SELECTION OF NATIONAL
AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES
TECHNICAL REPORT
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
-------
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
SELECTION OF NATIONAL
AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES
TECHNICAL REPORT
Prepared by
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-02-2513
Project Officer: Thomas Curran
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711
11499 CHESTER ROAD
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
(513) 762 - 4700
Prepared for
December 30, 1977
CHESTER TOWERS
-------
This report was written from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio, under Contract No. 68-02-2513. The contents of this
report are reproduced herein as received from the contractor.
The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those
of the author, and not necessarily those of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
ii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio. Charles E. Zimmer was the Project Director. David
W. Armentrout was the Project Manager, principal investi-
gator, and author.
Dr. Thomas Curran was the Project Officer for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We wish to thank
him for his assistance throughout this project. We also
wish to thank the staff members of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Regional Offices for their cooperation and
assistance.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Purpose 1-1
1.2 Background 1-4
1.3 Approach 1-6
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2-1
2.1 Establishing New Sites 2-1
2.2 Site Evaluation Procedures 2-1
2.3 Quality Assurance and Data Validation 2-3
2.4 Background Sites 2-6
2.5 Guidelines for Nitrogen Dioxide 2-6
3.0 PROCEDURE: LOCATING THE TENTATIVE SITES 3-1
3.1 SAMWG Criteria 3-1
3.2 Regional Office Visits 3-2
3.3 Problems and Constraints 3-4
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4-1
4.1 Nationwide Site Distribution 4-3
4.2 Regional Summary of Trends Sites 4-10
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued).
Page
APPENDICES
A MONITORING SITE EVALUATION FORMS A-l
A.l Documenting Monitoring Site A-2
Characteristics
A.2 Suggested Revisions to NAQTS Site A-13
Evaluation Form
B TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES B-l
BY REGION
v
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
At the present time it is difficult to determine air
quality trends, or to compare them among major population
centers because monitor siting, quality assurance proce-
dures, and sampling methods differ among monitoring sites.
Recognizing this problem, the Standing Air Monitoring Work
Group (SAMWG) has encouraged the development of a network of
National Air Quality Trends Sites (NAQTS) from which con-
sistent air quality data can be gathered and subjected to
trends analysis. Establishing the NAQTS will provide com-
parable air quality data from nationwide monitoring site,
data that will form the basis for accurate assessment of air
quality problems.
The SAMWG is composed of members from the EPA head-
quarters offices, EPA Regional Offices, and state and local
air pollution control agencies. For the last 2 years, SAMWG
members have discussed problems of air monitoring strategies
and suggested solutions to those problems. Using population
statistics and currently available air quality data, SAMWG
calculated the number of test monitoring sites necessary for
1-1
-------
each of the criteria pollutants in each urbanized area in
the nation.
Under contract with the EPA, PEDCo determined the ten-
tative location of these sites within the most heavily
populated areas of the United States. PEDCo worked on the
basis of standards developed by SAMWG, conferring with EPA
Regional Office staff members. In some cases state agencies
participated in these meetings.
The list of NAQTS developed under this contract is
tentative. It will be reviewed by the EPA Regional Offices
and by the states before the final list of permanent trends
monitoring sites is compiled.
SAMWG categorizes air quality monitoring sites as NAQTS,
state and local air monitoring sites (SLAMS), or special
purpose monitors (SPM). The NAQTS will monitor ambient air
quality specifically for trends analysis. The SLAMS and
SPM networks will provide data for a variety of applica-
tions related to the State Implementation Plans (SIPS).
At present, the states are required to submit data from
all of their SIP sites to the Regional Offices for entry
into the EPA air quality data bank, SAROAD (Storage and
Retrieval of Aerometric Data). After the NAQTS network is
established, the states will be required to submit to the
EPA Regional Offices only the data generated by the NAQTS.
1-2
-------
This could reduce the volume of the data submitted to
SAROAD by as much as 65 percent. Although SAROAD will
accept SLAMS data, the states will maintain their own data
bases for the SLAMS data, or else the Regional Offices will
provide storage and retrieval capabilities for data from the
state networks.
Several other benefits should result from establishing
the NAQTS network. First, the time interval between data
generation and data entry into SAROAD should decrease. By
reducing the volume of data that must be prepared, reviewed,
and entered into SAROAD, the NAQTS requirements should
reduce data turnaround time. Under present procedures, air
quality data may be as much as 1 year old before they are
available to SAROAD users.
Second, user confidence in the data should improve.
EPA Regional Offices do not now uniformly require the states
to implement ambient air monitoring quality assurance pro-
cedures. Data users have little basis for comparing data
from monitoring sites either within a region or among
several regions. EPA should adopt requirements for stan-
dardized quality assurance procedures and implement them
concurrently with new reporting requirements.
Third, continuity of the data base should improve.
Currently, Regional Office personnel have varying degrees of
1-3
-------
knowledge about the history of monitoring sites within their
regions. State or local agencies sometimes move or reorient
monitoring sites without indicating that reorientation in
the data bank, retaining the old site number even though the
data generated from the new site orientation are not com-
parable with previous reported data with the same site
number. Also, when the state assigns a new site number or
new agency or project number only as a result of changing
the agency responsible for monitoring site operation, the
data continuity may be lost for the purpose of analyzing
trends even though the data are still valid for that pur-
pose. Since NAQTS sites will be permanent, this should be
less of a problem in the future. Other procedures that must
be implemented with NAQTS to solve the problem of data
continuity are discussed in Section 2.0 of this report.
1.2 BACKGROUND
SAMWG was established by the EPA in 1975, to develop
air monitoring strategies and criteria that would correct
current problems in air monitoring and provide a basis for
meeting future air monitoring needs. SAMWG drew members
from EPA program and Regional Offices as well as from state
and local air pollution control agencies. The group met
several times over a 2 year interval, issuing several
1-4
-------
working documents and a final report summarizing its recom-
mendations.
In addition to NAQTS, SAMWG considered requirements for
SLAMS as well as for special purpose monitoring, emissions
inventories, and future reporting of noncriteria pollutants
such as trace metals and organic compounds. The EPA Regional
Offices and the state agencies will have the responsibility
for coordinating NAQTS with implementation of these other
monitoring and reporting requirements.
On the premise that trends sites should produce data
that represent population exposure to ambient concentrations
of the criteria pollutants, SAMWG proposed that the NAQTS be
established in urbanized areas, since urbanized areas con-
tain the greatest concentrations of population in the United
States. The U.S. Bureau of Census defines an urbanized area
as a central city with population of 50,000 or more or twin
cities with combined population of 50,000 or more. Certain
areas surrounding these central or twin cities are included
in the urbanized area. SAMWG used urbanized areas instead
of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's) because
the urbanized areas are more representative of population
concentration.
SAMWG recommended that monitoring sites for NAQTS be
carefully placed to prevent bias from single point sources
1-5
-------
of emissions and to allow reasonable comparability of the
air quality and population exposure among several geographic
areas. To ensure compliance with formal guidelines for
siting monitors for specific pollutants SAMWG further recom-
mended that NAQTS monitors should not necessarily be located
at existing monitor sites, although the use of existing
sites for NAQTS is encouraged where suitable; nor should
multiple pollutants necessarily be measured from one site.
Table 1-1 summarizes the criteria for the recommended
numbers of NAQTS to be implemented in each urbanized area
for total suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide. Table
1-2 summarizes the recommended numbers of NAQTS for carbon
monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and photochemical oxidants (as
ozone).
Table 1-3 compares the national totals of recommended
NAQTS with the numbers of sites from which data are cur-
rently reported to the EPA.
1.3 APPROACH
SAMWG had already combined population statistics and
ambient air quality data available from SAROAD to estimate
the range of the number of NAQTS for each pollutant for each
urbanized area. The anticipated numbers of NAQTS for each
urbanized area were summarized and lists were provided to
1-6
-------
Table 1-1. CRITERIA FOR RECOMMENDED NUMBER OF
NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES FOR TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATES AND SULFUR DIOXIDE
Recommended
number of sites
a
per area
High conc.
Medium conc.
Low conc.
High population
500,000
6-8
4-6
0-2
Medium population
100,000-500,000
4-6
2-4
0-2
Low population
50,000-100,000
2-4
1-2
0
a High TSP - National Ambient Air Quality Primary Standard
exceeded by 20% or more.
Medium TSP - National Secondary Standard exceeded.
Low TSP - Ambient concentration lower than National
Secondary Standard.
High SOj - National Primary Standard exceeded.
Medium SO2 - National Primary or Secondary Standard
exceeded by 60%.
Low SO2 - Ambient concentration less than 60% of National
Primary or Secondary Standard.
1-7
-------
Table 1-2. CRITERIA FOR RECOMMENDED NUMBER
OF NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES FOR CARBON MONOXIDE
NITROGEN DIOXIDE, AND PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS (AS OZONE)
Pollutant
Criteria
CO
Two sites in urbanized areas where any of the
following apply:
1. Population exceeds 500,000
2. Transportation control plan in effect ora
under development, or
3. Area probably will not meet the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by
1980
NO 2
Two sites in urbanized areas where any of the
following apply:
1. NAAQS are either not met or are met
marginally
2. NAAQS may not be met by 1980a
3. Population exceeds 1,000,000
°3
Two sites in urbanized areas where any of the
following apply:
1.
2.
NAAQS exceeded anytime in last three years
and population exceeds 250,000
O3 concentrations have been shown to be an
urban-related problem3
a This has since been deleted from proposed regulations for NAQTS.
Table 1-3. TOTAL RECOMMENDED NUMBERS OF
NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES VERSUS TOTAL
SITES CURRENTLY REPORTING TO THE EPA
Pollutant
Current sites
reporting
Recommended
NAQTS
TSP
= 4100
535-920
so2
~ 2650a
172-448
CO
450
120
N02
1470b
80-136
°3
430
168
a 750 continuous, 1900 bubbler.
270 continuous, 1200 bubbler.
1-8
-------
each EPA Regional Office along with a copy of the summarized
SAMWG monitor siting recommendations.
Then meetings were conducted with representatives of
each EPA Regional Office to review the air monitoring then
being conducted in each urbanized area to develop a tenta-
tive list of NAQTS for each state. The EPA Regional Office
representatives forwarded copies of the tentative NAQTS
lists to the state agencies for their consideration and
comments. In some regions the states participated in the
meetings to choose the tentative sites.
Consistency of monitoring siting is a primary goal for
NAQTS. In developing the tentative NAQTS list, compliance
with the EPA guidelines for monitor siting was emphasized:
the absence of sources of bias, such as large single point
sources near the site; uniform geographic distribution
throughout each urbanized area; and coverage of population
centers, including projected growth areas.
Population coverage and geographic distribution were
the major criteria for choosing tentative sites in each
urbanized area. In most cases EPA Regional Office personnel
provided local maps showing the locations of monitors rela-
tive to population centers, industrial centers and point
sources, and large area sources. Most of the EPA Regional
Offices had monitoring site files for each state documenting
1-9
-------
the important siting considerations for each site. These
site files, the local maps of the urbanized areas, and
summaries of air quality data by site and pollutant were the
primary inputs to the site selection procedure. In some
cases where insufficient site information was available
through the EPA Regional Offices, site visits were made. In
other cases where existing monitoring sites met siting
criteria, but the number of sites per urbanized area was
below the number recommended by SAMWG, PEDCo suggested the
establishment of additional monitoring sites. In some
cases, the original SAMWG estimates for numbers of sites in
an urbanized area were based on erroneous data in SAROAD and
were therefore changed to reflect more accurately the air
quality levels of the areas.
In some regions the development of background sites was
discussed, but a network of background sites nationwide was
not designated. The EPA must provide guidance for locating
background monitoring sites and for determining their proper
numbers before a background network can be established for
NAQTS.
1-10
-------
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 ESTABLISHING NEW SITES
A total of 103 new monitoring sites should be estab-
lished to complete the tentative NAQTS as follows:
1. TSP - 28 sites
2. SO2 - 27 sites
3. CO - 22 sites
4. NO2 - 8 sites
5. 0^ - 18 sites
The general geographic areas where these sites should be
established have been identified. These general locations
usually represent a complement of population exposure and
geographic balance. Any alterations to this plan must care-
fully maintain the balance of monitoring sites within the
urbanized area in order to maintain comparable data from the
sites throughout the network. The same site selection
criteria that were applied to the other NAQTS must be
applied to the new sites, and the site characteristics
should be documented.
2.2 SITE EVALUATION PROCEDURES
At the beginning of this project, PEDCo anticipated
visiting perhaps 50 monitoring sites where insufficient site
2-1
-------
evaluation data were available from the EPA Regional Offices.
It soon became apparent that current information is inade-
quate for a large number of sites, and that visiting these
sites to obtain the needed information is beyond the scope
of this project-
In lieu of extensive site evaluation visits, emphasis
was put on determining the types of site information that
the EPA might reasonably expect the states to submit for
each NAQTS. EPA provided a tentative site evaluation form
for review, and revisions were suggested. The form was
field-tested in several site visits in Ohio. A copy of the
revised form is in Appendix A. This kind of information is
essential to effectively evaluate data from trends sites.
Update information necessary to establish a history of
operating problems, site orientation, neighborhood changes,
and changes in the equipment at each site should be docu-
mented routinely during an annual site visit by the agency
responsible for quality assurance audits. Assuming that the
EPA Regional Offices will provide for annual audits of each
site as part of the quality assurance procedures, annual
update of the site evaluation data would not be expected to
add significantly to the cost of trends monitoring. Only
changes to information would be necessary to note on the
site evaluation form; it would not be necessary to complete
a new form for each site annually.
2-2
-------
Efficient filing systems could substitute for some of
the data on the original form. For example, meteorological
data should not be recorded for each site; identifying the
meteorological station nearest the monitoring site and a
source of data reported from the meteorological station is suf-
ficient. A notebook of local climatological data tables
available from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration in Asheville, North Carolina, could be kept
near the site file and referred to as necessary. Also, a
site index could be established to summarize the most
important site information on a single sheet. The index
could include a low altitude aerial photo, available through
the U.S. Geological Survey, showing the location of the
monitoring site and key anthropogenic and natural influences
in the immediate area.
Establishing a standard site file should be a signifi-
cant contribution to the task of evaluating and comparing
trends monitoring data.
2.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND DATA VALIDATION
Quality assurance and data validation procedures are
key elements in the success of the NAQTS concept. The EPA
has recently completed quality assurance handbooks that pro-
vide guidance to agencies establishing quality assurance
programs for ambient air monitoring systems. These hand-
books include general guidelines for agency management to
2-3
-------
use in developing programs, as well as specific guidelines
for the Federal Reference Methods for monitoring total
suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide. Although the
handbooks for these two pollutants were not completed until
1977/ the handbook on quality assurance principles has been
available for 2 years. Moreover, the EPA has been con-
ducting quality assurance training courses for 2 years. In
1973, the EPA published a series of quality assurance
guidelines specific to each of the criteria air pollutants.
Although the specific requirements in each of these docu-
ments will be changed in the new handbook series, the origi-
nal series provided adequate guidance for agencies concerned
with data quality.
SAMWG recommended that all states implement their
quality assurance programs giving this activity the highest
priority, second only to designating the final NAQTS. The
failure of any states to implement quality assurance pro-
cedures in conjunction with NAQTS will significantly reduce
the effectiveness of NAQTS. Since quality assurance guide-
lines in some form have been available for at least 5 years,
agencies should be prepared to develop comprehensive quality
assurance programs.
Implementing quality assurance procedures among the
state agencies will require more than distribution of guide-
2-4
-------
lines or provision for training seminars. It will require
total system audits by each EPA Regional Surveillance and
Analysis Division to ensure that the procedures are being
used and that operational problems are being addressed in a
timely manner.
Data validation is an important part of all quality
assurance programs. Validation techniques can vary con-
siderably among agencies, however, and the EPA should review
the procedures followed in each quality assurance program
that affects the NAQTS. The procedures adopted for NAQTS
programs should meet a set of minimum requirements. Since
data validation procedures find and correct erroneous data
values, the data validation procedures adopted should nearly
eliminate the time required for EPA Regional Offices to
follow up on any validation problems. If the quality assur-
ance procedures are properly designed and implemented, data
problems should be minimal, and the data validation proce-
dures should not delay the entry of current data into the
data bank.
There is no question that quality assurance programs
increase the cost of operating monitoring networks. How-
ever, data of unknown quality cannot effectively meet the
needs of an air monitoring program.
2-5
-------
Documentation of procedures is merely a preliminary
step in implementing these programs. The EPA Regional
Offices should continually evaluate, at least annually, the
results of quality assurance and data validation procedures.
2.4 BACKGROUND SITES
Background sites are not included in the lists of
tentative NAQTS developed in this project. The selection of
background sites in the heavily populated sections of the
U.S. will present different problems than the selection of
sites in more rural areas. More definitive guidelines
should be developed before a list of background sites can be
compiled. One problem that should be addressed is the total
number of background sites that may be necessary.
2.5 GUIDELINES FOR NITROGEN DIOXIDE
The optimal placement of nitrogen dioxide monitors is
not understood as well as for the other criteria pollutants.
Consequently the SAMWG recommendations for monitor siting
for this pollutant are based on less information and experi-
ence than their siting recommendations for the other pollu-
tants. The SAMWG recommendations for nitrogen dioxide moni-
toring include paired sites, one near the central business
district and another 15 to 30 kilometers downwind from the
central business district. These guidelines were followed
in determining the tentative NAQTS, but the distances down-
2-6
-------
wind tend to vary over a range of 5 to 30 kilometers. Also,
the criterion of downwind sites does not apply in those
areas such as Nevada, where a downwind site would be in an
unpopulated desert or Hawaii, where it would be in the
ocean.
Problems with sampling methods and questions on the
general behavior of nitrogen dioxide and the occurrence of
maximum concentrations in specific urbanized areas indicate
that designating permanent NAQTS for this pollutant may be
premature. It may be more desirable to view the NAQTS for
nitrogen dioxide as temporary, and to provide a mechanism
for making them permanent after the first year or two of
operation.
2-7
-------
3.0 PROCEDURE: LOCATING THE
TENTATIVE SITES
This section describes the method used to derive the
tentative lists of NAQTS presented in this report.
3.1 SAMWG CRITERIA
PEDCo summarized the draft SAMWG criteria for locating
NAQTS. The summary included an outline of the criteria for
determining the number of NAQTS for each pollutant, and
listed the major physical siting criteria, e.g. paired CO
sites in each urbanized area where NAQTS for CO were to be
established.
SAMWG had reviewed available air quality data for each
urbanized area and categorized the urbanized areas according
to the number of monitoring sites that might be required for
each pollutant. Both population and ambient air quality
levels were primary considerations in this categorization.
PEDCo summarized these results in a table that was subse-
quently incorporated into the summary of the SAMWG criteria.
The combined summarries were then distributed to each
Regional Office for their consideration before the tentative
NAQTS list was compiled.
3-1
-------
3.2 REGIONAL OFFICE VISITS
After the summaries of the SAMWG criteria were dis-
tributed to the EPA Regional Offices, discussions regarding
the tentative NAQTS were conducted at each Regional Office.
The Surveillance and Analysis Divisions in the EPA Regional
Offices were the primary participants in these discussions.
In Regions II and VI, state representatives attended the
meetings and were directly involved in compiling the lists
of tentative NAQTS.
In each region, the Surveillence and Analysis Division
reviewed the SAMWG recommendations. The Surveillence and
Analysis personnel pointed out deficiencies in the data that
had been used to determine the recommended numbers of sites
for some of the pollutants in selected urbanized areas.
Adjustments of estimates of required numbers of monitoring
sites were usually downward; either the data used for the
original categorization were biased, or else a downward
trend in the ambient level of the pollutant in question had
been demonstrated.
The EPA Regional Offices provided maps of each urbanized
area. Some Regional Offices had USGS maps available and two
Regional Offices were able to show the exact location of
existing monitoring sites on these maps. Other Regional
Offices used standard atlas maps. The maps were important
to ensure even geographic distribution of sites throughout
3-2
-------
the urbanized areas in which multiple sites for a single
pollutant were recommended.
After the general geographic areas desirable for NAQTS
were identified, the site files were reviewed to determine
which sites in existing networks were suitable for NAQTS.
In most regions, the site files included site evaluation
forms. In three regions the site files also contained
photographs of the monitoring sites and of the surrounding
area in all directions from the sites. In most cases, the
available records provided enough information to determine
the adequacy of the site as a trend site. In all cases,
adequate information was available to ensure that monitors
would be uniformly sited throughout the network in terms of
population exposure and geographic distribution.
