0_
I771 NJ
nnvtaH hoi
• » •
W * R pq
X 5? X xT"^
• xl ^H • r^^^
T— i FT * • (r^1 B FT-K/p ^ r T? o ^S
1234
DAY OF SHOOTOUT
Z] NJ fV\l NY* NYa S SI (XXI MD BBg!
^^^•m
CANISTER COMPARISONS
THICHLOROETHYLENE
X
X
ra v
^ x -
1 X * n
i__>< X /
X X3 /
x xj y
'•••xg *** n*">
-------
CO
CO
SHOOTOUT #2
ALL CONCENTRATIONS REPORTED IN PPB
Table
11.
SORBENT TUBES: CHLOROFORM
DAY #
DAY #
DAY f
DAY f
NJIT
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
1 0.03
2 N/S
3 0.04
4 0.04
NYSDEC
ENVIROCHEM
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
0.06
0.26
0.06
0.07
NYSDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
N/S
0.08
0.08
0.08
CSI
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
UMDNJ
AVERAGE
2 -TUBES
<0.01
<0.11
<0.02
<0.02
TEXAS A&M
2 TUBE
AVERAGE
0.14
0.05
0.08
0.12
EPA/RTP
4 -TUBE
AVERAGE
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
CANISTERS : CHLOROFORM
DAY #
DAY |
DAY #
DAY *
KEY:
NJIT
CANISTER
1 0.31
2 N/S
3 0.16
4 0.00
NYSDEC
PEI
CANISTER
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
< = BELOW MDL, THEREFORE MDL REPORTED
N/S = NO SAMPLE TAKEN
N/R = SAMPLE TAKEN, COMPOUND NOT REPORTED
* = ONE OF THE TWO TUBES WAS BELOW THE MDL
EPA/RTP
CAN 1
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
EPA/RTP
CAN 2
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
GRAND
MEAN
0.19
0.10
0.07
0.06
H
1
rt
-------
Figure 11.
D
a
2
i
P
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
53
O
SORBENT COMPARISONS
CHLOROFORM
NJ
fV^l NYe
DAY OF SHOOTOUT
NYa E^ SI
UD
4
AM
0.9
O.B
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
CANISTER COMPARISONS
CHLOROFORM
DAY OF SHOOTOUT
[771 NJ [V\l NY EZ^ SI
UD
* = Reported below MDL, therefore MDL is shown
7- 128
-------
35
laoie i<;. i
1 !
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 DAY 1
1 DAY 2
1 DAY 3
I DAY 4
1
1 AVERAGE
1 -
1
1
1
1
1
1 DAY 1
1 DAY 2
1 DAY 3
I DAY 4
1
I AVERAGE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 DAY 1
1 DAY 2
1 DAY 3
i DAY 4
1
I AVERAGE
1
1
1
1
1
1 DAY 1
1 DAY 2
1 DAY 3
I DAY 4
1
I AVERAGE
i DIFFERENCE FROM THE
NJIT
NYDEC
ENVIROCHEM
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-6. IS
N/A
1.22
0.37
-1.52
NJIT
CANISTER
113.85
N/S
59.76
31.45
68.35
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-84.62
25.85
-34.76
-26.21
-29.94
NYDEC
PEI
CANISTER
-38.46
-10.10
-2.44
12.90
-9.52
% DIFFERENCE FROM THE
NJIT
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-11.22
N/A
15.44
22.99
9.07
NJIT
CANISTER
179.08
N/S
54.83
-22.03
70.60
NYDEC
ENVIROCHEM
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-53.83
-6.20
-35.52
-24.83
-30.10
NYDEC
PEI
CANISTER
2.04
7.20
4.25
17.13
7.70
MEAN BENZENE 1
1
NYDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
N/A
53.72
91.46
50.40
65.19
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
-7.69
-10.10
-2.44
20.97
0.18
MEAN
NYDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
N/A
-3.39
-9.07
-12.41
-8.29
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
-8.16
9.75
-3.47
8.39
1.70
CSI
LOW FLOW
TUBE ONLY
-20.00
7.87
-59.76
-37.90
-27.45
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
-38.46
-10.10
-2.44
4.84
-11.54
TOLUENE
CSI
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
23.72
18.68
6.18
24.13
18.17
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
-48.98
-0.46
-3.47
-9.09
15.50
UMDNJ TEXAS A&M
AVERAGE 2 TUBE
2-TUBES AVERAGE
48.46 -72.62
MDL -96.94
MDL -60.73
MDL -59 . 40
48.46 -72.42
EPA/RTP EPA/RTP
CAN 1 CAN 2
24.62 26.15
9 . 67 9 . 67
3 66 -1.22
N/S N/S
12.65 11.53
UMDNJ TEXAS ASM
AVERAGE 2 TUBE
2-TUBES AVERAGE
-26.94 -42.86
MDL -82.64
MDL -27.80
MDL -4.02
-26.94 -39.30
EPA/RTP EPA/RTP
CAN 1 CAN 2
-2.04 -2.55
20.72 23.28
2.32 -1.93
N/S N/S
7.00 6.30
7- 129
I
EPA/RTF t
1
1
4-TUBE 1
AVERAGE I
1
52.69 I
20 46 I
N/A I
N/A I
1
36.58 I
____ _ ___ i
1
MEAN I
POLLUTANT 1
CONC. I
.(PFB) I
1
0.65 !
1.11 1
O.B2 1
1.24 1
1
0.96 |
1
1
I
1
1
EPA/RTP I
1
1
4-TUBE 1
AVERAGE 1
1
-6.63 1
12.81 1
N/A I
N/A I
1
3.09 I
MEAN |
POLLUTANT I
CONC. I
(PPB) I
1
1.96 |
3.92 1
2.59 |
5.72 1
1
3.55 I
-------
1OLJ.L? 14 |
1 * DIFFERENCE FROM THE
i
1 NJIT
1
1
1 AVERAGE
1 2-TUBES
1
1 DAY 1 -45.56
I DAY 2 N/A
I DAY 3 -13.16
1 DAY 4 -4.64
1
I AVERAGE -21.10
1
1 NJIT
1
1
1 CANISTER
1
1 DAY 1 124.44
1 DAY 2 N/S
1 DAY 3 -9.21
1 DAY 4 -34.29
\
I
1 AVERAGE 27.00
»U1— 1C 1
NYDEC
ENVIROCHEM
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-41.11
-10.62
-17.11
-5.36
-16.60
NYDEC
PEI
CANISTER
66.67
2.74
31.58
35.71
34.17
[ % DIFFERENCE FROM THE
1
1 NJIT
1
1
1 AVERAGE
1 2-TUBES
1
1 DAY 1 -68 18
1 DAY 2 N/A
1 DAY 3 -24.19
1 DAY 4 -25.44
1
1 AVERAGE -39.30
1 NJIT
1
1
1 CANISTER
1
1 DAY 1 56.82
1 DAY 2 N/S
1 DAY 3 -6.45
1 DAY 4 -26.32
1
1 AVERAGE 8.01
I
NYDEC
ENVIROCHEM
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-60.23
-37.04
-35.48
-25.44
-39.50
NYDEC
PEI
CANISTER
150.00
48.15
125. Bl
92.98
100.40
MEAN
NYDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
N/A
0.34
7.24
-65.00
-19.10
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
-33.33
-10.96
-7 89
7.14
-11.30
MEAN
NYDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
N/A
-13.58
-14.52
-14.04
-14.00
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
-54.55
-1.23
-35.48
5.26
-21.50
M/P - XYLENE
CSI
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-0.56
60.96
71. OS
117.86
62.30
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
-44.44
-17.81
-7.89
-7.14
-19.30
0 - XYLENE
CSI
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-55.68
-35.80
-37.10
-13.16
-35.40
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
-54.55
-13.58
-3.23
-12.28
-20.90
UMDNJ
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
6.67
-64.16
-60.20
-42.82
-40.10
EPA/RTP
CAN 1
1.11
2.05
9.21
N/S
4.10
UMDNJ
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
220.45
86.17
29.11
32.81
92.10
EPA/RTP
CAN 1
-18.18
3.70
6.45
N/S
-2.70
TEXAS A&M
2 TUBE
AVERAGE
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
EPA/RTP
CAN 2
-4.44
8.22
0.00
N/S
1.30
TEXAS t&to
2 TUBE
AVERAGE
-67.50
-93.83
-27.74
-23.40
-39.25
EFA/RTP
CAN 2
-13.64
4.94
3.23
N/S
-1.80
1
1
1
EPA/RTP 1
1
1
4 -TUBE 1
AVERAGE |
1
-32.78 1
26.20 I
N/A I
N/A |
1
-3.29 |
1
MEAN |
POLLUTANT 1
CONC. |
(PPB) I
1
0.90 |
1.46 I
0.76 I
1.40 |
1
1.13 |
1
1
1
|
EPA/RTP 1
1
1
4 -TUBE I
AVERAGE |
1
-36.36 |
47.84 I
N/A |
N/A I
1
5.70 |
MEAN |
POLLUTANT |
CCNC. |
(PPB) I
1
0 44 I
0.81 |
0.31 |
0.57 |
1
0.53 |
7- 130
-------
37
Table 16.
Table 17.
% DIFFERETCE FROM THE HERN D1CHLOROMETKANE
NJIT NYDEC NYDEC CSI UMDNJ TEXAS AIM
ENVIROCHEH
DAY 1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
AVERAGE
DAY i
DAY 2
DAY 3
CAY 4
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-81.37
N/A
-26.11
42.11
21.80
NJIT
CANISTER
-14.66
N/S
9.55
92.98
37.36
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-65.14
41.40
-39.49
-61.84
-31.30
NYDEC
PEI
CANISTER
-39.90
138.50
78.34
31.58
52.10
AID- 50
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
N/A
-21.64
-33.76
-40.79
-32.10
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
-15.87
36.29
78.34
14.04
27.30
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
HDL
-27.60
HDL
-62.28
-44.94
UMDKJ
PEI
CANISTER
KDL
19.25
52.87
14.04
28.72
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
493.75
-81.94
MDL
HDL
205.90
EPVRTP
CAN 1
-53.13
36.29
-41 . 40
N/S
-19.40
2 TUBE
AVERA3E
-86.78
-96,59
-64.33
-30.70
-69.60
EPVRTP
CAN 2
-50.72
37.99
-14.65
N/S
-9.10
1
1
EPVRTP 1
1
4-TUBE
AVERAGE
-87.08
-82.96
N/A
N/A
-85.00
1
HEAN I
POLLUTANT
CONC.
(PPB)
0.83
0.59
0.79
1.14
0.84
% DIFFERENCE FRCM THE
DAY 1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
AVERAGE
DAY 1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
AVERAGE
NJIT
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-36.70
N/A
-45.63
11.11
-23.19
NJIT
CANISTER
266.00
N/S
333.33
144.40
247.91
NYDEC
ENVIROCHEM
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-76.60
-4.17
-79.16
-86.11
-61.51
NYDEC
PEI
CANISTER
MEL
MDL
HDL
HDL
MEAN
NYDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
N/A
-12.50
HDL
KDL
-12.50
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
KDL
KDL
HDL
HDL
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CSI
LOW FLOW
TUBE ONLY
-36.60
-30.83
-83.33
-8S.11
-59.22
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
HDL
HDL
HDL
HDL
UMDNJ
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
13.30
HDL
KDL
MDL
13.30
EPVRTP
CAN 1
3.30
33.33
-33.33
N/S
1.10
TEXAS A&M
2 TUBE
AVERAGE
-63.30
-83.33
-54.17
22.22
-44.65
EPVRTP
CAN 2
6.67
50.00
-41.66
N/S
5.00
EPVRTP
4-TUBE
AVERAGE
16.60
56.25
N/A
N/A
27.80
MEAN
POLLUTANT
CONC.