For geographic areas in which existing monitors could
not fulfill the recommended siting requirements, it was
suggested that new sites be established. Combined moni-
toring sites were recommended only at locations where the
monitor siting criteria for each pollutant could be met
independent of the monitor siting criteria for the other
pollutants. No compromises were made to achieve economies
of scale. In many cases, the EPA Regional Offices are still
evaluating these proposed sites, and changes are expected
before the final NAQTS designation.
3-3
-------
After each Regional Office visit, a table of the pro-
posed NAQTS was compiled and forwarded to the Regional
Office for review. The Regional Offices were asked to
review the tables with their respective states and to
derive a final NAQTS list. The states in Region I, except
Massachussetts, and the states in Region VIII, except Utah,
have provided comments on the proposed NAQTS. The states in
the other regions are not expected to respond until some
time in 1978.
3.3 PROBLEMS AND CONSTRAINTS
3.3.1 Site Evaluation Data and Regional Office Familiarity
with Sites
Although the information available at the Regional
Offices was adequate to develop tentative lists of the
NAQTS, the input from the states is a key element for the
final determination.
Site evaluation forms differ among the regions. Some
regions use comprehensive forms complemented by photographs.
One region had no site evaluation forms, and another region
used discursive site descriptions compiled from field notes.
These varying methods of recordkeeping preclude use of the
data for comparison of sites for trends analysis.
No mechanism exists to ensure the periodic update of
information in the site files. Consequently the information
in the site files of one region may reflect the status of
3-4
-------
the monitoring network within the past year, while infor-
mation in another region's files may be much older. It was
noted that some sites included on the preliminary lists are
no longer operating. Also, in some cases it was difficult
to determine whether nearby emissions sources were operating.
This could have an impact on the tentative list of trends
sites.
Some of the Regional Offices still have not evaluated
the monitoring sites in some of their urbanized areas.
Little information was available regarding the starting
dates for monitor operation or for any changes that have
subsequently occurred in monitor orientation.
3.3.2 Quality Assurance
It is difficult to assess the status of the quality
assurance programs in each state. The EPA Regional Offices
have placed varying emphasis on implementing quality assur-
ance procedures for ambient air monitoring in their states.
Data reporting and validation procedures, directly related
to quality assurance procedures, also vary among the regions.
This is apparent from some EPA Regional Office statements
that blocks of data for some states in the data bank are
biased but have never been corrected. No records exist to
enable data users to be assured of data comparability
throughout the existing state networks.
3-5
-------
3.3.3 Establishing New Sites or Reorienting Existing Sites
In most cases in which new sites were recommended by
this study, the exact locations of the sites have not been
determined. However, the general geographic areas of the
new sites have been suggested. Any new site locations will
have to be documented in detail to determine that they con-
form to the SAMWG criteria and consequently are comparable
to the other NAQTS.
Several tentative NAQTS require reorientation of the
existing site to conform to the SAMWG criteria. This will
not only require follow-up at the EPA Regional Office level,
but also it could result in the reclassification of some
sites from currently operating trends sites to future trends
sites (i.e. sites with less than three continuous years of
data) if the reorientation or modification is extensive.
3.3.4 Siting Criteria for Carbon Monoxide
The SAMWG criteria for carbon monoxide monitoring
require a peak concentration site and a neighborhood site in
each area where carbon monoxide NAQTS are designated.
Sixty-three urbanized areas are designated for carbon
monoxide sites. In twenty-one of these areas, only one
tentative site has been designated. This will significantly
reduce the applications of the carbon monoxide data from
these 21 urbanized areas unless second sites can be estab-
lished to provide consistency throughout the NAQTS network.
3-6
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Site selection in this project was based on EPA guide-
lines for siting monitors for individual pollutants. Com-
bined trends sites suitable for monitoring several pollu-
tants at single sites were listed in the tentative network
only at those sites that meet the individual siting require-
ments for each of the designated pollutants. Table 4-1
shows the total numbers of tentative NAQTS for each pollu-
tant compared with the number in the original SAMWG recom-
mendations.
Table 4-1. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES
COMPARED BY POLLUTANT WITH STANDING
AIR MONITORING WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
Number
of sites
TSP
S02
CO
no2
°3
Recommended by
SAMWG
535-920
172-448
120
80-136
168
Tentative NAQTS
list
576
226
127
69
141
In some instances the EPA Regional Office personnel have
indicated that the SAROAD data used to derive the initial
SAMWG estimates were biased or that more recent data indicate
a significant change in air quality for specific urbanized
4-1
-------
areas. The changes resulting from these comments are re-
flected in the ranges shown in Table 4-1. The states and
regions are now reviewing the original drafts of the tenta-
tive site lists. In many cases final comments are not
expected prior to the end of 1978. The lists of the tenta-
tive NAQTS for each region are in Appendix B. These lists
could change substantially as a result of the final agency
comments.
Not all of the tentative NAQTS could be used immedi-
ately for trends analysis. Many NAQTS have not yet been
established; only the need for a site within a specific
urbanized area has been determined. Many sites which have
been established have not generated enough data to allow,
comparison of air quality over a meaningful time period
(i.e. three years). Both of these categories are designated
"future trends sites" in Table 4-2 which compares them with
"current trends sites," i.e. those sites represented by at
least three continuous years of data in SAROAD.
Table 4-2. CURRENT AND FUTURE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TREND
SITES ON THE TENTATIVE NAQTS LIST, COMPARED BY POLLUTANT
Number of sites
TSP
so2
CO
NO 2
°3
Current
537
188
96
59
117
Future
39
38
31
10
24
Total
576
226
127
69
141
4-2
-------
4.1 NATIONWIDE SITE DISTRIBUTION
The SAMWG recommendations for monitor site distribution
were based on the criteria mentioned in Section 1.2. In
the site selection process every attempt was made to ensure
that the tentative sites were:
1. Free from bias from local pollution sources
2. Sited to conform reasonably with the national guide-
lines for siting criteria pollutant monitors
3. Representative of population distribution
4. Distributed to represent balanced geographical coverage
where multiple monitors were required for a specific
pollutant in an urbanized area.
SAMWG reviewed existing air quality data to derive the
recommendations for monitor distribution. It is difficult
to present a national comparative summary of air quality
data by urbanized area or by SMSA, and no attempt is made
here to reconcile the original SAMWG work with the tentative
NAQTS list. The EPA Regional Office visits completed during
this study, however, did provide a reasonable check on
the SAMWG review of SAROAD data.
The geographic distribution of NAQTS can be shown on a
national basis. Figures 4-1 through 4-5 show the relative
numbers of tentative NAQTS distributed by state for each of
the five pollutants.
SAMWG divided the NAQTS among urbanized areas instead
of SMSA's because urbanized areas have the highest popula-
4-3
-------
Figure 4-1. Nationwide distribution of tentative National Air
Quality Trends Sites for total suspended particulates.
-------
Figure 4-2. Nationwide distribution of tentative National Air
Quality Trends Sites for sulfur dioxide.
-------
Figure 4-3. Nationwide distribution of tentative National Air
Quality Trends Sites for carbon monoxide.
-------
Figure 4-4. Nationwide distribution of tentative National Air
Quality Trends Sites for nitrogen dioxide.
-------
Figure 4-5. Nationwide distribution of tentative National Air
Quality Trends Sites for photochemical oxidants (as ozone).
-------
tion densities, and consequently provide the best approxi-
mation of the location of the greatest concentrations of
population susceptible to adverse effects of air pollutants
in the United States. The 248 urbanized areas account for
approximately 60 percent of the total U.S. population.
However the SMSA's correspond to the urbanized areas in
general location, but they cover approximately 2,387,940
square miles as opposed to 35,080 square miles for the
urbanized areas. And the SMSA's account for approximately
70 percent of the total U.S. population. In other words,
a 6700 percent increase in land area adds only 10 percent in
population average. The population density of the SMSA's is
a reasonable indicator of the relative population distribu-
tion both in and around urbanized areas, and this distribu-
tion can be displayed relative to regional distribution of
NAQTS more easily than can the population densities of the
urbanized areas.
Twenty-five of the urbanized areas contain 60 percent
of the U.S. urban population, or approximately 40 percent of
the total U.S. population. The proportion of NAQTS tenta-
tively designated for these areas is greater than for the
remaining urbanized areas. The distribution of the NAQTS
corresponds fairly well with the percentage distribution of
population regionally. Table 4-3 shows the percent of total
4-9
-------
and of urban U.S. population compared to the percent of
total NAQTS for each pollutant by region.
Table 4-3. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION COMPARED BY REGION WITH
TENTATIVE NATIONAL TRENDS MONITORING SITE DISTRIBUTION
Region
Percent U.S
. Population
Percent Tentative NAQTS
Total
Urban
TSP
S°2
CO
no2
°3
I
6
7
6
9
8
6
11
II
13
16
8
14
11
6
7
III
11
12
12
19
15
25
6
IV
16
10
13
8
7
6
12
V
22
22
24
28
15
26
20
VI
10
9
12
6
12
12
17
VII
5
5
7
4
2
1
6
VIII
3
2
5
3
5
6
4
IX
11
15
10
6
19
10
13
X
3
2
4
2
7
3
5
The results of the tentative NAQTS designations can be
discussed for each region individually to provide infor-
mation on the adequacy of its total network.
4.2 REGIONAL SUMMARY OF TRENDS SITES
The location of the tentative NAQTS was determined by
reviewing existing air quality data, existing monitoring
networks, and projected monitoring requirements within each
region. The states within each region will comment on the
tentative lists, and the EPA Regional Offices and the states
in their jurisdictions will submit the final NAQTS lists.
Requirements for SLAMS and special purpose monitors were
considered during the review of NAQTS requirements. In many
cases, SLAMS instead of NAQTS will be designated to provide
data related to potential future problems, e.g. potential
4-10
-------
changes in air quality resulting from the development of
energy growth areas in the non-urban western states.
Each EPA Regional Office has reviewed the tentative
NAQTS lists, but few of the states have provided written
comments. The following sections summarize the tentative
NAQTS for each region.
4.2.1 Region I
Figures 4-6 through 4-9 show the geographic distri-
bution of the tentative NAQTS relative to the SMSA's through-
out the Region. The Boston and Providence SMSA's have the
greatest population densities, indicating that the popula-
tion is relatively well dispersed throughout the entire SMSA
rather than concentrated strictly within the urbanized
areas. The NAQTS have been distributed to reflect this
geographic distribution of population. In contrast, the
NAQTS in the Hartford, Connecticut SMSA are centered around
the urbanized area, since the population outside of the
urbanized area is relatively sparse. Very few nitrogen
dioxide sites are designated for Region I. However ozone
monitors designated for Region I will provide a relatively
comprehensive picture of the impact of ozone from the New
York area.
Table 4-4 shows the number of tentative NAQTS for each
urbanized area in Region I compared to the number SAMWG
4-11
-------
£>.
I
M
NJ
LEWISTON - AUBURN
MANCHESTER
NASHUA
LOWELL
HARTFORD
wuutioi ooorrr.
IWMITMn ti squmc «u
| <500
| 500-1000
| 1000-2000
I ~2000
BURLINGTON \«1
FITCHBURG - LEOMINSTER -
WORCESTER-
PITTSFIELD ¦
SPRINGFIELO -
CHICOPEE -
HOLYOKE ~~
DERBY
GREENWICH-
BRISTOL
NEW BRITAIN'
DANBURT
WATERBURY-
STAMFORD'
-PORTLAND
.LAWRENCE - HAVERHILL
-BOSTOH
vBROCKTON
&
NEW BEDFORD
FALL RIVER
PROVIDENCE -
PAWTUCKET -
WARWICK
lNEW LONDON - GROTON - NORWICH
MERIDEN
NORWALK
BRIDGEPORT
NEW HAVEN
Figure 4-6. Distribution of
Tentative National Air
Quality Trends Sites for
Total Suspended Particulate -
Region I.
LEWISTON - AUBURN
BURLINGTONl*1
MANCHESTER
NASHUA
LOWELL-
GREENWICH
ponutkm ooorrr,
iNNMiTMrn rat squmi jvu
I Isoo-iow
I | 1000-2000
I >2000
FITCHBURG - LEOMINSTER -
WORCESTER -
PITTSFIELD
SPRINGFIELD -
CHICOPEE -
HOLYOKE
HARTFORD-
BRISTOL-
NEW BRITAIN'
DANBURY-
WATERBURY-
STAMFORD
NORWALK-
BRIDGEPORT -
NEW HAVEN
I *
- PORTLAND
,LAWRENCE - HAVERHILL
-BOSTON
"BROCKTON
''P &
"NEW BEDFORD
-FAIL RIVER
-PROVIDENCE -
PAWTUCKET -
WARWICK
NEW LONDON • GROTON - NORWICH
MERIDEN
Figure 4-7. Distribution of
Tentative National Air
Quality Trends Sites for
Sulfur Dioxide - Region I.
-------
I
U)
Figure 4-8. Distribution of
Tentative National Air
Quality Trends Sites for
Carbon Monoxide - Region I.
LEWISTON - AUBURN
MANCHESTER
NASHUA J
LOWELL
_J 500-1000
1000-2000
~2000
( ) 0Z0NC
BURLINGTON V»l
FITCHBURG - LEOMINSTER -
WORCESTER -
PITTSFIELD -
SPRINGFIELD -
CHI COPEE - _
HOLYOKE
HARTFORD ¦
BRISTOL •
NEW BRITAIN
DANBURY'
HATERBURY'
STAMFORD'
NORMALK
BRIDGEPORT
NEW HAVEN
¦ PORTLAND
,LAWRENCE - HAVERHILL
-BOSTON
BROCKTON
•JP9
- NEW BEDFORD
-FALL RIVER
'PROVIDENCE -
PAWTUCKET -
WARWICK
'-NEW LONDON - GROTON - NORWICH
MERIDEN
POPULATION OOBITT.
ITWTS K* sqUMt WLE
WUUTIO* OOBITT,
i mm it Mm m tquMc mu
HAVERHILL
FITCHBURG - LEOMINSTER
WORCESTER
SPRINGFIELD -
CHICOPEE -
HOLYOKE HARTFORD
BRISTOL
NEW BRITAIN
DANBURY
WATERBURY^I]
STAMFORD
GREENWICH-
NORWALK
BRIDGEPORT
NEW HAVENJ
_ BROCKTON
tf* J>
IEW BEDFORD
FALL RIVER
PROVIDENCE -
PAWTUCKET -
WARWICK
LNEW LONDON - GROTON - NORWICH
MERIDEN
Figure 4-9. Distribution of
Tentative National Air
Quality Trends Sites for
Nitrogen Dioxide and Ozone -
Region I.
-------
originally estimated. Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire,
Connecticut, and Rhode Island have provided comments on the
tentative NAQTS list compiled after PEDCo's visit to Region
I. Table 4-4 reflects the adjusted number of sites which
resulted from these comments. Appendix B-l is a list of
specific sites suggested as tentative NAQTS in Region I.
Table 4-5 shows the number of tentative NAQTS that are
already operating and the number of new sites that have not
yet been established.
4.2.2 Region II
Figures 4-10 through 4-13 show the geographic dis-
tribution of the tentative NAQTS relative to the SMSA popu-
lation densities throughout the Region. The New York and
New Jersey state agencies participated in the meetings to
develop the tentative NAQTS lists for Region II.
Table 4-6 shows the number of tentative NAQTS for each
urbanized area in Region II compared to the number SAMWG
recommended. Appendix B-2 is a list of specific sites sug-
gested as NAQTS in Region II. In some cases sites were
designated in other than urbanized areas, but still within
the SMSA's. In New Jersey the city of Penns Grove was
selected for monitoring sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide
in the New Jersey portion of the Wilmington, Delaware
urbanized area. Phillipsburg was selected for monitoring
4-14
-------
POUGHKEEPSIE
NEWBURGH
ROCHESTER
SYRACUSE
ALBANY -
SCHENECTADY -
TROY
KMLATIOi KMITT,
hmmitmii m jguiw m
500-1000
1000-2000
___ PHILADELPHIA
l"Sll >"00 CAMDEN
WILMINGTON
VINELANO - MILLVILLE - BRID6ET0H
BUFFALO
NEWARK
ALLENTOWN -
BETHLEHEM -
EASTON
TRENTON
ATLANTIC CITY
NEW YORK
JERSEY CITY
Figure 4-10. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality-
Trends Sites for Total Suspended Particulate - Region II.
Figure 4-11. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality-
Trends Sites for Sulfur Dioxide - Region II.
UTICA - ROME
ROCHESTER
BUFFALO
PATTERSON
,CLIFTON -
N PASSAIC
ELMIRA
SYRACUSE
BINGHAMTON
POPULATION DO»rn,
ALBANY -
SCHENECTAOY
TROY
mm «u
500-100#
1000-2000
>2000
NEW YORK
NEWARK
ALLENTOWN -
BETHLEHEM -
EASTON
JERSEY CITY
PHILADELPHIA
CAMDEN
WILMINGTON
VINELANO - MILLVILLE - BRID6ET0N
TRENTON
ATLANTIC CITY
4-15
-------
ROCHESTER
BUFFALO
ALBANY -
SCHENECTADY -
TROY
NNUTioi Dourrr.
HMOITMfTS PO SqUMi Mil
| >2tm
( ) oiom
VINELANO - MILLVILLE - BRIDGETOH
TRENTON
ATLANTIC CITY
Figure 4-12. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality-
Trends Sites for Carbon Monoxide - Region II.
ROCHESTE
BUFFALO
ALBANY -
SCHENECTADY -
TROY
raruUTia ooomr,
UMMITMT3 m SQUtm MU
| »tooo
( ) ohm WILMINGTON ' X ATLANTIC CITY
VINELANO - MILLVILLE - BRID6ET0#'
Figure 4-13. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Nitrogen Dioxide and Ozone - Region II.
4-16
-------
total suspended particulates, sulfur dioxide, and ozone in
the New Jersey portion of the Allentown, Pennsylvania
urbanized area.
Total suspended particulate sites were selected for
both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Installation of
continuous sulfur dioxide monitors in these territories is
planned in the near future.
In New York, the cities of Elmira, Jamestown, Pough-
keepsie, and Newburg were designated for NAQTS even though
they are not urbanized areas and were not part of the
original SAMWG recommendations.
The monitoring in New York City presents a unique
monitor siting problem. Monitors in New York City are
generally located on tops of buildings, usually well above
the breathing zone. This poses a problem in comparability
between New York City data and data from other major cities.
Table 4-7 shows the number of tentative NAQTS that are
currently operating and the number that have not yet been
established.
4.2.3 Region III
Figures 4-14 through 4-17 show the geographic distri-
bution of the tentative NAQTS relative to the SMSA popula-
tion densities throughout the Region.
Table 4-8 shows the number of tentative NAQTS for each
urbanized area in Region III compared to the number SAMWG
4-17
-------
POPULATION OCXSITY
lantiToan m mm
m~
[ I SOO-IOOO
I | 1000-2000
I 'tax
PITTSBURGH
STEUBENVILLE - WE IRTON
WHEELING
CHARLESTON
HUNTINGTON - ASHLAND
BINGHAMTON
SCRANTON
READING
ALLENTOWN -
BETHLEHEM -
EASTON
PHILADELPHIA
WILMINGTON
BALTIMORE
LYNCHBURG
Figure 4-14. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Total Suspended Particulates - Region III.
WILKES BARRE -
HAZLETON \
HARRISBURG \ \
ALTOONA -t\ LANcasTER
JOHNSTOWN
* PETERSBURG - 1
I0L0NIAL HEIGHTS
WASHINGTON
RICHMOND
ROANOKE
POPULATION ousirr.
uwxiTnnn m mm *
SOO-IOOO
1000-2000
~2000
PITTSBURGH
STEUBENVILLE - WEIRTON
WHEELING
CHARLESTON
HUNTINGTON - ASHLAND
BINGHAMTON
SCRANTON
READING
ALLENTOWN -
BETHLEHEM -
EASTON
PHILADELPHIA
WILMINGTON
BALTIMORE
NEWPORT NEWS -
HAMPTON
LYNCHBUR6
NORFOLK - PORTSMOUTH
Figure 4-15. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality-
Trends Sites for Sulfur Dioxide - Region III.