(PPB)
0.30
0.12
0.24
0.36
0.26
7- 131
-------
-tr-
18.
Table 19.
% DIFFERENCE FROM THE
DAY 1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
AVERAGE
DAY 1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
AVERAGE
NJIT
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-48.75
N/A
-30.95
6.60
-24.37
NJIT
CANISTER
125.00
N/S
97.62
109.43
110.68
NYDEC
ENVIROCHEM
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-53.75
-22.73
-0.50
-9.43
-21.60
NYDEC
PEI
CANISTER
HDL
-9.09
MDL
-5.66
-7.40
MEAN
NYDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
N/A
-90.15
MDL
-96.23
-93.19
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
MDL
MDL
MDL
-5.66
-5.70
1,1.1 - TRICHLOROETHLENE
CSI
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-57.50
-20.45
-47.62
-23.58
-37.28
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
MDL
HDL
MDL
-5.66
-5.70
UMDNJ
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
MDL
MDL
MDL
MDL
EPA/RTP
CAN 1
20.00
39.39
45.24
N/S
34.88
TEXAS AW
2 TUBE
AVERAGE
-10.17
-89.39
2.38
26.42
-17.69
EPA/RTP
CAN 2
27.50
42.42
42.86
N/S
37.59
EPVRTP
4-TUBE
AVERAGE
-5.00
158.71
N/A
N/A
76.80
MEAN
POLLUTANT
CONC.
(PPB)
0.40
0.66
0.42
0.53
0.50
% DIFFERENCE FROM THE
DAY 1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
AVERAGE
DAY 1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
AVERAGE
NJIT
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-13.64
N/A
-10.00
16.07
-2.50
NJIT
CANISTER
81.82
N/S
85.00
10.71
59.20
NYDEC
ENVIROCHEM
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-45.45
-23.75
-35.00
-21.43
-31.40
NYDEC
PEI
CANISTER
-9.09
-25.00
MDL
MDL
-17.00
MEAN
NYDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
N/A
-11.25
-40.00
-23.21
-28.20
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
MDL
-25.00
MDL
-28.57
-26.80
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
CSI
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
11.36
38.75
-15.00
66.07
25.30
UMCNJ
PEI
CANISTER
MDL
-25.00
MDL
-28.57
-26.80
UMDNJ
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
43.64
MDL
MDL
MDL
43.60
EPVRTP
CAN 1
-4.55
32.50
-15.00
N/S
4.30
TEXAS AtM
2 TUBE
AVERAGE
-45.45
-90.00
60.00
6.44
-17.30
EPVRTP
CAN 2
-9.09
32.50
-15.00
N/S
2.80
EPA/RTP
4-TUBE
AVERAGE
-1.14
84.38
N/A
N/A
41.60
MEAN
POLLUTANT
CONC.
(PPB)
0.22
0.40
0.20
0.28
0.28
7- 132
-------
39
Table 20.
% DIFFERENCE FROM THE
DAY 1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
AVERAGE
DAY 1
DAY 2
DAY 3
DAY 4
AVERAGE
NJIT
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
N/R
N/A
N/R
N/R
NJIT
CANISTER
N/R
N/S
N/R
N/R
NYDEC
ENV1ROCHEM
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-69.57
-44.74
-56.52
-35.00
-51.50
NYDEC
PEI
CANISTER
-13.04
-21.05
HDL
0.00
-11.40
MEAN ETHYL BENZENE
NYDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
N/A
-5.26
-52.17
-45.00
-34 . 10
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
HDL
-47 . 37
HDL
0.00
23.70
CSI
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-21.74
89.47
78.26
U2.50
69.60
UKDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
HDL
-21.05
MDL
-50.00
35.50
UMDNJ
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
73.91
-36.84
MDL
HDL
18.50
EPA/RTP
CAN 1
30.43
21.05
21.74
N/S
24.40
TEXAS AO1
2 TUBE
AVERAGE
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
EPA/RTP
CAN 2
8.70
28.95
8.70
N/S
15 50
1
1
1
•EPA/RTP I
1
1
4 -TUBE 1
AVERAGE 1
1
-21.74 I
34.21 1
N/A |
N/A I
1
6.20 |
MEAN I
POLLUTAOT I
CONC. |
(PPB)' 1
1
0.23 I
0.38 I
0.23 I
0.40 I
0.31 |
7- 133
-------
-V:
I % DIFFERENCE FROM THE
1
1
1
1
i
i
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
1
1
2
3
4
I AVERAGE
1
1
1
1
1
I DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
1
1
2
3
4
1 AVERAGE
1
I ABSOLUTE
i
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
1
NJIT
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-38.95
N/S
-16.70
8.65
-15.67
NJIT
CANISTER
116.54
N/S
78.05
38.29
77.63
NYDEC
ENVIROCHEM
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-61.14
-9.11
-37.06
-32.85
-35.04
NYDEC
PEI
CANISTER
16.89
16.42
24.05
26.38
20.93
MEAN FOR ALL COMPOUNDS/ALL ORGANIZATIONS
NYDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
N/S
-11.52
-7.26
-30.78
-16.52
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
-23.92
-6.95
5.81
2.70
-5.59
VALUE OF THE % DIFFERENCE FROM THE
1
2
3
4
I AVERAGE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
1 DAY
1
1
2
3
4
I AVERAGE
I
NJIT
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
38.95
N/S
20.86
16.17
25.33
NJIT
CANISTER
120.21
N/S
81.97
58.95
87.04
NYDEC
ENVTROCHEM
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
61.14
24.05
37.06
32.86
38.78
NYDEC
PEI
CANISTER
45.60
32.73
29.27
26.38
33.50
NYDEC
ATD-50
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
N/S
23.54
35.46
43.39
34.13
CSI
PEI
CANISTER
45.60
20.10
48.48
28.00
35.54
CSI
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
-19.62
11.23
-10.91
13.06
-1.56
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
-52.48
-9.82
7.17
-11.73
-16.72
MEAN
CSI
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
28.40
36.71
49.79
62.62
44.38
UMDNJ
PEI
CANISTER
52.48
15.32
25.53
11.25
26.15
UMDNJ
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
118.52
-24.19
-15.54
-5.01
18.44
EPVRTP
CAN 1
-3.21
23.12
-0.20
N/S
6.57
TEXAS AW EPVRTP
2 TUBE 4-TUBE
AVERAGE AVERAGE
-57.54 -13 49
-90.35 39.77
-25.21 N/S
-4.84 N/S
-44.48 13.14
EPVRTP
CAN 2
-2.24
24.19
0.06
N/S
7.34
l
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
FOR ALL COMPOUNDS/ORGANIZATIONS I
i
UMDNJ
AVERAGE
2-TUBES
126.21
67.28
44.66
37.81
68.99
EPVRTP
CAN 1
14.10
23.12
19.74
N/S
18.99
TEXAS A6M EPVRTP
2 TUBE 4-TUBE
AVERAGE AVERAGE
57.54 28.89
90.35 58.20
43.03 N/S
20.57 N/S
50.76 43.55
EPVRTP
CAN 2
15.64
24.19
16.61
N/S
18.81
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7- 134
-------
41
Table 23.
AVERAGE % DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOW AND HIGH FLOW SORBENT TUBES FOR EACH TARGET COMPOUND
SHOOTOUT
AVERAGE
UMDNJ TEXAS A6M EPA/RTP CONCENTRATION
NJIT
NYDEC NYDEC
ENVIROCHEM ATD-50
CSI
IN PPB
TOLUENE
M/P-XYLENE
BENZENE
DICHLOROMETHANE
0 - XYLENE
1,1.1-TWCHLOI
ETHYL BENZENE
TETRACHLOROETi
CARBON TETRAC1
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROFORM
AVERAGE
-12.44
-13.04
-27.49
E -64.90
-18.10
OETHYLENE -35.54
N/R
YLENE -1.01
LORIDE -19.20
ENE -8.33
-43.33
-24.34
AVERAGE 22.12
-6
-7
208
-22
-2
-3
24
6
-56
63
08
.22
.45
.93
.64
.38
.48
.25
HDL
-22
11
44
.09
.80
.31
6.26
2.14
IS. 63
1.90
4.63
MDL
-2.90
-14.80
MDL
-28.89
66.19
5.57
23.37
-16.
-0.
10
52
NO HI-FLOW
-53
-17
-54
-7
-5
-68
-31
-64
-32
32
37
68
91
71
88
75
02
.90
.08
.08
9446.
-41.
48150.
15835.
-72.
67
20
00
48
95
MDL
-50.00
-51.29
-7.69
HDL
MDL
9151
9206
.13
.91
268.67
N/R
251.87
684.91
416.02
101.83
N/R
317.86
250.30
N/R
-55.76
279.46
293.40
-22.
37.
-7.
7
39
-13
40
26
•1
-6
60 I 3.55
43
39
50
19
64
39
.22
.06
.06
N/R
10
20
.21
.15
1.13
0.96
0.84
0.53
0.50
0.31
0.28
0.26
0.17
0.10
CCMPITTED AS: (HIGH FLOW TUBE - LOW FLOW TUBE)«100
(LOW FLOW TUBE)
MDL * BELOW MINIMUM DETECTION LIMIT
NR * COMPOUND NOT REPORTED
7- 135
-------
42
Table 24.
FREQUENCY COMPOUNDS WERE REPORTED BELOW THE HDL FOR EACH OF THE TARGET COMPOUNDS
(PRESENTED AS * REPORTED BELOW HDL/TOTAL * OF SAMPLES ANALYZED)
IAVERAGE
ICONTENTRATICN
COMPOUND
TOLUENE
H/P XYLENE
BENZENE
DICHLOROMETHANE
O-XYLENE
1,1, 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
ETHYL BENZENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
CHLOROFORM
TOTAL
% BELOW MDL
NJIT
TENAX
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/88
0
NJIT
CANISTER
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/44
0
TEC
E.-.'IROCHEM
0/16
0/16
0/16
0/16
0/16
0/16
0/16
0/16
3/16
10/16
2/16
15/176
8.52
NYSDEC
ATD-SO
0/9
0/9
0/9
0/9
0/9
4/9
0/9
0/9
6/9
0/9
0/9
10/99
10.10
CSI
TENAX
0/5
0/10
0/10
6/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/6
1/10
3/10
10/101
9.90
EPA/RTP
TENAX
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
N/R
0/80
0
Ept - —
CAN.
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
N/R
0/60
0
PEI
CANISTER
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
6/12
4/12
7/12
12/12
12/12
12/12
53/132
40.15
UMDNJ
TENAX
9/11
4/11
10/11
9/11
4/11
11/11
8/11
10/11
10/11
11/11
11/11
97/121
80.17
TEXAS ASMIDURING
TENAX ISHOOTOUT
0/12
N/R
0/12
1/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
0/12
N/R
2/11
3/107
2.80
\rr o i
3.55
1.13
0.96
0.84
0.53
0.50
0.31
0.28
0.26
0.17
0.10
i
N/R » COMPOUND NOT REPORTED
7- 136
-------
APPENDIX A.
% DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOW FLOW WO HIGH FLOW TUBES
1—
| BENZENE
1
IDAY «1
IDAY 82
IDAY »3
IDAY #4
1
| AVERAGE
1
| TOLUENE
1
1
(DAY *1
|DAY*2
(DAY »3
|DAY »4
1
(AVERAGE
1
(M/P-XYLENE
1
t
|DAY»1
IC&Y *2
IDAY #3
IDAY *4
1
| AVERAGE
1
|0 - XYLENE
t
t
(DAY *1
|DAY*2
IDAY t3
(DAY t4
1
jAVEKAGE
IDICHLOROMETHANE
1
1
[DAY t2
(DAY »3
|DAY»4
1
(AVERAGE
1
NJIT
-25.71
N/S
-44.86
-11.89
-27.49
NJIT
-3.39
N/S
-31.55
-2.39
-12.44
NJIT
-4.00
N/S
-32.91
-2.22
-13.04
NJIT
-13.33
N/S
-43.33
2.38
-18.10
NJIT
-52.38
N/S
-77.89
-64.44
-64.90
NYSDEC
ENVIROCHEM
0.00
-65.87
870.00
26.75
208.22
NYSDEC
ENVTROCHEM
3.37
-41.25
14.10
-2.75
-6.63
NYSDEC
ENVIROCHEM
0.00
-26.29
6.56
-6.S7
-7.08
NYSDEC
ENVIROCHEM
-5.56
-3.85
0.00
-2.33
-2.93
NYSDEC
ENVIROCHEW
-18.75
-54.39
-10.00
-6.67
-22.45
WSDEC
ATO-50
N/S NO
-5.14 MO
0.00 NO
52.03 NO
15.63 NO
NYSDEC
ATD-50
N/S
0.80
6.58
11.39
6.26
NYSDEC
ATD-50
N/S
3.47
-1.22
4.17
2.14
NYSDEC
ATD-50
N/S
5.88
3.85
4.17
4.63
NYSDEC
ATD-SO
N/S
24.39
-40.00
21.31
1.90
CSI
HI-FLOW
HI -FLOW
HI -FLOW
HI -FLOW
HI-FLOW
CSI
-13.46
-14.00
-16.67
-20.25
-16.10
CSI
67.16
-12.00
-26.67
-30.56
-0.52
CSI
-14.29
-7.41
-22.73
-26.32
-17.68
CSI
MDL
-45.45
MDL
-61.29
-53.37
UWKJ
48150.00
HDL
MDL
KDL
48150.00
UMDNJ
9446.67
HDL
MDL
HDL
9446.67
UMDNJ
24.62
N/R
-99.83
-89.59
-41.20
UMCNJ
-83.62
-32.42
-68.58
-57.17
-72.95
UMDNJ
15835.48
HDL
HDL
HDL
15835.48
TEXAS
ASM
948.39
-64 00
54.55
68.53
251.87
TEXAS
MM
546.82
550.27
-21.81
-0.62
268.67
TEXAS
AW
N/fc
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
TEXAS
ACM
1587.50
53.85
32.12
-9.39
416.02
TEXAS
A&H
280.43
-67.35
122.40
2404.15
684.91
ePA/RTF
-26.64
11.86
N/S
N/S
-7.39
EPA/RTP
-18.36
-26.84
N/S
N/S
-22.60
EPA/RTP
57.45
17.40
N/S
N/S
37.43
EPA/RTP
54.55
23.83
N/S
N/S
39.19
EPA/RTP
15.00
0.00
N/S
N/S
7.50
• COMPOUND NOT REPORTED
NO SAMPLE RUN
BEMW MINIMUM DETECTION 1IHIT
7- 137
-------
APPENDIX A.
44
% DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOW FLOW AND HIGH FLOW TUBES
1
1 CHLOROFORM NJIT NY3DBC
| ENVIROCHEH
1
(DAY il -SO 00 HDL
IDAY t2 N/E -51.43
IDAY *3 -40.00 HDL
IQAY *4 -40.00 0.00
(AVERAGE -43.33 -22.09
\
(CARBON TETRACHLORIDE NYSDBC
1 NJIT ENVIRCCHEH
1
IDAY HI -23.81 HDL
IDAY *2 N/S -56.25
IDAY 83 -7.69 HDL
IDAY *4 -26.09 KDL
1
1 AVERAGE -19.20 -56.25
11,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE NYSDEC
1 NJIT ENVIROCHEM
1
IDA* ttl -36.00 5.56
IDAY «2 N/E -45.45
(DAY *3 -50.00 33.33
IDAY tt4 -20.63 -8.00
1
(AVERAGE -35.54 -3.64
ITETRACHLOROETHYLENE NYSDEC
I NJIT ENVIROCHEM
i
1
IDAY *1 0.00 0.00
(DAY *2 N/S 25.93
IDAY *3 0.00 0.00
)DAY t4 -3.03 0.00
1
IAVERAGE -1.01 6.48
ITRICHLOROETHYLENE NYSDEC
1 NJIT ENVIROCHEM
1
IEAY *1 0 00 HDL
IDAY KJ (J/S HDL
IDAY S3 -25.00 HDL
IDAY *4 0.00 HDL
1
IAVERAGE -8.33 HDL
N/R * COMPOUND NOT REPORTED
N/S^ NO SAMPLE RUN
HDL = BELOW HJNIKUM DETECTION LIMIT
NYSDEC
ATD-50
N/£
28.57
50.00
120.00
66.19
NYSDEC
ATD-50
N/S NO
HDL
HDL NO
HDL NO
HDL
NYSDEC
ATD-50
N/S
HDL
HDL
HDL
HDL
NYSDEC
ATD-50
N/S
-2.78
-28.57
-13.04
-14.80
NYSDEC
ATD-50
N/S
-70.00
50 00
-66.67
-28.89
cs:
-53 33
HDL
HDL
-76.50
-64.90
CSI
HI-FLOW
-68.75
HI-FLOW
HI-FLOW
-68.75
CSI
-45.45
-67.09
-51.72
-55.36
-54.91
CSI
-11.54
-1.79
0.00
-10.20
-5.88
CSI
-13.04
-27.08
-54.55
-29.41
-31.02
UKEK3
HDL
HDL
HDL
MDL
HDL
UNDNJ
-7.69
HDL
HDL
HDL
-7.69
UKCNJ
MDL
HDL
HDL
KDL
HDL
UHDNJ
-51 , 29
MDL
HDL
HDL
-51.29
UKCNJ
KDL
KDL
KCL
KDL
MDL
•7_
TEXAS
A&M
0.00
-80.00
-98 . 67
-44.38
-55 76
TEXAS
A&M
890.00
-70.00
-86.70
267.89
250.30
TEXAS
A&M
200.00
-39.02
35.36
210.98
101.83
TEXAS
A&M
1234.12
-16.36
53.18
0.53
317.86
TEXAS
AIM
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
•% tn
I
EPVRTP 1
1
1
N/R 1
N/R 1
N/S 1
N/S |
I
1
N/S I
1
EPA/RTP I
1
-12.16 I
14.29 I
N/S |
N/S I
1
1.06 I
"-"* ~ 1
1
EPVRTP 1
1
17.14 1
-44.42 I
N/S |
N/S I
1
-13.64 I
1
1
EPA/RTP 1
»
1
28.95 I
21.46 I
N/S I
N/S t
1
26.22 I
1
EPVRTP I
1
0 00 I
-12.12 I
N/S I
N/S I
1
-6.06 I
(
-------
45
APPENDIX A.
% DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOW FLOW ANT HIGH FLOW TUBES
1
(ETHYL BENZENE
1
1
IDAY *1
IDAY «2
IDAY «3
(DAY *4
1
(AVERAGE
NJIT
N/R
N/S
N/R
N/R
N/R
NYSDEC
ENVIROCHEM
60.00
-29.17
50.00
16.67
24.38
NYSDEC
ATD-50
N/S
-2.63
-8.70
2.63
-2.90
CSI
40.74
-8.00
-32.65
-30.91
-7.71
UMDNJ
-45.66
-54.33
HDL
HDL
-50.00
TEXAS
ASM
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/R
0.00
EPA/ RTF
70.37
10.42
N/S
N/S
40.39
= COMPOUND NOT REPORTED
NO SAMPLE RUN
HDL • BELOW MINIMUM DETECTION LIMIT
7- 139
-------
Appendix B.
Supplemental UMDNJ Shootout data reintegrated and reanalyzed.
UMDNJ Summer '88 Shootout
Volatile Organic Compounds, ppb
Results baaed on reintegrated raw data and calibration curves
July 26, 1988
Trap I.D.
Flow, ml/rain
Time, rain
volume, liters
Field I.D.
Analysis X.D.
Methyl . Chloride
Hexane
Chloroform
1,1,1-ICE
Benzene
Carbon Tetr.
Trichloroethylene
Toluene
Tetrachlor.
Ethylbenzene
tr. & p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xyiene
G.T./51
8.7
1485
12.92
W726b2.1
No
Analyaie
Tenax
spilled
out
O.T./87
8.6
1485
12.77
W726b2.2
825ba08a
20.8
0.35
<0.04
0.46
0.78
<0.06
<0.07
12.7
0.85
1.75
1.88
0.13
3.91
C.T./78
18.6
1485
27.92
W726b.3
825ba07a
10.1
0.02
<0.02
<0.03
0.10
<0.03
<0.03
0.03
<0.02
0.17
0.71
<0.04
0.67
G.T./63
17.9
1485
26.58
W726b2.4
625bd06a
30,3
2.12
<0.02
2.25
3.35
0.12
<0.03
8.96
0.62
0.57
1.43
<0.04
0.59
July 27, 1988
Trap I.D.
Flow, ml/min
Tine, min
volume, liters
Field I.D.
Analysis 1.0.
Methyl. Chloride
Hexane
Chloroform
1,1,1-TCE
Benzene
Carbon Tetr.
Triehloroethylene
Toluene,
Tetrachlor.
Ethylbenzene
m & p-Xylfene
Styrene
o-Xylone
C.T./54
8.3
1341
11.1
W727b3.1
823ba09a
24.5
2.14
<0.05
1.79
3.11
0.08
<0.08
10.4
0.69
1.10
3.11
0.05
1.42
G.T./49
8.3
1341
11.1
W727b3.2
823ba04a
32.0
0.28
<0.05
0.72
1.18
0.02
<0.08
3.36
0.21
0.50
1.54
<0.09
0.65
G.T./90
15.9
1341
21.3
V727b3.3
823ba06a
No peaks
G.T./82
15.9
1341
21,1
W727b3.4
823b«08a
detected
Chromatogram shows
potaibla
high water
11/22/88
7- 140
-------
Annotated Example and References
of ANOVA and LSD
7- 141
-------
Approach to the Analysis of Variance
The analysis of variance is presented for seven compounds. These
are toluene, benzene, meta and para xylene, ortho xylene,
tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1 trichloroethane, and hexane. There were
insufficient sample sizes for each of the other compounds. The
reasons for this data insufficiency for these compounds are
explained in the "Caveats and Notes" section of this Appendix.
Calculations were done for each year of the project.
The sample set used for the analysis of variance was developed from
the collocated samples as follows: For each collocation event, the
concentration reported by the individual sampling organization was
subtracted from the PEI canister result reported. This was done for
all compounds examined, and for each organization. The
transformation of data in this manner allows for the direct
comparison of NJIT, CSI, and NVSDEC because the transformed data
reflects only the variability between each organization,
independent of the concentration evident at the time of sampling.
This treatment of PEI as the "standard" although not technically
true, still forms a legitimate reference for comparison. The
approach of data transformation used here as well as the
statistical methods applied have been developed in consultation
with EPA/AREAL in Research Triangle Park, NC.
The results of the statistical analysis presented offer several
important and different pieces of information. The analysis of
variance (ANOVA) partitions the variance of the data set into the
variance occurring between treatments and the variance occurring
within treatments. In our case, the term treatment refers to the
organizations and therefore, the ANOVA partitions the variance into
the components attributable to the differences between CSI, NYSDEC
and NJIT and the variance attributable to variability within the
individual organizations themselves.
The F statistic is used to determine if these variance components
determined in the ANOVA procedure indicate that the differences
between treatments are statistically significant. If significance
is indicated by the F test, further analysis may be done. The
Least Significant Difference (LSD) can then be computed. The
advantage of the LSD is that it allows a determination of which
organizations are similar to one another and which are different.