4-18
-------
WILKES BARRE
HAZLETON
HARRISBURS
V.ALTOONA-
LANCASTER
JOHNSTOWN
/ PETERSBURG - >
'COLONIAL HEIGHTS
2k~ RICHMOND,
POfULATION OOBITY.
uwMiTwtn >m imm mu
n SOO-IOOO
ERIE
PIHSBURGH
g| >tm
( ) 010*
STEUBENVILLE - WEIRTON
WHEELING
CHARLESTON
HUNTINGTON - ASHLAND
ROANOKE
LYNCHBURG
BIN6HAMT0N
SCRANTON
READING
ALLENTOWN -
BETHLEHEM -
EASTON
PHILADELPHIA
WILMINGTON
BALTIMORE
WASHINGTON
NEWPORT NEWS -
HAMPTON
NORFOLK - PORTSMOUTH
Figure 4-16. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Carbon Monoxide - Region III.
WILKES BARRE
HAZLETON n
HARRISBURG
ALTOONA -
LANCASTER
JOHNSTOWN
CHARLESTON
/PETERSBURG - 1
COLONIAL HEIGHTS
Otr RICHMOND
roruiATua outs in.
IWMITMn m WW Ml Li
o-
| I SOO-IOOO
I I 1000-2000
PITTSBURGH
STEUBENVILLE - WEIRTONx
WHEELING
HUNTINGTON - ASHLAND
ROANOKE
LYNCHBURG
BINGHAMTON
SCRANTON
READING
ALLENTOWN -
, _ BETHLEHEM -
4(')^ EASTON
PHILADELPHIA
WILMINGTON
BALTIMORE
WASHINGTON
NEWPORT NEWS -
HAMPTON
NORFOLK - PORTSMOUTH
Figure 4-17. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Nitrogen Dioxide and Ozone - Region III.
4-19
-------
recommended. Appendix B-3 is a list of specific sites
suggested as NAQTS in Region III. Most tentative NAQTS in
Region III are currently operating sites. NAQTS for Penn-
sylvania were chosen from the existing Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Air Monitoring System (COPAMS) and from a new
network, the Pennsylvania Air Quality Surveillance System
(PAQSS), which is currently in the implementation phase.
The state agencies in Region III have not commented on the
tentative NAQTS lists, and final comments are not expected
until 1978. Regional Office evaluations of the tentative
NAQTS in several of the Region III urbanized areas have been
completed. Evaluations of sites in some urbanized areas are
still pending. All of the tentative NAQTS in Appendix B-3
are currently operating or are presently being implemented.
Consequently, a comparison of present versus projected sites
is not necessary for Region III.
4.2.4 Region IV
Figures 4-18 through 4-21 show the geographic distri-
bution of the tentative NAQTS relative to the population
densities throughout the Region.
Table 4-9 shows the number of tentative NAQTS for each
urbanized area in Region IV compared to the number SAMWG
recommended. Appendix B-4 is a list of specific sites
suggested as NAQTS in Region IV. Neither the states nor
4-20
-------
£>.
I
KJ
I-*
~WOO
Figure 4-18. Distribution of
Tentative National Air
Quality Trends Sites for
Total Suspended Particulate -
Region IV.
ASHEVILLE
/ CHARLOTTE
LEXINGTON
IENSB0R0
DURHAM
RALEIGH
I0XVILLE
CHATTANOOGA
GREENV1LLI
GADSDEI
BIRMINGHAM
TUSCALOOSA
ATLANTA
IWCON
COLUMBUS
MONTGOMERY
MOBILE
PENSACOLA
TALLAHASSEE-
CINCINNATI •
LOUISVILLEn
EVANSVILLE
riNGTON - ASHLAND
GREENSBORO -
WINSTON SALEM -
HIGH POINT
NASHVILLE
DAVIDSON
MEMPHIS -
HUNTSVILLE-
JACKSON-
BILOXIE
GULFPORT
FAYETTEVILLE
-WILMINGTON
"COLUMBIA
CHARLESTON
^AUGUSTA
*SAVANNAH
-JACKSONVILLE
-GAINESVILLE
-ORLANDO
WWLATIOH M6ITT.
IMMITWH w sguwc mile
I <500
I 500-1000
1000-2000
TAMPA -
ST. PETERSBURG
-WEST PALM BEACH
- FORT LAUDERDALE
-MIAMI
CINCINNATI
LOUISVILLE
HUHTIN6T0N - ASHLAND
EVANSVILLE
GREENSBORO -
WINSTON SALEM -
HIGH POINT
NASHVILLE
DAVIDSON
MEMPHIS
HUNTSVILLE
FAYETTEVILLE
WILMINGTON
COLUMBIA
OACKSON
PWUUTIM aoBirr,
INMUTMTC m JQUUK MILE
WEST PALM BEACH
PORT LAUDERDALE
MIAMI
Figure 4-19. Distribution of
Tentative National Air
Quality Trends Sites for
Sulfur Dioxide - Region IV.
-------
I
NJ
NJ
( ) oiam.
Figure 4-20. Distribution of
Tentative National Air
Quality Trends Sites for
Carbon Monoxide - Region IV.
ASHEVILLE
I CHARLOTTE,
LEXINGTON
OUENSBORO
RALEIGH
KNOXVILLE'
CHATTANOOGA
GREENV1LL!
GADSDEI
BIRMINGHAM
TUSCALOOSA
ATLANTA
MACON
COLUMBUS
MONTGOMERY
MOBILE
ALBANY
CINCINNATI -
LOUISVILLE \
NTIN6T0N - ASHLAND
EVANSVILLE •
GREENSBORO -
WINSTON SALEM
HIGH POINT
NASHVILLE
DAVIDSON
MEMPHIS
HUNTSVILLE
JACKSON-
FAYETTEVILLE
-WILMINGTON
Columbia
biloxie -
GULFPORT"
WX»TI» WISITY.
imrn w
fgjgi <500
I 500-1000
iiwi_9onn
PENSACOLA
TALLAHASSEE
NILE
TAMPA -
ST. PETERSBURG
-CHARLESTON
^AUGUSTA
'SAVANNAH
-JACKSONVILLE
-GAINESVILLE
-ORLANDO
-WEST PALM BEACH
FORT LAUDERDALE
-MIAMI
LEXINGTON.
OWENSBORO
RALEIGH
KNOXVILLE
CHATTANOOGA
IREENVILLE
GADSDEI
BIRMINGHAM
TUSCALOOSA
ATLANTJ
MACON
COLUMBUS
MONTGOMERY
ALBANY
MOBILE
EVANSVILLE^
CINCINNATI
LOUISVILLE-*
<»
HUNTINGTON - ASHLAND
NASHVILLE
DAVIDSON
MEMPHIS-
HUNTSVILLE-
GREENSBORO •
WINSTON SALEM -
ASHEVILLE / HIGH POINT
^LOT* ; DURHAM
JACKSON-
BILOXIE -
GULFPORT
PENSACOLA
TALLAHASSEE-
Tfayetteville
-WILMINGTON
COLUMBIA
-CHARLESTON
AUGUSTA
-•SAVANNAH
-JACKSONVILLE
' GAINESVILLE
•ORLANDO
wulatim worn.
MMMrmrrs fo stum aile
500-1000
TAMPA -
ST. PETERSBURG'
-WEST PALM BEACH
-FORT LAUDERDALE
-MIAMI
I ) oi
-------
Region IV has commented on the tentative NAQTS lists. The
completion of Region IV site evaluations in Florida and
Georgia are pending. The tentative number of NAQTS required
for the urbanized areas in each of these states has been
established, however. Sites in the other Region IV states
have been evaluated.
Table 4-10 shows the number of tentative NAQTS that are
currently operating and the number that have not yet been
established. . Compared with other regions, a relatively
large number of the tentative NAQTS in Region IV either have
not yet been established or are new sites.
4.2.5 Region V
Figures 4-22 through 4-25 show the geographic distri-
bution of the tentative NAQTS relative to the SMSA popula-
tion densities throughout the Region.
Table 4-11 shows the number of tentative NAQTS for each
urbanized area in Region V compared to the number SAMWG
recommended. Appendix B-5 is a list of specific sites
suggested as NAQTS in Region V. - Neither the Regional Office
nor the states in Region V have commented on the tentative
NAQTS lists. The tentative sites for Minnesota were taken
from a list provided by the State to Region V. The tenta-
tive sites for Ohio were taken from a summary list of sites,
and they were not located on maps-, nor was a significant
4-23
-------
GREEN BA'
APPLETON
OSHKOSH
'LANSING
'GRAND
(RAPIDS
LA CROSSE
ROCHESTER
MADISON -
IILWAUKEE
FARGO - MOORHEAD
MINNEAPOLIS - ST. PAUL
RACINE
KENOSHA
DAVENPORT - ROCK ISLAND - MOLINE^ ROCKFORtf
DULUTH - SUPERIOR
GARY - HAmONO - EAST CHICAGO
KALAMAZOO
^OUTH BEND I MUSKEGON - MUSKEGON HEIGHTS
BAY CITY
SAGINAW
FLINT
DETROIT
TOLEDO
MANSFIELD
LORAIN - ELYRIA
CLEVELAND
FOMATtOR KIISITT,
lMMtTMrn K« SQUWC mil
111<«*»
~ 500-1000
| 1000-2000
PEORIA
BLOOMINGTON -
NORMAL
SPRINGFIELD '
ST. LOUIS
DECATUR
CHAMPAIGN - URBANA,
TERRE HAUTE
EVANSVILLE
YOUNGSTOWN - WARREN
AKRON
STEUBENVILLE - WEIRTON
_ _ WHEELING
CANTOR
COLUMBUS
SPRINGFIELD
HUNTINGTON - ASHLAND
CINCINNATI
HAMILTON - MIDDLETOWN
ANDERSON
LOUISVILLE
MUNCIt
INDIANAPOLIS
LAFAYETTE - WEST LAFAYETTE
Figure 4-22. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Total Suspended Particulate - Region V.
FARGO - MOORHEAD
MINNEAPOLIS - ST. PAUL
DULUTH - SUPERIOR
GARY - HAMMOND - EAST CHICAGO
SOUTH BEND ,WLAM*Z0°
I / MUSKEGON - MUSKEGON HEIGHTS
BAY CITY
SAGINAW
FLINT
DETROIT
TOLEDO
MANSFIELD
LORAIN - ELYRIA
CLEVELAND
YOUNGSTOWN - WARREN
AKRON
STEUBENVILLE - WEIRTON
_ WHEELING
CANTOff
COLUMBUS
SPRINGFIELD
HUNTINGTON - ASHLAND
CINCINNATI
HAMILTON - MIDDLETOWN
ANDERSON
LOUISVILLE
MUNCIE
INDIANAPOLIS
L-LAFAYETTE - WEST LAFAYETTE
Figure 4-23. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Sulfur Dioxide - Region V.
4-24
-------
FARGO - MOORHEAD
MINNEAPOLIS - ST. PAUL
OULUTH • SUPERIOR
GARY - HANCND - EAST CHICAGO
KALAMAZOO
SOUTH BEND I . fcjSKEGON HEIGHTS
BAY CITY
SAGINAW
LINT
DETROIT
,TOLEDO
MANSFIELD
LORAIN - ELYRIA
CLEVELAND
YOUNGSTOWN • WARREN
WEIRTON
AKRON
STEUBENVILLE
WHEELING
EVANSVILLE
RRlMAl
AYTOI
(^jCANTOI
-COLUMBUS
-SPRINGFIELD
-HUNTIN6T0N - ASHLAND
CINCINNATI
¦* HAMILTON - MIDOLETOWN
ANDERSON
-LOUISVILLE
-NUNCIE
hNOIAKAPOLIS
L LAFAYETTE - WEST LAFAYETTE
Figure 4-24. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Carbon Monoxide - Region V.
FARGO - MOORHEAD
MINNEAPOLIS - ST. PAUL
DULUTH - SUPERIOR
GARY - HAMMOND - EAST CHICAfiO
„ SOUTH BEND |(ALAMAZ00
/MUSKEGON - MUSKEGON HEIGHTS
¦BAY CITY
,SAGINAW
FLINT
ETROIT
TOLEDO
MANSFIELD
LORAIN - ELYRIA
rCLEVELANO
EU-
| ) SIM
DAVENPORT - ROCK ISLAND - MOLINE
POPULATION OOKITY
MITNm P
SOO-IOOO
1000-2000
SPRINGFIELD'
ST. LOUIS
, YOUNGSTOWN - WARREN
U-AKRON
STEUBENVILLE - WEIRTON
WHEELING
COLUMBUS
SPRINGFIELD
HUNTINGTON - ASHLAND
CINCINNATI
HAMILTON - MIDOLETOWN
MUNCIE
ANDERSON
INDIANAPOLIS
LAFAYETTE - WEST LAFAYETTE
Figure 4-25.
DECATUR-"
CHAMPAIGN - URBANAJ
TERRE HAUTE'
EVANSVILLE'
LOUISVILLE'
Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Nitrogen Dioxide and Ozone - Region V.
4-25
-------
review of air quality data performed. Region V has not yet
evaluated the Ohio sites. Table 4-12 shows the number of
currently operating sites and sites not yet established in
Region V.
4.2.6 Region VI
Figures 4-26 through 4-29 show the geographic distri-
bution of the tentative NAQTS relative to the SMSA popula-
tion densities throughout the Region.
Table 4-13 shows the number of tentative NAQTS for each
urbanized area in Region IV compared to the number SAMWG
recommended. Appendix B-6 is a list of specific sites
suggested as NAQTS in Region VI. Each state agency in
Region VI participated directly in the selection of the
\
tentative NAQTS. The State of Texas has submitted a pre-
liminary list of tentative NAQTS. The list is not included
in Appendix B-6 because of its preliminary nature. The
tentative numbers of sites agreed upon for Texas are in-
cluded in Table 4-13, however. A specific site list for
Oklahoma has not yet been submitted.
Table 4-14 shows the number of tentative NAQTS that are
currently operating and the number that have not yet been
established. Texas and Oklahoma are not included in this
analysis.
4-26
-------
TULSA
OKLAHOMA
CITY£
LAUTON
AMARILLO
FORT SMITH
ALBUQUERQUE
SHERMAN
DENI SON
WICHITA FALLS-
LUBBOCK
TEXARKANA'
TYLERK
ABILENE
MIDLAND - ODESSA
SHREVEPOR'
BEAUMONT -
PORT ARTHUR
«ORANGE \
ma
SAN ANGELO-
BRYAN
LAFAYETTE
JLLEGE STATION
AUSTIN
LITTLE ROCK
NORTH LITTLE ROCK
-NEKPHIS
1(gj
¦ PINE BLUFF
EL PASO'
fflfumlioi DENSITY, .
IKtlWTC KM sguMt WLf
<500
500-1000
1000-2000
>2000
- MONROE
/BATON ROUGE
NEW ORLEANS
m
i SAN ANTONIO
LAREDO 'X ~il
McALLEN -
PHARR -
EDINBURG
HOUSTO
CORPUS CHRISTI
3 LAKE CHARLES
GALVESTON - TEXAS CITY
BROUNESVILLE -
' HARLINGEN -
SAN BENITO
Figure 4-26. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Total Suspended Particulates - Region VI.
OKLAHOMA
CITY>c
FORT SMITH
ALBUQUERQUE
SHERMAN
DENI SON
WICHITA FALLS-
jg— LUBBOCK
TEXARKANA'
ta ^ DAL LAS*—-5
FORT—fWlfe
WORTH fT J 1
BEAUMONT -
WACO-t^PORT ARTHUR
™ « ORANGEV
ABILENE
MIDLAND - ODESSA
SHREVEPORTi
SAN ANGELO
LAFAYETTE
BRYAN - COLLEGE STATU
AUSTIN
.SAN ANTONIO
TULSA,
LITTLE ROCK -
NORTH LITTLE ROCK
EL PASO
m
POPUUTIOH OtMSITY,
UMMITMTWOSQUMK H1LC"
<500
S00-1000
1000-2000
>2000
—his
PINE BLUFF
MONROE
/BATON ROUGE
:NEW ORLEANS
LAKE CHARLES
GALVESTON - TEXAS CITY
LAREDO -
McALLEN -
PHARR -
EDINBURG
"CORPUS CHRISTI
BROUNESVILLE -
HARLINGEN -
SAN BENITO
Figure 4-27. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Sulfur Dioxide - Region VI.
4-27
-------
OKLAHOMA
CITY v.
ALBUQUERQUE
SHERMAN
DENISON
WICHITA FALL?
g-LUBBOCK
ABILENE—
-TEXARKANA
IALLAS
TYLER
MIDLAND - ODESSA
SHREVEPORT
BEAUMONT -
PORT ARTHUR
p, ORANGE \
SAN ANGELO
.AFAYETTE
BRYAN - COLLEGE STATION'
AUSTIN
LAKE CHARLEI
HOUSTON
TULSA,
LITTLE ROCK -
NORTH LITTLE ROCK
POPULATION DCKSITY,
MlTMTSPUSQUMtf NIL
m~
| | 500-1000
| | 1000-2000
>2000
( ) aim
[-MEMPHIS
PINE BLUFF
MONROE
,BATON ROUGE
NEW ORLEANS
\SAN ANTONIO
LAREDO-
McALLEN --
PHARR -
EDINBURG
"GALVESTON - TEXAS CITY
"CORPUS CHRISTI
BR0WNESV1LLE -
HARLINGEN -
SAN BENITO
Figure 4-28. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Carbon Monoxide - Region VI.
ORLEANS
Figure 4-29. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Nitrogen Dioxide and Ozone - Region VI.
TULSA
AMARILLO
ALBUQUERQUE
SHERMAN
DENISON
WICHITA FALLS
LUBBOCK
ABILENE-F3
TEXARI
TYLER
MIDLAND - ODESSA
BEAUMONT ASHREVEPOR
PORT ARTHUR -\ ,
„ ORANGE \ N
LITTLE ROCK -
NORTH LITTLE ROCK?
-MEMPHIS
PINE BLUFF
EL PASO
MONROE
TON ROUGE
mt- NEW
POPULATION DENSITY,
it IT ANTS PC* SQUMt NIL
I jooo
1 1 SOO-IOOO
| I 1000-2000
>2000
( ) UONt
SAN ANGELO-—£5]
BRYAN - COLLEGE STATION
AUSTIN fejj)
SAN ANTON 10 x yv
(2VT2) (2 (2 _
H0UST0n\3^LA
-------
4.2.7 Region VII
Figures 4-30 through 4-33 show the geographic dis-
tribution of the tentative NAQTS relative to the SMSA
population densities throughout the Region.
Table 4-15 shows the number of tentative NAQTS for each
Urbanized area in Region VII compared to the number SAMWG
recommended. Appendix B-7 is a list of specific sites
suggested as NAQTS in Region VII. Two areas in Region VII
require sites in both Region VII and Region V: Davenport-
Rock Island-Moline, and St. Louis. The interregional
characteristics of these areas have been considered in
recommending the NAQTS.
Table 4-16 shows that only two new sites would need to
be established in Region VII to complete the tentative NAQTS
designations: one continuous sulfur dioxide site in
Nebraska, and one ozone site in Iowa. The states in Region
VII have not yet commented on the tentative NAQTS lists.
4.2.8 Region VIII
Figures 4-34 through 4-37 show the geographic distri-
bution of the tentative NAQTS relative to the SMSA popula-
tion densities throughout the Region.
Table 4-17 shows the number of tentative NAQTS for each
urbanized area in Region VIII compared to the SAMWG recom-
mendations. Appendix B-8 is a list of specific sites
4-29
-------
wjbuque
WATERLOO—
CEDAR RAP I OS [*;
fS-DES MOINES
COUNCIL BLUFFS
LINCOLN
ST. JOSEPH
TOPEKA
COLUMBIA
KANSAS CITY
WICHITA
SPRINGFIELD
CZZZ] "O-'OOO
[ I 1000-2000
>2000
wuiatiow otwm.
iwwiTarrs p« sqwutc imt
DAVENPORT -
ROCK ISLAND -
NOLINE
'f-ST. LOUIS
FmgUrf 4~?°* Distribution of Tentative National Air Oualifv
Trends Sites for Total Suspended Particulate - Region VII.
DUBUQUE
DAVENPORT -
ISLAND
MOLINE
ST. LOUIS
Figure 4-31. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Sulfur Dioxide - Region VII.
4-30
-------
Fiaure 4-32. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Carbon Monoxide - Region VII.
Fiqure 4-33. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Nitrogen Dioxide and Ozone - Region VII.
4-31
-------
Figure 4-34. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Total Suspended Particulate - Region VIII.
Figure 4-35. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Sulfur Dioxide - Region VIII.
4-32
-------
Figure 4-36. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Carbon Monoxide - Region VIII.
Figure 4-37. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Nitrogen Dioxide and Ozone - Region VIII.
4-33
-------
suggested as NAQTS in Region VIII. All of the states except
Utah in Region VIII have commented on the tentative NAQTS
lists, and the tables in this report reflect those comments.
In some cases, noted in the tables, the state agencies
preferred to locate monitors in other than the urbanized
areas originally designated by SAMWG. Region VIII has
concurred in most of these changes. Specific notes regard-
ing these changes are in Appendix B-8. Table 4-18 shows the
number of tentative NAQTS that are currently operating and
the number that have not yet been established.
4.2.9 Region IX
Figures 4-38 through 4-41 show the geographic distri-
bution of the tentative NAQTS relative to the SMSA popula-
tion densities throughout the Region.
Table 4-19 shows the number of tentative NAQTS for each
urbanized area in Region IX compared to the number SAMWG
originally recommended. Appendix B-9 is a list of specific
sites suggested as NAQTS in Region IX. The tables reflect
comments from the Regional Office. Region IX states have
not provided comments. Region IX does not expect to desig-
nate NAQTS until late 1978. Table 4-20 shows the number of
tentative NAQTS that are currently operating and the number
that have not yet been established.
4-34
-------
LAS VEGAS
BAKERSFIELI
SAN BERNARDINO
' RIVERSIDE
PHOENIX
>2000
POMATIOI OOBITT.
laMITMTS m MUMf «U
VALLEJO - NAPA
SANTA ROSA
SAN FRANCISCO
SAN JOSE
SALINAS -MONTEREY
SANTA BARBARA
OXNARO - VENTURA.
LOS ANGELES - LONG BEACH
ANAHEIM - SANTA ANA
<500
SACRAMENTO
- STOCKTON
V /FRESNO
500-1000
1000-2000
Figure 4-38. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Total Suspended Particulates - Region IX.
.MODEST!
LAS VEGAS
BAKERSFIELD
SAN BERNARDINO
^ RIVERSIDE
PHOENIX
VALLEJO • NAM
SANTA ROSA
SAN FRANCISCO
SAN JOSE
SALINAS -MONTEREY
SANTA BARBARA
OXNARD - VENTURA
LOS ANGELES - LONG BEACH
ANAHEIM - SANTA ANA
SACRAMENTO
STOCKTON
V / FRESNO
$00-1000
1000-2000
>2000
WUUTIOi OCRS ITT,
INNMITMH KX SOUMf MU
Figure 4-39. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Sulfur Dioxide - Region IX.
4-35
-------
< ) 0/0* t 'Ql >2000
pofu-ATioi oobitt,
HMMITMTO HM SQUMI MU
<500
I 500-1000
1000-2000
I 1'
VALLEJ0 - NAPA
SANTA ROSA
SAN FRANCISCO
SAN JOSE
SALINAS -MONTEREY
SANTA BARBARA
OXNARO - VENTURA
LOS ANGELES - LONG BEACH
ANAHEIM - SANTA ANA
SAN BERNARDINO -
RIVERSIDE
SACRAMENTO
STOCKTON
FRESNO
LAS VEGAS
Figure 4-40. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Carbon Monoxide - Region IX.
VALLEJO - NAPA
SANTA ROSA
SAN FRANCISCO
SAN JOSE
SALINAS -MONTEREY
SANTA BARBARA
OXNARD - VENTURA
LOS ANGELES - LONG BEACH
ANAHEIM - SANTA ANA
>2000
( ) 020M L
POfUlATIOi OCRSITT,
IMMITMm *1 SQUMC mil
Figure 4-41. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Nitrogen Dioxide and Ozone - Region IX.
4-36
-------
4.2.10 Region X
Figures 4-42 through 4-4 5 show the geographic distri-
bution of the tentative NAQTS relative to the SMSA popula-
tion densities throughout the Region.
Table 4-21 shows the number of tentative NAQTS for each
urbanized area in Region X compared to the number SAMWG
originally recommended. Tentative NAQTS have been desig-
nated for Anchorage and Fairbanks in Alaska even though
neither of these areas is designated as an urbanized area or
as a SMSA in the 1970 census listings. Table 4-22 shows the
number of tentative NAQTS that are currently operating and
the number that are not yet established in Region X.
Neither the Regional Office nor the Region X states have
commented on the tentative NAQTS.
4-37
-------
rowurnw ooorn.
inhmitnvts ft* SCUM! mu
A;
TACOKA
, PORTLAND
"SALEM
EUGENE
Ej BOISE CITY
MEDFORD• I
SEATTLE - EVERETTE
SPOKANE
TACOMA
PORTLAND
SALEM
EUGENE
POCATELLO
• MEDFORD
n • Q-t-r ibution of Tentative National Air Quality
Fl^irlands"Sites for Total Suspended Partioulates - Region X.
rOWUTIOK OOBITt.
IMMITMm f* WU
HU'MO
500-1000
| 1000-2000
I >2000
Fiaure 4-43. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Sulfur Dioxide - Region X.
4-38
-------
Figure 4-44. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Carbon Monoxide - Region X.
Region 4-45. Distribution of Tentative National Air Quality
Trends Sites for Nitrogen Dioxide and Ozone - Region X.
4-39
-------
Table 4-4. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY
TRENDS SITES IN REGION I
Urbanized
Sites recommended
by SAMWG
Tentative
NAQTS sites
area
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
Connecticut
Bridgeport
Bristol
Danbury
Hartford
Menden
New Britain
New Haven
New London
Norwalk
Stamford
Waterbury
Derby*
Greenwich8
Norwich*
0-2
0
0
2-4
1-2
2-4
0-2
0-2
2-4
2-4
0-2
0
0
0-2
4-6
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
2
2
2-4
2-4
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total
9-24
4-18
4
4-8
6
16
7
3
6
Maine
Bangor
Lewiston-
Auburn
Portland
0-2
0
0-2
1
1
1
1
Total
0-2
0-2
1
1
1
1
Massachusetts
Boston
Brockton
Fall River
Fitchburg-
Leominster
Lawrence-
Haverhill
Lowell
New Bedford
Springfield,
Chicopee,
Holyoke
Worcester
6-8
0-2
0
0-2
0-2
0-2
6-8
4-6
4-6
0-2
0
0-2
0-2
0-2
6-8
0-2
2
4
2-4
2-4
2
2
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
Total
16-30
10-24
6
4-8
4
11
10
3
3
4
New Hampshire
Manchester
Nashua
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
Total
0
0
1
1
1
2
Rhode Island
Providence-
Pawtucket-
Warwick
4-6
4-6
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
Total
4-6
4-6
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
Vermont
Burlington
1
1
1
1
Region I Total
29-62
18-50
12
8-16
11
32
21
10
4
15
a Not an urbanized area.
4-40
-------
Table 4-5. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES
IN REGION Is CURRENTLY OPERATING SITES
COMPARED WITH SITES TO BE ESTABLISHED
State
Operating
To
be established
TSP
S°2
CO
no2
°3
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
Connecticut
16
7
3
6
Maine
1
1
1
1
Massachusetts
9
8
2
3
4
2
2
1
1
New Hampshire
1
1
1
1
Rhode Island
3
1
1
1
2
Vermont
1
1
1
1
Total
30
18
8
4
14
3
3
2
2
4-41
-------
Table 4-6. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY
TRENDS SITES IN REGION II
Urbanized
Sites recommended
by SAMWG
area
TSP
SO2
CO
NO 2
°3
TSP
SO 2
CO
NO 2
03
New Jersey
Allentown, Pa.a
1
1
1
Atlantic City
0-2
0-2
1
1
New York-
Northeastern
New Jersey*3
6
3
6
2
Philadelphia,
1
2
2
1
1
Pa.c
Trenton
2-4
0-2
2
1
1
1
Vineland-
Millville
2-4
0-2
3
1
Wilmington,
Del.3
1
1
Total
4 — 1 (
0-6
2
13
13
9
3
3
New Yorke
Albany-
Schenectady-
Troy
2-4
4-6
2
4
2
3
Binghamton
0-2
0-2
1
1
1
Buffalo
6-8
4-6
2
2-4
2
7
5
1
New York/
Northeastern
New Jersey
6-8
6-8
4
2-4
2
9
8
2
2
Rochester
4-6
4-6
2
2
2
1
1
Syracuse
4-6
2-4
2
4
2
1
Utica-Rome
0-2
0-2
1
1
1
Total
22-36
l
O
CM
8
4-8
11
27
20
3
1
7
Puerto Rico
San Juan
1
Ponce
;
Total
2
Virqin Islands
St. Croix
1
Total
1
Region II Total
26-46
20-40
8
4-8
13
43
33
12
4
10
Tentative NAQTS sites
Phillipsburg, New Jersey will provide a TSP, SO,, and 0, monitor
to provide data for the Allentown-Bethlehem-EasEon SMSA?
Newark is in the New York-Northeastern New Jersey urbanized area.
Camden, New Jersey and the immediately surrounding area will pro-
vide TSP, SO2, CO, NO-, and 0, monitoring for the New Jersey
Portion of the Philadelphia SHSA.
Sites at Penns Grove will provide SO, and CO monitoring for the
New Jersey portion of the Wilmington? Delaware SMSA.
One TSP site in each of Jamestown, Newburg, and Poughkeepsie were
also suggested. One SO, site and one TSP site were recommended
for Elmira. None of these areas was included in the orignal
SAMWG recommendations.
4-42
-------
Tab16 4-7. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES
IN REGION II: CURRENTLY OPERATING SITES
COMPARED WITH SITES TO BE ESTABLISHED
State
Operating
To
be established
TSP
S02
CO
no2
°3
TSP
S°2
CO
-------
Table 4-8. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY
TRENDS SITES IN REGION III
Urbanized
Sites recommended
by SAMWG
Tentative NAQTS sites
area
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
TSP
so2
CO
NO 2
°3
Delaware
Wilmington
4-6
0-2
3
2
1
1
Total
4-6
0-2
3
2
1
1
District of
Columbia
Washington
6-8
4-6
2
2-4
2
6
4
2
3
2 ¦
Total
6-8
4-6
2
2-4
2
6
4
2
3
2
Maryland
Baltimore
6-8
4-6
2
2-4
2
3
4
2
3
1
Total
6-8
4-6
2
2-4
2
3
4
2
3
1
Pennsylvania
Allentown-
Bethlehem-
Easton "
Altoona
Erie
Harrisburg
Johnstown
Lancaster
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Reading
Scranton
York
2-4
2-4
2-4
2-4
2-4
6-8
6-8
2-4
2-4
4-6
2-4
0-2
0
0-2
6-8
6-8
0-2
0-2
2-4
2
2
2-4
2-4
2
2
1
2
4
1
3
3
10
4
4
4
2
2
1
2
1
1
7
1
1
1
7
2
4
2
2
Total
30-50
16-32
4
4-8
4
38
23
9
6
2
Virginia
Lynchburg
Newport News-
Hampton
Norfolk-
Portsmouth
Petersburg-
Colonial
Heights
Richmond
Roanoke
0-2
4-6
4-6
0-2
2-4
0-2
0
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
2
2-4
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
Total
10-22
0-8
2
2-4
6
11
7
4
3
2
West Virqinia
Charleston
Huntington-
Ashland
Wheeling
4-6
4-6
2-4
2-4
0-2
1-2
2-4
2
4
2
2
2
1
1
2
Total
10-16
3-8
2-4
2
8
4
2
4
Region III Total
66-110
27-62
6
L2-24
16
69
44
18
17
12
4-44
-------
Table 4-9. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS
SITES FOR URBANIZED AREAS IN REGION IV
Urbanized
Sites recommended
by SAMWG
Tentative
NAQTS sites
area
TSP
S02
CO
no2
°3
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
Alabama
Birmingham
Gadsden
Huntsville
Mobile
Montgomery
Tuscaloosa
6-8
0-2
0-2
4-6
0-2
0
0-2
0-2
2-4
0
2
2
2
6
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
Total
10-20
2-8
2
4
13
1
2
4
Florida
Fort Lauderdale
Gainesville
Jacksonville
Miami
Orlando
Pensacola
Tallahassee
Tampa - St.
Petersburg
West Palm Beach
6-8
0
4-6
6-8
0-2
0-2
0-2
2-4
0-2
0-2
0
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
2
2
2
2-4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
4
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
Total
18-34
0-12
6
2-4
12
12
6
2
2
2
Georqia
Albany
Atlanta
Augusta
Columbus
Macon
Savannah
0-2
0-2
2-4
0-2
0-2
4-6
0-2
4-6
0-2
0-2
0-2
2-4
2
2-4
2
4
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
Total
6-18
6-18
2
2-4
2
9
2
2
2
2
Kentucky
Cincinnati3
Lexington
Louisville
Owensboro
0-2
6-8
2-4
0-2
4-6
0
2
2-4
2
1
1
6
1
4
2
3
Total
8-14
4-8
2
2-4
2
9
4
2
3
Mississippi
Biloxi-Gulfport
Jackson
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
1
1
1
Total
0--!
0-4
2
1
£
Refers to the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati, SMSA.
4-45
-------
Table 4-9 (Continued).
Urbanized
Sites recommended
by SAMWG
Tentative
NAQTS sites
area
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
North Carolina
Asheville
Charlotte
Durham
Fayetteville
Greensboro
High Point
Raleigh
Wilmington
Winston-Salem
1-2
4-6
2-4
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0
0-2
0
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0
0-2
0
0-2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Total
7-22
0-12
2
2
7
1
2
2
South Carolina
Charleston
Columbia
Greenville
4-6
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
4
1
2
1
Total
4-10
0-6
7
1
Tennessee
Chattanooga
Knoxville
Memphis
Nashville-
Davidson
4-6
2-4
6-8
2-4
0-2
0-2
0-2
4-6
2
2-4
2
2
4
2
5
3
1
2
2
2
2
Total
14-22
4-12
2
2-4
4
14
1
4
4
Region IV Total
67-144
16-80
16
8-16
26
73
17
14
7
14
4-46
-------
Table 4-10. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES IN
REGION IV: CURRENTLY OPERATING SITES COMPARED
WITH SITES TO BE ESTABLISHED
State
Operating
To
be established
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
TSP
S°2
CO
no2
°3
Alabama
12
1
3
1
2
1
Florida3
Georgia
3
1
2
1
6
2
1
1
Kentucky
9
4
2
3
Mississippi
2
1
North Carolina
7
1
1
2
1
South Carolina
6
1
1
Tennessee
13
1
1
3
1
3
1
Total
52
9
5
2
12
9
2
7
3
Florida cannot be evaluated until Region IV site evalua-
tions are complete.
4-47
-------
Table 4-11. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY
TRENDS SITES IN REGION V
Urbanized
Sites recommended
Tentative NAQTS sites
by SAMWG
area
TSP
SO 2
CO
no2
°3
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
Illinois
Aurora-Elgin
0-2
1
Bloomington-
Normal
0
0
Champaign-Urbana
0-2
0-2
1
Chicago-North-
west Indiana
6-8
4-6
2
2-4
2
5
4
2
3
2
De Kalba
1
Decatur
0
0
2
Joliet
2-4
0-2
4
1
Peoria
4-6
2-4
5
2
Rockford
0-2
0-2
1
1
Springfield
2-4
0-2
2
Total
14-28
6-18
2
2-4
2
22
8
2
3
2
Indiana
Anderson
2-4
0
1
Chicago-North-
west Indiana
3
3
1
1
Evansville
4-6
0-2
4
1
1
Fort Wayne
0-2
0-2
1
1
Indianapolis
6-8
4-6
2
2
7
4
2
2
Lafayette-West
Lafayette
1-2
0
1
Muncie
0
1
South Bend
2-4
0-2
2
3
1
1
Terre Haute
1-2
0
1
Total
16-28
4-12
2
4
21
11
2
1
5
Michiqan
Ann Arbor
0-2
1
Bay City
0
0
Detroit
6-8
4-6
2
2-4
2
5
4
2
2
2
Flint
2-4
0-2
2
2
1
1
Grand Rapids
2-4
0-2
2
Jackson
0
Kalamazoo
0-2
0-2
1
Lansing
2-4
2-4
2-4
2
2
1
Muskegon-Muskegon
Heights
2-4
4-6
2
2
Saginaw
2-4
0-2
2
1
Total
16-32
10-24
2
4-8
6
15
10
2
3
3
Minnesota
Duluth-Superior
2-4
0-2
1
Minneapolis-
St. Paul
4-6
4-6
2
2-4
2
9
5
4
3
1
Rochester
1-2
0
1
J,
Total
7-12
4-8
2
2-4
2
10
5
5
3
2
a Not an urbanized area.
4-48
-------
Table 4-11 (Continued).
Urbanized
Sites recommended
Tentative NAQTS sites
by SAMWG
area
TSP
S02
CO
no2
°3
TSP
S°2
CO
no2
°3
Ohio
Akron
6-8
4-6
2
2
7
2
2
Canton
2-4
0-2
2-4
2
1
1
Cincinnati
6-8
4-6
2
2-4
2
5
3
3
1
Cleveland
6-8
4-6
2
2-4
2
8
4
1
2
3
Columbus
6-8
0-2
2
2
6
1
2
2
Dayton
4-6
0-2
2
2-4
2
5
2
2
2
2
Hamilton
1-2
0
4
2
1
Lima
Lorain-Elyria
2-4
0-2
4
1
Mansfield
2-4
4
1
Springfield
0
0
1
1
Steubenville-
Weirton
2-4
0-2
3
2
1
Toledo
2-4
2-4
2
5
3
2
Youngstown-
Warren
4-6
2-4
2-4
2
6
1
1
Total
43-66
L6-36
10
10-2C
14
60
24
8
6
14
Wisconsin
Appleton
0-2
1
Green Bay
0-2
0-2
1
Kenosha
1-2
0
La Crosse
0
0
2
Madison
0-2
2-4
2
2
Milwaukee
4-6
4-6
2-4
2
4
4
2
2
Oshkosh
0
0
Racine
Total
5-14
6-12
2
2-4
2
8
6
2
2
Region V Total
L01-18C
46-11C
20
20-40
30
136
64
19
18
28
4-49
-------
Table 4-12. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS
SITES IN REGION V: CURRENTLY OPERATING SITES COMPARED
WITH SITES TO BE ESTABLISHED
State
Operating
To
be established
TSP
so2
CO
NO 2
°3
TSP
S°2
CO
NO 2
°3
Illinois
21
7
1
2
1
1
2
2
Indiana
21
8
2
1
3
3
2
Michigan
15
8
2
3
1
2
2
Minnesota
8
4
5
3
2
2
1
Ohio
60
23
5
4
13
1
3
2
1
Wisconsin
8
4
1
1
2
1
1
Total
133
54
14
13
22
3
10
5
5
6
4-50
-------
Table 4-13. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS
SITES FOR URBANIZED AREAS IN REGION VI
Urbanized
Sites recommended
by SAMWG
Tentative
NAQTS sites
area
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
TSP
S°2
CO
no2
°3
Arkansas
Little Rock-
North Little
Rock
Fort Smith
Pine Bluff
2-4
1-2
0
0-2
'0
0
3
1
1
1
Total
3-6
0-2
4
1
1
Louisiana3
Baton Rouge
Lafayette
Lake Charles
Monroe
New Orleans
Shreveport
0-2
1-2
1-2
0
4-6
2-4
0-2
0
0
0
0-2
0-2
2-4
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Total
8-16
0-6
2-4
2
7
4
New Mexico
Albuquerque
4-6
0-2
2
2
4
1
2
3
Total
4-6
0-2
2
2
4
1
2
3
Oklahoma
Lawton
Oklahoma City
Tulsa
1-2
6-8
2-4
0
0-2
0-2
2
1
2
2
1
4
2
1
2
2
2
2
Total
9-14
0-4
2
5
7
1
4
4
Texas
Abilene
Amarillo
Austin
Beaumont
Brownsville
Bryan-Coliege
Station
Corpus Christi
Dallas
El Paso
Fort Worth
Galveston
Harlingen
San Benito
Houston
Laredo
Lubbock
McAllen-Pharr-
Edinburg
0
4-6
4-6
0-2
1-2
1-2
4-6
4-6
4-6
4-6
1-2
2-4
6-8
2-4
2-4
0
0-2
0-2
0-2
0
0
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
2
2
2
2-4
2-4
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
1
1
4
4
4
4
1
2
6
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
An S02 site for Louisiana has not yet been determined.
4-51
-------
Table 4-13 (Continued).