The F test, in contrast, only signifies that differences exist
between all of the organizations analyzed. The LSDs presented here
should only be used to compare the performance of the
organizations. They should not be used to compare differences
observed between individual sites operated by the different
organizations. The limitations of the data set and the experimental
design require the use of advances statistical models and computer
programs as well as extensive statistical consultation to
understand the inherent limitations, caveats, and assumptions
inherent in an analysis of inter-site comparisons. Such comparisons
may be performed during subsequent evaluations, in the SI/NJ UATAP.
7- 142
-------
Annotated Example
2nd Year of Study
CSI
TUBES
Samples (n) 31
Sum (Xi) 6.50
Sum (X)-2) 117.71
(Sum (Xi»*2/n 1.36
Individual SS 116.35
Individual Mean 0.21
(Total SS -
Treatment SS *
Error SS «
Source of
Variation
Between treatments
Within treatments
Toluene
NJIT NJIT HYSOEC
CANS TUBES TUBES
6 6 130
2.10 -9.90 -81.34 Y.. -82.64 i
2.83 88.42 269.61 478.56
0.73 16.32 50.89 C « 39.47
2.09 72.10 218.71
0.35 -1.65 -0.63
439.09 df • 172
29.84 df • 3
409.25 df - 169
df SUB of Hean \g) F fl^
Squares Square v*"'
3 29.84 9.95 4.11 •*
169 409.25 2.42
3>
©
2nd Year ISO Comparisons: Toluene
NJIT NJIT NYSOEC
Tenax Caniste Tubes
NJIT Tenax
NJIT Canisters
NYSOEC Tubes
CSI Tubes
1.76 1.27
1.76 1.27
1.27 1.27
1.36 1.36 0.61
CSI
Tubes
1.36
« TJt
I • JO
0.61
7- 143
-------
ANOVA t LSD Explanations
\\) Samples. The number of data points. Data points are taken from
collocated PEI/sampling organization samples by subtracting the
results reported by the organization from the results reported
by PEL
£^ Sum (Xi) = Sum of all the data points for each organization.
(T) Sum (XiA2) » Sum of each data point squared
(?) (Sum (Xi)A2)/n - (Sum of all data points)A2/number of samples
(?) Individual SS = Individual Sum of Squares (SS) , obtained by
subtracting @ from @.
(£) Individual Mean = Sum of data points ((^), divided by sample
size ( 1 ).
Y.. * Sum of all data points for all organizations, i.e. all
(^ 's summed up. This will be used to determine the Total Sum
of Squares for the analysis. See page 140, Table 7.1 in the
reference supplied for further information and an illustration of
this.
This number is the sum of all the (^ 's for each organization.
is number is used in computing the Total SS.
^ C » Correction factor for SS. It is obtained by taking
squared and dividing by the number of samples in the study. See
equation 7.1 on page 140 for the general case, and equation 7.4
on page 146 for the case of unequal replication.
(2P Total SS » Computed by @ minus ^. Also shown in equation
7.2, page 140.
Degrees of freedom for the Total SS = number of samples in study
-1.
Treatment SS - See equation 7.3, page 141 for the general
case (and table 7.1 to se$riiere they get the numbers from) and
equation 7.9, page 146 for the specific case of unequal
replication.
Degrees of freedom » Number of treatments - 1. Degrees of freedom
in unequal replication can be found in table 7.5, page 147. No
formula is given but it can be inferred from the calculation.
Degrees of freedom for the standard case may be found in table
7.2, page 142.
7- 144
-------
Error SS = Computed as Qjp minus QY) . See equation 7.4,
page 141. Equation 7.5, Rase 141 can be used as a check (This is
dine by summing all the (£} 's.
Degrees of freedom - Total sum of squares degrees of freedom -
Treatment sum of squares degrees of freedom.
Q^ Between treatments = Variation due to sampling organization.
It is the Treatment SS, (Tl~) . See table 7.3, page 142 and th
associated textfor the further explanations and use of items
(JP and (TJ> .
Within Treatment « Intra-organization variation. It is the
Error SS, C12J .
Mean Square = Obtained by dividing the relevant sum of squares
its degrees of freedom.
F - F Statistic. It is obtained by dividing Between Treatment
Mean Square by the Error Mean Square. An Asterisk means
significance at the 0.05 level, two asterisks indicate
significance at the 0.01 level.
Least significant difference (LSD).«= It is obtained in the
general case by equation 8.1 on page 173. This example uses the
data from table 7.1, page 140 and Table 7.3, page 142. The case
dealing with unequal replication is addressed on pages 191-192 in
equation 8.20.
7- 145
-------
ANOVA and LSD Tables
7- 146
-------
Findings
This section includes the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Least
Significant Difference statistics for all sampling events that
included collocation (or splits) with PEI canisters. Estimates of
bias are between organizations relative to the PEI reference and
not against an absolute standard.
First Year Data
The results of the analysis of variance and F tests are presented
in Tables 4-10. Examination of this data shows that no significant
differences existed between organizations for the analysis of
benzene, 1,1,1 trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and hexane.
Significant differences, were found for toluene, meta and para
xylene, and ortho xylene.
LSDs are presented for results shown to be significant by the F
test in Tables 18-20. Analysis of the data using the LSDs is
presented in Table 23. The toluene and aeta and para xylene data
showed the sane trends. All organizations had greater
concentrations than the collocated PEI canisters, with the
exception of NYSDEC's results with meta and para xylene. The NJIT
canisters, showing the most extreme case of this "bias", were
significantly different from all other organizations and sampling
methods. The NYSDEC tubes most closely resembled the collocated
PEI canisters, and were significantly different from the CSI tubes.
The NJIT tubes were indistinguishable from either the CSI or NYSDEC
sorbent tubes.
With ortho xylene, CSI and NYSDEC had lower concentrations than the
PEI canisters, whereas the NJIT canisters had greater
concentrations than PEI. NJIT's tubes were almost equal to the PEI
canisters. The NYSDEC and CSI tubes were statistically
indistinguishable from one another, although both were
significantly different from the NJIT canisters. The NJIT tubes
were equivalent to all samples and methods used.
Second Year Data
The results of the analysis of variance and F tests are presented
in Tables 11-17. Examination of this data shows no significant
differences existed for benzene, meta and para xylene, ortho
xylene, tetrachloroethylene, and hexane. Significant differences
were found with toluene and 1,1,1 trichloroethane.
LSDs are presented for results shown to be significant by the F
test in Tables 21-22. Analysis of the data using the LSDs is
presented in Table 23. With toluene, the NJIT canisters and CSI
tubes had lower .concentrations than the PEI canisters, whereas the
NYSDEC and NJIT tubes had greater concentrations relative to the
PEI canisters. The NJIT canisters and Tenax were not significantly
different from any other organizations, or each other. The CSI and
NYSDEC tubes however, were significantly different from each other.
7- 147
-------
With 1,1,1 trichloroethane, CSI, NYSDEC and NJIT tubes had lower
concentrations relative to the PEI canisters, while the NJIT
canisters had greater concentrations. The CSI tubes had lowest
concentrations, relative to PEI, and was significantly different
from all other organizations. The NJIT canisters exhibited the same
trend, but of opposite magnitude, averaging concentrations greater
than all other organizations relative to PEI. The NJIT canisters
were also statistically different from al other organizations. The
NJIT and NYSDEC tubes had identical responses.
Discussion
The findings elucidated by the above statistical analysis indicate
that real biases did exist in the sampling/analysis of certain
compounds. Furthermore, these biases were suggested by the
descriptive statistics found in Tables 1 and 2. Other differences
may exist, however they are obscured by the inherent variability
in the sampling/analysis methodology.
The Tenax methods showed a remarkable degree of agreement across
organizations relative to PEI. The range of difference between all
organizations, relative to PEI was never greater than 63%, and was
typically 30-40% or less, validating the coarse "factor of two"
rule of thumb used to estimate the range of variation between
organizations that was developed as a result of the shootouts. The
results of the NJIT canister comparisons can not be done in greater
detail, due to the limited amount of data available. Therefore,
trends observed with these canisters should be examined closely to
insure that they are truly representative, and not skewed by any
one result.
Further Approaches
Approaches that may be tried to further evaluate the differences
between organizations and sites include the following:
1. A) Examine the enclosed analyses of variance. B) In cases where
significance was observed, adjust all data for that organization
by the mean difference for each organization as stated in the ANOVA
table. C) For each organization, construct 95% confidence bands
around the data reported for each organization/site based on the
QA information provided by the organizations.
2. Perform an analysis of variance, segregated by site, for each
collocated pair. This will allow for the determination of the
variability inherent within an organization that occurs at each
site. (It is this "interaction" term of site and organization that
complicated the analysis of variance so extensively to preclude its
being presented here. The ANOVA is further made more difficult by
the fact that each site was sampled by only one organization with
unequal replication of sites and collocations for each
organization. Additionally the NJIT data is very sparse, and
therefore the determination of site differences for NJIT is made
more complex.)
7- 148
-------
Analysis of Variance Betuen Organizations
4th Quarter 1987 - 3rd Quarter 1988
Table 4.
CS1
TUBES
Samples (n) 31
Sum (Xi) -27.50
;un (Xi*2) 98.13
;sum (Xi))*2/n 24.40
individual SS 73.73
Individual Mean -0.89
•otal SS •
Veatment SS «
•rror SS =
Source of
/ariation
ietween treatments
Within treatments
Toluene 1st Year of Study
NJIT NJIT NY5DEC
CANS TUBES TUBES
4 4 48
-14.40 -2.60 -4.77 Y.. -49.27
91.98 7.74 43.56 241.41
51.84 1.69 0.47 C - 27.90
40.14 6.05 43.08
-3.60 -0.65 -0.10
213.50 df « . 86
50.50 df « 3
163.01 df « 83
df Sum of Mean F
Squares Square
3 50.50 16.83 8.57 **
83 163.01 1.96
Table 5.
Samples (n)
Sum (Xi)
Sum (Xi*2)
(Sun (Xi»A2/n
Individual SS
Individual Mean
Total SS «
Treatment SS
Error SS «
Benzene 1st Year
CS1
TUBES
31
5.10
15.98
0.84
15.14
0.16
•
NJIT NJIT NYSDEC
CANS TUBES TUBES
4 4 47
-0.60 0.20 -4.15
1.34 1.96 16.65
0.09 0.01 0.37
1.25 1.95 16.29
-0.15 0.05 -0.09
35.93 df «
1.30 df >
34.63 df *
of Study
Y.. 0.55
35.93
C * 0.00
85
3
82
Source of
Variation
Between treatments
Within treatments
df Sum of
Squares
3 1.30
82 34.63
Mean F
Square
0.43 1.03
0.42
•able 6. M/P Xylene 1st Year
CSt NJIT NJIT NYSDEC
TUBES CANS TUBES TUBES
Samples (n) 31 4 4 42
;um (Xi) -13.70 -8.60 -0.20 4.17
Sin (Xi*2) 47.16 32.04 4.92 12.41
ISum (Xi))"2/n 6.05 18.49 0.01 0.41
ndividual SS 41.11 13.55 4.91 11.99
individual Mean -0.44 -2.15 -0.05 0.10
•otal SS « 92.38 df •
Teatment SS « 20.82 df «
irror SS » 71.56 df •
Source of df Sura of
/ariation Squares
let ween treatments 3 20.82
jithin treatments 77 71.56
of Study
Y.. -18.33
96.53
C • 4.15
80
3
77
Mean F
Square
6.94 7.47 **
0.93
Table 7. 0-Xylene 1st Year of Study
CSI NJIT NJIT NYSDEC
TUBES CANS TUBES TUBES
Samples (n) 23 3 3 40
Sum (Xi) 5.30 -0.90 0.10 10.20 Y.. 14.70
Sum (XiA2> 2.15 0.83 0.51 6.52 10.01
(Sum (Xi))*2/n 1.22 0.27 0.00 2.60 C * 3.13
Individual SS 0.93 0.56 0.51 3.92
Individual Mean 0.23 -0.30 0.03 0.26
Total SS • 6.88 df * 68
Treatment SS • 0.96 df • 3
Error SS - 5.91 df • 65
Source of df Sum of Mean F
Variation Squares Square
Between treatments 3 .0.96 0.32 3.53 *
Within treatments 65 5.91 0.09
7- 149
-------
Analysis of Variance Betuen Organizations
4th Quarter 1987 - 3rd Quarter 1988
Table 8.
1.1,1
CS1
TUBES
Samples (n) IB
Sun (Xi) 4.00
Sun (Xi-2) 2. 28
(Sun CXO)*2/n 0.89
Individual SS 1.39
Individual Mean 0.22
Total SS *
Treatment SS =
•rror SS »
Trichloroe thane
NJIT
CANS
1
0.80
0.64
0.64
0.00
0.80
3.18
0.52
2.66
NJIT
TUBES
2
•0.10
0.25
0.00
0.25
•0.05
1st Tear of Study
NYSDEC
TUBES
12
1.86
1.32
0.29
1.03
0.16
T.. 6.56
4.49
C * 1.30
df > 32
df » 3
df - 29
Source of
Variation
Set ween treatments
Jithin treatments
df
3
29
Sun of Mean F
Squares Square
0.52 0.17 1.88
2.66 0.09
Table 9.
Samples (n)
Sum (Xi)
SUB (Xi*2>
(SUM
-------
Analysis of Variance Betwen Organizations
4th Quarter 1988 • 3rd Quarter 1989
Table 11.
CSI
TUBES
Samples (n) 31
;um (Xi) 6.50
;um (Xi-2) 117.71
:Su» (Xi))*2/n 1.36
individual SS 116.35
ndividual Mean 0.21
ota 1 SS »
reatment SS •
rror SS «
ooree of
•riation
etween treatments
jthin treatments
Toluene
NJIT NJIT
CANS TUBES
6 32
2.10 -11.00
2.83 148.19
0.73 3.78
2.09 144.41
0.35 -0.34
503.10
21.54
481 .56
df
3
195
2nd Year of Study
NYSDEC
TUBES
130
-81.34 Y.. -83.74
269.61 538.33
50.89 C - 35.23
218.71
•0.63
df * 198
df r 3
df • 195
Sun of Mean F
Squares Square
21.54 7.18 2.91 •
481.56 2.47
Table 12.
CSI
TUBES
Samples (n) 30
Sun (Xi) -2.90
Sum (XiA2) 5.75
(Sum (X1))*2/n 0.28
Individual SS 5.47
Individual Mean -0.10
Total SS >
Treatment SS •
Error SS •
Source of
Variation
Between treatments
Within treatments
2nd Year
Benzene
NJIT NJIT NYSOEC
CANS TUBES TUBES
6 33 127
•1.80 -4.60 3.10
0.80 18.98 16.51
0.54 0.64 0.08
0.26 18.34 16.43
-0.30 -0.14 0.02
41.84 df «
1.34 df «
40.50 df •
df Sum of
Squares
3 1.34
192 40.50
of Study
Y.. -6.20
42.04
C « 0.20
195
3
192
Mean F
Square
0.45 2.12
0.21
(ble 13. 2nd Year of Study
M/P Xylene
CSI NJIT NJIT NYSDEC
TUBES CANS TUBES TUBES
•mples (n) 30 6 32 123
M (Xi) -9.00 2.10 8.81 9.90
jn (Xi*2> 14.00 1.63 17.71 121.93
;un (Xn>A2/n 2.70 0.74 2.42 0.80
Dividual SS 11.30 0.90 15.29 121.13
•dividual Mean -0.30 0.35 0.28 0.08
Y.. 11.81
155.27
C • 0.73
,t,l SS • 154.54 df » 190
•eatment SS • 5.92 df « 3
.ror SS • H8.62 df • 187
urcf of 106.67 df «
Treatment SS • 1.73 df •
Error SS • 104.95 df «
of Study
Y.. 47.90
120.17
C » 13.50
169
3
166
Source of df Sun of
Variation Squares
Between treatments 3 1.73
Within treatments 166 104.95
Mean F
Square
0.58 0.91
0.63
7- 151
-------
Analysis of Variance Betuen Organizations
4th Quarter 1988 • 3rd Quarter 1989
Table 15. 2nd Year of Study
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
CSI NJIT NJIT NrSDEC
TUBES CANS TUBES TUBES
Samples (n) 25 6 32 108
Sun (Xi) 10.20 -1.70 6.30 21.82
Sun (Xi*2) 10.44 0.71 4.03 16.77
(Sun (Xi))'2/n 4.16 0.48 1.24 4.41
Individual SS 6.28 0.23 2.79 12.36
Individual Mean 0.41 -0.28 0.20 0.20
Y.. 36.62
31.95
C « 7.84
Total SS » 24.10 df = 170
Treatment SS * 2.45 df = 3
Error SS « 21.65 df = 167
Source of df Sum of Mean F
Variation Squares Square
Setween treatments 3 2.45 0.82 6.30 **
Jithin treatments 167 21.65 0.13
Table 16. 2nd Year
Tet rach 1 oroethy I ene
CSI NJIT NJIT NYSOEC
TUBES CANS TUBES TUBES
Samples (n) 13 4 11 51
Sum (Xi) 0.50 0.20 0.50 20.05
Sum (Xi*2) 1.01 0.02 0.17 64.56
(Sum (Xi»*2/n 0.02 0.01 0.02 7.88
Individual SS 0.99 0.01 0.15 56.68
Individual Mean 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.39
Total SS * 60.04 df «
Treatment SS * 2.22 df »
Error SS * 57.83 df *
of Study
Y.. 21.25
65.76
C « 5.72
78
3
75
Source of df Sum of
Variation Squares
Between treatments 3 2.22
Within treatments 75 57.83
Mean F
Square
0.74 0.96
0.77
Table 17.
CSI
TUBES
Samples (n) 25
Sun (Xi) -0.300
Sun (XiA2) 2.250
(Sum (Xi))*2/n 0.004
Individual SS 2.246
Individual Mean-0.012
Total SS •
Treatment SS *
srror SS «
2nd Year
Hexane
of Study
NJIT NJIT NYSDEC
CANS TUBES TUBES
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
12.
0.
12.
5 25
000 0.000
160 9.240
000 0.000
160 9.240
000 0.000
650 df >
002 df •
646 df *
Y.. -0.30
12.65
C > 0.00
54
3
51
Source of
Variation
Between treatments
Jithin treatments
df Sun of
Squares
3 0.002
51 12.646
Mean F
Square
0.002 0.003
0.248
7- 152
-------
Least Significant Differences between Organizations
(All units are ppb)
First Year of Study
•ble IB.
1st Year LSD Com)
NJIT Tenax
NJIT Canisters
NYSDEC Tubes
CSI Tubes
sari sons:
NJIT
Tenax
1.97
1.45
1.48
Toluene
NJIT NYSDEC
Canisters Tubes
1.97 1.45
1.48 0.64
CSI
Tubes
1.48
1.48
0.64
able 19.
1st Year LSD Com
NJIT Tenax
NJIT Canisters
NYSDEC Tubes
CSI Tubes
parfsons:
NJIT
Tenax
1.36
1.00
1.02
M/P Xylene
NJIT NYSDEC
Canisters Tubes
1.36 1.00
1.02 0.45
CSI
Tubes
1.02
1.02
0.45
able 20.
let Year LSD Com
HJIT Tenax
NJIT Canisters
NYSDEC Tubas
•CI Tube*
par icons:
NJIT
Tenax
0.49
0.36
0.57
0- Xylene
NJIT NYSDEC
Canisters Tubes
0.49 0.36
0»i ......
0.57 n 1A
CSI
Tubes
0.37
0.37
0.16
Second Year of Study
fable 21.
2nd Year LSD
NJIT Tenax
NJIT Caniste
NYSDEC Tubes
CSI Tubes
Comparisons: Toluene
NJIT NJIT
Tenax Canisters
...... 1 t7
0.61 1.29
0.78 1.37
NYSDEC
Tubes
0.61
1.29
0.62
CSI
Tubes
0.78
1.37
0.62
fable 22.
2nd Year LSD
NJIT Tenax
NJIT Caniste
NYSDEC Tubes
CSI Tubes
Comparisons:
NJIT
Tenax
rs 0.31
0.14
0.19
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
NJIT NYSDEC
Canisters Tubes T
0.31 0.14
079 A 1X. .
CSI
ubes
0.19
0.32
0.16
7- 153
-------
Table 23.
Table of ISO Rankings by Organization for Compounds Where 'F' is Significant
1st Year
TOLUENE
Organization Average
From PEI
NYSDEC Tubes
NJIT Tubes
CSI Tubes
NJIT Canisters
Data
Difference
(in ppb)
•0.10 a
•0.65 a,b
•0.89 b
-3.60 c
M/P XYLENE
NYSOEC Tubes
NJIT Tubes
CSI Tubes
NJIT Canisters
0-XYLENE
NYSOEC Tubes
CSI Tubes
NJIT Tubes
NJIT Canisters
0.10 a
-0.05 a,b
•O.U b
-2.15 c
0.26 a
0.23 a
0.03 a,b
•0.30 b
2nd Year Data
TOLUENE
Organization Average Difference
From PEI (in ppb)
NJIT Canisters 0.35 a,b
CSI Tubes 0.21 a
NJIT Tubes -0.34 a,b
NYSOEC Tubes -0.63 b
1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE
CSI Tubes 0.41 a
NJIT Tubes 0.20 b
NYSOEC Tubes 0.20 b
NJIT Canisters -0.28 c
The letters following the "Average Difference From PEI"
are used to indicate statistically significant differences.
Organizations that have the same letters are considered statistically
indistinguishable from one another.
7- 154
-------
Data Sets Used in Computations
7- 155
-------
College of Staten Island
PEI Canisters vs. Tenax Data
4th Quarter 67 - 3rd Quarter 6£
(All inits are ppb)
Conpound: 111-Iriehloroethane
Canister Tenax Difference
1.3
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.1
0.4
0.2
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.5
1.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.4
-0.2
0.1
0.2
-0.2
0.1
0.3
0.0
Corpound: Carbon Tetrachtoride
Canister Tenax Difference
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
Compound: Tetrachloroethene
Canister Tenax Difference
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.4
O.B
0.9
0.6
1.0
0.4
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.7
1.1
1.2
0.9
1.1
0.5
0.6
0.1
-0.1
-0.1
•0.1
-0.2
•0.4
•0.3
•0.3
•0.3
-0.3
-0.1
•0.1
0.1
Compound: Ethylbenzene
Canister Tenax Difference
Compound: Hexane
Canister Tenax Difference
0.2
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0,6
1.0
1.3
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
1.1
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.3
3.2
0.2
•0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.5
-0.4
-0.7
-0.4
-0.2
-0.5
-0.2
-0.4
-0.2
-0.4
•0.7
•2.2
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.8
4.8
0.6
1.2
0.5
0.7
0.9
O.B
1.2
68.2
132.0
74.8
59.0
27.2
17.9
10.2
9.0
0.4
1.7
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.4
1.4
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.7
1.6
1.4
1.2
3.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
O.B
0.5
0.5
-1.1
0.2
0.2
4.3
0.2
-0.2
-0.3
0.2
0.4
C.1
-0.4
66.8
130.8
71.3
58.6
26.8
17.4
9.4
8.5
Compound: Benzene
Canister Tenax Difference
Conpound: M/P Xylene
Canister Tenax Difference
Compound: 0-Xylene
Canister Tenax Difference
Conpound: Toluene
Canister Tenax Difference
1.7
0.9
1.3
0.6
1.6
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.6
2.3
1.5
1.1
0.8
O.B
1.6
0.7
0.5
1.4
1.2
1.9
2.0
1.4
1.9
2.4
2.6
1.2
1.3
0.6
1.3
0.9
0.6
1.4
0.7
0.9
3.0
0.7
0.6
1.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.9
1.2
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.7
1.3
1.6
1.9
0.8
1.5
1.7
3.1
2.7
1.8
2.2
0.7
O.B
1.4
0.9
1.6
0.9
0.8
-2.1
0.6
0.0
0.5
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.4
1.9
' 0.8
0.3
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.4
•0.2
0.1
-0.4
0.0
1.2
•0.1
0.2
•0.7
•0.1
•0.6
-0.9
•0.1
O.S
-0.5
•0.3
-0.2
-0.2
0.7
0.5
1.3
1.3
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.0
2.5
1.9
0.6
1.3
1.3
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.8
1.8
2.0
2.4
1.6
1.6
2.7
1.2
1.4
5.8
1.1
0.9
0.7
1.6
0.9
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.6
1.6
1.4
2,9
2.6
1.0
2.5
1.9
1.5
2.6
2.0
2.4
3.5
3.3
3.4
2.6
3.1
4.3
1.6
2.3
0.9
0.9
1.6
1.1
1.8
t.O
0.1
-0.5
0.5
0.8
-0.2
0.1
-0.6
•0.4
-0.4
-0.7
-0.4
-1.2
-0.