Urbanized
Sites recommended
by SAMWG
Tentative
NAQTS sites
area
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
TSP
S02
CO
no2
°3
Midland
Odessa
Port Arthur
San Antonio
Sherman-Denison
Texarkana
Texas City
Tyler
Waco
Wichita Falls
1-2
1-2
0-2
4-6
0
1-2
2-4
0
0-2
1-2
0
0
0-2
0-2
0
0
1-2
0
0^2
0
2
2
1
2
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
Total
49-86
1-26
8
4-8
12
49
10
9
8
12
Region VI Total
73-128
1-40
12
6-12
21
71
13
15
8
24
4-52
-------
Table 4-14. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES
IN REGION VI: CURRENTLY OPERATING SITES
COMPARED WITH SITES TO BE ESTABLISHED
Statea
Operating
To
be established
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
TSP
S°2
CO
no2
°3
Arkansas
4
1
1
Louisiana
7
4
1
1
New Mexico
4
1
2
3
Total
15
1
2
7
1
2
1
Texas and Oklahoma are not included.
4-53
-------
Table 4-15. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY
TRENDS SITES FOR URBANIZED AREAS IN REGION VII
Urbanised
area
Sites recommended
by SAMWG
TSP
S°2
CO
no2
°3
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
Iowa
Cedar Rapids
4-6
0-2
4
1
1
Council Bluffs
1
Davenport-Rock
Island-Moline
4-6
0-2
2
3
2
1
Des Moines
4-6
0-2
3
2
Dubuque
0
1-2
2
Sioux City
4-6
0-2
1
Waterloo
2-4
0-2
2
Total
18-28
1-12
2
15
3
i
Kansas
Kansas City
6-8
0-2
2
2-4
2
3
1
Topeka
2-4
0-2
2
Wichita
4-6
0-2
2
3
2
Total
12-18
0-6
2
2-4
4
8
1
2
Missouri
Columbia
1-2
1
Kansas City
3
1
2
2
St. Joseph
1-2
1
St. Louis
6-8
6-8
2
2-4
2
7
4
1
1
1
Springfield
2-4
0-2
2
Total
10-16
6-10
2
2-4
2
13
5
3
1
3
Nebraska
Lincoln
2-4
0-2
2
2
Omaha
4-6
0-2
1
2
1
1
Total
6-10
0-4
2
1
4
1
1
Region VII Total
46-72
7-32
6
4-8
9
40
10
3
1
10
Tentative NAQTS sites
4-54
-------
Table 4-16. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES
IN REGION VII: CURRENTLY OPERATING SITES
COMPARED WITH SITES TO BE ESTABLISHED
State
Operating
To
be established
TSP
S°2
CO
NO 2
°3
TSP
S°2
CO
-------
Table 4-17. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY
TRENDS SITES FOR URBANIZED AREAS IN REGION VIII
Urbanized
Sites recommended
by SAMWG
Tentative
NAQTS sites
area
TSP
so2
CO
NP 2
°3
TSP
S°2
CO
no2
°3
Colorado
Boulder
Colorado Springs
Denver
Pueblo
0
4-6
6-8
4-6
0-2
2
2-4
2
1
8
3
1
2
2
3
Total
14-20
0-2
2
2-4
2
12
1
2
2
3
Montana
Billings
Great Falls
Missoula3
0
1-2
1-2
0
1
1
1
Total
1-2
1-2
2
1
North Dakota
Bismark
Fargo-Moorhead
0
0
1
1
1
Total
0
0
2
1
South Dakota
Rapid City
Sioux Falls
0
1-2
0
0
1
1 '
Total
1-2
0
1
1
Utah
Ogden
Provo-Orem
Salt Lake City
4-6
2-4
4-6
0-2
0-2
2-4
2
2-4
2
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
Total
10-16
2-8
2
2-4
2
9
2
4
2
2
Wyoming
Casper w
Cheyenne
1
1
Total
1
1
Region VIII Total
26-40
3-12
4
4-8
4
27
7
6
4
5
a Missoula was substituted for Great Falls at the State's
suggestion. Missoula is not an urbanized area.
k Cheyenne was substituted for Casper at the State's
suggestion. Cheyenne is not an urbanized area.
4-56
-------
Table 4-18. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES
IN REGION VIII: CURRENTLY OPERATING SITES
COMPARED WITH SITES TO BE ESTABLISHED
Operating
To
be established
State
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
Colorado
10
1
2
2
2
2
1
Montana
2
1
North Dakota
2
1
South Dakota
1
1
Utah
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
Wyoming
1
1
Total
23
5
4
4
4
4
2
2
1
4-57
-------
Table 4-19. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY
TRENDS SITES FOR URBANIZED AREAS IN REGION IX
area
TSP
so2
CO
N02
°3
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
Arizona
Phoenix
6-8
0-2
2
2-4
2
5
1
1
2
2
Tuscon
2-4
0-2
2
4
1
2
1
Total
8-12
0-4
2
2-4
4
9
2
3
2
3
California
Bakersfield
4-6
1
2
1
Fresno
4-6
0-2
2
2
2
1
2
Los Angeles-
Long Beach
6-8
2-4
2
2-4
2
8
2
2
1
1
Modesto
4-6
1
Oxnard-Ventura-
Thousand Oaks
2-4
5
Sacramento
4-6
0-2
2
2
1
1
3
1
Salinas
1-2
1
San Bernardino-
Riverside
6-8
0-2
2
2
6
1
2
2
San Diego
4-6
0-2
2
2-4
2
6
2
2
2
3
San Jose
0-2
1
2
2-4
2
1
1
1
San Francisco-
Oakland
2-4
2-4
2
2-4
2
4
2
3
2
3
Santa Barbara
2-4
2
Stockton
2-4
1
Total
41-66
6-18
14
8-16
14
40
9
14
5
13
Hawaii
Honolulu
2-4
0-2
2
2
3
1
2
1
Total
2-4
0-2
2
2
3
1
2
1
Nevada
Las Vegas
4-6
2
2
3
1
2
2
Reno
2-4
0
3
2
Total
6-10
0
2
2
6
1
4
2
Region IX Total
57-92
6-24
20
10-20
22
58
13
23
7
19
4-58
-------
Table 4-20. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES
IN REGION IX: CURRENTLY OPERATING SITES
COMPARED WITH SITES TO BE ESTABLISHED
State
Operating
To
be established
TSP
so2
CO
NO 2
°3
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
Arizona
9
2
3
2
3
California
39
8
11
5
15
1
1
2
1
Hawaii
3
1
2
Nevada
6
1
4
2
Total
57
11
18
7
20
1
2
4
1
4-59
-------
Table 4-21. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY
TRENDS SITES FOR URBANIZED AREAS IN REGION X
Urbanized
area
Sites recommended
by SAMWG
Tentative NAQTS sites
TSP
S°2
CO
N02
°3
TSP
S°2
CO
no2
°3
Alaska
Anchorage
Fairbanks
2
1
1
2
Total
2
1
1
2
Idaho
Boise
Pocatello
2-4
2
1
Total
2-4
2
1
Oregon
Eugene
Medford
Portland
Salem
2-4
4-6
0
0-2
0
2
2
3
2
5
1
2
2
1
2
Total
6-10
0-2
2
2
10
1
2
5
Washington
Seattle-
Everett
Spokane
Tocoma
6-8
2-4
2-4
0-2
0-2
0-2
2
2
2-4
2
2
4
2
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
Total
10-16
0-6
4
2-4
4
9
2
4
2
2
Region X Total
18-30
0-8
8
2-4
6
22
5
8
2
7
4-60
-------
Table 4-22. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES
IN REGION X: CURRENTLY OPERATING SITES
COMPARED WITH SITES TO BE ESTABLISHED
State
Operating
To
be established
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
TSP
S°2
CO
no2
°3
Alaska
1
1
2
Idaho
2
1
Oregon
10
1
2
4
1
Washington
7
1
4
2
1
1
2
Total
20
4
8
6
1
1
2
1
4-61
-------
APPENDIX A
MONITORING SITE EVALUATION FORMS
A-l
-------
A-l. DOCUMENTING MONITORING SITE CHARACTERISTICS
In this project PEDCo anticipated visiting sites and
documenting site information for approximately 50 key NAQTS
where:
1. Monitoring needs to be implemented, but the
potential site has not been chosen
2. Documented site information is inadequate, or
3. Adequate documented site information is
available (visits were anticipated as a quality
check).
An overwhelming number of the tentative NAQTS are charac-
terized by one or both of the first two of these three
criteria. Site evaluations for the relatively few sites
that could be visited within the constraints of this con-
tract would add little to the total information needed to
make NAQTS successful. A more immediate problem is to
determine what kind of information on NAQTS sites can be
provided by the state and local agencies with a minimal
impact on their resources and what format should be required
to document the key site information. State and local
agencies and the EPA Regional Offices all use different
formats for documenting site characteristics. Many of the
formats include adequate site information, but many do not.
The EPA provided PEDCo with a suggested draft of a standard
site evaluation form that might be required for each NAQTS.
A-2
-------
The draft form is shown in Figure A-l. PEDCo reviewed this
form and a precursor to this form and provided preliminary
comments to the EPA Project Officer. PEDCo also performed a
limited field evaluation of the draft form to determine its
practicality for NAQTS. PEDCo reviewed potential NAQTS in
the Columbus, Ohio area to field test the form.
The total time required to document adequate site in-
formation is approximately 1 hour per site, including time
spent at the site and time coordinating associated data.
The Ohio EPA maintains much of the information needed in a
computer compatible format. The information on data history,
proximate point and area sources, etc. may not be as readily
available within other agencies. In some cases, the travel
time between sites may be significant.
The state and local agencies should have the responsi-
bility for completing the site evaluation forms. The
responsibility for annual updates should reside at the EPA
Regional Office level, since it can be coordinated with
annual site audit activities that should be part of the
quality assurance program.
A-3
-------
SUPPLEMENTARY SITE INFORMATION FOR NAQTS
A. SITE IDENTIFICATION
1) State City
2) SAROAD Site Code
3) State Site Number
4) Local Site Number
5) Names of nearest intersecting streets:
and
6) Outstanding landmarks (see example):
7) Sketch of NAQTS
detail: (a) northing direction
(b) inlet probe
(c) obstructions
(d) emission sources
(e) roadways
(f) parking areas
(g) vacant areas
Figure A-l. Example Site Information Form.
A-4
-------
SITE CLASSIFICATION
Check those descriptions that apply:
1) General Category (more than one item could checked)
Remo te
Rural
Suburban
Outer area
Inner area
Central Business District
Outer core area
Inner core area
2) Sub-category (influence on site - you may check one
or multiple)
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Old
New
Near Urban
Agricultural
Mobile
Other (explain)
3) Give a brief description of NAQTS site setting in
relation to above checklist.
Figure A-l (continued)..
-------
C. SITE ENVIRONMENT
1) Nearby Sources (Power plants, roadways, gasoline stations,
etc.). Direction and distance to site and
associated pollutants.
Source Direction Distance Pollutants
2) Type of Traffic Near the NAQTS
arterial highway
expressway
freeway
parkway
major street or major highway
through street or through highway
local street or local road
intersection
3) What is the average daily traffic?
4) What is the average vehicle speed?
5) What are the number of traffic lanes of the roadway?
6) What are the number of parking lanes of the roadway?
7) Obstructions
Type Direction Distance Effects
Figure A-l (continued).
A-6
-------
SITE ENVIRONMENT (continued)
8) Terrain
General characteristics:
smooth
rolling
rough
9) Influencing features:
Type Size Direction Distance
hill
valley
depression
body of water.
ridge
trees
other
10) Meteorology and Climatology
Source of representative meteorological data:
National Weather Service Station
Airport Weather Service
Site Weather Station
Other; describe
11) What meteorological and climatological data are obtained?
wind speed dew point
wind direction mixing height
temperature other; describe
12) What are the weather patterns at the NAQTS site?
13) Annual
14) Seasonal (Autumn), (Winter), Spring), (Summer)
Figure A-l (continued).
A-7
-------
D. SITE EQUIPMENT
1) Pollutant parameters monitored at NAQTS.
Parameter
Manufacturer
Method
Model #
Reference
Equivalent
Other
S°2
no2
CO
°3
HC
TSP
2) Operation Schedules:
3) What other pollutants are monitored at the site?
4) Are the instruments in a temperature controlled environment?
Yes; No
5) Are the gas cylinders in a temperature controlled environment?
Yes; No
Figure A-l (continued).
A-8
-------
E. SITE AND DATA HISTORY
1) What is the history of air quality trends for each criteria
pollutant monitored at the NAQTS?
NO 2
CO
HC
TSP
2) What is the history of the intake probe or manifold at the
NAQTS?
3) What is the history of pollutant measurement instrumental
changes at the NAQTS?
4) Is the NAQTS site a previous NASN site? Yes; No
5) What is the time period of valid data for each pollutant
monitored at the NAQTS?
no2
CO
HC
TSP
6) What is the beginning date of the data record for each pollutant
monitored at the NAQTS? Month, Year
no2
CO
HC
TSP
Figure A-l (continued).
A-9
-------
SITE AND DATA HISTORY (Continued)
7) What breaks are in the data record for each pollutant
monitored at the NAQTS? (Provide dates of data breaks)
no2
CO
HC
TSP
8) What was the termination date of data record for each
pollutant previously monitored at the NAQTS? (month, year)
no2
CO
HC
TSP
Figure A-l (continued).
A-10
-------
F. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF SITE
Street Canyon
Neighborhood
Corridor
Background
Source Oriented
Urbanized Area
Give the population density of the spatial represenativeness
of the site
per square
G. QUALITY ASSURANCE (Format pending)
Figure A-l (continued).
A-11
-------
H. CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF DATA
1) Agency responsible for data collection:
2) Individuals Name
3) Telephone Number
4) Agency analyzing air samples:
5) Individuals Name
6) Telephone Number
7) What is the frequency of NAQTS data reports?
Reports are made to:
8) Agency Name
9) Individuals Name
10) Telephone Number
Name and telephone number of the preparer of this report
Name Date
Telephone Number
Figure A-l (continued).
A-12
-------
A-2. SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO NAQTS SITE EVALUATION FORM
Comments on changes made to Figure A-l in order to
develop Figure A-2 follow.
Section A - SITE IDENTIFICATION
Standard symbols were added to encourage standardization
of site sketches.
Section B - SITE CLASSIFICATION
Classification of sites is reformatted to matrix form.
Representativeness is included (from Section F) since
it is closely related to site classification.
Section C - SITE ENVIRONMENT
Item 7, listing obstructions, is deleted, because the
site photographs to be included with the site evaluation
should be sufficient.
Item 8 has been changed to include three terrain charac-
teristics for uniformity.
Items 11 through 14 are eliminated. A central file of
meteorological data can be obtained from the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in
Asheville, North Carolina and referenced as necessary.
Section D - SITE EQUIPMENT
Items 4 and 5 are eliminated. They are quality assurance
considerations, and they are assumed to be properly treated
in the quality assurance program.
A-l 3
-------
Section E - SITE AND DATA HISTORY
Item 1 is changed to tabular form. The free format
style of the original form leaves too much to the user's
interpretation.
Items 5 and 6 are deleted. Item 1 includes the require-
ment for recording trends for the first year of valid data.
If this is not sufficient, it may be possible to rework the
table to require month/year for the first trends period.
Item 8 is deleted. The meaning of this item is not
clear.
Section G - QUALITY ASSURANCE
This section is deleted. Quality assurance is a related
but separate consideration.
Section H - CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF DATA
This section is deleted. This information should be
available readily through the Regional Office. Because of
potential problems with frequent turnover or reassignment of
agency personnel, this section would be difficult to keep
current.
A-14
-------
SUPPLEMENTARY SITE INFORMATION FOR NAQTS
A. SITE IDENTIFICATION
1) State City.
2) SAROAD Site Code
3) State Site Number.
4) Local Site Number
5) Names of nearest intersecting streets:
and
6) Outstanding landmarks
7) Sketch of NAQTS
detail: (a) northing direction Nj
(b) inlet probe®
(c) obstructions
(d) emission sources H
(e) roadways =====
(f) parking areas [p]
(g) vacant areas [\T]
(h) buildings (indicate no. of stories) 03
Figure A-2. Example revised Site Information Form.
A-15
-------
B. SITE CLASSIFICATION
Check one or more under each column
Industrial
Commercial
Near urban
Agricultural
Mobile
Residential
Old
New
Remote
Rural
Suburban
Outer
Inner
Central Bus.
Outer core
Inner core
Representativeness
Street canyon Background
Neighborhood Source oriented
Corridor
Figure A-2 (continued).
A-16
-------
SITE ENVIRONMENT
1) Nearby Sources (Power plants, roadways, gasoline stations,
etc.). Direction and distance to site and
associated pollutants.
Source Direction Distance Pollutants
2) Type of Traffic Near the NAQTS
arterial highway
expressway
freeway
parkway
major street or major highway
through street or through highway
.local street or local road
intersection
3) What is the average daily traffic?
4) What is the average vehicle speed?
5) What are the number of traffic lanes of the roadway?
6) What are the number of parking lanes of the roadway?
7) Terrain
General characteristics: smooth rolling rough
8) Meteorology and Climatology
Source of representative meteorological data:
National Weather Service Station
Airport Weather Service
Site Weather Station
Other; describe
Figure A-2 (continued).
A-17
-------
D. SITE EQUIPMENT
1) Pollutant parameters monitored at NAQTS.
Parameter
Manufacturer
Method
Model #
Reference
Equivalent
Other
so2
no2
CO
°3
HC
TSP
2) Operation Schedules:
3) What other pollutants are monitored at the site?
E. SITE AND DATA HISTORY
1) Record the annual mean for each of the criterion pollu-
tants measured at this site beginning with the first
year in which valid data were generated. Record
arithmetic mean for all pollutants except TSP (geometric
mean). Use reporting units indicated for each pollutant.
Annual Mean (indicate year)
Pollutant
Yr.
Yr.
Yr.
Yr.
Yr.
Yr.
Yr.
TSP (ug/m3)
S02 (ug/m3)
CO (ug/m3)
N02 (ug/m3)
03 (ug/m3)
HC (ug/m3)
2) What is the history of the intake probe or manifold at the
NAQTS?
3) What is the history of pollutant measurement instrumental
changes at the NAQTS?
4) Is the NAQTS site a previous NASN site? Yes; No
Figure A-2 (continued).
A-18
-------
APPENDIX B
TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES BY REGION
B-l
-------
Table B-l. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES IN REGION I
Pollutants Monitored
Site Identification
TSP
S02
CO
N02
°3
Comments
CONNECTICUT
Brldqeport
1. Bridgeport City Hall
07-0060-001-F01
2. Bridgeport Trailer
07-0060-123-F01
3. McLevy Hall
07-0060-004-F01
X
X
X
X
1. NASN site
3. Center city site. Requires probe reorientation.
Br1stol
1. Bristol City Hall
07-0070-001
X
Danbury
1. State College
07-0175-123-F01
X
X
Derby3
1. Caroline St., Derby
07-0190-123-F01
2. Ansonla, Martin Building
07-0080-003
X
X
1. Downwind of Bridgeport.
Greenwich8
1. Greenwich Town Hall
07-0330-001-F01
2. Greenwich Golf Course
07-0330-004-F01
X
X
X
X
2. Downwind from New York.
Hartford
1. Hartford Library
07-0420-003-F01
2. West St.
07-0420-123-F01
3. Enfield
07-0250-123-F01
X
X
X
1. May need to be reoriented.
2. NASN site
3. Downwind of Hartford.
Herlden
1. Merlden, Stoddard Building,
Miller St.
07-0540-002-H01
2. Mlddletown, City Hall
07-0570-003-F01
X
X
a Not an SMSA or urbanized area.
-------
Site Identification
New Britain
1. Lake St.
07-0680-123-F01
New London-Groton-Norwlch8
1. Groton
07-0350-123
New Haven
1. State St.
07-0700-123-F01
2. Clinton School
07-0700-002-F01
3. Agriculture Experiment Station
07-0700- 008-F01
4. Church St.
07-0700-007
Norwalk
1. Norwalk, 137 East Ave.
07-0820-005-F01
Norwich
1. Norwich, Savings and Loan Bldg.
07-0840-001
Stamford
1. Stamford
07-1080-123-F01
2. Stamford, Library
07-1080
3. E. Port Chester, Fire Department
07-0330-003-F01
ftaterbury
1. Waterbury, trailer
07-1240-123-F01
MAINE
Lewlston-Auburn
1. Human Services Building
a SMSA, not an urbanized area.
Table B-l (Continued).
Pollutants Monitored
TsP
SO,
CO
NO-
Comments
2. New site, no SAROAD number.
1. NASN site.
1. New site, no SAROAD number.
-------
Table B-l (Continued).