-0.
•1.
•0.
• .
• .7
• .3
• .0
• .0
• .3
• .6
•0.4
•0.9
4.9
0.2
•0.7
•0.4
-0.2
•0.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.6
1.0
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.9
0.3
1.6
1.9
1.5
6.4
2.9
1.0
1.4
1.7
1.9
5.7
3.9
1.6
4.3
2.3
2.5
3.6
2.0
1.5
3.4
4.3
5.2
5.0
3.3
3.7
5.8
7.0
2.8
3.S
, 1.0
2.3
1.7
1.5
3.6
1.9
1.7
7.5
1.8
1.6
2.7
0.9
1.2
2.1
2.7
6.0
4.6
1.4
5.5
2.9
3.1
5.4
3.1
2.9
4.2
6.3
6.1
5.7
5.0
5.0
8.0
7.8
5.0
5.8
1.5
2.4
4.5
1.9
4.1
2.5
-0.1
-5.6
-0.3
4.6
0.2
0.1
0.2
•0.4
-0.8
•0.3
•0.7
0.2
•1.2
•0.6
•0.6
•1.6
•1.1
•1.4
•0.8
•2.0
-0.9
•0.7
•1.7
-1.3
•2.2
•0.8
-2.2
-2.3
-0.5
•0.1
•2.6
•0.4
•0.5
-0.6
7- 156
-------
College of suten Island
PEI Canisters vs. Tertax Dat*
4th Quarter 68 - 3rd Quarter 59
OUl cnits «re ppb)
Conpourd: 111-TricMoroethar*
C»nf*ter Tenax Difference
Corrpound: Carbon Tetrachlor\d«
Cinitter Tena* Difference
Conpound; EtKylberaene
CanUter Tenax Difference
Corpound: Kexar*
Tenax Difference
1.2
0.6
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.4
2.3
0.9
2.0
1.3
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
1.1
0.4
0.5
2.7
0.5
0.8
Compound:
Canister
0.5
0.9
0.3
2.1
2.8
0.6
1.5
1.8
1.9
O.B
0.7
1.4
2.9
1.1
1.0
0.9
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.4
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.8
1.8
0.8
0.9
1.1
o.a
0.4
0.9
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.4
1.4
0.6
1.3
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
Benzene
Tenax
0.5
0.9
0.3
3.0
3.4
0.9
1.7
1.9
2.3
1.1
0.5
1.8
4.3
1.4
1.0
0.&
2.6
2.1
2.2
1.8
1.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.5
1.1
0.4
0.3
1.1
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.9
0.3
o.r
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.4
2.5
0.3
0.6
Difference
0.0
0.0
0.0
•0.9
•0.6
-0.3
-0.2
•0.1
•0.4
•0.3
0.2
-0.4
-1.4
-0.3
0.0
0.1
•0.3
•0.1
-0.5
-0.3
•0.2
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.6
•0.2
-0.4
Conpound: TricMoroethene
Canister Tenax Difference
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.1
0.3
Conpound: Tetrachloroettiene
Canister Tenax Difference
0,6
0.3
3.3
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.4
1.1
0.5
0.8
1.1
1.8
Conpound:
Canister
0.5
1.3
0.3
2.4
2.8
0.4
1.5
2.1
2.0
0.8
1.5
2.5
0.9
1.3
0,6
2.9
2.2
1.8
1.4
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.9
0.8
0.9
1.6
1.1
1.1
0.4
0.3
3.9
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
1.1
0.1
0.4
0,7
2.1
H/P Xylene
0.2
0.0
-0.6
0.1
•0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.4
•0.3
Tenax Difference
0.6
0.9
0.5
3.5
3.7
0.9
1.8
2.7
2.8
1.4
2.4
5.1
1.8
1.4
0.7
2.9
2.4
2.0
2.2
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.2
0.8
1.6
0.7
0.2
1.4
0.7
1.1
•0.1
0.4
-0.2
•1.1
•0.9
•0.5
-0.3
•0.6
•0.8
•0.6
-0.9
-2.6
-0.9
-0.1
•0.1
0.0
•0.2
-0.2
-0.8
•0.1
•0.1
•0.2
•0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.3
Compound:
Canister
0.5
0.9
1.0
0.2
0.6
0.8
-------
New York State Department of Environment*! Conservation
PEI Canisters vs. Enviroehcm Serbent lubes
4th Ouarter 1987 • 3rd Quarter 1988
(All units in ppb)
Compound:Toluene
Canister T«*e Difference
CompoundiBenzene
Canicter Tube Difference
Compound:H/P Xylenes
Canitter Tube Difference
Compound:0-XyIene
Canister Tube Difference
0.9
2.8
1.8
0.6
1.7
1.9
1.7
3.5
1.8
1.7
2.9
2.8
1.7
2.7
1.4
1.3
5.5
3.7
4.2
2.0
5.8
2.7
6.7
1.8
2.4
2.9
2.0
4.2
2.9
3.3
2.7
1.1
1.9
2.4
1.7
3.3
2.5
0.8
0.3
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.3
2.2
5.4
0.7
0.9
1.1
0.3
1.3
1.6
0.7
1.8
2.5
1.0
3.1
2.4
1.8
4.4
4.8
1.1
2.5
4.4
1.7
4.S
2.3
3.6
1.4
4.4
1.4
4.4
2.1
2.8
3.5
2.0
4.2
2.9
4.1
2.5
1.5
1.8
2.7
1.5
3.3
2.0
1.0
1.8
1.4
1.4
2.4
1.4
2.4
6.9
1.4
0.9
2.9
0.6
1.5
0.2
•0.1
-0.1
-0.6
0.7
0.4
-0.6
-0.1
-1.5
-2.0
0.6
0.2
-3.0
-0.4
1.0
1.4
0.6
0.6
1.4
1.3
2.3
-0.3
-0.4
•0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.8
0.2
•0.4
0.1
-0.3
0.2
0.0
O.S
•0.2
•1.5
•0.2
•0.2
•1.0
-0.1
-0.2
-1.5
-o.r
0.0
•i.a
0.8
1.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
O.B
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.2
0.6
1.1
0.5
0.7
1.7
1.9
1.0
0.8
0.6
1.5
0.7
1.3
0.9
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.8
1.5
1.2
1.0
0.5
0.7
1.1
0.6
1.3
0.7
O.B
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.9
2.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.2
2.6
1.1
0.8
0.1
0.3
1.0
1.7
2.1
0.3
1.3
1.8
0.6
1.8
0.7
1.5
0.3
0.7
1.0
0.5
1.3
0.5
0.6
1.8
0.6
0.9
0.9
1.4
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.4
1.2
O.S
0.5
1.5
0.9
0.7
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.5
•0.2
0.1
0.0
-2.3
-0.6
-0.2
0.8
0.3
-0.4
-0.7
-0.9
0.3
-0.2
-1.5
0.1
-0.1
1.2
-0.5
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.4
•0.6
0.3
0.9
0.6
•0.2
0.0
•0.4
0.2
0.3
-0.3
-0.1
0.3
-0.4
0.0
-0.2
-1.0
-0.4
0.2
•0.9
•0.1
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.2
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.7
3.9
1.4
0.7
1.3
1.2
0.7
2.1
2.0
.5
.4
.0
.9
.0
.2
.3
.0
.9
.6
.5
2.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.7
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.6
1.0
3.0
0.3
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.8
1.1
0.4
1.0
0.9
0.7
1.9
2.4
0.5
1.3
2.0
O.S
.8
.1
.2
.7
.5
.4
.0
.3
.5
.1
2.2
1.1
2.0
1.3
0.9
0.9
1.2
0.9
1.7
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
1.0
3.5
0.2
0.3
•0.2
0.1
-0.3
-0.4
0.6
0.0
0.2
1.0
2.0
•1.0
0.2
0.0
-0.8
-0.1
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.0
•0.1
•0.2
•0.1
-0.3
0.5
•0.5
1.3
-0.2
0.0
-0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
-0.3
-0.3
0.0
-0.1
0.0
•0.5
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
1.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.3
1.1
1.5
1.2
1.1
0,7
1.1
1.2
0.4
O.S
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.6
1.1
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
1.1
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.&
0.4
Q.S
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
0,1
O.t
0.6
1.0
•0.2
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.1
0.7
O.S
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
•0.2
0.4
0.0
0.7
-0.1
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
7- 159
-------
New York St*te Department of Environmental Conservation
PE1 Canisters vs. Envirochem Sorbent Tubes
4th Ouarter 1987 - 3rd Quarter 1968
(All units in ppb)
Compo«>d:1,1,1*Trichloroethane Ccmpound:DiclUorameth»ne Conpound:Tetrachloroethane
Canister Tube Difference Canister Tube Difference Canister Tube Difference
0.7 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.6
1.0 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.9 -0.1 1.5 0.2 1.3
1.3 1.5 -0.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0
0.3 0.5 -0.2 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1
0.5 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.9 -0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0
1.2 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.0 -0.4 0.2 0.3 -0.1
0.3 0.4 -0.1 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 -0.2
0.4 0.3 0.1 0.7 1.3 -0.6 0.2 0.2 0.0
0.6 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0
0.5 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0
0.4 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0
0.4 0.3 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.0
0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1
1.4 0.3 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.3
1.5 0.4 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.0
0.6 0.7 -0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1
1.6 2.0 -0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0
0.4 0.3 0.1
0.6 0.5 0.1
0.9 0.6 0.3
0.8 0.4 0.4
0.6 0.7 0.1
0.7 0.4 0.3
0.6 0.4 0.4
0.6 0.5 0.1
1.2 0.4 0.8
1.3 1.1 0.2
1.0 0.4 0.6
0.8 0.3 0.5
0.4 0.3 0.1
0.3 0.3 0.0
0.5 0.2 0.3
0.6 1.0 -0.2
7- 159
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
PEI Canisters vs. ATD50 Tubes
4th Quarter 196S - 3rd Quarter 1989
Ccnpexnd: Toluene
Canister Tube Difference
{Ml vnits are ppto
tonpocnd: Toluene (Continued) Compound: Benzene
Canister Tube Difference Canister Tube Difference
Conpocrd: Benzene (Continued)
Canister Tube Difference
2.4
2.2
2.8
4.3
2.9
4.2
3.3
1.1
3.3
2.4
1.7
3.3
3.0
1.7
t.2
1.2
1.4
3.4
5.4
0.7
2.7
3.9
2.4
2.S
3.2
4.6
2.2
1.1
1.8
1.0
4.1
1.3
4.8
4.1
3.2
2.9
1.3
1.6
3.8
1.1
2.8
6.6
3.4
6.9
a.i
8.1
6.1
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.6
1.8
9.7
1.9
10.9
1.0
3.3
2.0
4.2
0.8
4.5
3.7
1.8
7.2
2.6
3.0
1.5
4.6
3.6
5.2
7.2
1.9
5.1
3.4
1.9
4.9
4.9
2.2
0.9
0.9
1.8
2.9
6.0
1.6
3.5
5.6
3.6
4.2
3.7
6.2
8.1
1.6
1.8
1.0
7.0
5.0
4.1
10.1
4.2
4.0
1.9
2.3
2.6
1.5
3.5
9.1
5.0
7.7
9.3
7.3
6.9
1.5
2.0
1.4
1.4
1.6
2.2
e.e
0.9
10.2
0.6
3.1
2.9
7.3
0.9
7.3
4.0
1.7
9.9
-o.z
•0.8
1.3
-0.3
•0.7
•1.0
•3.9
•o.a
-1.8
•1.0
•0.2
•1.6
•1.9
•0.5
0.3
0.3
-0.4
0.5
-0.6
-0.9
-o.e
-1.7
•1.2
•1.4
-0.5
•1.6
•S.9
•0.5
0.0
0.0
-2.9
-3.7
0.7
-6.0
•1.0
-1.1
-0.6
-0.7
1.2
-0.4
-0.7
-2.5
-1.6
-0.8
-1.2
0.6
-0.8
•0.3
-0.3
-0.2
-0.2
0.0
-0.4
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.4
0.2
-0.9
-3.1
•0.1
-2.8
•0.3
0.1
•2.7
3.9
0.6
5.9
2.5
1.5
6.7
6.4
6.0
1.7
2.5
1.1
0.5
0.7
1.1
1.1
3.4
2.0
3.9
1.4
3.8
9.9
2.3
6.1
1.6
2.2
1.3
1.6
1.5
3.8
1.9
2.2
3.0
2.5
3.1
1.7
1.
2.
3.
2.
S.
1.9
3.7
3.3
2.9
2.6
2.8
2.4
2.5
8.2
1.1
3.9
2.9
8.6
1D.O
2.0
1.2
1.2
4.5
4.2
2.6
4.1
0.9
1.9
3.1
1.8
1.9
0.4
2.7
2.8
2.3
7.6
7.4
5.8
4.0
2.2
2.3
0.7
1.3
1.0
1.1
3.1
1.9
3.6
1.3
4.7
11.0
1.9
2.
2.
5.
1.
2.
2.3
5.3
2.7
4.4
3.9
3.4
4.1
3.8
2.1
3.0
4.7
1.5
3.9
1.9
1.9
3.6
2.7
3.2
2.6
2.4
2.7
9.8
5.0
4.0
2.6
7.6
1C. 8
2.1
1.3
1.4
4.9
3.9
4.0
5.2
1.0
2.3
3.8
2.6
2.0
0.2
3.2
•0.3
•0.8
•0.9
-1.0
0.2
-2.3
0.3
•1.2
•0.2
•0.6
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
•0.9
•1.1
0.4
3.2
•1.2
-1.6
-0.6
-1.2
•0.8
-1.5
•0.8
•2.2
•0.9
•0.9
-1.0
•2.1
-0.5
-0.1
-1.2
0.8
-0.6
0.0
1.8
•0.3
0.2
-0.6
0.0
0.0
•0.2
•1.6
-3.9
-0.1
0.3
1.0
•0,8
•0.1
•0.1
•0.2
-0.4
0.3
-1.2
-1.1
-0.1
•0.4
•0.7
-0.6
1.0
0.9
0.6
1.9
1.2
1.8
1.2
0.5
1.4
1.1
0.6
1.3
0.9
O.I
0.$
O.J
0.$
1.1
2.1
0.5
O.S
O.S
0.6
2.1
O.S
1.6
2.8
1.B
1.0
O.B
0.8
1.4
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.9
2.2
1.0
2,4
2.1
1.6
1.5
1.9
0.9
4.2
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.3
1.4
1.9
1.3
0.9
2.5
1.5
0.9
0.3
2.6
1.1
0.7
2.7
3.0
2.0
o.r
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.4
0.9
1.5
0.9
0.6
1.2
1.1
0.6
1.S
1.2
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
2.3
0.6
O.S
0.6
0.5
2.3
1.7
1.0
3.6
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.4
1.0
3.0
1.7
2.2
2.5
2.2
1.3
2.2
0.4
3.6
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.4
1.4
1.9
1.1
0.9
2.8
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.9
1.1
0.7
2.7
3.5
2.2
0.6
0.0
•0.2
•0.1
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
-0.1
0.2
0.0
c.o
-C.5
-C.3
•C.I
0.1
-0.1
-0.3
0.3
•0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
•0.2
-0.9
0.6
-0.8
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.2
0.0
-0.5
-0.1
-0.8
-0.7
0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0.2
•0.3
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
•0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
-0.3
1.4
0.3
-0.1
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
•0.5
•0.2
0.1
C.T
0.6
0.3
0.4
o.;
0.6
1.3
0.8
1.3
0.6
1.1
1.9
0.6
1.6
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.7
1.2
1.1
1.4
0.7
O.S
O.B
1.3
0.7
1.4
0.6
O.S
1.1
1.2
0.7
1.1
0.8
1.0
2.7
0.6
1.5
1.1
2.7
3.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.7
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.J
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.6
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.6
1.8
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.1
O.S
0.6
1.2
0.6
1.2
0.7
1.3
2.2
0.4
0.8
0.7
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.8
2.2
1.2
1.0
1.4
1.1
1.1
O.B
0.7
0.6
1.2
0.4
1.2
0.3
0.4
0.9
1.1
0.6
1.1
0.7
0.7
2.9
0.9
1.5
i.o
2.2
3.2
0.7
0.4
0.4
O.B
1.3
0.8
1.2
1.1
0.2
0.4
0.9
0.5
1.5
2.0
1.4
1.4
1.6
2.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0.2
c.a
-0.1
-0.2
0.1
-0.1
•0.1
•0.9
•0.5
•0.3
•0.2
0.0
0.3
•0.1
-0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0X1
0.1
0.3
•0.2
•O.S
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
•0.1
0.1
0.6
•0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
-0.1
O.t
-0.3
-0.3
-0.2
-0.2
0.0
•0.4
7- 160
-------
Mew York State Department of Environmental Conservation
PEI Canisters vs. ATD50 Tubes
4th Quarter 1988 • 3rd Quarter 1989
Compound: «/P Xyleoe
Canister Tube Difference
(All units are pqb)
Compound: K/P Xylene (Continued)Conpound: 0-xylene
Canister Tube Difference Canister Tube Difference
Compound: 0-xylene (Continued)
Canister Tube Difference
1.2
1.1
0.8
1.9
1.3
1.9
1.5
0.7
1.5
1.0
0.9
1.7
1.3
0.7
0.6
1.1
0.7
1.2
3.0
0.1
1.1
1.8
1.1
1.1
1.6
2.0
0.4
0.9
O.S
2.1
0.5
1.8
1.9
1.3
1.3
0.6
0.5
1.6
0.9
0.4
1.0
2.6
2.6
1.3
3.4
3.5
2.3
2.4
2.6
0.9
3.3
0.5
o.r
0.5
0.4
1.7
2.7
1.5
0.9
3.0
6.6
0.4
2.9
1.1
1.2
1.7
0.9
1.7
1.3
2.4
2.1
0.9
2.2
1.2
0.9
2.0
1.4
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.1
2.9
0.7
1.2
2.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
2.7
0.7
0.9
0.6
2.9
1.7
1.5
4.4
1.8
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.5
1.2
3.6
1.4
1.4
3.0
3.6
2.8
2.3
3.0
0.6
3.5
0.6
0.8
1.6
0.2
2.0
2.0
1.6
0.9
4.3
0.9
0.2
1.2
1.3
0.0
-0.6
-0.1
0.2
0.0
-0.5
-0.6
-0.2
-0.7
-0.2
0.0
-0.3
-0.1
-0.1
0.0
0.5
-0.4
0.1
0.1
-0.6
-0.1
-0.6
•0.3
-0.4
0.1
•0.7
-0.3
0.0
•0.1
-o.e
-1.2
0.3
•2.5
•0.5
0.1
•0.1
•0.2
0.8
0.1
•0.1
•0.2
•1.0
1.2
•0.1
0.4
•0.1
•0.5
0.1
-0.4
0.3
•0.2
•0.1
•0.1
-1.1
0.2
•0.3
0.7
•0.1
0.0
•1.3
5,7
0.2
1.7
•0.2
0.8
3.3
3.4
2.8
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.6
O.S
1.4
0.9
1.7
0.6
1.2
2.4
0.7
2.3
0.6
1.9
0.5
0.6
O.S
2.3
0.8
0.7
2.1
2.9
2.9
O.S
0.6
1.5
1.6
0.6
1.3
0.9
1.1
2.6
2.9
0.8
4.0
0.8
1.9
3.1
0.4
1.5
1.0
9.0
4.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
1.7
2.3
1.4
2.5
0.5
0.7
2.7
0.8
0.9
3.8
4.1
2.5
0.9
1.0
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.8
1.6
1.0
1.8
0.6
1.5
3.0
0.5
0.9
0.7
1.5
0.7
0.8
0.6
2.1
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.6
0.8
0.7
1.3
1.3
0.6
1.4
1.0
0.3
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.2
0.8
1.1
4.1
1.1
1.6
1.1
2.9
3.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
1.9
1.5
2.0
2.8
0.5
0.9
1.3
1.0
-0.1
-0.5
-0.7
0.3
0.0
-0.1
0.0
•0.1
0.1
-0.3
•0.2
-0.1
-0.1
0.0
-0.3
-0.6
0.2
1.4
-0.1
0.4
•0.2
•0.2
•0.1
0.2
-0.1
-0.3
0.8
1.8
1.3
-0.3
•0.1
0.2
0.3
0.0
•0.1
•0.1
0.8
1.6
1.8
•0.2
2.8
0.0
0.8
-1.0
•0.7
•0.1
-0.1
6.1
0.3
•0.1
0.0 .