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
Coironents
TSP
S02
CO
N02
°3
Portland
1. Portland, High School
X
1. NASN site
20-0960-004-F01
2. Portland, Masonic Bldg.
X
2. Requires probe change.
20-0960-002-AO1
3. Portland
X
3. Site to be selected.
MASSACHUSETTS
Boston
1. Kenmore Square
X
X
X
X
22-0240-002-F01
2. South Bay, Fire Station
X
22-0240-012-F01
3. Norwood
X
3. Requires equipment change.
22-1700-001-F01
4. Salem-Peabody
X
4. Not yet established.
5. Woburn
X
22-2620-002-F01
6. Quincy, Washington St.
X
22-1880-002-F01
7. Medford, Wellington Circle
X
22-1220-003-F01
8. Waltham, Moody and Main St.
X
22-2340-004-F01
9. South Boston
X
9. Not yet established.
10. Cambridge
X
10. Not yet established.
11. Boston, Visconti St.
X
11. Requires reorientation.
22-0240-016-F01
12. Danvers, Essex College
X
22-0480-002-F01
13. Medfield, State Hospital
X
22-1210-001-F01
14. Boston
X
14. Not yet established.
Brockton
1. Brockton
X
X
1. Not yet established.
Haverhill
1. Haverhill, Municipal Bldg.
X
22-0840-001-F01
-------
Table B-l (Continued).
Pollutants Monitored
Site Identification
TSP
so2
CO
no2
3
Conments
Lowell
1. Municipal Garage
22-1080-004-F01
X
New Bedford
1. Fairhaven
22-0570-001-F01
X
X
SdH nqf 1 eld-Chi copee-Hol yoke
1. Springfield, E. Columbus Ave.
22-2160-005-A05
2. Chicopee, Meadow St. School
22-0400-003-F01
3. Springfield, 1477 Main St.
22-2160-008-F01
4. Amherst, Health Department
22-0060-001-F01
X
X
X
X
X
3.
Street canyon site.
Worcester
1. Clark University
22-2640-008-F01
2. Washington St.
22-2640-012-F01
X
X
X
X
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Manchester
1. Manchester (or Nashua)
2. Manchester
X
X
X
1.
2.
Not yet established.
Not yet established
Nashua
1. Nashua, Health Department
30-0480-005
X
RHODE ISLAND
Providence- Pawtuc kett-Warw1ck
1. Cranston, Police Department
41-0100-001-F01
2. Providence, Dyer St.
41-0300-007
X
X
-------
Table B-l (Continued).
¦ ¦ 1 ' 1 ¦ 1
Pollutants Monitored
Site Identification
TSP
so2
CO
N02
°3
Comments
Providence-Pawtuckett-Warwlck (cont.)
3. Providence, Dorrence St.
41-0300-009-F01
4. Providence, Westminster St.
41-0300-006
5. Providence, State St.
41-0300-001
6. W. Greenwich, University of Rhode
Island
41-0140-002
X
X
X
X
3. Street canyon site.
6. Will monitor New York megalopolis contri-
bution to Rhode Island air quality.
VERMONT
Burl ing ton
1. Winooski Ave.
47-0140-003
X
X
X
X
ffl
i
-------
Table B-2. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES IN REGION II
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
TSP S02 ICO I N02 I 03
Conments
NEW JERSEY
Atlantic City
1. Municipal Airport
2. 2229 Atlantic Ave.
31-0100-002-F01
0
Camden
1. Camden, Davis St. and Copewood Ave.
31-0720-003-F01
2. Camden, 210 N. 6th St.
31-0720-004-F01
3. Ancora, State Hospital
31-0740-001-F01
4. ColHngswood, S. Park Ave. and Shady
Lane
31-1000-001-F01
New York-Northeastern New Jersey
1. Bayonne, State Trailer at Hudson
County Park
31-0180-003-F01
2. Bayonne, State Trailer at Hudson
Country Park (same as site 003)
31-0180-004-F01
4. Carteret, 339 Roosevelt Ave.
31-0820-001-F01
5. East Orange, 143 New Street
31-1160-002-F01
6. Jersey City, 355 Newark Ave.
31-2320-003-F01
7. Jersey City, 2828 Kennedy Blvd.
31-2320-002-F01
8. Newark, Washington and Willow St.
N.J. site 07561
9. Perth Amboy, 530 New Brunswick Ave.
31-4220-002-F01
10. Morristown, 11 Washington St.
31-3300-003-F01
11. Elizabeth, Interchange 13,
N.J. Turnpike
31-1300-004-F01
1. Background only.
10. Center city site.
a Not an SMSA or urbanized area. Camden sites will monitor pollutants from Philadelphia SMSA.
-------
Table B-2 (Continued).
Pollutants Monitored
Site Identification
TSP
S02
CO
N02
°3
Comnents
New York-Northeastern New Jersey (cont.)
12. New Brunswick
13. Bloomfield
14. Hackensack, N.J. site S44
X
X X
12. Not yet established.
13. Not yet established.
Trenton
1. 16 E. State St.
31 5400 002 F01
2. N.J. S45
3. Trenton
X
X
X
3. Not yet established.
Vlneland-Mlllvllle
1. Vineland State School
2. Millvllle
3. Bridgeton
X
X
X
X
1. SOg currently being Installed.
2. Currently being Installed.
3. Currently being Installed.
Mllmlnqton. Delaware (N.J. sector)
1. Penns Grove, State and West Main St.
N.J. Site 17401
X
X
Allentown, Pa. (N.J. sector)
1. Phi 11 ipsburg, 582 S. Main St.
2. Ph111Ipsburg, Meyner Rd. 1n Walters
Park
31 -4240-003-F01
3. Chester
X
X
X
NEW YORK (SAROAD ntmibers not supplied)
Albanv-Schenectadv-Troy
1. Albany, 84 Holland Ave.
2. Albany, Federal Bldg., Broadway St.
3. Schenectady, 105 Jay St.
4. Troy, Troy High School
5. Schenectady, Stellar Ave:'
6. Schenectady, Mont Pleasant High School
7. Rensselaer, Riverside Ave.
8. Glens Falls, Station WWSC, 01x Ave.
X X X X
X
X
X
X
(A center city SO, site should be designated for the Albany-Schenectady-Troy area.)
I I I I I I
-------
Table B-2 (Continued).
Site Identification
B1 nqhamton
1. Blnghamton Site 0301-12
2. Blnghamton Site 0301-06
North High School, East
Frederick St.
Buffalo
M>/-c/ i Buffalo Museum of Science
2. Niagara Falls, 775 Main St.
/¥°<2-oi 3. Lackawanna, 252 Lehigh St.
/4%2-e/^*- Tonawanda, 3354 Delaware Ave.
Tonawanda S.T.P.
Lockport, Memorial Hospital, East Ave.
iiUf-lS1- Buffa1°. 185 Olngens St.
'¦?? Z,/ 8. Lockport, Niagara Co. Court House
Niagara Falls, 63rd & Glrard St.
/10. Scottsvllle, Rt. 383
New York-Northeastern N.J.
~T7
Pollutants Monitored
TSP | S02 | CO
NO,
Corments
a
K.
%
NetT7orirTTtyT~£CN7~
Roosevelt Island
3. Long Island, Elsenhower Park,
Merrick Ave.
Mamaroneck, 5th Ave. at NYS
Thruway Exit 9
Manhatten, Mabel Dean
Bacon High School, 240 2nd Ave.
Brooklyn, 301 Green Point
Bronx, Morrlsanla
Health Center, 1309 Fulton Ave.
Babylon, 72 Gazza Blvd.
9. Hempstead
10. Mt. Vernon
3
6
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
11.
12.
13.
14.
NYC
NYC
NYC 10
NYC 17
15. NYC 11
16. 45th St.
2. Center city site.
3. Neighborhood/corridor CO site.
4. Neighborhood CO site.
16. Neighborhood site.
-------
Table B-2 (Continued).
Pollutants Monitored
Site Identification
TSP
S02
CO
no2
°3
Comments
Rochester
1. 185 North St.
2. 135 Kodak Park
3. 184 North St.
4. Rochester
X X
X
X
1. Center city site.
3. Neighborhood site.
4. Center city continuous S02 site Is required.
Syracuse
1. 100 Erie Blvd.
2. Hiawatha Blvd.
3. 100 N. Beach St.
4. E. Syracuse, U.S. Post Office
5. Syracuse
6. Syracuse
7. Syracuse
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5. Not yet established.
6. Address not provided.
7. Address not provided.
Utlca-Rome
1. Utica
2. Utica
X
X
X
1. Address not provided.
2. Not yet established.
The following additional sites are recomnended for non-urbanized areas 1n New York:
Elmlra
Jamestown
Newburg
Poughkeeps1e
1 TSP site
1 SO, site
1 TSP site
1 TSP site
1 TSP site
PUERTO RICO
1. San Juan, Bayamon X
2. Ponce, Fire Station X
VIRGIN ISLANDS
1. St. Croix
-------
Table B-3. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES IN REGION III
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
Comments
TSP
S02
CO
N02
°3
OELAWARE
Wllmlnqton
1. Claymont, Woods Haven-Kruse School,
X
X
X
X
1. Historical data biased. Site Is scheduled to be
Darley Rd.
moved away from Interstate highway. Neighborhood
08-0180-001-F01
CO site.
2. Llndamere, Jewish Conriunlty Center,
X
River Rd.
08-0180-003-F01
3. Delaware City, Governor Bacon Health
X
Center
08-0180-006-F01
4. Wilmington, 12th and King St.
X
4. NASN site.
08-0260-002-F01
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
1. Cheverly, Maryland
X
X
1. Method should be reviewed.
AIRMON 04
21-0480-004-F01
2. Sultland, Maryland
X
2. Method should be reviewed.
21-1560-001-F01
3. Alexandria, Virginia
X
48-0080-009-HOI
(Remaining sites for Washington have not been designated.) (O.C. requires a total of 6 TSP, 4 SO,, 2 CO, 3 NO,, and 1 0,
sites.) £ z 3
MARYLAND
Baltimore
1. Baltimore, 410 E. Lexington
21-0120-001-P01
2. Pretty Boy Elementary School
21-0140-007-G01
3. Catonsvllle
21-0140-004-G01
4. Baltimore, Lombard & Penn St.,
AIRM0N 01
21-0120-019-F01
5. Baltimore, Guilford & 22nd St.,
AIRMON 02
21-0120-01B-F01
6. Essex
21-0680-001-G01
1. NASN, center city site.
2. Background only for SO? and TSP.
4. Center city, corridor site.
6. Method should be checked.
-------
Table B-3 (Continued).
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
TSP
S02
CO
no2
3
Comnents
PENNSYLVANIA
All en town
1. Bethlehem, COPAMS 17
39-0780-017-F01
2. Allentown, COPAMS 03
X
X
X
A1toona
1. 11th Ave. & 12th St..
39-0140-821-F01
2. 4th Ave. & 5th St.
39-0140-822-F01
X
X
1. Center city site.
2. Questionable suitability for NAQTS. Choose an
alternative site.
Erie
1. Tenth & Camphausen Ave.
39-3060-604-F01
2. 1511 Peach St.
39-3060-602-F01
3. 3227 Cherry St.
39-3060-603-F01
4. Tenth & Canphausen Ave.
39-3060-010-F01
5. 39-3060-002-P01
X
X
X
X
X
1. Questionable as a NAQTS. Requires relocation.
2. Questionable as a NAQTS. Requires reorientation.
5. NASN site.
Harrl sburq
1. 39-3880-001-P01
2. C0PAMS-01
39-3880-361-F01
X
X
1. NASN site.
Johnstown
1. 1001 Broad St.
39-4460-802-F01
2. Franklin & Locust St.
39-4460-803-F01
3. Conemaugh, 357 First St.
39-2620-804-F01
4. 1 Messenger St.
39-4460-001-F01
X
X
X
X
Lancaster
1. PAQS5 - L03
39-4660-313-F01
2. PAqSS - L02
39-4660-002-P01
X
X
2. NASN site.
-------
Table B
-3 (Continued) .
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
Comments
TSP
CM
O
CO
N02
3
Lancaster (cont.)
3. PAQSS - L05
X
39-4660-315-F01
4. C0PAMS-07
X
39-4660-007-F01
Philadelphia
1. LAB, 1501 E. Lycoming
X
X
X
X
39-7140-004-H01
2. 500 S. Broad St.
X
2. Center city.
39-7140-003-H01
3. Allegheny & Delaware
X
X
X
X
3. Industrial orientation.
39-7140-019-H01
4. Broad & Spruce St.
X
X
X
X
4. Center city.
39-7140-026-H01
5. Chester, PAQSS-P07
X
X
Front and Norrls St.
39-1620-107-F01
6. Conshohocken
X
400 Fayette St.
39-2020-112-F01
7. H. Chester, PAQSS-P10
X
7. NASN site.
39-9280-110-F01
8. Coatesvllle, PAQSS-P15
X
33 Moonea Rd.
39-1660-115-F02
9. Bristol, Rockvlew
X
X
X
Lane & Penn Valley Dr.
39-1080-102-F01
10. Norrlstown, 1046 Belvolr Rd.
X
X
X
39-6540-013-F01
11. Chester
X
39-1620-002-F01
12. Ben Franklin Parkway
X
X
X
39-7140-029-H01
Plttsburqh
1. McKeesport, 2743 Washington Blvd.
X
39-0100-064-G01
2. Bellevlew, 4501 Ohio River Blvd.
X
X
39-0660-001-G01
3. S. Fayette School, Old Oak Dale Rd.
X
39-0100-067-G01
-------
Table B-3 (Continued).
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
T5F
SO.
TO"
NO-
Comments
Pittsburgh (cont.)
4. HcKeesport, Forbes S Grant St.
39-7260-017-GOl
5. Forbes & Grant St.
39-7260-005-G01
6. Penn Hills, 12245 Frankstown Rd.
39-7260-018-G01
7. Pittsburgh
Reading
1. Laurel dale R07
39-4820-717-F02
2. Reading R02
39-7620-712-F01
3. Reading R05
39-7620-715-F02
4. 39-7620-001-P01
5. Reading, COPAMS 09
39-7620-009-F01
Scranton-WUkes Barre
1. Wilkes-Barre, 71 N. Franklin St.
39-9430-001-P01
2. Dickson City, 800 Boulevard
39-2400-202-F01
3. Plttson, City Hall, Broad St.
39-7280-204-F01
4. Scranton, 601 Jefferson Ave.
39-8040-280-F01
5. Scranton, Penn State Campus,
George St.
39-8040-006-F01
York
"TTYork, PAQSS-Y02
39-9560-001-P01
2. York, PAQSS-Y01
3. York, COPAMS 08
39-9560-008-F01
5. Street canyon site.
7. Choose a downwind NO^ site.
4. NASN, center city site.
5. Outside of city.
1. NASN site. Colocated with state site.
1. NASN site.
-------
Table B-3 (Continued).
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
TSP
2
CO
N0?
Corrments
VIRGINIA
Lvnchburq
1. 48-1840-002-P01
X
1. NASN site.
Norfolk/Newport News
1. Chesapeake Army Depot
State Site 176-A
2. Norfolk
48-2140-001-P01
3. Norfolk Regional Airport
48-2140-013-F01
4. Norfolk, Post Office
48-2140-010-F01
X
X
X
X
X
X
2. NASN, center city site.
3. Prefer a location 1n Northhampton.
Portsmouth/Hampton
1. Portsmouth
48-2440-001-P01
2. Hampton, Police Station
48-1440-006-F01
3. Hampton School
48-1440-004-F01
4. Chesapeake
State Site 176-F
5. Chesapeake
State Site 181-1
X
X
X
X
X
X
1. NASN, center city site. Requires reorientation.
4. New neighborhood site.
5. Corridor site, northwest portion of city.
Petersburq-Colonlal Helqhts
1. Petersburg
48-2360-002-F01
2. Hopewell
48-1560-002-F02
3. Hopewell
48-1560-004-F02
X
X
X
Richmond
1. Richmond, Local Agency Laboratory
48-2660-007-F01
2. Richmond, Local Agency Laboratory
48-2660-011-F02
3. Richmond
48-2660-019-HOI
XXX
X
2. Check for possible point source bias.
3. Check for bias from highway activity.
-------
Table B-3 (Continued).
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
Comments
TSP
SO,
CO
N02
°3
Richmond (cont.)
4. Richmond
X
4. Corridor site.
48-2660-001-F01
5. Richmond
X
5. Neighborhood site.
State Site 158R
6. Richmond
X
6. Continuous monitor should replace bubbler.
State Site 158A
7. Richmond
X
7. Continuous monitor should replace bubbler.
48-2660-019-HOI
8. Richmond
X
8. = 4 mi. from CBD.
48-2660-010-A05
Roanoke, .
1. Roanoke
X
1. Center city. Requires reorientation for proper
48-2700-003-P01
exposure.
Salem
1. Salem
X
48-2800-001-G01
WEST VIRGINIA
Charleston
1. 1558 E. Washington St.
X
X
50-0280-004-F01
2. 50-0280-001-P01
X
2. NO? bubbler. This is the only NOj Instrument in
this area.
Two additional TSP sites, two SO2 sites, and two NO^ sites are recomnended for this area
Huntington
1. County Court House
50-0700-003-F01
A second TSP site and one SO2 site are
recomnended for this area
Wheeling |
Two TSP sites and one SO- site are recomnended for this area.
-------
Table B-4. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES IN REGION IV
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
TSP
so2 CO no2
Contents
ALABAMA
B1rm1nqham
1. 720 S. 20th St.
01-0380-003- P01
2. Tarrant City, 1818 Plnson St.
01-3200-001-G01
3. Bessemer, 1800 First Ave.
01-0340-001-G01
4. 14th St. S Pearson Ave.
01-0380-011-601
5. 2817 30th Ave.
01-0380-005-G02
6. Center Point, 942 Huffman Rd.
01-0570-002-G01
7. 01-0340- -G01
8. 01-0380- -G01
9. 01-0380- -G01
Gadsden
1. 109 S. 8th St.
01-1480-001-P01
1. HASN site.
7. Establish a new site 1n Bessemer.
8. Center city site recommended.
9. Corridor site reconmended.
1. NASN site.
SAMWG designation of 2-4 TSP sites was based on biased data. Requirement was changed to 1-2 range.
X
Huntsvllle
1. 01-1860-001-P01
Mobile
1. Co. Board of Health
01-2380-002-G01
2. State Docks
01-2380- -GO 2
3. Chickasaw
01-0620-002-G01
4. Saleo-Calns
01-2400-024-G02
UKRR
01-2380-008-G01
1. MASN site.
2. Not yet established.
-------
Table B-4 (Continued).
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
Comments
TSP
*2
CO
N02
°3
Montgomery
1. 515 W. Jefferson Davis Ave.
01-2460-001-P01
2. Newton, 1765 N. Decatur
01-2460-008-F01
X
X
1. NASN site.
TSP requirement for Montgomery was lowered from 2-4 to the 0-2 range. SAMWG reconmendatlon based on biased
data.
Tuscaloosa
No monitoring requirements.
FLORIDA
NAQTS sites for Florida were not chosen, because the Florida sites are currently being evaluated.
GEORGIA
Atlanta
1. 99 Butler St. XXX
11-0200-001-P01
2. DeKalb Jr. College X
11-1600-002-G01
3. 11-0200- -G01 X
4. 11-0200- -G01 X
5. 11-0200- -GOl X
6. 11-0200- -GOl
7. 11-0200- -GOl
8. 11-0200- -GOl
SAMWG S02 requirement of 4-6 sites In Atlanta was changed to (J-2.
Augusta
1. Richmond Co. Health Dept.
I1-0220-001-F01
Albany
No monitoring requirements.
Columbus
1. 1958 8th St.
11-1280-001-P01
Macon
No monitoring requirements.
1. NASN site for TSP.
New site for NOg, CO.
3. Not yet established.
4. Not yet established.
5. Not yet established.
6. Not yet established.
7. Not yet established.
8. Not yet established.
1. NASN site.
-------
Table B-4 (Continued).
Site Identification
75F
Pollutants Monitored
Savannah
1. 11-4500-F01 X
2. 11-4500-F01 X
3. 11-4500-F01 X
4. 11-4500-F01
KENTUCKY
Covington (part of Cincinnati urbanized area)
1. Covington, 7th & Scott St.
18-0800-001-P01
Lexington
1. Lexington, University of Kentucky
18-2300-003-F01
Louisville
1. 242$ Portland X
18-2380-009-G01
2. Bards town Rd. X
18-2380-019-G01
3. WLKY TV X
18-2380-021-G01
4. 3705 Bells Lane X
18-2380-028-602
5. Shlvely Police Station X
18-3720-002-G01
6. Floyd and Jefferson St. X
18-2380-020-G01
7. H111 Creek School
18- 3720-001-G01
8. 37th and Broadway
18-2380-015-G01
9. 1400 S. 43rd St.