•0.1
•0.2
0.8
•0.6
-0.3
0.0
-0.2
1.4
•0.2
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
O.S
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.3
0.4
1.1
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.4
1.2
1.2
1.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.4
1.4
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.2
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.4
1.2
0.5
0.2
1.2
0.5
0.3
1.4
1.4
1.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.9
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.9
O.S
1.3
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
1.2
0.9
1.3
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.2
1.1
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.8
O.S
0.3
1.3
0.3
€.1
0.4
0.4
0.3
1.2
1.3
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
•0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
-0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
•0.1
0.2
•0.6
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.2
•0.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
-0.1
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.2
1.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.6
0.3
1.7
2.3
2.3
0.2
0.2
0.9
1.2
0.2
2.5
0.4
4.8
0.4
2.2
O.S
0.4
0.5
2.1
0.2
0.6
0.4
8.6
2.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.8
1.9
0.6
1.2
0.2
0.3
3.0
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.6
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.3
O.S
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.8
1.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.1
0.6
0.0
1.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.3
1.9
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.7
-0.1
2.1
0.1
4.4
0.1
1.9
0.1
0.1
0.5
1.7
•0.1
0.2
0.1
7.8
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
1.4
-0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
7- 161
-------
New York Stite Department of Environmental Conservation
PE1 Canisters vs. ATC50 Titoes
4th Quarter 1988 - 3rd Quarter 1969
(Alt inits are ppb)
Comptxnd: 1,l,1-Trieliloroeth»ne COTDOUTC: 1, 1,1-Jrichloroeth«ne Compoind: DicMorcmethane
Cinitter lube Difference Canister Tube Difference Canister Tube Difference
CcnpocrxJ: Oichloraraeth*ne {Cntd)
Canister Tttx Difference
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.5
1.7
1.1
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.7
o.z
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.7
1.0
0.7
1.3
0.6
0.1
0.4
0.9
0.5
0.3
1.S
2.6
1.7
1.1
1.8
0.4
1.3
0.3
0.5
0.9
0.3
1.2
1.6
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.2
1.1
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
1.2
0.3
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.4
0,6
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
1.2
1.6
1,1
0.7
1.4
0.2
1.9
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.1
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.1
2.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.3
-0.1
0.1
0.7
0.5
0.3
•0.1
-0.8
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
-0.1
0.3
0.3
•0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.2
•0.2
•0.1
0.6
0.2
•0.1
0.1
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
-0.6
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.2
-2.0
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
1.3
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.3
1.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.7
1.5
1.0
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.2
0.8
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
O.B
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
1.2
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
•0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.3
0,7
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
1.6
0.6
O.B
0.7
1.1
0.6
1.2
1.3
0.5
1.5
0.3
0.4
C.6
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.4
1.8
0.7
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.7
2.4
1.8
2.6
2.2
1.5
2.6
0.7
6.4
0.2
0.4
2.2
0.2
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.3
3.4
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.9
3.1
2.9
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.3
3.2
0.5
0.8
1.3
0.7
0.7
0.3
2.2
1.0
0.3
0.9
0.2
1.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.4
1.2
0.5
1.2
0.3
1.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.2
0.9
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.2
0.5
3.9
0.9
2.9
3.0
0.8
2.3
0.3
3.2
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.3
1.9
0.8
0.5
0.3
7.0
0.1
0.3
t.O
0.4
O.B
4.6
1.6
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.3
-0.1
0.1
0.4
-1.1
-0.4
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.0
o.z
-0.1
0.5
-0.1
0.2
-0.6
0.4
•0.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
-0.3
0.6
-0.2
O.B
0.4
-0.1
0.3
0.2
•1.5
0.9
-0.3
-0.8
0.7
0.3
0.4
3.2
0.0
0.3
1.5
•0.1
-1.2
0.5
0.2
0.0
-3.6
0.5
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.1
•1.5
1.3
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.2
2.9
0.3
1.0
0.6
2.4
0.4
1.0
1.9
0.7
2.0
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.4
1.3
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.9
0.9
€.4
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.8
0.3
0.7
0.7
2.1
2.3
0.5
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.8
0.4
1.3
0.2
0.8
1.9
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.1
1.1
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.5
1.0
2.1
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
-0.1
0.2
0.2
1.1
O.Z
0.2
0.0
0.3
1.4
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0,0
-0.1
0.3
0.5
0,1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.2
1.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.4
7- 162
-------
Mew York State Department of Environmental Conservation
PE1 Canisters vs. ATD50 Tubes
4th Quarter 1988 • 3rd Quarter 1989
(All units are ppb)
Compound: Tetrachloroethane
Canister Tube Difference
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
5.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.8
0.8
0.4
6.7
0.6
1.1
1.4
0.2
5.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.2
3.7
0.5
0.5
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.3
0.1
3.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
4.4
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.1
-0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
3.8
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
-0.1
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.1
6.4
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
2.4
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
•0.7
0.3
-0.1
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
.7- 163
-------
CC1B8L
CofflpocaTid!
PEI
Canister
3.1
3.0
5.1
5.3
Cofflpoun*
PEI
Canister
2.S
0.9
1.0
1.8
Compound*
PEI
Canister
0.6
1.8
2.3
U«
Compound:
PEI
Canister
0.6
0.9
O.S
Toluene
NJIT
Canister
11.9
3.3
7.3
8.4
Benzene
NJIT
Canister
2.5
0.2
1.7
2.4
M/P Xylene
NJIT
Canister
3.8
6.4
3.1
1.4
0- Xylene
NJIT
Canister
1.5
1.0
0.4
NJIT
Tenax
3.2
4.2
4.1
7.6
NJIT
Tenax
1.3
1.3
1.0
2.4
NJIT
Tenax
0.9
1.3
1.0
3.1
NJIT
Tenax
0.5
0.4
1.0
Difference
Canister Tenax
-8.« -0.1
•0.3 -1.2
-2.2 1.0
-3.1 -2.3
Difference
Canister Tenax
0.0 1.2
0.7 -0.4
-0.7 0.0
-0.6 -0.6
Difference
Canister Tenax
•3.2 -0.3
-4.6 O.S
•0.6 1.3
0.0 -1.7
Difference
Canister Tenax
-0.9 0.1
-0.1 0.5
0.1 -0.5
New Jersey Institute of Technology
PEI Canisters vs. NJIT Canisters and Tenax
4th Quarter 67 - 3rd Quarter 88
(All units are ppb)
Conpound: Hexane
PEI NJIT
Canister Canister
HJIT
Tenax
1.8
2.0
1.7
Difference
Canister Tenax
•0.2 0.1
Compound: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
PEI NJIT NJIT
Canister Canister Tenax
0.8
0.6 0.5
0.5
1.0
Difference
Canister Tenax
0.8 0.3
-0.4
Conpound:
PEI
Canister
nd
nd
nd
nd
Tetrachloroethene
NJIT NJIT
Canister Tenax
Difference
Canister Tenax
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
7- 164
-------
CC168L
Compound:
PEI
Canister
3.4
3.1
6.8
1.9
2.3
5.6
COfflpOUlu!
PEI
Canister
2.0
1.7
3.1
0.9
1.0
2.1
Compound:
PEI
Canister
0.8
0.7
3.2
0.7
0.9
2.1
Compound:
PEI
Canister
0.3
0.3
1.2
0.3
0.4
0.9
Toluene
NJIT
Canister
3.4
3.8
5.7
1.5
1.9
4.7
Benzene
NJIT
Canister
2.5
2.2
3.3
0.9
1.1
2.6
M/P Xylene
NJIT
Canister
0.6
0.7
2.2
0.8
0.6
1.4
0- Xylene
NJIT
Canister
0.2
0.2
•0.8
0.3
0.2
0.6
NJIT
Tenax
4.8
11.6
9.5
1.0
2.9
3.2
NJIT
Tenax
2.3
4.4
5.4
0.6
0.9
1.2
NJIT
Tenax
1.6
3.4
1.2
0.2
0.4
1.4
NJIT
Tenax
0.6
1.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.8
New Jersey Institute of Technology
PEI Canisters vs. NJIT Canisters and Tenax
4th Quarter 88 • 3rd Quarter 89
(All units are ppb)
Difference
Canister Tenax
0.0
-0.7
1.1
0.4
0.4
0.9
-1.4
•e.s
•2.7
0.9
-0.6
2.4
Difference
Canister Tenax
-0.5
•0.5
•0.2
0.0
-0.1
-O.S
•0.3
•2.7
•2.3
0.3
0.1
0.9
Difference
Canister Tenax
0.2
0.0
1.0
-0.1
0.3
0.7
-0.8
•2.7
2.0
0.5
0.5
0.7
Difference
Canister Tenax
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.2
O.S
•0.3
•0.8
0.9
0.2
0.1
0.1
Compound:
PEI
Canister
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.0
2.2
Compound:
PEI
Canister
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
1.2
Compounds
PEI
Canister
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Nexane
NJIT
Canister
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.1
1.3
NJIT
Tenax
1.2
3.4
2.8
0.5
1.2
Difference
Canister Tenax
•0.3 0.0
•0.5 -2.1
0.0 -1.3
-0.1 0.5
0.9 1.0
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
NJIT
Canister
1.0
1.0
1.3
0.7
0.7
1.7
NJIT
Tenax
0.7
1.2
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.4
Difference
Canister Tenax
-0.1 0.2
-0.2 -0.4
-0.6 0.0
-0.1 0.3
-0.2 0.2
-0.5 0.8
Tetrachloroethene
NJIT
Canister
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
NJIT
Tenax
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Difference
Canister Tenax
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.1 0.0
0.1 0.0
7- 165
-------
I SSL
New Jersey Institiute of Technology
Supplemental Collocation Data from Sewaren and Pi scataway
From
January 1988 • October 1989
1,1 Trichloroethane
:I
an. Tenax Difference
.6
.3
.4
.6
.2
.2
.7
.5
.4
.9
.8
.4
.6
.6
.8
.5
.5
.6
.7
.3
.3
.1
.8
.4
.6
1
1.6
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
1.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
1.7
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.4
0
0.1
0.3
0.2
0
-0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
•0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
•0.2
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.3
•0.3
0.3
0.6
(am
•1
in.
.4
.4
.9
1
.4
.7
.4
.8
•
Tenax
2
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.8
1.2
Difference
•0.6
-0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0
-0.4
0.6
Benzene
PEI
Can.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
1.
4
4
1
5
5
8
8
7
8
6
8
4
6
5
9
7
4
5
7
3
4
7
6
3
7
7
1
Tenax
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1
6
9
6
1
9
7
9
3
2
5
8
4
6
8
4
4
3
4
4
4
1
7
5
9
2
5
Difference
•0
-0
0
-0
-0
-0
0
-0
•0
0
0
0
0
•1
•0
0
0
0
•0
•0
•0
0
•0
0
0
.7
.2
.1
.1
.5
.1
.1
.2
.5
.4
.3
.6
.2
.1
.9
.3
0
.2
.3
.1
0
.3
.1
.8
.2
.5
.6
Tetrachloroethene
PEI
Can.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
6
2
3
2
3
B
3
3
Tenax
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.3
.1
.2
.1
.5
.1
.2
.3
Difference
0
0
0
0
-0
3
0
.3
.1
.1
.1
.2
.7
.1
0
Heta and Pan Xylene
PEI
Can.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
1.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
6
1
9
5
3
9
8
5
9
3
8
8
6
8
9
7
4
5
8
3
3
9
7
6
5
6
Tenax
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.7
.6
.4
.2
.2
.5
.3
.3
.7
.5
.5
.9
.3
.5
.8
.1
.2
.3
.2
.1
.1
.8
.5
.8
.2
.6
Difference
•0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•0
0
.1
.4
.5
.3
.1
.4
.5
.2
.2
.8
.3
.9
.3
.3
.1
.6
.2
.2
.6
.2
.2
.1
.2
.2
.3
1
Ortho-Xylene
PEI
Can. Tenax Difference
1
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.8
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.7
1.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
-0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
-0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0.1
•0.1
0.1
•0.1
0.2
0.4
Tpluene
PEI
Can.
6.9
0.9
2
0.7
0.7
2
2
1.8
2.1
5.7
1.9
4.3
1.3
4.1
5
1.4
2.1
1.8
2.1
0.8
0.7
2
1.9
1.8
4.7
3.3
Tenax
9.2
1.1
2.3
0.7
0.7
1.7
7.3
2.2
3
5.1
1
2.2
0.8
4.5
6.7
0.8
1.5
0.9
1
0.6
0.5
2.5
2.1
3.2
1.7
1.8
Difference
-2.3
-0.2
•0.3
0
0
0.3
•5.3
•0.4
-0.9
0.6
0.9
2.1
0.5
-0.4
•1.7
0.6
0.6
0.9
1.1
0.2
0.2
•0.5
•0.2
•1.<
3
1.5
7- 166
------- |