18-2380-027-G01
10. 208 S. 5th St.
18-2380-026-G01
11. Sawyer Park
18-1920-033-G01
Owensboro
1. 1316 M. 4th Street
18-3140-001-F01
MISSISSIPPI
Blloxl-Gulfport
1. Ocean Springs Research Lab
25-1280-001-P03
SO,
CO
NO*
Contents
1. Not yet established.
2. Not yet established.
3. Not yet established.
4. Not yet established.
1. NASN site.
10. Street canyon site.
11. New site.
1. Site evaluation not available
1. NASN site.
-------
Table B-4 (Continued).
w
i
M
O
Pollutants Monitored
Site Identification
TSP
S02
CO
N02
°3
Comnents
Jackson
1. 426 N. State St.
25-1260-002-P01
2. 25-1260- -F02
X
X
2. New site.
Jackson meets the TSP standards.
NORTH CAROLINA
Ashevllle
1. Health & Social Service Bldg.
34-0180-003-101
Charlotte
1. 600 E. Trade St.
34-0700-001-P01
2. 2136 Redmount Rd.
34-0700-010-G01
3. County Health Dept.
34-0700-011-G01
4. 1501 North 1-85
34-0700-028-G01
5. Mecklenberg Co., Neil Wallace Rd.
34-2580-007-G02
6. Federal Reserve Building
34-0700-029-G01
7. 34-0700- -G01
Durham
1. 225 S. Mangum St.
34-1160-006-POl
Fayetteville
No monitoring requirements.
Greensboro
1. Edgeworth & Bellemeade St.
34-1740-009-P03
SAMWG initial estimate for 4-6 TSP sites was
I
SAMWG initial estimate of 2-4 TSP sites was changed to the 0-2 range.
chant
ed to 0-2.
1. NASN site.
3. Center city site.
4. Downwind site.
5. New site.
6. Street canyon site. New site.
7. Center city site. New site.
1. NASN site.
1. NASN site.
-------
Table B-4 (Continued).
Site Identification
Po
lutant
Hon
tored
Comnents
TSP
S02
CO
N02
°3
High Point
SAMWG requirement of 0-2 TSP sites was
Ralelqh
1. 4465 Six Forks Rd.
34-3240-003-F01
Winston-Salem
1. 34-4460-002-P01
SAMWG requirement for 2-4 TSP sites wa;
SOUTH CAROLINA
Columbia
1. 42-0760- -F01
Charleston
1. Pittsburg Ave.,
N. Charleston
42-0560-038-F01
2. Jenkln St., Fire Station
42-0560-003-F02
3. Trl-County Tech. Center
42-0560-010-F01
4. James Island Fire Station
42-0560-037-F01
TENNESSEE
Chattanooqa
1. 100 E. 11th St.
44-0380-001-P01
2. 3511 Rossvllle Blvd.
44-0380-024-G01
3. 2110 Bragg St.
44-0380-019-G01
4. 109 N. German town Rd.
44-0380-025-G01
changi
X
X
chan
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
>d to 0
led to
X
0-2.
1. NASN site.
1. New site.
1. NASN site.
-------
Table B-4 (Continued).
Site Identification
Pollutant Monitored
Comments
TSP
so2
CO
N02
3
Knoxville
1. 617 Cumberland Ave.
X
1. NASN site.
44-1740-002-P01
2. 1-75 & Heiskell Ave.
X
44-1740-008-G01
Memphis
1. 3431 Sharpe Ave.
X
44-2340-014-G01
2. Health Department
X
2. Not yet established.
44-2340- -G01
3. 885 Alice
X
44-2340-022-G01
4. 1330 Frayser Blvd.
X
X
44-2340-021-G01
5. Fire Station, N. St. Thomas
X
X
44-2340-013-G01
6. 44-3080- -G01
X
6. Not yet established
7. 44-2340- -G01
X
7. Street canyon site, not yet established.
8. 44-2340- -G01
X
8. Corridor site, not yet established.
Nashville
1. 56th Ave., N. & Louisiana St.
X
X
1. Street canyon CO site.
44-2540-024-G01
2. Lester & Hart St.
X
44-2540-002-G01
3. 1015 Trinity Land
X
K
X
3. SO- 1s not Federal Reference Method.
44-2540-011-G01
c
4. Sumner County
X
4. SIP episode site.
44-3320-001-F01
5. 44-2540- -G01
X
5. Not yet established. Should be located In
southeast section.
-------
Table B-5. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES IN REGION V
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
TSP S02 CO N02
Comments
ILLINOIS
Aurora-Elgin
1. Elgin, 1002 N. Liberty
14-2260-001-F01
Champaiqn-Urbana
1. Champaign, 2125 S.
14-1140-002-F01
1st St.
Chicago-Northwestern Indiana
1. Chicago, 3500 E. 114th St.
14-1220-022-H01
2. Chicago, 5625 N. Natoma
14-1220-003-H01
3. Chicago, 1225 N. Sedgwick
14-1220-012-H01
4. Des Plalnes, 1775 S. Wolf Rd.
14-1840-001-G01
5. Chicago, Northwestern University
No SAROAD number
6. Kenwood, 5015 Blackstone
14-1220-025-H01
7. Cook Co., Maybrook Square
No SAR0AD number
8. Chicago Heights, Bloom High School
Dixie Highway & 10th St.
14-1240-001-G01
9. Chicago, 1947 M. Polk
14-1220-003-F01
10. Chicago, Illinois State Building
LaSalle and Randolph
11. Skokle, 9800 Lawler
14-7160-005-G01
12. Calumet City, 755 Pulaski Rd.
14-0780-001-G01
Decatur
1 22nd and Geddes
14-1740-002-F01
2. 600 E. Garfield
14-1740-004-F01
1. This Is the only site operating here. It 1s not
population oriented.
5. Not yet established. This would be a
neighborhood CO site.
7. New site. Consider an alternative site in
Waukegan as a peak downwind site.
9. Need to establish a continuous N02 site here.
10. Not yet established. Street canyon CO site.
11. A continuous NO2 instrument should be installed
here.
-------
Table B-5 (Continued).
Pollutants Monitored
Site Identification
TSP
S02
CO
N02
°3
Comnents
DeKalb (not an SMSA or an urbanized area)
1. 200 S. 4th St.
14-1780-001-F01
X
Jollet
1. Jollet and Benton St.
14-3760-005-F01
2. Gompers School, Copperfield & Brlggs
14-3760-004-G01
3. S.E. Van Buren
14-3760-001-G01
4. 1425 N. Broadway
14-3760-003-G01
X
X
X
X
X
3. NASN site.
Peoria
1. 610 N.E. Jefferson
14-6080-001-F01
2. Glenn Oaks School
SAROAD No. not available
3. E. Peoria, 235 E. Washington
14-2100-002- F01
4. 2711 S.W. Jefferson
14-6080-023-F01
5. Pekln, 531 Court St.
14-6060-002-F01
. 6. Fire Station No. 8, MacArthur &
Hurlburt
14-6080-024-F01
7. Pekin, 272 Derby
14-6060-004-F01
8. 407 N.E. Adams
14-6080-029-F01
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8. New site.
Rockford
1. 126 S. 1st St.
14-6680-001-F01
2. 1528 18th Ave.
14-6680-005-F01
X
X
Sprlnqfleld
1. 224 W. Adams
14-7280-003-F01
2. 8th & Monroe
14-7280-001-P01
X
X
-------
Table B-5 (Continued)
W
i
NJ
un
Site Identification
Pollutants Mon
itored
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
INDIANA
Anderson
1. Pol ice Station
15-0008-006-F01
X
Ccirments
(Data for original SAMWG designation were erroneous. Only one TSP site required here.)
Chicago-Northwestern Indiana
1. Gary, Federal (GSA) 8u11d1ng
15-1520-016-H01
2. Gary, 610 E. 10th St.
15-1520-015-HOI
3. Haitmond, 5935 Calumet
15-1780-002-F01
4. Hararond, 1300 E. 141 St.
15-1780-008-F01
5. E. Chicago, 405 E. Columbus
15-1180-001-H02
6. E. Chicago, 900 E. Chicago Ave.
15-1180-010-HOI
Evansvllle
1. CivicCenter
15-1300-006-H01
2. Fire Station No. 8
15-1300- 003- HOI
3. University of Evansvllle
Nursing Home
15-1300-010-HOI
4. 3rd Ave. School
(No SAROAD number)
Fort Wayne
1. 1717 S. Lafayette
15-1380-003-F01
Indianapolis
1. 17 S. Sheridan
15-2040-006-H01
2. 1201 E. 46th St.
15-2040-008-HOI
3. 1445 W. Michigan
15-2040-009 -HOI
5. NASN site.
03 not yet established.
4. Center city site.
1. Continuous SO2 instrument should be installed.
1. Continuous Instrument should replace S0£ bubbler.
2. Continuous instrument should replace S0£ bubbler.
3. Center city site.
-------
Table B-5 (Continued).
Pollutants Monitored
Site Identification
TSP
S02
CO
N02
°3
Comment s
Indianapolis (cont.)
4. 401 N. Randolph
15-2040-030-F01
5. Weir Cook Airport
15-2040-013-H01
6. 56th and Guion St.
15-2040-024-H01
7. 1100 Waterway
15-2040-029-F01
8. 700 N. Pennsylvania
15-2040-002-H01
9. 71st and Tacoma
15-2040-031-H01
10. L.S. Ayres Department Store
(No SAR0AD number)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4. New site. Neighborhood site for CO.
6. Background site.
9. Downwind site.
10. Center city site.
Lafayette-West Lafayette
1. 6th and Columbia
15-2320-001-F01
X
Muncle
1. McCullock Park
15-2920-003-F01
X
South Bend
1. Municipal Service Building
15-3880-006-G02
2. Mishawaka, Library
15-2760-004-G01
3. LaSalle High School
15-3880-004-G02
4. Children's Hospital
15-3880-008-F01
X
X
X
X
X
4. Not yet established for 0^.
Terre Haute
1. 30 N. 7th St.
15-4080-009-G01
X
1. Center city site.
MICHIGAN
Ann Arbor
1. 425 E. Washington
23-0240-002-F01
X
-------
Table B-5 (Continued).
w
i
ro
¦~j
Site Identification
Detrolt
1. 1311 E. Jefferson
23-1180-020-G01
2. 6601 W. Fort
23-1180-015-G01
3. 14590 Auburn
Stoepel Park
23-1180-014-G01
4. River Rouge, 315 Genesee
23-4420-005-G01
5. Warren, 24333 Ryan Rd.
23-5260-002-F01
6. 11600 E. 7 Mile Rd.
23-1180-019-G01
7. Emllle's Boutique
23-1180-021-G01
8. Warren
Flint
1. 3420 St. Johns St.
23-1580-006-F01
2. 1101 S. Saginaw St.
23-1580-008-F01
3. 420 E. Boulevard Dr.
23-1580-011-F01
4. Flint
Pollutants Monitored
75F
SO,
CO
N0„
Grand Rapids
(The State and R.0. Y need to review the requirements for Grarid Rapids. The SAMWG original estimates are not consistent
with the air quality.)
Convents
1. Center city.
3. Neighborhood CO site.
7. Street canyon site.
8. Consider a site here as a downwind site for
Detrolt.
3. This Is the only continuous instrument available
here.
4. Not yet established.
Kalamazoo
1. 418 W. Kalamazoo
23-2640-002-F01
Lansing
1. 1800 E. Grand River Ave.
23-2840-005-F01
2. 1717 N. High St.
23-2840-006-F01
1. NASN site.
-------
Table B-5 (Continued).
Pollutants Monitored
Site Identification
TSP
so2
CO
N02
°3
Comments
Lansing (cont.)
3. 500 N. Cedar
23-2840-002-F01
4. 1821 S. Todd Ave.
23-2840-003-F01
X
X
X
Muskeqon-Muskeqon Helqhts
1. Muskegon, 315 W. Clay
23-3740-001-F01
2. Muskegon, 1170 W. Southern
23-3740-021-G01
3. Muskegon Heights, 2517 Peck St.
23-3780-003-F01
4. Muskegon
X
X
X
X
4. This area should have a second continuous S0?
monitor.
Saqlnaw
1. 2nd and Federal
23-4760- 001-P01
2. 510 Maple Dr.
23-4760-007
3. Saginaw
X
X
X
1. NASN site.
3. This area requires a continuous SO2 monitor.
MINNESOTA
M1nneapol1s-St. Paul
1. Minneapolis, 3405 University Ave.
24-2260-027-F01
2. St. Paul, 428 Starkey St.
24-3300-014-HOI
3. St. Paul, 1038 Ross Ave.
24-3300-021-H01
4. St. Paul, 754 Randolph
24-3300-024-HOI
.5. Minneapolis, 4646 Humboldt
24-2260-007-HOI
6. Minneapolis, 2000 E. Franklin
24-2260-001-HOI
7. Bloomlngton, 900 W. 95th St.
24-0360-009-F01
8. St. Paul, 10th & Minnesota
24-3300-031-H01
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
%
X
X
X
1. A continuous S02 monitor should be installed.
-------
Table B-5 (Continued)
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
T5F
SO-
TO"
NO,
Minneapol is-St. Paul (cont.)
9. Minneapolis, 3rd Ave. S 4th St.
24-2260-022-H01
10. Minneapolis, 2701 Johnson St.
24-2260-005-HOI
11. St. Paul, 345 Jackson St.
24-3300-030-HOI
12. Minneapolis, S. 7th St. & Hennepin
24-2260-047-F01
13. St. Cloud, 315 St. Germain St.
24-3220-021-H01
14. St. Cloud, 911 W. Germain St.
24-3220-025-HOI
15. St. Cloud, State Site 3040
16. Minneapolis
17. St. Paul
Duluth-Superior
1. Duluth, 1628 W. Superior St.
24-1040-005-G01
Rochester
1
Broadway at First St.
24-3120-018-G01
2. State Site 5078
OHIO
Akron
1. Medina, County Court House
2. Ravenna, 203 W. Main
3. 2140 13th St.
36-0060-002-H01
4. 333 Rampart
36-0060-003-HOI
5. 80 Brittaln Rd.
36-0060-006-HOI
6. 177 S. Broadway
36-0060-014-H01
7. 489 Hopocan
36-0060-001-H01
8. Streetsboro, 8273 Diagonal
9. 1207 S. Broadway
36-0060-015-HOI
Comments
16. Center city site is needed.
17. Center city site is needed.
6. A continuous SO2 monitor should be Installed
here.
-------
Table B-5 (Continued).
Site
Identification
Pollutants Monitored
Comnents
TSP
2
CO
N02
°3
Canton
1.
518 Cleveland St.
X
X
X
36-1000-001-H02
2.
2710 Coventry, N.E.
X
36-1000-003-H02
Cincinnati
1.
800 Vine St.
X
36-1220-001-HOI
2.
St. Bernard, 300 Hurray
X
36-5880-001
3.
1675 Gest St.
X
X
X
3. Corridor CO site.
36-1220-019-P01
4.
Drake Hospital, W. Gal bra 1th Rd.
X
X
X
4. Neighborhood CO site.
36-1220-020-H01
5.
Vine & St. Clair St.
X
X
X
36-1220-035-HOI
6.
Forest Park, Hill & Waycross
X
36- 2165-001-H01
Cleveland
1.
Painesvllle, 71 E. High St.
X
X
1. Downwind from Cleveland.
36-5320-002-G02
2.
17100 Harvard
X
36-1300-006-HOI
3.
4125 Fulton
X
36-1300-010-H01
4.
2785 Broadway
X
X
4. This site Is questionable because of point
36-1300-013-H01
source orientation.
5.
4150 E. 49th St.
X
X
36-1300-026-H01
6.
4749 Broadway
X
36-1300-008-HOI
7.
E. 55th & St. Clair
X
36-1300-012-H01
8.
E. 22nd & Woodland
X
X
X
X
X
8. 0, and CO monitors are not yet established.
36-1300-033-H01
J
9.
2547 Tlkhan
X
36-1300-038-H01
10.
891 E. 152nd St.
X
X
36-1300-034-H01
11.
1986 E. 107th St.
X
-------
Table B-5 (Continued).
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
TSP"
SO,
CO
NO.
Consents
Columbus
1. 1313 Chesapeake X
36-1460-004-F01
2. 1780 Windsor X
36-1460-010-F01
3. State Fairgrounds, E. 11th Ave. X
36-1460-012-F01
4. 280 E. Broad
36-1460-014-F01
5. 5780 Maple Canyon Or.
36-1460-081-F01
6. 395 Capitol Ave.
36-1460-015
Columbus should have the following additional trends sites:
4. Center city site.
5. Downwind of center city.
6. Center city site.
1.
2.
3.
3 TSP sites - one center city, one east side, and one south side.
At least one continuous S02 site, preferably
One neighborhood CO site.
Dayton
1. Kettering, 3201 HarshaU
Z. 451 W. Third
36-1660-025-G01
3. 117 S. Ka1n
36-1660-026-G01
4. Greenville, 200 E. Third
36-2640-001-001
5. 38 E. Honument
36-1660-014-G01
6. 214 Valley
36-1660-015-G01
7. 2100 Tlmberlane
36-1660-019-G01
Hamilton
1. Hamilton, Municipal Building
Monument 6 High St.
36-2700-002-H01
2. Mlddletown, H00V Field
36-4340-0O4-HO1
3. Hamilton, Addystown
4. Hamilton, Grooms Hd.
center city.
2. NO2 Instrument is a tubbier.
6. M02 instrument is a bubbler,
-------
Table B-5 (Continued).
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
TSP
S02
CO
N02
°3
Comments
Loralne-Elyria
1. Loraine, Palm Ave. & 1st St.
36-3620-002-H02
2. Loraine, 329 10th St.
36-3620-004-H09
3. Avon Lake, 150 Avon Bel den
36-0340-005-H01
4. Loraine, 2615 Colorado
36-3620-014-H02
X
X
X
X
X
Mansfield
1. 1250 N. Main
36-384Q-006-H01
2. 35 N. Park
36-3840-007-H01
3. 328 N. Main
4. 806 Grace
5. 480 Park Ave., East
X
X
X
X
X
Sprinqfleld
1. 350 N. Fountain
36-6380-001-P01
X
X
1. A continuous SO2 monitor has not yet been
established here.
Steubenvl11e-Welrton
1. E. Liverpool, 126 W. 6th St.
36-1900-001-101
2. Steubenville, 317 Market St.
36-6420-013-101
3. Steubenville, 814 Adams
36-6420-012-101
X
X
X
X
X
X
2. Center city site.
Toledo
1. 26 Main St.
36-6600-006-H01
2. 5235 Summit
36-6600-011-HOI
3. 60 N. Westwood
36-6600-015-H01
4. 815 Navarre
36-6600-019-H01
5. 5760 Bayshore
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Table B-5 (Continued)
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
TSP
SO-
CO
N02 03
Comments
Toledo (cont.)
6. 2930 131 St. St.
36-6600-081-H01
7. 2630 Laskey
36-6600-013-H01
8. Toledo Water Plant
Youngstown-Warren
1. Struthers, Terrace & Short
36-6480-001-101
2. Campbell, City Hall
3. Youngstown, F1re Station No. 7
Elm b Madison
36-7760-005-101
4. Youngstown, F1re Station No. 5
36-7760-006
5. Youngstown, Central Square
36-7760-007-H01
6. Warren, 1700 Atlantic
36-7020-002-101
7. Warren, 141 South St.
36-7020-004-101
WISCONSIN
Appleton
1. 121 S. Oneida
51-0080-002-F01
Green Bay
1. City Hall
51-1180-002-F01
Madison
1. 29 N. Charter St.
51-1860-005-F01
2. Madison Technical College
51-1860-008-F02
Milwaukee
1. 711 W. Wells Ave.
51-2200-099-P01
1. Center city site.
1. Center city site.
1. A continuous SO2 monitor has not yet been
established.
2. A continuous S0? monitor has not yet been
establ1shed.
1. N02 bubbler.
-------
Table B-5 (Continued).
Pollutants Monitored
Site Identification
TSP
S02
CO
N02
3
Conments
Milwaukee (cont.)
2. 7528 W. Appleton Ave.
X
51-2200-044-F01
3. 2969 S. Howell
X
51-2200-022-F01
4. 845 N. 35th St.
X
51-2200-013-F01
5. 1225 S. Carferry
X
51-2200-040-F01
6. 606 W. K11borne Ave.
X
X
51-2200-080-F01
7. 3401 S. 39th St.
X
51-2200-042-F01
8. 2114 E. Kenwood Rd.
X
51-2200-041-F01
9. 3776 W. Wisconsin Ave.
X
51-2200-045-F01
10. Milwaukee
X
10. Downwind site not yet established for Milwaukee.
-------
Table B-6. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES IN REGION VI
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
TSP
S02
CO
N02
°3
Comnents
ARKANSAS
Fort Smith
1. 5th and B St.
X
Little Rock
1. Jacksonville, 1205 U. Main
2. Little Rock, 700 W. Markham
3. Adams Field
4. North Little Rock Airport
XXX
X
X
4. Not yet established.
LOUISIANA
Baton Rouge
1. 3142 Evangeline
19-0280-002-F01
2. Louisiana State U.
19-0280-003-F01
3. State Boys' School
Highway 61/Scenic Highway
X
X
X
3. New site. Downwind for Baton Rouge.
Lafayette
1. Health and Civic Center
19-1500-001-F01
X
Lake Charles
1. 721 Prien Lake
19-1600-001-F01
X
New Orleans
1. 421 Loyola Ave.
19-2020-002-F01
2. Water Purification Plant
19-2020-010-F01
3. 325 Loyola Ave.
19-2020-005-F01
4. 4201 Tall Spruce Drive
19-2020-011
X
X
X
X
1. NASN, center city site.
4. New site. Downwind for New Orleans.
Shreveport
1. 1866 Kings Highway
19-2740—001-F01
X
-------
Table B-6. (continued).
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
Comments
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
Shreveport (cont.)
2. Shreveport
NEW MEXICO
Alburauerque
1. Montgomery & San Mateo
32-0040-015-H02
2. 5501 Pino
32-0040-008-H02
3. 400 Marquette Ave.
32-0040-002-H01
4. Indian School Rd.
32-0040-009-H01
5. Chico Rd. & Dallas St.
32-0040-004-H01
6. Raymond & August
32-0140-002-H01
7. LaUnion
32-0340-008-F02
TEXAS
The tentative NAQTS for Texas are stil
OKLAHOMA
The tentative NAQTS for Oklahoma are s
X
X
X
X
X
1 bein<
till b
X
revi{
;ing rt
X
X
wed.
viewe
d.
X X X
1
2. A second TSP site is to be selected for
Shreveport. Three current sites were discussed,
pending modifications at each site.
2. »¦ 7 mi. north of center city.
3. NASN, center city site.
4. Neighborhood/corridor site.
-------
Table B-7. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES IN REGION VII
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
TSP | S02 I CO I N02 03
Comments
IOWA
Cedar Rapids
1. 445 1st St., S.W.
16-0640-018-G02
2. 14th Ave. & 10th St.
16-0640-019-G02
3. 751 Center Point
16-0640-020-G02
4. 4426 Council St.
16-0640-013-G01
Council Bluffs
1. City Hall, 219 Pearl St.
16-0960-016
Davenport-Rock Island-Moline
1. 331 Scott St.
16-1060- 001 - P01
2. 1926 4th St.
16-1060-010-F01
3. Eldridqe School
16-3280-010
Pes Moines
1. 9th & Mulberry
16-1180-001-G01
2. 2217 Beaver Rd.
16-1180-003-G01
3. 1249 McKinley Ave.
16-1180-031-G02
4. 3rd & Garfield
16-3120-024- G01
5. Des Moines
6. Bondurant-Farrar School
3rd & Qarfield
16-3120-024
Dubuque
1. 6th & Locust St.
16-1260-011-F01
2. University & Atlantic
16-1260-002-P01
Sioux City
~T! Federal Bldg., 320 Sixth St.
16-3400-015
1. NASN, center city site.
3. Center city site.
1. NASN, center city site.
1. NASN, center city site.
4. Downwind from Des Moines.
5. Not yet established. Should be a center city
si te.
-------
Table B-7 (Continued).
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
rrsp
SO-,
CO
NO,
Coranents
Waterloo
1. St. Mary's School
16-3760-007
2. Telephone Company
16-3760-006-F01
KANSAS
Kansas City
1. 3105 Fairfax Rd.
17-1 COO-001
2. Fire Station, 420 Kansas Ave.
17-1800-015
3. Moody School, 10100 England,
17-2780-001
Topeka
1. 1615 W. 8th St.
17-3560-002-F01
2. City Bldg., 215 E. Seventh
17-3560-002
Wichita
1. 1900 E. 9th St.
17-3740-010- F01
2. 200 E. 53rd St., N.
17-3320-001-F01
3. 430 N. Waco
17-3740-001-POT
4. 3601 N. St. Francis
17-3740-005-F01
5. Pawnee & Glenn St.
17-3740-009-F01
(Wichita requirement for 4-6 TSP sites
handled through SLAMS.)
MISSOURI
Columbia
1. Fice Station
Route B North
26-1120-002
2. Site location requires checking.
1. Nearby incinerator operation should be checked.
1. Center city. No population centers downwind.
2. Center city site.
3. NASN, center city site.
was changed to 2-4 sites based on more recent data.) (SO^ monitoring will be
-------
Table B-7 (Continued).
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
Conments
TSP
S02
CO
f»02
°3
Kansas City
1. 1517 Locust St.
X
1. NASN site.
26-2380-002-H01
2. Independence, 213 S. Main
X
26-2180-001-H01
3. 5100 Troost Rd.
X
26-2380-003-HOI
4. 2301 Locust
X
X
(no SAROAD No.)
5. 5700 E. Bannister
X
5. Corridor CO site. Has been used to determine
26-2380-026
compllance.
6. 26-2380-025-HOI
X
X
7. ® 5 mi. downwind of K.C.
St. Louis
1. 14th & Market St.
X
26-4280-006-HOI
2. 8227 S. Broadway
X
X
X
26-4280-007-H01
3. 5962 S. Lindbergh
X
X
X
3. Neighborhood CO site.
26-0030-001
4. St. Ann, 10267 St. Charles Rock Rd.
X
X
26-4120-001-G01
5. 801 S. Brentwood Blvd.
X
26-1040-002
6. 208 S. 12th St.
X
X
6. Center city site.
26-4280-064-H01
7. 4408 Donovan
X
26-4280-010
8. 1720 Market
X
8. NASN site.
26-4280-001
St. Joseph
1. 8th & Edmund
X
1. Center city site.
26-4260-003-F01
Sprinqfield
1. 900 E. Monroe
X
26-4580-015-HOI
2. 900 W. Chase
X
26-4580-007
-------
Table B-7 (Continued).
Site Identification
Pol lutanl
ts Mor
itorec
Comments
TSP
so2
CO
no2
03
NEBRASKA
Lincoln
1. 555 S. 10th St.
28-1560-002-P01
2. 300 S. 48th St.
28-1560-003-G01
Omaha
1. Woolworth & 42nd St.
28-1880-019-GQ1
2. 25th & 0 St.
28-1880-028
3. Job Training Center
(No SAROAD No.)
X
X
X
X
X
1. NASN, center city site, elevation ~ 65 feet.
(The only continuous S02 site available Is heavily source oriented. At least one S02 site should be designated
as an SO2 trends site.)
-------
Table B-8. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES IN REGION VIII
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
Comments
TSP
l/>
o
ro
CO
N02
°3
COLORADO
Colorado Sprinqs
1. 712 S. Tejon St.
X
06-0380-004-F01
Denver
1. 2105 Broadway
X
X
X
X
X
1. Camp site. Center city.
06-0580-002-F01
2. Adams City, 4301 E. 72nd St.
X
06-0020-001-F01
3. Cherry Creek Dam
X
06-0080-001-F01
4. Aurora, 1633 Florence St.
X
06-0140-001-F01
5. Arvada, City Hall
X
06-0120-003-FOl
6. Sewer Plant
X
06-0580-012-F01
7. Engelwood, 4857 S. Broadway
X
06-0780-001-FOl
8. Lakewood, 260 S. Kipling St.
X
06-1260-001-FOl
9. Arvado, W. 57th St. & Garrison
X
9. Does not correspond to SAMWG criteria for
06-0120-002-F01
neighborhood site because of street grids.
10. Welby, E. 78th Ave.
X
X
06-2210-001-F01
11. Green Mountain
X
11. Downwind of Denver. Not yet established.
Pueblo
1. Health Department, 151 Central Ave.
X
06-1820-001-FOl
2. Pueblo
X
2. Not yet established.
3. Pueblo
X
3. Not yet established.
MONTANA
Billings
1. City Hall
X
3rd & 27th St.
27-0080-008-G01
2. 27th & Montana
X
27-0080-053-F01
-------
Table B-8 (Continued).
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
TSP S02 CO N02 03
Comments
Missoula
1. Court House, Wood St. 8 West Pine
27-1100-001-G01
NORTH DAKOTA
Bi smark
}. Memorial Building
213 6th St., N.
35-0100-001-F01
Fargo
1. Civic Center
210 N. 4th St.
35-0400-001-F01
SOUTH DAKOTA
Sioux Falls
1. Health Department
224 W. 9th St.
43-1480-001-P01
UTAH"
Oqden
1. 26th & Grant St.
46-0680-001-F01
2. Ogden
Provo-Orem
1. Provo, 17 S. University
46-0800-001-F01
2. Lindon, 50 E. Main
46-1220-001-F01
3. Orem, Firehouse
46-0700-001-F01
4. Provo
1. NASN site. SO2 bubbler, requires temperature
control.
1. NASN site. SOj bubbler, with temperature
control suggested.
1. Center city.
2. Suburban site recommended to be established.
4. Two new sites recommended.
a All of Utah's TSP monitors should be reviewed. They do not follow the Federal Reference Method.
-------
Site Identification
Salt Lake City
1. Salt Lake City
Health Dept.
610 S. 2nd St.
46-0920-001-F01
2. Murray
3. Bountiful
4. Airport
46-0920-004-F01
WYOMING
Cheyenne
1.2001 Capitol Avenue
52-0140-001-F01
Comments
?.. Establish a new site.
3. Neighborhood CO site.
1. SO2 bubbler with temperature
control suggested.
-------
Table B—9. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES IN REGION IX
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
Comments
TSP
so2
CO
N02
°3
ARIZONA
Phoenlx
1. Scottsdale, 2857 N. Miller Ave.
X
03-0740-003
2. 1845 E. Roosevelt
X
X
X
X
2. NASN site.
03-0600-002
3. 4732 S. Central Ave.
X
X
X
03-0600-013
4. Sun City, 10401 Thunderblrd Blvd.
X
03-0790-002
5. 601 E. Butler
X
03-0600-004
6. 1740 W. Adams
X
6. Corridor site. Requires probe change.
Tuscon
1. 2nd and Palm
X
03-0860-001
2. 1019 W. Prince Rd.
X
03-0860-009
3. 1970 W. Ajo Way
X
03-0860-005
4. Ft. Lowell Rd.
X
03-0860-012
5. 22nd & Craycroft
X
X
5. Corridor CO site.
03-0860-001
6. 151 W. Congress
X
X
6. Center city site.
CALIFORNIA
Bakersfleld
1. Flower St.
X
05-0520-003
2. Chester St.
X
X
Fresno
1. Olive St.
X
X
X
05-2800-005
2. Merced
X
X
05-4580-001
-------
Table B-9 (Continued).
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
Conments
TSP
S02
CO
N02
3
Los Anqeles-Lonq Beach
1. Anaheim
X
X
1. NASN site.
05-0230-001
2. LaHabra
X
X
2. SIP episode site for CO.
05-3620-001
3. Costa Mesa Harbor
X
05-1740-001
4. Los Alamltos, Orangewood
X
05-4120-002
5. Santa Ana Canyon
X
05-7180-001
6. Wh1tt1er
X
05-8720-001
7. Temple City
X
05-8220-001
8. Long Beach
X
8. NASN site.
05-4100-001
9. Pasadena
X
9. NASN site.
05-5760-001
10. Pasadena
X
X
X
10. Center city site.
05-5760-004
Modesto
1. "J" St.
X
05-4720-001
Oxnard-Ventura-Thousand Oaks
1. Thousand Oaks
X
05-8240-001
2. Camarlllo, Elm Dr.
X
3. Oxnard, "A" St.
X
4. Ventura, Telegraph Rd.
X
5. Slml Valley
X
Sacramento
1. 1025 "P" St.
X
X
X
X
1. Replace SOg bubbler with a continuous analyzer.
CO site 1s a neighborhood site. Max. O3 site.
2. Branch Center
X
3. Sacramento
X
3. Not yet established. Should be a corridor site
Salinas
1. Site No. 05-6620-002
X
-------
Table B-9 (Continued).
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
1 ¦
Comments
TSP
S02
CO
N02
°3
San Bernardino-Riverside
1. Riverside, 7002 Magnolia
X
X
1. CO corridor site.
05-6400-003
2. San Bernardino, 172 3rd St.
X
X
05-6680-001
3. Redlands, 216 Brookslde Ave.
X
05-6200-001
4. Chino, 5130 Riverside Ave.
X
05-1300-001
5. Upland Post Office
X
5. Proposed SIP site. Not yet operational.
6. Fontana, 14838 Foothill
X
7. Riverside, Rubldoux Ave.
X
05-6535-001
8. Upland, 1350 San Bernardino Rd.
X
X
8. Neighborhood CO site.
San D1eqo
1. El Cajon, 100 E. Lexington Ave.
X
X
X
X
X
1. Downwind of San Diego.
05-2220-002
2. Chula Vista, 80 E. "J" St.
X
X
X
2. Neighborhood CO site.
05-1360-001
3. Oceanside, 100 S. Cleveland St.
X
X
3. Max. 0, site.
05-5320-003
J
4. San Diego, 555 Overland Dr.
X
5. Escondido, 600 E. Valley Parkway
X
05-2460-002
6. San Diego, 1111 Island Ave.
X
X
X
6. Center city site.
San Jose
1. 120 N. 4th St.
X
X
X
1. Center city site. Corridor site for CO.
05-6980-004
San Francisco-Oakland
1. San Francisco, 101 Grove St.
X
1. NASN site.
05-6860-001
2. San Francisco, 900 23rd St.
X
X
X
.X
3. Berkeley, 2151 Berkeley Way
X
05-0740-001
4. Richmond, 13th St.
X
X
05-6300-003
5. Concord, Treat Blvd.
X
X
5. Neighborhood CO site.
05-1600-001
6. Llvermore
X
6. Downwind from San Francisco.
05-4020-002
-------
Table B-9 (Continued).
Pollutants Monitored
Site Identification
TSP
CO
N02
3
Consents
San Francisco-Oakland (cent.)
7. Fremont, Cahpel Way
05-2780-001
X
X
X
7. Ha*. Oj site.
Santa Barbara
1. Santa Barbara, State St.
05-7200-004
2. Carpinteria
05-5340-001
X
X
Stockton
1. Site No. 05-8040-002
X
HMWII
Honolulu
1. Honolulu, Department of Health
12-0120-001
2. Kalihl Ka1. Fire Station
12-0120-004
3. Ma Moana
12-0120-005
*
X
X
X
X
1. NASN site (TSP), Not yet established for S02-
(Currently no continuous 502 sites In Faii-af!. Bubblers are not terjerature-controUed, Laboratory would be the best
site for a continuous SO2 Instrument. The optimal location of a CO corridor site will depend on the rest/Us of a
special monitoring study using six sites. Two CO sites are anticipated. {A downwind O3 site Is not possible for Hawaii.)
NEVAM
Las Vegas
]. Sahara Hotel
29-0320-011
2. 625 Shadow Lane
29-0320-009
. 3. 300 N. Casino Center
29-0320-001
4. East Charleston
29-0320-01C
Reno
1. 10 Klrman St.
29-0480-001
2. 1900 Sharon Way
29-0480-006
4. We+ghborhcod CO site.
1. Center city, NASN site.
-------
Table B-9 (Continued).
Pollutants Monitored
Site Identification
TSP
so2
CO
N0Z
°3
Comments
Reno (cont.)
3. 1100 Valley Rd.
29-0480-009
4. Evans and Plaza
29-0480-005
5. 2800 Kings Row
29-0480-101-G01
X
X
X
-
4. Center city site.
-------
Table B-10. TENTATIVE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY TRENDS SITES IN REGION X
Pollutants Monitored
Site Identification
TSP
S02
CO
N02
°3
Comments
ALASKA
Anchoraqe
1. 527 E. 4th St.
02-0040-003-P01
X
X
1. NASN site with an SO2 bubbler.
Fairbanks
1. Fairbanks Post Office
02-0160-002-601
2. State Office Building
02-0160-013-F01
X
X
IDAHO
Boise
1. 6th & Idaho
13-0220-001-P01
2. 9500 Overland Rd.
13-0020-001-F03
X
X
1. Center city site.
Pocatello
1. 13-0080-004-F02
X
OREGON
Euqene
1. Commerce Bldg.
38-0560-006-101
2. Springfield Library
38-1680-009-F01
3. Westmoreland School
2285 W. 18th St.
4. Municipal Airport
38-0560-004-F03
5. 577 E. 46th St.
38-0560-008-F01
6. Cottage Grove
X
X
X
X
X
3. Not in SAROAD
6. Not yet established.
Medford
1. Main & Oakdale
38-1160-001-F01
2. 6804 Agate Rd.
White City
3. Bear Creek
2518 S. Pacific Highway
X
X
X
2. Not in SAROAD.
3. Not 1n SAROAD
-------
Table B-10 (Continued).
w
cn
o
Site Identification
Pollutants Monitored
Comments
TSP
2
CO
N02
3
Portland
1. Central F1 re Station
X
1. Center city, max. concentration site.
38-1460-015-F02
2. 1845 N.E. Couch
X
38-1460-019-F02
3. 3200 N.W. Yeon
X
3. Industrial area.
38-1460-023-F02
4. Milwaukee High School
X
X
38-1200-001-F01
5. Vlavel Park
X
X
5. Neighborhood CO site.
S.E. 47th Ave.
6. Carus, Spangler Rd.
X
6. Not 1n SAR0AD.
7. 718 W. Bumslde
X
X
7. Center city site.
38-1460-002-F01
WASHINGTON
Seattle
1. Duwamish Pump Station
X
X
1. Industrial area.
49-1840-057-102
2. Harbor Island
X
2. Industrial area.
49-1840-066-102
3. Fifth & James St.
X
3. Center city site.
49-1840-051-F01
4. BF Day School
X
4. Neighborhood site.
5. (Cent, 1234 N. Central
X
49-0960-001-101
6. 604 3rd Ave.
X
6. NASN, center city site, elevation = 80 feet
49-1840-001-A01
Requires reorientation.
7. Pioneer Square
X
7. Not yet established.
(No decision has been made regarding optimal placemi!
In this area.)
r.
okane
tpokane City Hall
49-2040-001-P01
E. 302 Boone St.
49-2040-012-F01
Kershaws
nt o'
NO2 Instruments. Two continuous NO2 analyzers are required
1. NASN, center city site.
2. Neighborhood CO site.
3. Center city site.
-------
Table B-10 (Continued).
Pollutants Monitored
Site Identification
TSP
so2
CO
no2
°3
Comments
Tacoma
1. Hess Bldg.
49-2140-001-P01
2. 2316 E. 11th & Thorn Rd.
49-2140-004-102
3. Flrcrest
4. Tacoma
5. Sumner
XXX
X
X
1. NASN, center city site.
2. Industrial area.
4. Not yet established.
5. Downwind from Tacoma.
w
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOWNO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Selection of National Air Quality Trends
Sites - Technical Report
5. REPORT DATE
December 30, 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORIS)
David W. Armentrout
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
P/N 3263
9. PERFORMING ORC- 1NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 4 5246
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2513
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Monitoring & Data Analysis Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Project Officer: Thomas Curran
16. ABSTRACT
Establishing a network of National Air Quality Trends
Sites (NAQTS) will provide comparable air quality data from
nationwide monitoring sites. This data will then form the
basis for an accurate assessment of air quality problems.
This report presents the results of a survey recommended
by the Standing Air Monitoring Work Group and conducted among
the U.S. EPA Regional Offices to determine tentative monitor-
ing sites. Included in this report are the procedures used
to locate tentative sites and recommendations for sites which
might be included in the network.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDEDTERMS
c. COSATI l icld/Group
Air Pollution
Monitors
Air Quality Data
National Air Quality
Trends Sites
13B
14G
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
154
20 SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |