&EPA
United S*i6
EiKviraimenlal Protection
Agency
2003 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program
(UATMP)
July 2004
Final Report
-------
EPA-454/R-04-003
July 2004
2003 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program(UATMP)
Prepared By:
Eastern Research Group
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Sharon Nizich, Program Manager
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Contract No. 68-D-03-049
Delivery Orders 23 and 29
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division
Monitoring and Quality Assurance Group
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
DISCLAIMER
Through its Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency funded and managed the research described in this report under EPA Contract
No. 68-D-99-007 to Eastern Research Group, Inc. This report has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for their use.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures xii
List of Tables xviii
List of Abbreviations xxx
Executive Summary xxxiv
1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 The 2003 UATMP 2-1
2.1 Monitoring Locations 2-1
2.2 Compounds Selected for Monitoring 2-3
2.3 Sampling Schedules 2-3
2.4 Completeness 2-6
2.5 Sampling and Analytical Methods 2-7
2.5.1 VOC Sampling and Analytical Method 2-8
2.5.2 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Method 2-9
2.5.3 Semivolatile Sampling and Analytical Method 2-11
2.5.4 Metals and Hexavalent Chromium Sampling and Analytical Data .2-11
3.0 Summary of the 2003 UATMP Data 3-1
3.1 Data Summary Parameters 3-2
3.1.1 Number of Sampling Detects 3-2
3.1.2 Concentration Range 3-3
3.1.3 Geometric Means 3-3
3.1.4 Prevalence 3-4
3.1.5 Pearson Correlations 3-6
3.2 UATMP Compound Groups 3-7
3.2.1 Hydrocarbons 3-7
3.2.2 Halogenated Hydrocarbons 3-8
3.2.3 Polar Compounds 3-8
3.2.4 Carbonyl Compounds 3-9
3.3 Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters 3-9
3.3.1 Maximum and Average Temperature 3-10
3.3.2 Moisture Parameters 3-10
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
3.3.3 Wind and Pressure Information 3-11
3.4 The Impact of Motor Vehicle Emissions on Spatial Variations 3-12
3.4.1 Motor Vehicle Ownership Data 3-13
3.4.2 Motor Vehicles Emissions Profiles 3-14
3.4.3 Estimated Traffic Data 3-15
3.4.4 Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) Analysis 3-15
3.5 Variability Analysis 3-17
3.6 UATMPNATTS Sites 3-18
3.6.1 Back Trajectory Analysis 3-18
3.6.2 Federal Regulation Analysis 3-19
3.6.2.1 Regulations for Stationary Sources 3-19
3.6.2.2 Mobile Sources 3-20
3.6.2.3 Regulation Analysis 3-21
3.6.3 Emission Tracer Analysis 3-23
3.7 Metals Analysis 3-23
3.8 Trends Analysis 3-23
3.8.1 Trends in Annual Averages 3-23
3.8.2 Trends in Seasonal Averages 3-24
4.0 Sites in Arizona 4-1
4.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Arizona Sites 4-2
4.2 Toxicity Analysis 4-2
4.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Arizona Sites 4-3
4.4 Spatial Analysis 4-4
4.5 RFG Analysis 4-5
4.6 NATTS Site Analysis 4-6
4.6.1 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 4-6
4.6.2 Regulation Analysis 4-7
4.6.3 Emission Tracer Analysis 4-7
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
5.0 Sites in Colorado 5-1
5.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Colorado Sites 5-1
5.2 Toxicity Analysis 5-2
5.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Colorado Sites 5-3
5.4 Spatial Analysis 5-4
5.5 RFG Analysis 5-4
6.0 Site in Connecticut 6-1
6.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Connecticut Site 6-1
6.2 Toxicity Analysis 6-2
6.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Connecticut Site 6-2
6.4 Spatial Analysis 6-3
6.5 RFG Analysis 6-3
7.0 Sites in Florida 7-1
7.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Florida Sites 7-2
7.2 Toxicity Analysis 7-2
7.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Florida Sites 7-3
7.4 Spatial Analysis 7-4
7.5 NATTS Site Analysis 7-4
7.5.1 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 7-5
7.5.2 Regulation Analysis 7-5
8.0 Sites in Illinois 8-1
8.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Illinois Sites 8-2
8.2 Toxicity Analysis 8-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
8.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Illinois Sites 8-3
8.4 Spatial Analysis 8-4
8.5 RFG Analysis 8-5
8.6 NATTS Site Analysis 8-6
8.6.1 Back Trajectory Analysis 8-6
8.6.2 Regulation Analysis 8-6
8.6.3 Emission Tracer Analysis 8-7
9.0 Site in Massachusetts 9-1
9.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Massachusetts Site 9-1
9.2 Toxicity Analysis 9-2
9.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Massachusetts Site 9-2
9.4 Spatial Analysis 9-3
9.5 RFG Analysis 9-4
9.6 NATTS Site Analysis 9-4
9.6.1 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 9-4
9.6.2 Regulation Analysis 9-5
10.0 Sites in Michigan 10-1
10.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Michigan Sites 10-2
10.2 Toxicity Analysis 10-3
10.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Michigan Sites 10-3
10.4 Spatial Analysis 10-5
10.5 NATTS Site Analysis 10-6
10.5.1 Back Trajectory Analysis 10-6
10.5.2 Regulation Analysis 10-7
10.5.3 Emission Tracer Analysis 10-7
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
11.0 Sites in Mississippi 11-1
11.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Mississippi Sites 11-2
11.2 Toxicity Analysis 11-3
11.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Mississippi Sites 11-3
11.4 Spatial Analysis 11-4
12.0 Sites in Missouri 12-1
12.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Missouri Sites 12-1
12.2 Toxicity Analysis 12-2
12.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Missouri Sites 12-3
12.4 Spatial Analysis 12-4
12.5 RFG Analysis 12-5
12.6 NATTS Site Analysis 12-6
12.6.1 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 12-6
12.6.2 Regulation Analysis 12-6
12.6.3 Emission Tracer Analysis 12-7
13.0 Site in Nebraska 13-1
13.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Nebraska Site 13-1
13.2 Toxicity Analysis 13-2
13.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Nebraska Site 13-2
13.4 Spatial Analysis 13-3
14.0 Sites in New Jersey 14-1
14.1 Prevalent Compounds at the New Jersey Sites 14-2
14.2 Toxicity Analysis 14-2
vn
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
14.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the New Jersey Sites 14-3
14.4 Spatial Analysis 14-4
14.5 RFG Analysis 14-5
15.0 Site in North Carolina 15-1
15.1 Prevalent Compounds at the North Carolina Site 15-1
15.2 Toxicity Analysis 15-2
15.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the North Carolina Site .... 15-2
15.4 Spatial Analysis 15-3
16.0 Site in North Dakota 16-1
16.1 Prevalent Compounds at the North Dakota Site 16-1
16.2 Toxicity Analysis 16-2
16.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the North Dakota Site 16-2
16.2 Spatial Analysis 16-3
17.0 Site in Oklahoma 17-1
17.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Oklahoma Site 17-1
17.2 Toxicity Analysis 17-2
17.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Oklahoma Site 17-2
17.4 Spatial Analysis 17-3
18.0 Site in Oregon 18-1
18.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Oregon Site 18-1
18.2 Toxicity Analysis 18-2
18.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Oregon Sites 18-2
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
18.4 Spatial Analysis 18-2
19.0 Sites in Puerto Rico 19-1
19.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Puerto Rico Sites 19-1
19.2 Toxicity Analysis 19-2
19.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Puerto Rico Sites 19-3
19.4 Spatial Analysis 19-3
20.0 Sites in South Dakota 20-1
20.1 Prevalent Compounds at the South Dakota Sites 20-1
20.2 Toxicity Analysis 20-2
20.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the South Dakota Sites 20-3
20.4 Spatial Analysis 20-4
21.0 Sites in Tennessee 21-1
21.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Tennessee Sites 21-2
21.2 Toxicity Analysis 21-3
21.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Tennessee Sites 21-3
21.4 Spatial Analysis 21-5
22.0 Sites in Utah 22-1
22.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Utah Sites 22-1
22.2 Toxicity Analysis 22-2
22.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Utah Sites 22-3
22.4 Spatial Analysis 22-4
22.5 NATTS Site Analysis 22-5
ix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
age
22.5.1 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis 22-5
22.5.2 Regulation Analysis 22-5
22.5.3 Emission Tracer Analysis 22-6
23.0 Data Quality 23-1
23.1 Precision 23-2
23.1.1 Analytical Precision 23-2
23.1.2 Sampling and Analytical Precision 23-7
23.2 Accuracy 23-10
24.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 24-1
24.1 Conclusions 24-1
24.1.1 National-level Conclusions 24-1
24.1.2 State-level Conclusions 24-3
24.1.3 Data Quality 24-15
24.2 Recommendations 24-15
25.0 References 25-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Appendix K
Appendix L
Appendix M
Appendix N
age
AIRS Site Descriptions for the 2003 UATMP Monitoring Stations A-l
2003 Summary of Invalidated UATMP Samples by Site B-l
2003 Summary Tables for VOC Monitoring C-l
2003 Summary Tables for SNMOC Monitoring D-l
2003 Summary Tables of Carbonyl Monitoring E-l
2003 Summary Tables for SVOC Monitoring F-l
2003 Summary Tables for Metals Monitoring G-l
2003 Summary Tables for Hexavalent Chromium Monitoring .... H-l
2003 VOC Raw Monitoring Data 1-1
2003 SNMOC Raw Monitoring Data J-l
2003 Carbonyl Raw Monitoring Data K-l
2003 SVOC Raw Monitoring Data L-l
2003 Metal Raw Monitoring Data M-l
2003 Hexavalent Chromium Raw Monitoring Data N-l
XI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
age
2-1 Cities Participating in 2003 Program 2-13
2-2 Hexavalent Chromium Sampling System 2-14
3-1 Comparison of the Concentration Ratios for BTEX Compounds vs Roadside Study . 3-25
3-2 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of 1,3, Butadiene Across 31 Sites 3-29
3-3 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Acetaldehyde Across 39 Sites 3-30
3-4 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Acetonitrile Across 32 Sites 3-31
3-5 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Acylonitrile Across 15 Sites 3-32
3-6 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Benzene Across 36 Sites 3-33
3-7 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Bromomethane Across 11 Sites 3-34
3-8 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Carbon Tetrachloride Across 35 Sites 3-35
3-9 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Formaldehyde Across 39 Sites 3-36
3-10 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of/>-Dichlorobenzene Across 21 Sites 3-37
3-11 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Tetrachloroethylene Across 29 Sites 3-38
3-12 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Xylenes (-o, m-, p-) Across 36 Sites 3-39
3-13a Average 1,3-Butadiene Concentration by Season (APMI-LONE) 3-40
3-13b Average 1,3-Butadiene Concentration by Season (LOTN-WECO) 3-41
3-14a Average Acetaldehyde Concentration by Season (AZFL-GAFL) 3-42
3-14b Average Acetaldehyde Concentration by Season (GPMS-WECO) 3-43
3-15a Average Acetonitrile Concentration by Season (APMI-KITN) 3-44
3-15b Average Acetonitrile Concentration by Season (LOTN-WECO) 3-45
3-16 Average Acrylonitrile Concentration by Season 3-46
3-17a Average Benzene Concentration by Season (APMI-JAMS) 3-47
3-17b Average Benzene Concentration by Season (KITN-WECO) 3-48
3-18 Average Bromomethane Concentration by Season (APMI-TUMS) 3-49
3-19a Average Carbon Tetrachloride Concentration by Season (APMI-KITN) 3-50
3-19b Average Carbon Tetrachloride Concentration by Season (LDTN-WECO) 3-51
3-20a Average Formaldehyde Concentration by Season (AZFL-GAFL) 3-52
3-20b Average Formaldehyde Concentration by Season (GPMS-WECO) 3-53
3-2la Averagep-Dich\orobenzene Concentration by Season (APMI-KITN) 3-54
3-21b Average p-Dich\ or obenzene Concentration by Season (LOTN-WECO) 3-55
3-22a Average Tetrachloroethylene Concentration by Season (APMI-JAMS) 3-56
3-22b Average Tetrachloroethylene Concentration by Season (KITN-WECO) 3-57
3-23a Average Xylenes (o-, m-, p-) Concentration by Season (APMI-ITCMI) 3-58
3-23b Average Xylenes (o-, m-, p-) Concentration by Season (JAMS-WECO) 3-59
3-24 Average Sum Metal Concentrations 3-60
3-25a Comparison of Yearly Averages for the APMI Monitoring Station 3-61
3-25b Comparison of Yearly Averages for the AZFL Monitoring Station 3-62
3-25c Comparison of Yearly Averages for the BAPR Monitoring Station 3-63
3-25d Comparison of Yearly Averages for the BUND Monitoring Station 3-64
3-25e Comparison of Yearly Averages for the CANJ Monitoring Station 3-65
xn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
age
3-25f Comparison of Yearly Averages for the CHNJ Monitoring Station 3-66
3-25g Comparison of Yearly Averages for the DECO Monitoring Station 3-67
3-25h Comparison of Yearly Averages for the DEMI Monitoring Station 3-68
3-25i Comparison of Yearly Averages for the ELNJ Monitoring Station 3-69
3-25J Comparison of Yearly Averages for the GAFL Monitoring Station 3-70
3-25k Comparison of Yearly Averages for the GPMS Monitoring Station 3-71
3-251 Comparison of Yearly Averages for the JAMS Monitoring Station 3-72
3-25m Comparison of Yearly Averages for the LEFL Monitoring Station 3-73
3-25n Comparison of Yearly Averages for the NBNJ Monitoring Station 3-74
3-25o Comparison of Yearly Averages for the PGMS Monitoring Station 3-75
3-25p Comparison of Yearly Averages for the PSAZ Monitoring Station 3-76
3-25q Comparison of Yearly Averages for the QVAZ Monitoring Station 3-77
3-25r Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SFSD Monitoring Station 3-78
3-25s Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SJPR Monitoring Station 3-79
3-25t Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SLMO Monitoring Station 3-80
3-25u Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SPAZ Monitoring Station 3-81
3-25v Comparison of Yearly Averages for the TUMS Monitoring Station 3-82
3-26a Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the APMI Monitoring Station 3-83
3-26b Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the AZFL Monitoring Station 3-84
3-26c Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the BAPR Monitoring Station 3-85
3-26d Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the BUND Monitoring Station 3-86
3-26e Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the CANJ Monitoring Station (1994-1998) . . 3-87
3-26e Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the CANJ Monitoring Station (1999-2003) . . 3-88
3-26f Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the CFINJ Monitoring Station 3-89
3-26g Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the DECO Monitoring Station 3-90
3-26h Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the DEMI Monitoring Station 3-91
3-26i Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the ELNJ Monitoring Station 3-92
3-26J Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the GAFL Monitoring Station 3-93
3-26k Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the GPMS Monitoring Station 3-94
3-261 Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the JAMS Monitoring Station 3-95
3-26m Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the LEFL Monitoring Station 3-96
3-26n Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the NBNJ Monitoring Station 3-97
3-26o Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the PGMS Monitoring Station 3-98
3-26p Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the PSAZ Monitoring Station 3-99
3-26q Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the QVAZ Monitoring Station 3-100
3-26r Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the SFSD Monitoring Station 3-101
3-26s Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the SJPR Monitoring Station 3-102
3-26t Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the SLMO Monitoring Station 3-103
3-26u Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the SPAZ Monitoring Station 3-104
3-26v Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the TUMS Monitoring Station 3-105
4-1 Phoenix, Arizona Site 1 (MCAZ) Monitoring Station 4-8
4-2 Phoenix, Arizona Site 2 (PSAZ) Monitoring Station 4-9
Xlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
age
4-3 Phoenix, Arizona Site 3 (QVAZ) Monitoring Station 4-10
4-4 Phoenix, Arizona Site 4 (SPAZ) Monitoring Station 4-11
4-5 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of QVAZ 4-12
4-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of MCAZ, PSAZ, and SPAZ 4-13
4-7 2003 Total VOC Profile at MCAZ 4-14
4-8 2003 Total VOC Profile at PSAZ 4-15
4-9 2003 Total VOC Profile at QVAZ 4-16
4-10 2003 Total VOC Profile at SPAZ 4-17
4-11 Composite Back Trajectory for PSAZ 4-18
4-12 Acrylonitrile Pollution Rose for PSAZ 4-19
4-13 Acrylonitrile Sources East of the PSAZ Monitoring Site 4-20
4-14 24-Hour Back Trajectory (50, 250, and 500 Meters Aboveground) at PSAZ
on October 12, 2003 4-21
5-1 Denver, Colorado (DECO) Monitoring Station 5-6
5-2 Denver, Colorado (WECO) Monitoring Station 5-7
5-3 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DECO and WECO 5-8
5-4 2003 Total VOC Profile of DECO 5-9
5-5 2003 Total VOC Profile at WECO 5-10
6-1 Hartford, Connecticut (HACT) Monitoring Station 6-4
6-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of HACT 6-5
7-1 St. Petersburg, Florida (AZFL) Monitoring Station 7-6
7-2 Belle Glade, Florida (BGFL) Monitoring Station 7-7
7-3 Clearwater, Florida (CWFL) Monitoring Station 7-8
7-4 Delray Beach, Florida (DBFL) Monitoring Station 7-9
7-5 Pompano Beach, Florida Site (FLFL) Monitoring Station 7-10
7-6 Tampa, Florida Site 1 (GAFL) Monitoring Station 7-11
7-7 Tampa, Florida Site 2 (LEFL) Monitoring Station 7-12
7-8 Miami, Florida (MDFL) Monitoring Station 7-13
7-9 Orlando, Florida (ORFL) Monitoring Station 7-14
7-10 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of AZFL, CWFL, GAFL, and LEFL 7-15
7-11 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BGFL 7-16
7-12 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DBFL and FLFL 7-17
7-13 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of MDFL 7-18
7-14 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ORFL 7-19
7-15 Composite Back Trajectory for LEFL 7-20
8-1 Chicago, Illinois Site 1 (NBIL) Monitoring Station 8-8
8-2 Chicago, Illinois Site 2 (SPIL) Monitoring Station 8-9
8-3 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of NBIL and SPIL 8-10
8-4 2003 Total VOC Profile at NBIL 8-11
xiv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
age
8-5 2003 Total VOC Profile at SPIL 8-12
8-6 Composite Back Trajectory for NBIL 8-13
8-7 Acetonitrile Pollution Rose for NBIL 8-14
8-8 Acrylonitrile Source West of the NBIL Monitoring Site 8-15
8-9 24-Hour Back Trajectory (50, 250, and 500 Meters Aboveground) at NBIL
on June 26, 2003 8-16
9-1 Boston, Massachusetts (BOMA) Monitoring Station 9-6
9-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BOMA 9-7
9-3 Composite Back Trajectory for BOMA 9-8
10-1 Detroit, Michigan Site 1 (APMI) Monitoring Station 10-9
10-2 Detroit, Michigan Site 2 (DEMI) Monitoring Station 10-10
10-3 Detroit, Michigan Site 3 (E7MI) Monitoring Station 10-11
10-4 Houghton Lake, Michigan (HOMI) Monitoring Station 10-12
10-5 Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan (ITCMI) Monitoring Station 10-13
10-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of APMI, DEMI, E7MI 10-14
10-7 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of HOMI 10-15
10-8 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ITCMI 10-16
10-9 Composite Back Trajectory for DEMI 10-17
10-10 Tetrachloroethylene Pollution Rose for DEMI 10-18
10-11 Tetrachloroethylene Sources East of the DEMI Monitoring Site 10-19
10-12 24-Hour Back Trajectory (50, 250, and 500 Meters Aboveground) at DEMI
on October 6, 2003 10-20
11-1 Gulfport, Mississippi (GPMS) Monitoring Station 11-5
11-2 Grenada, Mississipppi (GRMS) Monitoring Station 11-6
11-3 Jackson, Mississippi (JAMS) Monitoring Station 11-7
11-4 Pascagoula, Mississippi (PGMS) Monitoring Station 11-8
11-5 Tupelo, Mississippi (TUMS) Monitoring Station 11-9
11-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of GPMS 11-10
11-7 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of GRMS 11-11
11-8 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of JAMS 11-12
11-9 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of PGMS 11-13
11-10 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of TUMS 11-14
12-1 Bonne Terre, Missouri (BTMO) Monitoring Station 12-8
12-2 St. Louis, Missouri Site 1 (S4MO) Monitoring Station 12-9
12-3 St. Louis, Missouri Site 2 (SLMO) Monitoring Station 12-10
12-4 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BTMO 12-11
12-5 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of S4MO and SLMO 12-12
12-6 2003 Total VOC Profile at S4MO 12-13
12-7 Composite Back Trajectory for SLMO 12-14
xv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
12-8 Acetaldehyde Pollution Rose for SLMO 12-15
12-9 Formaldehyde Pollution Rose for SLMO 12-16
12-10 Acetaldehyde Sources North of the SLMO Monitoring Site 12-17
12-11 Formaldehyde Sources North of SLMO Monitoring Site 12-18
12-12 24-Hour Back Trajectory (50, 250, and 500 Meters Aboveground) at SLMO
on April 9, 2003 12-19
13-1 Lincoln, Nebraska (LONE) Monitoring Station 13-4
13-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of LONE 13-5
14-1 Camden, New Jersey (CANJ) Monitoring Station 14-9
14-2 Chester, New Jersey (CFINJ) Monitoring Station 14-10
14-3 Elizabeth, New Jersey (ELNJ) Monitoring Station 14-11
14-4 New Brunswick, New Jersey (NBNJ) Monitoring Station 14-12
14-5 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CANJ 14-13
14-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CFINJ 14-14
14-7 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ELNJ and NBNJ 14-15
14-8 2003 Total VOC Profile at CANJ 14-16
14-9 2003 Total VOC Profile at CFINJ 14-17
14-10 2003 Total VOC Profile at ELNJ 14-18
14-11 2003 Total VOC Profile at NBNJ 14-19
15-1 Candor, North Carolina (CANC) Monitoring Station 15-4
15-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CANC 15-5
16-1 Beulah, North Dakota (BUND) Monitoring Station 16-4
16-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BUND 16-5
17-1 Ponca City, Oklahoma (POOK) Monitoring Station 17-4
17-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of POOK 17-5
18-1 Portland, Oregon (PLOR) Monitoring Station 18-4
18-2 Portland, Oregon (PNW) Monitoring Station 18-5
18-3 Portland, Oregon (PLOR and PNW) Monitoring Station 18-6
19-1 Barceloneta, Puerto Rico (BAPR) Monitoring Station 19-5
19-2 San Juan, Puerto Rico (SJPR) Monitoring Station 19-6
19-3 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BAPR 19-7
19-4 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SJPR 19-8
20-1 Custer, South Carolina (CUSD) Monitoring Station 20-6
20-2 Sioux Falls, South Dakota (SFSD) Monitoring Station 20-7
xvi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
20-3 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CUSD 20-8
20-4 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SFSD 20-9
21-1 Dickson, Tennessee (DITN) Monitoring Station 21-6
21-2 Nashville, Tennessee (EATN) Monitoring Station 21-7
21-3 Kingsport, Tennessee (KITN) Monitoring Station 21-8
21-4 Loudon, Tennessee (LDTN) Monitoring Station 21-9
21-5 Nashville, Tennessee (LOTN) Monitoring Station 21-10
21-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DITN 21-11
21-7 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of EATN and LOTN 21-12
21-8 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of KITN 21-13
21-9 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of LDTN 21-14
22-1 Bountiful Site 1, Utah (BOUT) Monitoring Station 22-8
22-2 Bountiful Site 2, Utah (BTUT) Monitoring Station 22-9
22-3 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BOUT and BTUT 22-10
22-4 Composite Back Trajectory for BOUT 22-11
22-5 Cadmium Pollution Rose for BOUT 22-12
22-6 Manganese Pollution Rose for BOUT 22-13
22-7 Formaldehyde Pollution Rose for BOUT 22-14
22-8 Cadmium Sources Southeast of the BOUT Monitoring Site 22-15
22-9 Manganese Sources Southeast of the BOUT Monitoring Site 22-16
22-10 24-Hour Back Trajectory (50, 250, and 500 Meters Aboveground) at BOUT
on January 21, 2003 22-17
22-11 Formaldehyde Sources Southeast of the BOUT Monitoring Site 22-18
22-12 24-Hour Back Trajectory (50, 250, and 500 Meters Aboveground) at BOUT on
June 14, 2003 22-19
23-1 Scatter Plot for Toluene Duplicate Samples 23-11
23-2 Scatter Plot for Methylene Chloride Duplicate Samples 23-12
23-3 Scatter Plot for Acetonitrile Duplicate Samples 23-13
23-4 Scatter Plot for Methyl Ethyl Ketone Duplicate Samples 23-14
xvn
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1-1 Organization of the 2003 UATMP Report 1-3
2-1 Monitoring Stations with Past Participation in the UATMP 2-15
2-2 Text Descriptions of the 2003 UATMP Monitoring Locations 2-17
2-3 Site Descriptions for the 2003 UATMP Monitoring Stations 2-33
2-4 VOC Method Detection Limits 2-38
2-5 SNMOC Method Detection Limits 2-40
2-6 Carbonyl Method Detection Limits 2-42
2-7 Semivolatile Organic Compound Method Detection Limits 2-43
2-8 Metals and Hexavalent Chromium Method Detection Limits 2-44
2-9a Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Carbonyl Compounds, VOC, SNMOC, and
SVOC 2-45
2-9b Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Metals and Hexavalent Chromium 2-49
2-10 Semi-volatile and Inorganics (Metals) Which Are HAPs 2-50
3-1 Sampling Detect Summaries of the VOC Concentrations 3-106
3-2 Sampling Detect Summaries of the Carbonyl Concentrations 3-109
3-3 Range of Detectable Values by Site 3-110
3-4 Geometric Means by Site 3-112
3-5a Nationwide Cancer Compound Toxicity Ranking (Prevalent Compounds Shaded) . 3-114
3-5b Nationwide Noncancer Compound Toxicity Ranking (Prevalent
Compounds Shaded) 3-115
3-6 Summary of Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Selected Meteorological
Parameters and Prevalent Compounds 3-117
3-7 Summary of Mobile Information by Site 3-118
3-8 UATMP Sites in MS As Using Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) 3-121
3-9 Summary of the National Emission Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds . . . 3-123
3-10 Summary of Potentially Applicable National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants 3-124
3-11 Summary of Pollutants and Sources Regulated 3-127
4-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Arizona 4-22
4-2a Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Arizona Monitoring Site 1 - MCAZ 4-23
4-2b Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Arizona Monitoring Site 2 - PSAZ 4-24
4-2c Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Arizona Monitoring Site 3 - QVAZ 4-25
4-2d Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Arizona Monitoring Site 4 - SPAZ 4-26
4-3a Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Arizona Monitoring
Site 1 - MCAZ 4-27
4-3b Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Arizona Monitoring
Site 2 - PSAZ 4-28
4-3c Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Arizona Monitoring
Site 3 - QVAZ 4-29
xvin
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
4-3d Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Arizona Monitoring
Site 4 - SPAZ 4-30
4-4a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at West Broadway in Phoenix, Arizona (MCAZ) 4-31
4-4b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at Supersite in Phoenix, Arizona (PSAZ) 4-32
4-4c Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at Queen Valley in Phoenix, Arizona (QVAZ) 4-33
4-4d Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at South Phoenix, Arizona (SPAZ) 4-34
4-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Arizona Monitoring Sites . . 4-35
4-6 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding PSAZ 4-36
5-1 Average Concentration and Meterological Parameters for Sites in Colorado 5-11
5-2a Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Colorado Monitoring
Site 1 - DECO 5-12
5-2b Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Colorado Monitoring
Site 2 - WECO 5-13
5-3a Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Colorado Monitoring
Site 1 - DECO 5-14
5-3b Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Colorado Monitoring
Site 2 - WECO 5-15
5-4a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at Site #1 in Denver, Colorado (DECO) 5-16
5-4b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at Site #2 in Denver, Colorado (WECO) 5-17
5-5 Average Metal Concentrations Measured by the Colorado Monitoring Stations 5-18
5-6 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Colorado Monitoring Sites . 5-19
6-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the HACT Site
in Connecticut 6-6
6-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Hartford, Connecticut
Monitoring Site - HACT 6-7
6-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Hartford, Connecticut
Monitoring Site - HACT 6-8
6-4 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Hartford, Connecticut Site (HACT) 6-9
6-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Connecticut
Monitoring Site 6-10
7-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Florida 7-21
7-2a Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the St. Petersburg, Florida
Monitoring Site - AZFL 7-23
xix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
7-2b Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Belle Glade, Florida
Monitoring Site - BGFL 7-24
7-2c Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Clearwater, Florida
Monitoring Site - CWFL 7-25
7-2d Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Delray Beach, Florida
Monitoring Site - DBFL 7-26
7-2e Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Pompano Beach, Florida
Monitoring Site - FLFL 7-27
7-2f Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Gandy Monitoring Site in
Tampa, Florida - GAFL 7-28
7-2g Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Lewis in Tampa, Florida
Monitoring Site - LEFL 7-29
7-2h Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Miami, Florida Monitoring
Site - MDFL 7-30
7-2i Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Winter Park, Florida Monitoring
Site - ORFL 7-31
7-3a Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the St. Petersburg, Florida
Monitoring Site - AZFL 7-32
7-3b Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Belle Glade, Florida Monitoring
Site - BGFL 7-33
7-3c Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Clearwater, Florida Monitoring
Site - CWFL 7-34
7-3d Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Delray Beach, Florida
Monitoring Site - DBFL 7-35
7-3 e Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Pompano Beach, Florida
Monitoring Site - FLFL 7-36
7-3f Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Gandy Monitoring Site in
Tampa, Florida - GAFL 7-37
7-3g Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Lewis Monitoring Site in
Tampa, Florida - LEFL 7-38
7-3h Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Miami, Florida Monitoring
Site - MDFL 7-39
7-3i Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Winter Park, Florida
Monitoring Site - ORFL 7-40
7-4a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the St. Petersburg, Florida Site (AZFL) 7-41
7-4b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Belle Glade, Florida Site (BGFL) 7-42
7-4c Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Clearwater, Florida Site (CWFL) 7-43
7-4d Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Delray Beach, Florida Site (DBFL) 7-44
7-4e Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Pompano Beach, Florida Site (FLFL) 7-45
xx
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
7-4f Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Gandy Site in Tampa, Florida (GAFL) 7-46
7-4g Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Lewis Site in Tampa, Florida (LEFL) 7-47
7-4h Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Miami, Florida Site (MDFL) 7-48
7-4i Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Winter Park, Florida Site (ORFL) 7-49
7-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Florida Monitoring Sites . . . 7-50
7-6 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding LEFL 7-51
8-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Illinois 8-17
8-2a Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Northbrook, Illinois
Monitoring Site - NBIL 8-18
8-2b Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Schiller Park, Illinois
Monitoring Site - SPIL 8-19
8-3a. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Northbrook, Illinois
Monitoring Site - NBIL 8-20
8-3b Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Schiller Park, Illinois
Monitoring Site - SPIL 8-21
8-4a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters in Northbrook, Illinois (NBIL) 8-22
8-4b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters in Schiller Park, Illinois (SPIL) 8-23
8-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Illinois Monitoring Sites . . . 8-24
9-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the BOMA Site in
Massachusetts 9-9
9-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Boston, Massachusetts
Monitoring Site - BOMA 9-10
9-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Boston, Massachusetts
Monitoring Site - BOMA 9-11
9-4a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Boston, Massachusetts Site (BOMA) 9-12
9-5 Average Metals Concentrations Measured by the Massachusetts Monitoring Station 9-13
9-6 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Massachusetts
Monitoring Site 9-14
9-7 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding BOMA 9-15
10-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Michigan 10-21
10-2a Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Allen Park Monitoring
Site in Detroit, Michigan - APMI 10-22
xxi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
10-2b Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Dearborn Monitoring Site in
Detroit, Michigan - DEMI 10-23
10-2c Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the E7 Mile Monitoring Site in
Detroit, Michigan - E7MI 10-24
10-2d Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Houghton Lake, Michigan
Monitoring Site - HOMI 10-25
10-2e Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan
Monitoring Site - ITCMI 10-26
10-3 a Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Allen Park Monitoring Site in
Detroit, Michigan - APMI 10-27
10-3b Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Dearborn Monitoring Site
in Detroit, Michigan - DEMI 10-28
10-3c Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the E7 Mile Monitoring Site
in Detroit, Michigan - E7MI 10-29
10-3d Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Houghton Lake, Michigan
Monitoring Site - HOMI 10-30
10-3e Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan
Monitoring Site - ITCMI 10-31
10-4a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Allen Park Site in Detroit, Michigan (APMI) 10-32
10-4b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Dearborn Site in Detroit, Michigan (DEMI) 10-33
10-4c Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the E7 Mile Site in Detroit, Michigan (E7MI) 10-34
10-4d Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Houghton Lake, Michigan Site (HOMI) 10-35
10-4e Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan Site (ITCMI) 10-36
10-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Michigan Monitoring Sites 10-37
10-6 SVOC and TNMOC Concentrations for Michigan Monitoring Sites 10-38
10-7 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding DEMI 10-39
11-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Mississippi .... 11-15
1 l-2a Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Gulfport, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - GPMS 11-16
1 l-2b Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Grenada, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - GRMS 11-17
1 l-2c Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Jackson, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - JAMS 11-18
1 l-2d Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Pascagoula, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - PGMS 11-19
1 l-2e Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Tupelo, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - TUMS 11-20
xxn
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
1 l-3a Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Gulfport, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - GPMS 11-21
1 l-3b Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Grenada, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - GRMS 11-22
1 l-3c Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Jackson, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - JAMS 11-23
1 l-3d Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Pascagoula, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - PGMS 11 -24
1 l-3e Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Tupelo, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - TUMS 11-25
1 l-4a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Gulfport, Mississippi Site (GPMS) 11-26
1 l-4b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Grenada, Mississippi Site (GRMS) 11-27
1 l-4c Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Jackson, Mississippi Site (JAMS) 11-28
1 l-4d Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Pascagoula, Mississippi Site (PGMS) 11-29
1 l-4e Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Tupelo, Mississippi Site (TUMS) 11-30
11-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Mississippi Monitoring
Sites 11-31
12-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Missouri 12-20
12-2a Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Bonne Terre, Missouri
Monitoring Site - BTMO 12-21
12-2b Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the St. Louis Site 4, Missouri
Monitoring Site - S4MO 12-22
12-2c Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the St. Louis Site 1, Missouri
Monitoring Site - SLMO 12-23
12-3a Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Bonne Terre, Missouri
Monitoring Site - BTMO 12-24
12-3b Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the St. Louis Site 4, Missouri
Monitoring Site - S4MO 12-25
12-3c Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the St. Louis Site 1, Missouri
Monitoring Site - SLMO 12-26
12-4a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Bonne Terre, Missouri Site (BTMO) 12-27
12-4b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the St. Louis Site 4, Missouri Site (S4MO) 12-28
12-4c Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the St. Louis Site 1, Missouri Site (SLMO) 12-29
12-5 Metals and Compounds, and SNMOC Measured by the Missouri
Monitoring Stations 12-30
xxin
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
12-6 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Missouri Monitoring Sites . 12-31
12-7 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding SLMO 12-32
13-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Nebraska .... 13-6
13-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Lincoln, Nebraska
Monitoring Site - LONE 13-7
13-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Lincoln, Nebraska
Monitoring Site - LONE 13-8
13-4 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Lincoln, Nebraska Site (LONE) 13-9
13-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Nebraska
Monitoring Sites 13-10
14-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in New Jersey ... 14-20
14-2a Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Camden, New Jersey
Monitoring Site - CANJ 14-21
14-2b Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Chester, New Jersey
Monitoring Site - CHNJ 14-22
14-2c Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Elizabeth, New Jersey
Monitoring Site - ELNJ 14-23
14-2d Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the New Brunswick, New Jersey
Monitoring Site - NBNJ 14-24
14-3 a Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Camden, New Jersey
Monitoring Site - CANJ 14-25
14-3b Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Chester, New Jersey
Monitoring Site - CHNJ 14-26
14-3c Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Elizabeth, New Jersey
Monitoring Site - ELNJ 14-27
14-3d Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the New Brunswick, New Jersey
Monitoring Site - NBNJ 14-28
14-4a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Camden, New Jersey Site (CANJ) 14-29
14-4b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Chester, New Jersey Site (CHNJ) 14-30
14-4c Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Elizabeth, New Jersey Site (ELNJ) 14-31
14-4d Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the New Brunswick, New Jersey Site (NBNJ) 14-32
xxiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
14-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for New Jersey Monitoring
Sites 14-33
15-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in North Carolina 15-6
15-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Candor, North Carolina
Monitoring Site - CANC 15-7
15-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Candor, North Carolina
Monitoring Site - CANC 15-8
15-4 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Candor, North Carolina Site (CANC) 15-9
15-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the North Carolina
Monitoring Site 15-10
16-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in North Dakota . 16-6
16-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Beulah, North Dakota
Monitoring Site - BUND 16-7
16-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Beulah, North Dakota
Monitoring Site - BUND 16-8
16-4 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Beulah, North Dakota Site (BUND) 16-9
16-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the North Dakota
Monitoring Site 16-10
17-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Oklahoma . . . 17-6
17-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Ponca City, Oklahoma
Monitoring Site - POOK 17-7
17-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Ponca City, Oklahoma
Monitoring Site - POOK 17-8
17-4 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Ponca City, Oklahoma Site (POOK) 17-9
17-5 TNMOC Measured by the Ponca City, OK (POOK) Monitoring Station 17-10
17-6 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Oklahoma
Monitoring Site 17-11
18-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Sites in Oregon 18-7
18-2a Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Portland, Oregon
Monitoring Site 1 - PLOR 18-8
18-2b Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Portland, Oregon Monitoring
Site 2 - PNW 18-9
XXV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
18-3 a Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Portland, Oregon
Monitoring Site 1 - PLOR 18-10
18-3b Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Portland, Oregon
Monitoring Site 2 - PNW 18-11
18-4a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Portland, Oregon Site 1 (PLOR) 18-12
18-4b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Portland, Oregon Site 2 (PNW) 18-13
18-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Oregon
Monitoring Sites 18-14
19-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Puerto Rico .... 19-9
19-2a Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
Monitoring Site - BAPR 19-10
19-2b Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the San Juan, Puerto Rico
Monitoring Site - SJPR 19-11
19-3 a Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
Monitoring Site - BAPR 19-12
19-3b Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the San Juan, Puerto Rico
Monitoring Site - SJPR 19-13
19-4a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Barceloneta, Puerto Rico Site (BAPR) 19-14
19-4b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the San Juan, Puerto Rico Site (SJPR) 19-15
19-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Puerto Rico
Monitoring Sites 19-16
20-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in South Dakota . . 20-10
20-2a Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Custer, South Dakota
Monitoring Site - CUSD 20-11
20-2b Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Sioux Falls, South
Dakota Monitoring Site - SFSD 20-12
20-3 a Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Custer, South Dakota
Monitoring Site - CUSD 20-13
20-3b Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Monitoring Site - SFSD 20-14
20-4 TNMOC Measured by the Custer and Sioux Falls, South Dakota
(CUSD and SFSD) Monitoring Station 20-15
20-5a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Custer, South Dakota Site (CUSD) 20-16
20-5b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Sioux Falls, South Dakota Site (SFSD) 20-17
20-6 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the South Dakota
Monitoring Sites 20-18
XXVI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
21-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Sites in Tennessee . 21-15
21-2a Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Dickson, Tennessee Monitoring
Site - DITN 21-16
21-2b Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Nashville Site 1, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - EATN 21-17
21-2c Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Kingsport, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - KITN 21-18
21-2d Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Loudon, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - LDTN 21-19
21-2e Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Nashville Site 2, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - LOTN 21-20
21-3 a Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Dickson, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - DITN 21-21
21-3b Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Nashville Site 1, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - EATN 21-22
21-3c Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Kingsport, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - KITN 21-23
21-3d Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Loudon, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - LDTN 21-24
21-3e Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Nashville Site 2, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - LOTN 21-25
21-4a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Dickson, Tennessee Site (DITN) 21-26
21-4b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Nashville Site 1, Tennessee Site (EATN) 21-27
21-4c Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Kingsport, Tennessee Site (KITN) 21-28
21-4d Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Loudon, Tennessee Site (LDTN) 21-29
21-4e Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Nashville Site 2, Tennessee Site (LOTN) 21-30
21-5 Average Metal Concentrations Measured by the Nashville Monitoring Stations ... 21-31
21-6 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Tennessee
Monitoring Sites 21-32
22-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Sites in Utah 22-20
22-2a Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Bountiful Site 1, Utah
Monitoring Site - BOUT 22-21
22-2b Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Bountiful Site 2, Utah
Monitoring Site - BTUT 22-22
22-3 a Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Bountiful Site 1, Utah
Monitoring Site - BOUT 22-23
22-3b Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Bountiful Site 2, Utah
Monitoring Site - BTUT 22-24
XXVll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
22-4a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Bountiful Site 1, Utah Site (BOUT) 22-25
22-4b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Bountiful Site 2, Utah Site (BTUT) 22-26
22-5 TNMOC Measured by the Bountiful, UT (BOUT and BTUT) Monitoring Stations 22-27
22-6 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Utah Monitoring Sites . 22-28
22-7 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding BOUT 22-29
23-1 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 515 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate and
Collocated Samples 23-15
23-2 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 216 Replicate Analyses for all Collocated
Samples 23-17
23-3 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 299 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate
Samples 23-19
23-4 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 52 Replicate Analyses for Collocated
Samples in Detroit, MI (DEMI) 23-21
23-5 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 20 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate
Samples in Bountiful, UT (BOUT & BTUT) 23-23
23-6 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate
Analyses, All Sites 23-25
23-7 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 138 Replicate Analyses for all
Duplicate Samples 23-34
23-8 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all
Replicate Analyses, All Sites 23-37
23-9 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 758 Replicate Analyses for all
Duplicate and Collocated Samples 23-41
23-10 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 168 Replicate Analyses for all
Collocated Samples 23-41
23-11 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 590 Replicate Analyses for all
Duplicate Samples 23-42
23-12 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 184 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate
Samples in Tampa and St. Petersburg, FL 23-42
23-13 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 84 Replicate Analyses for Collocated
Samples in Detroit, MI (DEMI) 23-43
23-14 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 28 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate
Samples in Bountiful, UT (BOUT & BTUT) 23-43
23-15 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all
Replicate Analyses, All Sites 23-44
23-16 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 332 Duplicate and Collocated Samples . . 23-48
23-17 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 176 Collocated Samples 23-50
23-18 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 156 Duplicate Samples 23-52
23-19 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 32 Collocated Samples in
Detroit, MI (DEMI) 23-54
XXVlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
23-20 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 12 Duplicate Samples in
Bountiful, UT (BOUT & BTUT) 23-56
23-21 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all
Duplicate Samples, All Sites 23-58
23-22 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 74 Duplicate Samples 23-67
23-23 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all
Duplicate Analyses, All Sites 23-70
23-24 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 430 Duplicate and Collocated
Samples 23-74
23-25 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 84 Collocated Samples 23-74
23-26 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 298 Duplicate Samples 23-75
23-27 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 96 Duplicate Samples in Tampa and
St. Petersburg, FL 23-75
23-28 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 42 Collocated Samples in
Detroit, MI (DEMI) 23-76
23-29 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 14 Duplicate Samples in
Bountiful, UT (BOUT & BTUT) 23-76
23-30 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all
Duplicate Analyses, All Sites 23-77
23-31 Hexavalent Chromium Sampling and Analytical Precision: 6 Collocated Samples . 23-81
23-32 Metal Sampling and Analytical Precision: 6 Collocated Samples 23-81
XXIX
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIRS Aerometric Information and Retrieval System
AQS Air Quality Subsystem (of the Aerometric Information and Retrieval System)
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (o-, m-, and/?-xylene)
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR code of federal regulation
CV Coefficient of Variation
DNPH 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FID flame ionization detection
GC gas chromatography
GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant
HPLC high-performance liquid chromatography
HYSPLIT Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MEK methyl ethyl ketone
MDL Method Detection Limit
MTBE methyl tert-butyl ether
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NATTS National Air Toxics Trends System
NA not applicable
ND nondetect
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution
NLEV National Low Emissions Vehicles
NMOC Nonmethane Organic Compounds
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOX oxides of nitrogen
NSPS New Source Standards of Performance
NTI National Toxics Inventory
OTC Ozone Transport Commission
ppbC parts per billion Carbon
ppbv parts per billion (by volume)
PM particulate matter
RfC Reference Concentration
xxx
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
RFG Reformulated Gasoline
RPD relative percent difference
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SNMOC Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compound
SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compounds
UATMP Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program
VOC Volatile Organic Compound(s)
TNMOC Total Nonmethane Organic Compound(s)
tpy tons per year
URE Unit Risk Estimate
WB AN Weather Bureau/Army/Navy ID
XXXI
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
Monitoring Stations
APMI Allen Park in Detroit, Michigan
AZFL Azalea Park in St. Petersburg, Florida
BAPR Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
BGFL Belle Glade, Florida
BOMA Boston, Massachusetts
BOUT Bountiful, Utah
BTMO Bonne Terre, Missouri
BTUT Bountiful, Utah
BUND Beulah, North Dakota
CANC Candor, North Carolina
CANJ Camden, New Jersey
CHNJ Chester, New Jersey
CUSD Custer, South Dakota
CWFL Clear-water, Florida
DBFL Delray Beach, Florida
DECO Denver, Colorado (Site #1)
DEMI Dearborn in Detroit, Michigan
DITN Dickson, Tennessee
E7MI E7 Mile in Detroit, Michigan
EATN Nashville, Tennessee (Site #1)
ELNJ Elizabeth, New Jersey
FLFL Pompano Beach, Florida
GAFL Gandy in Tampa, Florida
GPMS Gulfport, Mississippi
GRMS Grenada, Mississippi
HACT Hartford, Connecticut
HOMI Houghton Lake, Michigan
ITCMI Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan
JAMS Jackson, Mississippi
KITN Kingsport, Tennessee
LDTN Loudon, Tennessee
LEFL Lewis in Tampa, Florida
LONE Lincoln, Nebraska (Site #2)
LOTN Nashville, Tennessee (Site #2)
MCAZ Phoenix, Arizona
xxxii
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
MDFL Miami, Florida
NBIL Northbrook in Chicago, Illinois
NBNJ New Brunswick, New Jersey
ORFL Orlando, Florida
PGMS Pascagoula, Mississippi
PLOR Portland, Oregon (Site #1)
PNW Portland, Oregon (Site #2)
POOK Ponca City, Oklahoma
PSAZ Supers!te in Phoenix, Arizona
QVAZ Queen Valley in Phoenix, Arizona
S4MO St. Louis, Missour (Site #4)
SFSD Sioux Falls, South Dakota
SJPR San Juan, Puerto Rico
SLMO St. Louis, Missouri (Site #1)
SPAZ South Phoenix, Arizona
SPIL Schiller Park in Chicago, Illinois
TUMS Tupelo, Mississippi
WECO Denver, Colorado (Site #2)
XXXlll
-------
Executive Summary
This report presents the results and conclusions from the ambient air monitoring conducted
as part of the 2003 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP)—a program designed to
characterize the magnitude and composition of potentially toxic air pollution in, or near, urban
locations. The 2003 UATMP included 53 monitoring stations that collected 24-hour air samples,
typically on a 6- or 12-day schedule. Forty-eight sites analyzed ambient air samples for
concentrations of 59 volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 16 carbonyl compounds. Nine sites
also analyzed for 80 speciated nonmethane organic compounds (SNMOC). One site analyzed for
19 semivolatile compounds (SVOC). Nine sites analyzed metal compounds, while two sites
analyzed hexavalent chromium. Overall, nearly 118,600 ambient air concentrations were
measured during the 2003 UATMP. The summary presented in this report uses various graphical,
numerical, and statistical analyses to put the vast amount of ambient air monitoring data collected
into perspective.
Not surprisingly, the ambient air concentrations measured during the program varied
significantly from city to city and from season to season. This report describes and interprets
these spatial and temporal variations separately for halogenated hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons,
polar compounds, and carbonyls.
The ambient air monitoring data collected during the 2003 UATMP serve a wide range of
purposes. Not only do these data characterize the nature and extent of urban air pollution close to
the 59 monitoring stations participating in this study, but they also indicate some trends and
patterns that may be common to all urban environments. Therefore, this report presents some
results that are specific to particular monitoring locations and presents other results that are
apparently common to urban environments. These results should ultimately provide additional
insight into the complex nature of urban air pollution. The final data are also included in the
appendices to this report.
xxxiv
-------
1.0 Introduction
Air pollution in urban locations incorporates many components that originate from a
wide range of industrial, motor vehicle, and natural emissions sources. Because some of these
components include toxic compounds known or suspected to be carcinogenic, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to encourage state and local agencies to
understand and appreciate the nature and extent of potentially toxic air pollution in urban
locations. To achieve this goal, EPA sponsors the Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program
(UATMP) to characterize the composition and magnitude of urban air pollution through
extensive ambient air monitoring. Since the inception of UATMP in 1987, many environmental
and health agencies have participated in the UATMP to assess the causes and effects of air
pollution within their jurisdictions. This report summarizes and interprets the 2003 UATMP
monitoring effort, which included 12 months of six- and twelve-day measurements of ambient
air quality at 53 monitoring sites in or near 32 urban/rural locations including 23 metropolitan
statistical areas (MS As). Much of the analysis and data interpretation in this report focuses on
compound-specific data trends.
Note: Since 1987, the UATMP annual sampling cycle typically began in September and
ended in August of the following calendar year. However, for the 2001 "program
year", ERG began sampling in January 2001 and ended all sampling at the end of
December 2001. The 2002 and 2003 "program years" follow the same convention as
2001.
The contents of this report provide both a qualitative overview of air pollution at selected
urban locations and a quantitative analysis of the factors that appear to affect urban air quality
most significantly. This report also focuses on data trends at each of the 53 different air
sampling locations, a site-specific approach that allows for much more detailed analyses of the
factors (e.g., motor vehicle emission sources, industrial sources, natural sources) that affect air
quality differently from one urban center to the next.
1-1
-------
Ultimately, the contents of this report should offer participating agencies useful insights
into important air quality issues. For example, participating agencies can use trends and patterns
in the UATMP monitoring data to determine whether levels of air pollution present public health
concerns, to identify which emissions sources contribute most strongly to air pollution, or to
forecast whether proposed pollution control initiatives might significantly improve air quality.
Recently, EPA has been actively participating in the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)
which uses air toxics emissions to model ambient monitoring concentrations across the nation.
UATMP monitoring data may be used to compare modeling results, similarly to NATA. Though
they are extensive, the analyses in this report should not be viewed as a comprehensive account
of urban air pollution at every UATMP monitoring station. State and local environmental
agencies are encouraged to perform additional analyses of the monitoring data so that the many
factors that affect ambient air quality can be appreciated fully.
To facilitate examination of the 2003 UATMP monitoring data, the complete set of
measured concentrations is presented in appendices of this report. In addition, these data are
publicly available in electronic format from the Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) of EPA's
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/.
The remainder of this report is organized into twenty-five text sections and
14 appendices. Table 1-1 highlights the contents of each section. As with previous UATMP
annual reports, all figures and tables in this report appear at the end of their respective sections
(figures first, followed by tables).
1-2
-------
Table 1-1
Organization of the 2003 UATMP Report
Report
Section
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Section Title
The 2003 UATMP
Summary of the 2003 UATMP
Sites in Arizona
Sites in Colorado
Site in Connecticut
Sites in Florida
Sites in Illinois
Site in Massachusetts
Sites in Michigan
Sites in Mississippi
Sites in Missouri
Site in Nebraska
Sites in New Jersey
Overview of Contents
This section provides background information on the scope of the 2003 UATMP and
includes information about the:
• Monitoring locations
• Compounds selected for monitoring
• Sampling and analytical methods
• Sampling schedules
Completeness of the air monitoring program.
These sections, which present and discuss significant trends and relationships in the
UATMP data, characterize how ambient air concentrations varied with monitoring
location and with time, then present an interpretation of the significance of the
observed spatial and temporal variations.
Monitoring results for Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ (MCAZ, PSAZ, QVAZ, and
SPAZ) MSA
Monitoring results for Denver- Aurora, CO (DECO and WECO) MSA
Monitoring results for Hartford-East Hartford, CT (HACT) MSA
Monitoring results for Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL (BGFL, DBFL, FLFL,
MDFL) MSA, Orlando, FL (ORFL) MSA, and Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
(AZFL, CWFL, GAFL, and LEFL) MSA
Monitoring results for Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI (SPIL and NBIL) MSA
Monitoring results for Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH (BOMA) MSA
Monitoring results for Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI (APMI, DEMI, and E7MI) MSA,
Houghton Lake, MI (HOMI) and Sault Sainte Marie, MI (ITCMI)
Monitoring results for Grenada, MS (GRMS), Gulfport-Biloxi, MS (GPMS) MSA,
Jackson, MS (JAMS) MSA, Pascagoula, MS (PGMS) MSA, and Tupelo, MS (TUMS)
Monitoring results for St. Louis, MO-IL (S4MO and SLMO) MSA, and Bonne Terre,
MO (BTMO)
Monitoring results for Lincoln, NE (LONE) MSA
Monitoring results for New York-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA (CHNJ, ELNJ, and
NBNJ) MSA and Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-ND (CANJ) MSA
-------
Table 1-1. (Continued)
Report
Section
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Section Title
Site in North Carolina
Site in North Dakota
Site in Oklahoma
Sites in Oregon
Sites in Puerto Rico
Sites in South Dakota
Sites in Tennessee
Site in Utah
Data Quality
Conclusions and Recommendations
References
Overview of Contents
Monitoring results for Candor, NC (CANC)
Monitoring results for Beulah, ND (BUND)
Monitoring results for Ponca City, OK (POOK)
Monitoring results for Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA (PLOR and PNW)
MSA
Monitoring results for San Juan-Caguas-Guayabo, PR (BAPR and SJPR) MSA
Monitoring results for Custer, SD (CUSD) and Sioux Falls, SD (SFSD) MSA
Monitoring results for Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA (KITN) MSA, Knoxville, TN
(LDTN) MSA and Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro, TN (DITN, EATN, and LOTN)
MSA
Monitoring results for Ogden-Clearfield, UT (BOUT, BTUT) MSA
This section defines and discusses the concepts of precision and accuracy. Based on
quantitative and qualitative analyses, this section comments on the precision and
accuracy of the 2003 UATMP ambient air monitoring data.
This section summarizes the most significant findings of the report and makes several
recommendations for future projects that will involve ambient air monitoring in urban
locations.
This section lists the references cited throughout the report.
-------
2.0 The 2003 UATMP
The 2003 UATMP included 53 monitoring stations that collected 24-hour integrated
canister and cartridge samples of ambient air for up to 12 months at six and twelve day sampling
intervals. One site in Ponca City, OK (POOK) opted to sample every three days. All UATMP
samples were analyzed in a central laboratory for concentrations of selected hydrocarbons,
halogenated hydrocarbons, and polar compounds from the canister samples, carbonyl
compounds from the cartridge samples, semivolatiles from the XAD-2® thimbles, hexavalent
chromium from pre-treated filters, and metal compounds from filters. The following discussion
reviews the monitoring locations, the compounds selected for monitoring, the sampling
schedules, the completeness of the 2003 UATMP, and the sampling and analytical methods.
2.1 Monitoring Locations
Although EPA sponsors the UATMP, EPA does not dictate the location of the UATMP
monitoring stations. Rather, representatives from the state and local agencies that voluntarily
participate in the program and contribute to the overall monitoring costs select the monitoring
locations. Some monitors were placed near the centers of heavily populated cities (e.g., Denver,
CO and Phoenix, AZ), while others were placed in moderately populated areas (e.g., Beulah, ND
and Custer, SD). The monitoring stations participating in previous UATMP programs are listed
in Table 2-1.
Figure 2-1 shows the 32 urban and rural areas participating in the 2003 program. The
site descriptions in Table 2-2 and in Appendix A provide detailed information on the
surroundings at the 2003 UATMP monitoring locations. Monitors that are designated as EPA
National Air Toxic Trend System (NATTS) sites are indicated by bold type in Table 2-2.
Sections 4 through 22 contain topographic maps for each of the sites. Industrial facilities within
10 miles of the monitoring sites were plotted in these sections as well. The location and category
descriptions of these industrial emissions sources were report in the 1999 National Emission
Inventory (NET) (EPA, 2003a).
2-1
-------
As Figure 2-1 shows, the 2003 UATMP monitoring sites were distributed across the
country. The monitoring data from these stations may indicate certain air quality trends that are
common to all urban environments, but may also show distinct geographic trends. The analyses
in this report differentiate those trends that appear to be site-specific from those that appear to be
common to urban environments.
Chemical concentrations measured during the 2003 UATMP varied significantly from
monitoring location to monitoring location. As discussed throughout this report, the proximity
of the monitoring locations to different emissions sources, especially industrial facilities and
heavily traveled roadways, often explains the observed spatial variations in ambient air quality.
To provide a first approximation of the respective contributions of motor vehicle emissions and
industrial emissions on ambient air quality at each site, Table 2-3 lists the number of people
living within 10 miles of each monitoring location, as well as the stationary source emissions in
the monitor's residing county, according to the 1999 NEI.
At every UATMP monitoring location, the air sampling equipment was installed in a
small temperature-controlled enclosure (usually a trailer or a shed) with the sampling inlet probe
protruding through the roof. With this common setup, every UATMP monitor sampled ambient
air at heights approximately 5 to 20 feet above local ground level.
For record keeping and reporting purposes, each of these locations was assigned:
A unique UATMP site code - used to track samples from the monitoring locations to the
laboratory; and
A unique nine-digit AQS site code - used to index monitoring results in the AQS
database.
This report often cites these codes when presenting selected monitoring results.
2-2
-------
2.2 Compounds Selected for Monitoring
Urban air pollution typically contains hundreds of components, including, but not limited
to, volatile organic compounds (VOC), metals, inorganic acids, and particulate matter. Because
the sampling and analysis required to monitor for every component of air pollution has been
prohibitively expensive, the UATMP instead focuses on measuring ambient levels of 59 VOCs
(13 hydrocarbons, 37 halogenated hydrocarbons, and 9 polar compounds), 13 carbonyl
compounds, 80 Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compounds (SNMOC), 19 Semivolatile Organic
Compounds (SVOC), 11 metals, and hexavalent chromium. Tables 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8
identify the specific compounds of interest.
2.3 Sampling Schedules
Tables 2-9a and 2-9b present the dates on which sampling began and ended for each
monitoring location. With the following exceptions, the UATMP monitoring locations started
sampling in January 2003 and stopped sampling in December 2003. The following seventeen
sites did not start at the beginning of the sampling period:
Allen Park in Detroit, MI (APMI) site started in August 2003;
Boston, MA (BOMA) site started in November 2003;
Bountiful, Utah site #2 (BTUT) started in July 2003;
Candor, NC (CANC) site started in May 2003;
E7MI in Detroit, MI site started in June 2003;
Elizabeth, NJ (ELNJ) site started in February 2003;
Grenada, MS (GRMS) site started in April 2003;
Inter-Tribal Council site in Sault Sainte Marie, MI (ITCMI) started in June 2003;
• Dickson, TN sites (DITN) started in December 2003;
Phoenix, AZ site (MCAZ) started in April, respectively;
2O
-3
-------
Chicago, IL sites (NBIL and SPIL) started in April 2003;
Orlando, FL (ORFL) site started in April 2003;
Ponca City, OK (POOK) site started November 2003; and
Portland, OR site #2 (PNW) started May 2003.
Ten sites ended sampling before December 2003: Allen Park, MI site (APMI) ended
November 2003; the Puerto Rico sites (BAPR and SJPR) ended in August 2003; the Denver,
CO, sites (DECO and WECO) ended in May 2003; E7MI in Detroit, MI ended in August 2003;
Lincoln, NE (LONE) ended in April 2003; Bountiful, UT (BOUT) site 1 ended in June 2003;
and the Portland sites (PLOR and PNW) ended in October 2003.
According to the UATMP schedule, 24-hour integrated samples were to be collected at
every monitoring location approximately once every 6 or 12 days and each sample collection
began and ended at midnight, local standard time. At each test site, VOC and carbonyl samples
were collected concurrently, except for: all Florida sites (AZFL, BGFL, CWFL, DBFL, FLFL,
GAFL, LEFL, MDFL, and ORFL) - carbonyls only; Allen Park, MI (APMI) and Houghton
Lake, MI (HOMI) - VOCs only; Bonne Terre, MO (BTMO) and St. Louis, MO site 1 (SLMO) -
carbonyls only; Candor, NC (CANC) - carbonyls only; Chicago, IL sites (NBIL and SPIL) -
VOCs only; and all Phoenix, AZ, sites (MCAZ, PSAZ, QVAZ, and SPAZ) - VOCs only.
Of the 53 sites, only five did not sample for VOCs and/or carbonyls. They were: E7MI
in Detroit, MI; both Portland sites (PLOR and PNW); BOMA in Boston, MA; and Ponca City,
OK (POOK). Only ITCMI collected SVOC samples. The following nine sites also collected
SNMOC samples:
• Bountiful, Utah sites 1 and 2;
• Custer, South Dakota;
• Ponca City, Oklahoma;
2-4
-------
• Detroit (East 7 Mile only), Michigan;
• Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and
• St. Louis (Bonne Terre, site 1, and site 4 only), Missouri.
Nine sites collected Metals samples:
Boston, MA site (BOMA);
• Bountiful, UT sites 1 and 2;
• All Colorado sites;
Nashville, TN sites EATN and LOTN;
• Houghton Lake, MI; and
• St. Louis, MO site #4.
Two sites collected Hexavalent Chromium samples:
Portland, OR sites 1 and 2 (PLOR and PNW).
As part of the sampling schedule, site operators were instructed to collect duplicate
samples on roughly 10 percent of the sampling days. Sampling calendars were distributed to
help site operators schedule the collection of samples, duplicates, and field blanks. In cases
where monitors failed to collect valid samples on a scheduled sampling day, site operators
sometimes rescheduled samples for other days. This practice explains why some monitoring
locations periodically strayed from the 6- or 12-day sampling schedule. The state of Michigan
prepared a schedule that allowed Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality's laboratory
to share samples with ERG's laboratory.
2-5
-------
The 6- or 12-day sampling schedule permits cost-effective data collection for
characterization (annual-average concentrations) of toxic compounds in ambient air and ensures
that sampling days are evenly distributed among the 7 days of the week to allow comparison of
air quality on weekdays to air quality on weekends.
2.4 Completeness
Completeness refers to the number of valid samples collected compared to the number of
samples expected from a 6- or 12-day sampling cycle. Monitoring programs that consistently
generate valid results have higher completeness than programs that consistently invalidate
samples. The completeness of an air monitoring program, therefore, is a qualitative measure of
the reliability of air sampling equipment and laboratory analytical equipment and a measure of
the efficiency with which the program was managed.
Appendix B identifies samples that were invalidated and lists the specific reasons why
the samples were invalidated. Tables 2-9a and 2-9b summarize the completeness of the
monitoring data sets collected during the 2003 UATMP:
For VOC sampling, the completeness ranged from 70 to 100 percent, with an overall
completeness of 91 percent;
For carbonyl sampling, the completeness ranged from 69 to 100 percent with an overall
completeness of 95 percent;
For SNMOC sampling, the completeness ranged from 87 to 100 percent with an overall
completeness of 95 percent for all sites;
For SVOC sampling, the completeness was 97 percent at one site;
For Metals sampling, the completeness ranged from 85 to 100 percent with an overall
completeness of 98 percent; and
For Hexavalent Chromium, the completeness was 100 percent at both sites.
2-6
-------
The UATMP data quality objectives are based on the 2003 Quality Assurance Plan,
85-100% of samples collected at a given monitoring station must be analyzed successfully to
generate a sufficiently complete data set for estimating annual average air concentrations. The
data in Tables 2-9a and 2-9b show that 8 data sets (from a total of 96 data sets) from the 2003
UATMP monitoring stations did not meet this data quality objective. Twleve sites which
measured carbonyls (out of 37 sites), 4 VOC sites (out of 35), 2 SNMOC sites (out of 9), 0
SVOC sites (out of 1), 6 Metals sites (out of 9), and 2 Hexavalent Chromium sites (out of 2)
achieved 100% completeness.
2.5 Sampling and Analytical Methods
During the 2003 UATMP, five EPA-approved methods were used to characterize urban
air pollution:
• Compendium Method TO-15 was used to measure ambient air concentrations of 59 VOC
and 80 SNMOC;
• Compendium Method TO-11A was used to measure ambient air concentrations of
13 carbonyl compounds;
• Compendium Method TO-13A was used to collect ambient air concentrations of 19
SVOC. Analysis was performed following Compendium Method TO-13A protocols;
• Compendium MethodIO-3.5 was used to collect ambient concentration of 11 metals.
Analysis was performed following Compendium Method IO-3.5 protocols; and,
• Modified CARB Method 039 and ERG's revised method was used to analyze ambient air
concentrations of hexavalent chromium.
The following discussion presents an overview of these sampling and analytical methods.
For detailed descriptions of the methods, readers should refer to EPA's original documentation
of the Compendium Methods (US EPA, 1999a; US EPA, 1999b).
2-7
-------
2.5.1 VOC Sampling and Analytical Method
As specified in the EPA method, ambient air samples for VOC analysis were collected in
passivated stainless steel canisters. The central laboratory distributed the prepared (i.e., cleaned
and evacuated) canisters to the UATMP monitoring stations before each scheduled sampling
event, and site operators connected the canisters to air sampling equipment prior to each
sampling day. Before their use in the field, the passivated canisters had internal pressures much
lower than atmospheric. Because of this pressure differential, ambient air naturally flowed into
the canisters once they were opened, and pumps were not needed to collect ambient air for VOC
analysis. A flow controller on the sampling device ensured that ambient air entered the canister
at a constant rate across the collection period. At the end of the 24-hour sampling period, a
solenoid valve automatically stopped ambient air from flowing into the canister, and site
operators returned the canisters to the central laboratory for analysis.
By analyzing each sample with gas chromatography incorporating mass selective
detection and flame ionization detection (GC/MS-FID), laboratory staff determined ambient air
concentrations of 59 VOC (13 hydrocarbons, 37 halogenated hydrocarbons, and 9 polar
compounds) and 80 SNMOC within the sample. Because isobutene and 1-butene as well as m-
xylene and/>-xylene elute from the GC column at the same time, the VOC analytical method
reports only the sum of the concentrations for these compounds, and not the separate
concentrations for each compound.
Table 2-4 lists the method detection limits for the laboratory analysis of the VOC
samples and Table 2-5 lists the method detection limits for the SNMOC samples. Although the
sensitivity of the analytical method varies from compound to compound, the detection limit for
VOC reported for every compound is lower than 0.35 parts per billion by volume (ppbv); most
of the detection limits were below 0.20 ppbv. Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compound
(SNMOC) detection limits are expressed in parts per billion carbon (ppbC). All of the detection
limits were less than 0.49 ppbC.
2-8
-------
Because nondetect results significantly limit the range of data interpretations for ambient
air monitoring programs, participating agencies should note that the approach for treating
nondetects may slightly affect the magnitude of the calculated central tendency concentrations,
especially for compounds with a low prevalence. Unlike previous UATMP seasons, nondetects
will not be replaced with one-half of the compound's corresponding method detection limit. The
nondetect is treated as a valid data point which can be used, in conjunction with back
trajectories, for validation of nearby emission sources.
Similar to last year, the reportable SNMOC analysis option was combined with the
standard VOC sampling. These data are presented in Appendix D.
2.5.2 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Method
Following the specifications of EPA Compendium Method TO-11 A, ambient air samples
for carbonyl analysis were collected by passing ambient air over silica gel cartridges coated with
2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH), a compound known to react selectively and reversibly with
many aldehydes and ketones. Carbonyl compounds in ambient air remain within the sampling
cartridge, while other compounds pass through the cartridge without reacting with the DNPH-
coated matrix. As with the VOC sampling, the central laboratory distributed the silica gel
cartridges to the monitoring locations, and site operators connected the cartridges to the air
sampling equipment. After each 24-hour sampling period, site operators returned the cartridges
to the central laboratory for chemical analysis.
To quantify concentrations of carbonyls in the sampled ambient air, laboratory analysts
eluted the exposed silica gel cartridges with acetonitrile. This solvent elution liberated a solution
of DNPH derivatives of the aldehydes and ketones collected from the ambient air. High-
performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis and ultraviolet detection of these solutions
determined the relative amounts of individual carbonyls present in the original air sample.
Because butyraldehyde and isobutyraldehyde elute from the HPLC column at the same time, the
carbonyl analytical method can report only the sum of the concentrations for these compounds,
2-9
-------
and not the separate concentrations for each compound. For the same reason, the analytical
method reports only the sum of the concentrations for the three tolualdehyde isomers, as opposed
to reporting separate concentrations for the three individual compounds.
Appreciating Detection Limits
The detection limit of an analytical method must be considered carefully when interpreting
the corresponding ambient air monitoring data. By definition, detection limits represent the
lowest concentrations at which laboratory equipment have been experimentally determined
to reliably quantify concentrations of selected compounds to a specific confidence level. If a
chemical concentration in ambient air does not exceed the method sensitivity (as gauged by
the detection limit), the analytical method might not differentiate the compound from other
compounds in the sample or from the random "noise" inherent in laboratory analyses.
Therefore, when samples contain concentrations at levels below their respective detection
limits, multiple analyses of the same sample may lead to a wide range of results, including
highly variable concentrations or "nondetect" observations. Data analysts must exercise
caution when interpreting monitoring data with many reported concentrations at levels near
or below the corresponding detection limits.
Method detection limits are determined at the analytical laboratory by analyzing at least 7
replicate standards prepared on/in the appropriate sampling media (per analytical method).
Instrument detection limits are not determined (replicates of standards only) because sample
preparation procedures are not considered.
Table 2-6 lists the method detection limits reported by the analytical laboratory for
measuring concentrations of 13 carbonyl compounds. Although the sensitivity of the analytical
method varies from compound to compound and from site to site, the average detection limit
reported by the analytical laboratory for every compound is less than or equal to 0.023 ppbv with
a 1000L sample volume.
2-10
-------
2.5.3 Semivolatile Sampling and Analytical Method
Semivolatile sampling was performed completely by the sites in accordance with EPA
Compendium Method TO-13 A. Table 2-10 summarizes the semivolatiles sampled for in 2003.
ERG supplies prepared sampling media and receives the samples from the sites for analysis only.
Semivolatile sampling modules containing PUF (polyurethane foam) and petri dishes containing
filters, together with Chain of Custody forms and all associated documentation, were shipped to
the ERG laboratory from the field. Upon receipt at the laboratory, sample preparation and
analysis procedures are based on Compendium Method TO-13A.
Table 2-7 lists the method detection limits for the laboratory analysis of the SVOC
samples. Method detection limits for Semivolatile organic compounds ranged from 0.15 to 0.04
pg/m3, with most falling below 0.10 pg/m3 in an average sample volume of 200 m3.
2.5.4 Metals and Hexavalent Chromium Sampling and Analytical Data
Inorganic sampling was performed completely by the sites in accordance with EPA
Compendium Method IO-3.5 for inorganic compounds (metals). Metals filters, together with
Chain of Custody forms and all associated documentation, were shipped to the ERG laboratory
from the field. Upon receipt at the laboratory, filters were subcontracted for analyses based on
Compendium Method IO-3.5.
Sodium bicarbonate-impregnated filters were used to collect hexavalent chromium. The
prepared filters were connected to the hexavalent chromium sampler as shown in Figure 2-2.
Ambient air was drawn through the filters through a glass sampling probe using Teflon sampling
lines at a point as close to the ambient air monitoring point as possible. Duplicate samples and
field blanks were collected and analyzed at a rate of 10% of the number of samples.
2-11
-------
ERG shipped bicarbonate-impregnated sodium filters to each site in coolers. The
samples were collected for a 24-hour period. After sampling, the filters were removed from the
sampling apparatus, sealed, and returned to the ERG laboratory in the coolers in which they were
received. Disposable polyethylene gloves were used by the field operators when handling the
filters to reduce background contamination levels. Additional details of the hexavalent
chromium sampling and analysis procedures are presented in the California Air Resources Board
Method 039 (CARB, 1993) and in ERG's SOP (ERG-MOR-063).
Table 2-8 lists the method detection limits for the laboratory analysis of the metal and
hexavalent chromium samples. Because the sample volumes for the collection of metals ranged
from approximately 20 to 2100 m3, the method detection limits are only presented in total
ng/filter. The method detection limits ranged from 100 to 10 total ng/filter. Hexavalent
chromium method detection limit was 0.034 ng/m3 in an average sample volume of 12 m3.
2-12
-------
Figure 2-1. Cities Participating in the 2003 Program
to
Sault Sainte Marie. Ml
Houqhton Lake, Ml
.Detroit. Ml MSA
Custer, SD sjoux Fa|^ SD
Ogden-Clearfield. UTMSA
Nashville. TN MSA j
Kingsport, TN
. Tupelo.'MS
Grenada. MS
I \
\ Ja'ckson. MS MSAV
i ^ -> _i. s.- ..
oston. MA MSA
Hartford. CT MSA
New York City. NY MSA
Philadelphia. PA MSA
Gulfpoit-Biloxi. MS MSA
Pascagoula. MS MSA
Tampa-St. Petersburg. FL MSA
Orlando. FL MSA
elle Glade. FL
Deli ay Beach, FL
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, FL MSA
MSA
San Juan. PR MS
Barceloneta, PfcJ
-------
Figure 2-2. Hexavalent Chromium Sampling System
OUTSIDE
Filter
Teflon
Filter
Holder
Teflon
Funnel
i Assembly
Sample
Air
In From
Atmosphere
INSIDE
Teflon
Connecting
Tube
To
Atmosphere
Sample
Flow
Rotameter
/Sample\
Flow
-i Control
I Valve
Key
• Plumbing Connections
Electrical Connections
Recptacle
Outlet
(Optional
Use)
Digital Timer
Channel 2 Channel 1
Elapsed
Timer
2-14
-------
Table 2-1. Monitoring Stations with Past Participation in the UATMP
Monitoring Station
Allen Park, Detroit, MI (APMI)
Azalea Park, St. Petersburg, FL (AZFL)
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico (BAPR)
Belle Glade, Florida (BGFL)
Beulah, ND (BUND)
Bonne Terre, MO (BTMO)
Camden, NJ (CANJ)
Chester, NJ (CHNJ)
Clearwater, FL (CWFL)
Custer, SD (CUSD)
Delray Beach, FL (DBFL)
Dearborn, Detroit, MI (DEMI)
Denver, CO Site 1 (DECO)
Denver, CO Site 2 (WECO)
E7 Mile, Detroit, MI (E7MI)
Elizabeth, NJ (ELNJ)
Ft. Lauderdale, FL (FLFL)
Gandy, Tampa, FL (GAFL)
Gulfport, MS (GPMS)
Houghton Lake, MI (HOMI)
Jackson, MS (JAMS)
Lewis, Tampa, FL (LEFL)
Lincoln, NE (LONE)
Nashville, TN Site #1 (EATN)
Program Years During Which Station Past Participated
in the UATMP
1994
/
1995
/
1996
/
1997
/
1998
/
/
1999
2000
/
/
/
/
2001
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2002
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2-15
-------
Table 2-1. (Continued)
Monitoring Station
Nashville, TN Site #2 (LOTN)
Miami, FL (MDFL)
New Brunswick, NJ (NBNJ)
Pascagoula, MS (PGMS)
Portland, OR (PLOR)
Queen Valley, Phoenix, AZ (QVAZ)
San Juan, Puerto Rico (SJPR)
Sioux Falls, SD (SFSD)
South Phoenix, AZ (SPAZ)
St. Louis, MO Site 1 (SLMO)
St. Louis, MO Site 4 (S4MO)
Supersite, Phoenix, AZ (PSAZ)
Tupelo, MS (TUMS)
Program Years During Which Station Past Participated
in the UATMP
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
/
/
2001
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2002
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Note: Some of the stations shown in the table participated in UATMP prior to the 1994 program. However, this
report considers only ambient air monitoring data collected during the current and previous two EPA
contracts (i.e., UATMP program years 1994 through 2002).
2-16
-------
Table 2-2. Text Descriptions of the 2003 UATMP Monitoring Locations
UATMP
Code
APMI
AZFL
BAPR
Monitoring Location
Allen Park, Detroit,
MI
Azalea Park, St.
Petersburg, FL
Barceloneta, PR
Land Use
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Suburban
Rural
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
60,000
51,000
10
Traffic
Year
Estimate
Unknown
Unknown
1994
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The Allen Park site is an intermediate site located in a
residential neighborhood 300 feet away from Interstate 75.
Historically, this site has been used to detect impacts from
mobile sources. There are no major industrial sources near
the site. Of all the population-oriented sites in the Detroit
MSA, Allen Park has the highest PM10 levels. Therefore,
Allen Park has been selected as the PM2 5 trend speciation
site and the collocated site for the federal reference method
(FRM) monitors. Other criteria pollutant measurements that
are collected at Allen Park include CO, O3, SO2, and PM10
A neighborhood spatial scale of representativeness
characterizes this monitoring site selected for the Tampa
Bay pilot project. This monitor is sited in an area of high
population density with uniform mixed land use, consisting
of residential, commercial, and industrial properties. Major
point sources are located approximately 8 to 15 kilometers
from the monitoring site. In addition, this site is at least 150
meters from major roadways. However, given the proximity
of motor vehicle traffic it is expected that mobile sources
will contribute appreciably to the measured samples.
The Barceloneta site is a residential area surrounded by 5
pharmaceutical plants. The greater area outside the city is
rural in character and the city itself is within 2 miles of the
Atlantic Ocean.
to
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
Monitoring Location
Land Use
Location
Setting
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
Traffic
Year
Estimate
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
BGFL
Belle Glade, FL
Industrial
Rural
12,200
Unknown
Belle Glade is a city located in Broward County, FL. This is
a rural location with possible pollution coming from mobile
and hospital sources as well as sugar cane burning areas
(major source). Broward and Miami-Bade Counties are
ranked high in the range of the air toxics monitoring criteria
ranking document draft. The Southeast Florida Regional
Air Toxics Program is interested in conducting ambient
carbonyl sampling in the Southeast Florida area to assess the
potential health threat and cancer risk.
BOMA
Boston, MA
Commercial
Urban
27,287
2000
The Boston site is located in a residential neighborhood on
Harrison Avenue in Dudley Square. Its purpose is to
measure population exposure for a city bus terminal which
is located across the street from the monitor and other urban
sources.
to
oo
BOUT
Bountiful, UT
Commercial
Suburban
11,120
Unknown
The Bountiful site is located in a suburban area of the Salt
Lake City/Ogden MSA, at 65 West 300 South in Bountiful,
Utah. The site is located in front of a fire station, adjacent to
a city park, the fire station, a store, and a street. The
surrounding neighborhood is made up of residential and
commercial properties. BOUT is a SLAMS neighborhood-
scale site for monitoring population exposure to SO2, CO,
NO2, and PM2 5; and a NAMS neighborhood-scale site for
monitoring maximum ozone concentrations. Speciated
PM2 5 sampling, meteorological monitoring, and NATTS air
toxics sampling are also done at the Bountiful station.
Several petroleum refineries are located one to five miles
away from the site, as are several sand and gravel mining
operations.
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
BTMO
BTUT
Monitoring Location
Bonne Terre, MO
Bountiful, UT
Land Use
Agricultural
Residential
Location
Setting
Rural
Suburban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
4,360
33,310
Traffic
Year
Estimate
1995
2002
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The Bonne Terre site is located on a farm approximately one
hundred miles due south of downtown St. Louis and is used
for our St. Louis area upwind site. It's purpose is to measure
transport of various pollutants into the St. Louis area;
BTMO houses ozone, PM2 5 Speciation, and Air Toxics
monitors. There are no nearby sources, except
VOCs/Formaldehyde from nearby forests.
The Bountiful Viewmont site is located in a suburban area
of the Salt Lake City/Ogden MSA, at 1390 North 200 West
in Bountiful, Utah. This site is a relocation of the BOUT
site, which was about 1.1 miles south of the new site. The
site is located on the grounds of Viewmont High School,
adjacent to a parking lot, tennis courts, and a football field.
The surrounding neighborhood is made up of residential
properties. BTUT is a SLAMS neighborhood-scale site for
monitoring population exposure to SO2, CO, NO2, and
PM2 5; and a NAMS neighborhood-scale site for monitoring
maximum ozone concentrations. Speciated PM2 5 sampling,
meteorological monitoring, and NATTS air toxics sampling
are also done at the Bountiful Viewmont station. Several
petroleum refineries are located two to five miles away from
the site, as are several sand and gravel mining operations.
to
VO
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
BUND
CANC
CANJ
CHNJ
Monitoring Location
Beulah, ND
Candor, NC
Camden, NJ
Chester, NJ
Land Use
Agricultural
Forest
Residential
Agricultural
Location
Setting
Rural
Rural
Suburban
Rural
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
1,350
100
62,000
12,623
Traffic
Year
Estimate
1998
1999
1986
1995
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
Beulah, North Dakota, located in Mercer County, is a rural,
agricultural area with primarily wheat, small grains, and
cattle farms. There are six lignite coal-fired power plants
within thirty miles of Beulah, one to the east-southeast; one
to the northeast; two to the east; one to the northwest; and
one to the southwest. A petroleum refinery and a lignite
coal-fired power plant are fifty miles southeast of Beulah.
Lignite coal mines are located north of the town, south-
southwest of town and southeast of town. The monitoring
station is located in the approximate area of two coal-fired
power plants and a coal gasification plant (the only
functioning coal gasification plant in the nation). A power
plant is located seven miles to the southwest of the
monitoring station; another is six miles to the northwest; and
the gasification plant is five miles to the northwest.
The Candor, NC, site is in rural Montgomery Co., at the end
of a private dead end road named Perry Dr. which is off
McCallumRd. The site sits approximately 1.5 miles off a
main road (McCallum Rd.). There is not a pollution source
in the vicinity. EPA also monitors next to this site.
Although this monitoring site in Camden, NJ, is in a
residential area, numerous industrial facilities and busy
roadways are located within a ten mile radius. The monitors
are situated in a parking lot of a business complex.
The Chester, NJ, site is located in a rural-agricultural,
residential section and is topographically rolling. The site is
located near Lucent Laboratory Building #1. There is
potential population exposure to, ozone, NO2, and SO2.
to
to
o
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
CUSD
CWFL
DBFL
Monitoring Location
Custer, SD
Clearwater, FL
Delray Beach, FL
Land Use
Residential
Commercial
Commercial
Location
Setting
Suburban
Suburban
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
1,940
1,000
201,032
Traffic
Year
Estimate
2002
Unknown
1995
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The site is located on the edge of an urban area, in a pasture
across the road from the last housing development on the
east side of the City of Custer. The city has a population of
1,860 and is the largest city in the county. The city is
located in a river valley in the Black Hills with pine covered
hills on the north and south sides of the valley. The site is
located in the center of the valley on the east side of the city.
Major sources near the site include vehicles (highest traffic
counts from May through September, forest fires (mainly
during July through September), wood burning for heat, and
wild land heath fires (during the winter months). The main
industries in the area include tourism, logging, and mining
of feldspar/quartz.
This site was a replacement for our Dunedin site, at St.
Petersburg, FL. In addition to carbonyls, we also monitor
VOCs, toxic metals, and ozone at the Clearwater site. Our
objective is to measure HAPs (and ozone) in an area of high
population density. Therefore we are monitoring population
exposure, not any specific sources. Clearwater is a
"Neighborhood" spatial scale.
Delray Beach is located in Broward County, FL, a rural
location with possible pollution coming from a major
highway (mobile) and hospital sources. Broward and
Miami-Dade Counties are ranked high in the range of the air
toxics monitoring criteria ranking document draft. The
Southeast Florida Regional Air Toxics Program is interested
in conducting ambient carbonyl sampling in the Southeast
Florida area to assess the potential health threat and cancer
risk.
to
to
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
DECO
DEMI
DITN
E7MI
Monitoring Location
Denver, CO (Site #1)
Dearborn in Detroit,
MI
Dickson, TN
E7 Mile in Detroit,
MI
Land Use
Commercial
Industrial
Residential
Location
Setting
Urban
Suburban
Suburban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
44,200
12,791
4,420
6,999
Traffic
Year
Estimate
1995
1990
2003
Unknown
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The Denver site, designated as the Denver-CAMP site by
the State of Colorado, is on the northern edge of downtown
Denver on a small triangle of land bounded by Broadway,
Champa St. and 21st St. The site was originally established
in 1965 as a maximum concentration site for the Denver
downtown area and provides a measure of the air pollution
levels to which a large working population is exposed. The
site is next to a major road in the downtown Denver area,
where the primary influences are motor vehicles. Some
industrial facilities are located to the north of the site, but no
large facilities lie within a one or two mile radius.
Residential areas are located a quarter- to a half- mile to the
northeast and east.
Dearborn, MI, an addition to the State network, is located in
a residential neighborhood with industrial impacts. An auto
and steel manufacturing plant is located in close proximity
to the monitoring station. Previous violations of the PM10
standard have also occurred at this site. The site lies
between Interstate 75 and Interstate 94. This site is expected
to show some of the highest levels of air toxics in the
Detroit Pilot program area. The SO2 and PM10
measurements are also made there.
The Dickson, TN site was set up due to public concern
about air emissions from several sources in an industrial
park. Among these sources is one that cast aluminum engine
blocks, another one that reclaims scrap metal, and a large
printing company.
The East 7 Mile site represents a location downwind from
the Detroit urban center city area and is located in a
residential neighborhood near Interstate 94. Criteria
pollutants that include NO2, O3, SO2 PM25, and PAMS are
also measured at East 7 Mile.
to
to
to
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
EATN
ELNJ
FLFL
Monitoring Location
Nashville, TN
fCitp #11
V^OILC TT 1)
Elizabeth, NJ
Pompano Beach, FL
Land Use
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Location
Setting
Urban
Suburban
Suburban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
38,450
170,000
1,000
Traffic
Year
Estimate
1993
Unknown
1989
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
This site is located in Nashville, TN and is located on the
roof of East Health Center. The site is north (predominately
downwind) of downtown Nashville and is a population
oriented site predominantly influenced by primarily
commercial and mobile sources.
Elizabeth is located in Union County, NJ, at an urban-
industrial site where the topography is relatively smooth.
The monitoring site is located 75 yards away from the Toll
Plaza and about one mile from Bayway Refinery. The
neighborhood scale is at maximum concentration. The
location has a PM10 filter analyzer for sulfates and nitrates as
well as the UATMP site.
The City of Pompano Beach is located in Broward County,
FL, an urban, residential location in a neighborhood with
pollution sources coming from a major traffic artery
(source) as well as other minor area sources. Broward and
Miami-Bade Counties are ranked high in the range of the air
toxics monitoring criteria ranking document draft. The
Southeast Florida Regional Air Toxics Program is interested
in conducting ambient carbonyl sampling in the Southeast
Florida area to assess the potential health threat and cancer
risk.
to
to
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
GAFL
GPMS
GRMS
Monitoring Location
Gandy in Tampa, FL
Gulfport, MS
Grenada, MS
Land Use
Commercial
Commercial
Agricultural
Location
Setting
Suburban
Rural
Rural
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
81,460
17,000
1,100
Traffic
Year
Estimate
Unknown
1995
2000
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
A neighborhood spatial scale of representativeness
characterizes this monitoring site selected for the Tampa
Bay Region Air Toxics Study Monitoring Stations
(TBRATS) pilot project. This monitor is sited in an area of
high population density with uniform mixed land use,
consisting of residential, commercial, and industrial
properties. Major point sources are located approximately 8
to 15 kilometers from the monitoring site. Since the
emission points from these sources are elevated and not
proximate to the monitor, concentrations measured during
this study should not be dominated by a single source. In
addition, this site is at least 150 meters from major
roadways. However, given the proximity of motor vehicle
traffic, mobile sources are expected to contribute
appreciably to the measured samples.
The Gulf Port site is in a light commercial and residential
area. This site was selected because this area is believed to
have high ambient air toxic concentrations based upon
information from the NAT A study and Mississippi's major
source emission inventories.
The Grenada County monitoring site was established
because it was identified by Region IV's Air Toxics
Monitoring Network planning effort as a county where toxic
emissions concentrations were expected to be higher and
pose a higher than normal risk to residents. There are
several major industries in the area which are primarily
included in the wood products industry. The area is
moderately populated but the area itself would be
considered rural.
to
to
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
Monitoring Location
Land Use
Location
Setting
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
Traffic
Year
Estimate
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
HACT
Hartford, CT
Commercial
Urban
10,000
Unknown
The Morgan St. CO site is located on Morgan St. in
Hartford, a downtown urban location. The traffic flows in
one direction (east). The site lies under the 1-84 east fly-
over to 1-91 north which is about 50 feet above the ground.
There is a 6 level parking garage diagonally across the
street. This site was chosen because it showed a potential for
high concentrations based on a grid study.
HOMI
Houghton Lake, MI
Forest/
Agricultural
Rural
7,000
2002
to
to
The Houghton Lake station is located in Mississaukee
County in the north central portion of Michigan's lower
peninsula. Primary industries in the area include year-round
tourism (boating, fishing, hunting and snow mobiling) as
well as Christmas tree farming. The county is sparsely
populated, but attracts many tourists as it is a prime
recreational area containing many lakes, rivers and streams.
The station is located at a deer research facility just west of
US Route 27. Though not located close to the site, oil and
natural gas production occurs in counties to the south and
north, as Michigan is the nation's 4th largest oil and gas
producer.
ITCMI
Sault Sainte Marie,
MI
Residential
Rural
100,000
1990
Tribal members had issued complaints arising from the
smell and the clouds being produced from a steel plant and
paper mill located on the other side of the Saint Mary's
River. The site is located on Lake Superior State University
campus, which is a residential area. This site includes two
sequential PM2 5 filter based FRM monitors (primary and a
collocated), a PM2 5 speciation monitor, a PM2 5 TEOM
monitor, an AVOCS monitor, a PAH monitor, a
meteorological station, and a large paniculate matter
collector (dustfall monitor).
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
JAMS
KITN
LDTN
LEFL
LONE
Monitoring Location
Jackson, MS
Kingsport, TN
Louden, TN
Lewis in Tampa, FL
Lincoln, NE
Land Use
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Suburban
Suburban
Urban
Suburban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
12,500
300
13,360
1,055
6,200
Traffic
Year
Estimate
Unknown
1998
2003
1999
2000
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The Jackson site is located in a light commercial and
residential area, selected because this area is believed to
have high ambient air toxic concentrations based upon
information from the NAT A study and Mississippi's major
source emission inventories.
The site in Kingsport, TN, was set up to determine the
impact of a very, very large organic chemical manufacturing
company, Eastman Chemical. There are other sources in this
area but Eastman is the primary one of concern.
The site at Loudon, TN, was set up due to public concern
about air emissions from several sources in an industrial
park. Among these sources is a very large facility that
processes corn to make corn syrup, A.E. Staley, a sausage
casing manufacturer, boat manufacturer, paper products
manufacturer, waste metal reclamation, waste paper
reclamation, and others.
This monitor is located in an area of moderate population
density with fewer commercial and industrial influences at
the neighborhood scale. Major point sources are located
approximately 8 to 15 kilometers and at least 150 meters
from major roadways. Given the proximity of motor vehicle
traffic, mobile sources are expected to contribute
appreciably to the measured samples.
The monitoring network for Lancaster County focuses on a
large transportation corridor which includes the Lincoln
Municipal Airport, a large railroad switching yard, and
various high volume roadways. This site was set up at a
different fire station (from LINE) from October through
March. The monitor was placed at a south location (Fire
Station 13) in order to sample the effects of northerly wind
flows.
to
to
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
Monitoring Location
Land Use
Location
Setting
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
Traffic
Year
Estimate
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
LOTN
Nashville, TN
(Site #2)
Industrial
Urban
3,000
Unknown
This core site is located on the roof of Lockland School,
which is located in the heart of downtown Nashville. This is
also a population oriented site influenced primarily by
commercial and mobile sources.
MCAZ
Phoenix, AZ
Industrial
Urban
3,000
Unknown
This site is located on West 43rd Avenue (Maricopa County
Environmental Services Department) and 3940 W.
Broadway, Phoenix. MCAZ is a middle scale site and the
objective is maximum concentration for PM10. MCAZ is
downwind of major industrial sources, including sand and
gravel, and metal recycling. Monitors include PM10 hi-vol,
wind speed/direction, delta temp, temp and pressure, VOC
canisters (ADEQ).
to
to
MDFL
Miami, FL
Commercial
Urban
15,200
2002
Miami is a city located in Dade County, FL. The
monitoring station is located in a urban, commercial and
residential section of town. Pollution can come from
mobile, area and hospital sources. Broward and Miami-
Dade Counties are ranked high in the range of the air toxics
monitoring criteria ranking document draft. The Southeast
Florida Regional Air Toxics Program is interested in
conducting ambient carbonyl sampling in the Southeast
Florida area to assess the potential health threat and cancer
risk.
NBIL
Northbrook in
Chicago, IL
Residential
Suburban
34,900
1993
The village of Northbrook is located in northeast Cook
County. This monitoring site is located at the Northbrook
Water Filtration Station at 750 Dundee Road. A forest
preserve is located immediately south with residential areas
farther south (southeast to southwest). Residential areas are
also immediately to the west. Commercial areas are located
along Dundee Road and to the east. A major expressway
(194) is located 1 km to the east and north. O'Hare Airport is
located 18 km to the southwest and the Chicago Loop is
located 32 km to the southeast.
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
NBNJ
ORFL
PGMS
PLOR
Monitoring Location
New Brunswick, NJ
Orlando, FL
Pascagoula, MS
Portland, OR
(Site #1)
Land Use
Agricultural
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Location
Setting
Rural
Urban
Urban
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
63,000
59,000
8,600
1,000
Traffic
Year
Estimate
Unknown
Unknown
2000
1989
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The New Brunswick site is located in a suburban-
agricultural, residential area and is topographically smooth.
The actual site location is in Rutgers University's
Horticultural Farm.
The site is an Urban/Neighborhood spatial scale site to
determine the concentrations of the EPA Criteria pollutants
(and now Air Toxics) to which the area population may be
exposed. The primary emission source is motor vehicles
with some commercial businesses also in the area.
The Pascagoula site is mostly in a commercial area in
proximity to perhaps the largest industrial area in
Mississippi. The industries near the Pascagoula site include
chemical processes, petroleum refining, and ship building.
The Northeast Portland site is a neighborhood scale site
located in a primarily residential area. Surrounding housing
is mostly single-family with some nearby apartment
buildings. Within a mile of the site are three elementary
schools, a middle school, a high school, and a major
hospital. The site is located between an arterial street
couplet, and within a quarter mile of major arterials having
significant commercial activity, as well as bus and truck
traffic. No major point sources are located in close
proximity to the site, although it is a only a few miles
downwind (summertime) of several Title V sources in the
North and Northwest parts of Portland.
to
to
oo
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
PNW
POOK
PSAZ
Monitoring Location
Portland, OR
(Site #2)
Ponca City, OK
Supersite in Phoenix,
AZ
Land Use
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Location
Setting
Urban
Urban
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
500
1,496
250
Traffic
Year
Estimate
1989
2002
1993
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
This site in the Northwest quadrant of the city is on a
residential street and is on the boundary between the highest
density residential area in the city and Portland's primary
industrial area. Located in a parking lot for the
neighborhood post office, the site is within a half kilometer
of a small commercial area, a foundry, and numerous metal
finishing operations. Railroad yards, port operations,
including fuel handling facilities, wood products and other
manufacturing businesses, and a major traffic bridgehead
are within a kilometer. The West Hills, less than a half
kilometer from this site, create a barrier to air movement to
the west and restrict dispersion of pollution. Neighborhood
concerns have driven a variety of suspended and deposited
metals studies at this site since the 1999 project.
This site was established in 1995 at Ponca City. This source
oriented site also operates SO2, PM25, and PM10 monitors.
This site, in North Central Oklahoma, is used to monitor
nearby refineries.
Maricopa County established the South Phoenix site at its
current location in 1999 and operates CO, O3 and PM10
monitors. The state of Arizona also operates PAMS and air
toxics monitors. The site is at the edge of a residential area,
but also borders on a mixture of commercial properties
(retail stores, restaurants and offices). Industrial areas are
located approximately one mile north of the site.
to
to
VO
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
QVAZ
S4MO
SFSD
SJPR
Monitoring Location
Queen Valley in
Phoenix, AZ
St. Louis, MO
(Site #4)
Sioux Falls, SD
San Juan, PR
Land Use
Desert
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Location
Setting
Rural
Urban
Urban
Suburban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
200
22,840
4,320
51,000
Traffic
Year
Estimate
2001
1995
1999
Unknown
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The state of Arizona established the Queen Valley Water
Tank site in 2001, near the Superstition Wilderness Class I
area, as a state Class I visibility monitoring location and a
PAMS Type 3 monitoring location. The Queen Valley site
consists of an IMPROVE aerosol sampler, a nephelometer
and meteorological monitoring equipment. The state also
operates O3, trace level NO^, PAMS and air toxics
monitors. The area surrounding the site is primarily
undeveloped desert. The town of Queen Valley is located
approximately 0.5 miles north of the site.
Blair has some industry around it and a fair amount of
industry to the east. The site is also only about 250 meters
from 1-70 (at its closest point).
The SFSD monitoring site is located in Sioux Falls, SD, the
largest city in the state, near two grade schools north of the
site and residential areas on the west, east, and south. The
area within 1 mile of the site is mostly residential with a few
retail businesses. The main industrial area of the city is
about 3 miles northwest and 2 miles to the west of the site.
The site was selected because it represents population
exposure to chemical and paniculate emissions from the
industrial parts of the city. The predominant wind direction
is northwest for most of the year with southeast winds
during the summer months.
The Site at the Bayamon Regional Jail, in San Juan,
conducts monitoring for VOC and carbonyls. The
prevailing sources within a 3 mile radius of the site include
the San Juan power plant, highways with a nearby toll gate,
an asphalt plant, a sewage authority facility, and industry.
Additionally, the San Juan area has a large number of
automobiles.
to
OJ
o
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
SLMO
SPAZ
SPIL
TUMS
Monitoring Location
St. Louis, MO
fCitp #11
V^OILC TT 1)
South Phoenix, AZ
Schiller Park in
Chicago, IL
Tupelo, MS
Land Use
Residential
Residential
Mobile
Commercial
Location
Setting
Urban
Urban
Suburban
Suburban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
15,016
50,000
214,900
4,900
Traffic
Year
Estimate
2,000
1995
1994
1997/1995
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The SLMO site at Grant School in St. Louis is a residential
site. Commercial influences are approximately 200 yards
east. Volatile organic compounds, carbonyls, hydrocarbons,
meteorological parameters, metals, and PM2 5 speciation
were conducted at this site in 2001.
The Supersite is intended to represent the central core of the
Phoenix metropolitan area in a high emissions area, and is a
PAMS Type 2 site. The site houses a variety of air
monitoring equipment including criteria pollutant samplers
and analyzers, PAMS and air toxics, total NMHC,
meteorology, visibility/urban haze, and has been selected for
several state and national air monitoring studies. The area
surrounding the site is primarily residential neighborhoods.
There is an interstate highway approximately one mile west
of the site, as well as commercial and industrial areas within
five miles of the site.
This monitoring site is located on a trailer at 4743
Mannheim Readjust south or Lawrence Ave. and between
Mannheim Road and 1-294. The closest runway at O'Hare
Airport is 0.5 km to the northwest. The immediate vicinity is
mostly commercial. Residential areas are located east
across 1-294.
The Tupelo site is in a light commercial and residential area.
This site was selected because this area is believed to have
high ambient air toxic concentrations based upon
information from the NAT A study and Mississippi's major
source emission inventories.
to
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
WECO
Monitoring Location
Denver, CO (Site #2)
Land Use
Agricultural
Location
Setting
Rural
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
1,500
Traffic
Year
Estimate
Unknown
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
Located 7 miles north-northeast of downtown Denver on the
bank of the South Platte River, this site is ideally located to
measure nighttime drainage of the air mass from the Denver
metropolitan area and the thermally driven, daytime
upvalley flows. This site is located next to agricultural and
open space areas, with residential areas located within one
mile. In addition, major industrial sources are located about
one mile upvalley, including a power plant, sewage
treatment plant and refineries.
BOLD = EPA-designated National Air Toxics Trend System (NATTS) site.
to
i
OJ
to
-------
Table 2-3. Site Descriptions for the 2003 UATMP Monitoring Stations
2003
UATMP
Code
APMI
AZFL
BAPR
BGFL
BOMA
BOUT
BTMO
BTUT
BUND
CANC
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
AQS Site Code
26-163-0001
12-103-0018
72-017-0003
12-099-0008
25-025-0042
49-011-0001
29-187-0005
49-011-0004
38-057-0004
37-123-0001
34-007-0003
34-027-3001
46-033-0003
Location
Allen Park in Detroit,
MI
Azalea Park in St.
Petersburg, FL
Barceloneta, PR
Belle Glade, FL
Boston, MA
Bountiful, UT
Bonne Terre, MO
Bountiful, UT
Beulah, ND
Candor, NC
Camden, NJ
Chester, NJ
Custer, SD
Population
Residing Within
10 Miles of the
Monitoring
Station a
965,005
575,371
4,253C
34,023
1,585,559
245,409
33,587
245,409
7,451
10,025
2,023,903
231,275
5,094
County-level Stationary
Source F£AP Emissions in the
1999NEIb(tpy)
12,627
5,116
3,497
5,741
1,979
2,344
199
2,344
2,332
113
1,627
1,686
229
Closest National Weather
Service Station
Detroit/Metropolitan
Airport
St. Petersburg/Whitted
Airport
San Juan, PR/Isla Verde
Intl. AIR
Hollywood Int'l. Airport
Logan Int'l. Airport
Salt Lake City
International
Cahokia/St. Louis, IL
Salt Lake City
International
Bismarck Municipal
Airport
Monroe Airport
NE Philadelphia Airport
Somerville, NJ/Somerset
Airport
Custer County Airport
to
-------
Table 2-3. (Continued)
2003
UATMP
Code
CWFL
DBFL
DECO
DEMI
DITN
E7MI
EATN
ELNJ
FLFL
GAFL
GPMS
GRMS
AQS Site Code
12-103-0004
12-099-2005
08-031-0002
26-163-0033
47-043-0010
26-163-0019
47-037-0011
34-039-0004
12-011-2004
12-057-1065
28-047-0008
28-043-0001
Location
Clearwater, FL
Delray Beach, FL
Denver, CO
Dearborn in Detroit,
MI
Dickson, TN
E7 Mile in Detroit, MI
Nashville, TN
(Site #2)
Elizabeth, NJ
Pompano Beach, FL
Gandy in Tampa, FL
Gulfport, MS
Grenada, MS
Population
Residing Within
10 Miles of the
Monitoring
Station a
562,482
493,006
1,283,560
1,208,975
29,329
1,167,824
513,967
2,160,143
1,050,037
455,039
172,557
19,933
County-level Stationary
Source HAP Emissions in the
1999NEIb(tpy)
5,116
5,741
1,901
12,627
1,741
12,627
5,299
2,724
5,352
9,859
4,617
1,023
Closest National Weather
Service Station
St.Petersburg/
Clearwater International
Airport
Palm Beach International
Denver/Centennial
Airport
Detroit City Airport
Outlaw Field Airport
Detroit City Airport
Nashville/Metro Airport
Newark International
Hollywood International
Airport
Tampa, FL International
GulfPort/Biloxi
Regional Airport
Greenwood - Leflore
Airport
to
-------
Table 2-3. (Continued)
2003
UATMP
Code
HACT
HOMI
ITCMI
JAMS
KITN
LDTN
LEFL
LONE
LOTN
MCAZ
MDFL
AQS Site Code
09-003-0017
26-113-0001
26-033-0901
28-049-0010
47-163-1007
47-105-0108
12-057-1075
31-109-0024
47-037-0023
04-013-4009
12-086-4002
Location
Hartford, CT
Houghton Lake, MI
Sault Sainte Marie, MI
Jackson, MS
Kingsport, TN
Loudon, TN
Lewis in Tampa, FL
Lincoln, NE (Site #1)
Nashville, TN (Site
#2)
Phoenix, AZ
Miami, FL
Population
Residing Within
10 Miles of the
Monitoring
Station a
575,327
10,386
21,881
264,058
131,461
46,361
587,295
239,504
464,054
835,936
1,209,024
County-level Stationary
Source HAP Emissions in the
1999NEIb(tpy)
2,967
123
361
1,630
3,695
1,857
9,859
10,525
5,299
9,589
8,468
Closest National Weather
Service Station
Hartford-Brainard
Airport
Houghton
Lake/Roscommon
County Airport
Sault Ste. Marie
Municipal Airport
Jackson/Allen C.
Thompson Field
Tri City Airport
McGhee Tyson Airport
Tampa International
Lincoln Municipal
Airport
Nashville Metro Airport
Phoenix-Deer Valley
Municipal Airport
Miami International
Airport
to
-------
Table 2-3. (Continued)
2003
UATMP
Code
NBIL
NBNJ
ORFL
PGMS
PLOR
PNW
POOK
PSAZ
QVAZ
S4MO
SFSD
AQS Site Code
17-031-4201
34-023-0006
12-095-2002
28-059-0006
41-051-0246
41-051-0244
40-071-0602
04-013-9997
04-021-8001
29-510-0085
46-099-0007
Location
Northbrook in Chicago,
IL
New Brunswick, NJ
Winter Park, FL
Pascagoula, MS
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Ponca City, OK
Supersite in Phoenix,
AZ
Queen Valley in
Phoenix, AZ
St. Louis, MO (Site
#4)
Sioux Falls, SD
Population
Residing Within
10 Miles of the
Monitoring
Station a
884,133
768,506
949,497
58,083
989,953
1,021,272
32,920
1,385,905
62,714
824,653
151,161
County-level Stationary
Source F£AP Emissions in the
1999NEIb(tpy)
20,665
4,111
5,607
4,196
17,918
17,918
637
9,589
1,293
4,193
688
Closest National Weather
Service Station
Palwaukee Municipal
Airport
Somerville, NJ/Somerset
Airport
Orlando Executive
Airport
Pascagoula, MS/Lott
International Airport
Portland International
Airport
Portland International
Airport
Ponca City Municipal
Airport
Phoenix/Deer Valley
Municipal Airport
Phoenix/Sky Harbor
Airport
Cahokia/St. Louis
Joe Foss Field Airport
to
-------
Table 2-3. (Continued)
2003
UATMP
Code
SJPR
SLMO
SPAZ
SPIL
TUMS
WECO
AQS Site Code
72-127-0006
29-510-0089
04-013-4003
17-031-3103
28-081-0005
08-031-3001
Location
San Juan, PR
St. Louis, MO
(Site # 1)
South Phoenix, AZ
Schiller Park in
Chicago, IL
Tupelo, MS
Denver, CO (Site #2)
Population
Residing Within
10 Miles of the
Monitoring
Station a
421,958C
754,882
835,936
2,094,530
69,738
874,731
County-level Stationary
Source HAP Emissions in the
1999NEIb(tpy)
1,196
4,193
9,589
20,665
2,804
1,935
Closest National Weather
Service Station
San Juan, PR/Isla Verde
International Airport
Cahokia/St Louis
Phoenix - Deer Valley
Municipal Airport
O'Hare International
Airport
Tupelo Municipal
Airport
Denver/Centennial
Airport
to
oo
a Reference: http://zipnet.htm
b Reference: EPA, 2003a.
0 For the two Puerto Rico sites, population data reflect county-level, or zona urbana, population from the 2002 Census.
-------
Table 2-4. VOC Method Detection Limits
Compound
Method Detection Limit
(ppbv)
Hydrocarbons
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
«-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
Toluene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
m-,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.07
0.10
0.06
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
ra-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1,1 -Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1 -Dichloroethene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloropropane
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
0.15
0.10
0.14
0.08
0.11
0.11
0.09
0.06
0.07
0.19
0.05
0.14
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.12
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.11
0.07
0.05
0.10
2-38
-------
Table 2-4. (Continued)
Compound
Method Detection Limit
(ppbv)
Halogenated Hydrocarbons (Continued)
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methylene Chloride
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.23
0.05
0.09
0.09
0.17
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.06
Polar Compounds
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether
0.35
0.21
0.16
0.10
0.20
0.18
0.10
0.10
0.12
Because w-xylene and/>-xylene elute from the GC column at the same time, the VOC
analytical method can only report the sum of w-xylene and/?-xylene concentrations and
not concentrations of the individual compounds.
2-39
-------
Table 2-5. SNMOC Method Detection Limits
Compound
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
c/s-2-Butene
trans-2-Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
w-Decane
1-Decene
/w-Diethylbenzene
/>-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
w-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Ethane
2-Ethyl-l-butene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene
Method Detection
Limit
ppbC
0.11
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.20
0.22
0.25
0.25
0.20
0.22
0.20
0.20
0.28
0.22
0.49
0.49
0.17
0.32
0.21
0.15
Compound
3-Methyl-l-butene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2-Methylhexane
3 -Methy Ihexane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
w-Nonane
1-Nonene
w-Octane
1-Octene
w-Pentane
1 -Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
/ra«s-2-Pentene
a-Pinene
p-Pinene
Propane
w-Propylbenzene
Method Detection
Limit
ppbC
0.22
0.25
0.21
0.25
0.20
0.21
0.17
0.13
0.22
0.32
0.32
0.11
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.20
0.22
0.21
0.25
0.25
0.19
0.21
2-40
-------
Table 2-5. (Continued)
Compound
/w-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
/>-Ethyltoluene
w-Heptane
1-Heptene
w-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
trans-2-Rexene
Isobutane
Isobutene/1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methy 1-1 -Butene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Method Detection
Limit
ppbC
0.15
0.22
0.19
0.23
0.28
0.21
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.20
0.18
0.22
0.22
Compound
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
Toluene
n-Tridecane
1-Tridecene
1,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3 ,5-Trimethylbenzene
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
w-Undecane
1-Undecene
7w-,/>-Xylene
o-Xylene
Method Detection
Limit
ppbC
0.11
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.49
0.49
0.19
0.21
0.18
0.21
0.19
0.20
0.24
0.24
0.16
0.19
Concentration in ppbC = concentration in ppbv x number of carbon atoms in compound.
Because Isobutene and 1-Butene elute from the GC column at the same time, the SNMOC analytical
method can only report the sum of concentrations for these two compounds and not concentrations of the
individual compounds. For the same reason, the /w-xylene and^-xylene concentrations are reported
together as a sum.
2-41
-------
Table 2-6. Carbonyl Method Detection Limits
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5 -Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Method Detection Limit (ppbv)
0.014
0.014
0.001
0.007
0.005
0.002
0.023
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.001
Notes: The carbonyl detection limits vary from site to site. Therefore, the above MDLs are averages.
Because butyraldehyde and isobutyraldehyde elute from the HPLC column at the same time, the
carbonyl analytical method can only report the sum of concentrations for these two compounds
and not concentrations of the individual compounds. For the same reason, the analytical method
also reports only the sum of concentrations for the three tolualdehyde isomers, as opposed to
reporting separate concentrations for the three individual compounds.
2-42
-------
Table 2-7. Semivolatile Organic Compound Method Detection Limits
Compound
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(e) pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Coronene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Method Detection Limit
Total pg/m3
0.04
0.10
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.10
0.10
0.04
0.05
0.10
0.04
0.08
0.06
0.09
2-43
-------
Table 2-8. Metals and Hexavalent Chromium Method Detection Limits
Compound
Antimony3
Arsenicb
Beryllium0
Cadmiumd
Chromium (total Chromium)6
Cobaltf
Lead8
Manganese11
Mercury1
NickeF
Seleniumk
Cr+6
DL
50 ng/filter
75 ng/filter
10 ng/filter
50 ng/filter
100 ng/filter
100 ng/filter
50 ng/filter
100 ng/filter
15 ng/filter
100 ng/filter
50 ng/filter
0.034 ng/m3
3 BOMA and BTUT: 10 ng/filter
b BOMA: 85 ng/filter; BTUT: 100 ng/filter
c BOMA: 50 ng/filter; BTUT: 25 ng/filter; S4MO: 15 ng/filter
d BOMA: 20 ng/filter
e BOMA: 600 ng/filter
f BOMA: 50 ng/filter
8 BOMA: 90 ng/filter; BTUT: 100 ng/filter; BOUTand WECO: 125 ng/filter
h BOMA: 125 ng/filter
1 BOMA and S4MO: 25 ng/filter
J BOMA: 500 ng/filter
k BOMA: 30 ng/filter
2-44
-------
Table 2-9a. Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Carbonyl Compounds, VOC, SNMOC, and SVOC
Site
APMI
AZFL
BAPR
BGFL
BOUT
BTMO
BTUT
BUND
CANC
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
CWFL
DBFL
DECO
Monitoring
Location
Allen Park in
Detroit, MI
Azalea Park in St.
Petersburg, FL
Barceloneta, PR
Belle Glade, FL
Bountiful, UT
Bonne Terre, MD
Bountiful, UT
Beulah, ND
Candor, NC
Camden, NJ
Chester, NJ
Custer Park, SD
Clearwater, FL
Delray Beach, FL
Denver, CO
Sampling Period3
Starting
Date
8/13/03
1/3/03
1/3/03
1/3/03
1/09/03
1/3/03
7/14/03
1/3/03
5/27/03
1/3/03
1/3/03
1/3/03
1/3/03
1/3/03
1/3/03
Ending
Date
11/29/03
12/29/03
8/7/03
12/17/03
6/26/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
7/8/03
12/29/03
9/24/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
12/17/03
5/3/03
Carbonyl Data
A
—
59
22
35
39
69
30
2
8
52
88
79
147
36
18
B
—
60
24
35
40
71
35
2
9
57
92
80
148
36
18
C
—
98
92
100
98
97
86
100
89
91
96
99
99
100
100
VOC Data
A
53
—
21
—
35
—
28
39
—
55
85
75
—
—
25
B
53
—
26
—
36
—
33
41
62
93
79
—
26
C
100
81
97
—
85
95
89
91
95
96
SNMOC
A
—
—
35
65
28
—
—
—
78
—
B
—
—
36
69
31
—
—
—
80
—
C
—
—
97
94
90
—
—
—
98
—
SVOC
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
C
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
to
-------
Table 2-9a. Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Carbonyl Compounds, VOC, SNMOC, and SVOC (Continued)
Site
DEMI
DITN
E7MI
EATN
ELNJ
FLFL
GAFL
GPMS
GRMS
HACT
HOMI
ITCMI
JAMS
KITN
Monitoring
Location
Dearborn in
Detroit, MI
Dickson, TN
E7 Mile in
Detroit, MI
Nashville, TN
Elizabeth, NJ
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Gandy in Tampa,
FL
Gulfport, MS
Grenada, MS
Hartford, CT
Houghton Lake, MI
Sault Sainte Marie,
MI
Jackson, MS
Kingsport, TN
Sampling Period3
Starting
Date
1/3/03
12/18/03
6/8/03
1/3/03
2/14/03
1/15/03
1/3/03
1/3/03
4/30/03
6/3/03
1/3/03
6/8/03
1/3/03
1/9/03
Ending
Date
12/29/03
12/23/03
8/31/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
12/5/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
12/23/03
12/29/03
12/22/03
Carbonyl Data
A
94
4
—
35
75
39
75
39
28
56
—
—
38
41
B
94
4
—
44
82
40
76
41
28
56
—
—
41
45
C
100
100
—
80
91
98
99
95
100
100
—
—
93
91
VOC Data
A
77
5
—
36
74
—
—
36
24
—
27
32
37
41
B
92
5
—
44
80
—
—
39
28
35
35
41
44
C
84
100
—
82
93
92
86
77
91
90
93
SNMOC
A
—
13
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
15
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
C
—
87
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
SVOC
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
29
—
—
B
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
30
—
—
C
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
97
—
—
to
-------
Table 2-9a. Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Carbonyl Compounds, VOC, SNMOC, and SVOC (Continued)
Site
LDTN
LEFL
LONE
LOTN
MCAZ
MDFL
NBIL
NBNJ
ORFL
PGMS
POOK
PSAZ
QVAZ
S4MO
Monitoring
Location
Loudon, TN
Lewis in Tampa, FL
Lincoln, NE
Fire Station #14
Nashville, TN
Phoenix, AZ
Miami-Bade, FL
Northbrook in
Chicago, IL
New Brunswick, NJ
Orlando, FL
Pascagoula, MS
Ponca City, OK
Supersite in
Phoenix, AZ
Queen Valley in
Phoenix, AZ
St. Louis, MO
Site #4
Sampling Period3
Starting
Date
11/5/03
1/3/03
1/3/03
1/3/03
4/3/03
1/3/03
4/21/03
1/3/03
4/9/03
1/3/03
11/11/03
1/3/03
1/9/03
1/3/03
Ending
Date
12/23/03
12/29/03
4/15/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
12/5/03
12/29/03
12/31/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
Carbonyl Data
A
7
82
21
29
—
36
—
75
57
43
—
—
—
91
B
7
84
22
42
—
38
—
86
59
43
—
—
—
91
C
100
98
95
69
—
95
—
87
97
100
—
—
—
100
VOC Data
A
4
—
20
30
78
—
47
73
—
37
—
73
30
88
B
4
—
21
43
79
53
82
—
41
—
74
31
88
C
100
95
70
99
89
89
90
—
99
97
100
SNMOC
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
21
—
—
88
B
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
21
—
—
88
C
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
100
—
—
100
SVOC
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
C
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
to
-------
Table 2-9a. Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Carbonyl Compounds, VOC, SNMOC, and SVOC (Continued)
Site
SFSD
SJPR
SLMO
SPAZ
SPIL
TUMS
WECO
—
Monitoring
Location
Sioux Falls, SD
San Juan, PR
St. Louis, MO
(Site #1)
South Phoenix, AZ
Schiller Park in
Chicago, IL
Tupelo, MS
Denver, CO
Site #2
Overall
Sampling Period3
Starting
Date
1/3/03
1/3/03
1/3/03
1/3/03
4/15/03
1/3/03
1/3/03
—
Ending
Date
12/29/03
8/7/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
12/29/03
5/3/03
—
Carbonyl Data
A
59
25
76
—
—
40
26
1875
B
76
26
78
—
—
40
28
1978
C
78
96
97
—
—
100
93
95
VOC Data
A
67
24
—
72
40
36
26
1550
B
78
28
—
76
44
38
28
1700
C
86
86
—
95
91
95
93
91
SNMOC
A
67
—
75
—
—
—
—
470
B
77
—
78
—
—
—
—
495
C
87
—
96
—
—
—
—
95
SVOC
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
29
B
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
30
C
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
97
to
-k
oo
a Begins with 1st valid sample and includes all six types.
A = Valid Samples
B = Total Number of Samples
C = Completeness (%)
-------
Table 2-9b. Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Metals and Hexavalent Chromium
Code
BOMA
BOUT
BTUT
DECO
EATN
HOMI
LOTN
PLOR
PNW
S4MO
WECO
—
Monitoring
Location
Boston, MA
Bountiful, UT
(Site #1)
Bountiful, UT
(Site #2)
Denver, CO
Nashville, TN
(Site #1)
Houghton Lake, MI
Nashville, TN
(Site #2)
Portland, OR
(Site #1)
Portland, OR
St. Louis, MO
Denver, CO
Site #2
Overall
Sampling Period
Starting
Date
10/18/03
1/9/03
7/14/03
1/3/03
1/15/03
4/9/03
1/15/03
1/3/03
5/9/03
7/8/03
1/3/03
—
Ending
Date
11/29/03
6/26/03
9/30/03
4/27/03
12/29/03
8/7/03
12/29/03
10/30/03
10/30/03
12/29/03
4/27/03
—
Metals
A
16
27
17
17
25
2
31
—
—
37
29
201
B
16
27
17
20
26
2
31
—
—
37
30
206
C
100
100
100
85
96
100
100
—
—
100
97
98
Hexavalent Chromium
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
57
28
—
—
85
B
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
57
28
—
—
85
C
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
100
100
—
—
100
A= Days With Valid Samples
B = Days When Samples Were Collected
C = Completeness (%)
Note: The completeness data only indicate the number of days when samples were collected.
2-49
-------
Table 2-10. Semivolatile and Inorganics (Metals) Which Are HAPs
HAP
Category IV
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Phenol
p-Cre$o\
o-Cresol
Quinoline
Analytical Method
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
HAP
Category V
Antimony & Compounds
Arsenic & Compounds
Beryllium & Compounds
Cadmium & Compounds
Chromium & Compounds*
Lead & Compounds
Manganese & Compounds
Mercury & Compounds
Nickel & Compounds
Antimony & Compounds
Selenium & Compounds
Cobalt & Compounds
Hexavalent Chromium
Analytical
Method
IO-3.5(29)
IO-3.5(29)
IO-3.5(29)
IO-3.5(29)
IO-3.5(29)
IO-3.5(29)
IO-3.5(29)
IO-3.5(29)
IO-3.5(29)
IO-3.5(29)
IO-3.5(29)
IO-3.5(29)
GARB 039(30)
* Total Chromium only.
2-50
-------
3.0 Summary of the 2003 UATMP Data
This section summarizes the data gathered during the 2003 UATMP reporting year. A
total of 72 VOC and carbonyl compounds were sampled during this program reporting year.
(Unlike previous years, acrolein was not reported.) Within the VOCs, three distinct groups of
compounds were identified: 1) hydrocarbons; 2) halogenated hydrocarbons; and 3) polar
compounds. All four of the these compound groups (including carbonyls) are discussed in
greater detail in Sections 3.2 through 3.5.
A complete presentation of the data is found in Appendices C through N. Specifically:
• Appendix C: 2003 Summary Tables for VOC Monitoring;
Appendix D: 2003 Summary Tables for SNMOC Monitoring;
• Appendix E: 2003 Summary Tables for Carbonyl Monitoring;
• Appendix F: 2003 Summary Tables for SVOC Monitoring;
• Appendix G: 2003 Summary Tables for Metals Monitoring;
• Appendix H: 2003 Summary Tables for Hexavalent Chromium Monitoring;
Appendix I: 2003 VOC Raw Monitoring Data;
Appendix J: 2003 SNMOC Raw Monitoring Data;
• Appendix K: 2003 Carbonyl Raw Monitoring Data;
Appendix L: 2003 SVOC Raw Monitoring Data;
• Appendix M: 2003 Metal Raw Monitoring Data; and
• Appendix N: 2003 Hexavalent Chromium Raw Monitoring Data.
Nearly 118,600 urban air toxics VOC and carbonyl data concentrations (including
duplicate and replicate samples) were collected at the forty-eight sites for the 2003 UATMP
5-1
-------
reporting year. Additionally, nine sites chose to sample for speciated nonmethane organic
compounds (SNMOC) accounting for another 36,894 data concentrations. Semivolatile data
were collected at one site totaling 551 data concentrations (data listed in Appendix F). Metals
data were collected at nine sites totaling nearly 2,255 data concentrations (listed in Appendix G).
Finally, Hexavalent Chromium data were collected at two sites totaling 85 data concentrations
(listed in Appendix H). These data will be analyzed on a site-specific basis in sections four
through twenty-two of this document. Although there are fifty-three stations listed in Section 2
of this document, the Portland, OR sites (PLOR and PNW), E7MI in Detroit, MI, Boston, MA
(BOMA), and Ponca City, OK (POOK) did not sample for either VOCs or carbonyls.
3.1 Data Summary Parameters
The summary tables in Appendices C through H were uploaded into a database for air
quality analysis. This section will examine five different data summary parameters for VOCs
and/or carbonyl compounds: 1) number of sampling detects; 2) concentration range; 3)
geometric means; 4) prevalence; and 5) correlation. The following paragraphs review the basic
findings indicated by the summary tables.
3.1.1 Number of Sampling Detects
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 are sampling detect summaries of the seventy-two VOC and carbonyl
concentrations. Less than 41% of the pollutants sampled were found to be above the method
detection limit (MDL). Of those that were detected:
• 30.8% were hydrocarbons;
23.3% were halogenated hydrocarbons;
5.5% were polar compounds; and
• 40.4% were carbonyl compounds.
5-2
-------
These numbers resemble those from the 2001 and 2002 UATMP reports. Acetaldehyde,
acetone, butyr/isobutyraldehyde, and formaldehyde had the greatest number of detectable values
reported in samples (1,314), while ten compounds had zero detects (see Tables 3-1 and 3-2).
3.1.2 Concentration Range
Nearly 86% of the detects had concentration values less than 1 ppbv, consistent with the
trends from the 2001 and 2002 report. Less than 2% had concentrations greater than 5 ppbv.
Polar compounds were observed in the highest number of samples with concentrations greater
than 5 ppbv (187); halogenated hydrocarbons had the lowest (25). There was at least one
compound sampled at a concentration greater than 5 ppbv on 68 of 91 total sampling days. An
interesting note is that 34 of the seventy compounds never exceeded 1 ppbv.
The range of detectable values for each site is listed in Table 3-3. The APMI, CUSD,
HOMI, KITN, LDTN, LOTN, NBIL, SFSD, SPAZ, TUMS, and WECO sites had maximum
concentration values of over 100 ppbv, unusually high when compared to the other sites. S4MO
had the greatest number of detects (1,695), ELNJ and also had the greatest number of samples
with concentrations greater than 5 ppbv (43).
3.1.3 Geometric Means
The geometric mean is the central tendency of lognormally distributed data, and can be
calculated by taking the "nth" root of the product of the "n" concentrations. The geometric mean
is a useful parameter for calculating a central tendency of a concentration data set, whose
arithmetic mean may be skewed by an unusually high concentration value. Geometric means for
each site for the four different pollutant groups are presented in Table 3-4. The HOMI site had
the highest geometric mean for total polar compounds (39.61 ppbv) while the SPAZ site had the
highest geometric mean for total hydrocarbons (11.45 ppbv). The highest total halogenated
hydrocarbon geometric mean was at APMI (11.18 ppbv). The LDTN site also has the highest
total carbonyl geometric mean (37.96 ppbv).
-------
3.1.4 Prevalence
In previous UATMPs, prevalence referred to the frequency with which an air pollutant
was found at levels detectable by the corresponding sampling and analytical method. For the
2003 UATMP, prevalence refers only to compounds which are identified by EPA as cancer or
noncancer. Cancer compounds, when inhaled for chronic periods of time, contribute to the
formation of cancer; noncancer compounds contribute to other illnesses, such as asthma. It is
possible for a compound to be both cancer and noncancer.
UATMP concentrations are normalized based on the toxicity of the compound. Thus,
multiple compounds can be compared based on toxicity. Unit Risk Exposure (URE) factors are
used for the cancer normalization. Reference concentrations (RfC) are used for noncancer
normalizations. However, less than half of all the measured UATMP compounds have either a
URE or RfC factor. Because of this, some compounds which have high measured concentrations
(e.g., acetylene) will not be considered prevalent. Of the 261 total UATMP compounds, less
than 100 compounds have either a URE for cancer or RfC for noncancer (Table 3-5). Only the
VOC and carbonyl compounds (which are measured at 48 of the 53 total sites) will be used to
determine nationwide prevalence.
Another change for the 2003 UATMP is that each site will have a ranking of compounds
by toxicity. Inter- and intra-site comparisons of the toxic compounds can now be performed
because of the normalization, and can provide useful insight in and among the urban and rural
areas.
Because the UATMP does not characterize every component of air pollution, many
compounds known to be prevalent in urban air (e.g., ozone and nitrous oxides) are not
considered in this report. Readers should be careful not to confuse the most prevalent
compounds program-wide identified by the 2003 UATMP with the most prevalent compounds in
urban air pollution.
5-4
-------
A compound was considered prevalent if its average cancer and/or noncancer toxicity
across the network of sites contributed to the top 95% of the total toxicity weighting for the
network. Of the 15 VOC and carbonyl compounds with URE factors, the top seven contributed
to 95% of the total cancer toxicity weight. Of the 32 VOC and carbonyl compounds with RfC
factors, the top nine pollutants contributed to 95% of the total noncancer toxicity weight. Tables
3-5a-b summarize the toxicity analysis. Cancer risk out of a million people is also described in
Table 3-5a, while the number of adverse health effect concentrations that were higher than its
noncancer RfC is listed in Table 3-5b. Specific discussion of the cancer and noncancer risks are
in the individual state sections.
For the 2003 UATMP, the program-wide prevalent compounds are:
HYDROCARBONS
- 1,3-Butadiene
- Benzene
Xylene Compounds (o-, m-, p-)
HALOGENATED HYDROCARBONS
- Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
- />-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
POLAR COMPOUNDS
- Acetonitrile
- Acrylonitrile
CARBONYL COMPOUNDS
- Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
"Xylene Compounds (o-, m-, p-)" are also referred to as "Total Xylenes" or "Xylenes
(total)" throughout this report. Of the prevalent compounds, five have both cancer and
noncancer weightings: 1,3-butadiene; acetaldehyde; acrylonitrile; benzene; and
3-5
-------
tetrachloroethylene. The other cancer compounds are carbon tetrachloride andp-
dichlorobenzene; acetonitrile, formaldehyde, bromomethane, and xylenes (total) are the
remaining noncancer compounds.
Readers interested in closer examination of data trends for the less program-wide
prevalent compounds should refer to the summary tables in Appendices F through I, and the raw
monitoring data in Appendices J through M. However, the reader should note the limitations
posed by data sets with many nondetect observations.
3.1.5 Pearson Correlations
This report uses Pearson correlation coefficients to measure the degree of correlation
between two variables. By definition, Pearson correlation coefficients always lie between -1 and
+1. Three qualification statements may be made:
A correlation coefficient of-1 indicates a perfectly "negative" relationship, indicating
that increases in the magnitude of one variable are associated with proportionate
decreases in the magnitude of the other variable, and vice versa;
A correlation coefficient of+1 indicates a perfectly "positive" relationship, indicating
that the magnitudes of two variables both increase and both decrease proportionately.
Data that are completely uncorrelated have Pearson correlation coefficients of zero.
Therefore, the sign (positive or negative) and magnitude of the Pearson correlation coefficient
indicate the direction and strength, respectively, of data correlations. Generally, correlations
greater than 0.75 or less than -0.75 are classified as very strong; correlation between 0.50 and
0.75 and -0.50 and -0.75 are classified as strong; and correlations between 0.25 and 0.50 and
-0.25 and -0.50 are classified as moderately strong. Correlations between -0.25 and 0.25 are
classified as weak.
5-6
-------
When calculating correlations among the UATMP data, several measures were taken to
identify spurious correlations and to avoid introducing bias to the correlations:
The statistical significance of the Pearson correlation coefficients was evaluated using a
standard t-test—a test commonly used for this purpose (Harnett, 1982). In this report,
Pearson correlation coefficients were tested for statistical significance using the 5 percent
level of significance. Whenever possible, a 95 percent confidence interval was calculated
around the estimated correlation coefficient. If zero did not fall within the interval, the
coefficient was considered statistically significantly different from zero.
Data correlations were calculated only for the most program-wide prevalent compounds
listed in this report. Because the UATMP monitoring data are least precise for
compounds having many nondetect observations (see Section 23), eliminating the less
program-wide prevalent compounds improves the correlation analysis.
Correlations were calculated from the processed UATMP monitoring database in which
each compound has just one numerical concentration for each successful sampling date.
3.2 UATMP Compound Groups
The seventy-two UATMP compounds listed in section 2 are grouped into four compound
groups: hydrocarbons; halogenated hydrocarbons; polar compounds; and carbonyls. Each
member of the compound groups shares similar chemical makeup, as well as exhibits similar
tendencies.
3.2.1 Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons are organic compounds that contain only carbon and hydrogen.
Hydrocarbons are derived mostly from crude petroleum sources and are classified according to
the arrangement of the atoms, as alicyclic, aliphatic, and aromatic. Hydrocarbons are of prime
economic importance because they encompass the constituents of the major fossil fuels,
petroleum and natural gas, as well as plastics, waxes, and oils. In urban air pollution, these
components—along with oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and sunlight—contribute to the formation of
tropospheric ozone.
5-7
-------
As stated above, hydrocarbons in the atmosphere originate from natural sources and from
various anthropogenic sources, such as combustion of fuel and biomass, petroleum refining,
petrochemical manufacturing, solvent use, and gas and oil production and use. Studies have
shown that emissions from different anthropogenic sources vary significantly from location to
location. For example, on a nationwide basis, EPA estimates that 50 percent of anthropogenic
nonmethane volatile organic compound releases in 1996 came from industrial processes,
42 percent from transportation, 6 percent from fuel combustion, and the rest from other sources
(USEPA, 1997). In urban areas, however, the estimated contributions of different source
categories differ from these national averages. For instance, a 1987 study in the Los Angeles
area estimated that 49 percent of nonmethane hydrocarbon emissions come from vehicle exhaust,
11 percent from liquid gasoline, 10 percent from gasoline vapor, and 30 percent from sources
other than motor vehicles (Fujita et al., 1994). These figures suggest that motor vehicles may
play a greater role in hydrocarbon emissions in urban areas than national statistics indicate.
3.2.2 Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Halogenated hydrocarbons are organic compounds that contain carbon, hydrogen, and
halogens - the chemical group that includes chlorine, bromine, and fluorine. Most halogenated
hydrocarbons are used for industrial purposes and as solvents, though some are produced
naturally (Godish, 1997). Once emitted to the air, many volatile halogenated hydrocarbons resist
photochemical breakdown and therefore persist in the atmosphere for relatively long periods of
time (Godish, 1997; Ramamoorthy and Ramamoorthy, 1997). These compounds can cause
chronic health effects as well as contribute to the formation of tropospheric ozone. Similar to
hydrocarbons, only the halogenated hydrocarbons with lower molecular weights are volatile, and
the sampling and analytical methods used in the 2003 UATMP measure a subset of 37 of these
volatile compounds.
3.2.3 Polar Compounds
Polar compounds (i.e., oxygenated compounds such as methyl tert-buty\ ether, methyl
ethyl ketone, etc.) were added to the UATMP analyte list that already included the volatile
-------
halogenated hydrocarbons and selected hydrocarbons because of the nationwide use of these
types of compounds as gasoline additives and their toxicity. Because of the presence of
compounds characteristic of motor vehicle emissions, any compounds used as gasoline additives
would be expected to be correspondingly prevalent. Other polar compounds such as acetonitrile
were added to the analyte list because the compounds were observed at high concentrations at
one or more monitoring sites.
3.2.4 Carbonyl Compounds
Carbonyl compounds are organic compounds characterized by their composition of
carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and by the presence of at least one carbon-oxygen double bond.
Several different factors are known to affect ambient air concentrations of carbonyl compounds,
most notably:
Combustion sources, motor vehicles, and various industrial processes that emit carbonyl
compounds directly to the atmosphere;
Photochemical reactions that form carbonyl compounds in the air, typically from airborne
hydrocarbons; and
Photochemical reactions that consume carbonyl compounds from the air, generally by
photolysis or by reaction with hydroxyl radicals (Seinfeld, 1986).
3.3 Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters
Ambient air concentration tendencies often correlate favorably with ambient
meteorological observations. The following three sections summarize how each of the prevalent
compound concentrations correlated with eight meteorological parameters: maximum daily
temperature; average daily temperature; average daily dew point temperature; average daily wet
bulb temperature; average daily relative humidity; average daily sea level pressure; and average
wind information. Additionally, for the monitors identified as a NATTS site (Table 2-2),
composite back trajectory maps were prepared to identify where air flow originated 24 hours
prior to being sampled.
5-9
-------
3.3.1 Maximum and Average Temperature
Temperature is often a component of high ambient air concentrations for some
compounds, such as ozone. The temperature will help speed up the kinetics as compounds react
with each other. According to Table 3-6, the program-wide prevalent compounds had mostly
weak correlations with maximum temperature and average temperature. Bromomethane had the
strongest correlation with maximum temperature (-0.29), as well as the strongest correlation with
average temperature (-0.27). It should be noted that, although the correlations are low, they are
negative, which indicates that an increase in temperature is associated with a proportionate
decrease in bromomethane concentration.
The poor correlation across the majority of the sites is not surprising due to the complex
and diverse local meteorology associated with the monitoring locations. In the previous
UATMP report, 56 sites are spread across sixteen states and one U.S. territory. For this report,
53 sites are spread across seventeen states and one U.S. territory. As discussed in Sections 4
through 22, the temperature parameters correlate much better at certain individual sites.
3.3.2 Moisture Parameters
Three moisture parameters were used in this study for correlation with the prevalent
compounds. The dew point temperature is the temperature to which moist air must be cooled to
reach saturation with respect to water. The wet-bulb temperature is the temperature to which
moist air must be cooled by evaporating water into it at constant pressure until saturation is
reached. The relative humidity is the ratio of the mixing ratio to its saturation value at the same
temperature and pressure (Rogers and Yau, 1989). All three of these parameters provide an
indication of how much moisture is presently in the air.
As can be seen in Table 3-6, the three moisture parameters had mostly weak correlations
with the prevalent compounds. The strongest correlation was the relative humidity and the 1,3-
butadiene concentration (-0.32), again a negative correlation. The sites used for sampling in this
program year were located in different climatic zones ranging from a desert climate (Arizona) to
3-10
-------
a very moist climate (Puerto Rico). Bromomethane and 1,3-butadiene concentrations had the
strongest negative correlation with wet bulb and dew point temperatures (-0.26 with wet bulb
temperature and -0.27 with dew point temperature, respectively). As discussed in Sections 4
through 21, the moisture parameters correlate much better at certain individual sites.
3.3.3 Wind and Pressure Information
Surface wind observations include two primary components: wind speed and wind
direction. Wind speed, by itself, is a scalar value and is usually measured in nautical miles or
knots. Wind direction describes where the wind is coming from, and is measured in degrees
where 0° is from the north, 90° is from the east, 180° is from the south, and 270° is from the
west. Together, the wind speed and wind direction are described as a vector, and the hourly
values can now be averaged.
The u-component of the wind speed is the vector value traveling toward the x-axis in a
Cartesian grid coordinate system. The u-component is calculated as follows:
u-component = -1* (wind speed) * sin(wind direction, degrees)
Similarly, the v-component of the wind speed is the vector value traveling toward the y-axis in a
Cartesian grid coordinate system. The v-component is calculated as follows:
v-component = -1* (wind speed) * cos(wind direction, degrees)
Using the u- and v- components of the wind speed allows averaging and correlation analyses
with the measured concentrations.
As shown in Table 3-6, the u- and v- components of the wind speed have very weak
correlations with the prevalent compounds across all sites, which is consistent with the
temperature and moisture parameter observations. Geographical features such as mountains or
3-11
-------
valleys influence wind speed and wind direction. The sites used for sampling in the 2003
program year were located in different geographic zones ranging from a mountainous region
(Colorado) to a plains region (Nebraska). Additionally, sites located downwind may correlate
better with the measured concentrations than sites upwind. Bromomethane concentrations had
the strongest correlation with the u-component of the wind speed (0.15, a positive correlation),
while 1,3-butadiene had the strongest correlation with the v-component of the wind speed (-0.15,
a negative correlation). As discussed in Sections 4 through 22, the u- and v- components
correlate much better at certain individual sites.
Wind is created through changes in pressure. The magnitude of the pressure difference
(or pressure gradient) over an area is directly proportional to the magnitude of the wind speed.
The direction of the wind flow is governed by the direction of the pressure gradient. Sea level
pressure is the local station pressure corrected for elevation, in effect bringing all geographic
locations down to sea-level, thus making different topographical areas comparable.
Overall, sea level pressure correlated weakly with ambient concentration. The strongest
positive correlation occurred with bromomethane (0.16), while the strongest negative correlation
occurred with chloromethane and acrylonitrile (-0.28).
3.4 The Impact of Motor Vehicle Emissions on Spatial Variations
Motor vehicles contribute significantly to air pollution in urban environments. Pollutants
found in motor vehicle exhaust generally result from incomplete combustion of vehicle fuels.
Although modern vehicles and, more recently, vehicle fuels have been engineered to minimize
air emissions, all motor vehicles with internal combustion engines emit a wide range of chemical
pollutants. The magnitude of these emissions in urban areas primarily depends on the volume of
traffic, while the chemical profile of these emissions depends more on vehicle design and fuel
content. This report uses four parameters to evaluate the impact of motor vehicle emissions on
ambient air quality:
3-12
-------
• Estimated motor vehicle ownership data;
• Motor vehicle emissions profiles;
Estimated daily traffic estimates; and
Reformulated gasoline (RFG) analysis.
3.4.1 Motor Vehicle Ownership Data
As an indicator of motor vehicle emissions near the UATMP monitoring locations,
Table 3-7 presents estimates of the number of cars owned by residents in the county which the
monitor is located. Car registration data are available at the state-level (EIA, 2003). Where
possible, actual county-level registration was obtained from the state or local agency. If data
were not available, then the county proportion of the state population was applied to the state
registration count. For each UATMP county, a car registration to population ratio was
developed. Each ratio was then applied to the 10-mile populations surrounding the monitors
(from Table 2-3). These estimated values are discussed in the individual State sections.
For purposes of comparison, both motor vehicle ownership data and the arithmetic mean
of total program-wide prevalent hydrocarbons are presented in Table 3-7. The data in the table
indicate a positive linear correlation between motor vehicle ownership and ambient air
concentrations of hydrocarbons. However, readers should keep in mind other factors that might
impact the reliability of motor vehicle ownership data as an indicator of ambient air monitoring
data results:
Estimates of higher car ownership surrounding a monitor do not necessarily imply
increased motor vehicle use in the immediate vicinity of a monitoring location.
Conversely, sparsely populated regions often contain heavily traveled roadways.
Emissions sources in the area other than motor vehicles may significantly affect levels of
hydrocarbons in the ambient air.
3-13
-------
3.4.2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Profiles
The magnitude of emissions from motor vehicles generally depends on the volume of
traffic in urban areas, but the composition of these emissions depends more on vehicle design.
Because the distribution of vehicle designs (i.e., the relative number of motor vehicles of
different styles) is probably quite similar from one urban area to the next, the composition of air
pollution resulting from motor vehicle emissions is not expected to exhibit significant spatial
variations. In support of this hypothesis, previous air monitoring studies have observed
relatively constant composition of ambient air samples collected along heavily traveled urban
roadways (Conner et al., 1995). Roadside studies have found particularly consistent proportions
of four hydrocarbons (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and the xylene isomers - the "BTEX"
compounds) both in motor vehicle exhaust and in ambient air near roadways.
To examine the impact of motor vehicle emissions on air quality at the 2003 UATMP
monitoring sites, Figure 3-1 compares concentration ratios for the BTEX compounds measured
during the 2003 UATMP to the ratios reported in a roadside study (Conner et al., 1995). This
comparison provides a qualitative depiction of how greatly motor vehicle emissions affect air
quality at the UATMP monitoring locations: the more similar the concentration ratios at a
particular monitoring location are to those of the roadside study, the more likely that motor
vehicle emissions impact ambient levels of hydrocarbons at that location.
As Figure 3-1 shows, the concentration ratios for BTEX compounds measured at nearly
every UATMP monitoring station bear some resemblance to the ratios reported in the roadside
study. The BTEX ratios at the ELNJ and PGMS monitoring site appear to be the most similar to
the roadside study profile. For all monitoring locations the toluene:ethylbenzene ratio is clearly
the largest value of the four ratios, with the exceptions of BUND, DITN, GRMS, and QVAZ; the
benzene:ethylbenzene ratio is clearly the smallest value of the ratios, with the exceptions of
BUND, HOMI, ITCMI, and LONE. These observations suggest, though certainly do not prove,
that emissions from motor vehicles significantly affect levels of hydrocarbons in urban ambient
air.
3-14
-------
3.4.3 Estimated Traffic Data
When a site is being characterized, a parameter often recorded is the number of vehicles
which daily pass the monitor. For forty-eight of the 53 UATMP monitors, traffic data were
available; for the unknown traffic data count, local agencies were contacted to provide an
estimation. Table 3-7 contains the estimated daily traffic values, as well as county-level on-road
and non-road HAP (hazardous air pollutant) emissions.
The highest traffic volume occurs at the SPIL site, with over 215,000 vehicles passing by
this monitor. However, the average hydrocarbon (total) value was only 4.38 ppbv, which is
ranked 20th among sites that measured hydrocarbons. The highest average hydrocarbon values
were at SPAZ, PSAZ, and DECO, yet the traffic count is ranked 12th, 49th, and 13th, respectively.
Specific characterizations for these sites appear in the separate state sections. Estimated on-road
county emissions were highest in Cook County, IL, which is the location of two UATMP sites
(NBIL and SPIL). The hydrocarbon averages in Cook County, IL were similar to one another
(4.38 ppbv for SPIL and 3.13 ppbv for NBIL). Estimated non-road county emissions were also
highest in Cook County, IL. Non-road emission sources include, but are not limited to, activities
from airplanes, construction vehicles, and lawn and garden equipment. There does not appear to
be any direct correlation between traffic counts and average hydrocarbon concentrations.
3.4.4 Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) Analysis
For some areas of the country that exceed the national air quality standard for ozone, the
Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that gasoline that had been "reformulated" to achieve reductions
in ozone-forming compounds and toxic air pollutants be made commercially available. For
gasoline to be considered reformulated, it must have an oxygen content of at least 2.0 percent by
weight, a benzene content no greater than 1.0 percent by volume, and no heavy metals (US EPA,
1994). Typical additives are methyl tert-buty\ ether (MTBE), ethanol, fert-amyl methyl ether
(TAME), and ethyl fert-butyl ether (ETBE). MTBE, TAME, and ETBE are compounds sampled
for the UATMP. The use of RFG has been implemented in two phases. Phase I began in January
1, 1995, and Phase II began in 2000. Emissions of VOC and air toxics from vehicles using
3-15
-------
Phase IRFG are projected to be 15 percent less than those that would occur from the use of
conventional gasoline. For vehicles using Phase II RFG, VOC and air toxics are reduced by an
additional 20 to 25 percent (US EPA, 1999c).
Table 3-8 summarizes RFG programs pertaining to the UATMP sites. In reviewing the
VOC data for these sites, the following questions were analyzed:
Have VOC concentrations decreased during the RFG season?
Have the BTEX compound concentrations decreased during the RFG season? (Recall:
BTEX refers to benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene)
• Is there a trend in the RFG additive concentrations?
The VOCs sampled for this study were broken into four groups: 1) mobile source BTEX
compounds; 2) mobile source non-BTEX HAP compounds; 3) stationary source HAP
compounds; and 4) non-HAP VOC compounds. The sum of these four groups equals the total
VOC concentration. According to the national emissions inventory (NEI) for mobile sources
(US EPA 2003a), the following VOC HAPs may be emitted from mobile source (onroad and
nonroad):
1,3-Butudiene;
• 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane;
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether;
• Benzene;
• Ethylbenzene;
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether;
• Styrene;
Toluene; and
3-16
-------
• Xylenes (total)
If a VOC sample contained any of the above HAPs, then it was divided into the BTEX
group or non-BTEX group. The VOC HAPs not listed above, such as vinyl chloride, were
grouped as stationary source HAPs. Finally, any VOC not a HAP (e.g., acetylene) was grouped
together. It is important to note that a mobile source HAP may also be emitted from a stationary
source.
If a site was in an MSA which participated in a RFG program and if VOCs were
sampled, then the results are discussed in the individual state sections. HACT, BOMA, and
SLMO were all in RFG areas, but did not measure VOCs.
3.5 Variability Analysis
Two types of variability were analyzed for this report. The first type examines the
coefficient of variation analysis for each of the nationwide prevalent compounds across the
UATMP sites. Figures 3-2 to 3-12 are graphical displays of site standard deviation versus
average concentration. Most of the prevalent compounds are either in a cluster (such as carbon
tetrachloride), exhibit a positive linear correlation (such as/>-dichlorobenzene), or are spread
randomly (such as xylene). The coefficient of variation provides a relative measure of
variability by expressing variations to the magnitude of the arithmetic mean. This analysis is
better suited for comparing variability across data distributions for different sites and
compounds.
Seasonal variability was the second type of variability analyzed in this report. The
UATMP concentration data were divided into the four seasons: spring (March, April, May);
summer (June, July, August); autumn (September, October, November); and winter (December,
January, and February). Figures 3-13 to 3-23 provide a graphic display of the average
concentrations by season for the prevalent compounds.
3-17
-------
Higher concentrations of the prevalent compounds tended to be sampled in winter,
although high concentrations were also sampled in other seasons. Spring is the season where the
lowest concentrations were measured. Some compound-specific trends were also noted, such as
high concentration of: 1) 1,3-butadiene, xylene, and benzene were sampled in winter;
2) formaldehyde in summer; and 3) acetaldehyde and tetrachloroethylene in autumn. However, a
quick review of the profiles reveals most compounds experienced noticeable "spikes" across all
sites, while few exhibited a relatively uniform profile (carbon tetrachloride, for example). This
observation validates the variabilities for each of the sites.
3.6 UATMP NATTS Sites
Additional analyses were provided on the EPA-designated National Air Toxics Trends
System (NATTS) sites (NATTS sites are designated in bold in Table 2-2). The monitors will be
used to evaluate air quality, similar to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
monitors that measure criteria pollutants. The three additional analyses are: 1) composite back
trajectory analysis; 2) federal/state regulation analysis; and 3) emission tracer analysis.
3.6.1 Back Trajectory Analysis
A back trajectory analysis traces the origin of an air parcel in relation to the location
where it is currently being examined. The method of constructing a back trajectory uses the
Lagrangian frame of reference. In simplest terms, an air parcel can be traced back one hour to a
new point of reference based on the current measured wind speed and direction. At this new
point of reference that is now one hour prior to the current observation, the wind speed and
direction are used again to determine where the air was one hour before. Each time segment is
referred to as a "time step." Typical back trajectories go 24- to 48-hours prior using surface and
upper air meteorological observations, which is what was used for this report. Back trajectory
calculations are also governed by other meteorological parameters, such as pressure and
temperature.
3-18
-------
Gridded meteorological data and the model used for back trajectory analyses were
prepared and developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The model used is the Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT).
More information on the model can be found at http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html.
The meteorological data represented the 2003 sampling year. Back trajectories were computed
24 hours prior to the sampling day, and composite back trajectory maps were constructed for
sampling days using GIS software. The value of the composite back trajectory maps is the
determination of an airshed domain for air originating 24-hours prior to a sampling day.
Agencies can use the airshed domain to evaluate regions where long-range transport may affect
their monitoring site. The individual state sections (which include a NATTS site) discuss these
results in full detail.
3.6.2 Federal Regulation Analysis
As stated earlier, urban air toxics are emitted from a variety of stationary industrial and
commercial processes and mobile sources. Many of these emission sources in the areas
surrounding the monitoring stations are already subject to emission limitations. Consequently,
the ambient concentrations of UATMP compounds recorded at the monitoring stations reflect, to
some degree, the emission limitations achieved by facilities and mobile sources in response to
existing air regulations. As additional regulations are implemented, the concentrations of urban
air toxics compounds in the ambient air surrounding the monitoring stations should decrease as
facilities and mobile sources achieve compliance with the new regulations.
3.6.2.1 Regulations for Stationary Sources
The national regulations that have the potential to reduce emissions of UATMP
pollutants from stationary sources are grouped into two categories: standards for VOC
developed under section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (Federal Ozone Measures, Control
of Emissions From Certain Sources), and standards for air toxics developed under section 112(d)
of the CAA (Hazardous Air Pollutants, Emission Standards).
3-19
-------
As required by section 183 of the CAA, EPA conducted a study of VOC emissions from
consumer and commercial products and developed categories of products that account for at least
80 percent of the total VOC emissions (on a reactivity-adjusted basis) in areas that violate the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. The EPA divided the
list into four groups for developing regulations based on the best available controls (as defined
by the CAA). In March 1995, EPA included architectural coatings, automobile refmishing,
consumer products, and commercial products among the highest priority consumer and
commercial product categories listed for regulation. Table 3-9 provides a brief summary of the
national VOC regulations. However, since the VOC rules affect products and coatings
manufactured after 1999, these rules are not expected to achieve future reductions of UATMP
pollutants.
As required by section 112 of the CAA, EPA published a list of industrial source
categories that emit one or more of the 188 air toxics (listed in the section 112(b) of the CAA).
(The initial list was published on July 16, 1992 and has undergone several revisions since that
date.). The EPA has developed (or is in the process of developing) standards for all major
sources (those that emit 10 tons/year or more of a listed pollutant or 25 tons/year or more of a
combination of listed pollutants) of air toxics and some area sources that are of particular
concern. Currently, the EPA has promulgated 92 national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) and proposed 1 NESHAP to regulate air toxic emissions from the listed
source categories. Table 3-10 provides an overview of the NESHAP that were identified during
this analysis. Please refer to Section 3.6.2.3 for further details.
3.6.2.2 Mobile Sources
For mobile sources, there are two applicable programs that have the potential to reduce
ambient concentrations of UATMP pollutants: National Low Emissions Vehicles (NLEV) and
Phase II Reformulated Gasoline (RFG), which was discussed in Section 3.4.4 of this report.
3-20
-------
The NLEV program is a voluntary nationwide program designed to reduce nonmethane
organic compound (NMOC) emissions and NOX emissions from new cars. The NLEV program
is also expected to reduce emissions of air toxics such as benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,
and 1,3-butadiene. The program started in the northeastern states that are part of the Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC) in model year 1999 and nationally in 2001. The standards are
enforceable in the same manner that other federal motor vehicle emissions control requirements
are enforceable.
Under the NLEV program, car manufacturers voluntarily agreed to meet tailpipe
standards for cars and light-duty trucks that are more stringent than EPA can mandate prior to
model year 2004. The EPA projects that vehicles produced under the NLEV program will be
approximately 70 percent cleaner than 1998 model year cars. These cleaner vehicles will
achieve reductions of approximately 311 tons of VOC per day in 2007 (based on a program start
date of model year 1999 in the Northeast and model year 2001 nationwide).
3.6.2.3 Regulation Analysis
To assess the potential reduction in ambient concentrations of UATMP compounds
attributable to future regulations, an analysis of the facilities, emissions, and potentially
applicable regulations was conducted for the areas surrounding each of the pilot monitoring
stations. For this analysis, a list of stationary facilities that emit UATMP compounds within a
10-mile radius of each monitoring station was obtained from the National Emissions Inventory
for HAPs database. The list of facilities from the NEI database was restricted to those facilities
that account for approximately the top 90 percent of the UATMP pollutant emissions in the 10-
mile areas.
For these facilities, the various air regulations were reviewed to determine if they could
potentially be applicable. The regulations reviewed were limited to those with publication dates
of 1999 or later. This date was selected to coincide with the year of the emissions data in the
NTI database. Regulations with earlier compliance dates would already be in place and no
3-21
-------
future emission reduction would be achieved. For this analysis, Standards of Performance for
New Sources (NSPS) were not included since projections of new source construction are not
available for the target areas. Additionally, since data on traffic patterns around the monitoring
stations are not available, projections of the emission trends associated with the mobile source
regulations were also not included in this analysis.
To determine the applicability of the various regulations to the facilities in the 10-mile
areas, the type of process or operation in use at each facility was obtained from the standard
industrial classification (SIC) codes in the NEI database (EPA, 2003a). Additionally, searches of
facility names were conducted on the World Wide Web to obtain additional information
regarding a facility's activities. For the NESHAP, the preambles that accompany the
promulgated regulations typically identify the SIC codes for the industrial categories and entities
that are potentially subject to the NESHAP. Consequently, the SIC codes were used directly to
assign NESHAP to specific facilities.
To determine the potential emission reductions attributable to the regulations, the average
emission reductions that are expected to be achieved by the regulations were obtained from the
rule preambles. These average emission reductions were applied to the urban air toxic
compounds covered by the particular regulation. For example, if a regulation covered emissions
of toluene and xylene and the rule was projected to achieve an average emission reduction of 60
percent, then the toluene and xylene emissions from facilities potentially subject to that rule were
reduced by 60 percent.
For each of the individual monitoring stations, the major contributors to emissions of
UATMP HAP pollutants and the expected trend in emissions are discussed fully in the individual
state sections. Table 3-11 provides a summary of the pollutants and sources regulated for the
NATTS sites.
3-22
-------
3.6.3 Emission Tracer Analysis
In this analysis, pollution roses for each of the prevalent compounds were created to help
identify the geographical area where the emission sources of these compounds may have
originated. A pollution rose is a plot of the ambient concentration versus the unit vector of the
wind direction; high concentrations are shown in relation to the direction of potential emissions
source. Additionally, the RfC Noncancer Benchmark value is plotted to reflect the noncancer
exceedance concentrations. This analysis only reviewed NATTS sites in which a pollutant
exceeded the Noncancer Benchmark. Results are discussed in the individual state sections.
3.7 Metals Analysis
Figure 3-24 is a profile of the average metals concentrations that were sampled during the
2003 UATMP. Nine sites opted to sample for metals. BOUT (147.91 ng/m3) had the highest
metal concentrations of all eight sites. BOUT had a significantly higher average metal
concentration than BTUT, nearly three times as much, which is interesting because these two
sites are close to each other. The Denver sites (DECO and WECO) and the Nashville sites
(LOTN and EATN) had comparable average concentrations.
3.8 Trends Analysis
Table 2-1 represents past UATMP participation for sites also participating in this year's
program. For sites that participated prior to 2002 and are still participants through the 2003
program year, a trends analysis was conducted. The trends analyzed are annual averages and
seasonal averages at each site for three compounds: 1,3-butadiene, benzene, and formaldehyde.
3.8.1 Trends in Annual Averages
Figures 3-25a thru 3-25v show a comparison of the yearly average concentrations of 1,3-
butadiene, benzene, and formaldehyde for each of the twenty-two sites. At sites where all three
compounds were sampled, formaldehyde consistently had the highest average annual
concentrations while 1,3-butadiene, with few exceptions, consistently had the lowest.
3-23
-------
Of the 19 sites that sampled for carbonyls, SLMO measured the highest average annual
formaldehyde concentrations, with 2001 and 2002 having the highest average concentration.
Formaldehyde concentrations were highest in 2001 for twelve of the eighteen sites (SFSD did
not sample for carbonyls until 2002). For CANJ, the site with the most years of participation,
the highest average annual formaldehyde concentration was sampled in 1997.
Average annual concentrations of 1,3-butadiene were highest at SFSD in 2002 and
PGMS in 2001. These sites had average annual concentrations 4-5 times higher than any of the
other sites. It is important to note that samples of this compound were consistently below the
method detection limit (MDL), resulting in low average concentrations for this compound.
CANJ sampled its highest average 1,3-butadiene concentration in 1998.
Average annual concentrations of benzene were highest at SPAZ, DECO, and PSAZ.
Average benzene concentrations were greater than 1.00 ppbv from 2000 to 2002 at DECO, both
2001 and 2002 for SPAZ, and in 2002 at PSAZ. The distribution of the highest average benzene
concentrations for the sites was spread fairly evenly across the years. CANJ sampled its highest
average benzene concentration in 1998.
3.8.2 Trends in Seasonal Averages
Figures 3-26a thru 3-26v show a comparison of the seasonal average concentrations for
each year of participation for each of the eight sites. Again, average formaldehyde
concentrations were the highest of the three compounds for each site, year, and season, while
1,3-butadiene had the lowest. For 1,3-butadiene and benzene, the seasons with the highest
average concentrations tended to be autumn and winter. For formaldehyde, the seasons with the
highest average concentrations tended to be summer and autumn.
3-24
-------
Figure 3-1. Comparison of Concentration Ratios for BTEX Compounds vs. Roadside Study
OJ
to
0 4-
Roadside APMI BAPR
BOUT BTUT BUND
Monitoring Location
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
DECO
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
\ Toluene-Ethylbenzene
D Xylenes-Ethylbenzene
-------
Figure 3-1 (Continued)
OJ
to
Concentration ratio for
is 25.69 ppbv
Roadside DEMI
DITN EAT1SI
ELNJ GPMS
Monitoring Location
GRMS HOMI ITCMI JAMS
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
] Toluene-Ethylbenzene
OXylenes-Ethylbenzene
-------
Figure 3-1 (Continued)
OJ
to
Roadside KIT1M
LDT1SI LONE LOIN MCAZ NBIL
Monitoring Location
NBNJ PGMS PSAZ
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
] Toluene-Ethylbenzene
OXylenes-Ethylbenzene
-------
Figure 3-1 (Continued)
to
oo
Roadside QVAZ
S4MO SFSD SJPR SPAZ
Monitoring Location
SPIL
TUMS
WECO
] Benzene-Ethylbenzene
I Toluene-Ethylbenzene
D Xylenes-Ethylbenzene
-------
Figure 3-2. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of 1,3-Butadiene Across 30 Sites
to
VO
0.3 i
0.25
T 0.2
n
a.
c
o
1 0.15
•c
re
c
V)
0.1
0.05
* *
0.05
0.1 0.15 0.2
Average Concentration (ppbv)
0.25
0.3
-------
1.8
1.6
Figure 3-3. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Acetaldehyde Across 39 Sites
1.4
OJ
o
£1
a.
B 1.2
c
o
ID .
I
re 0.8
c
w
0.6
0.4
0.2
* *
** *
0.5
1.5 2
Average Concentration (ppbv)
2.5
3.5
-------
Figure 3-4. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Acetonitrile Across 32 Sites
700
600
500
£1
Q.
c 400
o
?
re
•c 300
re
•c
c
V)
200
100
50
100 150
Average Concentration (ppbv)
200
250
-------
Figure 3-5. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Acrylonitrile Across 15 Sites
OJ
to
1.6
1.4
1.2
I 1
c
o
1 0.8
o
0.6
V)
0.4
0.2
0.5
1 1.5
Average Concentration (ppbv)
2.5
-------
Figure 3-6. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Benzene Across 36 Sites
OJ
oo
0.6
0.5
£1
Q.
c 0.4
o
?
re
I
•c 0.3
re
•c
c
2
CO
0.2
0.1
0.2
* *
0.4 0.6 0.8
Average Concentration (ppbv)
1.2
-------
Figure 3-7. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Bromomethane Across 11 Sites
2.5
c
o
?
•1 1.5
•c
re
c
w
0.5
0.2
0.4 0.6 0.8
Average Concentration (ppbv)
1.2
-------
Figure 3-8. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Carbon Tetrachloride Across 35 Sites
0.04
0.035
0.03
o. 0.025
o
1 0.02
0)
Q
E
re
0.015
$
V)
0.01
0.005
0.02
0.04 0.06
Average Concentration (ppbv)
0.08
0.1
0.12
-------
Figure 3-9. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Formaldehyde Across 39 Sites
14
12
10
>
Q.
r 8
o
1
0)
a
-o 6
re
•a
c
2
(0
10 15
Average Concentration (ppbv)
20
25
-------
Figure 3-10. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of p-Dichlorobenzene Across 21 Sites
0.3
0.25
T 0.2
£1
Q.
o
1 0.15
0)
Q
E
re
I 0.1
0.05
** *
0.05
0.1 0.15
Average Concentration (ppbv)
0.2
0.25
-------
Figure 3-11. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Tetrachloroethylene Across 29 Sites
OJ
oo
200
180
160
140
S 120
o
1 100
0)
Q
re 80
c
$
V)
60
40
20
20
40
60
80
100
120
Average Concentration (ppbv)
-------
Figure 3-12. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Xylenes (o-,m-,p-) Across 36 Sites
OJ
VO
1.8
1.6
1.4
I 1.2
o
1 1
0)
a
« 0.8
c
$
V)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.5
1.5 2
Average Concentration (ppbv)
2.5
3.5
-------
Figure 3-13a. Average 1,3-Butadiene Concentration by Season (APMI-LONE)
APMI BAPR BOUT BTUT CANJ CHNJ CUSD DECO DEMI EATN ELNJ GPMS ITCMI JAMS KITN LONE
Monitoring Location
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-13b. Average 1,3-Butadiene Concentration by Season (LOTN-WECO)
0.4
0.35
0.3
QVAZs Winter Avg
Concentration 0.46 ppbv
LOIN MCAZ NBIL NBNJ PGMS PSAZ QVAZ S4MO SFSD SJPR SPAZ SPIL TUMS WECO
Monitoring Location
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-14a. Average Acetaldehyde Concentration by Season (AZFL-GAFL)
to
Monitoring Location
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-14b. Average Acetaldehyde Concentration by Season (GPMS-WECO)
/
rO
Monitoring Location
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-15a. Average Acetonitrile Concentration by Season (APMI-KITN)
75
CUSD's Avg Spring
Concentration 262.61
ppbv
HOMI's Avg Autumn
Concentration 86.39
ppbv
APMI BAPR BOUT BTUT CANJ CHNJ CUSD DECO DEMI EATN ELNJ GPMS GRMS HOMI ITCMI JAMS KITN
Monitoring Location
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-15b. Average Acetonitrile Concentration by Season (LOTN-WECO)
-L.
slBILs Avg Summer
Concentration 242.08
upbv
SPAZs Avg Winter
Concentration 124.40
ppbvand Summer
Concentration 251.60
ppbv
LONE LOIN MCAZ NBIL
NBNJ PGMS PSAZ QVAZ S4MO SFSD SJPR SPAZ
Monitoring Location
SPIL TUMS WECO
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-16. Average Acrylonitrile Concentration by Season
Za Avg Summer
centration 3.32 ppbv
Monitoring Location
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-17a. Average Benzene Concentration by Season (APMI-JAMS)
A
.o° ^
-------
Figure 3-17b. Average Benzene Concentration by Season (KITN-WECO)
oo
KIT1SI LD71SI LONE LO71SI MCAZ NBIL NBNJ PGMS PSAZ QVAZ S4MO SFSD SJPR SPAZ SPIL TUMS WECO
Monitoring Location
D Winter
I Summer
-------
0.4
0.3
VO
Figure 3-18. Average Bromomethane Concentration by Season (APMI-TUMS)
CANJ's Avg Winter
Concentration 2.99 ppbvand
Spring Concentration 0.65
ppbv
•^
^
&
Monitoring Location
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-19a. Average Carbon Tetrachloride Concentration by Season (APMI-KITN)
0.15
OJ
o
£1
Q.
_a
c
o
I
o
o
0)
O)
5
SJ
<
0.05
Monitoring Location
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-19b. Average Carbon Tetrachloride Concentration by Season (LDTN-WECO)
0.15
£1
Q.
c
o
8
o
o
0)
O)
5
SJ
0.05
^>
^
v°^
v
^
Monitoring Location
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-20a. Average Formaldehyde Concentration by Season (AZFL-GAFL)
OJ
to
Monitoring Location
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-20b. Average Formaldehyde Concentration by Season (GPMS-WECO)
LDTNs Avg Winter
Concentration 14.61 ppbvand
Autumn Concentration 29.07
ppbv
/
Monitoring Location
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-21 a. Average p- Dichlorobenzene Concentration by Season (APMI-KITN)
0.4
0.3
a.
Q.
0.2
u
APMI
BAPR BOUT
CANJ CHNJ CUSD DEMI EATN
Monitoring Location
ELNJ
GPMS ITCMI
JAMS
KITN
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-21b. Average p-Dichlorobenzene Concentration by Season (LOTN-WECO)
KIT1SI LOIN MCAZ NBIL NBNJ PGMS PSAZ S4MO
Monitoring Location
SJPR
SPAZ
SPIL
WECO
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-22a. Average Tetrachloroethylene Concentration by Season (APMI-JAMS)
0.75
£1
Q.
C
o
I
0)
o
C
o
o
0)
O)
5
0)
APMI's Avg
Autumn
Concentration
79.13 ppbv
DEMI'S Avg Winter
Concentration 1.82
ppbv and Autumn
Concentration
21.59 ppbv
ELNJ's Avg
utumn
Concentration 2.53
ppbv
HOMI's Avg Winter
Concentration 5.28
ppbv and Autumn
Concentration
168.22 ppbv
0.25
ARM I BOUT BTUT
CANJ CHNJ CUSD DECO DEMI EATN
Monitoring Location
ELNJ GPMS GRMS HOMI ITCMI JAMS
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-22b. Average Tetrachloroethylene Concentration by Season (KITN-WECO)
0.75
SFSD's Avg Autumn
Concentration 2.02 ppbv
TUMS's Avg Summer
Concentration 1.30 ppbv
£1
Q.
C
o
I
0)
o
C
o
o
0)
O)
5
0)
0.5
0.25
KIT1SI LOIN MCAZ NBIL
NBNJ PGMS PSAZ QVAZ S4MO SFSD SJPR SPAZ
Monitoring Location
SPIL TUMS WECO
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-23a. Average Xylenes(o-,iT7-,p-) Concentration by Season (APMI-ITCMI)
OJ
oo
•
Monitoring Location
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-23b. Average Xylenes (o-,m-,p-) Concentration by Season (JAMS-WECO)
x
v
-f / ^v y /»
Monitoring Location
D Winter
I Summer
-------
Figure 3-24. Average Sum of Metal Concentrations
OJ
o
160
140
^r 120
E
"5)
o
!
*J
§ 80
I
V) 60
0)
O)
ra
20
BOMA
BOUT
BTUT
DECO EATN
Monitoring Location
LOTN
S4MO
WECO
-------
Figure 3-25a. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the APMI Monitoring Station
2.5
>
Q. 1.5
C
o
0)
u
c
o
o
0.5
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
01
02
Years of Participation
03
-------
Figure 3-25b. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the AZFL Monitoring Station
OJ
to
3.5
3
2-5
C
o
Is 2
0)
u
o
1.5
0.5
01
~7\
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
02
Years of Participation
03
-------
Figure 3-25c. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the BAPR Monitoring Station
2.5
.a
0.
C
o
•• 1-5-
a>
u
c
o
O
0.5
01
02
Years of Participation
03
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-25d. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the BUND Monitoring Station
Q.
a.
i 1-5
c
0)
u
c
o
O
0.5
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
00
01
Years of Participation
02
03
-------
Figure 3-25e. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the CANJ Monitoring Station
6
Q.
3 4
c
o
?
2
*J
§ 3
c
o
O
2
1-
WJ
94 95 96 97 98 99 00
Years of Participation
01
02
03
D1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-25f. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the CHNJ Monitoring Station
Oi
Oi
3.5
3
2-5
C
o
Is 2
0)
u
o
1.5
0.5
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
01
02
Years of Participation
03
-------
Figure 3-25g. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the DECO Monitoring Station
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
01 02
Years of Participation
03
-------
Figure 3-25h. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the DEMI Monitoring Station
OJ
oo
3.5
3
2.5
C
o
2
0)
u
o
0.5
01
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
02
Years of Participation
03
-------
Figure 3-251. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the ELNJ Monitoring Station
3
2.5
Q.
3 2
8 1-5-
c
o
O
1-
0.5
D1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
00
01 02
Years of Participation
03
-------
Figure 3-25J. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the GAFL Monitoring Station
OJ
o
4.5
3.5
">"
t 3
c
o
•• 2-5
o
O
1.5
1
0.5
0
01
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
02
Years of Participation
03
-------
Figure 3-25k. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the GPMS Monitoring Station
4.5
3.5
3
Q.
Q.
~ 2.5^
o
S
0)
u
c
o
O
2
^n
1.5
0.5
01
XI
D1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
02
Years of Participation
03
-------
Figure 3-251. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the JAMS Monitoring Station
OJ
to
4.5
3.5
">"
t 3
c
o
•• 2-5
o
O
1.5
1
0.5
0
01
02
Years of Participation
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
03
-------
Figure 3-25m. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the LEFL Monitoring Station
2.5
i. 1.5
C
o
0)
u
c
o
o
0.5
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
01
02
Years of Participation
03
-------
Figure 3-25n. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the NBNJ Monitoring Station
5
.a
Q.
C
o
3
0)
u
c
o
o
2
r\
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
01
02
Years of Participation
03
-------
Figure 3-25o. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the PGMS Monitoring Station
4.5
3.5
3
.
a.
Q.
~ 2.5
o
0)
u
c
o
O
2
^n
1.5
0.5
D1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
01
02
Years of Participation
03
-------
Figure 3-25p. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the PSAZ Monitoring Station
1.2^-
0.8
.a
0.
0)
u
c
o
o
0.4
0.2
01
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
02
Years of Participation
03
-------
Figure 3-25q. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the QVAZ Monitoring Station
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
02
Years of Participation
03
-------
Figure 3-25r. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SFSD Monitoring Station
OJ
oo
5
4.5
3.5
t 3^
s
o
O
1.5
1-
0.5
00
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
01 02
Years of Participation
03
-------
Figure 3-25s. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SJPR Monitoring Station
OJ
VO
3.5
3
2.5
C
o
Is 2
0)
u
o
0.5
01
02
Years of Participation
03
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-25t. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SLMO Monitoring Station
25
20
oo
o
1 15
Q.
0)
U
c
o
O
10
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
01
02
Years of Participation
03
-------
Figure 3-25u. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SPAZ Monitoring Station
oo
1.4
1.2
.a
0.
3 0.8
c
o
8 0.6-
c
o
O
0.4
0.2
01
02
Years of Participation
03
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-25v. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the TUMS Monitoring Station
oo
to
5
.a
0.
C
o
3
0)
u
c
o
o
2
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
01
02
Years of Participation
03
-------
OJ
oo
3.5
2.5
.a
o
'•5
ra
0)
o
c
o
O
0.5
Figure 3-26a. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the APMI Monitoring Station
Spring 01 SumrerOI AuturmOl Winter 02 Spring 02 SurrrrBr02 Auturm02 SurrrrerOS AuturmOS
Season and Year
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
OJ
oo
.a
Q.
Q.
re
a>
o
c
o
O
1
Figure 3-26b. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the AZFL Monitoring Station
Writer 01 Spring 01 Surrrrer 01 Auturm 01 Wnter 02 Spring 02 Surrrrer 02 Auturm 02 Winter 03 Spring 03 Surrrrer 03 Auturm 03
Season and Year
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-26c. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the BAPR Monitoring Station
OJ
oo
a.
a.
o
"re
a>
o
c
o
O
1
Spring 01 SurrrrerOI AuturmOl V\Mer02 Spring 02 SurrrrBr02
Season and Year
Auturm02 WnterOS Spring 03 SurrrrerOS
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
OJ
oo
3.5
2.5
st
Q.
3 2
0) -1C
O '-
O
O
0.5
Figure 3-26d. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the BUND Monitoring Station
J
J
i
1
i
Ln
c
Season and Year
Dl,3-Butadiene
Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
OJ
oo
7.5
Figure 3-26e. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the CANJ Monitoring Station
(1994-1998)
Avg Autumn 96
Formaldehyde
Concentration 10.72 ppbv
Avg VMnter 97
Formaldehyde
Concentration 19.00 ppbv
<
>
<§><§><§>
Season and Year
1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
oo
oo
<§>
Figure 3-26e. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the CANJ Monitoring Station
(1999-2003)
*
< *
S^
Season and Year
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
oo
VO
5
o
'•5
ra
0) o
o -3
c
o
O
2
Figure 3-26f. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the CHNJ Monitoring Station
Spring 01 Surrrrer 01 Auturm 01 Winter 02 Spring 02 Surrrrer 02 Auturm 02 Winter 03 Spring 03 Surrrrer 03 Auturm 03
Season and Year
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
VO
o
12
10
.a
Q.
Q.
o
'•S 6
0)
u
c
o
O
Figure 3-26g. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the DECO Monitoring Station
Writer 00 Spring 00 Auturm 00 Writer 01 Spring 01 Surrrrer 01 Auturm 01 VMnter 02 Spring 02 Surrrrer 02 Auturm 02 VMnter 03 Spring 03
Season and Year
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
I
Q.
ra
0)
u
=
o
O
1
Figure 3-26h. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the DEMI Monitoring Station
Spring 01 Surrrrer 01 Auturm 01 Winter 02 Spring 02 Surrrrer 02 Auturm 02 Wnter 03 Spring 03 Surrrrer 03 Auturm 03
Season and Year
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
VO
to
5
.a
Q.
Q.
O
•• 3
0)
u
c
O
O
Figure 3-26i. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the ELNJ Monitoring Station
A
Winter 00 Spring 00 Surrrrer Auturm Wnter 01 Spring 01 Surrrrer Auturm Winter 02 Spring 02 Surrrrer Auturm Spring 03 Surrrrer Auturm
00 00 01 01 02 02 03 03
Season and Year
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
OJ
JD
12
10
.a
a.
a.
15 6
0)
u
c
o
O
Figure 3-26J. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the GAFL Monitoring Station
Writer 01 Spring 01 SurrrrerOI AuturmOl Wnter02 Spring 02 SurrrrBr02 Auturm02 WnterOS Spring 03 SurrrrerOS AuturmOS
Season and Year
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-26k. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the GPMS Monitoring Station
OJ
JD
.a
Q.
Q.
re
a>
u
c
o
O
1
Surrrrer 01 Auturm 01 Wnter 02
Spring 02 SurrrrerCe Auturm 02 WnterOS
Season and Year
Spring 03 Surrrrer 03 Auturm 03
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-261. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the JAMS Monitoring Station
OJ
JD
a.
a.
o
"re
0)
u
c
o
O
Jl
Spring 01 Surrrrer 01 Auturm 01 Winter 02
Spring 02 Sun-rrer02 Auturm 02 Winter 03 Spring 03 SurrrrerOS Auturm 03
Season and Year
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
3
Figure 3-26rn Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the LEFL Monitoring Station
Q.
Q.
o
"re
0)
u
c
o
O
1
Writer 01 Spring 01 Surrrrer 01 Auturm 01 Writer 02 Spring 02 Surrrrer 02 Auturm 02 Winter 03 Spring 03 Surrrrer 03 Auturm 03
Season and Year
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
OJ
JD
.a
Q.
Q.
ra
0)
u
c
o
O
3
Figure 3-26n. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the NBNJ Monitoring Station
Spring 01 Surrrrer 01 Auturm 01 Winter 02 Spring 02 Surrrrer 02 Auturm 02 Winter 03 Spring 03 Surrrrer 03 Auturm 03
Season and Year
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-26o. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the PGMS Monitoring Station
VO
oo
.a
Q.
Q.
•^ 4
re ^
0)
u
c
o
O
SurrrrerOI Auturm 01 Writer 02 Spring 02
Surrrrer 02 Auturm 02
Season and Year
WnterOS Spring 03 SurrrrerOS Auturm 03
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
VO
VO
1.5
.a
Q.
Q.
'.5 1
re '
0)
u
c
o
O
Figure 3-26p. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the PSAZ Monitoring Station
n
SurrrrerOI AuturmOl Writer 02 Spring 02 Surrrrer02 Auturm02 \AMer03 Spring 03 SurrrrerOS AuturmOS
Season and Year
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-26q. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the QVAZ Monitoring Station
0.75
o
o
.a
a.
a.
•^ n
re u-
0)
u
c
o
O
0.25
rfl
ifl
Surrrrer 01 Auturm 01 Winter 02
Spring 02 Surrrrer 02 Auturm 02
Season and Year
Winter 03 Spring 03 Surrrrer 03 Auturm 03
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-26r. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the SFSD Monitoring Station
3
.a
a.
a.
o
•• 2
0)
o
c
o
O
1
Avg Summer 02
Formaldehyde
Concentration 7.65
ppbv
n n rfi j j n Jl n
r
J
r
Spring 00 Sunrrer Auturm Winter 01 Spring 01 Sumrrer Auturm Wnter 02 Spring 02 Surrrrer Auturm Winter 03 Spring 03 Surrrrer Auturm
00 00 01 01 02 02 03 03
Season and Year
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
o
to
I
Q.
ra
0)
u
=
o
O
1
Figure 3-26s. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the SJPR Monitoring Station
Spring 01 SumrerOI AuturmOl Writer 02 Spring 02 Surrrrer02 Auturm02 WnterOS Spring 03 SurrrrerOS
Season and Year
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-26t. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the SLMO Monitoring Station
OJ
o
24
20
16
.a
a.
a.
o
'•S 12
0)
u
c
o
O
Avg Spring 01, Summer 01,
and Autumn 01 Formaldehyde
Concentrations 32.67,24.48,
and 24.58 ppbv, respectively
fl
Spring 01 SurrrrerOI AuturmOl Writer 02
Spring 02 SumTer02 Auturm02 Writer 03
Season and Year
Spring 03 Sunrrer 03 Auturm 03
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
OJ
o
2.5
1
Q.
ra
0)
u
i 1
o
0.5
Figure 3-26u. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the SPAZ Monitoring Station
SurrrrerOI AuturmOl Writer 02 Spring 02 Surrrrer02 Auturm02 WnterOS Spring 03 SurrrrerOS AuturmOS
Season and Year
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-26v. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the TUMS Monitoring Station
OJ
o
a.
a.
o
is
0)
u
c
o
O
J
Surrrrer 01 Auturm 01 VMnter 02
Spring 02 Surrrrer 02 Auturm 02
Season and Year
Writer 03
Spring 03 Surrrrer 03 Auturm 03
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Table 3-1. Sampling Detect Summaries of the VOC Concentrations
Chemical1
#of
Detects
Min.
Value
(ppbv)
Max.
Value
(ppbv)
Average
Value
(ppbv)
Mode
(ppbv)
Median
(ppbv)
1st
Quartile
(ppbv)
3rd
Quartile
(ppbv)
Standard
Deviation
(ppbv)
Coefficient
of
Variation
Hydrocarbons
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
w-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
jM-,/7-Xylene
o-Xylene
1160
1160
401
943
339
1161
458
1161
899
557
1096
980
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
1
8
1
55
1040
12
26
0.14
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.02
18.13
2.69
0.65
2.87
2.25
47.5
4.26
20.96
3.72
2.07
7.82
3.22
1.56
0.45
0.13
0.23
0.14
0.86
0.15
1.18
0.21
0.10
0.56
0.25
0.94
0.24
0.08
0.09
0.05
0.25
0.04
0.35
0.09
0.06
0.16
0.09
1.03
0.34
0.09
0.15
0.09
0.51
0.08
0.69
0.13
0.07
0.32
0.16
0.64
0.22
0.05
0.09
0.05
0.30
0.04
0.38
0.08
0.04
0.19
0.09
1.84
0.54
0.17
0.27
0.15
0.93
0.13
1.33
0.23
0.12
0.64
0.29
1.68
0.38
0.11
0.28
0.19
1.75
0.35
1.63
0.27
0.13
0.72
0.29
0.93
1.20
1.14
0.84
0.71
0.49
0.43
0.73
0.77
0.74
0.79
0.88
NA
0.02
0.16
0.06
NA
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.04
1.32
NA
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
11.09
0.19
0.36
0.89
0.32
0.09
0.13
0.11
0.01
0.09
NA
0.05
0.02
0.09
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.04
0.14
0.10
0.24
0.10
1.49
0.02
0.13
0.17
0.21
3.50
1.02
0.66
-------
Table 3-1. Sampling Detect Summaries of the VOC Concentrations (Continued)
Chemical1
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1, 2-Dibromoethane
/w-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
/7-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1, 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
1, 2-Dichloropropane
cis-1, 3-Dichloropropene
trans- 1, 3-Dichloropropene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Methylene Chloride
#of
Detects
258
1158
Min.
Value
(ppbv)
0.01
0.02
Max.
Value
(ppbv)
0.56
1.24
Average
Value
(ppbv)
0.08
0.62
Mode
(ppbv)
0.02
0.59
Median
(ppbv)
0.05
0.61
1st
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.03
0.54
3rd
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.12
0.69
Standard
Deviation
(ppbv)
0.09
0.13
Coefficient
of
Variation
0.93
4.95
NA
6
3
0.05
0.01
0.13
0.03
0.08
0.02
0.06
NA
0.07
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.08
0.02
0.03
0.01
2.92
2.08
NA
NA
3
180
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.71
0.01
0.09
NA
0.05
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.09
2.25
1.01
NA
7
1
5
1
O.01
0.18
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.82
NA
0.04
0.42
0.24
NA
0.30
0.09
0.34
0.15
1.62
NA
NA
3
4
1161
12
0.05
0.04
0.09
0.01
0.13
0.10
2.00
0.02
0.08
0.06
0.61
0.02
NA
NA
0.58
0.02
0.06
0.06
0.60
0.02
0.06
0.05
0.55
0.01
0.10
0.07
0.66
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.13
O.01
2.58
2.64
4.82
4.23
NA
738
0.02
18.52
0.32
0.07
0.13
0.07
0.22
1.25
0.26
-------
Table 3-1. Sampling Detect Summaries of the VOC Concentrations (Continued)
Chemical1
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrach loroethylene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
Polar Compounds
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Ethyl Aery late
Ethyl fer/-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl fer/-Butyl Ether
#of
Detects
Min.
Value
(ppbv)
Max.
Value
(ppbv)
Average
Value
(ppbv)
Mode
(ppbv)
Median
(ppbv)
1st
Quartile
(ppbv)
3rd
Quartile
(ppbv)
Standard
Deviation
(ppbv)
Coefficient
of
Variation
NA
308
0.01
436.30
5.54
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.15
35.04
0.16
NA
405
1
140
1159
1081
3
487
76
42
0.01
1.18
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.65
NA
O.01
0.09
0.01
0.02
O.01
0.05
0.01
20.38
6.08
1.25
0.06
2,913.53
5.69
0.34
0.38
0.35
0.10
0.05
24.57
0.68
0.13
0.04
0.27
0.09
0.06
0.46
0.09
0.03
0.05
0.29
0.10
0.06
2.36
0.26
0.11
0.02
0.27
0.08
0.04
0.81
0.13
0.06
0.11
0.35
0.12
0.06
6.39
0.72
0.17
2.21
0.29
0.06
0.02
173.73
1.05
0.08
0.17
1.19
1.73
2.47
0.14
0.65
1.56
NA
NA
699
131
12
394
0.12
0.02
0.02
0.02
19.99
15.06
2.25
10.37
1.60
0.32
0.38
0.89
0.63
0.05
NA
0.06
0.92
0.13
0.17
0.50
0.55
0.07
0.11
0.23
2.05
0.22
0.33
1.14
1.76
1.32
0.58
1.22
0.91
0.24
0.65
0.73
1 = BOLD indicates the compound is prevalent for 2003 Program Year.
Italics indicates the chemical is an urban air toxics strategy HAP.
-------
Table 3-2. Sampling Detect Summaries of the Carbonyl Concentrations
Chemical1
#of
Detects
Min.
Value
(ppbv)
Max.
Value
(ppbv)
Average
Value
(ppbv)
Mode
(ppbv)
Median
(ppbv)
1st
Quartile
(ppbv)
3rd
Quartile
(ppbv)
Standard
Deviation
(ppbv)
Coefficient
of Variation
Carbonyl Compounds
Acet aldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
1314
1314
1313
1314
1296
93
1314
1313
417
1236
1312
1305
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
9.44
14.83
1.37
7.48
1.44
0.08
40.00
4.45
0.35
1.72
1.04
1.49
1.38
1.00
0.06
0.15
0.09
0.01
2.62
0.05
0.02
0.10
0.04
0.04
1.87
0.05
0.04
NA
O.01
NA
4.38
0.01
NA
0.25
0.01
0.01
1.12
0.73
0.03
0.10
0.05
0.01
1.99
0.02
0.01
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.72
0.35
0.02
0.07
0.02
O.01
1.22
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.01
1.72
1.20
0.05
0.16
0.12
0.02
3.07
0.04
0.02
0.13
0.04
0.03
1.05
1.22
0.15
0.32
0.13
0.01
2.73
0.22
0.02
0.11
0.06
0.09
1.32
0.82
0.41
0.48
0.72
0.91
0.96
0.25
0.63
0.88
0.63
0.38
o
VO
1 = BOLD indicates the compound is prevalent for 2003 Program Year.
Italics indicates the chemical is an urban air toxics strategy HAP.
-------
Table 3-3. Range of Detectable Values by Site
UATMP Site
APMI
AZFL
BAPR
BGFL
BOUT
BTMO
BTUT
BUND
CANC
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
CWFL
DBFL
DECO
DEMI
DITN
EATN
ELNJ
FLFL
GAFL
GPMS
GRMS
HACT
HOMI
ITCMI
JAMS
KITN
LDTN
LEFL
LONE
LOTN
MCAZ
MDFL
NBIL
NBNJ
ORFL
PGMS
PSAZ
QVAZ
Range of
Detectable Values
(ppbv)
0.01-303.44
0.002-4.43
0.002-24.13
0.0007-0.71
0.004-18.14
0.0008-8.61
0.009-8.72
0.006-5.29
0.003-3.07
0.0007-11.09
0.0003-11.87
0.001-1,044.38
0.00009-15.87
0.002-12.12
0.01-33.00
0.005-74.06
0.02-1.89
0.002-8.78
0.003-47.50
0.001-2.51
0.001-4.00
0.0007-40.68
0.003-97.05
0.002-16.54
0.003-436.30
0.01-6.78
0.003-57.65
0.002-136.07
0.03-40
0.004-3.25
0.003-20.40
0.002-116.85
0.003-14.70
0.0005-1.96
0.007-1,934.33
0.002-15.28
0.001-5.10
0.004-13.72
0.01-18.43
0.01-10.21
Number of Valid
Sampling Days
Carbonyl
N/A
59
16
29
29
54
21
2
8
37
58
61
60
30
15
27
1
23
51
27
57
30
22
36
16
N/A
29
26
5
58
17
23
N/A
27
N/A
51
45
31
N/A
N/A
voc
18
N/A
15
N/A
28
N/A
21
30
N/A
37
57
59
N/A
N/A
19
24
2
24
53
N/A
N/A
30
21
N/A
24
32
28
26
4
N/A
17
24
45
N/A
35
51
N/A
281
59
30
Number
of Detects
348
604
415
280
691
558
555
350
82
1040
1503
1427
641
297
484
729
37
687
1654
273
594
813
556
373
535
488
801
710
103
609
404
643
901
261
587
1496
488
771
1259
423
Number of
Concentrations
> Sppbv
8
0
6
0
7
12
3
1
0
4
9
9
1
6
10
8
0
5
43
0
0
9
15
33
22
3
14
8
8
0
7
12
9
0
5
12
1
9
28
4
3-110
-------
Table 3-3. Range of Detectable Values by Site (Continued)
UATMP Site
S4MO
SFSD
SJPR
SLMO
SPAZ
TUMS
WECO
Range of
Detectable Values
(ppbv)
0.0002-30.74
0.002-147.13
0.003-20.16
0.003-25.17
0.02-2,913.53
0.002-131.95
0.009-114.60
Number of Valid
Sampling Days
Carbonyl
61
50
16
55
N/A
31
20
voc
61
55
15
N/A
60
30
20
Number
of Detects
1695
1317
456
567
1248
787
545
Number of
Concentrations
> Sppbv
33
15
0
16
42
10
22
3-111
-------
Table 3-4. Geometric Means by Site
UATMP Site
APMI
AZFL
BAPR
BGFL
BOUT
BTMO
BTUT
BUND
CANC
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
CWFL
DBFL
DECO
DEMI
DITN
EATN
ELNJ
FLFL
GAFL
GPMS
GRMS
HACT
HOMI
ITCMI
JAMS
KITN
LDTN
LEFL
LONE
LOTN
MCAZ
MDFL
NBIL
NBNJ
ORFL
PGMS
PSAZ
QVAZ
Geometric Mean (ppbv)
Carbonyls
NA
4.51
3.78
0.74
4.49
4.91
5.72
1.81
3.52
0.94
4.50
4.39
4.41
2.74
10.38
6.19
2.00
5.05
6.06
2.68
3.76
2.81
4.29
15.52
2.67
NA
5.40
5.76
37.96
3.63
4.32
4.72
NA
1.39
NA
5.21
3.68
3.08
NA
NA
Halogenated
Hydrocarbons
11.18
NA
4.51
NA
1.76
NA
1.87
1.66
NA
2.06
1.75
1.76
NA
NA
2.30
2.54
2.28
1.75
2.18
NA
NA
1.88
1.74
NA
3.80
1.68
1.95
1.76
1.60
NA
1.63
1.75
2.09
NA
2.11
1.82
NA
1.87
2.72
1.70
Hydrocarbons
4.41
NA
4.43
NA
4.92
NA
5.94
0.97
NA
4.46
2.03
2.56
NA
NA
9.01
5.12
3.90
4.57
7.39
NA
NA
3.46
2.56
NA
1.39
2.10
4.95
3.77
2.54
NA
2.97
4.27
5.47
NA
2.29
3.82
NA
3.79
7.75
1.14
Polar
0.82
NA
2.49
NA
2.87
NA
1.20
0.90
NA
1.73
1.05
2.87
NA
NA
1.85
0.87
1.09
1.54
3.36
NA
NA
3.90
12.61
NA
39.61
1.19
6.23
1.28
0.93
NA
6.54
3.50
3.68
NA
1.02
1.43
NA
2.39
3.67
1.77
3-112
-------
Table 3-4. Geometric Means by Site (Continued)
UATMP Site
S4MO
SFSD
SJPR
SLMO
SPAZ
SPIL
TUMS
WECO
Geometric Mean (ppbv)
Carbonyls
7.09
5.21
6.40
7.27
NA
NA
3.78
5.63
Halogenated
Hydrocarbons
1.91
1.79
2.33
NA
2.20
2.29
2.01
1.78
Hydrocarbons
4.35
2.52
8.28
NA
11.45
3.69
2.40
5.91
Polar
2.58
2.87
3.36
NA
6.35
0.67
6.00
34.76
3-113
-------
Table 3-5a. Nationwide Cancer Compound Toxicity Ranking (Prevalent Compounds Shaded)
Compound
Tetrachloroethylene
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Acetaldehyde
Elthylene Bichloride
Trichloroethylene
1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1,1,2-
Trichloroethane
Vinyl Chloride
Methylene Chloride
Bromoform
Formaldehyde
Formula
Weight
165.85
53.06
78.11
54.09
153.82
147.00
44.05
98.96
131.40
110.97
133.41
62.50
84.94
253.75
30.03
#
Detects
308
76
1160
401
1040
180
1314
7
140
4
1
3
738
1
1314
Average
Concentration
Oug/m3)
37.56
1.48
1.45
0.29
0.54
0.55
2.49
0.19
2.02
0.56
0.11
0.12
1.10
0.03
3.22
Cancer URE1
(1/Oug/m3))
5.90 E-06
6.80E-05
7.80 E-06
3.00E-05
1.50E-05
1.10E-05
2.20 E-06
2.60 E-05
2.00 E-06
4.00 E-06
1.60 E-05
8.80 E-06
4.70 E-07
1.10 E-06
5.50E-09
Total Cancer Toxicity
Cancer
Weighted
Toxicity
2.22 E-04
1.01 E-04
1.13 E-05
8.64 E-06
8. 16 E-06
6.05 E-06
5.48 E-06
4.91 E-06
4.05 E-06
2.24 E-06
1.75 E-06
1.05 E-06
5.20 E-07
2.97 E-08
1.77E-08
3. 77 E-04
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 million)
222
101
11.3
8.64
8.16
6.05
5.48
4.91
4.05
2.24
1.75
1.05
<1
<1
<1
%
Contribution
Weighted
Toxicity
58.84
26.77
3.00
2.29
2.17
1.61
1.46
1.30
1.07
0.59
0.46
0.28
0.14
0.01
O.01
Cumulative %
Contribution
Weighted
Toxicity
58.84
85.61
88.61
90.90
93.07
94.68
96.13
97.44
98.51
99.11
99.57
99.85
99.99
100.00
100.00
1 URE = Unit Risk Estimate. The URE is an upper-bound estimate of the excess cancer risk resulting from a lifetime of continuous exposure to an agent at a
concentration of 1 ^g/m3 in air.
-------
Table 3-5b. Nationwide Noncancer Compound Toxicity Ranking (Prevalent Compounds Shaded) (Continued)
Table 3-5b. Nationwide Noncancer Compound Toxicity Ranking (Prevalent Compounds Shaded)
Compound
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Methyl Bromide
1,3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes (p-,m,-p-)
Benzene
Chloroprene
1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Methyl Chloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methyl Methacrylate
Formula
Weight
45.07
53.06
30.03
44.05
94.94
54.09
165.85
318.48
78.11
88.50
110.97
50.49
153.82
92.13
120.39
131.40
96.95
100.12
#
Detects
487
76
1314
1314
55
401
308
1096
1160
6
4
1158
1040
1161
258
140
1
12
Average
Concentration
Cug/m3)
45.29
1.48
3.22
2.49
1.23
0.29
37.56
5.87
1.45
0.28
0.56
1.28
0.54
4.46
0.41
2.02
0.66
1.55
Noncancer
RfC1
(mg/m3)
0.06
0.002
0.0098
0.009
0.005
0.002
0.27
0.1
0.03
0.007
0.02
0.09
0.04
0.4
0.098
0.6
0.2
0.7
Noncancer
Weighted
Toxicity
7.54 E-01
7.42 E-01
3. 29 E-01
2.77 E-01
2.46 E-01
1.44 E-01
1.39 E-01
5.87 E-02
4.83 E-02
3. 96 E-02
2.80 E-02
1.43 E-02
1.36 E-02
1.12 E-02
4.23 E-03
3.37E-03
3. 28 E-03
2.21 E-03
Adverse Health
Concentrations
49
15
47
21
2
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
Contribution
Weighted
Toxicity
27.43
25.47
11.29
9.51
8.45
4.95
4.78
2.02
1.66
1.36
0.96
0.49
0.47
0.38
0.15
0.12
0.11
0.08
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Weighted
Toxicity
27.43
52.90
64.19
73.70
82.15
87.09
91.87
93.89
95.55
96.91
97.87
98.36
98.83
99.21
99.36
99.47
99.58
99.66
-------
Table 3-5b. Nationwide Noncancer Compound Toxicity Ranking (Prevalent Compounds Shaded) (Continued)
Compound
1,2,4-
Trichlorobenzene
Vinyl Chloride
Methylene Chloride
Methyl fer/-Butyl
Ether
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Styrene
Chlorobenzene
Methyl Isobutyl
Ketone
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
Methyl Chloroform
Ethylenedichloride
Ethyl Chloride
Formula
Weight
181.46
62.50
84.94
88.15
106.16
72.11
147.00
104.14
112.56
100.16
133.41
133.42
98.96
64.52
#
Detects
5
3
738
394
943
699
180
458
12
131
1
405
7
26
Average
Concentration
Cug/m3)
0.32
0.12
1.11
3.21
1.01
4.71
0.55
0.65
0.59
1.30
0.11
0.23
0.19
0.30
Noncancer
RfC1
(mg/m3)
0.2
0.1
1
3
1
5
0.8
1
1
o
J
0.4
1
2.4
10
Total Noncancer Toxicity
Noncancer
Weighted
Toxicity
1.60E-03
1.19E-03
1.11E-03
1.07E-03
1.01 E-03
9.43 E-04
6.88 E-04
6.49 E-04
5.92 E-04
4.33 E-04
2.73 E-04
2.32 E-04
7.87 E-05
2.96 E-05
2.91 E+00
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
Contribution
Weighted
Toxicity
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
Weighted
Toxicity
99.72
99.76
99.79
99.83
99.87
99.90
99.92
99.94
99.96
99.98
99.99
100.00
100.00
100.00
1 RfC = Reference Concentration. The
appreciable risks of deleterious effects
RfC is an estimate of a concentration in air to which a human population might be exposed that is likely to be without
during a lifetime (assumed to be 70 years).
-------
Table 3-6. Summary of Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Selected Meteorological Parameters and Prevalent Compounds
Prevalent Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes (o-,m-,p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.02
0.08
0.01
0.18
-0.05
-0.29
0.20
0.10
-0.17
0.13
Average
Temperature
-0.05
0.04
0.02
0.20
-0.07
-0.26
0.20
0.07
-0.19
0.12
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.27
0.03
-0.05
-0.04
-0.19
-0.22
0.16
0.04
-0.11
-0.02
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.16
0.03
-0.02
0.06
-0.13
-0.26
0.19
0.05
-0.17
0.06
Relative
Humidity
-0.32
-0.02
-0.09
-0.28
-0.20
0.01
-0.04
-0.04
0.09
-0.20
Sea Level
Pressure
0.04
0.08
-0.10
-0.28
0.08
0.16
-0.10
0.01
0.05
<0.01
u-component
of wind speed
-0.10
-0.06
0.11
0.07
-0.09
0.15
-0.02
0.01
0.07
-0.10
v-component
of wind speed
-0.15
0.03
0.04
0.01
-0.03
-0.14
0.03
-0.08
0.11
-0.06
-------
Table 3-7. Summary of Mobile Information by Site
oo
UATMP
Site
APMI
AZFL
BAPR
BGFL
BOMA
BOUT
BTMO
BTUT
BUND
CANC
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
CWFL
DBFL
DECO
DEMI
DITN
E7MI
EATN
ELNJ
FLFL
GAFL
GPMS
GRMS
Estimated No.
of County
Motor
Vehicles
Owned
1,734,417
1,139,738
12,362
889,710
562,969
177,652
41,871
177,652
13,203
25,854
393,869
366,433
8,820
1,139,738
889,710
415,535
1,734,417
39,083
1,734,417
590,410
407,799
1,195,203
763,989
155,303
15,714
2002 County
Population
2,045,540
926,716
22,556
1,190,390
689,925
249,224
56,775
249,224
8,542
27,288
511,957
478,730
7,467
926,716
1,190,390
560,415
2,045,540
44,231
2,045,540
570,785
530,763
1,709,118
1,053,864
190,936
22,915
Estimated
Traffic
Near Site
60,000
51,000
10
12,200
27,287
11,120
4,360
33,310
1,350
100
62,000
12,623
1,940
1,000
201,032
44,200
12,791
4,420
6,999
38,540
170,000
1,000
81,460
17,000
1,100
County-Level
On-Road
Emissions
(tpy)
12,013
4,690
96
5,089
1,432
1,163
336
1,163
34
136
2,126
1,740
48
4,690
5,089
2,610
12,013
284
12,013
4,012
1,889
7,605
4,956
1,080
154
County-Level
Non-Road
Emissions
(tpy)
2,003
2,176
127
3,871
2,123
449
62
449
59
38
670
1,296
34
2,176
3,871
1,011
2,003
64
2,003
1,078
631
2,810
2,265
1,457
135
Hydrocarbon
Arithmetic
Mean (ppbv)
4.80
N/A
5.42
N/A
N/A
5.24
N/A
6.64
1.09
N/A
5.02
2.38
3.50
N/A
N/A
9.66
5.90
4.89
N/A
5.07
9.18
N/A
N/A
4.26
2.86
-------
Table 3-7. Summary of Mobile Information by Site (Continued)
UATMP
Site
HACT
HOMI
ITCMI
JAMS
KITN
LDTN
LEFL
LONE
LOTN
MCAZ
MDFL
NBIL
NBNJ
ORFL
PGMS
PLOR
PNW
POOK
PSAZ
QVAZ
S4MO
SFSD
SJPR
SLMO
SPAZ
SPIL
TUMS
Estimated No.
of County
Motor
Vehicles
Owned
686,895
12,454
32,552
176,453
160,005
35,698
763,989
197,341
590,410
2,742,367
1,699,557
2,087,197
591,406
750,761
112,820
721,796
721,796
41,888
2,742,367
165,676
252,556
148,759
238,799
252,556
2,742,367
2,087,197
65,844
2002 County
Population
867,332
14,950
38,898
249,579
153,051
40,631
1,053,864
257,513
570,785
3,303,876
2,332,599
5,377,507
775,549
946,484
133,259
677,626
677,626
47,680
3,303,876
196,275
338,353
152,545
433,412
338,353
3,303,876
5,377,507
77,220
Estimated
Traffic
Near Site
10,000
7,000
100,000
12,500
300
13,360
1,055
6,200
3,000
10,108
15,200
34,900
63,000
59,000
8,600
1,000
500
1,496
250
200
22,840
4,320
51,000
15,016
50,000
214,900
4,900
County-Level
On-Road
Emissions
(tpy)
3,615
55
292
1,487
1084
353
4,956
1,172
4,012
10,106
8,661
21,526
2,658
5,700
802
3,119
3,119
341
10,107
1,010
2,024
641
1,656
2,024
10,107
21,526
540
County-Level
Non-Road
Emissions
(tpy)
1,424
291
615
258
248
185
2,265
353
1,078
5,584
3,879
6,715
1,259
2,475
1,167
1,141
1,141
176
5,584
206
463
213
2,183
463
5,584
6,715
170
Hydrocarbon
Arithmetic
Mean (ppbv)
N/A
2.21
2.73
5.29
3.96
3.16
N/A
3.23
5.46
7.35
N/A
3.13
4.22
N/A
4.61
N/A
N/A
N/A
10.65
2.51
5.11
2.87
8.71
N/A
13.97
4.38
2.90
-------
Table 3-7. Summary of Mobile Information by Site (Continued)
UATMP
Site
WECO
Estimated No.
of County
Motor
Vehicles
Owned
415,535
2002 County
Population
374,099
Estimated
Traffic
Near Site
1,500
County-Level
On-Road
Emissions
(tpy)
1,692
County-Level
Non-Road
Emissions
(tpy)
420
Hydrocarbon
Arithmetic
Mean (ppbv)
6.97
to
o
3-120
-------
Table 3-8. UATMP Sites in MSAs Using Reformulated Gasoline (RFC)
Site
BOMA
CANJ
CHNJ
DECO
ELNJ
HACT
MCAZ
NBIL
NBNJ
PSAZ
QVAZ
S4MO
MSA
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester, MA
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-
NJ-MD-DE
New York-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA
Denver-Aurora, CO
New York-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI
New York-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
St. Louis, MO-IL
Fuel Program
RFG Opt-in
RFG Mandated
RFG Mandated
Winter-
oxygenated
RFG Mandated
RFG Mandated
Winter-
oxygenated
RFG Mandated
RFG Mandated
Winter-
oxygenated
Winter-
oxygenated
RFG Opt-in
Fuel Additive
Summer1
MTBE
TAME
MTBE
TAME
MTBE
TAME
n/a3
MTBE
TAME
MTBE
TAME
n/a
Winter2
MTBE
TAME
Ethanol
MTBE
TAME
Ethanol
MTBE
TAME
Ethanol
ETBE
Ethanol
MTBE
TAME
Ethanol
ETBE
MTBE
TAME
Ethanol
ETBE
Ethanol
MTBE
Ethanol
MTBE
TAME
n/a
n/a
MTBE
Ethanol
MTBE
TAME
Ethanol
ETBE
Ethanol
Ethanol
MTBE
Ethanol
TAME
3-121
-------
Table 3-8. UATMP Sites in MSAs Using Reformulated Gasoline (RFC) (Continued)
Site
SLMO
SPAZ
SPIL
WECO
MSA
St. Louis, MO-IL
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
Chicago-Naperville-Juliet, IL-IN-WI
Denver-Aurora, CO
Fuel Program
RFG Opt-in
Winter-
oxygenated
RFG Mandated
Winter-
oxygenated
Fuel Additive
Summer1
MTBE
Ethanol
n/a
Winter2
MTBE
Ethanol
TAME
Ethanol
MTBE
Ethanol
n/a
Ethanol
1 The summer season for RFG is from 6/1 to 9/15.
2 The winter season is the non-summer portion of the year. (There is no autumn or spring seasonal
variation.) Winter oxygenate seasons vary by state.
3 n/a - Indicates that summer oxygenates are not applicable to the fuel program at this site.
3-122
-------
Table 3-9. Summary of the National Emission Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds
Rule Title
Applicability
Affected
Equipment
Overall
Percent
Reduction
Compliance Date
National Volatile
Organic Compound
Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings
(40 CFR part 59,
subpart D)
Manufacturers and importers of architectural
coatings (e.g., interior and exterior paints,
traffic markings, sign paints, industrial
maintenance coatings) that are recommended
for field application to stationary structures
and their appurtenances.
The rule establishes
VOC content limits
in coatings rather
than VOC emission
limits for process
equipment.
20
Coatings that are manufactured after
September 13, 1999, and for any
architectural coating registered under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Section 136, et
seq.), the rule applies to any such coating
manufactured on or after March 13, 2000,
for sale or distribution in the United
States.)
OJ
to
National Volatile
Organic Compound
Emission Standards for
Consumer Products (40
CFR part 59, subpart C)
The rule applies to manufacturers, importers,
and distributors of subject consumer products3
manufactured or imported on or after
December 10, 1998, for sale or distribution in
the United States, including the District of
Columbia and all United States territories.
The rule establishes
VOC content limits
in products rather
than VOC emission
limits for process
equipment.
20
Consumer products manufactured or
imported on or after December 10, 1998
National Volatile
Organic Compound
Emission Standards for
Automobile Refinish
Coatings (40 CFR part
59, subpart B)
The provisions of the rule apply to automobile
refinish coatings and coating components that
are manufactured on or after January 11, 1999
for sale or distribution in the United States,
including the District of Columbia and all
U.S. territories.
The rule establishes
VOC content limits
in refinish coatings
and coating
components rather
than VOC emission
limits for process
equipment.
33
Refinish coatings and coating
components that are manufactured on or
after January 11, 1999
aConsumer product means any household or institutional product (including paints, coatings, and solvents), or substance, or article (including any container or
packaging) held by any person, the use, consumption, storage, disposal, destruction, or decomposition of which may result in the release of VOC.
-------
Table 3-10. Summary of Potentially Applicable National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
SIC Description
Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car
Bodies (SIC Code 37 11)
Plastic Foam Products (SIC Code
3086)
Plastic Foam Products (SIC Code
3086)
Steel works, Blast Furnaces
(Including Coke Ovens), and
Rolling Mills (SIC Code 3312)
Metal Cans (SIC Code 3411)
Coating, Engraving, and Allied
Services, NEC (SIC Code 3479)
Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers,
Enamels, and Allied Products (SIC
Code 2851)
Adhesives and Sealants (SIC Code
2891)
Regulation Citation
40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII
40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMMM
40 CFR part 63, subpart III
40 CFR part 63, subpart
FFFFF
40 CFR part 63, subpart
KKKK
40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS
40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHHH
Regulation Title
Auto and Light Duty Trucks
(Surface Coating) NESHAP
Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Fabrication Operation NESHAP
Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Production NESHAP
Integrated Iron and Steel
NESHAP
Metal Can (Surface Coating)
NESHAP
Metal Coil (Surface Coating)
NESHAP
Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing NESHAP
UATMP Pollutants Covered
by Regulation
Methyl ethyl ketone, methyl
isobutyl ketone, ethylbenzene,
toluene, and xylene
Methylene chloride
Methylene Chloride
Manganese, lead, and benzene
Hexane, methyl ethyl ketone,
methyl isobutyl ketone, and
xylene
Methyl ethyl ketone, toluene,
and xylene
Toluene, xylene, methyl ethyl
ketone, and methyl isobutyl
ketone
Overall
Percent
Reduction
60
100
70
20
70
53
64
Compliance
Date
2007
2004
2001
2006
2006
2005
2006
oo
to
-------
Table 3-10. Summary of Potentially Applicable National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Continued)
SIC Description
Electroplating, Plating, Polishing,
Anodizing, and Coloring (SIC
Code 3471)
Pumps and Pumping Equipment,
NEC (SIC Code 3561)
Railroad Equipment (SIC Code
3743)
Automatic Controls for Regulating
Residential and Commercial
Environments and Appliances
(SIC Code 3822)
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals,
NEC (SIC Code 28 19)
Pharmaceutical Preparations (SIC
Code 2834)
Cyclic Organic Crudes and
Intermediates, and Organic Dyes
and Pigments (SIC Code 2865)
Industrial Organic Chemicals,
NEC (SIC Code 2869)
Petroleum Bulk Stations and
Terminals (SIC Code 5171)
Commercial Printing, Gravure
(SIC Code 2754)
Unsupported Plastics Film and
Sheet (SIC Code 3081)
Regulation Citation
40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMM
40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF
40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE
40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ
Regulation Title
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products (Surface Coating)
NESHAP
Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Production and
Processes (MON) NESHAP
Organic Liquids Distribution
(non-Gasoline) NESHAP
Paper and Other Web (Surface
Coating) NESHAP
UATMP Pollutants Covered
by Regulation
Ethylbenzene, methyl ethyl
ketone, methyl isobutyl
ketone, styrene, toluene, and
xylene
Methylene chloride, toluene,
and xylene
Benzene, ethylbenzene,
toluene, vinyl chloride, and
xylene
Toluene, methyl ethyl ketone,
xylenes, hexane, methyl
isobutyl ketone,
formaldehyde, methylene
chloride, ethylbenzene
Overall
Percent
Reduction
48
69
28
80
Compliance
Date
2007
2006
2002
2005
-------
Table 3-10. Summary of Potentially Applicable National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Continued)
SIC Description
Regulation Citation
Regulation Title
UATMP Pollutants Covered
by Regulation
Overall
Percent
Reduction
Compliance
Date
Plastics Foam Products (SIC Code
3086)
40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP
Plastic Parts (Surface Coating)
NESHAP
Methyl ethyl ketone, methyl
isobutyl ketone, toluene, and
xylene
80
2004
Petroleum Refining (SIC Code
2911)
40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU
Petroleum Refineries-Catalytic
Cracking, Catalytic Reforming,
and Sulfur Plant Units NESHAP
Acetaldehyde, benzene,
formaldehyde, hexane,
toluene, xylene, manganese,
nickel, antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, and lead
87
2005
to
Medicinal Chemical and Botanical
Products (SIC Code 2833)
Pharmaceutical Preparations (SIC
Code 2834)
Cyclic Organic Crudes, and
Intermediates, and Organic Dyes
and Pigments (SIC Code 2865)
40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG
Pharmaceutical Production
NESHAP
Hexane, Methylene, Chloride,
and Toluene
65
2001
Medicinal Chemicals and
Botanical Products (SIC Code
2833)
Petroleum Refining (SIC Code
2911)
Photographic Equipment and
Supplies (SIC Code 3861)
Electric Services (SIC Code 4911)
40 CFR part 63, subpart
ZZZZ
Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines NESHAP
Acetaldehyde and
formaldehyde
65
2007
-------
Table 3-11. Summary of Pollutants and Sources Regulated
Monitoring
Station
Arizona:
PSAZ
Florida:
LEFL
Illinois:
NBIL
Massachusetts:
BOMA
Michigan:
DEMI
Ten Mile Point
UATMP
Emissions
(tpy)1
228.2
144.22
383.55
291.00
421.35
Number of Point
Source Facilities
Within Ten Miles1
20
16
51
17
12
Number of Point Source
Facilities Subject to
Future Regulations
2
1
2
5
7
UATMP Pollutants
Covered in New
Regulations
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Toluene
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Toluene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Expected
Reduction
(%)
66
8
0.2
0.5
0.8
25
19
4
0.3
18
10
0.01
6
41
0.1
45
to
-------
Table 3-11. Summary of Pollutants and Sources Regulated (Continued)
Monitoring
Station
Michigan
DEMI:
Missouri:
SLMO
Ten Mile Point
UATMP
Emissions
(tpy)1
3771.99
Number of Point
Source Facilities
Within Ten Miles1
38
Number of Point Source
Facilities Subject to
Future Regulations
16
UATMP Pollutants
Covered in New
Regulations
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Toluene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Lead Compounds
Manganese Compounds
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Expected
Reduction
(%)
44
12
0.6
4
11
9
10
13
25
26
59
28
to
oo
-------
Table 3-11. Summary of Pollutants and Sources Regulated (Continued)
Monitoring
Station
Utah:
BOUT
Ten Mile Point
UATMP
Emissions
(tpy)1
464.58
Number of Point
Source Facilities
Within Ten Miles1
4
Number of Point Source
Facilities Subject to
Future Regulations
4
UATMP Pollutants
Covered in New
Regulations
Acetaldehyde
Antimony Compounds
Arsenic Compounds
Benzene
Beryllium Compounds
Cadmium Compounds
Cobalt Compounds
Formaldehyde
Lead Compounds
Manganese Compounds
Nickel Compounds
Toluene
Expected
Reduction
(%)
47
81
44
0.3
17
47
87
62
49
59
78
0.05
to
VO
Ten mile point UATMP pollutant emissions and facilities that contributed to 90% of the area's emissions.
-------
4.0 Sites in Arizona
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the four
UATMP sites in Arizona (MCAZ, PSAZ, QVAZ, and SPAZ). All four of these sites are located
in the Phoenix metropolitan statistical area (MSA). Figures 4-1 through 4-4 are topographical
maps showing the monitoring stations in their urban locations. Figures 4-5 and 4-6 are maps
identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites that reported to the 1999 NEI. The MCAZ,
PSAZ, and SPAZ sites are within a few miles of each other, with numerous sources between
them, while the QVAZ site is farther south and has only two nearby industrial sources. MCAZ,
PSAZ and SPAZ are located near mainly two types of industries: surface coating and fuel
combustion. QVAZ is nearest to a surface coating facility.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003 at two weather stations near
these sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The two weather stations are Phoenix-Sky Harbor and Phoenix-
Deer Valley (WBAN 23183 and 3184, respectively).
Table 4-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at each of these sites, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. Normally, the Phoenix area is extremely hot and dry, and the high
average temperature and low average relative humidity values in Table 4-1 confirm this
observation. Wind speeds were also very light for each site, as the city resides in a valley, but
the wind generally flows from the south and east. The pressures for this area are some of the
lowest compared to other participating sites in this report. This information can be found in The
Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987). Table 4-1 also lists the averages for
selected meteorological parameters from January 2003 to December 2003.
4-1
-------
4.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Arizona Sites
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at each site. Tables 4-2a-d summarize the cancer
weighting scores and Tables 4-3a-d summarize the noncancer weighting scores. For a
compound to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95%
of the total site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered
prevalent for each site.
Tables 4-2a-d show that most of the prevalent cancer compounds reflect the nationwide
prevalent cancer list, which is in Section 3 of this report. Only 1,3-dichloropropene (detected at
MCAZ and PSAZ) are not listed among the nationwide prevalent compounds. Of the prevalent
noncancer compounds summarized in Tables 4-3a-d, the compounds 1,3-dichloropropene
(detected at MCAZ and PSAZ), chloroprene (detected at MCAZ), chloromethane (detected at
MCAZ), and toluene (detected at MCAZ and PSAZ) are not listed among the nationwide
noncancer prevalent list.
The following toxic compounds were not detected at any of the Phoenix MSA sites: vinyl
chloride, chloroprene, and 1,1-dichloroethene. Note, carbonyls were not sampled at the Arizona
sites; therefore, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde would not be detected.
4.2 Toxicity Analysis
Acrylonitrile and 1,3-butadiene were the only prevalent cancer compounds across all four
sites, and were among the top four in toxicity weighting at each site. Although acrylonitrile's
toxicity is consistently the highest of all cancer compounds across the Phoenix MSA sites, the
number of detects is low (range 1-16). This observation would suggest that the prevailing wind
on certain high days passed over localized sources of acrylonitrile. Benzene detections were the
highest among all the sites (30-60). Acrylonitrile, 1,3-butadiene, and xylenes (total) were the
only noncancer compounds to be considered prevalent across all four sites, and were the top
three in that order by toxicity weighting at three of the four sites.
4-2
-------
The acrylonitrile cancer risk at QVAZ was the highest among the four sites at 293 in a
million, while at PSAZ, MCAZ, and SPAZ, the acrylonitrile cancer risk was 85.9, 35.2, and 23.8
in a million, respectively. Cancer risk from exposure to benzene was also high at MCAZ, PSAZ,
and SPAZ (12.9, 22.8, and 23.8 in a million, respectively), while at QVAZ, 1,3-butadiene had
the second highest risk at 17.6 in a million.
For the compounds which may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the average
acrylonitrile toxicity at QVAZ was 2.16 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer
health effect). Of the sixteen measured acrylonitrile concentrations, 13 were above the
acrylonitrile noncancer RfC weighting factor at QVAZ. At SPAZ, the average acetonitrile
toxicity was 32.2 for forty-one measurements. One acetonitrile measurement on June 20, 2003 is
driving this high average.
4.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Arizona Sites
VOCs were sampled at each of the AZ sites as indicated in Tables 3-3 and 3-4, and
average UATMP concentrations are listed in Table 4-1. By far, the SPAZ site has the highest
average UATMP concentrations. Tables 4-4a-d summarize the calculated Pearson Correlation
coefficients for each of the site-specific prevalent compounds and selected meteorological
parameters. Identification of the site-specific prevalent compounds is discussed earlier in this
section. At MCAZ, /?-dichlorobenzene had the strongest correlations (-0.55 to -0.69, and 0.23 to
0.51) with almost all of the meteorological parameters, while chloromethane had consistently
weak correlations (-0.08 to 0.10). Most of the compound correlations with the meteorological
parameters were negative. Pearson correlations could not be computed for 1,3-dichloropropene,
acrylonitrile, or chloroprene due to the low number of detects (fewer than 4).
At PSAZ, acetonitrile and 1,3-butadiene had the strongest correlations among the
prevalent compounds, while carbon tetrachloride generally had the lowest correlations. Most of
the compound correlations with the meteorological parameters were negative. Pearson
correlations could not be computed for 1,3-dichloropropene due to the low number of detects
(fewer than 4).
4-3
-------
At QVAZ, acrylonitrile correlations were mostly positive, while xylenes (total) were
mostly negative. The dew point and wet bulb temperature correlations for acrylonitrile were the
strongest (0.74 and 0.72, respectively). Pearson correlations could not be computed for 1,3-
butadiene and tetrachloroethylene due to the low number of detects (fewer than 4).
At SPAZ, tetrachloroethylene had the strongest correlations among the prevalent
compounds, while carbon tetrachloride generally had the lowest correlations. Most of the
compound correlations were negative with the meteorological parameters. Pearson correlations
could not be computed for acrylonitrile due to the low number of detects (fewer than 4).
4.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration and population in Maricopa County, AZ, and Final County,
AZ, were obtained from the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles and the U.S. Census Bureau,
and are summarized in Table 4-5. Also included in Table 4-5 is the population within 10-miles
of each site and the average daily traffic information, which includes the average number of cars
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Using these
parameters, a car registration ratio was computed. An estimation of 10-mile car registrations
was computed using the 10 mile populations surrounding the monitors and the car registration
ratio. This information is compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent
compounds at each Arizona site in Table 4-5. The SPAZ site has the largest amount of traffic
passing by on a daily basis, while the PSAZ site has the largest estimated vehicle ownership
within ten miles.
These two sites also have the highest average daily UATMP concentrations.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.). Figure 3-1 depicts the
average concentration ratios observed for the roadside study and compares these ratios to the
concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites. MCAZ and PSAZ most resemble the ratios
from the roadside study; SPAZ only partly resembles the ratios, and the QVAZ site does not
resemble these ratios at all.
4-4
-------
4.5 RFC Analysis
The Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ, MSA participates in a winter oxygenated
reformulated fuel program (EPA, 2001). Originally, the Phoenix MSA opted into the Federal
RFG program in 1997. In 1998, EPA approved their opt out petition, as the state was imposing a
more stringent RFG program in the Phoenix MSA. During the winter season in the Phoenix
MSA (November 15 - March 31), the oxygen content in gasoline must be at least 3.5%, boosting
the octane quality, increasing combustion, and reducing exhaust emissions. The oxygenate used
as an RFG additive in the Phoenix MSA is ethanol. Figures 4-7 through 4-10 are the VOC
profiles at the Arizona sites.
At MCAZ (Figure 4-7), the total VOC concentrations were varied, with the highest
concentration occurring on April 15, 2003. On that day, the BTEX contribution was much
higher than on other sampling days. The non-HAP concentrations were typically low or non-
existent. The sampling at MCAZ ran from April 3 - December 29, thus missing most of the
winter season. However, there does not appear to any reduction in total VOCs or the BTEX
compounds during the winter season. It appears that the summer VOC and BTEX
concentrations were generally lower than the winter VOC and BTEX concentrations.
At PSAZ (Figure 4-8), the total VOC concentrations were also varied, with the highest
concentration occurring on December 5, 2003. On that day, the Mobile HAP contribution
(BTEX and non-BTEX) was much higher than on other sampling days. The stationary source
HAP concentrations were typically low. The sampling at PSAZ ran from January 3 - December
29, thus encompassing the winter season. There does not appear to be any reduction in total
VOCs or the BTEX compounds during the winter season. Similar to MCAZ, it appears that the
summer VOC and BTEX concentrations were generally lower than the winter VOC and BTEX
concentrations. The non-HAP VOCs also appear to be more prevalent outside the winter period.
At QVAZ (Figure 4-9), the total VOC concentrations were low, with the highest
concentration occurring on January 21, 2003. On that day, the Mobile HAP contribution (BTEX
and non-BTEX) was much higher than on other sampling days. The stationary source HAP
4-5
-------
concentrations are typically low. The sampling at QVAZ ran from January 9 - December 29,
thus encompassing the winter season. There does not appear to any reduction in total VOCs or
the BTEX compounds during the winter season. The non-HAP concentrations were virtually
non-existent, only being detected on three sample days.
At SPAZ (Figure 4-10), the total VOC concentrations were also varied, with two very
high concentrations occurring on February 2, 2003, and June 20, 2003. On those days (both
Noncancer Benchmark exceedance days), the stationary source HAP contribution were much
higher than other sampling days. Typically, the mobile source HAP concentrations were
typically low. The sampling at SPAZ ran from January 3 - December 29, thus encompassing the
winter season. There does not appear to any reduction in total VOCs or the BTEX compounds
during the winter season. Similar to MCAZ and PSAZ, it appears that the summer VOC and
BTEX concentrations were generally lower than the winter VOC and BTEX concentrations. The
non-HAP VOCs also appear to be more prevalent outside the winter period.
4.6 NATTS Site Analysis
One of the Phoenix sites, PSAZ, is an EPA-designated NATTS site. A description of the
NATTS program is given in Section 3.6 of this report. For PSAZ, each of the following analyses
were conducted: a composite back trajectory analysis, a regulation analysis, and an emission
tracer analysis. Details on each type of analysis are also provided in Section 3.6.
4.6.1 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 4-11 is the composite back trajectory map for the PSAZ site. Each line represents
the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring location on a
sampling day. As shown in Figure 4-11, the majority of the back trajectories originated from the
west and southwest of PSAZ, or from southern California, southwest Arizona or portions of
northwest Mexico. A second cluster of trajectories originated from the east or southeast of
PSAZ, or from eastern and southeastern Arizona and western New Mexico. The 24-hour airshed
domain for PSAZ is large, as the farthest away a back trajectory originated was central Idaho,
4-6
-------
over 600 miles away. As each circle around the site represents 100 miles, 71% of the trajectories
originated within 200 miles, and 87% within 300 miles from the PSAZ site.
4.6.2 Regulation Analysis
Table 3-10 summarizes the number of facilities that account for approximately 90% of
the total UATMP pollutant emissions in the 10-mile area around the PSAZ monitoring station.
At PSAZ, of the 20 facilities listed in Table 3-11, two are potentially subject to future
regulations. Table 4-6 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable. Based on this
analysis, the regulations shown are expected to achieve reductions in ambient concentrations of
the following UATMP pollutants: methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone, and toluene.
Reductions are projected for methylene chloride (100%), methyl ethyl ketone (8%), and toluene
(0.2%) as the regulations are implemented (the latest compliance date is 2007). The emission
reductions are primarily attributed to regulation of surface coating of metal parts and flexible
polyurethane foam manufacturing.
4.6.3 Emission Tracer Analysis
The highest noncancer toxicity measurement occurring at PSAZ was acrylonitrile on
October 12, 2003. Figure 4-12 is the pollution rose for all acrylonitrile samples at PSAZ. As
can be shown, the lone exceedance points to possible acrylonitrile emission sources east of the
monitor. Figure 4-13 is a map of acrylonitrile stationary emission sources east of the PSAZ
monitor. According to the 1999 NEI, the Salt River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Landfill
and the Apache Junction Municipal Solid Waste Landfills are directly east of the monitoring site.
It is likely that air sampled at PSAZ on this date passed over these landfills earlier in the day.
Figure 4-14 is a back trajectory map for this date, which shows the air originating east of the
monitor. It is interesting to note that in Figure 4-8, the VOC profile plotted for October 12
doesn't highlight anything unusual in the magnitude of the stationary source VOC HAPs in
comparison to other sampling days. However, the average 24-hour wind flow for this
exceedance day was from the east; for the other sampling days when acrylonitrile was measured,
the wind flow originated from other wind directions.
4-7
-------
Figure 4-1. Phoenix, Arizona Site 1 (MCAZ) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
4-8
-------
Figure 4-2. Phoenix, Arizona Site 2 (PSAZ) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
4-9
-------
Figure 4-3. Phoenix, Arizona Site 3 (QVAZ) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
4-10
-------
Figure 4-4. Phoenix, Arizona Site 4 (SPAZ) Monitoring Station
%
'
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
4-11
-------
Figure 4-5. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of QVAZ
Legend
Note: Due to facility density and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
gj QVAZ UATMP site
(_,) 10 mile radius
| | County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
4-12
-------
Figure 4-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of MCAZ, PSAZ, and SPAZ
MCAZ UATMP site O 10 mile radius
© PSAZ UATMP site [HI County boundary
© SPAZ UATMP site
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
A Agricultural Services Facility (1)
® Business Services Facility (1)
C Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (4)
P Construction/Mining Machinery, Equipment, & Materials (1)
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (1)
2 Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (11)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (1)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2)
G Food & Kindred Products Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industnal Facility (18)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (6)
Note Due to facility density and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
& Lumbers Wood Products Facility (3)
X Micellaneous Manufacturing Industries (2)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (2)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industnal Facility (5)
2 Nonmetalhc Minerals, Except Fuels (1)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (3)
R Printing & Publishing Facility (3)
# Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industnal Facility (1)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (3)
S Surface Coating Processes Industnal Facility (17)
? Unknown (1)
8 Utility Boilers (1)
=:& Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (6)
$ Wholesale Trade-Durable Goods (1)
4-13
-------
Figure 4-7. 2003 Total VOC Profile at MCAZ
180
DVOCnon-HAPs
Other Mobile Source VOC HAP
HAP Compounds
Stationary Source VOC HAPs
0
cococococococococococo cococococococococococo
ooooooooooo ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo ooooooooooo
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
LO
CD
OOOOOTOT
0/6
oo o
^ CO
O O
co
CN
n
CO
o
o
CN
f^ o?
T^ CN
CM CM
-------
Figure 4-8. 2003 Total VOC Profile at PSAZ
160 1
140
E 100
O)
o 80
1
S fio
u
c
O
° 40
T'U
90
n
c
1/3/2003 :
1
ill
III
CO CO CO CO CO CO
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
CXI CXI CXI CXI CXI CXI
^ CO CO CO IO CO
£! cxi Si! £i! ^ to
•«- CXI CO ^
I
QVOCnon-HAPs
• Other Mobile Source VOC HAP
D BTEX HAP Compounds
• Statonary Source VOC HAPs
•
il
I
1
1
CO CO CO CO CO
o o o o o
o o o o o
CXI CXI CXI CXI CXI
^ CO CD ^ ^
£! CD £i! ^ 00
LO CD h~
|
8/19/2003 ;
I
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
CXI CXI CXI CXI CXI CXI CXI
CD ^ cxi o F^ i?5 co
o5 Si! ^ 22 ^ cxi Si!
O) O O T- T- CXI
-------
Figure 4-9. 2003 Total VOC Profile at QVAZ
18O
I OU
160
140
£T 19O
n i £\j
•5 100
c
o
to 80
c
^ 60
O
O
40
9O
Z.U
n
-
.
1/9/2003
i
QVOCnon-HAPs
H Other Mobile Source VOC HAP
DRTFY HAP PnmnnimrK '
• Stationary Source VOC HAPs
I
n I
i.LJjji JJ Ulill.B, = ,LLL
cocococococococococococococo
oooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooo
C^C^C^C^C^CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN
CM CD CM LO O^ h^ C^ CD O} CM CD f""i 00 h^
c\ico^ incDr-^ooo^T-o^cN
-(^
ON
-------
Figure 4-10. 2003 Total VOC Profile at SPAZ
300
QVOCnon-HAPs
O Other Mobile Source VOC HAP
HAP Compounds
Stationary Source VOC HAPs
2/2/03 Total VOC =
2,233
6/20/03 Total VOC =
5,412
CM
CM
CM
CO
CM
-------
Figure 4-11. Composite Back Trajectory for PSAZ
oo
-------
Figure 4-12. Acrylonitrile Pollution Rose for PSAZ
7
6
5
4
c 3
0
+|J f}
! 1
0
o 0
o
C'
ra
1 2
"5 o
0. 3
4
5
6
7
8
0
N
NW
-
-
-
-
~--j
i
w ;'
II II 1 | — 1 ^£|
t
%
*-»^_
-
Dashed circle represents
noncancer benchmark value
SW
-
s
NE
Avg Cone = 1.26 ± 1.64 ug/m3
"**-
^x
9 i E |
^ r i ii i
f
*
^
™ ^
SE
3210123
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 4-13. Acrylonitrile Sources East of the PSAZ Monitoring Site
34.5 r
34.3 I
34.1
33.9
33.7
0)
3 33.5
33.3
33.1
32.9
32.7
32.5
-113.1
PSAZ Monitoring
Site
Salt River-Pima-
Maricopa Indian
Community Landfill
Apache Junction
Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill
-112.9 -112.7 -112.5 -112.3 -112.1 -111.9 -111.7 -111.5 -111.3 -111.1
Longitude
-------
Figure 4-14. 24-Hour Back Trajectory (50, 250, and 500 Meters Aboveground) at PSAZ on
October 12, 2003
500
12
06
00
1500
1000
* 500
18
4-21
-------
Table 4-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Arizona
Site
Name
MCAZ
PSAZ
QVAZ
SPAZ
Type
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
Gug/m3)
^$
48.54
(±7.61)
^
58.94
(± 8.44)
sss
20.89
(± 9.38)
^
204.42
(± 185.46)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
84.01
(± 1.66)
88.69
(± 4.87)
84.01
(± 1.66)
83.58
(± 4.49)
86.85
(± 1.68)
84.37
(± 5.90)
84.01
(± 1.66)
83.65
(± 4.39)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
73.20
(± 1.60)
77.73
(±4.57)
73.20
(± 1.60)
73.15
(±4.12)
75.90
(± 1.63)
74.12
(± 5.63)
73.20
(± 1.60)
73.07
(± 4.05)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
41.50
(± 1.37)
42.61
(± 4.40)
41.50
(± 1.37)
41.43
(± 3.69)
38.87
(± 1.39)
39.58
(± 5.32)
41.50
(± 1.37)
41.66
(± 3.60)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
56.11
(± 1.07)
58.43
(±3.28)
56.11
(± 1.07)
56.15
(±2.76)
56.38
(± 1.02)
56.11
(±3.63)
56.11
(± 1.07)
56.20
(± 2.69)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
36.76
(± 1.79)
32.48
(± 4.42)
36.76
(± 1.79)
37.47
(±5.12)
32.16
(± 1.73)
35.81
(± 7.87)
36.76
(± 1.79)
37.86
(± 5.06)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1011.50
(± 0.50)
1010.65
(± 1.35)
1011.50
(± 0.50)
1011.17
(± 1.22)
1011.74
(±0.51)
1011.98
(± 1.89)
1011.50
(± 0.50)
1011.24
(± 1.21)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.43
(± 0.25)
0.84
(± 0.84)
0.43
(± 0.25)
0.65
(± 0.70)
0.41
(± 0.32)
1.20
(±1.16)
0.43
(± 0.25)
0.56
(± 0.68)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.54
(± 0.22)
0.70
(±0.57)
0.54
(± 0.22)
0.42
(± 0.56)
0.65
(±0.17)
1.22
(±0.61)
0.54
(± 0.22)
0.35
(±0.55)
to
to
-------
Table 4-2a. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Arizona Monitoring
Site 1 - MCAZ
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichloropropene
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Methylene Chloride
Trichloroethylene
Bromoform
Average
Toxicity
3.52E-05
1.29E-05
9.17E-06
8.78 E-06
8.61 E-06
4.65 E-06
1.99 E-06
1.75 E-06
8.34 E-07
2.83 E-07
2.60 E-07
2.97E-08
%
Contribution
41.65
15.30
10.86
10.40
10.20
5.51
2.35
2.07
0.99
0.34
0.31
0.04
Cumulative
%
Contribution
41.65
56.95
67.81
78.21
88.41
93.91
96.27
98.33
99.32
99.66
99.96
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
0.517
1.657
1.554
0.293
0.574
0.423
0.497
0.109
0.032
0.602
0.130
0.027
#
Detects
3
45
14
19
39
7
2
1
1
34
5
1
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
35.2
12.9
9.17
8.78
8.61
4.65
1.99
1.75
<1
<1
<1
<1
4-23
-------
Table 4-2b. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Arizona Monitoring
Site 2 - PSAZ
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Methylene Chloride
Trichloroethylene
Average
Toxicity
8.59E-05
2.28 E-05
1.62E-05
9.59 E-06
8.32 E-06
7.90 E-06
4.08 E-06
1.56 E-06
6.93 E-07
%
Contribution
54.72
14.50
10.31
6.11
5.30
5.03
2.60
0.99
0.44
Cumulative
%
Contribution
54.72
69.22
79.53
85.64
90.94
95.97
98.57
99.56
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
1.263
2.917
0.540
0.872
0.554
1.338
1.019
3.313
0.347
#
Detects
9
59
36
31
52
39
1
50
15
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
85.9
22.8
16.2
9.59
8.32
7.90
4.08
1.56
<1
4-24
-------
Table 4-2c. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Arizona Monitoring
Site 3 - QVAZ
Compound
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Trichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Average
Toxicity
2.93 E-04
1.76E-05
1.20E-05
8.85 E-06
4.57E-06
8.19E-07
1.87E-07
%
Contribution
86.95
5.21
3.56
2.63
1.35
0.24
0.06
Cumulative
%
Contribution
86.95
92.16
95.72
98.35
99.70
99.94
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
4.312
0.586
2.035
0.590
0.586
0.410
0.398
#
Detects
16
2
1
25
30
2
12
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
293
17.6
12.0
8.85
4.57
<1
<1
4-25
-------
Table 4-2d. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Arizona Monitoring
Site 4 - SPAZ
Compound
Benzene
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Methylene Chloride
Trichloroethylene
Average
Toxicity
2.38E-05
2.38 E-05
1.58E-05
9.23 E-06
8.76 E-06
7.64 E-06
3. 16 E-06
4.33 E-07
4.15E-07
%
Contribution
25.63
25.55
16.95
9.93
9.42
8.22
3.40
0.47
0.45
Cumulative
%
Contribution
25.63
51.18
68.13
78.06
87.48
95.69
99.09
99.55
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
3.055
0.349
0.525
0.839
0.584
1.294
0.121
0.921
0.207
#
Detects
60
3
40
25
54
19
1
47
5
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
23.8
23.8
15.8
9.23
8.76
7.64
3.16
<1
<1
4-26
-------
Table 4-3a. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Arizona Monitoring
Site 1 - MCAZ
Compound
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Benzene
Chloroprene
1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Toluene
Chloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetonitrile
Bromomethane
Tetrachloroethy lene
Chloroform
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Ethylbenzene
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methylene Chloride
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Styrene
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Chloromethane
Average
Toxicity
2.59 E-01
1.46E-01
9.12E-02
5.52 E-02
4.14E-02
2.49 E-02
1.82 E-02
1.48 E-02
1.44 E-02
1.18 E-02
1.04 E-02
5.75 E-03
2.72 E-03
2.07 E-03
1.48 E-03
6.65 E-04
6.02 E-04
5.28 E-04
4.35 E-04
2.72 E-04
2. 17 E-04
1.87 E-04
1.38 E-04
1.34E-05
8.27 E-06
%
Contribution
36.83
20.85
12.98
7.86
5.89
3.54
2.59
2.11
2.04
1.68
1.48
0.82
0.37
0.30
0.21
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
36.83
57.67
70.66
78.52
84.41
87.95
90.54
92.65
94.69
96.37
97.85
98.67
99.06
99.35
99.56
99.66
99.74
99.82
99.88
99.92
99.95
99.98
100.00
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A
-------
Table 4-3b. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Arizona Monitoring
Site 2 - PSAZ
Compound
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Benzene
Acetonitrile
1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Toluene
Chloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Bromomethane
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethy lene
Methylene Chloride
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Chloroform
Styrene
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Chloroethane
Average
Toxicity
6.31 E-01
2.70 E-01
1.09 E-01
9.72 E-02
7.36E-02
5. 10 E-02
2.22 E-02
1.65 E-02
1.39 E-02
1.13 E-02
7.59 E-03
4.96 E-03
3.31 E-03
1.69 E-03
1.54 E-03
1.44 E-03
1.09 E-03
5.78 E-04
5.58E-04
4.69 E-04
4.61 E-04
2.76 E-04
2.21 E-05
%
Contribution
47.82
20.43
8.29
7.37
5.57
3.86
1.68
1.25
1.05
0.86
0.57
0.38
0.25
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
<0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
47.82
68.26
76.55
83.91
89.49
93.35
95.03
96.28
97.33
98.18
98.76
99.13
99.38
99.51
99.63
99.74
99.82
99.86
99.91
99.94
99.98
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
1.263
0.540
10.945
2.917
4.415
1.019
8.879
1.486
0.554
0.057
0.743
1.338
3.313
1.693
7.709
4.308
0.872
0.347
0.558
0.469
0.323
0.829
0.221
#
Detects
9
36
59
59
22
1
59
59
52
1
34
39
50
56
50
41
31
15
37
39
2
17
7
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4-28
-------
Table 4-3c. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Arizona Monitoring
Site 3 - QVAZ
Compound
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Bromomethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Chloroform
Styrene
Ethylbenzene
Trichloroethylene
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Average
Toxicity
2.16E+00
2.93 E-01
4.49 E-02
3.69 E-02
1.95 E-02
1.48 E-02
1.39 E-02
1.27 E-02
754 E-03
3.86 E-03
1.48 E-03
1.28 E-03
937 E-04
7.70 E-04
6.83 E-04
5.41 E-04
4.58 E-04
3.98 E-04
2.72 E-04
1.59 E-04
%
Contribution
82.60
11.23
1.72
1.41
0.75
0.57
0.53
0.49
0.29
0.15
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
82.60
93.83
95.55
96.96
97.71
98.28
98.81
99.30
99.58
99.73
99.79
99.84
99.87
99.90
99.93
99.95
99.97
99.98
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
4.312
0.586
4.494
2.213
0.586
0.590
1.255
0.063
2.035
1.545
0.297
0.125
0.937
0.770
0.410
1.622
2.289
0.398
0.817
0.159
#
Detects
16
2
26
11
30
25
30
1
1
30
1
2
4
20
2
1
16
12
2
9
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4-29
-------
Table 4-3d. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Arizona Monitoring
Site 4 - SPAZ
Compound
Acetonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Chloroprene
Toluene
Chloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Bromomethane
Tetrachloroethy lene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl terf-Butyl Ether
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
Styrene
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Chloroethane
Average
Toxicity
3.22 E+01
2.63 E-01
2.23 E-01
1.75 E-01
1.02 E-01
4.91 E-02
2.89 E-02
1.49 E-02
1.46 E-02
1.37 E-02
4.80 E-03
3.34 E-03
3. 24 E-03
1.60 E-03
1.36 E-03
1.11 E-03
1.05 E-03
9.21 E-04
7.00 E-04
3. 46 E-04
2.78 E-04
1.86 E-04
1.64 E-04
5.06 E-05
4.69 E-06
%
Contribution
78.12
6.37
5.42
4.23
2.47
1.19
0.70
0.36
0.35
0.33
0.12
0.08
0.08
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
O.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
78.12
84.48
89.90
94.13
96.60
97.79
98.49
98.85
99.20
99.54
99.65
99.73
99.81
99.85
99.88
99.91
99.94
99.96
99.98
99.98
99.99
99.99
100.00
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
193.407
0.525
22.345
0.349
3.055
0.344
11.547
1.343
0.584
0.068
1.295
0.328
3.242
8.012
4.071
0.223
0.839
0.921
0.700
0.207
0.833
0.186
0.164
0121
0.047
#
Detects
41
40
60
3
60
2
60
60
54
2
19
18
60
58
43
1
25
47
41
5
18
16
1
1
1
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4-30
-------
Table 4-4a. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at West Broadway in
Phoenix, Arizona (MCAZ)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroprene
Chloromethane
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.33
NA
-0.36
NA
-0.55
0.18
NA
0.10
0.51
-0.34
-0.45
-0.39
Average
Temperature
-0.37
NA
-0.36
NA
-0.61
0.19
NA
0.08
0.23
-0.33
-0.47
-0.42
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.25
NA
-0.25
NA
-0.56
0.09
NA
0.04
-0.68
0.02
-0.35
-0.33
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.33
NA
-0.33
NA
-0.64
0.15
NA
0.07
-0.63
-0.15
-0.45
-0.41
Relative
Humidity
0.10
NA
-0.08
NA
-0.01
-0.03
NA
-0.02
-0.69
-0.22
0.12
0.08
Sea Level
Pressure
0.36
NA
0.10
NA
0.50
-0.29
NA
-0.05
-0.06
0.35
0.35
0.32
u-component
of wind
-0.34
NA
-0.58
NA
-0.34
0.06
NA
-0.05
-0.55
-0.11
-0.03
-0.02
v-component
of wind
-0.02
NA
0.05
NA
-0.24
0.21
NA
-0.08
-0.57
-0.03
-0.03
-0.06
-------
J^.
I
to
Table 4-4b. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at Supersite in
Phoenix, Arizona (PSAZ)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.30
NA
-0.51
-0.21
-0.12
0.30
-0.05
0.10
-0.02
-0.01
Average
Temperature
-0.41
NA
-0.55
-0.25
-0.21
0.32
-0.15
0.02
-0.11
-0.10
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.63
NA
-0.46
0.05
-0.45
-0.09
-0.33
-0.22
-0.39
-0.41
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.58
NA
-0.55
-0.07
-0.37
0.16
-0.28
-0.14
-0.28
-0.28
Relative
Humidity
-0.26
NA
0.01
0.28
-0.25
-0.44
-0.19
-0.26
-0.28
-0.31
Sea Level
Pressure
0.55
NA
0.46
-0.05
0.49
-0.23
0.11
0.17
0.40
0.38
u-component
of wind
-0.34
NA
-0.25
-0.33
-0.40
0.20
-0.32
-0.19
-0.35
-0.37
v-component
of wind
-0.48
NA
-0.43
-0.22
-0.42
0.04
-0.30
-0.34
-0.37
-0.41
-------
Table 4-4c. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at Queen Valley in
Phoenix, Arizona (QVAZ)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrylonitrile
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
NA
0.34
NA
-0.38
Average
Temperature
NA
0.46
NA
-0.40
Dew Point
Temperature
NA
0.74
NA
0.12
Wet Bulb
Temperature
NA
0.72
NA
-0.19
Relative
Humidity
NA
0.16
NA
0.47
Sea Level
Pressure
NA
0.01
NA
0.46
u-component
of wind
NA
0.17
NA
-0.16
v-component
of wind
NA
-0.36
NA
-0.15
-------
Table 4-4d. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at South Phoenix,
Arizona (SPAZ)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.26
0.03
NA
-0.30
-0.02
-0.17
-0.51
-0.36
Average
Temperature
-0.34
0.05
NA
-0.39
0.02
-0.29
-0.57
-0.43
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.41
-0.15
NA
-0.43
-0.01
-0.36
-0.45
-0.32
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.43
-0.05
NA
-0.47
0.01
-0.42
-0.60
-0.43
Relative
Humidity
-0.13
-0.19
NA
-0.06
0.01
-0.15
0.04
0.11
Sea Level
Pressure
0.51
-0.29
NA
0.58
-0.22
0.45
0.47
0.53
u-component
of wind
-0.19
0.33
NA
-0.42
0.36
-0.34
-0.05
-0.35
v-component
of wind
-0.10
0.24
NA
-0.42
0.15
-0.46
-0.29
-0.42
-------
Table 4-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Arizona Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
MCAZ
PSAZ
QVAZ
SPAZ
Estimated County
Population
3,303,876
3,303,876
196,275
3,303,876
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
2,742,367
2,742,367
165,676
2,742,367
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
0.83
0.83
0.84
0.83
Population within
Ten Miles
835,936
1,385,905
62,714
835,936
Estimated
10-Mile Car
Registration
693,827
1,150,301
52,680
693,827
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
10,108
250
200
50,000
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oug/m3)
48.54 (±7.61)
58.94 (± 8.44)
20.89 (±9.38)
204.42 (± 185.46)
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding PSAZ
Facility Name
Chem Research Co.
Western Bonded
Prods. Inc. Flex
Foam
Primary SIC
Code
3471
3086
SIC Code Description
Electroplating, Plating, Polishing,
Anodizing, and Coloring
Plastics Foam Products
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
MMMM
40 CFR part 63, subpart
III
Regulation Name
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products (Surface Coating)
NESHAP
Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Production NESHAP
-------
5.0 Sites in Colorado
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the two
UATMP sites in Colorado (DECO and WECO), both located in Denver. Figures 5-1 and 5-2 are
topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in their urban locations. Figure 5-3 is a
map identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites that reported to the 1999 NEI. The Denver
sites are surrounded by numerous sources. A large number of sources near DECO fall into four
categories: liquid distribution, surface coating, personal services and fuel combustion. WECO is
located near a large number of fuel combustion industrial facilities, liquids distribution facilities,
surface coating processes, and personal service sites.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003 at a weather station near these
sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The weather station is Denver-Centennial Airport (WBAN
93067). Both DECO and WECO sites sampled for VOCs, carbonyl compounds, and metals.
Table 5-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration (VOC and carbonyl compounds
only) at each of the sites, along with temperature (average maximum and average), moisture
(average dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity),
wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level
pressure) for the entire year and on days samples were taken. Climatologically, the Denver area
is rather dry, as the relative humidity in Table 5-1 indicates, and the daily temperatures can
fluctuate drastically between the seasons, providing the area with rather cold winters and warm
summers. Wind speeds can vary for the site, but the wind flows from the south-southeast on
average. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and
Bair, 1987).
5.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Colorado Sites
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at each site (including metals). Tables 5-2a-b
summarize the cancer weighting scores, and Tables 5-3a-b summarize the noncancer weighting
5-1
-------
scores. For a compound to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to
the top 95% of the total site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are
considered prevalent for each site.
Tables 5-2a-b shows most of the prevalent cancer compounds reflect the nationwide
prevalent cancer compound list, which is in Section 3 of this report. Of the VOCs and carbonyl
compounds, 1,2-dichloroethane (detected at DECO) and trichloroethylene (dectected at DECO)
were not listed among the nationwide prevalent cancer compounds. Additionally, arsenic
compounds (detected at DECO and WECO) were considered prevalent, based on the site-
specific risk analysis. For the prevalent noncancer compounds summarized in Tables 5-3a-b,
arsenic and manganese compounds (detected at DECO and WECO) were listed among the site-
specific noncancer prevalent list.
The following toxic compounds were not detected at either of the Denver sites were:
acrylonitrile; 1,3-dichlorpropene; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; vinyl chloride; bromoform; chloroprene;
1,1-dichloroethene; methyl methacrylate; 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene; methyl tert-buty\ ether;
chlorobenzene; and chloroethane.
5.2 Toxicity Analysis
Benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, acetaldehyde, and tetrachloroethylene were
the only nationwide cancer prevalent compounds that were also prevalent at both Denver sites.
Benzene's toxicity score was the highest at both Denver sites, and this compound had the largest
number of detects at both sites. The number of detects for most of the prevalent compounds was
greater than ten at both sites.
Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, and xylenes (total)
were the only nationwide prevalent noncancer compounds to be considered prevalent at both
Denver sites. Both DECO and WECO had the same prevalent compounds, although differing in
average toxicity.
5-2
-------
The benzene cancer risk at DECO was the highest among the two sites at 21.5 in a
million, while at WECO, the benzene cancer risk was 17.5 in a million. For the compounds
which may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the average acetonitrile toxicity at WECO
was 1.18 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer health effect). Of the twenty
measured acetonitrile concentrations, 10 were above the acrylonitrile noncancer RfC weighting
factor at WECO.
5.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Colorado Sites
Carbonyl compounds, VOC, and metal compounds were sampled at each of the sites.
Table 5-1 shows that the average UATMP concentration at WECO was nearly twice that of
DECO. Tables 5-4a-b present the summary of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for
each of the prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters by site. Identification
of the prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 5.1 of this report. At DECO, the majority of
correlations are positive and moderately strong to relatively weak. The strongest correlations at
DECO were computed between acetonitrile and tetrachlorothylene and relative humidity (-0.55
and -0.62, respectively). Five compounds exhibited moderately strong correlations with the
temperature parameters. Pearson correlations could not be computed for 1,2-dichloroethane and
trichloroethylene due to the low number of detects (fewer than 3).
At WECO, correlations between the meteorological parameters and the prevalent
compounds tended to be somewhat stronger than at DECO. Both acetonitrile and
tetrachloroethylene exhibited moderately strong to strong correlations with nearly all of the
meteorological parameters, although they varied between negative and positive correlations.
With the exception of formaldehyde, which had moderately strong to strong positive correlations
with the temperature parameters and the wet bulb temperature and strong negative correlations
with relative humidity, the remaining correlations at WECO were relatively weak. Pearson
correlations could not be computed for/»-dichlorobenzene due to the low number of detects
(fewer than 3).
5-3
-------
The Colorado sites opted to sample metal compounds in addition to carbonyls and VOC.
Average metal concentrations are listed in Table 5-5. Average metal concentrations are similar
at both Denver sites. Note: metal compounds are not included in the average UATMP
concentrations.
5.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration and population in Adams County, CO, and Denver County,
CO, were obtained from the Colorado Department of Revenue and the U.S. Census Bureau, and
are summarized in Table 5-6. Also included in Table 5-6 is the population within 10-miles of
each site and the average daily traffic information, which represents the average number of cars
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Using these
parameters, a car registration ratio was computed. An estimation of 10 mile car registrations was
computed using the 10-mile populations surrounding the monitors and the car registration ratio.
This information is compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at
each Arizona site in Table 5-6. DECO has both the largest daily traffic volume and the largest
vehicle ownership within a ten mile radius, although WECO has nearly twice the average daily
UATMP concentration.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.). Figure 3-1 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. The ratios for the Denver sites generally resemble those of the
roadside study. Both sites had higher toluene-ethylbenzene ratios, had slightly higher benzene-
ethylbenzene ratios, and slightly lower xylene-ethylbenzene ratios than the roadside study.
5.5 RFC Analysis
The Denver-Aurora, CO, MSA participates in a winter oxygenated reformulated fuel
program (EPA, 2001), as part of their State Implementation Plan (SIP). During the winter
season in the Denver MSA (November 1 - February 7), the oxygen content in gasoline must be at
5-4
-------
least 3.1%, boosting the octane quality, increasing combustion, and reducing exhaust emissions.
The oxygenate used as an RFG additive in the Phoenix MSA is ethanol. Figures 5-4 through 5-5
are the VOC profiles at the Denver sites.
At DECO (Figure 5-4), the total VOC concentrations were varied, with the highest
concentration occurring on January 27, 2003. On that day, the stationary source HAP
contribution was much higher than other sampling days. The non-HAP concentrations were
typically low or non-existent. The sampling at DECO ran from January 3 - May 3, thus missing
most of the winter season and all of the summer periods. There does not appear to be any
reduction in total VOCs or the BTEX compounds during the winter season. However, it appears
that the non-winter VOC and BTEX concentrations were generally lower than the winter VOC
and BTEX concentrations.
At WECO (Figure 5-5), the total VOC concentrations were also varied, with the highest
concentration occurring on April 15, 2003. On that day, the stationary source HAP contribution
was much higher than on other sampling days. The mobile source HAP concentrations (BTEX
and non-BTEX) were typically low. The sampling at WECO also ran from January 3 - May 3,
thus missing most of the winter season and all of the summer periods. There does not appear to
be any reduction in total VOCs or the BTEX compounds during the winter season. Similarly to
DECO, it appears that the non-winter VOC and BTEX concentrations were generally lower than
the winter VOC and BTEX concentrations. The non-HAP VOCs were detected only on five
sampling days.
5-5
-------
Figure 5-1. Denver, Colorado (DECO) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
5-6
-------
Figure 5-2. Denver, Colorado (WECO) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
5-7
-------
Figure 5-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DECO and WECO
_10 mile radius
WECO UATMP site I I County boundary
Source Category Group {No. of Facilities}
Note: Due to facility density and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within th e ares of interest.
0 Admin, of Human Resources (1)
•^Architectural Services (2)
± Automobile Dealers (5)
¥ Automotive Repair, Services, & Parking (
&• Business Services Facility (1)
C Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (7)
+ Health Services Facility (1)
• Heavy Construction Contractors Facility (1)
9 Hotels. Rooming Houses, Camps, & Other LOGJ
MHousehold Accessories Facility (1)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (2)
i=ilnstruments& Related Products Facility (4)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (412)
Local & Interurban Passenger Transit (1)
f Construction/Mining Machinery, Equipment, & Mate rials (3) & Lumber & Wood Products Facility (4)
E Electric, Gas. & Sanitary Services (6)
Z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (3)
• Engineering & Management Services Facility (2)
-T-Executive, Legislative, & General Government Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (16)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (4)
7 Food & Agriculture Processes Industrial Facility (3)
G Food £L Kindred Products Facility (2)
FFuel Combustion Industrial Facility (155)
H Furniture & Fixtures Facility (5)
-^Gasoline Service Stations (7)
OPersonalServices(169)
1 Petroleum & Coal Products (4)
mg(1) PPetroleurrVNat.GasProd.se Refining Industrial Facility (4)
> Pharmaceutical Production Industrial Facility
V Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (4)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
R Printing & Publishing Facility (61)
# Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (3)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
[] Medical, Dental, & Hospital Equipment and Supplies (1) i Railroad Transportation (1)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (B)
X Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (4)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (78)
•f Miscellaneous Repair Services (2)
---Motor Freight Transportation & Warehousing (1)
11 National Security & International Affairs (1)
N Nonclassifiabl e Establi shments (1)
2 Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels (1)
@Paper£Allied Products(1)
Y Rubber S Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (2)
DSpecial Trade Contractors Facility (3)
U Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (5)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (90)
< Textile Mill Products Facility (1)
Transportation Equipment(3)
? Unknown (2)
8 Utility Boilers (2)
,T;Waste Treatment 8. Disposal Industrial Facility (29)
$ Wholesale Trade - Durable Goods (2)
6 Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods (5)
o2003buffer 10mi selection
5-8
-------
Figure 5-4. 2003 Total VOC Profile at DECO
135
120
QVOCnon-HAPs
H Other Mobile Source VOC HAP
D BTEX HAP Compounds
• Stationary Source VOC HAPs
CNl
LO
-------
Figure 5-5. 2003 Total VOC Profile at WECO
135
120
105
VOC non-HAPs
Other Mobile Source VOC HAP
BTEX HAP Compounds
Stationary Source VOC HAPs
to
E
c
o
"•5
(0
+J
c
a)
o
c
o
o
-------
Table 5-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Colorado
Site
Name
DECO
WECO
Type
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
SSS
57.62
(±11.62)
$$$$:
106.96
(±19.90)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
63.28
(±1.94)
52.60
(±6.14)
63.28
(±1.94)
52.48
(±5.85)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
50.46
(±1.75)
40.50
(±5.48)
50.46
(±1.75)
40.22
(±5.25)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
29.36
(±1.50)
19.80
(±3.38)
29.36
(±1.50)
19.61
(±3.24)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
40.53
(±1.35)
31.99
(±3.88)
40.53
(±1.35)
31.78
(±3.71)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
50.92
(±1.92)
50.11
(±7.58)
50.92
(±1.92)
50.08
(±7.22)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1014.84
(±0.72)
1011.60
(±3.57)
1014.84
(±0.72)
1011.92
(±3.45)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.15
(±0.28)
0.38
(±1.39)
0.15
(0.28)
0.55
(±1.36)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
1.63
(±0.39)
1.91
(±2.02)
1.63
(±0.39)
1.59
(±2.02)
-------
Table 5-2a. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Colorado Monitoring
Site 1 - DECO
Compound
Benzene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Arsenic Compounds
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Cadmium compounds
Beryllium Compounds
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
2.15E-05
1.31E-05
1.18E-05
9.28E-06
7.68E-06
6.42E-06
4.21E-06
2.87E-06
1.47E-06
6.61E-07
7.68E-08
3.42E-08
%
Contribution
27.21
16.56
14.88
11.74
9.71
8.12
5.32
3.63
1.86
0.84
0.10
0.04
Cumulative
%
Contribution
27.21
43.77
58.65
70.39
80.10
88.21
93.54
97.16
99.02
99.86
99.96
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
2.758
2.219
0.003
0.309
3.490
0.428
0.162
1.433
3.126
O.0001
O.0001
6.210
#
Detects
19
6
17
15
15
15
1
2
17
17
17
15
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
21.5
13.1
11.8
9.28
7.68
6.42
4.21
2.37
1.47
<1
<1
<1
5-12
-------
Table 5-2b. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Colorado Monitoring
Site 2 - WECO
Compound
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic Compounds
Acetaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Cadmium compounds
Methylene Chloride
Beryllium Compounds
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
1.75E-05
8.32E-06
7.56E-06
7.49E-06
5.42E-06
2.65E-06
2.56E-06
5.81E-07
3.22E-07
7.85E-08
1.56E-08
%
Contribution
33.37
15.84
14.40
14.26
10.32
5.04
4.88
1.11
0.61
0.15
0.03
Cumulative
%
Contribution
33.37
49.21
63.61
77.87
88.19
93.23
98.10
99.21
99.82
99.97
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
2.247
0.277
0.504
0.002
2.466
0.240
0.434
O.0001
0.685
O.0001
2.838
#
Detects
20
13
16
19
20
1
5
19
16
19
20
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
17.5
8.32
7.56
7.49
5.42
2.65
2.56
<1
<1
<1
<1
5-13
-------
Table 5-3a. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Colorado Monitoring
Site 1 - DECO
Compound
Formaldehyde
Manganese Compounds
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Arsenic Compounds
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Cadmium compounds
Toluene
Choromethane
Nickel Compounds
Carbon Tetrachloride
Lead Compounds
Tetrachloroethy lene
Cobalt Compounds
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Trichloroethylene
Beryllium Compounds
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Styrene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Mercury
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Selenium Compounds
Average
Toxicity
6.34E-01
6.12E-01
3.88E-01
2.27E-01
1.55E-01
9.19E-02
9.12E-02
8.71E-02
1.84E-02
1.77E-02
1.41E-02
1.09E-02
1.07E-02
8.58E-03
8.22E-03
7.38E-03
6.91E-03
3.13E-03
2.39E-03
1.60E-03
1.21E-03
8.99E-04
4.60E-04
2.18E-04
1.85E-04
6.75E-05
4.05E-05
%
Contribution
26.42
25.52
16.17
9.45
6.45
3.83
3.80
3.63
0.77
0.74
0.59
0.45
0.45
0.36
0.34
0.31
0.29
0.13
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
<0.0001
O.0001
Cumulative
%
Contribution
26.42
51.95
68.11
77.57
84.02
87.85
91.65
95.28
96.05
96.79
97.38
97.83
98.28
98.64
98.98
99.29
99.58
99.71
99.80
99.87
99.92
99.96
99.98
99.99
100.00
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
6.210
0.031
3.490
13.601
0.309
2.758
0.003
8.708
O.0001
7.095
1.273
0.002
0.428
0.013
2.219
0.001
0.677
3.126
1.433
<0.0001
1.207
4.493
0.4601
0.218
O.0001
0.162
0.001
#
Detects
15
17
15
5
15
19
17
19
17
19
19
17
15
17
6
17
1
17
2
17
19
3
1
1
17
1
17
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-14
-------
Table 5-3b. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Colorado Monitoring
Site 2 - WECO
Compound
Acetonitrile
Manganese Compounds
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Arsenic Compounds
Cadmium compounds
Chloromethane
Toluene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Nickel Compounds
Lead Compounds
Cobalt Compounds
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroform
Beryllium Compounds
Tetrachloroethy lene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Styrene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Mercury
Selenium Compounds
Average
Toxicity
1.18E+00
5.93E-01
2.90E-01
2.74E-01
1.39E-01
7.49E-02
6.13E-02
5.81E-02
1.61E-02
1.39E-02
1.29E-02
1.26E-02
1.08E-02
7.67E-03
5.43E-03
1.92E-03
1.76E-03
1.64E-03
1.61E-03
9.00E-04
6.85E-04
4.98E-04
3.01E-04
2.07E-04
2.05E-04
1.35E-04
2.64E-05
%
Contribution
42.78
21.48
10.50
9.93
5.03
2.72
2.22
2.11
0.59
0.50
0.47
0.46
0.39
0.28
0.20
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.0001
O.0001
Cumulative
%
Contribution
42.78
64.26
74.76
84.69
89.72
92.43
94.66
96.76
97.35
97.85
98.32
98.77
99.17
99.44
99.64
99.71
99.78
99.83
99.89
99.93
99.95
99.97
99.98
99.99
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
70.812
0.030
2.838
2.466
0.277
2.247
6.128
0.002
0.000
1.249
5.167
0.504
0.002
0.012
0.001
9.620
0.172
<0.0001
0.434
0.900
0.685
1.495
0.240
0.207
0.205
<0.0001
0.001
#
Detects
20
19
20
20
13
20
20
19
19
20
20
16
19
19
19
6
1
19
5
18
16
2
1
7
4
19
19
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
10
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5-15
-------
Table 5-4a. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Site #1 in Denver, Colorado (DECO)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Arsenic Compounds
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Formaldehyde
Manganese Compounds
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes (total)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.33
0.02
0.34
0.38
-0.23
0.23
NA
0.11
0.32
0.38
NA
-0.27
Average
Temperature
-0.38
0.01
0.37
0.41
-0.26
0.22
NA
0.16
0.33
0.41
NA
-0.28
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.18
0.04
-0.17
0.36
-0.14
0.23
NA
0.31
0.04
-0.31
NA
-0.21
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.35
0.03
0.21
0.44
-0.25
0.25
NA
0.22
0.29
0.21
NA
-0.28
Relative
Humidity
0.33
-0.07
-0.55
-0.20
0.17
0.04
NA
-0.03
-0.37
-0.62
NA
0.12
Sea Level
Pressure
0.35
0.14
0.22
-0.39
0.17
-0.37
NA
0.17
-0.21
0.19
NA
0.26
u-component
of wind
-0.50
-0.15
0.39
0.41
-0.35
0.09
NA
-0.09
0.16
0.42
NA
-0.23
v-component
of wind
-0.27
0.31
0.12
0.02
-0.22
0.45
NA
0.49
0.13
0.25
NA
-0.32
-------
Table 5-4b. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Site #2 in Denver, CO (WECO)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Arsenic Compounds
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese Compounds
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes (total)
Maximum
Temperature
0.19
0.09
0.58
0.21
-0.17
-0.22
0.49
0.32
NA
-0.60
-0.12
Average
Temperature
0.24
0.10
0.59
0.16
-0.21
-0.18
0.51
0.26
NA
-0.65
-0.14
Dew Point
Temperature
0.15
0.09
0.44
-0.10
-0.13
0.18
0.14
-0.04
NA
-0.48
-0.08
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.23
0.12
0.59
0.10
-0.19
-0.09
0.45
0.20
NA
-0.68
-0.12
Relative
Humidity
-0.06
-0.06
-0.41
-0.30
0.11
0.47
-0.54
-0.37
NA
0.58
0.06
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.28
0.07
-0.28
-0.05
0.37
0.10
-0.27
-0.12
NA
0.33
0.34
u-component
of wind
-0.09
-0.24
0.52
0.43
-0.12
-0.03
0.00
0.45
NA
-0.68
-0.08
v-component
of wind
0.04
0.09
0.46
-0.22
-0.16
-0.03
0.39
-0.15
NA
-0.19
-0.13
-------
Table 5-5. Average Metal Concentrations Measured by the Colorado Monitoring Stations
Monitoring
Station
DECO
WECO
Average Metals Concentration
(ng/m3)
50.39
46.52
5-18
-------
Table 5-6. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Colorado Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
DECO
WECO
Estimated
County
Population
560,415
374,099
Estimated
County
Number of
Vehicles Owned
415,535
300,457
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
0.74
0.80
Population
within Ten
Miles
1,283,560
874,731
Estimated
10-Mile Car
Registration
949,834
699,785
Traffic
Data
(Daily
Average)
44,200
1,500
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(//g/m3)
57.62 (±11. 62)
106.96 (±19.90)
-------
6.0 Site in Connecticut
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Connecticut (HACT), located in Hartford. Figure 6-1 is a topographical map showing the
monitoring station in its urban location. Figure 6-2 is a map identifying facilities within ten
miles of this site that reported to the 1999 NEI. The Hartford site is surrounded by numerous
sources. Many sources near HACT fall into four categories: fabricated metal, surface coating,
waste treatment and disposal, and fuel combustion.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003 at the weather station nearest
this site with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The weather station is Hartford-Brainard Airport (WBAN 14752).
The HACT site sampled for carbonyl compounds only. Table 6-1 highlights the average
UATMP concentration (carbonyl compounds only) at the HACT site, along with temperature
(average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average wet-bulb
temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v- components of
the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on days samples were
taken. Hartford's New England location is one that sees fairly variable weather from day to day
because most frontal systems trek across the region. However, the city's proximity to the
Atlantic Ocean has a major influence on its climate, as summers will be somewhat cooler and
winters will be slightly warmer. This information can be verified in The Weather Almanac, fifth
edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
6.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Connecticut Site
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at this site. The only carbonyl compounds with
toxicity weighting factors are acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. Table 6-2 summarizes the cancer
weighting scores, and Table 6-3 summarizes the noncancer weighting scores. For a compound
to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95% of the total
6-1
-------
site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered prevalent for
this site.
Tables 6-2 and 6-3 show that acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were both detected at
HACT. Acetaldehyde was the only prevalent cancer compound, while both acetaldehyde and
formaldehyde were prevalent non-cancer compounds at the HACT site. All of the toxic carbonyl
compounds were detected at the HACT site.
6.2 Toxicity Analysis
The acetaldehyde cancer toxicity score was over 99% of the total cancer score, while
Formaldehyde toxicity was over 67% of the total noncancer toxicity. The acetaldehyde cancer
risk was the highest among the toxic carbonyl compounds at 9.14 in a million. For the
compounds which may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the average formaldehyde
toxicity was 0.962 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer health effect). Of the
thirty-six measured formaldehyde concentrations, 15 were above the formaldehyde noncancer
RfC weighting factor.
6.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Connecticut Site
Only carbonyl compounds were sampled at this site, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and 3-4.
Therefore, only carbonyl compounds factor into the average UATMP concentrations. The
average UATMP concentration was 33.42 (± 4.29) ug/m3.
Table 6-4 presents the summary of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of
the prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters at HACT. Identification of the
site-specific prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 6.1 of this report. The meteorological
parameters had very poor correlations with acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, with the exception
of the v-component of the wind (0.40 and 0.49, respectively).
6-2
-------
6.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration and population in Hartford County, CT, were
obtained from the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles and the U.S. Census Bureau, and
are summarized in Table 6-5. Also included in Table 6-5 is the population within 10 miles of
each site and the average daily traffic information, which reflects the average number of cars
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Using these
parameters, a county-level car registration ratio was computed. An estimation of 10-mile car
registration was computed using the 10-mile populations surrounding the monitors and the
computed car registration ratio. This information is compared to the average daily concentration
of the prevalent compounds at the HACT site in Table 6-5.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area. (For more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.) Since only carbonyl
compounds were sampled, a BTEX analysis could not be performed.
6.5 RFG Analysis
The Hartford MSA is in a federal RFG mandated area (EPA, 1994), and must use
gasoline additives to reduce VOC emissions. During the summer period, MTBE and TAME are
used; in the winter, MTBE, TAME, ETBE, and ethanol are used. A summer 2002 survey of 6
service stations showed an oxygen content of 2.12% by weight and a benzene content of 0.600%
by volume. MTBE and TAME averaged 9.27% and 2.74% by weight, respectively (EPA,
2003b). A winter survey of 4 service stations showed an oxygen content of 2.01% by weight and
a benzene content of 0.718% by volume. MTBE, TAME, ETBE, and ethanol averaged 8.85%,
1.53%, - 0.02%, and 0.45%, respectively (EPA, 2003b). Because VOCs were not sampled at
HACT, an RFG analysis was not performed.
6-3
-------
Figure 6-1. Hartford, Connecticut (HACT) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
6-4
-------
Figure 6-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of HACT
Hartford
County
Tolland
County
f4
-V'
Note Dye to facility density and eo^ocation, Eli* total facilities
displayed may not represent all fecilities withsr* the area o? interest
Legend
if HACT UATMP site F
10 mile radius I
(County boundary L
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) B
C Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (1) P
E Electric, Gas. & Sanitary Services (1) Y
z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1) s
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (7)
Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (31)
Incineration Industrial Facility (1)
Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (1)
Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1)
Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (2)
Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (1)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (10)
\Ataste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (9)
6-5
-------
Table 6-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the HACT Site in Connecticut
Site
Name
HACT
Type
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(A*g/m3)
\s\s\OSs
vXX^S
33.42
(±4.29)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
58.61
(±2.01)
66.94
(±4.99)
Average
Temperature
50.04
(±1.88)
57.82
(±4.81)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
40.69
(±2.12)
50.02
(±4.75)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
45.93
(±1.82)
53.63
(±4.45)
Average
Relative
Humidity
73.35
(±1.55)
78.14
(±3.34)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1015.96
(±0.80)
1016.91
(±2.41)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
1.18
(±0.31)
0.50
(±0.89)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.59
(±0.45)
-0.18
(±1.10)
Oi
-------
Table 6-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Hartford, Connecticut
Monitoring Site - HACT
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
9.14E-06
5.18E-08
%
Contribution
99.44
0.56
Cumulative
%
Contribution
99.44
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
4.156
9.425
#
Detects
36
36
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
9.14
<1
6-7
-------
Table 6-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Hartford, Connecticut
Monitoring Site - HACT
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehvde
Average
Toxicity
9.62E-01
4.62E-01
%
Contribution
67.56
32.44
Cumulative
%
Contribution
67.56
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
9.425
4.156
#
Detects
36
36
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
15
0
6-8
-------
Table 6-4. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
Hartford, Connecticut Site (HACT)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Maximum
Temperature
0.08
0.32
Average
Temperature
0.10
0.31
Dew Point
Temperature
0.09
0.27
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.09
0.29
Relative
Humidity
-0.06
-0.14
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.11
0.00
u-component
of wind
0.01
0.05
v-component
of wind
0.40
0.49
-------
Table 6-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Connecticut Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Station
HACT
Estimated
County
Population
867,332
Estimated
County
Number of
Vehicles Owned
686,895
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
0.79
Population
within Ten
Miles
575,327
Estimated
10-Mile Car
Registration
454,508
Traffic
Data
(Daily
Average)
10,000
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(//g/m3)
33. 42 (±4.29)
-------
7.0 Sites in Florida
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the four
UATMP sites in and near the Tampa/St. Petersburg, FL area (AZFL, CWFL, GAFL, LEFL), one
site in the Orlando, FL, area (ORFL), and four South Florida sites (BGFL, DBFL, FLFL,
MDFL). In the Tampa/St. Petersburg area, one of these sites is located in St. Petersburg, two in
Tampa, and one in Clearwater, while the south Florida sites are scattered among Belle Glade,
Delray Beach, Pompano Beach and Miami. Figures 7-1 through 7-9 are topographical maps
showing the monitoring stations in their urban locations. Figures 7-10 through 7-14 are maps
identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites and that reported to the 1999 NEI. The Tampa-
St. Petersburg sites are clustered around each other, with a majority of the facilities between
CWFL, AZFL, and GAFL, and between GAFL and LEFL. A large number of fuel combustion
and surface coating sources are located in this region. BGFL is located south of Lake
Okeechobee, with only seven facilities within ten miles of the monitoring station. Five of these
facilities are fuel combustion facilities, one is an electric, gas, and sanitary service facility, and
one is a liquid distribution facility. DBFL and FLFL are both located on the east coast of
Florida, with DBFL to the north of FLFL. There are more facilities near FLFL, most of which
are fuel combustion or surface coating facilities. Due to MDFL's coastal location, most of the
facilities are located to the west of the monitoring station. Most of the facilities located within
ten miles of MDFL are surface coating or fuel combustion sources. Emission sources are fairly
evenly distributed around the ORFL site, with a majority of the facilities involved in waste
treatment and disposal.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003 at seven weather stations near
these sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The seven weather stations are Tampa International Airport, St.
Petersburg/Whitted Airport, St. Petersburg/Clearwater International Airport, Hollywood
International, Orlando Executive Airport, Palm Beach International Airport, and Miami
International Airport (WBAN 12842, 92806, 12873, 12849, 12841, 12844, and 12839,
respectively).
7-1
-------
Table 7-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at each of the sites, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. The Tampa/St. Petersburg area is located on Florida's Gulf Coast,
Belle Glade is in south central Florida, and the remaining sites are located along the east coast of
southern Florida. Florida's climate is subtropical, with very mild winters and warm, muggy
summers, as Table 7-1 confirms. The annual average maximum temperature is in the 80s for all
of the locations and relative humidity is in the 70 to 80 percent range. Although land and sea
breezes affect each of the locations, wind generally blows from a southeasterly direction due to
high pressure offshore. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition
(Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
7.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Florida Sites
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at these sites. The only carbonyl compounds with
toxicity weighting factors are acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. Tables 7-2a-i summarize the
cancer weighting scores, while Tables 7-3a-i summarize the noncancer weighting scores. For a
compound to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95%
of the total site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered
prevalent for this site.
As can be shown in Tables 7-2a-i and 7-3a-i, acetaldehyde was the only prevalent cancer
compound at each of the Florida sites, while both acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were prevalent
for noncancer compounds. All of the toxic carbonyl compounds were detected at the Florida
sites, similarly to nationwide cancer and non-cancer prevalent carbonyl compounds.
7-2
-------
7.2 Toxicity Analysis
The number of detects of acetaldehyde was equal to the number of detects for
formaldehyde at each of the sites. Acetaldehyde's cancer toxicity contribution was greater than
99% at all of the sites. The acetaldehyde cancer risk at AZFL was the highest among the nine
sites at 7.08 in a million, while the remaining sites ranged from 1.32 (at BGFL) to 6.22 (at
DBFL). For the compounds which may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the associated
toxicities of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were low. The highest noncancer risk was
acetaldehyde at AZFL (0.358). Of the six adverse health effect exceedances, five occurred at
DBFL.
7.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Florida Sites
Only carbonyl compounds were measured at the nine sites, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and
3-4. Table 7-1 lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2003 to
December 2003, as well as the average UATMP concentration at each of the sites.
Tables 7-4a-i are the summaries of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for the
prevalent carbonyl compounds (acetaldehyde and formaldehyde) and selected meteorological
parameters by site. Identification of the site-specific prevalent compounds is discussed in
Section 7.1 of this report. The strongest correlations (all negative) were computed at DBFL,
between acetaldehyde and the temperature parameters, the dewpoint, and the wet bulb
temperature (-0.76, -0.79, -0.74, and -0.78, respectively). FLFL, the closest Florida site to
DBFL, did not exhibit the same strength in correlations, although there were strong correlations
between the u-component of the wind and acetaldehyde and formaldehyde at this site. However,
BGFL, which is located roughly fifty miles west of DBFL, did exhibit similar correlations
between acetaldehyde and the aforementioned weather parameters, although somewhat weaker
(-0.43, -0.42, -0.48, and -0.47, respectively) but still negative. MDFL generally exhibited weak
correlations, with the exception of a moderately strong positive correlation between acetaldehyde
and the u-component of the wind. Moderately strong to strong negative correlations between
acetaldehyde and the moisture variables exist at ORFL. Formaldehyde also had a moderately
strong negative correlation with relative humidity. LEFL had the strongest correlations of the
7-3
-------
Tampa/St. Petersburg sites. Acetaldehyde exhibited moderately strong to strong negative
correlations with both the temperature and moisture variables while formaldehyde had
moderately strong positive correlations with the temperature variables. With few exceptions, the
remainder of the correlations at the remaining sites were relatively weak.
7.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration and population information for the Florida counties were
obtained from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and the U.S.
Census Bureau, and are summarized in Table 7-6. Also included in Table 7-6 is the population
within 10 miles of each site and the average daily traffic information, which reflects the average
number of cars passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
Using these parameters, a car registration ratio was computed. An estimation of 10 mile car
registration was computed using the 10 mile populations surrounding the monitors and the car
registration ratio. This information is compared to the average daily concentration of the
prevalent compounds at the Florida sites in Table 7-6. The DBFL site has the largest amount of
traffic passing by on a daily basis, while the CWFL and FLFL sites have the lowest. The MDFL
site has the highest estimated ten mile vehicle ownership while the BGFL site has the lowest.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.). Since only carbonyl
compounds were sampled at the Florida sites, a BTEX analysis could not be performed.
7.5 NATTS Site Analysis
One of the Tampa sites, LEFL, is an EPA designated NATTS site. A description of the
NATTS program is given in Section 3.6. For LEFL, the following two analyses were conducted:
a composite back trajectory analysis and a regulation analysis. Details on each type of analysis
is also provided in Section 3.6. Since there were no Noncancer Benchmark exceedances, an
emission tracer analysis was not performed.
7-4
-------
7.5.1 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 7-15 is the composite back trajectory map for the LEFL site. Each line represents
the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled towards the monitoring location on a
sampling day. As shown in Figure 7-15, the back trajectories originated from an array of
different directions. Most of the trajectories' paths pass over the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic.
The 24-hour airshed domain is large, as the furthest away a back trajectory originated was
southeast Missouri. As each circle around the site represents 100 miles, 63% of the trajectories
originated within 300 miles, and 84% within 400 miles from the LEFL site.
7.5.2 Regulation Analysis
Table 3-10 summarizes the number of facilities that account for approximately 90% of
the total UATMP pollutant emissions in the 10 mile area around the monitoring station. One of
the 16 facilities at LEFL listed in Table 3-11 is potentially subject to future regulations. Table 7-
6 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable. Based on this analysis, the regulations
shown are expected to achieve reductions in ambient concentrations of the following UATMP
pollutants: acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. Reductions are projected to be less than 1% for both
compounds (0.5% for acetaldehyde and 0.8% for formaldehyde) as the regulations are
implemented (the latest compliance date is 2007). The emission reductions are primarily
attributed to regulation of reciprocating internal combustion engines.
7-5
-------
Figure 7-1. St. Petersburg, Florida (AZFL) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
7-6
-------
Figure 7-2. Belle Glade, Florida (BGFL) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:100,000.
7-7
-------
Figure 7-3. Clearwater, Florida (CWFL) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
7-8
-------
Figure 7-4. Delray Beach, Florida (DBFL) Monitoring Station
!^ .
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
7-9
-------
Figure 7-5. Pompano Beach, Florida Site (FLFL) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
7-10
-------
Figure 7-6. Tampa, Florida Site 1 (GAFL) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
7-11
-------
Figure 7-7. Tampa, Florida Site 2 (LEFL) Monitoring Station
_^r p ,- '«•)•' vrT <
'O - ; k*7~y' - - , ^i
, ^w-L
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
7-12
-------
Figure 7-8. Miami, Florida (MDFL) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
7-13
-------
Figure 7-9. Orlando, Florida (ORFL) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
7-14
-------
Figure 7-10. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of AZFL, CWFL, GAFL, and LEFL
32D20'0"W
Note: Due to facility density and colocation, the total facilities
t3 AZFL UATMP site
%i CWFL UATMP site
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) •
C Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (5)
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (2)
Z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (3)
• Engineering & Management Services Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (3)
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
GAFL UATMP site O 10 mile radius
LEFL UATMP site
f Fuel Combustion Industrial FacilSy (22)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (3)
J Industrial Machinery S Equipment Facility (1)
•= Instruments & Related Products FaciUy (3)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (3)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (5)
X Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries(2)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (6)
Miscellaneous Repair services (2)
" National Security & International Affairs (1)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial FacilSy (1)
@ Paper& Allied Products (1)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (1)
V Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (5)
R Printing & Publishing Facility (6)
# Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (2)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (3)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (21)
T Transportation Equipment (1)
8 Utility Boilers (1)
•£ Waste Treatments Disposal Industrial Facility (10)
8 Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods (1)
7-15
-------
Figure 7-11. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BGFL
Note: Due to facility density and coloration, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
|gj BGFL LJATMP site
(_) 10 mile radius
| | County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (1)
F Fue! Combustion Industrial Facility (5)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (1)
7-16
-------
Figure 7-12. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DBFL and FLFL
Note: Due to facility density and colocalion, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
g] DBFL UATMP site
@ FLFL UATMP site
(_) 10 mile radius
| | County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
C Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (11)
H Furniture & Fixtures Facility (1)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (2)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (5)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (2)
1 Petroleum & Coal Products (1)
R Printing & Publishing Facility (1)
# Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (1)
u Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (2)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (10)
T Transportation Equipment (1)
8 Utility Boilers (1)
•i Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
6 Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods (2)
7-17
-------
Figure 7-13. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of MDFL
Legend
tgj MDFL UATMP site
( ) 10 mile radius
| | County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
Apparel & Other Textile Products Facility (2)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (3)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
Q Food & Kindred Products Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (6)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (1)
Note: Due to facility density and colocation.the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (1)
D Medical, Dental, & Hospital Equipment and Supplies (1)
x Miscellaneous Manufactunng Industries (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (4)
a Miscellaneous Services Facility (1)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (4)
# Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
Y Rubbers Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (17)
& Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (2)
e Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods (1)
7-18
-------
Figure 7-14. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ORFL
Legend
g] ORFL UATMP site
Q 10 mile radius
| [County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (1)
Note: Due to facility density and allocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent a!l facilities within the area of interest
z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (2)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (2)
x Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (1)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (2)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (1)
r Construction/Mining Machinery, Equipment, & Materials (1) s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (4)
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (1) T Transportation Equipment (2)
s> Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (7)
7-19
-------
Figure 7-15. Composite Back Trajectory for LEFL
to
o
0 25 50 JOO 150 200
Miles
-------
Table 7-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Florida
Site
Name
AZFL
BGFL
CWFL
DBFL
FLFL
GAFL
LEFL
MDFL
Type
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(Aig/m3)
^
8.63
(±0.77)
^N
1.45
(±0.19)
^^
8.14
(±0.78)
^^
7.51
(±2.96)
^^
5.29
(±0.83)
^SSSS
6.80
(±0.60)
^SSS>
6.88
(±0.49)
^SSS>
2.76
(±0.43)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
79.66
(±0.95)
80.14
(±2.28)
82.73
(±0.67)
82.83
(±2.15)
80.30
(±0.95)
80.5
(±2.3)
82.79
(±0.74)
83.47
(±2.45)
82.73
(±0.67)
84.11
(±1.87)
80.45
(±0.95)
81.11
(±2.31)
80.45
(±0.95)
80.95
(±2.34)
83.41
(±0.68)
84.30
(±2.06)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
73.22
(±0.99)
73.31
(±2.38)
76.55
(±0.77)
76.90
(±2.38)
72.26
(±1.00)
72.31
(±2.33)
75.61
(±0.84)
76.24
(±2.63)
76.55
(±0.77)
78.47
(±1.90)
72.25
(±1.02)
72.64
(±2.45)
72.25
(±1.02)
72.43
(±2.49)
76.67
(±0.76)
77.50
(±2.4)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
64.86
(±1.10)
64.25
(±2.73)
67.93
(±0.95)
68.87
(±2.95)
63.86
(±1.19)
63.59
(±2.79)
67.54
(±0.96)
68.52
(±2.71)
67.93
(±0.95)
70.57
(±2.45)
63.02
(±1.19)
62.73
(±2.86)
63.02
(±1.19)
62.50
(±2.87)
67.74
(±0.89)
68.82
(±3.08)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
68.03
(±0.96)
67.73
(±2.34)
70.98
(±0.81)
71.68
(±2.48)
67.12
(±1.02)
66.95
(±2.38)
70.39
(±0.84)
71.16
(±2.46)
70.98
(±0.81)
73.22
(±2.02)
66.61
(±1.02)
66.57
(±2.43)
66.61
(±1.02)
66.37
(±2.45)
70.88
(±0.76)
71.82
(±2.52)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
76.61
(±0.99)
75.16
(±2.51)
75.87
(±0.83)
77.41
(±2.98)
76.61
(±0.96)
75.72
(±2.24)
77.43
(±0.84)
78.35
(±2.98)
75.87
(±0.83)
77.77
(±2.89)
74.53
(±0.94)
72.99
(±2.49)
74.53
(±0.94)
72.99
(±2.45)
75.16
(±0.78)
76.01
(±3.22)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1016.77
(±0.41)
1017.00
(±0.90)
1016.50
(±0.35)
1016.07
(±1.16)
1017.15
(±0.41)
1017.42
(±0.89)
1016.97
(±0.36)
1016.67
(±1.19)
1016.50
(±0.35)
1015.94
(±1.16)
1017.20
(±0.41)
1017.44
(±0.93)
1017.20
(±0.41)
1017.48
(±0.92)
1016.77
(±0.34)
1016.57
(±1.21)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-1.40
(±0.41)
-1.57
(±1.06)
-2.84
(±0.48)
-2.83
(±1.82)
-0.61
(±0.4)
-0.75
(±1.09)
-2.24
(±0.5)
-1.89
(±1.86)
-2.84
(±0.48)
-3.66
(±1.62)
0.19
(±0.32)
0.13
(±0.86)
0.19
(±0.32)
0.09
(±0.84)
-2.51
(±0.43)
-2.66
(±1.54)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.23
(±0.50)
-0.96
(±1.01)
0.38
(±0.46)
-0.19
(±1.65)
-0.41
(±0.47)
-1.03
(±0.97)
0.52
(±0.45)
0.05
(±1.61)
0.38
(±0.46)
0.28
(±1.65)
-0.24
(±0.34)
-0.75
(±0.75)
-0.24
(±0.34)
-0.74
(±0.74)
0.53
(±0.38)
0.11
(±1.43)
to
-------
Table 7-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Florida (Continued)
Site
Name
ORFL
Type
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(^g/m3)
^SS^
6.87
(±0.70)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
81.24
(±0.97)
83.53
(±2.28)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
71.97
(±1.00)
74.78
(±2.21)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
63.49
(±1.27)
67.05
(±2.94)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
66.84
(±1.06)
69.88
(±2.39)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
76.96
(±1.07)
78.98
(±3.09)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1016.77
(±0.41)
1017.52
(±0.96)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-1.40
(±0.41)
-0.39
(±1.25)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.13
(±0.39)
-0.27
(±0.93)
to
to
-------
Table 7-2a. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the St. Petersburg, Florida
Monitoring Site - AZFL
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
7.08E-06
1.23E-08
%
Contribution
99.83
0.17
Cumulative
%
Contribution
99.83
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
3.220
2.239
#
Detects
59
59
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
7.08
<1
7-23
-------
Table 7-2b. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Belle Glade, Florida
Monitoring Site - BGFL
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
1.32E-06
1.96E-09
%
Contribution
99.85
0.15
Cumulative
%
Contribution
99.85
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
0.599
0.356
#
Detects
29
29
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
1.32
<1
7-24
-------
Table 7-2c. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Clearwater, Florida
Monitoring Site - CWFL
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
4.92E-06
1.64E-08
%
Contribution
99.67
0.33
Cumulative
%
Contribution
99.67
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
2.238
2.974
#
Detects
60
60
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
4.92
<1
7-25
-------
Table 7-2d. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Delray Beach, Florida
Monitoring Site - DBFL
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
6.22E-06
1.33E-08
%
Contribution
99.79
0.21
Cumulative
%
Contribution
99.79
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
2.828
2.425
#
Detects
30
30
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
6.22
<1
7-26
-------
Table 7-2e. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Pompano Beach, Florida
Monitoring Site - FLFL
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
5.35E-06
6.80E-09
%
Contribution
99.87
0.13
Cumulative
%
Contribution
99.87
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
2.433
1.236
#
Detects
27
27
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
5.35
<1
7-27
-------
Table 7-2f. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Gandy Monitoring Site in
Tampa, Florida - GAFL
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
4.87E-06
1.31E-08
%
Contribution
99.73
0.27
Cumulative
%
Contribution
99.73
100.00
Average
Concentration
Owg/m3)
2.214
2.384
#
Detects
57
57
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
4.87
-------
Table 7-2g. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Lewis in Tampa, Florida
Monitoring Site - LEFL
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
3.09E-06
1.29E-08
%
Contribution
99.58
0.42
Cumulative
%
Contribution
99.58
100.00
Average
Concentration
Owg/m3)
1.402
2.339
#
Detects
58
58
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
3.09
-------
Table 7-2h. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Miami, Florida
Monitoring Site - MDFL
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
2.84E-06
3.51E-09
%
Contribution
99.88
0.12
Cumulative
%
Contribution
99.88
100.00
Average
Concentration
Owg/m3)
1.290
0.637
#
Detects
27
27
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
2.84
-------
Table 7-2i. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Winter Park, Florida
Monitoring Site - ORFL
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
4.41E-06
1.44E-08
%
Contribution
99.67
0.33
Cumulative
%
Contribution
99.67
100.00
Average
Concentration
Owg/m3)
2.620
2.006
#
Detects
45
45
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
4.41
<1
7-31
-------
Table 7-3a. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the St. Petersburg, Florida
Monitoring Site - AZFL
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
3.58E-01
2.29E-01
%
Contribution
61.02
38.98
Cumulative
%
Contribution
61.02
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A
-------
Table 7-3b. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Belle Glade, Florida
Monitoring Site - BGFL
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
6.65E-02
3.63E-02
%
Contribution
64.70
35.30
Cumulative
%
Contribution
64.70
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A
-------
Table 7-3c. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Clearwater, Florida
Monitoring Site - CWFL
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
3.04E-01
2.49E-01
%
Contribution
54.96
45.04
Cumulative
%
Contribution
54.96
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A
-------
Table 7-3d. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Delray Beach, Florida
Monitoring Site - DBFL
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
3.14E-01
2.47E-01
%
Contribution
55.95
44.05
Cumulative
%
Contribution
55.95
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A
-------
Table 7-3e. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Pompano Beach, Florida
Monitoring Site - FLFL
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
2.70E-01
1.26E-01
%
Contribution
68.20
31.80
Cumulative
%
Contribution
68.20
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A
-------
Table 7-3f. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Gandy Monitoring Site
in Tampa, Florida - GAFL
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
2.46E-01
2.43E-01
%
Contribution
50.28
49.72
Cumulative
%
Contribution
50.28
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A
-------
Table 7-3g. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Lewis Monitoring Site in
Tampa, Florida - LEFL
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
2.39E-01
1.56E-01
%
Contribution
60.51
39.49
Cumulative
%
Contribution
60.51
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A
-------
Table 7-3h. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Miami, Florida
Monitoring Site - MDFL
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
1.43E-01
6.50E-02
%
Contribution
68.79
31.21
Cumulative
%
Contribution
68.79
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A
-------
Table 7-3i. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Winter Park, Florida
Monitoring Site - ORFL
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
2.67E-01
2.23E-01
%
Contribution
54.53
45.47
Cumulative
%
Contribution
54.53
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A
-------
Table 7-4a. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the St. Petersburg,
Florida Site (AZFL)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Maximum
Temperature
0.15
-0.10
Average
Temperature
0.12
-0.16
Dew Point
Temperature
0.04
-0.31
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.07
-0.26
Relative
Humidity
-0.15
-0.42
Sea Level
Pressure
0.13
0.09
u-component
of wind
-0.43
-0.08
v-component
of wind
-0.18
-0.08
-------
Table 7-4b. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Belle Glade,
Florida Site (BGFL)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Maximum
Temperature
-0.43
-0.08
Average
Temperature
-0.42
-0.06
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.48
-0.26
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.47
-0.20
Relative
Humidity
-0.35
-0.50
Sea Level
Pressure
0.12
0.19
u-component
of wind
0.14
-0.27
v-component
of wind
-0.16
-0.16
to
-------
Table 7-4c. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Clearwater,
Florida Site (CWFL)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Maximum
Temperature
-0.04
0.26
Average
Temperature
-0.16
0.22
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.28
0.20
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.24
0.21
Relative
Humidity
-0.43
0.09
Sea Level
Pressure
0.20
0.00
u-component
of wind
-0.22
-0.19
v-component
of wind
-0.05
0.22
-------
Table 7-4d. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Delray Beach,
Florida Site (DBFL)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Maximum
Temperature
-0.76
-0.23
Average
Temperature
-0.79
-0.20
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.74
-0.19
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.78
-0.20
Relative
Humidity
0.03
0.01
Sea Level
Pressure
0.45
0.24
u-component
of wind
0.34
-0.20
v-component
of wind
-0.45
-0.18
-------
Table 7-4e. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Pompano
Beach, Florida Site (FLFL)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Maximum
Temperature
-0.29
-0.15
Average
Temperature
-0.39
-0.29
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.14
-0.17
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.21
-0.20
Relative
Humidity
0.36
0.14
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.31
-0.30
u-component
of wind
0.69
0.58
v-component
of wind
0.03
0.00
-------
Table 7-4f. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Gandy Site in
Tampa, Florida (GAFL)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Maximum
Temperature
-0.11
0.22
Average
Temperature
-0.20
0.12
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.34
0.03
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.30
0.07
Relative
Humidity
-0.43
-0.17
Sea Level
Pressure
0.27
0.11
u-component
of wind
-0.35
-0.34
v-component
of wind
0.03
0.17
-------
Table 7-4g. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Lewis Site in
Tampa, Florida (LEFL)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Maximum
Temperature
-0.36
045
Average
Temperature
-0.43
043
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.56
027
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.52
034
Relative
Humidity
-0.54
-026
Sea Level
Pressure
0.35
-005
u-component
of wind
-0.03
009
v-component
of wind
-0.09
023
-------
Table 7-4h. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Miami, Florida
Site (MDFL)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Maximum
Temperature
0.19
0 15
Average
Temperature
0.07
009
Dew Point
Temperature
0.21
0 15
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.17
0 14
Relative
Humidity
0.37
020
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.27
-025
u-component
of wind
0.43
0 19
v-component
of wind
0.27
000
oo
-------
Table 7-4i. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Winter Park,
Florida Site (ORFL)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Maximum
Temperature
-0.23
0 17
Average
Temperature
-0.31
0 14
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.48
-009
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.45
-003
Relative
Humidity
-0.60
-043
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.13
-021
u-component
of wind
0.35
033
v-component
of wind
-0.29
0 11
VO
-------
Table 7-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Florida Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
AZFL
BGFL
CWFL
DBFL
FLFL
GAFL
LEFL
MDFL
ORFL
Estimated
County
Population
926,716
1,190,390
926,716
1,190,390
1,709,118
1,053,864
1,053,864
2,332,599
946,484
Estimated
County
Number of
Vehicles Owned
1,139,738
889,710
1,139,738
889,710
1,195,203
763,989
763,989
1,699,557
750,761
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
1.23
0.75
1.23
0.75
0.70
0.72
0.72
0.73
0.79
Population
within Ten
Miles
575,371
34,023
562,482
493,006
1,050,037
455,039
587,295
1,209,024
949,497
Estimated 10-
Mile Car
Registration
707,706
25,517
691,853
369,755
735,026
327,628
422,852
882,588
750,103
Traffic
Data
(Daily
Average)
51,000
12,200
1000
201,032
1,000
81,400
1,055
15,200
59,00
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(//g/m3)
8.63 (± 0.77)
1.45 (±0.1 9)
8. 14 (±0.78)
7.51 (±2.96)
5.29 (± 0.83)
6.80 (± 0.60)
6.88 (± 0.49)
2.76 (± 0.43)
6.87 (± 0.70)
-------
Table 7-6. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding LEFL
Facility Name
Tampa Bay
Shipbuilding and
Repair Company
Primary SIC
Code
4911
SIC Code Description
Electric Services
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
zzzz
Regulation Name
Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines NESHAP
-------
8.0 Sites in Illinois
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the two
UATMP sites in Illinois (NBIL and SPIL). Both of these sites are located in the Chicago-
Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI metropolitan statistical area (MSA). Figures 8-1 and 8-2 are
topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in their urban locations. Figure 8-3 is a
map identifying facilities within ten miles of these sites that reported to the 1999 NEI. The
NBIL and SPIL sites are within a few miles of each other, with numerous sources between them.
Sources near these sites are predominantly fuel combustion facilities.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003 at two weather stations near
these sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The two weather stations are Palwaukee Municipal Airport and
O'Hare International Airport (WBAN 04838 and 94846, respectively).
The Chicago sites sampled for VOC only. Table 8-1 highlights the average UATMP
concentration (VOC only) at each of these sites, along with temperature (average maximum and
average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average
relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind), and pressure
(average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on days samples were taken. Daily weather
fluctuations are common for the Chicago area due to its Great Lakes location. The proximity of
Chicago to Lake Michigan offers moderating effects from the continental climate of the region.
In the summertime, lake breezes can cool the city when winds from the south and southwest
push temperatures upward. How much and what kind of winter precipitation depends on the
origin of the air mass. The largest snowfalls tend to occur when cold air masses flow southward
over Lake Michigan. Wind speeds average around 10 mph, contrary to the city's nickname,
"The Windy City", which comes from the enhanced wind speeds from channeling between tall
buildings downtown. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition
(Ruffner and Bair, 1987). Table 8-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological
parameters from January 2003 to December 2003.
8-1
-------
8.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Illinois Sites
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at each site. Tables 8-2a-b summarize the cancer
weighting scores, while Tables 8-3a-b summarize the noncancer weighting scores. For a
compound to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95%
of the total site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered
prevalent for each site.
As can be shown in Tables 8-2a-b, most of the prevalent cancer compounds reflect the
nationwide prevalent cancer compound list, as listed in Section 3 of this report. Only 1,2-
dochloroethane (detected at SPIL), and trichloroethylene (detected at SPIL and NBIL) were not
listed among the nationwide prevalent compounds. For the noncancer compounds summarized
in Tables 8-3a-b, most of the prevalent non-cancer compounds were listed among the nationwide
noncancer prevalent list. However, at the NBIL site, only two compounds were considered
prevalent. Of the nine prevalent compounds at the SPIL site, six are also on the nationwide
prevalent list.
Toxic compounds not detected at either of the Chicago sites were: 1,2-dichloroethane;
1,3-dichloropropene; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; vinyl chloride; bromoform; chloroprene; 1,1-
dichloroethene; methyl methacrylate; and chlorobenzene. Note, carbonyl compounds were not
sampled at the IL sites. Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde would therefore not be detected.
8.2 Toxicity Analysis
Acrylonitrile, trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, tetrachloroethylene, and benzene
were considered prevalent cancer compounds at both sites. At the NBIL site, acrylonitrile made
up nearly 70% of the cancer toxicity score, while only making up 23% of the toxicity at the SPIL
site. However, acrylonitrile was detected once at each site. Benzene had the largest number of
detects at both sites.
8-2
-------
At NBIL, acetonitrile made up 89% of the total noncancer toxicity. Acrylonitrile was the
only compound to be considered prevalent at both sites, and was near or at the top of the average
toxicity lists. As previously mentioned, only one concentration for acrylonitrile was reported at
a detectable level. Benzene, methylene chloride, and toluene had the greatest number of detects
of the noncancer compounds at both sites.
The acrylonitrile cancer risk at NBIL was the highest among the two sites at 93.0 in a
million, while at SPIL, the 1,2-dichloroethane cancer risk was 19.3 in a million. For the
compounds which may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the average acetonitrile toxicity
at NBIL was 6.61 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer health effect). Of the
nine measured acetonitrile concentrations at NBIL, one was above the acrylonitrile noncancer
RfC weighting factor. This one concentration on June 26, 2003 is driving the high acetonitrile
average.
8.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Illinois Sites
As previously mentioned, the Chicago sites sampled only for VOC. As indicated in
Table 8-1, the average UATMP concentration at NBIL was nearly five times higher than the
average UATMP concentration at SPIL.
Tables 8-4a-b present the summary of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for
each of the site-specific prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters.
Identification of the site-specific prevalent compounds is discussed earlier in this section. At
NBIL, most of the correlations between the weather parameters and the prevalent compounds
were weak. The strongest correlation was between acetonitrile and the u-component of the wind
(0.60). Pearson correlations could not be computed for acrylonitrile due to the low number of
detects (fewer than 3).
The SPIL site had somewhat stronger correlations. The strongest correlation was
between bromomethane and sea level pressure (0.96). Bromomethane also had strong positive
correlations with moisture variables, and very strong negative correlations with the wind
8-3
-------
components. Tetrachloroethylene had moderately strong to strong negative correlations with the
temperature variables, dewpoint and wet bulb temperatures, and the v-component of the wind.
Nearly all of the compounds exhibited negative correlations with the u-component of the wind.
Pearson correlations could not be computed for acrylonitrile and 1,2-dichloroethane due to the
low number of detects (fewer than 3).
8.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration and population information for Cook County, IL, were
obtained from the Illinois Secretary of State and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in
Table 8-5. Also included in Table 8-5 is the population within 10 miles of each site and the
average daily traffic information, which represents the average number of cars passing the
monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Using these parameters, a
car registration ratio was computed. An estimation of 10 mile car registrations was computed
using the 10 mile populations surrounding the monitors and the car registration ratio. This
information is compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at each
Illinois site in Table 8-5. The SPIL site has both the largest amount of traffic passing by on a
daily basis and the largest number of vehicles owned within a ten mile radius.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.). Figure 3-1 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. NBIL most closely resembles the ratios of the roadside study of
the two Chicago sites, although its toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is much higher and its xylenes-
ethylbenzene and benzene-ethylbenzene ratios are somewhat lower than those of the roadside
study. Like NBIL, SPIL has a higher toluene-ethylbenzene ratio, but the SPIL site's xylenes-
ethylbenzene and benzene-ethylbenzene ratios are roughly equal to each other.
8-4
-------
8.5 RFG Analysis
The Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI MSA participates in the federally-mandated
reformulated fuel program (EPA, 1999c). Throughout the year, the oxygen content in gasoline
must be at least 2% by weight, boosting the octane quality, increasing combustion, and reducing
exhaust emissions. Additionally, the benzene content must not be greater than 1% by volume
(EPA, 1994). The oxygenates used as RFG additives in the Chicago MSA are MTBE and
ethanol (EPA, 2003b).
A survey at 7 service stations during the summer of 2002 in the Chicago MSA showed
the oxygen content of the fuel at 3.50% by weight and the benzene content at 0.746% by volume.
MTBE and ethanol also averaged 0.01% and 10.09% by weight, respectively, from the summer
survey (EPA, 2003b). A survey at 4 service stations during the winter of 2002 in this MSA
showed the oxygen content of the fuel at 3.64% by weight and the benzene content at 0.751% by
volume. MTBE and ethanol also averaged 0.01% and 10.48% by weight, respectively, from the
winter survey (EPA, 2003b). Figures 8-4 and 8-5 are the VOC profiles at the Illinois sites.
At NBIL (Figure 8-4), the total VOC concentrations varied throughout the year, with the
highest concentration occurring on June 26, 2003. On that day (a Noncancer Benchmark
exceedance day), the stationary source HAP contribution was much higher than other sampling
days. The mobile source (BTEX and non-BTEX) HAP concentrations were low and fairly
consistent. The sampling at NBIL ran from April 21 - December 29, thus missing most of the
winter season. Only one non-HAP VOC concentration was detected throughout the entire
sampling season. The NBIL BTEX concentration was compared to the BTUT BTEX
concentration. BTUT is located in a non-RFG requirement area, but the two sites have similar
traffic volumes (NBIL = 34,900; BTUT = 33,310). The BTEX concentrations at NBIL are a
third less than BTUT (7.03 //g/m3 vs. 25.63 //g/m3, respectively). It appears that the RFG
requirements may be effective at NBIL.
At SPIL (Figure 8-5), the total VOC concentrations were consistently low throughout the
year, with the highest concentration occurring on April 27, 2003. On that day, the stationary
8-5
-------
source HAP contribution was much higher than other sampling days. The mobile source (BTEX
and non-BTEX) HAP concentrations varied through the sampling period. The sampling at SPIL
ran from April 15 - December 29, thus missing most of the winter season. The non-HAP VOC
concentrations were low or nonexistent. The SPIL BTEX concentration was compared to the
ELNJ BTEX concentration. Both sites are located in RFG mandated areas, sampled for VOCs
and have high volumes of traffic passing by their monitor (SPIL daily traffic = 214,900; ELNJ
daily traffic = 170,000). The BTEX concentrations are lower in SPIL than ELNJ (7.90 //g/m3
vs. 14.80 //g/m3, respectively), which indicates that the RFG requirements may be more effective
at SPIL.
8.6 NATTS Site Analysis
One of the Chicago sites, NBIL, is an EPA designated NATTS site. A description of the
NATTS program is given in Section 3.6. For NBIL, each of the following analyses were
conducted: a back trajectory analysis, a regulation analysis, and an emission tracer analysis.
Details on each type of analysis are also provided in Section 3.6.
8.6.1 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 8-6 is the composite back trajectory map for the NBIL site. Each line represents
the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring location on a
sampling day. As shown in Figure 8-6, the back trajectories originated predominantly from the
south, southwest, west, and northwest of the site. The 24-hour airshed domain is large, as the
farthest away a back trajectory originated was north-central North Dakota. The trajectories that
originated the farthest away from the site generally appeared to originate toward the northwest of
NBIL. As each circle around the site in Figure 8-6 represents 100 miles, 60% of the trajectories
originated within 300 miles, and 66% within 400 miles from the NBIL site.
8.6.2 Regulation Analysis
Table 3-10 summarizes the number of facilities that account for approximately 90% of
the total UATMP pollutant emissions in the 10 mile area around the monitoring station. Two of
the 51 facilities at NBIL listed in Table 3-11 are potentially subject to future regulations. Table
8-6
-------
8-6 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable. Based on this analysis, the
regulations shown are expected to achieve reductions in ambient concentrations of the following
UATMP pollutants: methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, and toluene. Reductions are
projected for methyl isobutyl ketone (19%), methyl ethyl ketone (25%), and toluene (4%) as the
regulations are implemented (the latest compliance date is 2007). The emission reductions are
primarily attributed to regulation of surface coating of metal parts and paper and other web
coating.
8.6.3 Emission Tracer Analysis
The high acetonitrile noncancer toxicity score was further examined. Figure 8-7 is the
pollution rose for all acetonitrile samples at NBIL. The lone high concentration (June 26, 2003)
points to possible acetonitrile emission sources west of the monitor. Figure 8-8 is a map of
acrylonitrile stationary emission sources west of the NBIL monitor. According to the 1999 NEI,
the Chrysler Corporation - Belvedere Assembly Plant is to the west of the monitoring site. Air
sampled at NBIL on this date probably passed over this assembly plant earlier in the day. Figure
8-9 is a back trajectory map for this date, which shows the air originating west of the monitor. It
is interesting to note that, in Figure 8-4, the VOC profile plotted for June 26 reveals that the
magnitude of the stationary source VOC HAPs in comparison to other sampling days was
extremely high. For only this acetonitrile sampling day, the 24-hour wind direction was from the
west.
3-7
-------
Figure 8-1. Chicago, Illinois Site 1 (NBIL) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
-------
Figure 8-2. Chicago, Illinois Site 2 (SPIL) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
8-9
-------
Figure 8-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of NBIL and SPIL
Lake
Count)
AF
F N
Kare
County
Count,
DuPage
County
;*, ,7^ top*^
ut ;«t.c?k 'f ^
Ff
3 20'0"W 88 ! 5'OYv
§7 55'CfW 37 5QrG"W 87 45'G"W
Note Due to facility density and coiocatt-on. the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the ares of interest
Legend
•&• NBIL UATMP site
^ SPIL UATMP site
10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
' Admin, of Economic Programs (1)
A Agricultural Services Facility (2)
% Amusement & Recreational Services (1)
Apparel & Other Textile Products Facility (1)
± Automobile Dealers (1)
* Building Materials, Hardware. Garden Supply. & Mobile Home (1)
C Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (8)
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (2)
Z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (5)
• Engineering & Management Services Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (8)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (110)
+ Health Services Facility (4)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (2)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (8)
= Instruments & Related Products Facility (3)
l Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (3)
II Medical. Dental, & Hospital Equipment and Supplies (1)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (2)
x Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (18)
N Nonclassifiable Establishments (8)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (1)
V Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (1)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (2)
P Printings Publishing Facility(12)
• Real Estate Facility (1)
V Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (4)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (18)
? Unknown (1)
Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (2)
* Wood Furniture Facility (1)
8-10
-------
Figure 8-4. 2003 Total VOC Profile at NBIL
oo
-ion
100
to
E
•3 on
c
O
"re
i_
"£ 60
a)
o
c
o
0 40
20
n
Bn
IMi
6/26/03
i
Total VOC =
3,580
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
o o o o o o o
0000000
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
'vj" LO CD CD
_
QyQ
•
i
n
,,.3
QVOCnon-HAPs
D Other Mobile Source VOC HAP
D BTEX HAP Compounds
• Stationary Source VOC HAPs
n
cococococococococococo
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo
CN1CN1CN1CN1CN1CN1CN1CN1CN1CN1CN1
f^ coco 55 55 o ^ c\i c\i
-------
Figure 8-5. 2003 Total VOC Profile at SPIL
oo
to
140 -i
-ion
100
to
E
B)
- 80
c
o
"•5
(0
•£ 60
o>
o
c
o
0 40
on
n
!:
CO O
0 C
o c
C\l C
m h
^ £
^ ^
— — — — — —————— ——^^ ,.
QVOCnon-HAPs
O Other Mobile Source VOC HAP
D BTEX HAP Compounds
H Stationary Source VOC HAPs
0
n
-jJt,, .],[,:.,: mAll jrE.
^cocococococococococococococococococo
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
^JC^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C\IC\IC\IC\IC\IC\I
"aJ^oo^tDooo^coincDCD^Lnf^aJ^co
^in^^^^i^^oo^^aJo^!^^^!^^!
r mmcDCD r^ coco •«- o •«- t- t- CN CN
-------
Figure 8-6. Composite Back Trajectory for NBIL
oo
oo
-------
Figure 8-7. Acetonitrile Pollution Rose for NBIL
3600
3000
2400
1800
c 1200
o
| 600
c
600
S. 1200
1800
2400
3000
NW
W
SW
N
60 is the noncancer
benchmark value
NE
Avg Cone = 396.68 ± 731.99
ug/m 3
SE
3600 3000 2400 1800 1200 600 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 8-8. Acrylonitrile Source West of the NBIL Monitoring Site
42.9
42.7
42.5
42.3
0)
•o
B 42.1
">P
ro
-1 41.9
41.7
41.5
41.3
41.1
-81
•
i i \ i
\_
i
Chrysler
Corp-
Belvedere
Assembly
Rant
3.8 -89.4 -89.0 -88.6 -88.2
-
A
-
/
NBIL Monitoring
Site
y ' ' '
-87.8 -87.4
-87.0 -86.6
-86.2 -85.8
Longitude
-------
Figure 8-9. 24-Hour Back Trajectory (50, 250, and 500 Meters Aboveground)
at NBIL on June 26, 2003
00
06/26
8-16
-------
Table 8-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Illinois
Site
Name
IL-
NBIL
IL-
SPIL
Type
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(Aig/m3)
\xs^
124.11
(±196.51)
S\SXS^
26.22
(±6.21)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
56.90
(±2.12)
69.34
(±4.98)
57.64
(±2.13)
66.30
(±5.44)
Average
Temperature
48.64
(±1.95)
60.34
(±4.48)
49.21
(±1.96)
57.41
(±4.87)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
37.91
(±1.96)
49.05
(±4.38)
38.21
(±1.93)
45.74
(±4.63)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
43.70
(±1.78)
54.23
(±4.04)
44.06
(±1.78)
51.29
(±4.32)
Average
Relative
Humidity
69.15
(±1.26)
69.60
(±3.62)
68.76
(±1.31)
68.51
(±4.16)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1016.71
(±0.68)
1015.22
(±1.8)
1016.10
(±0.67)
1015.17
(±1.66)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
1.42
(±0.47)
1.72
(±1.38)
1.34
(±0.56)
1.71
(±1.58)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.32
(±0.51)
0.98
(±1.43)
-0.54
(±0.52)
0.83
(±1.68)
oo
-------
Table 8-2a. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Northbrook, Illinois
Monitoring Site - NBIL
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Trichloroethylene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethy lene
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
Average
Toxicity
9.30E-05
1.48E-05
8.18E-06
7.34E-06
5.63E-06
2.38E-06
1.40E-06
3.03E-07
%
Contribution
69.91
11.12
6.15
5.52
4.23
1.79
1.05
0.23
Cumulative
%
Contribution
69.91
81.03
87.18
92.70
96.93
98.72
99.77
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
1.367
7.394
0.545
1.244
0.721
0.079
0.127
0.645
#
Detects
1
13
33
14
35
6
2
26
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
93.0
14.8
8.18
7.34
5.63
2.38
1.40
<1
8-18
-------
Table 8-2b. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Schiller Park, Illinois
Monitoring Site - SPIL
Compound
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Trichloroethylene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethy lene
1,3-Butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
Average
Toxicity
1.93E-05
1.92E-05
9.58E-06
9.38E-06
9.15E-06
7.12E-06
5.95E-06
3.28E-06
4.44E-07
%
Contribution
23.16
23.00
11.49
11.25
10.97
8.53
7.13
3.94
0.53
Cumulative
%
Contribution
23.16
46.16
57.65
68.90
79.87
88.40
95.53
99.47
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
0.743
0.282
1.229
4.692
0.610
1.206
0.198
0.299
0.945
#
Detects
1
1
40
31
36
22
22
5
34
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
19.3
19.2
9.58
9.38
9.15
7.12
5.95
3.28
<1
8-19
-------
Table 8-3a. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Northbrook, Illinois
Monitoring Site - NBIL
Compound
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Toluene
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethy lene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methylene Chloride
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Styrene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl ferf-Butyl Ether
Average
Toxicity
6.61E+00
6.84E-01
3.97E-02
2.40E-02
2.35E-02
1.36E-02
1.34E-02
1.23E-02
9.92E-03
8.62E-03
4.61E-03
9.15E-04
6.45E-04
4.38E-04
3.95E-04
2.75E-04
1.75E-04
1.59E-04
7.84E-05
%
Contribution
88.77
9.18
0.53
0.32
0.32
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.13
0.12
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.0001
O.OOOl
O.0001
O.OOOl
Cumulative
%
Contribution
88.77
97.95
98.48
98.80
99.12
99.30
99.48
99.65
99.78
99.90
99.96
99.97
99.98
99.99
99.99
99.99
100.00
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
396.682
1.367
0.079
0.721
2.349
0.545
1.209
7.394
3.969
0.845
1.244
2.746
0.645
0.438
1.977
0.275
0.175
0.127
0.235
#
Detects
9
1
6
35
30
33
35
13
35
27
14
2
26
26
18
7
17
2
1
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8-20
-------
Table 8-3b. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Schiller Park, Illinois
Monitoring Site - SPIL
Compound
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Acetonitrile
Tetrachloroethy lene
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Average
Toxicity
1.41E-01
9.91E-02
4.10E-02
2.87E-02
2.64E-02
1.53E-02
1.34E-02
8.79E-03
7.82E-03
6.45E-03
4.47E-03
2.14E-03
9.45E-04
7.00E-04
6.26E-04
5.06E-04
4.02E-04
3.73E-04
3.10E-04
1.96E-04
7.79E-05
6.56E-05
%
Contribution
35.38
24.86
10.27
7.19
6.63
3.83
3.35
2.21
1.96
1.62
1.12
0.54
0.24
0.18
0.16
0.13
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.02
0.02
Cumulative
%
Contribution
35.38
60.24
70.51
77.70
84.33
88.15
91.50
93.71
95.67
97.29
98.41
98.95
99.18
99.36
99.52
99.64
99.74
99.84
99.91
99.96
99.98
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
0.282
0.198
1.229
2.867
0.132
0.610
1.203
3.517
4.692
0.387
1.206
0.210
0.945
3.499
0.626
0.506
0.402
0.299
0.743
0.039
0.779
0.197
#
Detects
1
22
40
38
4
36
40
40
31
11
22
9
34
18
15
34
21
5
1
1
1
5
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8-21
-------
Table 8-4a. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters
in Northbrook, Illinois (NBIL)
Compound
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethvlene
Maximum
Temperature
-0.06
NA
0.09
0.14
-0.22
-0.11
Average
Temperature
0.01
NA
0.01
0.09
-0.37
0.05
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.09
NA
-0.05
-0.01
-0.06
0.19
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.03
NA
-0.02
0.05
-0.20
0.15
Relative
Humidity
-0.29
NA
-0.15
-0.26
0.40
0.45
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.29
NA
-0.09
-0.04
-0.44
-007
u-component
of wind
0.60
NA
-0.22
-0.18
-0.27
-0.07
v-component
of wind
-0.04
NA
0.36
-0.05
-0.31
-0.27
oo
to
to
-------
Table 8-4b. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters
in Schiller Park, Illinois (SPIL)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Bromoethane
Chloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes (total)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.19
NA
-0.08
0.24
NA
-0.02
0.22
-0.54
0.08
0.05
0.18
Average
Temperature
-0.24
NA
-0.12
0.24
NA
0.30
0.19
-0.50
0.08
-0.03
.17
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.28
NA
-0.08
0.22
NA
0.51
0.12
-0.35
0.14
-0.30
0.26
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.27
NA
-0.11
0.24
NA
0.43
0.15
-0.45
0.10
-0.16
0.22
Relative
Humidity
-0.02
NA
0.15
-0.07
NA
0.61
-0.16
0.26
0.17
-0.45
0.25
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.06
NA
0.08
0.01
NA
0.96
0.09
0.14
-0.02
-0.01
-0.10
u-component
of wind
-0.19
NA
-0.15
-0.15
NA
-0.78
-0.16
-0.15
-0.26
0.09
-0.23
v-component
of wind
0.12
NA
0.27
-0.07
NA
-0.79
0.24
-0.49
0.02
0.15
0.21
oo
to
-------
oo
to
Table 8-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Illinois Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
NBIL
SPIL
Estimated County
Population
5,377,507
5,377,507
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
2,087,197
2,087,197
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
0.39
0.39
Population within
Ten Miles
884,133
2,094,530
Estimated
10-Mile Car
Registration
344,812
816,867
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
34,900
214,900
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
124.11 (±196.51)
26.22 (±6.21)
-------
9.0 Site in Massachusetts
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Massachusetts (BOMA). This site is located in the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester
metropolitan statistical area (MSA). Figure 9-1 is a topographical map showing the monitoring
station in its urban location. Figure 9-2 is a map identifying facilities within ten miles of this site
that reported to the 1999 NEI. BOMA is located near three main types of industries: fuel
combustion, waste treatment and disposal, and liquids distribution.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003 at a weather station near this
site with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The nearest weather station is Logan International Airport
(WBAN 14739).
The BOMA site sampled for metals only. Table 9-1 highlights the average metals
concentration, along with temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew
point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind
information (average u- and v- components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level
pressure) for the entire year and on days samples were taken. Boston's location on the East
Coast ensures that the city experiences a fairly active weather pattern. Most storm systems track
across the Northeast, bringing ample precipitation to the area. The proximity to the Atlantic
Ocean helps moderate cold outbreaks and hot spells, while at the same time allowing winds to
gust higher than they would farther inland. Winds generally flow from the northwest in the
winter and southwest in the summer. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac.
fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987). Table 9-1 also lists the averages for selected
meteorological parameters from January 2003 to December 2003.
9.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Massachusetts Site
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at each site. Table 9-2 summarizes the cancer
weighting scores, while Table 9-3 summarizes the noncancer weighting scores. For a compound
9-1
-------
to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95% of the total
site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered prevalent for
each site.
As the BOMA site only sampled for metals, only metals and metal compounds are listed
in the tables of toxic cancer and noncancer compounds, which is reflected in Tables 9-2 and 9-3.
The nationwide list of cancer and non-cancer prevalent compounds does not contain any metal
compounds, although all of the metals sampled have either a cancer or noncancer toxicity value.
Manganese, nickel, arsenic, and cadmium compounds are all prevalent at the BOMA site.
Because BOMA only sampled for metals, it cannot be determined what other, if any,
toxic compounds have concentrations above detectable limits and to what extent these other
toxic compounds would contribute towards toxicity in the area.
9.2 Toxicity Analysis
Arsenic and cadmium are prevalent cancer compounds at the BOMA site. Arsenic
compounds contribute to nearly 80% of the average cancer toxicity, although both arsenic and
cadmium had the same number of detects. Manganese compounds contribute to nearly 55% of
the average toxicity, while the other three prevalent metals, nickel, arsenic, and cadmium,
contribute almost equally to the toxicity scores.
The arsenic and compound cancer risk was the highest among the toxic metal compounds
at 8.60 in a million. For the compounds which may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the
average manganese toxicity was 0.259 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer
health effect). None of the metal compound concentrations were above their noncancer RfC
weighting factors.
9-2
-------
9.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Massachusetts Site
Only metals and metal compounds were sampled at BOMA, and the average metal
concentration is listed in Table 9-1. Table 9-4 is the summary of calculated Pearson Correlation
coefficients for each of the site-specific prevalent compounds and selected meteorological
parameters. Identification of the site-specific prevalent compounds is discussed earlier in this
section. At the BOMA site, nearly all of the correlations were in the moderately strong to very
strong range (-0.25 to -1.00 or 0.25 to 1.00) and most were negative. All of the compounds
exhibited moderately strong to strong negative correlations with average and maximum
temperature, dewpoint, and wet bulb temperature, ranging from -0.34 to -0.81. Three of the four
compounds exhibited a strong positive correlation with sea level pressure. Nearly all of the
compounds had negative correlations with both wind components. Generally, as temperature,
moisture, and wind speeds decrease, and as sea level pressure increases, concentrations of the
metals and metal compounds also increase. The average metal concentration for BOMA is listed
in Table 9-5.
9.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration was not available in Suffolk County, MA. Thus, state-level
car registration from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) was allocated to the county-
level using the county-level population proportion. County-level population information was
obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, and is summarized in Table 9-6. Also included in Table
9-6 is the population within 10 miles of each site and the average daily traffic information, which
represents the average number of cars passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to
each site on a daily basis. Using these parameters, a county-specific car registration ratio was
computed. An estimate of 10 mile car registration was computed using the 10 mile populations
surrounding the monitors and the car registration ratio. This information is compared to the
average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at the BOMA site in Table 9-6.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
9-3
-------
urban area. (For more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.) Since only metals and
metal compounds were sampled, a BTEX and RFG analysis could not be performed.
9.5 RFG Analysis
The Boston MSA voluntarily participates in a federal RFG program (EPA, 1994) and
uses gasoline additives to reduce VOC emissions. During the summer period, MTBE and
TAME are used; in the winter, MBTE, ethanol and TAME are used.
A summer 2002 survey of three service stations in Boston showed the oxygen content of
fuels as 2.09% by weight with a benzene content of 0.579% by volume. MTBE and TAME also
averaged 10.36% and 1.29% by weight, respectively (EPA, 2003b). A winter 2002 survey of
two service stations showed the oxygen content of the fuel as 2.05% by weight with a benzene
content of 0.663% by volume. MTBE, TAME, and ethanol averaged 9.98%, 1.05%, and 0.18%
by weight, respectively (EPA, 2003b). Since VOCs were not sampled at BOMA, an RFG
analysis could not be performed.
9.6 NATTS Site Analysis
The Boston site is an EPA-designated NATTS site. A description of the NATTS
program is found in Section 3.6. For BOMA, the following two analyses were conducted: a back
trajectory analysis and a regulation analysis. Details on each type of analysis are also provided
in
Section 3.6.
9.6.1 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 9-3 is the composite back trajectory map for the BOMA site. Each line represents
the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring location on a
sampling day. BOMA sampled for only two months at the end of 2003 and therefore has very
few back trajectories on its composite map. As shown in Figure 9-3, the back trajectories
originated from an array of different directions. However, half of the back trajectories originate
from the west or northwest of the site. The other half of the trajectories' paths pass over the
9-4
-------
Atlantic Ocean. The 24-hour airshed domain is large, as the farthest away a back trajectory
originated was central Michigan. As each circle around the site in Figure 9-3 represents 100
miles, 50% of the trajectories originated within 300 miles, and 63% within 400 miles of the
BOMA site.
9.6.2 Regulation Analysis
Table 3-10 summarizes the number of facilities that account for approximately 90% of
the total UATMP pollutant emissions in the 10-mile area around the monitoring station. Five of
the 17 facilities near BOMA listed in Table 3-11, are potentially subject to future regulations.
Table 9-7 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable. Based on this analysis, the
regulations shown are expected to achieve reductions in ambient concentrations of the following
UATMP pollutants: acetaldehyde, benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, and toluene.
Reductions are projected for acetaldehyde (0.3%), benzene (18%), ethylbenzene (10%),
formaldehyde (0.01%), and toluene (6%) as the regulations are implemented (the latest
compliance date is 2007). The emission reductions are primarily attributed to regulation of
organic liquids distribution and reciprocating internal combustion engines.
9-5
-------
Figure 9-1. Boston, Massachusetts (BOMA) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
9-6
-------
Figure 9-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BOMA
Essex
County
?>. ,L !
Middlesex
Count'/
EL
Norfolk
County
Legend
TV BOMA UATMP site
10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (4)
E Electric. Gas, & Sanitary Services (2)
Z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (5)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
f Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (13)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (1)
Note Due to facility density and c&locatioo. the total facilities
displayed may not repfesent all facilities wifhm the area of interest
= Instruments & Related Products Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (10)
P Miscellaneous: Processes industrial Facility (5)
'•• Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
N Nonclassifiable Establishments (1)
0 Personal Services (1)
v Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (5)
? Unknown (1)
8 Utility Boilers (1)
Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (12)
6 Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods (1)
9-7
-------
Figure 9-3. Composite Back Trajectory for BOMA
oo
-------
Table 9-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the BOMA Site in Massachusetts
Site
Name
BUM A
Type
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(A*g/m3)
\s\s\OSs
vXX^S
0.06
(±0.02)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
56.74
(±1.94)
52.38
(±3.48)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
50.00
(±1.85)
44.58
(±2.69)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
39.93
(±2.11)
32.51
(±3.64)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
45.67
(±1.78)
39.65
(±2.61)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
71.05
(±1.75)
64.48
(±6.93)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1015.72
(±0.85)
1017.80
(±6.81)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
2.43
(±0.67)
4.73
(±3.66)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.11
(±0.52)
0.65
(±3.13)
VO
-------
Table 9-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Boston, Massachusetts
Monitoring Site - BOMA
Compound
Arsenic Metal and
Compounds
Cadmium Metal and
Compounds
Beryllium Metal and
Compounds
Average
Toxicity
8.60E-06
2.17E-06
5.50E-08
%
Contribution
79.45
20.04
0.51
Cumulative
%
Contribution
79.45
99.49
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
0.002
0.001
<0.0001
#
Detects
8
8
3
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
8.60
2.17
<1
9-10
-------
Table 9-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Boston, Massachusetts
Monitoring Site - BOMA
Compound
Manganese Metal and
Compounds
Nickel Metal and
Compounds
Arsenic Metal and
Compounds
Cadmium Metal and
Compounds
Cobalt Metal and
Compounds
Lead Metal and
Compounds
Beryllium Metal and
Compounds
Mercury Metal and
Compounds
Selenium Metal and
Compounds
Average
Toxicity
2.59E-01
6.81E-02
6.67E-02
6.03E-02
9.54E-03
9.03E-03
1.15E-03
1.94E-04
1.76E-04
%
Contribution
54.62
14.36
14.07
12.71
2.01
1.91
0.24
0.04
0.04
Cumulative
%
Contribution
54.62
68.98
83.05
95.76
97.78
99.68
99.92
99.96
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
0.013
0.014
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.014
O.0001
0.0001
0.004
#
Detects
8
8
8
8
8
8
3
8
8
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9-11
-------
VO
I
to
Table 9-4a. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Boston,
Massachusetts Site (BOMA)
Compound
Arsenic Metal and
Compounds
Cadmium Metal and
Compounds
Manganese Metal and
Compounds
Nickel Metal and
Compounds
Maximum
Temperature
-0.72
-0.34
-0.64
-0.81
Average
Temperature
-0.55
-0.40
-0.36
-0.68
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.46
-0.42
-0.50
-0.42
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.54
-0.44
-0.48
-0.59
Relative
Humidity
-0.11
-0.19
-0.34
0.08
Sea Level
Pressure
0.61
0.29
0.62
0.64
u-component
of wind
-0.59
-0.22
-0.35
-0.67
v-component
of wind
-0.24
0.20
-0.26
-0.38
-------
Table 9-5. Average Metals Concentrations Measured by the Massachusetts
Monitoring Station
Monitoring
Station
BOMA
Average Metals Concentration
(ng/m3)
47.85
9-13
-------
Table 9-6. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Massachusetts Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Station
BOMA
Estimated County
Population
689,925
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
562,696
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
0.82
Population within
Ten Miles
1,585,559
Estimated
10-Mile Car
Registration
1,293,166
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
34,900
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Gug/m3)
0.06 (±0.02)
VO
-------
Table 9-7. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding BOMA
Facility Name
Citgo Petroleum
Corporation
Exxon Everett
Terminal
Gulf Oil, LP Chelsea
Mobil Oil East,
Boston Terminal
Polaroid Corporation
Primary SIC
Code
5171
5171
5171
5171
3861
SIC Code Description
Petroleum Bulk Stations and
Terminals
Petroleum Bulk Stations and
Terminals
Petroleum Bulk Stations and
Terminals
Petroleum Bulk Stations and
Terminals
Photographic Equipment and
Supplies
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
EEEE
40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE
40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE
40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE
40 CFR part 63, subpart
zzzz
Regulation Name
Organic Liquids Distribution
(non-Gasoline) NESHAP
Organic Liquids Distribution
(non-Gasoline) NESHAP
Organic Liquids Distribution
(non-Gasoline) NESHAP
Organic Liquids Distribution
(non-Gasoline) NESHAP
Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines NESHAP
-------
10.0 Sites in Michigan
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the five
UATMP sites in Michigan. The Detroit, Michigan (APMI, DEMI, and E7MI), sites are located
in an urban area, while the Houghton Lake, Michigan (HOMI) site and the Sault Ste. Marie,
Michigan (ITCMI) site are in more rural locations. Figures 10-1 through 10-5 are topographical
maps showing the monitoring stations in their urban and rural locations. Figures 10-6 through
10-8 are maps identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites that reported to the 1999 NEI.
The Detroit sites are oriented relatively north-south, all within a few miles of each other.
Numerous facilities surround these sites, mostly fuel combustion or surface coating facilities.
HOMI is located in north-central Michigan, with few industrial facilities nearby, most of which
are involved in waste treatment and disposal. ITCMI is located on the Upper Pennisula near the
U.S-Canadian border and the majority of facilities within ten miles of the site are also involved
in waste treatment and disposal.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003 at four weather stations near
the sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The weather stations are Detroit-Metropolitan Airport, Detroit
City Airport, Houghton Lake/Roscommon Airport, and Sault Ste. Marie International Airport
(WBAN 94847, 14822, 94814, and 14847, respectively).
Table 10-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at each of the sites, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. The Detroit area is located in the Great Lakes region, a place for
active weather, as several storm tracks run across the region. Hence, winters can be cold and
wet, while summers are generally mild. The urbanization of the area along with Lake St. Clair to
the east are two major influences on the city's weather. The lake tends to keep Detroit warmer
in the winter and cooler in the summer than more inland areas. The urban heat island tends to
keep the city warmer than outlying areas. Winds are often breezy and generally flow from the
10-1
-------
southwest on average, as can be confirmed by Table 10-1. Houghton Lake is a small lake in
north-central Michigan and does not have quite the moderating effect of Lake St. Clair. The area
is rural, without an urban heat island effect, which allows a greater temperature fluctuation than
in the Detroit area. Sault Ste. Marie is located on the northeast edge of Michigan's Upper
Pennisula. While this area also experiances an active weather pattern, its climate is somewhat
tempered by the surrounding waters of Lakes Superior and Huron, as the city resides on the
channel between the two lakes. This location experiences ample precipitation, especially during
a lake-effect snow event. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition
(Ruffner and Bair, 1987), and at the following web sites:
http://meetings.sixcontinentshotels.com/destinations/detroit/weather.html and
http://areas.wildernet.com/pages/area.cfm?areaID=091004&CU_ID=l.
10.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Michigan Sites
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at each site. Tables 10-2a-e summarize the cancer
weighting scores, while Tables 10-3a-e summarize the noncancer weighting scores. For a
compound to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95%
of the total site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered
prevalent for each site. It is important to note each of the Michigan sites sampled for different
types of compounds. APMI sampled for VOC only; DEMI sampled carbonyl compounds and
VOC; E7MI sampled for SNMOC; HOMI sampled carbonyl compounds, VOC, and metal
compounds; and ITCMI sampled for VOC and SVOC. Therefore the site-specific prevalent
compounds are going to vary from site to site.
As can be shown in Tables 10-2a-e, most of the detected cancer compounds reflect the
nationwide prevalent cancer compounds list, as listed in Section 3 of this report. However, all of
the prevalent compounds at these five sites are also nationwide prevalent compounds, with the
exception of trichloroethylene at ITCMI. For the noncancer compounds summarized in
Tables 10-3a-e, toluene, bromomethane and chloromethane were the only site-specific prevalent
10-2
-------
compounds not included on the list of nationwide prevalent compounds. There were no
compounds considered prevalent at all five sites.
Toxic compounds not detected at any of the Michigan sites were: 1,2-dichloroethane;
vinyl chloride; 1,1-dichloroethene; bromoform; chloroprene; and methyl methacrylate.
10.2 Toxicity Analysis
Tetrachloroethylene was the only prevalent cancer compound at both APMI and HOMI,
contributing to 95% and 99%, respectively, of the cancer toxicity score. Tetrachloroethylene
was also a prevalent compound at DEMI, contributing to 87% of the total cancer toxicity.
Benzene and 1,3-butadiene were prevalent at three of the five sites (DEMI, E7MI, and ITCMI).
The number of detects varies across the sites and compounds, and benzene had the highest
number of detections at four of the five sites, ranging from 13 to 32. The tetrochloroethylene
cancer risk at HOMI was the highest among the five sites at 4,650 in a million, while at APMI
and DEMI, the tetrachloroethylene cancer risk was 2,680 and 265 in a million, respectively.
Cancer risk at E7MI and ITCMI were not high. It is interesting to note that HOMI is in a rural
location with few industrial sources nearby.
For the compounds which may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the average
tetrachloroethylene toxicity at HOMI and APMI was 2.86 and 1.68, respectively (over 1
indicates a significant chance of a noncancer health effect). Of the twenty-five adverse health
concentrations measured in the Michigan sites, ten were for tetrachloroethylene and fifteen were
for acetonitrile. All of the high acetonitrile concentrations were at HOMI.
10.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Michigan Sites
Carbonyl compounds and/or VOCs were measured at four of the five sites as indicated in
Tables 3-3 and 3-4. SVOC concentrations were sampled at the ITCMI site only. The average
SVOC concentration at ITCMI was 7.39 ng. E7MI also opted to have total NMOC and SNMOC
measured during its sampling. SNMOC/NMOC compounds are of particular interest because of
their role in ozone formation. Readers are encouraged to review EPA's 2001 Nonmethane
10-3
-------
Organic Compounds (NMOC) and Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compounds (SNMOC)
Monitoring Program, Final Report (EPA, 2002) for more information on SNMOC/NMOC
trends and concentrations. The average total NMOC value for E7MI was 303.78 ppbC, of which
64% could be identified through speciation. Of the speciated compounds, toluene measured the
highest concentration at the E7MI site (37.30 ppbC). The HOMI site opted to sample metals and
metal compounds in addition to carbonyls and VOC. However, samples were taken on only
2 days. Analysis was therefore not performed. Information on SNMOC and SVOC is given in
Table 10-6.
Tables 10-4a-e are the summaries of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for each
of the site-specific prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters by site.
Identification of the site-specific prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. At
APMI, both 1,3-butadiene and tetrachloroethylene exhibited negative correlations with both the
temperature and moisture variables, although tetrachloroethylene's correlations were stronger.
Benzene had a moderately strong positive correlation with the same variables. The strongest
correlation at APMI was between benzene and sea level pressure (0.65). Pearson correlations
could not be computed for acrylonitrile due to the low number of detects (fewer than 3).
At DEMI, very strong negative correlations were computed between acetonitrile and the
temperature variables, the moisture variables (except relative humidity), and the v-component of
the wind (ranging from -0.77 to -0.79). Moderately strong to strong positive correlations were
found between 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and formaldehyde
and the temperature and moisture variables (except relative humidity). The remaining
correlations tended to be weak.
While correlations between the compounds and temperature (maximum and average) and
moisture (dewpoint and wet bulb) variables tended to be weak at E7MI, they were also all
negative. Correlations between the compounds and relative humidity and sea level pressure
were all positive. The wind components had the strongest correlations with prevalent compound
concentrations. The u-component exhibited a moderately strong negative correlation with the
10-4
-------
compounds while the v-component exhibited a moderately strong positive correlation with the
compounds.
With the exception of formaldehyde, only weak correlations with the meteorological
parameters were found at HOMI. Formaldehyde had very strong positive correlations with
temperature (maximum and average) and moisture (dewpoint and wet bulb) and a strong
negative correlation with relative humidity (0.83, 0.83, 0.75, 0.79, -0.64, respectively).
Tetrachloroethylene had one strong correlation with sea level pressure (0.71), while the rest were
mainly weak. Pearson correlations could not be computed for bromomethane due to the low
number of detects (fewer than 3).
Over half of the computed correlations at ITCMI fall into the moderately strong to very
strong categories. Moderately strong negative correlations were computed between 1,3-
butadiene, acetonitrile, benzene, and xylenes and temperature (maximum and average) and
moisture (dewpoint and wet bulb) variables, while carbon tetrachloride and/?-dichlorobenzene
exhibited moderately strong to strong positive correlations with the same parameters. 1,3-
Butadiene had a strong positive correlation with sea level pressure and a very strong negative
correlation with the u-component of the wind. Acetonitrile had a strong negative correlation
with the v-component of the wind while /?-dichlorobenzene had a very strong positive correlation
with the v-component. Pearson correlations could not be computed for acrylonitrile or
trichloroethylene due to the low number of detects (fewer than 3).
10.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration information was not available for the three Michigan
counties. Thus, state-level car registration, from the Energy Information Administration (EIA),
was allocated to the county level using the county-level population proportion. County-level
population data in Chippewa County, Missaukee County, and Wayne County, Michigan, were
obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in Table 10-7. Also included in
Table 10-7 is the population within 10 miles of each site and the average daily traffic
information, which represents the average number of cars passing the monitoring sites on the
10-5
-------
nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Using these parameters, a county-specific car
registration ratio was computed. An estimation of 10-mile car registration was computed using
the 10-mile populations surrounding the monitors and the car registration ratio. This information
is compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at the sites listed in
Table 10-7. The Dearborn site (DEMI) has the highest estimated vehicle ownership within a ten
mile radius; the other Detroit sites were much lower. However, the ITCMI site has the highest
daily traffic volume passing a Michigan monitor.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.). Figure 3-1 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. None of the four sites that sampled VOC look much like the
roadside study. All of these sites had larger toluene ethylbenzene ratios, with HOMI having the
largest concentration ratio of all the UATMP sites, more than four times that of the roadside
study. The roadside study's xylene-ethylbenzene ratio is higher than its benzene-ethylbenzene
ratio. APMFs benzene-ethylbenzene and xylenes-ethylbenzene ratios were nearly equal while
DEMI, HOMI, and ITCMI all had larger benzene-ethylbenzene ratios than xylene-ethylbenzene
ratios. Since E7MI did not sample for VOC, a BTEX analysis could not be performed for this
site.
10.5 NATTS Site Analysis
One of the Detroit, MI, sites, DEMI, is an EPA-designated NATTS site. A description of
the NATTS program is given in Section 3.6. For DEMI, each of the following analyses were
conducted: a back trajectory analysis, a regulation analysis, and an emission tracer analysis.
Details on each type of analysis are also provided in Section 3.6.
10.5.1 Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 10-9 is the composite back trajectory map for the DEMI site. Each line represents
the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring location on a
10-6
-------
sampling day. As shown in Figure 10-9, the back trajectories originated from many different
directions, although more than half of them originated from an area west of the monitoring
location. The 24-hour airshed domain is large, as the farthest away a back trajectory originated
was northern Minnesota, over six hundred miles away. As each circle around the site represents
100 miles, 56% of the trajectories originated within 300 miles, and 76% within 400 miles from
the DEMI site.
10.5.2 Regulation Analysis
Table 3-10 summarizes the number of facilities that account for approximately 90% of
the total UATMP pollutant emissions in the 10-mile area around the monitoring station. Seven
of the 12 facilities listed near DEMI in Table 3-11 are potentially subject to future regulations.
Table 10-7 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable. Based on this analysis, the
regulations shown are expected to achieve reductions in ambient concentrations of the following
UATMP pollutants: ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone,
and toluene. Reductions are projected for ethylbenzene (41%), formaldehyde (0.1%), methyl
ethyl ketone (45%), methyl isobutyl ketone (44%), and toluene (12%) as the regulations are
implemented (the latest compliance date is 2007). The emission reductions are primarily
attributed to regulation of surface coating operations and petroleum refineries.
10.5.3 Emission Tracer Analysis
At DEMI, the highest tetrachloroethylene concentration occurred on October 6, 2003.
Figure 10-10 is the pollution rose for all tetrachloroethylene samples at DEMI. The lone high
concentration points to possible tetrachloroethylene emission sources east of the monitor. Figure
10-11 is a map of acrylonitrile stationary emission sources east of the DEMI monitor. According
to the 1999 NEI, Rouge Power & Utility Operations Facility, Detroit Edison - River Rouge
Plant, Honeywell, Detroit Coke Plant, and Petro-Chem Processing are all to the east of the
monitoring site. However, Figure 10-12 is a back trajectory map for this date, which shows the
air originating north and northwest of the monitor. It is possible that air sampled at DEMI on
this date passed over the above listed facilities earlier in the day. However, an analysis of the
hourly meteorological data shows that winds were primarily calm or light and out of the north
10-7
-------
for the morning hours, turned southerly during the afternoon, and became calm again overnight.
Surface map analysis shows high pressure moved across the area on that day, thus leading to
possible stagnation at the surface level.
10-8
-------
Figure 10-1. Detroit, Michigan Site 1 (APMI) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
10-9
-------
Figure 10-2. Detroit, Michigan Site 2 (DEMI) Monitoring Station
v ' V \ % rV^ttts
**^ v\ \x^« 3&. b .. • MlA
•' \.
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
10-10
-------
Figure 10-3. Detroit, Michigan Site 3 (E7MI) Monitoring Station
•r- » ;-_-••/ <3KMj»
x^'^-mm "•'
^W tm )4a?T wSb*
!-"• 1: * 1, -
"
II
-' >ir-^» >•
- oS -•:VTii
r^-
- ~«
-------
Figure 10-4. Houghton Lake, Michigan (HOMI) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
10-12
-------
Figure 10-5. Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan (ITCMI) Monitoring Station
"^^SSKnr?
^"S^F ^>
' c
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
10-13
-------
Figure 10-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of APMI, DEMI, E7MI
S316WW ss™™ 83-251™ ss™™ 83'15'O'w as-wo'w ss-so1*
Legend
gf] APMIUATMPsite
® DEMIUATMPsite
FS ETMIUATMPsite
Note: Due to facility density and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
10 mile radius
jCounty boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
¥ Automotive Repair, Services, & Parking (4)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (13)
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (8)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (12)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (4)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (71)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (3)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (3)
<= Instruments & Related Products Facility (1)
* Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (5)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (8)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (4)
x Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (10)
N Nonclassifiable Establishments (1)
1 Petroleum & Coal Products (1)
P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (1)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (2)
v Polymers £ Resins Production Industrial Facility (2)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (2)
tt Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (4)
u Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (34)
T Transportation Equipment (2)
? Unknown (1)
s Utility Boilers (6)
e£ Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (16)
10-14
-------
Figure 10-7. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of HOMI
5°1Q'Q"W SSWMV 86WW WSS'O'W
Note; Due to facility density and coiocation,lhe total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
@ HOM! UATMPsite
O 10 mile radius
| (County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (1)
P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (1)
& Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (11)
10-15
-------
Figure 10-8. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ITCMI
Legend
<§) ITCMI UATMP site
''._,' 10 mile radius
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
& Lumber & Wood Products Facility (1)
^ Pulp & Paper Production Facility (1)
i- Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (1)
¥ Automotive Repair, Services, & Parking (1)
•*• Air Transportation Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (1)
I Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (27)
10-16
-------
Figure 10-9. Composite Back Trajectory for DEMI
-------
Figure 10-10. Tetrachloroethylene Pollution Rose for DEMI
450
•3 7 5
o / o
300
225
g 150
!
i 75
o
C Q
O
o
1 75
=5 150
Q.
225
o r\ n
o U U
375
450
525 '
N
NW
-
--""***
**
/
i
W •'
1 : ' ' ' *
V
*^^^
Dashed circle represents
noncancer benchmark value
SW
s
NE
Avg Cone = 44.85 ± 67.24 ug/m3
***-^
K
»
i
>• • E
i
i
*
^---''
SE
525 450 375 300 225 150 75 0 75 150 225 300 375 450 525
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 10-11. Tetrachloroethylene Sources East of the DEMI Monitoring Site
o>
43.3
43.1
42.9
42.7
42.5
3 42.3
"^
re
-1 42.1
41.9
41.7
41.5
41.3
DEM Monitoring
Site
Detroit Edison -
Rver Rouge Rant
Rouge Power &
Utility Operations
Fetro-Chem
Recessing
-84.2 -84 -83.8 -83.6 -83.4 -83.2 -83 -82.8 -82.6 -82.4 -82.2
Longitude
-------
Figure 10-12. 24-Hour Back Trajectory (50, 250, and 500 Meters Aboveground)
at DEMI on October 6, 2003
500
250
12
00
10,06
1500
1000
500
10-20
-------
Table 10-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Michigan
Site
Name
MI-
APMI
MI-
DEMI
MI-
E7MI
MI-
HOMI
MI-
ITCMI
Type
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
Gug/m3)
^$
352.80
(±232.95)
^^
55.77
(±37.93)
^^
115.81
(±33.45)
^^
240.77
(±225.00)
^^
17.57
(±5.04)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
57.07
(±2.08)
65.33
(±5.60)
56.78
(±2.09)
58.36
(±6.9)
56.78
(±2.09)
82.31
(±2.62)
52.93
(±2.24)
56.50
(±7.44)
49.32
(±2.18)
59.53
(±5.73)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
49.01
(±1.93)
56.82
(±5.03)
49.45
(±1.96)
51.23
(±6.37)
49.45
(±1.96)
73.32
(±2.63)
43.11
(±1.99)
46.19
(±6.90)
40.85
(±2.04)
51.16
(±5.12)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
40.08
(±1.89)
48.21
(±5.13)
38.74
(±1.89)
40.64
(±6.05)
38.74
(±1.89)
61.33
(±3.21)
34.66
(±1.92)
38.06
(±6.64)
32.02
(±2.08)
45.38
(±4.61)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
44.73
(±1.78)
52.30
(±4.75)
44.38
(±1.77)
46.03
(±5.72)
44.38
(±1.77)
65.87
(±2.62)
39.25
(±1.83)
42.26
(±6.37)
37.20
(±1.91)
48.04
(±4.62)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
73.56
(±1.11)
74.71
(±3.36)
68.95
(±1.17)
69.33
(±3.35)
68.95
(±1.17)
68.01
(±3.86)
75.30
(±1.16)
76.61
(±3.71)
73.39
(±1.38)
82.59
(±2.84)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1016.14
(±0.67)
1017.74
(±2.22)
1016.18
(±0.68)
1016.17
(±2.33)
1016.18
(±0.68)
1017.14
(±2.72)
1015.82
(±0.71)
1015.32
(±2.50)
1014.77
(±0.76)
1013.48
(±2.03)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
2.12
(±0.54)
1.53
(±2.22)
1.51
(±0.54)
1.45
(±1.88)
1.51
(±0.54)
1.49
(±2.42)
1.70
(±0.54)
2.02
(±1.60)
0.92
(±0.49)
0.73
(±1.43)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.58
(±0.49)
3.14
(±1.66)
-0.32
(±0.40)
1.59
(±1.61)
-0.32
(±0.40)
0.73
(±1.49)
-0.04
(±0.40)
1.94
(±1.28)
-0.62
(±0.34)
0.27
(±1.16)
-------
Table 10-2a. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Allen Park
Monitoring Site in Detroit, Michigan - APMI
Compound
Tetrachloroethylene
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Trichloroethylene
Average
Toxicity
2.68E-03
1.07E-04
1.28E-05
8.82E-06
5.17E-06
1.31E-06
2.34E-07
1.60E-07
%
Contribution
95.17
3.82
0.46
0.31
0.18
0.05
0.01
0.01
Cumulative %
Contribution
95.17
98.99
99.44
99.76
99.94
99.99
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
(^g/m3)
454.215
1.581
1.646
0.588
0.172
0.119
0.498
0.080
#
Detects
13
1
18
17
12
2
13
1
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
2,680
107
12.8
8.82
5.17
1.31
<1
<1
10-22
-------
Table 10-2b. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Dearborn
Monitoring Site in Detroit, Michigan - DEMI
Compound
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Trichloroethylene
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
2.65E-04
1.53E-05
8.36E-06
6.37E-06
5.20E-06
2.84E-06
9.08E-07
1.84E-07
1.60E-07
2.40E-08
%
Contribution
87.05
5.03
2.75
2.10
1.71
0.93
0.30
0.06
0.05
0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
87.05
92.09
94.84
96.93
98.65
99.58
99.88
99.94
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
44.849
1.962
0.557
0.212
2.365
0.258
0.227
0.392
0.080
4.355
#
Detects
14
24
22
14
27
4
1
16
4
27
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
265
15.3
8.36
6.37
5.20
2.84
<1
<1
<1
<1
10-23
-------
Table 10-2c. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the E7 Mile
Monitoring Site in Detroit, Michigan - E7MI
Compound
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Average
Toxicity
2.15E-05
8.03E-06
%
Contribution
72.80
27.20
Cumulative
%
Contribution
72.80
100.00
Average
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.754
0.268
#
Detects
13
12
Cancer Risk
(Out of 1
Million)
21.5
8.03
10-24
-------
Table 10-2d. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Houghton Lake, Michigan
Monitoring Site - HOMI
Compound
Tetrachloroethy lene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Trichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
4.56E-03
8.71E-06
4.01E-06
1.81E-06
2.06E-07
1.20E-07
9.23E-09
%
Contribution
99.67
0.19
0.09
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cumulative
%
Contribution
99.67
99.87
99.95
99.99
100.00
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(pg/m3)
772.652
0.581
0.515
0.824
0.103
0.256
1.678
#
Detects
6
23
23
16
1
15
16
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
4,560
8.71
4.01
1.81
<1
<1
<1
10-25
-------
Table 10-2e. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan
Monitoring Site - ITCMI
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Butadiene
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Benzo[a]pyrene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Benzo [b] fluoranthene
Indenof 1 ,2,3-cd]pyrene
Benzo [k] fluoranthene
Benz[a]anthracene
Chrysene
Average
Toxicity
3.10E-05
8.51E-06
8.04E-06
1.95E-06
1.81E-06
1.56E-06
9.39E-07
2.23E-07
2.21E-10
1.24E-10
3.93E-11
3.80E-11
2.76E-11
2.55E-11
4.97E-12
%
Contribution
57.37
15.75
14.88
3.60
3.36
2.89
1.74
0.41
O.0001
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
O.OOOl
Cumulative
%
Contribution
57.37
73.12
88.01
91.61
94.96
97.85
99.59
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
0.456
0.567
1.031
0.177
0.060
0.779
0.159
0.474
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
#
Detects
1
29
32
5
3
2
4
14
25
21
29
27
29
28
29
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
31.0
8.51
8.04
1.95
1.81
1.56
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
10-26
-------
Table 10-3a. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Allen Park Monitoring
Site in Detroit, Michigan - APMI
Compound
Tetrachloroethy lene
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Acetonitrile
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
Toluene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Chloroethane
(Ethyl Chloride)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Chlorobenzene
Styrene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
Methyl ferf-Butyl Ether
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
Average
Toxicity
1.68E+00
7.90E-01
8.62E-02
5.49E-02
3.73E-02
3.01E-02
1.47E-02
1.36E-02
1.16E-02
8.98E-03
2.09E-03
5.74E-04
4.98E-04
4.00E-04
2.35E-04
1.66E-04
1.65E-04
1.54E-04
1.48E-04
1.34E-04
7.21E-05
6.83E-05
%
Contribution
61.52
28.90
3.15
2.01
1.36
1.10
0.54
0.50
0.43
0.33
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.0001
O.OOOl
O.0001
Cumulative
%
Contribution
61.52
90.42
93.57
95.58
96.94
98.04
98.58
99.07
99.50
99.83
99.90
99.93
99.94
99.96
99.97
99.97
99.98
99.98
99.99
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
454.215
1.581
0.172
1.646
3.731
1.806
0.588
1.221
0.058
3.592
0.205
0.574
0.498
2.000
2.349
0.166
0.165
0.154
0.119
0.080
0.216
0.205
#
Detects
13
1
12
18
18
5
17
18
1
18
8
17
13
17
1
8
4
8
2
1
1
1
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10-27
-------
Table 10-3b. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Dearborn Monitoring
Site in Detroit, Michigan - DEMI
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethy lene
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Acetonitrile
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Toluene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Styrene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
Average
Toxicity
4.44E-01
2.63E-01
1.66E-01
1.06E-01
6.54E-02
4.41E-02
2.52E-02
1.39E-02
1.34E-02
1.13E-02
1.03E-02
1.70E-03
6.87E-04
3.92E-04
3.59E-04
3.23E-04
2.88E-04
1.73E-04
1.33E-04
1.27E-04
%
Contribution
38.07
22.51
14.23
9.10
5.60
3.78
2.16
1.19
1.15
0.97
0.88
0.15
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
38.07
60.58
74.81
83.91
89.51
93.29
95.45
96.64
97.79
98.76
99.64
99.79
99.85
99.88
99.91
99.94
99.96
99.98
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
4.355
2.365
44.849
0.212
1.962
4.412
1.514
0.557
1.206
0.227
4.111
0.167
0.687
0.392
1.793
0.258
0.288
0.173
0.080
0.382
#
Detects
27
27
14
14
24
24
10
22
24
1
24
7
23
16
14
4
10
11
4
4
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10-28
-------
Table 10-3c. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the E7 Mile Monitoring Site
in Detroit, Michigan - E7MI
Compound
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Toluene
Hexane
Ethylbenzene
Stvrfnf
Average
Toxicity
1.34E-01
9.18E-02
4.14E-02
1.86E-02
1.32E-02
1.08E-03
9 77E-04
%
Contribution
44.58
30.59
13.78
6.21
4.39
0.36
009
Cumulative
%
Contribution
44.58
75.16
88.95
95.16
99.55
99.91
100 00
Average
Concentration
(^g/m3)
0.268
2.754
4.138
7.458
2.635
1.080
0977
#
Detects
12
13
13
13
13
13
19
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10-29
-------
Table 10-3d. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Houghton Lake,
Michigan Monitoring Site - HOMI
Compound
Tetrachloroethy lene
Acetonitrile
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Toluene
Chloroform
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Styrene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Ethylbenzene
Trichloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
Average
Toxicity
2.86E+00
1.93E+00
2.76E-01
1.71E-01
9.15E-02
1.72E-02
1.47E-02
1.45E-02
1.10E-02
1.09E-02
9.15E-03
1.48E-03
4.98E-04
3.54E-04
2.56E-04
1.95E-04
1.71E-04
1.56E-04
1.22E-04
%
Contribution
52.89
35.68
5.09
3.17
1.69
0.32
0.27
0.27
0.20
0.20
0.17
0.03
0.01
0.01
O.0001
O.0001
O.OOOl
O.0001
O.OOOl
Cumulative
%
Contribution
52.89
88.56
93.65
96.82
98.51
98.83
99.10
99.37
99.57
99.77
99.94
99.97
99.98
99.98
99.99
99.99
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(^g/m3)
772.652
115.824
1.378
1.678
0.824
0.515
1.321
0.581
1.104
4.340
0.897
0.297
2.488
0.354
0.256
0.195
0.103
0.156
0.367
#
Detects
6
18
1
16
16
23
24
23
15
24
24
1
13
13
15
12
1
10
1
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
2
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10-30
-------
Table 10-3e. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Sault Ste. Marie,
Michigan Monitoring Site - ITCMI
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Chloroform
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Styrene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Ethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Chlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Average
Toxicity
2.28E-01
3.44E-02
3.02E-02
2.60E-02
1.72E-02
1.42E-02
1.24E-02
7.30E-03
1.30E-03
1.19E-03
8.36E-04
6.83E-04
5.90E-04
4.74E-04
2.68E-04
2.21E-04
1.81E-04
1.49E-04
4.77E-05
1.85E-06
%
Contribution
60.70
9.15
8.05
6.93
4.57
3.78
3.30
1.94
0.35
0.32
0.22
0.18
0.16
0.13
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.01
O.OOOl
Cumulative %
Contribution
60.70
69.85
77.90
84.83
89.40
93.18
96.47
98.42
98.76
99.08
99.30
99.48
99.64
99.77
99.84
99.90
99.95
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A^g/m3)
0.456
1.031
0.060
1.561
1.716
0.567
1.113
2.921
0.779
0.116
4.181
0.683
0.159
0.474
0.268
0.177
0.544
0.149
0.048
O.OOOl
#
Detects
1
32
3
11
29
29
32
32
2
8
26
2
4
14
21
5
5
14
1
29
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10-31
-------
Table 10-4a. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
Allen Park Site in Detroit, Michigan (APMI)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Maximum
Temperature
-0.22
NA
0.33
-0.50
Average
Temperature
-0.32
NA
0.29
-0.45
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.32
NA
0.32
-0.47
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.32
NA
0.31
-0.46
Relative
Humidity
-0.15
NA
0.22
-0.24
Sea Level
Pressure
0.07
NA
0.65
-0.21
u-component
of wind speed
0.23
NA
-0.25
0.19
v-component
of wind speed
-0.33
NA
-0.35
0.27
o
to
-------
Table 10-4b. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
Dearborn Site in Detroit, Michigan (DEMI)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes (o-,m-,p-)
Maximum
Temperature
0.42
0.44
-0.79
0.39
0.43
0.64
-0.16
0.35
Average
Temperature
0.36
0.40
-0.79
0.35
0.38
0.63
-0.24
0.30
Dew Point
Temperature
0.34
0.33
-0.77
0.26
0.30
0.56
-0.30
0.22
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.35
0.38
-0.79
0.31
0.34
0.60
-0.27
0.26
Relative
Humidity
-0.07
-0.30
0.39
-0.33
-0.40
-0.34
-0.15
-0.30
Sea Level
Pressure
0.02
-0.09
-0.01
0.30
0.10
0.04
0.24
0.28
u-component
of wind speed
0.09
-0.15
0.00
-0.22
-0.30
-0.21
-0.08
-0.29
v-component
of wind speed
-0.12
0.29
-0.78
0.18
0.27
0.19
-0.07
-0.08
-------
Table 10-4c. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
E7 Mile Site in Detroit, Michigan (E7MI)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes (o-,m-,p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.12
-0.12
-0.10
-0.17
Average
Temperature
-0.19
-0.18
-0.17
-0.24
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.06
-0.11
-0.15
-0.20
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.12
-0.15
-0.17
-0.23
Relative
Humidity
0.17
0.09
0.01
0.02
Sea Level
Pressure
0.03
0.14
0.19
0.09
u-component
of wind speed
-0.31
-0.28
-0.28
-0.30
v-component
of wind speed
0.24
0.30
0.35
0.26
-------
Table 10-4d. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Houghton
Lake, Michigan Site (HOMI)
Compound
Acetonitrile
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
Tetrachloroethylene
Maximum
Temperature
-0.11
0.83
NA
0.05
Average
Temperature
-0.10
0.83
NA
-0.24
Dew Point
Temperature
0.00
0.75
NA
-0.30
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.06
0.79
NA
-0.27
Relative
Humidity
0.26
-0.64
NA
-0.11
Sea Level
Pressure
0.11
0.10
NA
0.71
u-component
of wind
-0.05
-0.26
NA
0.01
v-component
of wind
0.21
0.34
NA
-0.21
-------
Table 10-4e. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Sault Ste.
Marie, Michigan Site (ITCMI)
Compound
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
p-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethy lene
Xylenes (o-,m-,p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.41
-0.73
NA
-0.48
0.46
-0.04
0.73
NA
-0.35
Average
Temperature
-0.66
-0.68
NA
-0.49
0.44
-0.05
0.71
NA
-0.38
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.56
-0.68
NA
-0.50
0.40
-0.07
0.69
NA
-0.39
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.62
-0.69
NA
-0.50
0.42
-0.06
0.70
NA
-0.39
Relative
Humidity
0.37
0.23
NA
0.06
-0.28
-0.07
-0.79
NA
0.08
Sea Level
Pressure
0.70
-0.13
NA
0.20
0.21
0.17
0.38
NA
0.26
u-component
of wind
-0.77
0.18
NA
0.03
0.20
-0.04
-0.08
NA
0.20
v-component
of wind
0.33
-0.50
NA
-0.28
0.37
0.07
0.88
NA
-0.23
-------
Table 10-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Michigan Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
APMI
DEMI
E7MI
HOMI
ITCMI
Estimated
County
Population
2,045,540
2,045,540
2,045,540
14,950
38,898
Estimated
County
Number of
Vehicles Owned
1,734,417
1,734,417
1,734,417
12,454
32,552
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.83
0.84
Population
within Ten
Miles
965,005
1,208,975
1,167,824
10,386
21,881
Estimated
10-Mile Car
Registration
820,254
1,027,629
992,650
8,620
18,380
Traffic
Data
(Daily
Average)
60,000
12,791
6,999
7,000
100,000
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(//g/m3)
352.80 (±232.95)
55.77 (±37.93)
115.81 (±33.45)
240.77 (±225.00)
17.57 (±5.04)
-------
Table 10-6. SVOC and TNMOC Concentrations for Michigan Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
E7MI
ITCMI
Average SVOC
Concentration (ng)
NA
7.39
TNMOC
Speciated
(ppbC)
198.35
NA
TNMOC w/
unknowns
(ppbC)
303.78
NA
% of TNMOC
identified
64%
NA
SNMOC Compound
with the Highest
Concentration (ppbC)
Toluene 37.30
NA
NA = Not Applicable.
10-38
-------
Table 10-7. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding DEMI
Facility Name
BASF Corp.
Cadillac Div. Det.
Hamtramck
Assembly
Crown Group
Ecourse MI Plant
Daimlerchrysler
Jefferson North
Assembly Plant
Exterior Sys. Inc.
Owens Corning
Metal Sys. (DBA)
Ford Motor Co.
Dearborn Assembly
Plant
Marathon Ashland
Petroleum LLC
Primary SIC
Code
2851
3711
3479
3711
3479
3711
2911
SIC Code Description
Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers,
Enamels, and Allied Products
Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car
Bodies
Coating, Engraving, and Allied
Services, NEC
Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car
Bodies
Coating, Engraving, and Allied
Services, NEC
Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car
Bodies
Petroleum Refining
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
HHHHH
40 CFR part 63, subpart
IIII
40 CFR part 63, subpart
SSSS
40 CFR part 63, subpart
IIII
40 CFR part 63, subpart
SSSS
40 CFR part 63, subpart
IIII
40 CFR part 63, subpart
uuu
Regulation Name
Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing NESHAP
Auto and Light Duty Trucks
(Surface Coating) NESHAP
Metal Coil (Surface Coating)
Auto and Light Duty Trucks
(Surface Coating) NESHAP
Metal Coil (Surface Coating)
Auto and Light Duty Trucks
(Surface Coating) NESHAP
Petroleum Refineries-Catalytic
Cracking, Catalytic Reforming,
and Sulfur Plant Units NESHAP
o
I
VO
-------
11.0 Sites in Mississippi
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the five
UATMP sites in Mississippi (GPMS, GRMS, JAMS, PGMS, and TUMS). All five of these sites
are located in different cities in Mississippi: Gulfport, Grenada, Jackson, Pascagoula, and
Tupelo. Figures 11-1 through 11-5 are topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in
their urban and rural locations. Figures 11-6 through 11-10 are maps identifying facilities
within ten miles of the sites that reported to the 1999 NEI. The GPMS and PGMS sites are the
farthest south, with both locations along the Gulf Coast. Farther east is PGMS, where the
majority of the sources are located to the north of the monitoring station, given its coastal
proximity and are mostly surface coating facilities. GPMS is farther west along the Mississippi
shoreline, and the few nearby sources, which are mainly involved in fuel combustion and surface
coating, are also mainly to the north. Very few facilities are located near the GRMS site. Most
of the facilities are located to the south of the monitor and the majority are involved in surface
coating processes. JAMS is somewhat centrally located, and all but two facilities are located to
the south of the monitor. These sources are primarily surface coating facilities. The industrial
facilities within a ten mile radius of TUMS, which is located in northeast Mississippi, are mainly
to the west of the site. A large number of the sources near the TUMS site are involved in
polymer and resin production and inorganic chemical production.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003 at five weather stations near
these sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The weather observations were reported from each of the five
cities' reporting stations (WBAN 93874, 13978, 3940, 53858, and 93862, respectively).
Table 11-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at each site, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. Climatologically, all five of the Mississippi cities can be considered
warm and humid, especially Gulfport and Pascagoula, the two sites nearest the coast. Table 11-1
11-1
-------
reflects this coastal location, as GPMS and PGMS have the highest maximum, average, dew
point, and wet bulb temperatures and relative humidity. High temperatures and humidity, due to
proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, can make the climate in this region very oppressive. Annual
average wind direction tends to be from the east, southeast, and south. This information can be
found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
11.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Mississippi Sites
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at each site. Tables 1 l-2a-e summarize the cancer
weighting scores, while Tables 1 l-3a-e summarize the noncancer weighting scores. For a
compound to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95%
of the total site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered
prevalent for each site.
Tables 1 l-2a-e show that most of the detected cancer compounds reflect the nationwide
prevalent cancer compound list, discussed in Section 3 of this report. Trichloroethylene
(detected at GPMS, GRMS, and TUMS), methylene chloride (detected at all of the Mississippi
sites), 1,2-dichloroethane (detected at JAMS), and vinyl chloride (detected at TUMS) were not
listed among the nationwide prevalent compounds. Acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon tetrachloride,
and acetaldehyde were the only prevalent compounds across all five sites. Acrylonitrile
contributed the most in toxicity weighting at each MS site. For the noncancer compounds
summarized in Tables 1 l-3a-e, many of the detected compounds were not listed among the
nationwide noncancer prevalent list. However, all of the prevalent noncancer compounds at all
of the Mississippi sites are also on the nationwide noncancer prevalent list, with the exception of
methylene chloride (TUMS). Acrylonitrile, acetonitrile, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and
xylenes were the only compounds to be considered prevalent across all five sites.
Toxic compounds not detected at the Mississippi sites were: 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane;
ethyl acrylate; 1,2-dibromoethane; 1,1-dichloroethane; hexachlorobutadiene; 1,2-
dichloropropane; vinyl chloride; and 1,1-dichloroethene.
11-2
-------
11.2 Toxicity Analysis
Acrylonitrile contributed the most in cancer toxicity weighting at each Mississippi site.
Although acrylonitrile's toxicity is consistently the highest of all cancer compounds across the
Mississippi sites, the number of detects is lower than any of the other prevalent compounds.
Benzene and acetaldehyde had the largest number of detects across all of the sites. Acrylonitrile,
acetonitrile, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde contributed most to the average noncancer toxicity
at four of the five sites. Of these four compounds, acrylonitrile had the lowest number of
detects.
The acrylonitrile cancer risk at JAMS was the highest among the five sites at 69.9 in a
million, while the GRMS, GPMS, TUMS, and PGMS risk was lower at 56.6, 52.7, 20.7, and
20.4 in a million, respectively. For the compounds which may lead to adverse noncancer health
effects, the average acetonitrile toxicity at GRMS was 0.793 (over 1 indicates a significant
chance of a noncancer health effect). Of the eighteen acetonitrile detects at GRMS, six
concentrations were of adverse health concentrations.
11.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Mississippi Sites
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were measured at all of the sites, as indicated in Tables
3-3 and 3-4. Table 11-1 lists the average UATMP concentrations for each of the sites that
sampled in Mississippi. The GRMS sites had the highest average UATMP concentration while
PGMS had the lowest. Table 11-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters
from January 2003 to December 2003.
Tables 1 l-4a-e present the summary of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for
each of the site-specific prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters by site.
Identification of the site-specific prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. A
perfect positive correlation (1.00) was computed between acrylonitrile and relative humidity at
GRMS, indicating that acrylonitrile concentrations increase as humidity increases. Several other
parameters exhibited strong correlations with acrylonitrile at this site as well. It is important to
note that acrylonitrile was only detected three times, and this low sample number could make the
11-3
-------
correlations appear stronger than they would with a more representative sample. 1,3-Butadiene
had strong to very strong negative correlations with the temperature and moisture variables at all
of the sites at which it was a prevalent compound and was detected more than three times
(GPMS, JAMS, and PGMS). Acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, and xylenes all
had moderately strong positive correlations with maximum and average temperature, dewpoint
and wet bulb temperature at GRMS. Pearson correlations for acrylonitrile at JAMS, PGMS, and
TUMS and 1,3-butadiene, tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene at TUMS could not be
computed due to the low number of detects (fewer than 4).
11.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration and population information for Grenada County, Harrison
County, Hinds County, Jackson County, and Lee County, MS, was obtained from the Mississippi
State Tax Commission and the U.S. Census Bureau, and is summarized in Table 11-5. Also
included in Table 11-5 is the population within 10 miles of each site and the average daily traffic
information, which represents the average number of cars passing the monitoring sites on the
nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Using these parameters, a county-specific car
registration ratio was computed. An estimation of 10-mile car registrations was computed using
the 10-mile populations surrounding the monitors and the car registration ratio. This information
is compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at the Mississippi
sites in Table 11-5. The JAMS site has the largest vehicle ownership within a ten mile radius,
while GPMS has the highest traffic volume passing by the site on a daily basis.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban areas (for more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.). Figure 3-1 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. Four of the five site ratios looked relatively similar to those of
the roadside study (GPMS, JAMS, PGMS, and TUMS). Only GRMS looked much different. At
GRMS, the benzene-ethylbenzene ratio was still the lowest, but the xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio
was the largest, and the toluene-ethylbenzene ratio resided in between.
11-4
-------
Figure 11-1. Gulfport, Mississippi (GPMS) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
11-5
-------
Figure 11-2. Grenada, Mississippi (GRMS) Monitoring Station
-:•-
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
11-6
-------
Figure 11-3. Jackson, Mississippi (JAMS) Monitoring Station
f/r
Mftj::tf.
^%
fHsJf
.r?.
- */*-'
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
11-7
-------
Figure 11-4. Pascagoula, Mississippi (PGMS) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
11-8
-------
Figure 11-5. Tupelo, Mississippi (TUMS) Monitoring Station
i .
ULJ
. ... .
J i/-
-''' ;'
s
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
11-9
-------
Figure 11-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of GPMS
Legend
ig? GPMS UATMP site
(.) 10 mile radius
l_l County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (4)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (1)
Note: D ue to facility dereify and eoloeaton, the total facilities
displayed may not represent allfacilities within the area of interest.
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (2)
& Lumber & Wood Products Facility (1)
6 Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (1)
Li Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (3)
•s Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
11-10
-------
Figure 11-7. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of GRMS
Note: Due to facility density and allocation, the total facilities
l_6(J6nci displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Eg GRMS UATMP site
i } 10 mile radius
I County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
¥ Automotive Repair, Services, & Parking (1)
& Lumber & Wood Products Facility (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (1)
u Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (3)
? Unknown (1)
11-11
-------
Figure 11-8. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of JAMS
Note: D ue to facility dens riy and colo cation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities wrthin the area of interest.
Legend
|§| JAMS UATMP site
(_) 10 mile radius
[^] County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
2 Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
7 Food ^Agriculture Processes Industrial Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (2)
H Furniture & Fixtures Facility (1)
J Industrial Machinery ^Equipment Facility (2)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facilty (2)
» National Security & International Affairs (1)
2 Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels (1)
P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (2)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (1)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (2)
U Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (B)
a Utility Boilers (1)
11-12
-------
Figure 11-9. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of PGMS
Legend
Note: D ue to facility dens rb/ and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent allfacilrties within the area of interest.
tgj PGMS UATMP site
(_) 10 mile radius
| | County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (2)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (1)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (3)
P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (1)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (6)
u Water Transportation Facility (1)
11-13
-------
Figure 11-10. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of TUMS
Note: Due to facility density and allocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
TUMS UATMP site p
(_) 10 mile radius v
ri County boundary Q
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) #
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (1) u
H Furniture & Fixtures Facility (1) s
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (1) ?
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1) s,
Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (1)
Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (6)
Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (6)
Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (4)
Unknown (1)
Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
11-14
-------
Table 11-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Mississippi
Site
Name
MS-
GPMS
MS-
GRMS
MS-
JAMS
MS-
PGMS
MS-
TUMS
Type
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
Gug/m3)
^$
39.84
(±8.25)
^^
64.98
(±19.46)
^^
51.20
(±7.14)
^^
32.09
(±6.54)
^^
49.06
(±17.69)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
76.03
(±1.26)
75.07
(±4.80)
72.96
(±1.63)
78.83
(±5.65)
74.12
(±1.52)
73.45
(±5.55)
76.63
(±1.22)
75.25
(±4.44)
70.70
(±1.60)
69.35
(±6.00)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
67.11
(±1.35)
66.57
(±5.10)
62.49
(±1.56)
67.33
(±5.51)
63.05
(±1.49)
62.24
(±5.53)
64.60
(±1.34)
64.29
(±4.49)
60.58
(±1.55)
59.96
(±5.61)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
59.69
(±1.53)
59.96
(±5.69)
54.41
(±1.69)
59.83
(±5.55)
54.76
(±1.67)
54.51
(±6.19)
58.49
(±1.56)
58.26
(±5.44)
52.36
(±1.71)
51.62
(±6.10)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
62.84
(±1.35)
62.74
(±5.09)
58.01
(±1.52)
62.74
(±5.21)
58.45
(±1.47)
58.02
(±5.45)
61.13
(±1.37)
60.96
(±4.72)
56.16
(±1.52)
55.49
(±5.40)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
79.54
(±1.13)
81.00
(±3.42)
77.61
(±1.09)
79.16
(±2.49)
77.23
(±1.17)
78.20
(±3.75)
82.80
(±1.00)
82.62
(±3.36)
77.04
(±1.14)
76.25
(±3.43)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1017.07
(±0.52)
1017.13
(±1.87)
1017.24
(±0.58)
1016.69
(±1.53)
1017.27
(±0.56)
1017.64
(±1.99)
1017.51
(±0.52)
1017.67
(±1.75)
1017.38
(±0.57)
1017.89
(±1.84)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.48
(±0.29)
-0.56
(±1.24)
-0.13
(±0.27)
-0.47
(±1.00)
-0.03
(±0.25)
-0.45
(±0.81)
-0.65
(±0.20)
-1.08
(±0.84)
0.11
(±0.24)
0.10
(±0.89)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.23
(±0.43)
-0.49
(±1.48)
0.63
(±0.46)
1.08
(±1.70)
0.38
(±0.39)
0.57
(±1.27)
-0.35
(±0.34)
-0.76
(±1.02)
0.17
(±0.45)
-0.02
(±1.56)
-------
Table ll-2a. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Gulfport, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - GPMS
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Trichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
5.27E-05
9.62E-06
7.71E-06
5.30E-06
3.71E-06
2.28E-06
1.23E-06
2.15E-07
1.98E-07
9.60E-09
%
Contribution
63.52
11.60
9.29
6.39
4.47
2.74
1.49
0.26
0.24
0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
63.52
75.12
84.40
90.79
95.26
98.00
99.49
99.75
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
0.775
1.234
0.514
0.177
1.685
0.207
0.209
0.107
0.420
1.745
#
Detects
5
30
29
10
30
7
3
1
11
30
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
52.7
9.62
7.71
5.30
3.71
2.28
1.23
<1
<1
<1
11-16
-------
Table ll-2b. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Grenada, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - GRMS
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Trichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
5.66E-05
7.78E-06
4.41E-06
4.24E-06
3.56E-07
3.22E-07
1.43E-07
1.78E-08
%
Contribution
76.63
10.53
5.97
5.74
0.48
0.44
0.19
0.02
Cumulative
%
Contribution
76.63
87.16
93.12
98.86
99.35
99.78
99.98
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
0.832
0.518
2.004
0.544
0.060
0.161
0.304
3.238
#
Detects
3
18
22
21
1
1
12
22
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
56.6
7.78
4.41
4.24
<1
<1
<1
<1
11-17
-------
Table ll-2c. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Jackson, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - JAMS
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethy lene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
(Ethylene Bichloride)
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
6.99E-05
1.43E-05
8.82E-06
7.87E-06
7.20E-06
6.38E-06
2.47E-06
1.59E-06
3.16E-07
1.45E-08
%
Contribution
58.84
12.00
7.42
6.62
6.05
5.37
2.08
1.34
0.27
0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
58.84
70.84
78.26
84.88
90.93
96.30
98.38
99.72
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
1.028
1.829
0.588
0.262
3.271
0.580
0.419
0.061
0.672
2.630
#
Detects
2
28
24
12
29
13
8
1
13
29
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
69.9
14.3
8.82
7.87
7.20
6.38
2.47
1.59
<1
<1
11-18
-------
Table ll-2d. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Pascagoula, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - PGMS
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethy lene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
2.04E-05
1.12E-05
8.15E-06
8.10E-06
4.59E-06
2.22E-06
1.34E-06
1.03E-07
1.63E-08
%
Contribution
36.38
19.89
14.53
14.44
8.19
3.96
2.39
0.18
0.03
Cumulative
%
Contribution
36.38
56.27
70.81
85.25
93.44
97.39
99.79
99.97
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
0.300
1.430
0.272
0.540
2.087
0.376
0.122
0.219
2.959
#
Detects
2
28
8
26
31
5
2
10
31
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
20.4
11.2
8.15
8.10
4.59
2.22
1.34
<1
<1
11-19
-------
Table ll-2e. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Tupelo, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - TUMS
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Tetrachloroethy lene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
2.07E-05
1.80E-05
7.75E-06
6.61E-06
4.68E-06
3.98E-06
2.10E-06
2.08E-06
1.35E-06
1.32E-08
%
Contribution
30.72
26.81
11.52
9.83
6.96
5.91
3.12
3.09
2.01
0.02
Cumulative
%
Contribution
30.72
57.53
69.06
78.89
85.85
91.77
94.88
97.97
99.98
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
0.304
3.056
0.517
0.848
0.156
1.808
4.462
1.039
0.153
2.393
#
Detects
1
3
27
30
2
31
18
3
1
31
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
20.7
18.0
7.75
6.61
4.68
3.98
2.10
2.08
1.35
<1
11-20
-------
Table ll-3a. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Gulfport, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - GPMS
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Acetonitrile
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Benzene
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Styrene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Methyl terf-Butyl Ether
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
Chloroethane
(Ethyl Chloride)
Average
Toxicity
3.88E-01
2.10E-01
1.87E-01
1.78E-01
8.84E-02
6.20E-02
4.11E-02
1.66E-02
1.28E-02
1.02E-02
2.74E-03
9.48E-04
7.74E-04
4.51E-04
4.20E-04
2.95E-04
2.59E-04
1.79E-04
1.78E-04
9.09E-05
5.38E-05
2.27E-05
%
Contribution
32.27
17.53
15.59
14.83
7.36
5.16
3.42
1.38
1.07
0.85
0.23
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.0001
O.0001
Cumulative
%
Contribution
32.27
49.81
65.40
80.22
87.58
92.74
96.17
97.55
98.62
99.47
99.69
99.77
99.84
99.88
99.91
99.93
99.96
99.97
99.99
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
0.775
12.629
1.685
1.745
0.177
6.196
1.234
1.495
0.514
4.065
0.268
0.948
0.209
2.257
0.420
0.295
0.207
0.107
0.178
0.273
0.161
0.227
#
Detects
5
23
30
30
10
29
30
30
29
30
6
23
3
20
11
13
7
1
11
8
1
2
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11-21
-------
Table ll-3b. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Grenada, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - GRMS
Compound
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Benzene
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethy lene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Styrene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
Average
Toxicity
7.93E-01
4.16E-01
3.30E-01
2.23E-01
7.82E-02
1.81E-02
1.59E-02
1.47E-02
1.30E-02
4.95E-03
9.61E-04
9.56E-04
6.94E-04
3.04E-04
2.69E-04
2.23E-04
1.68E-04
1.68E-04
8.19E-05
%
Contribution
41.50
21.78
17.29
11.65
4.09
0.95
0.83
0.77
0.68
0.26
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.OOOl
Cumulative
%
Contribution
41.50
63.28
80.57
92.22
96.31
97.26
98.10
98.86
99.54
99.80
99.85
99.90
99.94
99.95
99.97
99.98
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
47.581
0.832
3.238
2.004
7.821
0.544
0.080
1.319
0.518
1.978
0.094
0.956
3.468
0.304
0.161
0.060
0.168
0.168
0.246
#
Detects
18
3
22
22
21
21
2
21
18
21
1
18
13
12
1
1
7
8
1
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11-22
-------
Table ll-3c. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Jackson, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - JAMS
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Chloroprene
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethy lene
Ethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Styrene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
(Ethylene Bichloride)
Average
Toxicity
5.14E-01
3.63E-01
2.81E-01
2.68E-01
1.31E-01
6.10E-02
5.44E-02
3.10E-02
1.51E-02
1.47E-02
8.77E-03
3.71E-03
2.71E-03
1.55E-03
8.36E-04
7.25E-04
6.72E-04
5.00E-04
3.05E-04
1.70E-04
1.63E-04
1.06E-04
2.55E-05
%
Contribution
29.30
20.71
16.02
15.30
7.47
3.47
3.10
1.77
0.86
0.84
0.50
0.21
0.15
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.0001
Cumulative
%
Contribution
29.30
50.01
66.04
81.33
88.81
92.28
95.38
97.15
98.01
98.85
99.35
99.56
99.71
99.80
99.85
99.89
99.93
99.96
99.97
99.98
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
1.028
3.271
16.871
2.630
0.262
1.829
5.445
0.217
1.357
0.588
3.506
0.742
0.266
0.419
0.836
0.580
0.672
2.501
0.916
0.170
0.163
0.317
0.061
#
Detects
2
29
27
29
12
28
28
1
28
24
28
1
6
8
25
13
13
9
12
9
10
1
1
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11-23
-------
Table ll-3d. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Pascagoula, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - PGMS
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Benzene
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Chloroform
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Methyl Methacrylate
Ethylbenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Styrene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl terf-Butyl Ether
Average
Toxicity
3.02E-01
2.32E-01
1.50E-01
1.36E-01
8.52E-02
4.94E-02
4.77E-02
1.59E-02
1.35E-02
l.OOE-02
1.39E-03
1.14E-03
9.74E-04
8.19E-04
7.51E-04
2.95E-04
2.32E-04
2.19E-04
2.03E-04
1.53E-04
1.08E-04
%
Contribution
28.82
22.13
14.32
12.97
8.13
4.72
4.55
1.52
1.29
0.96
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
28.82
50.95
65.27
78.23
86.37
91.09
95.64
97.16
98.44
99.40
99.53
99.64
99.73
99.81
99.88
99.91
99.93
99.96
99.98
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
2.959
2.087
0.300
0.272
5.112
4.943
1.430
1.433
0.540
4.009
0.376
0.112
4.871
0.573
0.751
0.295
0.697
0.219
0.203
0.122
0.324
#
Detects
31
31
2
8
14
28
28
28
26
28
5
2
17
1
24
10
3
10
14
2
1
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11-24
-------
Table ll-3e. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Tupelo, Mississippi
Monitoring Site - TUMS
Compound
Acetonitrile
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Benzene
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethy lene
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
Toluene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroform
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Methyl terf-Butyl Ether
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Average
Toxicity
4.45E-01
2.44E-01
2.01E-01
1.52E-01
7.80E-02
3.15E-02
2.83E-02
1.43E-02
1.29E-02
1.13E-02
7.77E-03
7.57E-03
4.46E-03
1.73E-03
1.53E-03
1.19E-03
6.25E-04
4.97E-04
2.74E-04
2.35E-04
1.94E-04
%
Contribution
35.76
19.62
16.14
12.21
6.27
2.53
2.27
1.15
1.04
0.91
0.62
0.61
0.36
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
Cumulative
%
Contribution
35.76
55.38
71.52
83.73
90.00
92.54
94.81
95.96
96.99
97.90
98.53
99.14
99.50
99.63
99.76
99.85
99.90
99.94
99.97
99.98
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
26.702
2.393
1.808
0.304
0.156
3.154
0.848
1.288
0.517
3.056
0.039
3.027
4.462
1.039
0.153
0.117
3.125
0.497
0.274
0.704
0.194
#
Detects
24
31
31
1
2
26
30
30
27
3
1
30
18
3
1
4
16
22
6
10
10
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11-25
-------
Table ll-4a. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Gulfport,
Mississippi Site (GPMS)
Compound
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.62
-0.15
-0.45
0.22
-0.33
0.30
-0.27
0.18
Average
Temperature
-0.56
-0.19
-0.48
0.23
-0.38
0.28
-0.26
0.13
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.59
-0.24
-0.44
0.29
-0.36
0.30
-0.23
0.14
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.57
-0.23
-0.46
0.27
-0.37
0.29
-0.25
0.14
Relative
Humidity
-0.73
-0.29
0.11
0.36
-0.08
0.22
0.00
0.09
Sea Level
Pressure
0.25
0.20
0.29
-0.46
0.28
-0.10
0.06
0.04
u-component of
wind
0.62
0.27
-0.21
0.12
-0.07
-0.10
0.15
0.05
v-component of
wind
-0.70
-0.53
-0.09
0.10
-0.08
0.20
-0.19
0.01
to
-------
Table ll-4b. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Grenada,
Mississippi Site (GRMS)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
0.66
0.11
NA
-0.19
0.56
0.70
0.43
Average
Temperature
0.68
0.09
NA
-0.16
0.62
0.76
0.44
Dew Point
Temperature
0.61
0.13
NA
-0.19
0.60
0.70
0.41
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.64
0.12
NA
-0.18
0.61
0.73
0.42
Relative
Humidity
-0.28
0.28
NA
-0.19
0.16
-0.19
-0.04
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.15
-0.01
NA
-0.04
-0.53
-0.34
-0.56
u-component of
wind
-0.57
-0.40
NA
0.09
-0.21
-0.54
-0.13
v-component of
wind
0.14
0.23
NA
0.13
0.05
-0.13
-0.14
to
-------
Table ll-4c. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Jackson,
Mississippi Site (JAMS)
Compound
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
p-Dichlorobenzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.59
0.31
-0.03
NA
-0.50
0.20
0.22
0.13
-0.06
Average
Temperature
-0.56
0.32
-0.07
NA
-0.53
0.25
0.19
0.12
-0.06
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.50
0.34
-0.03
NA
-0.49
0.19
0.13
0.07
-0.07
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.54
0.33
-0.06
NA
-0.51
0.22
0.16
0.09
-0.07
Relative
Humidity
-0.07
0.27
0.12
NA
-0.14
-0.14
-0.16
-0.18
-0.04
Sea Level
Pressure
0.40
-0.10
0.00
NA
0.51
-0.13
-0.02
0.04
0.34
u-component of
wind
0.23
0.04
-0.01
NA
-0.03
-0.20
-0.19
-0.23
-0.03
v-component of
wind
-0.53
-0.29
0.35
NA
-0.26
0.04
-0.14
-0.18
-0.40
to
oo
-------
Table ll-4d. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Pascagoula,
Mississippi Site (PGMS)
Compound
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.69
-0.15
0.06
NA
-0.52
0.55
-0.25
-0.96
-0.37
Average
Temperature
-0.80
-0.23
0.07
NA
-0.64
0.49
-0.33
-0.96
-0.48
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.82
-0.22
0.07
NA
-0.61
0.44
-0.29
-0.97
-0.46
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.81
-0.23
0.07
NA
-0.63
0.46
-0.32
-0.96
-0.47
Relative
Humidity
-0.82
-0.13
0.04
NA
-0.36
0.14
-0.09
-0.86
-0.27
Sea Level
Pressure
0.81
0.07
-0.26
NA
0.62
-0.15
0.10
0.94
0.52
u-component of
wind
-0.09
-0.16
0.05
NA
0.12
-0.03
-0.16
0.22
0.05
v-component of
wind
-0.19
0.31
0.34
NA
-0.22
0.43
0.25
-0.88
-0.13
to
VO
-------
Table ll-4e. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Tupelo,
Mississippi Site (TUMS)
Compound
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethy lene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
NA
0.31
-0.54
NA
-0.08
0.07
0.53
0.59
0.24
NA
NA
-0.02
Average
Temperature
NA
0.27
-0.56
NA
-0.09
0.07
0.52
0.62
0.23
NA
NA
0.00
Dew Point
Temperature
NA
0.20
-0.55
NA
-0.12
0.05
0.44
0.62
0.23
NA
NA
-0.01
Wet Bulb
Temperature
NA
0.23
-0.56
NA
-0.11
0.07
0.49
0.62
0.23
NA
NA
-0.01
Relative
Humidity
NA
-0.19
-0.30
NA
-0.13
-0.02
-0.06
0.33
0.13
NA
NA
-0.04
Sea Level
Pressure
NA
0.14
0.44
NA
0.18
0.18
-0.16
-0.58
-0.01
NA
NA
0.05
u-component of
wind
NA
-0.48
-0.06
NA
-0.39
-0.18
-0.37
-0.26
0.19
NA
NA
0.04
v-component of
wind
NA
0.04
0.18
NA
0.12
-0.37
-0.06
0.34
0.15
NA
NA
-0.17
-------
Table 11-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
GPMS
GRMS
JAMS
PGMS
TUMS
Estimated
County
Population
190,936
22,915
249,579
133,259
77,220
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
155,303
15,714
176,453
112,820
65,844
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
0.82
0.69
0.71
0.85
0.85
Population
within Ten
Miles
172,557
19,933
264,058
58,083
69,738
Estimated 10-Mile
Car Registration
141,497
13,754
186,690
49,174
59,464
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
17,000
1,100
12,500
8,600
4,900
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
39.84 (±8.25)
64.98 (±19.46)
5 1.20 (±7. 14)
32.09 (±6.54)
49.06 (±17.69)
-------
12.0 Sites in Missouri
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the three
UATMP sites in Missouri (S4MO, SLMO, and BTMO). Two of these sites are located in the St.
Louis metropolitan statistical area (MSA), while the third (BTMO) is located to the south of the
city. Figures 12-1 through 12-3 are topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in their
urban locations. Figure 12-4 and 12-5 are maps identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites
that reported to the 1999 NEI. Many sources are located near the St. Louis sites, most of which
are fuel combustion, surface coating, and miscellaneous industries, while BTMO has very few
nearby sources. Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003 at a weather station
near these sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient
air concentration measurements. The weather station is Cahokia-St. Louis (WBAN 03960).
Table 12-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at each of these sites, along
with temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature,
average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and
v- components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. St. Louis has a climate that is continental in nature, with cold, rather
dry winters, warm, somewhat wetter summers, and a significant seasonal variability. Wind
speeds are generally light and wind flows from the southeast on average, as indicated in Table
12-1. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair,
1987).
12.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Missouri Sites
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at each site. Tables 12-2a-c summarize the cancer
weighting scores, and Tables 12-3a-c summarize the noncancer weighting scores. For a
compound to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95%
of the total site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered
prevalent for each site. It is important to note which types of compounds each site sampled in
12-1
-------
2003. The BTMO and SLMO sites sampled carbonyl compounds and SNMOC; the S4MO site
sampled all compound types except SVOC and hexavalent chromium.
As can be shown in Tables 12-2a through 12-2c, three of the four detected cancer
compounds at BTMO and SLMO are considered prevalent and reflect the nationwide cancer
prevalent list, as listed in Section 3 of this report, while the S4MO site has six additional
prevalent compounds: acrylonitrile, arsenic and compounds, cadmium and compounds, carbon
tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene. A similar pattern is exhibited for the
noncancer compounds summarized in Tables 12-3a-c. At BTMO and SLMO, only four
compounds were detected that were not on the nationwide list, while at S4MO, twenty-two
additional compounds were detected that are not included in the list of nationwide prevalent
compounds. Only formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and benzene are prevalent across
all three sites.
Toxic compounds not detected at the Missouri sites were: 1,2-dichloroethane; 1,3-
dichloropropene; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; vinyl chloride; bromoform; chloroprene; 1,1-
dichloroethene; methyl methacrylate; 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene; chloroethane.
12.2 Toxicity Analysis
Benzene, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene were the only prevalent cancer compounds at
both BTMO and SLMO, while six additional compounds were prevalent at S4MO. The number
of detects was relatively high at SLMO, and the four cancer compounds detected all had similar
numbers of detects. However, acetaldehyde contributed to over 40% of the average cancer
toxicity. With the exception of 1,3-butadiene, the compounds detected at BTMO also had a
relatively high number of detects. However, benzene contributed to over 42% of the average
cancer toxicity at BTMO. Benzene was detected in 122 samples at S4MO, the greatest of all the
Missouri UATMP sites. Despite this fact, benzene contributed to less than 10% of the average
cancer toxicity, while acrylonitrile, only detected three times, contributed to nearly 48% of the
average cancer toxicity at S4MO.
12-2
-------
Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and benzene were the only noncancer
compounds to be considered prevalent across all three sites, and were the top four by toxicity
weighting at two of the three sites. Six additional compounds were considered prevalent at
S4MO. Only two of the prevalent compounds were detected fewer than 30 times during
sampling at any of the Missouri sites, and only eight non-prevalent compounds were detected
fewer than 30 times at S4MO.
The acrylonitrile cancer risk at S4MO was the highest among the three sites at 44 in a
million, while at SLMO, the acetaldehyde cancer risk was 10.9 in a million. Cancer risk at
BTMO was not high. For the compounds which may lead to adverse noncancer health effects,
the average acetaldehyde toxicity at SLMO was 0.549 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a
noncancer health effect). Of the nineteen adverse health concentrations measured in the
Missouri sites, twelve were for formaldehyde.
12.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Missouri Sites
Carbonyl compounds and SNMOC were measured at all three Missouri sites, and VOC
and metals and compounds were measured at S4MO, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. The
average daily UATMP concentration for each site is listed in Table 12-1. Table 12-1 also lists
the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2003 to December 2003.
SNMOC/NMOC compounds are of particular interest because of their role in ozone
formation. Readers are encouraged to review EPA's 2001 Nonmethane Organic Compounds
(NMOC) and Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compounds (SNMOC) Monitoring Program, Final
Report (EPA, 2002) for more information on SNMOC/NMOC trends and concentrations. The
average total NMOC value for SLMO was 232.88 (± 25.80) ppbC, of which nearly 53% could be
identified through speciation. Of the speciated compounds, toluene measured the highest
concentration at the SLMO site (16.44 ppbC). The average total NMOC value for S4MO was
245.05 (± 189.39) ppbC, of which nearly 60% could be identified through speciation. Of the
speciated compounds, toluene measured the highest concentration at the S4MO site (20.31
ppbC). The average total NMOC value for BTMO was 136.15 (± 41.24) ppbC, of which nearly
12-3
-------
50% could be identified through speciation. Of the speciated compounds at BTMO, toluene
measured the highest concentration (56.93 ppbC). This information is given in Table 12-5.
Tables 12-4a-c are the summaries of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for each
of the prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters by site. Identification of the
prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. At BTMO, acetaldehyde had
moderately strong positive correlations with temperature (maximum and average) and moisture
(dewpoint and wet bulb temperature) variables, formaldehyde had very strong positive
correlations with these variables, and benzene had strong negative correlations with these
variables. Correlations with 1,3-butadiene could not be computed due to the low number of
detects. At S4MO, several compounds had strong correlations, although some correlated
negatively while others correlated positively. Both/?-dichlorobenzene and tetrachloroethylene
strongly or moderately strongly correlated with all of the meteorological parameters. As
indicated in Table 12-3c, nearly all of the correlations at SLMO were weak or were on the
weaker end of being moderately strong.
12.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration was not available for either St. Francois or St. Louis
Counties. Thus, state-level car registration from the Energy Information Administration (EIA)
was allocated to the county-level using the county-level population proportion. County-level
population information in these counties was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, and is
summarized in Table 12-5. Also included in Table 12-5 is the population within 10 miles of
each site and the average daily traffic information, which represents the average number of cars
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Using these
parameters, a county-specific car registration ratio was computed. An estimation of 10 mile car
registration was computed using the 10 mile populations surrounding the monitors and the car
registration ratio. This information is compared to the average daily concentration of the
prevalent compounds at the sites listed in the Table 12-5. The St. Louis sites had higher traffic
volume and vehicle ownership that BTMO, and S4MO had the highest traffic volume and
vehicle ownership.
12-4
-------
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.). Figure 3-1 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. BTMO and SLMO did not measure VOCs and are therefore not
represented in Figure 3-1. S4MO's concentration ratios resemble those of the roadside study,
although all of its ratios are somewhat lower than those of the roadside study.
12.5 RFC Analysis
The St. Louis, MO-IL MSA voluntarily participates in the federal reformulated fuel
program (EPA, 1999c). Throughout the year, the oxygen content in gasoline must be at least 2%
by weight, boosting the octane quality, increasing combustion, and reducing exhaust emissions.
Additionally, the benzene content must not be greater than 1% by volume (EPA, 1994). The
oxygenates used as RFG additives in the St. Louis MSA are MTBE, ethanol, and TAME (EPA,
2003b).
A survey at 3 service stations during the summer of 2002 in St. Louis, MO showed the
oxygen content of fuels at 3.05% by weight and the benzene content at 0.468% by volume.
MTBE and ethanol averaged 0.22% and 8.65% by weight, respectively, from the summer survey
(EPA, 2003b). A survey at 2 service stations during the winter of 2002 in St. Louis, MO,
showed the oxygen content at 2.84% by weight and the benzene content at 0.576% by volume.
Ethanol, MTBE, and TAME averaged 6.54%, 2.91%, and 0.28% by weight, respectively, from
the winter survey (EPA, 2003b). Figure 12-6 is the VOC profile at the S4MO site. SLMO did
not sample for VOCs; thus, an RFG analysis was not performed for this site.
The total VOC concentrations at S4MO varied year-round, with the two highest
concentrations occurring on April 27 and October 18, 2003. On April 27, the stationary source
HAP and BTEX concentrations were higher than other sampling days; on October 18, the mobile
source HAP contributions (BTEX and non-BTEX) were much higher than other sampling days.
With the exception of a sampling day on May 9, 2003, the non-HAP VOC concentrations were
12-5
-------
typically low or nonexistent. The sampling at S4MO ran from January 3 - December 29. Total
VOC concentrations appear to be lower in the winter months compared to the summer months.
The S4MO BTEX concentration was compared to the GPMS BTEX concentration. GPMS is
located in a non-RFG requirement area, but the two sites have similar traffic volumes (S4MO =
22,840; GPMS = 17,000). The BTEX concentrations at S4MO are higher than GPMS (18.96
3 vs. 12.01 //g/m3, respectively), suggesting that the RFG requirements may not be effective.
12.6 NATTS Site Analysis
One of the St. Louis sites, SLMO, is an EPA-designated NATTS site. A description of
the NATTS program is given in Section 3.6. For SLMO, each of the following analyses was
conducted: a back trajectory analysis, a regulation analysis, and an emission tracer analysis.
Details on each type of analysis are also provided in Section 3.6.
12.6.1 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 12-7 is the composite back trajectory map for the SLMO site. Each line
represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring
location on a sampling day. As shown in Figure 12-7, the back trajectories originated from an
array of different directions. The 24-hour airshed domain is large, as the furthest away a back
trajectory originated was southeast Saskatchewan, Canada. As each circle around the site
represents 100 miles, 52% of the trajectories originated within 300 miles, and 66% within 400
miles from the SLMO site.
12.6.2 Regulation Analysis
Table 3-10 summarizes the number of facilities that account for approximately 90% of
the total UATMP pollutant emissions in the 10-mile area around the monitoring station. Sixteen
of the 38 facilities listed near SLMO in Table 3-11 are potentially subject to future regulations.
Table 12-7 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable. Based on this analysis, the
regulations shown are expected to achieve reductions in ambient concentrations of the following
UATMP pollutants: acetaldehyde, benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, lead and compounds,
manganese and compounds, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, methylene chloride,
12-6
-------
and toluene. Reductions are projected for acetaldehyde (0.6%), benzene (4%), ethylbenzene
(11%), formaldehyde (9%), lead and compounds (10%), manganese and compounds (13%),
methyl ethyl ketone (27%), methyl isobutyl ketone (31%), methylene chloride (23%), and
toluene (32%) as the regulations are implemented (the latest compliance date is 2007). The
emission reductions are primarily attributed to regulation of surface coating operations, organic
chemical production, integrated iron and steel manufacturing, flexible polyurethane foam
manufacturing, and reciprocating internal combustion engines.
12.6.3 Emission Tracer Analysis
The highest concentrations of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde occurred on April 9, 2003.
Figures 12-8 and 12-9 are the pollution roses for all acetaldehyde and formaldehyde samples at
SLMO. The highest exceedance values point to possible acetaldehyde and formaldehyde
emission sources north of the monitor. Figures 12-10 and 12-11 are maps of acetaldehyde and
formaldehyde stationary emission sources north of the SLMO monitor. According to the 1999
NEI, acetaldehyde sources north of the SLMO monitor include: Lewis & Clark Sawmill,
ConAgra, Inc., and Lewis & Clark Community College. Formaldehyde sources include the
above three, as well as P.D. George Company, Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Elias-Smith
Funeral Home and Godfrey Crematory, and the City of Alton Department of Public Works.
Figure 12-12 is the back trajectory map for this date, which shows the air originating north of the
monitor. An analysis of the hourly meteorological data show that winds were primarily out of
the north for most of the day, as well. It is likely that air sampled at SLMO on this date passed
over the above listed facilities earlier in the day.
12-7
-------
Figure 12-1. Bonne Terre, Missouri (BTMO) Monitoring Station
X J 0/>- ^Ki^^K
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
12-8
-------
Figure 12-2. St. Louis, Missouri Site 1 (S4MO) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
12-9
-------
Figure 12-3. St. Louis, Missouri Site 2 (SLMO) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
12-10
-------
Figure 12-4. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BTMO
Note: Due to facility density and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Eg] BTMOUATMPsite
O 10 mile radius
| | County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
* Automotive Repair, Services, & Parking (1)
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (2)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
12-11
-------
Figure 12-5. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of S4MO and SLMO
90"15'Q'W 90"1Q'Q'W QOWW 9QWW
Note: Due to facility density and allocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
g| S4MO UATMP site
SLMO UATMP site
10 mile radius
ICounty boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
* Agricultural Services Facility (1)
Apparel & Other Textile Products Facility (1)
¥ Automotive Repair, Services, & Parking (1)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (18)
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (8)
z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (5)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (13)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (6)
7 Food & Agriculture Processes Industrial Facility (1)
Q Food & Kindred Products Facility (2)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (69)
H Furniture & Fixtures Facility (2)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (2)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (6)
<= Instruments & Related Products Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (10)
D Medical, Dental, & Hospital Equipment and Supplies
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (3)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (46)
* Miscellaneous Retail Stores (1)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
N Nonclassifiable Establishments (5)
2 Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels (1)
1 Petroleum & Coal Products (2)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (4)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (1)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (5)
R Printing & Publishing Facility (8)
# Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (2)
i Railroad Transportation (2)
n Special Trade Contractors Facility (1)
u Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (6)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (35)
? Unknown (1)
8 Utility Boilers (1)
(1) a Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (4)
$ Who le sale Trade- Durable Goods (1)
e Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods (1)
12-12
-------
Figure 12-6. 2003 Total VOC Profile at S4MO
to
CN
CN
-------
Figure 12-7. Composite Back Trajectory for SLMO
to
\ \,
02550 100 150 200
Miles S
W-Jf~
-------
Figure 12-8. Acetaldehyde Pollution Rose for SLMO
o
•*=
s
<§
o
Q.
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
o
2
4
6
8
in
12
14
16
18
* N
NW
-
,-•"""" *
,<•"'
/ *
* « '
W f * •*
'•', * * *
V . ' **
\,. ^ .
*^.
»-_„_
•
Dashed circle represents
noncancer benchmark value
SW
S^
NE
Avg Cone = 4.94 ± 0.71 |jg/m3
""X
* %/ * \
i E
* ' ; '
• * • :
."
** ^
+ • * •
.t-'
^*
— B *——
SE
18
16
14
12
10
420246
Pollutant Concentration
10 12
14 16 18
12-15
-------
Figure 12-9. Formaldehyde Pollution Rose for SLMO
32
28
24
20
16
12
£ 8
c 4
0)
u
c 0
-------
Figure 12-10. Acetaldehyde Sources North of the SLMO Monitoring Site
39.4
39.2
39
38.8
o>
i 38.6
+->
re
_i
38.4
38.2
38
37.8
-91
Lewis & Clark
Sawmill
SLMO Monitoring
Site
Lewis & Clark Community
College
ConAgra, Inc.
-90.8
-90.6
-90.4 -90.2 -90
Longitude
-89.8
-89.6
-89.4
-------
Figure 12-11. Formaldehyde Sources North of the SLMO Monitoring Site
39.4
39.2
39
38.8
o>
•a
i 38.6
+J
re
_i
38.4
38.2
38
37.8
Elias-Smith Funeral
Home and Godfrey
Crematory
-91
Lewis & Clark
Sawmill
SLMO Monitoring
Site
Lewis & Clark Community
College
City of Alton Department of
Public Works
Owens-Brockway Glass
Container
ConAgra, Inc.
-90.8 -90.6
-90.4 -90.2
Longitude
-90
-89.8 -89.6
-89.4
-------
Figure 12-12. 24- Hour Back Trajectory (50, 250, and 500 Meters Aboveground)
at SLMO on April 9, 2003
12-19
-------
Table 12-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Missouri
Site
Name
MO-
BTMO
MO-
S4MO
MO-
SLMO
Type
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
Gug/m3)
\X\\^
xxxV^
42.1
(±4.14)
V "V "V "V >
VXX\ >
122.21
(±14.18)
\"\"\"\^
Vxxx^
81.84
(±8.12)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
65.58
(±2.04)
65.91
(±5.53)
65.58
(±2.04)
66.36
(±4.99)
65.58
(±2.04)
65.75
(±5.32)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
55.6
(±1.86)
55.73
(±5.08)
55.6
(±1.86)
56.12
(±4.59)
55.6
(±1.86)
55.38
(±4.91)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
46.43
(±1.91)
45.98
(±5.25)
46.43
(±1.91)
46.54
(±4.76)
46.43
(±1.91)
45.64
(±5.07)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
50.89
(±1.74)
50.76
(±4.73)
50.89
(±1.74)
51.2
(±4.29)
50.89
(±1.74)
50.43
(±4.58)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
74.28
(±1.24)
72.83
(±3.45)
74.28
(±1.24)
73.21
(±3.13)
74.28
(±1.24)
72.8
(±3.32)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1017.03
(±0.67)
1016.95
(±1.49)
1017.03
(±0.67)
1016.75
(±1.45)
1017.03
(±0.67)
1016.59
(±1.45)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.59
(±0.4)
0.54
(±1.04)
0.59
(±0.4)
0.46
(±0.97)
0.59
(±0.4)
0.53
(±1.04)
Average \-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.15
(±0.45)
0.95
(±1.19)
-0.15
(±0.45)
0.68
(±1.15)
-0.15
(±0.45)
0.82
(±1.21)
to
o
-------
Table 12-2a. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Bonne Terre, Missouri
Monitoring Site - BTMO
Compound
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
5.41E-06
4.27E-06
3.08E-06
2.36E-08
%
Contribution
42.30
33.42
24.09
0.19
Cumulative
%
Contribution
42.30
75.72
99.81
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
0.693
1.942
0.103
4.300
#
Detects
53
54
2
54
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
5.41
4.27
3.08
<1
12-21
-------
Table 12-2b. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the St. Louis Site 4, Missouri
Monitoring Site - S4MO
Compound
Acrylonitrile
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Benzene
Arsenic and Compounds
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Cadmium and Compounds
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Beryllium and Compounds
Average
Toxicity
4.40E-05
1.57E-05
1.16E-05
1.09E-05
7.96E-06
7.88E-06
6.66E-06
5.40E-06
4.06E-06
2.22E-06
3.01E-07
2.78E-08
2.65E-08
%
Contribution
37.72
13.44
9.90
9.33
6.82
6.76
5.71
4.63
3.48
1.90
0.26
0.02
0.02
Cumulative
%
Contribution
37.72
51.16
61.06
70.39
77.21
83.97
89.68
94.31
97.79
99.70
99.95
99.98
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
0.647
1.425
1.481
0.003
0.530
3.582
0.222
2.701
0.688
0.001
0.641
5.052
0.000
#
Detects
3
6
122
30
56
61
76
5
7
30
41
61
30
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
44.0
15.7
11.6
10.9
7.96
7.88
6.66
5.40
4.06
2.22
<1
<1
<1
12-22
-------
Table 12-2c. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the St. Louis Site 1, Missouri
Monitoring Site - SLMO
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
1.09E-05
1.07E-05
5.29E-06
2.67E-08
%
Contribution
40.50
39.70
19.70
0.10
Cumulative
%
Contribution
40.50
80.20
99.90
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
4.944
1.367
0.176
4.861
#
Detects
55
54
53
55
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
10.9
10.7
5.29
<1
12-23
-------
Table 12-3a. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Bonne Terre, Missouri
Monitoring Site - BTMO
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Toluene
Hexane
Styrene
Ethylbenzene
Average
Toxicity
4.39E-01
2.16E-01
5.13E-02
2.31E-02
8.24E-03
4.13E-03
2.79E-03
3.09E-04
2.63E-04
%
Contribution
58.92
28.97
6.89
3.10
1.11
0.56
0.37
0.04
0.04
Cumulative
%
Contribution
58.92
87.89
94.78
97.89
98.99
99.55
99.92
99.96
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
4.300
1.942
0.103
0.693
0.824
1.653
0.558
0.309
0.263
#
Detects
54
54
2
53
53
53
53
43
53
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12-24
-------
Table 12-3b. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the St. Louis Site 4,
Missouri Monitoring Site - S4MO
Compound
Formaldehyde
Manganese and
Compounds
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Acetonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Arsenic and Compounds
Cadmium and
Compounds
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Lead and Compounds
Toluene
Nickel Compounds
Hexane
Trichloroethylene
Chloroform
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Tetrachloroethy lene
Cobalt and Compounds
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
Beryllium and
Compounds
Styrene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Mercury and Compounds
Selenium and Compounds
Average
Toxicity
5.16E-01
3.99E-01
3.98E-01
3.24E-01
1.78E-01
1.11E-01
8.44E-02
6.17E-02
4.94E-02
3.52E-02
1.35E-02
1.33E-02
9.42E-03
9.27E-03
8.58E-03
8.52E-03
4.50E-03
3.44E-03
2.62E-03
2.55E-03
2.12E-03
1.78E-03
1.04E-03
9.18E-04
8.14E-04
6.41E-04
5.58E-04
5.52E-04
3.58E-04
2.39E-04
1.51E-04
7.27E-05
%
Contribution
23.01
17.79
17.76
14.44
7.96
4.96
3.77
2.75
2.20
1.57
0.60
0.59
0.42
0.41
0.38
0.38
0.20
0.15
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
O.0001
Cumulative
%
Contribution
23.01
40.80
58.56
73.00
80.96
85.92
89.69
92.44
94.64
96.21
96.81
97.41
97.83
98.24
98.62
99.00
99.20
99.36
99.47
99.59
99.68
99.76
99.81
99.85
99.89
99.91
99.94
99.96
99.98
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
5.052
0.020
3.582
0.647
10.706
0.222
0.003
0.001
1.481
3.520
1.211
0.530
0.014
3.706
0.002
1.704
2.701
0.337
7.873
0.688
<0.0001
1.425
1.038
4.589
0.814
0.641
1.673
<0.0001
0.358
0.239
<0.0001
0.001
#
Detects
61
30
61
3
27
76
30
30
122
122
60
56
30
122
30
61
5
7
13
7
30
6
6
36
116
41
9
30
79
13
30
30
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
6
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12-25
-------
Table 12-3c. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the St. Louis Site 1,
Missouri Monitoring Site - SLMO
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Hexane
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Average
Toxicity
5.49E-01
4.96E-01
8.82E-02
4.56E-02
3.86E-02
8.03E-03
7.79E-03
6.87E-04
5.02E-04
%
Contribution
44.49
40.17
7.14
3.69
3.12
0.65
0.63
0.06
0.04
Cumulative
%
Contribution
44.49
84.67
91.81
95.50
98.62
99.27
99.90
99.96
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
4.944
4.861
0.176
1.367
3.858
1.605
3.116
0.687
0.502
#
Detects
55
55
53
54
54
54
54
54
52
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12-26
-------
Table 12-4a. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Bonne Terre,
Missouri Site (BTMO)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Maximum
Temperature
NA
0.44
-0.55
0.82
Average
Temperature
NA
0.44
-0.58
0.81
Dew Point
Temperature
NA
0.41
-0.57
0.72
Wet Bulb
Temperature
NA
0.43
-0.58
0.77
Relative
Humidity
NA
0.01
-0.15
-0.13
Sea Level
Pressure
NA
-0.20
-0.03
-0.30
u-component
of wind
NA
-0.35
-0.18
-0.29
v-component
of wind
NA
0.20
0.12
0.42
to
to
-------
Table 12-4b. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the St. Louis
Site 4, Missouri Site (S4MO)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic and Compounds
Benzene
Cadmium and Compounds
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese and
Compounds
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes (p-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
0.05
0.37
-0.10
NA
0.31
-0.14
0.55
0.09
0.76
0.09
-0.56
-0.78
0.28
0.07
Average
Temperature
-0.05
0.28
-0.09
NA
0.27
-0.20
0.54
0.07
0.74
0.10
-0.67
-0.67
0.28
-0.01
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.02
0.23
-0.19
NA
0.25
-0.14
0.51
0.08
0.67
0.07
-0.65
-0.53
0.23
0.03
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.04
0.25
-0.15
NA
0.26
-0.18
0.54
0.08
0.70
0.08
-0.67
-0.60
0.25
0.01
Relative
Humidity
0.15
-0.10
-0.27
NA
-0.03
0.24
-0.08
0.02
-0.02
-0.16
0.68
0.64
-0.45
0.24
Sea Level
Pressure
0.16
-0.05
-0.03
NA
-0.02
0.05
-0.13
-0.05
-0.23
0.11
0.65
0.71
0.45
0.13
u-component
of wind
0.04
-0.17
0.08
NA
-0.32
-0.28
-0.54
-0.21
-0.16
-0.13
0.35
0.41
-0.21
-0.09
v-component
of wind
-0.04
0.19
-0.15
NA
0.10
0.01
0.25
-0.09
0.34
-0.09
-0.40
-0.75
0.74
-0.06
to
to
oo
-------
Table 12-4c - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the St. Louis
Site 1, Missouri Site (SLMO)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Maximum
Temperature
0.07
0.36
-0.05
0.28
Average
Temperature
-0.01
0.32
-0.13
0.28
Dew Point
Temperature
0.02
0.34
-0.09
0.25
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.00
0.33
-0.11
0.26
Relative
Humidity
0.18
0.21
0.13
-0.05
Sea Level
Pressure
0.04
0.00
0.16
0.00
u-component
of wind speed
-0.01
-0.13
-0.18
-0.12
v-component
of wind speed
0.10
-0.11
0.07
-0.12
to
VO
-------
Table 12-5. Metals and Compounds, and SNMOC Measured by the
Missouri Monitoring Stations
Site
BTMO
S4MO
SLMO
Average
Metals
Concentration
(ng/m3)
NA
41.26
NA
TNMOC
Speciated
(ppbC)
57.98
126.43
120.87
TNMOC with
Unknowns
(ppbC)
136.15
245.05
232.88
%of
TNMOC
Identified
50%
60%
53%
SNMOC
Compound with
the Highest
Concentration
(ppbC)
Toluene 56.93
Toluene 20. 31
Toluene 16.44
12-30
-------
Table 12-6. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Missouri Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
BTMO
S4MO
SLMO
Estimated
County
Population
56,775
338,353
338,353
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
41,871
252,556
252,556
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
0.74
0.75
0.75
Population
within Ten
Miles
33,587
824,653
754,882
Estimated 10-Mile
Car Registration
24,354
618,490
566,162
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
4,360
22,840
15,016
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
42. 10 (±4. 14)
122.21 (±14.18)
81.84 (±8.12)
-------
Table 12-7. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding SLMO
Facility Name
Borden Decorative
Products
Chrysler Assembly
South Plant
Decorative Services
Intl
Ethyl Petroleum
Additives, Inc.
Granite City Steel
KV Pharmaceutical
Company
King Adhesives
Mallinckrodt
Specialty Chemicals
Co.
Metro East
Industries, Inc.
Primary SIC
Code
2754
—
2754
2869
3312
2834
2891
2833
2834
3743
SIC Code Description
Commercial Printing, Gravure
NESHAP application based on
MACT Code from NEI
Commercial Printing, Gravure
Industrial Organic Chemicals, NEC
Steel works, Blast Furnaces
(Including Coke Ovens), and
Rolling Mills
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Adhesives and Sealants
Medicinal Chemicals and Botanical
Products
Pharmaceutical Products
Railroad Equipment
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
JJJJ
40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMM
40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJJJ
40 CFR part 63, subpart
FFFF
40 CFR part 63, subpart
FFFFF
40 CFR part 63, subpart
GGG
40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHHH
40 CFR part 63, subpart
GGG
40 CFR part 63, subpart
GGG
40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMM
Regulation Name
Paper and Other Web (Surface
Coating) NESHAP
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products (Surface Coating)
NESHAP
Paper and Other Web (Surface
Coating) NESHAP
Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Production and
Processes (MON) NESHAP
Integrated Iron and Steel
NESHAP
Pharmaceuticals Production
NESHAP
Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing NESHAP
Pharmaceuticals Production
NESHAP
Pharmaceuticals Production
NESHAP
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products (Surface Coating)
NESHAP
-------
Table 12-7. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding SLMO (Continued)
Facility Name
National Steel
Corp ./Granite City
Div.
P.D. George Co.
Pro-Tech MFG., Inc.
Silgan Containers,
Inc.
Solutia Inc.,- W. G.
Krummrich Plant
White Rodgers Div.
Primary SIC
Code
3312
2851
3086
3411
2819
2865
3822
SIC Code Description
Steel works, Blast Furnaces
(Including Coke Ovens), and
Rolling Mills
Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers,
Enamels, and Allied Products
Plastic Foam Products
Metal Cans
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals,
NEC
Cyclic Organic Crudes and
Intermediates, and Organic Dyes and
Pigments
Automatic Controls for Regulating
Residential and Commercial
Environments and Appliances
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
FFFFF
40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHHH
40 CFR part 63, subpart
III
40 CFR part 63, subpart
KKKK
40 CFR part 63, subpart
FFFF
40 CFR part 63, subpart
GGG
40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMM
Regulation Name
Integrated Iron and Steel
NESHAP
Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing NESHAP
Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Production NESHAP
Metal Can (Surface Coating)
NESHAP
Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Production and
Processes (MON) NESHAP
Pharmaceuticals Production
NESHAP
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products (Surface Coating)
NESHAP
-------
13.0 Site in Nebraska
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Nebraska (LONE). This site is located in Lincoln, situated in southeastern Nebraska.
Figure 13-1 is a topographical map showing the monitoring station in its urban location.
Figure 13-2 is a map identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites that reported to the 1999
NEI. The map shows that most of the industrial facilities are to the east and northeast of this
site. Fuel combustion and miscellaneous industrial sites make up the majority of the nearby
sources. Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003 at the Lincoln Municipal
Airport weather station (WBAN 14939) with the purpose of calculating correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements.
Table 13-1 highlights the UATMP average concentration at each site, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. The Lincoln area has a continental climate, with cold winters and
warm summers. Lincoln is affected by most storm systems that track across the country,
allowing day to day weather fluctuations. Precipitation varies throughout the year, but is
typically concentrated in the springtime. On average, wind blows from a southerly direction, as
indicated in Table 13-1. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition
(Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
13.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Nebraska Site
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at each site. Table 13-2 summarizes the cancer
weighting scores, and Table 13-3 summarizes the noncancer weighting scores. For a compound
to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95% of the total
site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered prevalent for
each site.
13-1
-------
Table 13-2 shows that most of the cancer compounds reflect the nationwide prevalent
cancer compound list, as listed in Section 3 of this report. Only methylene chloride and
formaldehyde were not listed among the nationwide prevalent cancer compounds. For the
noncancer compounds summarized in Table 13-3, carbon tetrachloride, chloromethane,
methylene chloride, toluene, chloroform, methyl ethyl ketone, ethylbenzene, styrene, and 1,1,1-
trichloroethane were not listed among the nationwide noncancer prevalent list. The prevalent
compounds at LONE are also nationwide cancer and noncancer prevalent compounds.
Toxic compounds not detected at the Nebraska sites were: tetrachloroethylene; p-
dichlorobenzene; 1,2-dichloroethylene; trichloroethylene; 1,3-dichloropropene; 1,1,2-
trichloroethylene; vinyl chloride; bromoform; chloroprene; 1,1-dichloroethene; methyl
methacrylate; 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene; methyl tert-buty\ ether; chlorobenzene; methl isobutyl
ketone; chloroethane.
13.2 Toxicity Analysis
Although acrylonitrile's toxicity is the highest of the cancer compounds, it had only one
detect. Of the prevalent cancer compounds, benzene and acetaldehyde detections were the
highest (17). Formaldehyde accounts for over 25% of LONE's total noncancer toxicity.
The acrylonitrile cancer risk was the highest among the toxic compounds at 57.6 in a
million. For the compounds which may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the average
acrylonitrile toxicity was the highest at 0.423 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a
noncancer health effect). The lone compound to measure an adverse health concentration was
formaldehyde (one time).
13.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Nebraska Site
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were measured at this site, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and
3-4. Table 13-1 lists the average UATMP concentration at LONE and the averages for selected
meteorological parameters from January 2003 to December 2003.
13-2
-------
Table 13-4 presents the summary of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for each
of the prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters. Identification of the
prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. Acetonitrile had moderately strong
to strong correlations with all the weather parameters except relative humidity and the u-
component of the wind. A moderately strong positive correlation between benzene and relative
humidity was computed, as was a moderately strong negative correlation between formaldehyde
and relative humidity. The remainder of the correlations tended to be weak. Correlations for
1,3-butadiene, acrylonitrile, and bromomethane could not be computed due to the low number of
detects (fewer than 3).
13.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration and population in Lancaster County were obtained from the
Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in
Table 13-5. Also included in Table 13-5 is the population within 10 miles of each site and the
average daily traffic information, which represents the average number of cars passing the
monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Using these parameters, a
car registration ratio was computed. An estimation of 10-mile car registration was computed
using the 10-mile populations surrounding the monitors and the car registration ratio. This
information is compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at the
Lincoln site in Table 13-5.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area. (For more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.) Figure 3-1 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. The toluene-ethylbenzene concentrations ratio at LONE
resembles that of the roadside study. However, the benzene-ethylbenzene and xylenes-
ethylbenzene ratios do not. For the roadside study, the xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio is greater than
the benzene-ethylbenzene ratio. At LONE, the reverse is true: the benzene-ethylbenzene ratio is
larger than the xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio.
13-3
-------
Figure 13-1. Lincoln, Nebraska (LONE) Monitoring Station
; <"-•
•
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
13-4
-------
Figure 13-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of LONE
Legend
@> LONE UATMP site
Q 10 mile radius
| | County Boundary
Source Category (No. of Facilities)
z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2)
7 Food ^Agriculture Processes Industrial Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (27)
t Heavy Construction Contractors Facility (1)
Note: D ue to facility de reify and colocaton, the total facilities
displayed may not represent allfacilrties within the area of interest.
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (2)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (19)
N Nonclassifiable Establishments (1)
0 Personal Services (3)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (2)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (B)
T Transportation Equipment (4)
•£ Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
13-5
-------
Table 13-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Nebraska
Site
Name
LONE
Type
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(A*g/m3)
\s\s\OSs
vXX^S
35.13
(±5.97)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
62.79
(±2.31)
47.65
(±8.73)
Average
Temperature
51.35
(±2.12)
36.09
(±7.69)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
39.36
(±1.93)
24.72
(±6.91)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
45.31
(±1.85)
31.54
(±6.72)
Average
Relative
Humidity
67.44
(±1.19)
66.52
(±5.18)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1016.43
(±0.77)
1015.55
(±4.56)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.03
(±0.38)
-0.01
(±1.78)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.45
(±0.73)
-0.09
(±4.24)
-------
Table 13-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Lincoln, Nebraska
Monitoring Site - LONE
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
5.76E-05
1.03E-05
7.08E-06
5.97E-06
4.33E-06
1.40E-07
1.98E-08
%
Contribution
67.36
12.10
8.28
6.99
5.07
0.16
0.02
Cumulative
%
Contribution
67.36
79.46
87.75
94.74
99.81
99.98
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
0.846
1.326
0.472
0.199
1.970
0.297
3.608
#
Detects
1
17
15
2
17
8
17
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 million)
57.6
10.3
7.08
5.97
4.33
<1
<1
13-7
-------
Table 13-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Lincoln, Nebraska
Monitoring Site - LONE
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
Xylenes (o-, p-, m-)
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
Chloroform
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Styrene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Average
Toxicity
4.23E-01
3.68E-01
2.19E-01
2.14E-01
9.96E-02
4.42E-02
2.33E-02
2.08E-02
1.39E-02
1.18E-02
4.77E-03
l.OOE-03
7.72E-04
3.71E-04
2.97E-04
1.70E-04
1.64E-04
%
Contribution
29.27
25.47
15.14
14.82
6.89
3.06
1.61
1.44
0.96
0.82
0.33
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
29.27
54.74
69.88
84.70
91.59
94.65
96.26
97.70
98.66
99.48
99.81
99.88
99.93
99.96
99.98
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
0.846
3.608
1.970
12.852
0.199
1.326
0.116
2.081
1.255
0.472
1.906
0.098
3.858
0.371
0.297
0.170
0.164
#
Detects
1
17
17
12
2
17
1
15
17
15
17
1
5
11
8
1
2
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13-8
-------
Table 13-4. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Lincoln,
Nebraska Site (LONE)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane
(Methvl Bromide*)
Maximum
Temperature
NA
0.23
0.59
NA
-0.07
-0.12
-0.02
NA
Average
Temperature
NA
0.19
0.64
NA
-0.20
-0.10
-0.07
NA
Dew Point
Temperature
NA
0.16
0.63
NA
-0.09
-0.07
-0.18
NA
Wet Bulb
Temperature
NA
0.17
0.64
NA
-0.16
-0.09
-0.10
NA
Relative
Humidity
NA
-0.12
-0.22
NA
0.49
0.16
-0.41
NA
Sea Level
Pressure
NA
-0.25
-0.55
NA
-0.12
0.14
0.15
NA
u-component
of wind
NA
-0.29
-0.02
NA
-0.14
0.30
-0.07
NA
v-component
of wind
NA
0.20
0.47
NA
-0.06
-0.05
0.20
NA
-------
Table 13-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Nebraska Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
LONE
Estimated
County
Population
257,513
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
197,341
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
0.77
Population
within Ten
Miles
239,504
Estimated 10-Mile
Car Registration
184,418
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
6,200
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oug/m3)
35.13 (±5.97)
-------
14.0 Sites in New Jersey
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the four
UATMP sites in New Jersey (CANJ, CHNJ, ELNJ, and NBNJ). The four sites are located in
different cities (Camden, Chester, Elizabeth, and New Brunswick, respectively). Figures 14-1
through 14-4 are topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in their urban locations.
Figures 14-5 through 14-7 are maps identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites that
reported to the 1999 NEI. CANJ is located on the southeast side of the state, near the PA/NJ
border and east of Philadelphia. A number of sources are located mainly to its north and west,
most of which are involved in fuel combustion. CFINJ is located in the north-central part of New
Jersey and has only twelve industrial sites nearby, most of which lie just within the ten mile
radius from the site and are also involved in fuel combustion. ELNJ and NBNJ are somewhat
closer to each other, with the outer portions of their ten mile radii intersecting. These two sites
are near the New Jersey/New York border, just west of Staten Island, and have a number of
sources in the vicinity, most of which are fuel combustion facilities, miscellaneous industries,
and chemicals and allied product facilities.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003 at three weather stations near
these sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The weather stations are Philadelphia, Newark International
Airport, and Somerville-Somerset, NJ (WBAN 94732, 14734 and 54785, respectively).
Table 14-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at each of these sites, along
with temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature,
average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and
v- components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. New Jersey is located in a region where most storm systems track
across, allowing its weather to be somewhat variable. However, its proximity to the Atlantic
Ocean has a moderating effect. Hence, summers along the coast tend to be cooler than areas
farther inland, while winters tend to be warmer. The location of New Jersey also tends to allow
14-1
-------
for ample annual precipitation and often high humidity. Annual average wind speed and
direction tend to vary among the sites, as indicated in Table 14-1. A southwesterly wind is most
common in the summer and a northwesterly wind is typical in the winter. This information can
be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
14.1 Prevalent Compounds at the New Jersey Sites
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at each site. Tables 14-2a-d summarize the cancer
weighting scores and Tables 14-3a-d summarizes the noncancer weighting scores. For a
compound to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95%
of the total site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered
prevalent for each site.
Tables 14-2a-d show that most of the prevalent cancer compounds reflect the nationwide
prevalent cancer compounds, as listed in Section 3 of this report. Only vinyl chloride (detected at
CANJ and ELNJ), trichloroethylene (detected at all four sites), methylene chloride (detected at
all four sites), and formaldehyde (detected at all four sites) are listed in Tables 14-2a-d and are
not listed among the nationwide prevalent compounds. For the noncancer compounds
summarized in Tables 14-3a-d, many of the detected compounds are not listed on the nationwide
prevalent noncancer compound list. However, only one site had a prevalent compound
(chloromethane) not on the nationwide list.
Toxic compounds not detected at the New Jersey sites were: 1,2-dichloroethane; 1,3-
dichloropropene; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; bromoform; 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene; chlorobenzene and
chloroethane.
14.2 Toxicity Analysis
Acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, tetrachloroethylene, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-
butadiene were the only prevalent cancer compounds common to all four sites. Acrylonitrile
14-2
-------
contributed most to the total cancer toxicity at three of the four sites, although it consistently had
the lowest number of detects. Benzene and acetaldehyde had the highest number of detects of
the prevalent cancer compounds at all four sites. At all of the sites except CANJ, formaldehyde
and acetaldehyde together contributed to over 57% of the total noncancer toxicity.
The tetrachloroethylene cancer risk at ELNJ was the highest among the four sites at 33.3
in a million, while the acrylonitrile cancer risk at CANJ, CHNJ, and NBNJ was 28.3, 27.3, and
23.7 in a million, respectively. For the compounds which may lead to adverse noncancer health
effects, the average bromomethane toxicity at CANJ was 0.780 (over 1 indicates a significant
chance of a noncancer health effect). Of the fifty-one acetaldehyde detects at ELNJ, six
concentrations were of adverse health concentrations.
14.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the New Jersey Sites
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were measured at all four of the sites, as indicated in
Tables 3-3 and 3-4. The average total UATMP daily concentration at ELNJ was nearly double
the average concentration of the other sites, as indicated in Table 14-1. Table 14-1 also lists the
averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2003 to December 2003.
Tables 14-4a-d present the summary of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for
each of the prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters by site. Identification
of the prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. The strongest correlations at
CANJ were computed between acrylonitrile and all but two of the meteorological parameters
(relative humidity and the v-component of the wind). All of these correlations were negative and
strong or very strong (ranging from -0.57 to -0.83). 1,3-Butadiene and tetrachloroethylene
exhibited similar correlations with the temperature and moisture variables, although not as
strong. Acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, and formaldehyde had moderately strong or strong
positive correlations with these same parameters.
14-3
-------
At CHNJ, very strong negative correlations were computed between acrylonitrile and
average, dewpoint, and wet bulb temperatures (ranging from -0.92-0.98). Very strong positive
correlations were exhibited between 1,3-butadiene and maximum temperature, average
temperature, and wet bulb temperature; and a very strong negative correlation was calculated
between this compound and sea level pressure. However, it is important to note that fewer than
eight concentrations were detected for both of these compounds. Benzene, formaldehyde,
chloromethane, and tetrachloroethylene all have moderately strong to strong positive or negative
correlations with maximum, average, dewpoint, and wet bulb temperatures.
At ELNJ, acrylonitrile had the strongest correlations with the meteorological parameters.
However, this compound was only detected four times at this site, which can skew the
correlations. Aside from acrylonitrile, the strongest correlation at ELNJ was between 1,3-
butadiene and maximum temperature (-0.45). A majority of the correlations at ELNJ were rather
weak.
At NBNJ, acrylonitrile exhibited very strong correlations with several weather variables
(-0.78 to -0.83). Both formaldehyde and acetaldehyde had strong positive correlations with the
temperature and moisture (dewpoint and wet bulb) parameters, while both 1,3-butadiene and
benzene had moderately strong to strong negative correlations with these same parameters.
14.4 Spatial Analysis
County level car registration information was not available for Camden, Middlesex,
Morris, and Union Counties. Thus, state-level car registration, from the Energy Information
Administration (EIA), was allocated to the county level using the county-level population
proportion. County-level population information in these counties was obtained from the U.S.
Census Bureau, and is included in Table 14-5. Also included in Table 14-5 is the population
within 10 miles of each site and the average daily traffic information, which represents the
average number of cars passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a
daily basis. Using these parameters, a county-specific car registration ratio was computed. An
14-4
-------
estimation of the 10-mile car registration was computed using the 10-mile populations
surrounding the monitors and the car registration ratio. This information is compared to the
average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at the sites listed in Table 14-5. ELNJ
has both the highest nearby vehicle ownership and the highest daily traffic volume passing the
monitor.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.). Figure 3-1 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. Of the New Jersey sites, ELNJ most resembles the roadside
study. The benzene-ethylbenzene and xylenes-ethylbenzene concentration ratios are lower than
those of the roadside study at CJrtNJ. NBNJ's toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is higher than the
roadside study's and its benzene-ethylbenzene and xylenes-ethylbenzene ratios are lower than
the roadside study's. The ratios for the CANJ site resemble the roadside study's the least, with
nearly equal benzene-ethylbenzene and xylenes-ethylbenzene ratios.
14.5 RFC Analysis
The Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-MD-DE MSA participates in the
federally-mandated reformulated fuel program (EPA, 1999c). Throughout the year, the oxygen
content in gasoline must be at least 2% by weight, boosting the octane quality, increasing
combustion, and reducing exhaust emissions. Additionally, the benzene content must not be
greater than 1% by volume (EPA, 1994). The oxygenates used as JAFG additives in the
Phildelphia MSA are MTBE, TAME, and ethanol (EPA, 2003b). A survey at 7 service stations
during the summer of 2002 in the Philadelphia MSA showed the oxygen content of the fuel at
2.26% by weight and the benzene content at 0.610% by volume. MTBE and TAME also
averaged 12.06% and 0.41% by weight, respectively, from the summer survey (EPA, 2003b). A
survey at 5 service stations during the winter of 2002 in this MSA showed the oxygen content at
1.90% by weight and the benzene content at 0.597% by volume. MTBE, ethanol, and TAME
14-5
-------
also averaged 9.87%, 0.12%, and 0.35% by weight, respectively from the winter survey (EPA,
2003b). Figure 14-8 presents the VOC profiles at the Philadelphia MSA site (CANJ).
The New York-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA MSA also participates in the federally-
mandated reformulated fuel program (EPA, 1999c). Throughout the year, the oxygen content in
gasoline must be at least 2% by weight, boosting the octane quality, increasing combustion, and
reducing exhaust emissions. Additionally, the benzene content must not be greater than 1% by
volume (EPA, 1994). The oxygenates used as RFG additives in the New York MSA are MTBE,
TAME, ethanol, and ETBE (EPA, 2003b). A survey at 7 service stations during the summer of
2002 in the New York MSA showed the oxygen content of the fuel at 1.99% by weight and the
benzene content at 0.585% by volume. MTBE and TAME also averaged 10.26% and 0.76% by
weight, respectively from the summer survey (EPA, 2003b). A survey at 5 service stations
during the winter of 2002 in this MSA showed the oxygen content at 1.87% by weight and the
benzene content at 0.625% by volume. MTBE, ethanol, TAME, and ETBE also averaged
9.68%, 0.13%, 0.34%, and 0.01% by weight, respectively, from the winter survey (EPA, 2003b).
Figures 14-9 through 14-11 are the VOC profiles at the New York MSA sites (CHNJ, ELNJ, and
NBNJ).
At CANJ (Figure 14-8), the total VOC concentrations varied throughout the year, with
the highest concentration occurring on February 20, 2003. On that day, the stationary source
HAP contribution was much higher than other sampling days. The mobile source (BTEX and
non-BTEX) HAP concentrations were fairly consistent. The sampling at CANJ ran from
January 3 - September 24, thus missing a portion of the winter season. The non-HAP VOCs
varied throughout the season, but were generally higher during the summer season. The CANJ
BTEX concentration was compared to the APMI BTEX concentration. APMI is located in a
non-RFG requirement area, but the two sites have similar traffic volumes (CANJ = 62,000;
APMI = 60,000). The BTEX concentration at CANJ is similar to APMI (8.93 //g/m3 vs. 9.51
3, respectively), suggesting that the RFG requirement may be effective.
14-6
-------
At CHNJ (Figure 14-9), the total VOC concentrations were consistently low throughout
the year, with the highest concentration occurring on September 12, 2003. On that day, the
BTEX HAP contribution was much higher than other sampling days. The stationary source HAP
concentrations were consistently low throughout the year. The sampling at CHNJ ran from
January 9 - December 29. The BTEX concentrations appeared lower in the winter season than
the summer season. The non-HAP VOCs did not vary much throughout the year. The CHNJ
BTEX concentration was compared to the JAMS BTEX concentration. JAMS is located in a
non-RFG requirement area, but the two sites have similar traffic volumes (CHNJ = 12,623;
JAMS = 12,500). The BTEX concentration at CHNJ is less than half of JAMS (5.28 //g/m3 vs.
11.53 //g/m3, respectively), suggesting that the RFG requirement may be effective.
At ELNJ (Figure 14-10), the total VOC concentrations varied throughout the year, with
the highest concentration occurring on October 24, 2003. On that day, the stationary source
HAP contribution was much higher than other sampling days. The mobile source (BTEX and
non-BTEX) HAP and non-HAP VOC concentrations also varied. The sampling at ELNJ ran
from March 4 - December 29, thus missing most of the winter season. The ELNJ BTEX
concentration was compared to the SPIL BTEX concentration. SPIL is also located in a RFG
requirement area and has a similar traffic volumes to ELNJ (ELNJ = 170,000; SPIL = 214,900).
The BTEX concentration at ELNJ is nearly double the SPIL concentration (14.80 //g/m3 vs. 7.90
Mg/m3, respectively). It appears as if the RFG requirement may not be effective but there are a
high number of stationary sources emitting BTEX compounds near ELNJ.
At NBNJ (Figure 14-11), the total VOC concentrations varied throughout the year, with
the highest concentration occurring on July 20, 2003. On that day, the BTEX HAP contribution
was much higher than other sampling days. The stationary source HAP and non-HAP VOC
concentrations also varied. The sampling at ELNJ ran from January 3 - December 31. Total
VOC concentrations appeared to be lower during the winter season.
14-7
-------
The NBNJ BTEX concentration was compared to the APMIBTEX concentration. APMI
is located in non-RFG requirement area, but the two sites have similar traffic volumes (NBNJ =
63,000; APMI = 60,000). The BTEX concentration at NBNJ is similar to APMI (8.59 //g/m3 vs.
9.51 //g/m3, respectively). The RFG requirements may be effective at NBNJ.
14-8
-------
Figure 14-1. Camden, New Jersey (CANJ) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
14-9
-------
Figure 14-2. Chester, New Jersey (CHNJ) Monitoring Station
\
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
14-10
-------
Figure 14-3. Elizabeth, New Jersey (ELNJ) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
14-11
-------
Figure 14-4. New Brunswick, New Jersey (NBNJ) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
14-12
-------
Figure 14-5. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CANJ
/Philadelphia V \ Bu*s „'- ' '
\ I County i ^County \ /
{ -X'7/V v f°n F/L \
T \J \ F 4 D F/ V
\ ^ ' lr^.
Legend
[§] CANJ UATMP site
Q 10 mile radius
I _ pounty boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
C Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (14)
5 Educational Services Facility (1)
E Electric, Gas, 6 Sanitary Services (4)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (3)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (50)
+ Health Services Facility (3)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (4)
= Instruments & Related Products Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (9)
i Local & Interurban PassengerTransit (1)
75" ICfCTVV 75'^CrW TSW.'V
Note: Due to facility densiV and colocation, the total facilities
de played may not represent aII facilities within the area of interest.
x Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (10)
Miscellaneous Repair Services (1)
" National Security & International Affairs (1)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
1 Petroleum & Coal Products (3)
P PetroleurrfNat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (3)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (1)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (5)
R Printing & Publishing Facility (2)
# Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (2)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
U Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
s Surface Coating Processeslndustrial Facility (11)
& Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (3)
14-13
-------
Figure 14-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CHNJ
v Warren A \
County / .
/ F
if
Note: Dueto facility density and colocation, thetotalfacilrties
displayed may not represent aII facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
@ CHNJ UATMPsite
( ) 10 mile radius
Co unity boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
C Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (7)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (1)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (1)
Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
14-14
-------
Figure 14-7. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ELNJ and NBNJ
Bengern Hudson
county) County v /./-Queens
Legend
ELNJ UATMP site
10 mile radius
Note: Dueto facility densily and colocation, thetotalfacilities
de played may not represent allfacilrtie; within the area of interest.
t§i NBNJ UATMP site| [County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
* Agricultural Che mica Is Product ion Industrial Facility (3)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (32)
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (3)
D FabricatedMetalProductsFacility(8)
K F errou s M et al s P roc essi ng I n du stria I F ac i lily (3)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (77)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (3)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (2)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (20)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (2)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (32)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
N Nonclassifiable Establishments (1)
P PetroleurrfNat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (3)
> PharmaceuticalProductionProcesseslndustrialFacility(T)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (5)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (4)
R Printing & Publishing Facility (1)
# Production of inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (4)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (4)
u Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (25)
+ Transportation by Air (1)
? Unknown(1)
8 Utility Boilers (6)
.£ Waste Treatme nt & Di spo sa 11 n du st ria I F ac i lity (6)
$ Whole sale Trade - Durable Goods (3)
14-15
-------
Figure 14-8. 2003 Total VOC Profile at CANJ
100
90
DVOC non-HAPs
• Other Mobile Source VOC HAP
D BTEX HAP Compounds
• Stationary Source VOC HAPs
ro
o
o
CM
ro
ro ro
o o
o o
CM CM
ID l-^
ro ro ro
o o o
o o o
(N (N (N
CO ^3 ^3
rororo
ooo
ooo
roro
oo
oo
ro
o
o
roro
oo
oo
cScS
ro
o
o
ro
o
o
ro
o
o
CM
1-^
23
ro
o
o
CM
T-
£2
oo
ro
o
o
CM
en
-------
Figure 14-9. 2003 Total VOC Profile at CHNJ
100
90
80
o 70
E
1 60
50
re
40
iVOCnon-HAPs
I Other Mobile Source VOC HAP
| BTEX HAP Compounds
I Stationary Source VOC HAPs
-------
Figure 14-10. 2003 Total VOC Profile at ELNJ
200
180
160
nVOCnon-HAPs
n Other Mobile Source VOC HAP
D BTEX HAP Compounds
• Stationary Source VOC HAPs
oo
co
CO
00
0)
2
-------
Figure 14-11. 2003 Total VOC Profile at NBNJ
60 -T
54
48
s
c
~ -50
(0
oi 94
o
c
o
O 18
19
I Z
R
n
QVOCnon-HAPs
• Other Mobile Source VOC HAP
D BTEX HAP Compounds
• Stationary Source VOC HAPs
mm
-
i
_
•
Mil
w r i i iiii
CO CO CO
o o o
o o o
CN CN CN
CO T- 00
^ £! cxi
-
,,
• n
-
ill
P
'
,
r
i i i i i i i i i i i i i
CO CO CO CO CO
o o o o o
o o o o o
CN CN CN CN CN
CD T- O) CN CD
CN CN PO ?o CN
• — . • — . ^*J CL) • — .
1
_
-
,i,
CO CO CO
o o o
o o o
CN CN CN
o r~~ LO
• — . 00 • — .
"
1
,
,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CO CO CO CO CO CO
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
CN CN CN CN CN CN
CN ^ ^ ^ ^ CO
1
CN
CD
oo
O)
CN
-------
Table 14-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in New Jersey
Site
Name
NJ-
CANJ
NJ-
CHNJ
NJ-
ELNJ
NJ-
NBNJ
Type
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
Gug/m3)
^$
30.45
(±5.71)
^^
26.07
(±3.04)
^^
62.78
(±9.66)
^^
35.39
(±3.83)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
61.56
(±1.95)
62.72
(±6.24)
60.36
(±1.93)
61.19
(±4.50)
60.64
(±1.94)
66.17
(±3.97)
60.36
(±1.93)
60.50
(±5.05)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
53.51
(±1.82)
54.77
(±6.00)
50.46
(±1.77)
50.40
(±4.26)
53.51
(±1.85)
58.56
(±3.81)
50.46
(±1.77)
50.01
(±4.77)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
42.91
(±1.99)
43.66
(±6.65)
41.80
(±2.03)
42.11
(±4.76)
42.07
(±2.02)
46.61
(±4.12)
41.8
(±2.03)
41.60
(±5.36)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
48.53
(±1.73)
49.51
(±5.67)
46.58
(±1.75)
46.60
(±4.20)
48.21
(±1.73)
52.55
(±3.51)
46.58
(±1.75)
46.23
(±4.69)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
70.18
(±1.51)
68.82
(±4.77)
75.05
(±1.42)
75.96
(±3.01)
68.17
(±1.62)
67.72
(±4.01)
75.05
(±1.42)
75.54
(±3.40)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1016.76
(±0.72)
1017.10
(±2.01)
1015.97
(±0.74)
1016.40
(±1.78)
1016.25
(±0.75)
1017.4
(±1.7)
1015.97
(±0.74)
1016.49
(±1.96)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
1.40
(±0.57)
0.97
(±1.77)
-0.06
(±0.27)
-0.32
(±0.75)
1.89
(±0.59)
1.10
(±1.55)
-0.06
(±0.27)
-0.25
(±0.79)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-1.24
(±0.38)
-0.88
(±1.11)
-0.89
(±0.29)
-0.76
(±0.55)
-1.41
(±0.50)
-0.71
(±1.19)
-0.89
(±0.29)
-1.07
(±0.69)
to
o
-------
Table 14-2a. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Camden, New Jersey
Monitoring Site - CANJ
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Acetaldehyde
Vinyl Chloride
Trichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
2.83E-05
1.24E-05
8.44E-06
5.56E-06
3.41E-06
2.49E-06
1.83E-06
1.35E-06
4.49E-07
2.71E-07
3.73E-09
%
Contribution
43.85
19.24
13.09
8.62
5.28
3.87
2.84
2.09
0.70
0.42
0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
43.85
63.09
76.18
84.80
90.08
93.94
96.78
98.88
99.57
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
Gug/m3)
0.416
1.591
0.563
0.185
0.310
0.423
0.832
0.153
0.224
0.578
0.678
#
Detects
4
37
33
14
10
11
37
1
4
24
37
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
28.3
12.4
8.44
5.56
3.41
2.49
1.83
1.35
<1
<1
<1
14-21
-------
Table 14-2b. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Chester, New Jersey
Monitoring Site - CHNJ
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethy lene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
2.71E-05
7.70E-06
5.49E-06
4.08E-06
4.01E-06
2.97E-06
1.32E-06
6.01E-07
2.08E-07
1.76E-08
%
Contribution
50.70
14.38
10.25
7.63
7.49
5.54
2.47
1.12
0.39
0.03
Cumulative
%
Contribution
50.70
65.07
75.32
82.95
90.44
95.98
98.45
99.58
99.97
100.00
Average
Concentration
Gug/m3)
0.399
0.513
0.704
0.136
1.824
0.503
0.120
0.301
0.443
3.202
#
Detects
5
51
57
7
58
15
1
2
38
58
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
27.1
7.70
5.49
4.08
4.01
2.97
1.32
<1
<1
<1
14-22
-------
Table 14-2c. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Elizabeth, New Jersey
Monitoring Site - ELNJ
Compound
Tetrachloroethy lene
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Vinyl Chloride
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
3.33E-05
1.44E-05
1.27E-05
9.19E-06
7.90E-06
7.25E-06
2.72E-06
5.45E-07
5.16E-07
4.50E-07
2.21E-08
%
Contribution
37.39
16.16
14.31
10.33
8.88
8.15
3.06
0.61
0.58
0.51
0.02
Cumulative
%
Contribution
37.39
53.55
67.86
78.19
87.07
95.21
98.28
98.89
99.47
99.98
100.00
Average
Concentration
Gug/m3)
5.637
0.211
1.632
4.177
0.527
0.242
0.248
0.273
1.099
0.051
4.014
#
Detects
29
4
53
51
47
39
15
20
50
1
51
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
33.3
14.4
12.7
9.19
7.90
7.25
2.72
<1
<1
<1
<1
14-23
-------
Table 14-2d. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the New Brunswick, New
Jersey Monitoring Site - NBNJ
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethy lene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
2.37E-05
8.20E-06
8.18E-06
6.67E-06
4.37E-06
2.27E-06
1.69E-06
3.57E-07
2.40E-07
1.81E-08
%
Contribution
42.56
14.72
14.69
11.97
7.84
4.07
3.03
0.64
0.43
0.03
Cumulative
%
Contribution
42.56
57.28
71.97
83.95
91.79
95.86
98.90
99.54
99.97
100.00
Average
Concentration
Gug/m3)
0.348
1.051
0.545
3.031
0.146
0.384
0.154
0.178
0.510
3.284
#
Detects
4
51
47
51
16
23
6
6
44
51
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
23.7
8.20
8.18
6.67
4.37
2.27
1.69
<1
<1
<1
14-24
-------
Table 14-3a. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Camden, New Jersey
Monitoring Site - CANJ
Compound
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
Acrylonitrile
Acetonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Chloroprene
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
Tetrachloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroform
Methyl terf-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Ethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
Styrene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
Average
Toxicity
7.80E-01
2.08E-01
1.03E-01
9.27E-02
9.25E-02
6.92E-02
5.30E-02
3.74E-02
2.59E-02
1.54E-02
1.41E-02
7.98E-03
1.57E-03
1.53E-03
1.53E-03
1.13E-03
7.10E-04
5.78E-04
5.54E-04
3.87E-04
3.74E-04
2.40E-04
2.26E-04
1.30E-04
%
Contribution
51.72
13.79
6.81
6.15
6.14
4.59
3.52
2.48
1.71
1.02
0.93
0.53
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
51.72
65.52
72.33
78.48
84.61
89.20
92.72
95.20
96.92
97.94
98.88
99.41
99.51
99.61
99.71
99.79
99.83
99.87
99.91
99.94
99.96
99.98
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A
-------
Table 14-3b. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Chester, New Jersey
Monitoring Site - CHNJ
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
Toluene
Methyl Methacrylate
Tetrachloroethylene
Chloroform
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Trichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Chloroethane
(Ethyl Chloride)
Average
Toxicity
3.27E-01
2.03E-01
2.00E-01
6.81E-02
2.90E-02
2.35E-02
2.18E-02
1.29E-02
1.28E-02
1.02E-02
5.39E-03
2.12E-03
1.86E-03
1.16E-03
5.72E-04
5.01E-04
4.43E-04
4.17E-04
4.07E-04
2.95E-04
1.66E-04
1.54E-04
1.50E-04
4.41E-06
%
Contribution
35.48
22.01
21.67
7.39
3.15
2.55
2.36
1.40
1.39
1.11
0.59
0.23
0.20
0.13
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.00
Cumulative
%
Contribution
35.48
57.48
79.16
86.55
89.70
92.25
94.61
96.01
97.41
98.52
99.10
99.33
99.54
99.66
99.72
99.78
99.83
99.87
99.92
99.95
99.97
99.98
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A
-------
Table 14-3c. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Elizabeth, New Jersey
Monitoring Site - ELNJ
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Acrylonitrile
Acetonitrile
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Benzene
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
Tetrachloroethy lene
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethy lene
(Vinylidene Chloride)
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Methacrylate
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Styrene
Vinyl Chloride
Trichloroethylene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
Ethyl Chloride
Average
Toxicity
4.64E-01
4.10E-01
1.21E-01
1.06E-01
9.20E-02
7.18E-02
5.44E-02
2.58E-02
2.09E-02
1.36E-02
1.32E-02
1.26E-02
3.28E-03
2.08E-03
2.00E-03
1.93E-03
1.10E-03
1.03E-03
7.47E-04
5.24E-04
5.11E-04
4.54E-04
3.10E-04
1.83E-04
1.04E-04
1.26E-05
%
Contribution
32.71
28.87
8.51
7.45
6.49
5.06
3.83
1.82
1.47
0.96
0.93
0.89
0.23
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
Cumulative %
Contribution
32.71
61.58
70.09
77.54
84.03
89.09
92.92
94.74
96.22
97.18
98.10
99.00
99.23
99.37
99.51
99.65
99.73
99.80
99.85
99.89
99.93
99.96
99.98
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A^g/m3)
4.177
4.014
0.242
0.211
5.521
7.181
1.632
0.129
5.637
1.227
0.527
5.057
0.655
6.247
1.398
0.189
1.099
1.029
3.737
0.524
0.051
0.273
0.248
0.183
0.313
0.126
#
Detects
51
51
39
4
26
53
53
6
29
53
47
53
1
50
4
14
50
48
43
26
1
20
15
26
9
1
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14-27
-------
Table 14-3d. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the New Brunswick, New
Jersey Monitoring Site - NBNJ
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Benzene
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Toluene
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethy lene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Methyl terf-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Trichloroethylene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
Styrene
Chloroethane
(Ethyl Chloride)
Average
Toxicity
3.37E-01
3.35E-01
1.74E-01
7.28E-02
4.87E-02
3.52E-02
3.50E-02
1.81E-02
1.36E-02
1.31E-02
8.76E-03
1.81E-03
1.42E-03
6.63E-04
6.19E-04
5.74E-04
5.10E-04
2.97E-04
1.92E-04
1.88E-04
1.68E-04
1.63E-04
1.91E-05
%
Contribution
30.67
30.52
15.87
6.63
4.43
3.21
3.19
1.65
1.24
1.19
0.80
0.16
0.13
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
Cumulative
%
Contribution
30.67
61.19
77.06
83.68
88.12
91.32
94.51
96.16
97.40
98.60
99.40
99.56
99.69
99.75
99.81
99.86
99.91
99.93
99.95
99.97
99.98
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
3.031
3.284
0.348
0.146
2.920
3.521
1.051
0.091
0.545
1.180
3.503
0.177
0.384
3.315
1.858
0.574
0.510
0.178
0.154
0.188
0.505
0.163
0.191
#
Detects
51
51
4
16
24
51
51
3
47
51
51
17
23
30
42
46
44
6
6
23
6
23
2
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14-28
-------
Table 14-4a. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Camden,
New Jersey Site (CANJ)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Xvlenes (o-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.46
0.39
0.16
-0.77
-0.03
0.42
0.48
-0.34
0.02
-0.45
0.11
Average
Temperature
-0.47
0.40
0.23
-0.83
-0.07
0.43
0.49
-0.36
-0.09
-0.44
0.08
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.43
0.40
0.43
-0.61
-0.09
0.44
0.42
-0.35
-0.14
-0.28
0.11
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.46
0.41
0.39
-0.83
-0.09
0.43
0.46
-0.36
-0.15
-0.38
0.08
Relative
Humidity
-0.04
0.19
0.36
0.21
-0.08
0.23
-0.01
-0.07
-0.07
0.19
0.13
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.21
0.05
0.12
-0.57
-0.26
-0.33
0.01
0.34
-0.41
-0.18
-0.18
u-component
of wind
0.31
-0.06
0.12
-0.33
0.33
-0.02
0.08
-0.01
0.32
-0.11
0.10
v-component
of wind
-0.02
0.21
0.49
-0.79
0.08
0.20
0.26
-0.12
0.06
-0.31
0.15
to
VO
-------
-^
o
Table 14-4b. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Chester,
New Jersey Site (CHNJ)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Tetrachloroethene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
0.82
0.14
-0.26
-0.69
-0.48
0.24
0.58
0.49
-0.40
0.20
Average
Temperature
0.80
0.05
-0.22
-0.92
-0.52
0.25
0.52
0.45
-0.32
0.23
Dew Point
Temperature
0.71
0.03
-0.18
-0.98
-0.49
0.23
0.48
0.43
-0.30
0.24
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.77
0.04
-0.19
-0.96
-0.51
0.24
0.50
0.44
-0.30
0.24
Relative
Humidity
0.25
-0.08
0.02
-0.55
-0.21
0.07
0.11
0.18
-0.06
0.14
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.75
0.09
0.09
0.02
0.09
-0.07
0.00
-0.05
-0.06
0.19
u-component
of wind
-0.14
0.01
-0.25
0.53
0.09
-0.08
0.02
-0.16
0.13
-0.27
v-component
of wind
0.17
0.40
-0.36
0.38
-0.01
-0.07
0.29
0.24
-0.22
0.06
-------
Table 14-4c. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Elizabeth,
New Jersey Site (ELNJ)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
Tetrachloroethene
Xylenes (p-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.45
-0.28
0.40
0.91
-0.36
0.17
0.08
0.28
-0.24
0.17
Average
Temperature
-0.41
-0.28
0.39
0.89
-0.41
0.18
0.09
0.26
-0.27
0.16
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.30
-0.19
0.40
0.84
-0.29
0.13
0.16
0.03
-0.33
0.27
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.37
-0.25
0.42
0.87
-0.37
0.16
0.12
0.12
-0.30
0.22
Relative
Humidity
0.18
0.14
0.03
0.43
0.16
-0.05
0.16
-0.36
-0.16
0.29
Sea Level
Pressure
0.17
0.30
0.24
-0.12
0.16
0.11
0.31
-0.07
0.13
0.21
u-component
of wind
-0.22
-0.03
-0.02
-0.07
-0.04
-0.28
0.05
0.19
0.11
-0.03
v-component
of wind
-0.21
-0.04
0.01
0.92
0.11
-0.20
0.18
0.27
-0.23
0.13
-------
-^
to
Table 14-4d. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
New Brunswick, New Jersey Site (NBNJ)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
Tetrachloroethene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.52
0.56
0.31
0.34
-0.48
0.25
0.62
NA
-0.10
0.09
Average
Temperature
-0.52
0.57
0.22
-0.78
-0.49
0.28
0.57
NA
-0.12
0.10
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.46
0.58
0.19
-0.80
-0.41
0.28
0.55
NA
-0.07
0.17
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.49
0.58
0.20
-0.83
-0.46
0.28
0.57
NA
-0.09
0.13
Relative
Humidity
0.15
0.37
-0.01
-0.42
0.03
0.18
0.22
NA
0.25
0.35
Sea Level
Pressure
0.41
0.23
-0.32
0.08
0.18
0.12
-0.03
NA
0.06
0.07
u-component
of wind
-0.29
-0.12
0.17
0.30
-0.05
-0.12
0.00
NA
-0.04
-0.18
v-component
of wind
0.09
0.32
0.00
-0.07
-0.10
0.17
0.33
NA
0.13
0.09
-------
Table 14-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
CANJ
CHNJ
ELNJ
NBNJ
Estimated
County
Population
511,957
478,730
530,763
775,549
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
393,869
366,433
407,799
591,406
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.76
Population
within Ten
Miles
2,023,903
231,275
2,160,143
768,506
Estimated 10-Mile
Car Registration
1,558,405
178,082
1,663,310
584,065
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
62,000
12,623
170,000
63,000
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
30.45 (±5.71)
26.07 (±3.04)
62.78 (±9.66)
35.39 (±3.83)
-------
15.0 Site in North Carolina
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in North Carolina (CANC). This site is located in Candor near the Uwharrie National
Forest. Figure 15-1 is a topographical map showing the monitoring station in its urban location.
Figure 15-2 is a map identifying facilities within ten miles of the site that reported to the 1999
NEI. The CANC site has very few sources nearby, mostly located to the north of the site, and
most are involved in fuel combustion industries. Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for
all of 2003 at the Monroe Airport (WBAN 53872) with the purpose of calculating correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements.
Table 15-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at the site, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
sampling days. Candor is located in south-central North Carolina, about halfway between
Charlotte and Fayetteville, on the outskirts of the Uwharrie National Forest. This area is
considered to be the sandhills region, where the sandy soil allows for rapid drainage, as well as
rapid warming during the day and cooling during the night. As a result, daytime temperatures
rise quickly, while nighttime temperatures cool quickly. The Mid-Atlantic location of this site
allows for fairly ample rainfall. This information can be verified at
http://www.pinehurstproperty.com/climate.html
15.1 Prevalent Compounds at the North Carolina Site
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at each site. Table 15-2 summarizes the cancer
weighting scores, and Table 15-3 summarizes the noncancer weighting scores. For a compound
to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95% of the total
site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered prevalent for
each site.
15-1
-------
The CANC site sampled only carbonyls. As can be shown in Tables 15-2 and 15-3,
acetaldehyde was the only prevalent cancer compound at the CANC site, while both
acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were prevalent for noncancer compounds. All toxic carbonyl
compounds were detected at CANC.
15.2 Toxicity Analysis
For cancer compounds, acetaldehyde contributed to over 99% of the total toxicity while
the contribution to total noncancer toxicity was more evenly distributed. The number of
detections of acetaldehyde equaled the number of detections of formaldehyde at the CANC site.
The acetaldehyde cancer risk was the highest among the toxic carbonyl compounds at
3.46 in a million. For the compounds which may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the
average acetaldehyde toxicity was 0.209 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer
health effect). None of the carbonyl compound concentrations were above their noncancer RfC
weighting factors.
15.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the North Carolina Site
Carbonyl compounds were measured at the site, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. The
average total UATMP daily concentration at CANC was 35.13 (± 5.97) //g/m3. Table 15-1 also
lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2003 to December 2003.
Table 15-4 presents the summary of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for each
of the prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters. Identification of the
prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. The highest correlation at CANC
was computed between acetaldehyde and the v-component of the wind (0.67). Formaldehyde
had a moderately strong positive correlation with the v-component as well. Both compounds also
had moderately strong to strong positive correlations with the temperature parameters. The
strongest negative correlation was computed between formaldehyde and relative humidity.
15-2
-------
15.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration and population in Montgomery County, NC, were obtained
from the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are
summarized in Table 15-5. Also included in Table 15-5 is the population within 10 miles of the
site and the average daily traffic information, which represents the average number of cars
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Using these
parameters, a car registration ratio was computed. An estimation of 10-mile car registration was
computed using the 10-mile populations surrounding the monitors and the car registration ratio.
This information is compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at
the CANC site in Table 15-5.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to Section 3.4.2). Since only carbonyl
compounds were sampled at the CANC site, a BTEX analysis could not be performed.
15-3
-------
Figure 15-1. Candor, North Carolina (CANC) Monitoring Station
I
-
-
' ,-
!V:;
'':-'-
'
W'61
:. <%% , '¥}
y~^ ' i ' '
-
iiNVKV
. y/: A \
) • • • }' i
/ 'c,-. -. rv <«>*
) uL,-•
, ,>. :if'
L-r-> -K ., '. "•„.'•- ; N!
. t p. ..-* /
^J
^^
• i *
•>
Ft-Hilaryf;*!
|w«r>f,
CPi
ffiife •
vS, i ^
2 :^' - !•> l
1
? "•/'..'•>' l V > >• -•
.-;--XI1. /;" • ,. ) ' f
;
^i
. Hi
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
15-4
-------
Figure 15-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CANC
SOW* 79-55'™
Note: Due to faciliy density and allocation,the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
g] CANC UATMP site
O 10 mile radius
[ "(county boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
•. Apparel & Other Textile Products Facility (1)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (6)
@ Paper & Allied Products Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
< Textile Mill Products Facility (1)
15-5
-------
Table 15-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in North Carolina
Site
Name
CAJNC
Type
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(A*g/m3)
\s\s\OSs
vXX^S
7.05
(±1.69)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
69.21
(±1.53)
69.25
(±10.33)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
58.94
(±1.46)
58.67
(±9.75)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
49.90
(±1.82)
51.50
(±10.73)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
54.42
(±1.49)
54.92
(±9.69)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
75.23
(±1.59)
79.36
(±7.04)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1018.10
(±0.57)
1016.84
(±3.87)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
1.05
(±0.37)
1.24
(±1.42)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.09
(±0.38)
-0.07
(±2.23)
-------
Table 15-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Candor, North Carolina
Monitoring Site - CANC
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
3.46E-06
1.13E-08
%
Contribution
99.68
0.32
Cumulative
%
Contribution
99.68
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
1.574
2.052
#
Detects
8
8
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
3.46
<1
15-7
-------
Table 15-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Candor, North Carolina
Monitoring Site - CANC
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehvde
Average
Toxicity
2.09E-01
1 75F-01
%
Contribution
54.48
45 57.
Cumulative
%
Contribution
54.48
mono
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
2.052
1 574
#
Detects
8
8
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
0
n
15-8
-------
Table 15-4. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Candor,
North Carolina Site (CANC)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Maximum
Temperature
0.39
0.50
Average
Temperature
0.32
0.30
Dew Point
Temperature
0.22
0.15
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.27
0.21
Relative
Humidity
-0.27
-0.51
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.26
0.12
u-component
of wind
0.28
-0.08
v-component
of wind
0.67
0.40
-------
Table 15-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the North Carolina Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Station
CANC
Estimated
County
Population
27,288
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
25,854
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
0.95
Population
within Ten
Miles
10,025
Estimated 10-Mile
Car Registration
9,524
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
100
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
7.05 (±1.69)
-------
16.0 Site in North Dakota
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in North Dakota (BUND). This site is located in Beulah, and Figure 16-1 is a topographical
map showing the monitoring station in its urban location. Figure 16-2 is a map identifying
facilities within ten miles of the site that reported to the 1999 NEI. The BUND site has six
sources located within a ten mile radius: two waste treatment and disposal sites, two utility
boilers, one fuel combustion site, and one petroleum and natural gas production and refining site.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003 at the Bismarck Municipal Airport
(WBAN 24011) with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient
air concentration measurements.
Table 16-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at the site, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
sampling days. Beulah is located to the northwest of Bismarck, and Beulah's climate is
continental in nature. Cold, dry winters and generally mild summers are normally expected.
Climatologically, moderate northerly winds are expected in the winter, with southerly winds in
the summer. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and
Bair, 1987).
16.1 Prevalent Compounds at the North Dakota Site
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound. Table 16-2 summarizes the cancer weighting scores,
and Table 16-3 summarizes the noncancer weighting scores. For a compound to be considered
prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95% of the total site score. In the
aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered prevalent for each site.
Table 16-2 shows that three out of five of the detected cancer compounds reflect the
nationwide prevalent cancer compound list, as listed in Section 3 of this report. Only methylene
16-1
-------
chloride and formaldehyde were not listed among the nationwide prevalent cancer compounds.
For the noncancer compounds summarized in Table 16-3, all but one of the prevalent noncancer
compounds (chloromethane) were listed among the nationwide noncancer prevalent list.
Toxic compounds not detected at the North Dakota site were: tetrachloroethylene;
acrylonitrile; 1,3-butadiene;/>-dichlorobenzene; 1,2-dichloroethane; trichloroethylene; 1,3-
dichloropropene; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; vinyl chloride; bromoform; acetonitrile; bromomethane;
chloroprene; chloroform; 1,1-dichloroethene; methyl methacrylate; 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene;
methyl-fert-butyl ether; styrene; chlorobenzene; and chloroethane.
16.2 Toxicity Analysis
Carbon tetrachloride and benzene contributed most to the site's cancer toxicity and also
had the highest number of detects, while acetaldehyde and formaldehyde make up over 50% of
the site's noncancer toxicity value. The carbon tetrachloride cancer risk was the highest among
the toxic compounds at 8.56 in a million. For the compounds which may lead to adverse
noncancer health effects, the average acetaldehyde toxicity was 0.0549 (over 1 indicates a
significant chance of a noncancer health effect). None of the compound concentrations were
above their noncancer RfC weighting factors.
16.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the North Dakota Site
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were measured at the site, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and
3-4. The average total UATMP daily concentration at BUND was 11.73 (± 2.26) //g/m3.
Table 16-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2003 to
December 2003.
Table 16-4 presents the summary of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for each
of the prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters. Identification of the
prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. Very strong negative correlations
between benzene and the temperature parameters, dewpoint, and wet bulb temperature were
computed at BUND. Moderately strong to strong negative correlations were computed for
16-2
-------
xylenes (total) and the aforementioned meteorological parameters as well. Moderately strong
correlations were also found between these two compounds and both relative humidity and sea
level pressure. Correlations for acetaldehyde and formaldehyde could not be computed due to
the low number of detects (fewer than 3).
16.2 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration and population in Mercer County, ND, were obtained from
the North Dakota Department of Transportation and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are
summarized in Table 16-5. Also included in Table 16-5 is the population within 10 miles of
each site and the average daily traffic information, which represents the average number of cars
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Using these
parameters, a car registration ratio was computed. An estimation of 10-mile car registration was
computed using the 10-mile populations surrounding the monitors and the car registration ratio.
This information is compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at
the Beulah site in Table 16-5.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.). Figure 3-1 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at the monitoring site. The BUND site's concentration ratios look significantly different from
those of the roadside study. The xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio is the highest concentration ratio of
the three, while the toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is the lowest, and the benzene-ethylbenzene ratio
resides in the middle. All three values are significantly lower than those of the roadside study.
16-3
-------
Figure 16-1. Beulah, North Dakota (BUND) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
16-4
-------
Figure 16-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BUND
102^'0'W 1G2WVV 101 °55'0'W 101 "50'0'W 101 "45'0'W 101 D40'0'W 101 ^35'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
V| BUN DUATMP site
} 10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (1)
P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (1)
s Utility Boilers (2)
i Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (2)
16-5
-------
Table 16-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in North Dakota
Site
Name
BUND
Type
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(A*g/m3)
\s\s\OSs
vXX^S
11.73
(±2.26)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
55.33
(±2.72)
52.83
(±9.07)
Average
Temperature
43.63
(±2.46)
41.89
(±8.19)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
30.78
(±2.02)
30.20
(±7.12)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
37.50
(±2.07)
36.49
(±7.14)
Average
Relative
Humidity
65.40
(±1.36)
67.26
(±4.36)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1015.48
(±0.80)
1014.14
(±2.36)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.29
(±0.52)
-0.81
(±2.35)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.97
(±0.57)
-0.91
(±2.42)
Oi
-------
Table 16-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Beulah, North Dakota
Monitoring Site - BUND
Compound
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
8.56E-06
4.05E-06
1.09E-06
1.38E-07
2.37E-09
Contribution
61.84
29.28
7.86
1.00
0.02
Cumulative
Contribution
61.84
91.13
98.98
99.98
100.00
Average
Concentration
0/g/m3)
0.571
0.520
0.494
0.294
0.431
#
Detects
28
30
2
13
2
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
8.56
4.05
1.09
-------
Table 16-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Beulah, North Dakota
Monitoring Site - BUND
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Xylenes (o-,m-, p-)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Toluene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
Average
Toxicity
5.49E-02
4.39E-02
2.19E-02
1.73E-02
1.43E-02
1.34E-02
1.13E-03
7.73E-04
4.27E-04
2.94E-04
1.60E-04
4.10E-05
%
Contribution
32.57
26.06
13.00
10.27
8.46
7.97
0.67
0.46
0.25
0.17
0.09
0.02
Cumulative
%
Contribution
32.57
58.63
71.63
81.90
90.36
98.33
99.00
99.45
99.71
99.88
99.98
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
0.494
0.431
2.192
0.520
0.571
1.210
0.450
3.867
0.427
0.294
0.160
0.123
#
Detects
2
2
10
30
28
30
30
12
6
13
10
1
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16-8
-------
Table 16-4. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Beulah,
North Dakota Site (BUND)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Xylenes (mixed)
Maximum
Temperature
NA
-0.83
0.32
NA
-0.03
-0.46
Average
Temperature
NA
-0.83
0.33
NA
-0.12
-0.58
Dew Point
Temperature
NA
-0.79
0.29
NA
-0.21
-0.46
Wet Bulb
Temperature
NA
-0.82
0.32
NA
-0.16
-0.56
Relative
Humidity
NA
0.42
-0.21
NA
-0.22
0.40
Sea Level
Pressure
NA
0.46
-0.01
NA
0.01
-0.41
u-component
of wind
NA
0.15
0.29
NA
0.11
0.16
v-component
of wind
NA
-0.36
0.11
NA
0.22
-0.05
-------
Table 16-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the North Dakota Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Station
BUND
Estimated
County
Population
8,542
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
13,203
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
1.55
Population
within Ten
Miles
7,451
Estimated 10-Mile
Car Registration
11,59
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
1,350
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
11.73 (±2.26)
-------
17.0 Site in Oklahoma
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Oklahoma (POOK). This site is located in Ponca City, and Figure 17-1 is a topographical
map showing the monitoring station in its urban location. Figure 17-2 is a map identifying
facilities within ten miles of the site that reported to the 1999 NEI. The POOK site has very few
sources nearby. Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003 at the Ponca City
Municipal Airport (WBAN 13969) with the purpose of calculating correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements.
Table 17-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at the site, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
sampling days. Ponca City is located in north-central Oklahoma, just west of the Osage Indian
Reservation and Kaw Lake. The area is characterized by a continental climate, with warm and
often humid summers and cool winters. The region experiences ample rainfall, with spring as its
wettest season. A southerly wind prevails, bringing warm, moist air northward from the Gulf of
Mexico. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and
Bair, 1987).
17.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Oklahoma Site
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at each site. Table 17-2 summarizes the cancer
weighting scores, and Table 17-3 summarizes the noncancer weighting scores. For a compound
to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95% of the total
site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered prevalent for
each site.
The POOK site sampled for SNMOC only. As can be shown in Table 17-2, the cancer
compounds reflect the nationwide prevalent cancer compound list, as listed in Section 3 of this
17-1
-------
report. For the noncancer compounds summarized in Table 17-3, hexane, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and styrene were not listed among the nationwide noncancer prevalent list. However, hexane
and toluene are considered prevalent at POOK.
Toxic compounds detected at the Oklahoma site were: 1,3-butadiene; benzene; xylenes
(total); toluene; hexane; ethylbenzene; and styrene. It is important to note that VOC and
carbonyl compounds were not sampled at POOK. Therefore, it is important to determine if those
compounds would have been detected or not.
17.2 Toxicity Analysis
Benzene and 1,3-butadiene were the only prevalent cancer compounds at the POOK site,
and benzene contributed over 74% to the total toxicity. Benzene and 1,3-butadiene contributed
to over 72% of the total toxicity for the noncancer compounds. The benzene cancer risk was the
highest among the toxic compounds at 12.2 in a million. For the compounds which may lead to
adverse noncancer health effects, the average 1,3-butadiene toxicity was 0.0701 (over 1
indicates a significant chance of a noncancer health effect). None of the compound
concentrations were above their noncancer RfC weighting factors.
17.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Oklahoma Site
Only SNMOC were measured at the POOK site, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and 3-4.
Table 17-1 lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2003 to
December 2003 in addition to the average SNMOC concentration. SNMOC/NMOC compounds
are of particular interest because of their role in ozone formation. Readers are encouraged to
review EPA's 2001 Nonmethane Organic Compounds (NMOC) and SpeciatedNonmethane
Organic Compounds (SNMOC) Monitoring Program, Final Report (EPA, 2002) for more
information on SNMOC/NMOC trends and concentrations. The average total NMOC value for
POOK was 295.97 ppbC, of which nearly 85% could be identified through speciation. Of the
speciated compounds, hexane measured the highest concentration at the POOK site
(20.50 ppbC).
17-2
-------
Table 17-2 is the summary of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters. Identification of the prevalent
compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. All five of the prevalent compounds at
POOK exhibited moderately strong to strong positive correlations with the temperature (average
and maximum) and moisture (dewpoint and wet bulb) variables. The strongest correlation of this
kind was between hexane and maximum temperature (0.62). Hence, as temperature, dewpoint,
and wet bulb temperature increase, concentrations of the prevalent compounds at POOK also
increase. The remainder of the correlations at POOK were generally weak.
17.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration and population in Kay County, OK, were obtained from the
Oklahoma Tax Commission's Motor Vehicle Division and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are
summarized in Table 17-5. Also included in Table 17-5 is the population within 10 miles of
each site and the average daily traffic information, which reflects the average number of cars
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Using these
parameters, a car registration ratio was computed. An estimation of 10-mile car registration was
computed using the 10-mile populations surrounding the monitors and the car registration ratio.
This information is compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at
the POOK site in Table 17-5.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.).
17-3
-------
Figure 17-1. Ponca City, Oklahoma (POOK) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
17-4
-------
Figure 17-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of POOK
97°20'Q'W 97°15'Q'W 9710'0'W
Legend
POOK UATMP site
10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (1)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (2)
P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (1)
3 Pipelines, Except Natural Gas (2)
3 Utility Boilers (1)
17-5
-------
Table 17-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Oklahoma
Site
Name
POOK
Type
All
2003
sample
day
Average
SNMOC
Concentration
(A*g/m3)
\s\s\OSs
vXX^S
134.70
(±29.51)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
69.01
(±2.00)
53.47
(±5.63)
Average
Temperature
58.45
(±1.92)
43.83
(±5.24)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
46.27
(±1.85)
31.41
(±6.19)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
51.90
(±1.70)
38.54
(±5.02)
Average
Relative
Humidity
67.79
(±1.34)
65.96
(±7.93)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1015.73
(±0.76)
1016.42
(±3.42)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-1.77
(±0.38)
-1.22
(±2.54)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.77
(±0.61)
4.02
(±3.24)
-------
Table 17-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Ponca City, Oklahoma
Monitoring Site - POOK
Compound
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Average
Toxicity
1.22E-05
4.21E-06
%
Contribution
74.36
25.64
Cumulative
%
Contribution
74.36
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
1.564
0.140
#
Detects
17
15
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
12.2
4.21
17-7
-------
Table 17-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Ponca City, Oklahoma
Monitoring Site - POOK
Compound
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Hexane
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Average
Toxicity
7.01E-02
5.21E-02
2.03E-02
1.82E-02
7.90E-03
5.52E-04
3.54E-04
%
Contribution
41.36
30.75
11.95
10.73
4.66
0.33
0.21
Cumulative
%
Contribution
41.36
72.12
84.07
94.80
99.47
99.79
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
0.140
1.564
2.026
3.638
3.161
0.552
0.354
#
Detects
15
17
17
17
17
17
17
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17-8
-------
Table 17-4. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Ponca City,
Oklahoma Site (POOK)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Hexane
Toluene
Xylenes (o-,m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
0.42
0.47
0.62
0.49
0.36
Average
Temperature
0.32
0.41
0.47
0.39
0.28
Dew Point
Temperature
0.22
0.48
0.20
0.40
0.36
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.24
0.44
0.33
0.39
0.33
Relative
Humidity
-0.02
0.32
-0.23
0.20
0.27
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.07
-0.22
-0.16
-0.18
-0.09
u-component
of wind
0.04
0.16
-0.16
0.15
0.23
v-component
of wind
0.07
0.06
0.41
0.00
-0.08
-------
Table 17-5. TNMOC Measured by the Ponca City, OK (POOK)
Monitoring Station
Site
POOK
Average TNMOC
speciated (ppbC)
253.93
Average TNMOC w/
unknowns (ppbC)
295.97
% TNMOC
Identified
85%
SNMOC Compound with
the Highest
Concentration (ppbC)
hexane (20.50)
17-10
-------
Table 17-6. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Oklahoma Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Station
POOK
Estimated
County
Population
47,680
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
41,888
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
0.88
Population
within Ten
Miles
32,920
Estimated 10-Mile
Car Registration
28,970
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
1,496
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
134.70 (±29.51)
-------
18.0 Site in Oregon
This section focuses on a few specific meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends
for the UATMP sites in Oregon (PLOR and PNW), located in Portland. Figures 18-1 and 18-2
are topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in their urban locations. Figure 18-3 is
a map identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites that reported to the 1999 NEI. Numerous
industrial facilities are located within ten miles of the sites. The majority of the facilities are
involved in miscellaneous processes. Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003
at the Portand International Airport weather station (WBAN 24229) with the purpose of
calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements.
The Portland sites sampled only hexavalent chromium and therefore do not have an
average UATMP concentration to report in Table 18-1. However, Table 18-1 does list the
average hexavalent chromium concentration in place of the average UATMP concentration.
Table 18-1 also lists temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point
temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information
(average u- and v- components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the
entire year and on days samples were taken. Portland is nestled between the Cascades mountain
range to the east and the coast to the west. The proximity to the Pacific Ocean has a moderating
effect on Portland's temperatures, while the mountains act as both a barrier and an enhancer for
temperatures and precipitation. The rainy season occurs during the winter months, while the
summer is rather dry. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition
(Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
18.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Oregon Sites
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for hexavalent chromium at each site. Tables 18-2a-b summarize the
cancer weighting scores, while Tables 18-3a-b summarize the noncancer weighting scores. For a
compound to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95%
of the total site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered
prevalent for each site.
18-1
-------
The Portland sites sampled only for hexavalent chromium. Tables 18-2a-b and 18-3a-b
show that chromium VI compounds have both a cancer and noncancer toxicity weighting.
However, chromium VI weighting is not listed in Tables 18-5a and b, because only VOC and
carbonyl compounds are listed in these tables.
18.2 Toxicity Analysis
Even though hexavalent chromium was detected in nearly all of the samples taken at both
PLOR and PNW, the average concentration at each site was still less than 0.0001 //g/m3. The
average cancer and noncancer toxicity tended to be higher at PLOR than at PNW. The
hexavalent chromium cancer risk at PLOR was the highest among the two sites at 2.93 in a
million, while at PNW, the cancer risk was 2.14 in a million. For the noncancer toxicity, the
average hexavalent chromium toxicity at PLOR was 0.00245 (over 1 indicates a significant
chance of a noncancer health effect). None of the compound concentrations were above their
noncancer RfC weighting factors.
18.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Oregon Sites
The average hexavalent chromium concentration at PLOR was 0.260 (± 0.049) ng/m3,
and is summarized in Table 18-5. Pearson Correlation coefficients were calculated for these
sites for hexavalent chromium and are listed in Tables 18-4a-b. Somewhat stronger correlations
were computed at PLOR than at PNW. The strongest correlation was between hexavalent
chromium and relative humidity (0.30). However, correlations at both sites tended to be rather
weak.
18.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration and population in Multnomah County, OR, were obtained
from the Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are
summarized in Table 18-5. Also included in Table 18-5 is the population within 10 miles of
each site and the average daily traffic information, which reflects the average number of cars
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Using these
parameters, a car registration ratio was computed. An estimation of 10-mile car registration was
18-2
-------
computed using the 10-mile populations surrounding the monitors and the car registration ratio.
This information is compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at
each Portland site in Table 18-5.
18-3
-------
Figure 18-1. Portland, Oregon (PLOR) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
18-4
-------
Figure 18-2. Portland, Oregon (PNW) Monitoring Station
^..^ ,. ,;'p:4
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
18-5
-------
Figure 18-3. Portland, Oregon (PLOR and PNW) Monitoring Stations
Multnomsh
County
/ Clard: County /
Pp
pp
iftfeshinglm '
County ,
P. """;
Pp' P /
' P "•'-•-,
- fS p .. F tf
1 PP •' - u
SE
T ,.
Pp
Crackamss County
Legend
j§] PLOR site
-if PNW site |
Note: Due to facility density and colocaliwi, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
10 mils radius
] County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
<:• Apparel £ Other Textile Products Facility (1)
* Automotive Repair Services, S Parking (1)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (3)
E Electric. Gas, & Sanitary Services (3}
z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (2)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (7)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (6)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility
a Household Accessories Facility (1}
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (2)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (5)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (154)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1}
e Papers Allied Products (1)
1 Petroleum 8 Coal Products (1)
P Petroleum/Nat, Gas Prod, & Refining Industrial Facility (1)
v Polymers & Resins Production industrial Facility (3)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
U Stone. Clay. Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (16)
T Transportation Equipment (2)
? Unknown (2)
i Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (3)
6 Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods (4)
18-6
-------
Table 18-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Sites in Oregon
Site
Name
PLOR
PNW
Type
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
Average
Concentration
(ppbv)
\\^
0.00
(±0.00)
^^
0.00
(±0.00)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
63.59
(±1.51)
66.24
(±3.93)
63.59
(±1.51)
75.14
(±3.76)
Average
Temperature
55.10
(±1.16)
57.06
(±2.93)
55.10
(±1.16)
64.10
(±2.60)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
45.26
(±0.88)
46.27
(±2.23)
45.26
(±0.88)
50.60
(±2.52)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
49.95
(±0.89)
51.34
(±2.26)
49.95
(±0.89)
56.60
(±2.11)
Average
Relative
Humidity
73.05
(±1.37)
70.57
(±3.38)
73.05
(±1.37)
64.57
(±3.59)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1017.24
(±0.58)
1017.73
(±1.37)
1017.24
(±0.58)
1018.03
(±1.29)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.17
(±0.47)
0.95
(±1.28)
0.17
(±0.47)
1.9
(±1.44)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.46
(±0.44)
-0.17
(±1.20)
0.46
(±0.44)
-2.04
(±1.37)
oo
-------
Table 18-2a. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Portland, Oregon
Monitoring Site 1 - PLOR
Compound
Chromium VI and
compounds
Average
Toxicity
2.93E-06
%
Contribution
100.00
Cumulative
%
Contribution
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.0001
#
Detects
48
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
2.93
18-8
-------
Table 18-2b. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Portland, Oregon
Monitoring Site 2 - PNW
Compound
Chromium VI and
compounds
Average
Toxicity
2.14E-06
%
Contribution
100.00
Cumulative
%
Contribution
100.00
Average
Concentration
Oug/m3)
O.0001
#
Detects
28
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
2.14
18-9
-------
Table 18-3a. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Portland, Oregon
Monitoring Site 1 - PLOR
Compound
Chromium VI and
compounds
Average
Toxicity
2.45E-03
%
Contribution
100.00
Cumulative
%
Contribution
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
O.0001
#
Detects
48
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
0
18-10
-------
Table 18-3b. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Portland, Oregon
Monitoring Site 2 - PNW
Compound
Chromium VI and
compounds
Average
Toxicity
1.78E-03
Contribution
100.00
Cumulative
Contribution
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A
-------
Table 18-4a. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Portland,
Oregon Site 1 (PLOR)
Compound
Chromium VI and
compounds
Maximum
Temperature
-0.25
Average
Temperature
-0.28
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.16
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.24
Relative
Humidity
0.30
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.27
u-component
of wind
0.01
v-component
of wind
0.20
oo
I
to
-------
Table 18-4b. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Portland,
Oregon Site 2 (PNW)
Compound
Chromium VI and
compounds
Maximum
Temperature
0.00
Average
Temperature
-0.08
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.12
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.12
Relative
Humidity
-0.04
Sea Level
Pressure
0.05
u-component
of wind
-0.01
v-component
of wind
-0.24
oo
-------
Table 18-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Oregon Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
PLOR
PNW
Estimated
County
Population
677,626
677,626
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
721,796
721,796
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
1.07
1.07
Population
within Ten
Miles
989,953
1,021,272
Estimated 10-Mile
Car Registration
1,059,250
1,092,761
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
1,000
500
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
<0.01
0.01
oo
-------
19.0 Sites in Puerto Rico
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the two
UATMP sites in Puerto Rico (BAPR and SJPR). These sites reside along Puerto Rico's northern
coastline, with SJPR in San Juan and BAPR farther west in Barceloneta. Figures 19-1 and 19-2
are topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in their urban locations. Figures 19-3
and 19-4 are maps identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites that reported to the 1999
NEI. There are a number of pharmaceutical production and fuel combustion industrial facilities
mainly to the east of BAPR. SJPR has nearly as many facilities nearby but they are more evenly
scattered around the monitoring site, and are mostly involved in fuel combustion. Hourly
meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003 at the San Juan International Airport weather
station (WBAN 11641) with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with
ambient air concentration measurements.
Table 19-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at each of these sites, along
with temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature,
average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and
v- components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. Puerto Rico is located in the northern Caribbean and experiences a
tropical climate, where the air is warm and humid year-round (as Table 19-1 confirms). Breezy
winds flow from the northeast to the east on average with the aid of the sub-tropical high
pressure that resides over the tropical Atlantic Ocean.
19.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Puerto Rico Sites
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at each site. Tables 19-2a-b summarize the cancer
weighting scores and Tables 19-3a-b summarize the noncancer weighting scores. For a
compound to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95%
of the total site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered
prevalent for each site.
19-1
-------
Tables 19-2a-b show that most of the detected cancer compounds reflect the nationwide
prevalent cancer compound list, as listed in Section 3 of this report. Only methylene chloride and
formaldehyde (detected at BAPR and SJPR) were not listed among the nationwide prevalent
cancer compounds. Methylene chloride was the only cancer compound not prevalent at both
sites. For the noncancer compounds summarized in Tables 19-3a-b, several of the detected
compounds were not listed among the nationwide noncancer prevalent list. However, methylene
chloride at BAPR and chloroprene at SJPR were considered prevalent and not listed as a
nationwide prevalent noncancer compound.
Toxic compounds not detected at the Puerto Rico sites were: acrylonitrile, 1,2-
dichloroethane; trichloroethylene; 1,3-dichloroprene; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; vinyl chloride;
bromoform; bromomethane; 1,1-dichloroethene; 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene; chlorobenzene and
chloroethane.
19.2 Toxicity Analysis
The prevalent cancer compounds tended to contribute somewhat evenly to each site's
toxicity, although benzene contributed to at least 20% of the cancer toxicity at both sites.
Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde had the most detects for cancer compounds at both sites,
although only acetaldehyde was considered prevalent at both sites. Acetaldehyde contributes to
at least 30% of the total noncancer toxicity for both of the sites, and, again, acetaldehyde and
formaldehyde have the largest number of detects of the noncancer compounds.
The benzene cancer risk at SJPR was the highest among the two sites at 16.2 in a million,
while at BAPR, the carbon tetrachloride cancer risk was 9.03 in a million. For the compounds
which may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the average acetaldehyde toxicity at SJPR
was 0.650 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer health effect). Of the sixteen
measured acetaldehyde concentrations at SJPR, two were above the acetaldehyde noncancer RfC
weighting factor.
19-2
-------
19.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Puerto Rico Sites
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were measured at the two Puerto Rican sites, as indicated
in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. The average total UATMP daily concentration at the two sites was
relatively similar, with SJPR's average of 56.62 ±14.64 ppbv, and BAPR's average of 52.24
±15.18 ppbv. Table 19-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from
January 2003 to December 2003.
Tables 19-4a-b present the summary of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for
each of the prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters by site. Identification
of the prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. BAPR's strongest
correlation was between 1,3-butadiene and relative humidity (-0.97). 1,3-Butadiene, benzene,
and acetonitrile tended to have negative correlations with the temperature and moisture
parameters, while acetaldehyde and formaldehyde tended to have positive correlations with the
same parameters. Both positive and negative strong correlations were computed between the
compounds and the weather parameters, making it difficult to make general statements about
concentration changes under different weather conditions.
Fewer strong correlations were computed at SJPR than at BAPR. SJPR's strongest
correlation was between/?-dichlorobenzene and average temperature (-0.69). In fact, p-
dichlorobenzene had moderately strong to strong negative correlations with maximum and
average temperature, dewpoint, wet bulb temperature, and strong positive correlations with both
components of the wind speed. With one exception, all of the compounds had negative
correlations with the v-component of the wind. Pearson correlations could not be computed for
chloroprene due to the low number of detects (fewer than 3).
19.4 Spatial Analysis
Data used to estimate the number of motor vehicles operating in proximity to the
monitoring stations were not available for the Puerto Rico sites. However, the average daily
traffic information, or, more specifically, the average number of motor vehicles passing the
monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis was available. This
19-3
-------
information is compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at the
Puerto Rico sites in Table 19-5. As is evident in Table 19-5, the San Juan site has significantly
more nearby traffic than the Barceloneta site.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.). Figure 3-1 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at the monitoring sites. The Puerto Rico concentration ratios somewhat resemble the roadside
study's ratios, although the toluene-ethylbenzene ratios tended to be higher at the Puerto Rico
sites than at the roadside study, while the benzene-ethylbenzene ratios tended to be lower at the
sites than the roadside study.
19-4
-------
Figure 19-1. Barceloneta, Puerto Rico (BAPR) Monitoring Station
|;:::',;- ;;^-.v
e "ui:-vf ^7>i/
-^ /r ^.w_. "?pffi«
> ->--^- X--' i i ;..
\ :' h /*->^ j
f -^ ^1
,* ". yj
'•^frj^^'IV' ;'
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
19-5
-------
Figure 19-2. San Juan, Puerto Rico (SJPR) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
19-6
-------
Figure 19-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BAPR
'"•
s-
-
S-
~'
'. . ,.- \
.. -7: ' ^ '••
, - • '' _.x' \ Q ''' Vega Baja
'.. ... " ' ,,«_,_j_i;— * — "^ \ \ \ Municipio
. • ' . ir-~ — ^ , a \ \
. - "_ . T<-'BareeIoneta • r > > ''•
/' I,. Munlcipio Jn -' \ \ r •
I - ' ' r'r~^' ^ £* F'. "F> - \ '' \
,_--/ ' 't ^'V '..»-"" | 1 ;
r , Vr^"* ^ - ' " '-
, ~^ E r ff* * / " ' Manati ( I
- " ^ - - s 'c *\- ' " '- ' Munlclpl° VJ' '""J
Arecibo' Municipip. - ! '• \ -, ^ \ /
Hatillo \ ., \ , •," 'cj^,--' \ ....'^ \''
Munlcipio _ ,, \ , F X" San Juan ( X v sf \, - "
\ .. -• \ ' \ Muniopio u . - /' \,,ofovls
1 .. -" ... , /, / ,. - / \Municipio
\ - ' ' V ; ''• •> tir:':"'~ v' ^
• \ \ \ •.. •. ,v^.;^ _.c M, i
\. 1 \ •• "'--X ..'',- ;:.,-r"' " Vv\^ ^....' • ' wSnldpio
' ^ '' yr x-, - ' "'" ^:~'*' . _.^"" J 'v > -
Canuiy ^ ,/ - c, _..-^f "'--.. ^•-•'~~*fJ I '' "/
Mynicipio \ /- " V /' ''• ~ " t*f \, |>-^ "~'"~"
i .. \ f '' "•-'' i Jayuya > , f '
^^ >' .'• '? -• utuadoMunkipio '. ,'MunidpioS .. - ' H. San
Lares ,---" , ~> > -«. JT" Lorenzo
^iln|r{p|n ---"' ° 1 ¥ I 1 4 1 1 T ^ * Hiinidpin
;-
,;J
,
M~!
-
Note: Due to facility density and colocation. the total facilities
• . displayed may not represent ail facilities within the area of interest
^ BAPR UATMP site
10 mile radius
]County Boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
: Apparel & Other Textile Products Facility (1)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (4)
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (1)
7 Food & Agriculture Processes Industrial Facility (1}
f Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (7)
Instruments & Related Products Facility (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (1)
•> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (12)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (2)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility {2}
19-7
-------
Figure 19-4. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SJPR
Legend
g] SJPR UATMP site &
Q 10 mile radius B
[ County Boundary x
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) P
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (3) \
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (2) 1
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (1) P
7 Food & Agriculture Processes Industrial Facility (1) >
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (122) tt
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (5) s
86WW 86WW
Note: Due to facility density and allocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities wrthin the area of interest.
Lumber & Wood Products Facility (2)
Mineral Products Processing Industnal Facility (1)
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (2)
Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (5)
Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
Petroleum & Coal Products (1)
Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (1)
Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (4)
Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
Surface Coating Processes Industnal Facility (5)
19-8
-------
Table 19-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Puerto Rico
Site
Name
BAPR
SJPR
Type
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
^^
52.24
(±15.18)
^^s
56.62
(±14.64)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
85.72
(±0.27)
86.06
(±0.82)
85.72
(±0.27)
85.88
(±0.85)
Average
Temperature
79.81
(±0.23)
79.76
(±0.84)
79.81
(±0.23)
79.58
(±0.86)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
72.71
(±0.29)
72.81
(±1.34)
72.71
(±0.29)
72.60
(±1.32)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
74.94
(±0.24)
74.97
(±1.06)
74.94
(±0.24)
74.78
(±1.06)
Average
Relative
Humidity
79.79
(±0.59)
80.16
(±2.45)
79.79
(±0.59)
80.08
(±2.31)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1015.27
(±0.22)
1016.29
(±0.84)
1015.27
(±0.22)
1016.26
(±0.79)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-5.04
(±0.30)
-5.80
(±1.32)
-5.04
(±0.30)
-5.69
(±1.26)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.88
(±0.23)
-0.80
(±0.72)
-0.88
(±0.23)
-0.74
(±0.69)
VO
-------
Table 19-2a. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
Monitoring Site - BAPR
Compound
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Acetaldehyde
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
9.03E-06
8.04E-06
7.12E-06
6.17E-06
5.70E-06
4.13E-06
9.77E-09
%
Contribution
22.45
20.00
17.72
15.34
14.18
10.27
0.02
Cumulative
%
Contribution
22.45
42.46
60.17
75.52
89.70
99.98
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.602
1.031
0.237
0.561
2.592
8.788
1.776
#
Detects
14
15
5
6
16
15
16
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
9.03
8.04
7.12
6.17
5.70
4.13
<1
19-10
-------
Table 19-2b. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the San Juan, Puerto Rico
Monitoring Site - SJPR
Compound
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethy lene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
1.62E-05
1.29E-05
1.13E-05
9.66E-06
6.90E-06
1.75E-06
2.63E-07
2.09E-08
%
Contribution
27.40
21.81
19.24
16.39
11.71
2.97
0.45
0.04
Cumulative
%
Contribution
27.40
49.22
68.46
84.84
96.55
99.52
99.96
100.00
Average
Concentration
Oug/m3)
2.072
5.848
0.378
0.879
0.460
0.297
0.559
3.804
#
Detects
15
16
10
11
15
2
14
16
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
16.2
12.9
11.3
9.66
6.90
1.75
<1
<1
19-11
-------
Table 19-3a. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Barceloneta, Puerto
Rico Monitoring Site - BAPR
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Benzene
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Toluene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Ethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
Methyl Methacrylate
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Methyl terf-Butyl Ether
Styrene
Average
Toxicity
2.88E-01
2.06E-01
1.81E-01
1.19E-01
6.45E-02
3.44E-02
2.07E-02
1.85E-02
1.50E-02
8.79E-03
1.51E-03
9.19E-04
7.01E-04
3.69E-04
3.51E-04
2.00E-04
1.92E-04
1.56E-04
%
Contribution
30.00
21.43
18.88
12.37
6.72
3.58
2.16
1.92
1.57
0.92
0.16
0.10
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
Cumulative
%
Contribution
30.00
51.43
70.31
82.68
89.40
92.98
95.14
97.06
98.63
99.54
99.70
99.79
99.87
99.91
99.94
99.96
99.98
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
2.592
12.345
1.776
0.237
6.446
1.031
1.866
7.381
0.602
8.788
7.570
0.919
0.561
1.106
0.246
0.200
0.577
0.156
#
Detects
16
5
16
5
15
15
15
15
14
15
6
14
6
2
1
3
1
3
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19-12
-------
Table 19-3b. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the San Juan, Puerto Rico
Monitoring Site - SJPR
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Benzene
Chloroprene
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Toluene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Tetrachloroethy lene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Styrene
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Chloroethane
(Ethyl Chloride)
Average
Toxicity
6.50E-01
3.88E-01
2.24E-01
1.89E-01
1.31E-01
6.91E-02
4.14E-02
2.21E-02
2.02E-02
1.15E-02
3.01E-03
1.47E-03
1.11E-03
1.10E-03
1.10E-03
8.59E-04
5.59E-04
3.90E-04
3.85E-04
2.67E-04
2.11E-05
%
Contribution
36.99
22.10
12.77
10.77
7.43
3.93
2.36
1.26
1.15
0.66
0.17
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.0001
Cumulative
%
Contribution
36.99
59.09
71.86
82.63
90.06
94.00
96.35
97.61
98.76
99.42
99.59
99.67
99.73
99.80
99.86
99.91
99.94
99.96
99.98
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A
-------
Table 19-4a. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Barceloneta,
Puerto Rico Site (BAPR)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
/?-Dichlorobenzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.06
0.49
-0.54
-0.44
-0.12
0.34
-0.51
0.00
0.16
-0.06
Average
Temperature
-0.48
0.59
-0.04
-0.63
-0.16
0.42
-0.59
0.09
-0.12
0.06
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.81
0.69
-0.39
-0.51
0.00
0.38
-0.24
-0.33
-0.19
0.07
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.74
0.70
-0.37
-0.58
-0.05
0.41
-0.35
-0.24
-0.19
0.06
Relative
Humidity
-0.97
0.42
-0.52
-0.17
0.17
0.15
0.15
-0.52
-0.16
0.04
Sea Level
Pressure
0.61
0.27
0.61
-0.19
-0.59
0.49
-0.52
0.10
0.10
0.30
u-component
of wind
0.37
-0.55
0.19
0.48
0.25
-0.47
0.54
-0.27
0.06
-0.07
v-component
of wind
0.23
-0.73
-0.14
0.42
0.10
-0.61
0.30
0.20
0.34
-0.16
VO
-------
Table 19-4b. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the San Juan,
Puerto Rico Site (SJPR)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroprene
Formaldehyde
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.09
0.28
-0.47
-0.05
0.12
NA
0.15
-0.65
0.13
Average
Temperature
-0.30
0.46
-0.30
-0.17
0.13
NA
0.37
-0.69
0.23
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.30
0.25
-0.12
-0.02
0.20
NA
0.30
-0.31
0.28
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.28
0.32
-0.17
-0.06
0.20
NA
0.35
-0.43
0.29
Relative
Humidity
-0.17
-0.05
0.08
0.12
0.17
NA
0.09
0.27
0.19
Sea Level
Pressure
0.26
-0.02
-0.14
0.36
0.10
NA
0.37
-0.30
0.41
u-component
of wind
-0.07
-0.27
0.34
-0.08
-0.18
NA
-0.26
0.51
-0.23
v-component
of wind
-0.16
-0.12
-0.51
-0.33
-0.45
NA
-0.31
0.51
-0.34
VO
-------
Table 19-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Puerto Rico Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
BAPR
SJPR
Estimated
County
Population
22,556
433,412
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
12,362
238,799
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
0.55
0.55
Population
within Ten
Miles
NA
NA
Estimated 10-Mile
Car Registration
NA
NA
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
10
51,000
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
52.24 (±15. 18)
56.62 (±14.64)
VO
-------
20.0 Sites in South Dakota
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
sites in South Dakota (CUSD and SFSD). One site is located in Sioux Falls, situated in
southeastern South Dakota, and the other in Custer, in western South Dakota, south of Rapid
City. Figures 20-1 and 20-2 are topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in their
urban locations. Figures 20-3 and 20-4 are maps identifying facilities within ten miles of the
sites that reported to the 1999 NEI. The SFSD map shows that there are very few industrial
facilities near the monitoring site; most of these facilities are to the northwest of the site. The
CUSD site shows no facilities nearby. Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003
at the Sioux Falls Foss Field weather station (WBAN 14944) and the Custer County Airport
weather station (WBAN 94032) near the sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements.
Table 20-1 highlights the UATMP average concentration at each site, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. The Sioux Falls area has a continental climate, with cold winters,
warm summers, and often drastic day to day variations. Precipitation varies throughout the year,
but is typically sufficient for the springtime growing season. On average, a south wind blows in
the summer and a northwesterly wind blows in the winter. The weather in Custer is considered
semi-arid continental; annual precipitation is light. Warm summers and relatively mild winters
are characteristic of this area, thanks to the Black Hills to the west, allowing winters to be more
mild in comparison to the rest of the state. This information can be found in The Weather
Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
20.1 Prevalent Compounds at the South Dakota Sites
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at each site. Tables 20-2a-b summarize the cancer
20-1
-------
weighting scores and Tables 20-3a-b summarize the noncancer weighting scores. For a
compound to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95%
of the total site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered
prevalent for each site.
Tables 20-2a-b show that most of the detected cancer compounds reflect the nationwide
prevalent cancer compound list, as listed in Section 3 of this report. Only trichloroethylene
(detected at CUSD), methylene chloride (detected at both sites), and formaldehyde (detected at
both sites) were not listed among the nationwide prevalent cancer compounds. However, all of
the site-specific prevalent cancer compounds are also on the nationwide list. For the noncancer
compounds summarized in Tables 20-3a-b, several compounds not listed on the nationwide
prevalent noncancer compound list were detected at CUSD and SFSD. However, all of the site-
specific prevalent noncancer compounds are also on the nationwide list.
Toxic compounds not detected at the South Dakota sites were: 1,2-dichloroethane; 1,3-
dichloroprene; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; vinyl chloride; bromoform; chloroprene; 1,1-
dichloroethene; 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene; chlorobenzene and chloroethane.
20.2 Toxicity Analysis
Tetrachloroethylene, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and acetaldehyde were the only
prevalent cancer compounds across both sites. At both sites, tetrachloroethylene made up nearly
a quarter of the total cancer toxicity, although the number of detects was low. Conversely,
benzene was detected over 100 times at each site, but contributed to 20% of the total cancer
toxicity or less.
Acetonitrile, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and benzene were the prevalent
noncancer compounds at both sites. At both sites, benzene was detected the most frequently of
the noncancer prevalent compounds, but accounted for less than two percent of the total
noncancer toxicity.
20-2
-------
The acrylonitrile cancer risk at SFSD was the highest among the two sites at 114 in a
million, while at CUSD, the tetrachloroethylene cancer risk was 11.1 in a million. For the
compounds which may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the average acetonitrile toxicity
at CUSD was 2.08 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer health effect). Of the
eight adverse health concentrations measured at the South Dakota sites, four were for
acetonitrile.
20.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the South Dakota Sites
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were measured at these sites, as indicated in Tables 3-3
and 3-4. The average total UATMP daily concentration at CUSD was 140.3 (± 66.33) //g/m3,
while at SFSD it was considerably lower, 88.97 (± 14.89) //g/m3. Table 20-1 also lists the
averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2003 to December 2003.
These sites also opted to have total and speciated nonmethane organic compounds
(TNMOC/SNMOC) sampled during their air toxic sampling. SNMOC/NMOC compounds are
of particular interest because of their role in ozone formation. Readers are encouraged to review
EPA's 2001 Nonmethane Organic Compounds (NMOC) and Speciated Nonmethane Organic
Compounds (SNMOC) Monitoring Program, Final Report (EPA, 2002) for more information on
SNMOC/NMOC trends and concentrations. The average total NMOC value for SFSD was
322.09 ppbC, of which nearly 36% could be identified through speciation. Of the speciated
compounds, hexane measured the highest concentration at the SFSD site (52.93 ppbC). The
average total NMOC value for CUSD was 311.30 ppbC, of which nearly 55% could be identified
through speciation. Of the speciated compounds, toluene measured the highest concentration at
the CUSD site (69.42 ppbC). This information is presented in Table 20-4.
Tables 20-5a and 20-5b are the summaries of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients
for each of the prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters. Identification of
the prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. At CUSD, formaldehyde had
several very strong correlations with the meteorological parameters (0.68 to 0.70). Both
20-3
-------
acetaldehyde and formaldehyde had moderately strong to strong positive correlations with
maximum, average, dewpoint, and wet bulb temperatures. Interestingly, these are the only two
prevalent carbonyl compounds. 1,3-Butadiene and benzene both had moderately strong to strong
negative correlations with these same parameters. 1,3-Butadiene also had a strong positive
correlation with relative humidity. With few exceptions, the remaining correlations were rather
weak. Pearson correlations could not be computed for/?-dichlorobenzene and
tetrachloroethylene due to the low number of detects (fewer than 4).
Most of the correlations between the prevalent compounds and weather variables were
rather weak at the SFSD site. However, a strong negative correlation was computed between
acetonitrile and the u-component of the wind. Pearson correlations could not be computed for
tetrachloroethylene and acrylonitrile due to the low number of detects (fewer than 4).
20.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration and population in Custer County, SD, and Minnehaha
County, SD, were obtained from the South Dakota Department of Revenue, South Dakota
Division of Motor Vehicles and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in Table 20-6.
Also included in Table 20-6 is the population within 10 miles of each site and the average daily
traffic information, which reflects the average number of cars passing the monitoring sites on the
nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Using these parameters, a car registration ratio was
computed. An estimation of 10-mile car registration was computed using the 10-mile
populations surrounding the monitors and the car registration ratio. This information is
compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at each South Dakota
site in Table 20-6. SFSD has both the largest daily traffic volume and the largest vehicle
ownership within a ten mile radius, compared to CUSD.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.). Figure 3-1 depicts the
20-4
-------
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. The concentration ratios for CUSD resemble those of the
roadside study, although each of CUSD's ratios are somewhat lower than the roadside study's.
SFSD's toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is comparable to the roadside study's, but SFSD's benzene-
ethylbenzene and xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio are lower and roughly equal in value.
20-5
-------
Figure 20-1. Custer, South Dakota (CUSD) Monitoring Station
- -.
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
20-6
-------
Figure 20-2. Sioux Falls, South Dakota (SFSD) Monitoring Station
>\
cTf' •' %
. Y
N
a:- 7 -u.
» \ / p f\
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
20-7
-------
Figure 20-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CUSD
Legend
0 CUSDUATMPsite
O 10 mile radius
I County boundary
"There were no point facilities from the 1999 NEI within 10 miles of CUSD.
20-8
-------
Figure 20-4. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SFSD
Note: Due to facility density and co location, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
•fr SFSD UATMP site
O 10 mile radius
| [County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (2)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (1)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (3)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (1)
20-9
-------
Table 20-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in South Dakota
Site
Name
CUSD
SFSD
Type
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
^^
140.30
(±66.33)
^^s
88.97
(±14.89)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
53.76
(±2.07)
53.27
(±4.99)
56.77
(±2.40)
58.58
(±6.17)
Average
Temperature
43.12
(±1.85)
42.26
(±4.57)
46.64
(±2.23)
48.42
(±5.62)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
28.10
(±1.55)
27.22
(±4.07)
36.32
(±2.05)
37.79
(±5.10)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
36.23
(±1.51)
35.54
(±3.85)
41.64
(±1.99)
43.12
(±4.99)
Average
Relative
Humidity
60.66
(±1.70)
60.08
(±4.10)
70.48
(±1.16)
70.03
(±2.93)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1014.41
(±0.70)
1014.18
(±1.62)
1015.77
(±0.76)
1014.71
(±1.89)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
2.34
(±0.42)
1.97
(±0.91)
0.40
(±0.54)
0.62
(±1.38)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.73
(±0.27)
-1.02
(±0.70)
0.17
(±0.68)
0.26
(±1.86)
to
o
-------
Table 20-2a. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Custer, South Dakota
Monitoring Site - CUSD
Compound
Tetrachloroethene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
1.11E-05
8.98E-06
7.79E-06
6.55E-06
3.57E-06
3.31E-06
1.88E-06
2.08E-07
1.55E-08
%
Contribution
25.53
20.71
17.95
15.09
8.24
7.62
4.34
0.48
0.04
Cumulative
%
Contribution
25.53
46.23
64.19
79.28
87.52
95.15
99.48
99.96
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
1.877
1.151
0.519
0.218
1.625
0.301
0.940
0.443
2.816
#
Detects
3
120
51
34
61
1
2
15
61
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
11.1
8.98
7.79
6.55
3.57
3.31
1.88
<1
<1
20-11
-------
Table 20-2b. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Monitoring Site - SFSD
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Tetrachloroethene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
1.14E-04
4.14E-05
8.19E-06
7.86E-06
6.51E-06
3.09E-06
2.06E-07
1.75E-08
%
Contribution
62.96
22.80
4.51
4.33
3.59
1.70
0.11
0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
62.96
85.76
90.26
94.59
98.17
99.88
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
Oug/m3)
1.682
7.021
0.546
1.007
2.961
0.103
0.438
3.188
#
Detects
3
2
46
110
50
28
25
50
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
114
41.4
8.19
7.86
6.51
3.09
<1
<1
20-12
-------
Table 20-3a. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Custer, South Dakota
Monitoring Site - CUSD
Compound
Acetonitrile
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Methyl Methacrylate
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Hexane
Chloroform
Methyl terf-Butyl Ether
Trichloroethylene
Styrene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Average
Toxicity
2.08E+00
2.87E-01
1.81E-01
1.09E-01
3.84E-02
2.96E-02
1.33E-02
1.32E-02
1.30E-02
9.61E-03
6.95E-03
6.85E-03
3.52E-03
1.59E-03
1.57E-03
8.86E-04
7.55E-04
7.50E-04
4.43E-04
3.76E-04
1.96E-04
%
Contribution
74.37
10.26
6.45
3.90
1.37
1.06
0.47
0.47
0.46
0.34
0.25
0.24
0.13
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
74.37
84.63
91.08
94.97
96.34
97.40
97.87
98.34
98.80
99.15
99.40
99.64
99.77
99.82
99.88
99.91
99.94
99.96
99.98
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
124.991
2.816
1.625
0.218
1.151
2.957
1.196
9.224
0.519
3.843
1.877
1.370
0.345
4.758
0.940
0.886
3.775
0.750
0.443
0.301
0.196
#
Detects
19
61
61
34
120
113
58
1
51
120
3
61
1
14
2
73
18
99
15
1
11
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20-13
-------
Table 20-3b. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Sioux Falls, South
Dakota Monitoring Site - SFSD
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Acetonitrile
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Toluene
Hexane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Chloroform
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Styrene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Average
Toxicity
8.41E-01
4.78E-01
3.29E-01
3.25E-01
5.15E-02
3.36E-02
2.60E-02
1.89E-02
1.36E-02
1.35E-02
6.80E-03
6.26E-03
1.75E-03
9.29E-04
9.01E-04
5.21E-04
4.98E-04
4.38E-04
4.04E-04
1.45E-04
%
Contribution
39.13
22.25
15.30
15.13
2.40
1.56
1.21
0.88
0.63
0.63
0.32
0.29
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
39.13
61.38
76.68
91.82
94.22
95.78
96.99
97.87
98.50
99.13
99.45
99.74
99.82
99.86
99.91
99.93
99.95
99.97
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
(^g/m3)
1.682
28.701
2.961
3.188
0.103
1.007
7.021
1.895
0.546
1.215
2.720
1.252
5.256
0.091
4.507
0.521
0.498
0.438
1.211
0.145
#
Detects
3
18
50
50
28
110
2
107
46
55
110
55
20
1
27
71
95
25
3
8
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
0
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20-14
-------
Table 20-4. TNMOC Measured by the Custer and Sioux Falls, South Dakota
(CUSD and SFSD) Monitoring Station
Monitoring
Station
CUSD
SFSD
Average
TNMOC
Speciated
(ppbC)
118.60
99.01
Average
TNMOC w/
Unknowns
(ppbC)
311.30
322.09
% TNMOC
Identified
55%
36%
SNMOC Compound
with the Highest
Concentration
(ppbC)
Toluene (69.42)
Hexane (52.93)
20-15
-------
Table 20-5a. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Custer,
South Dakota Site (CUSD)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Maximum
Temperature
-0.48
0.52
0.17
-0.38
0.06
0.69
NA
NA
Average
Temperature
-0.51
0.51
0.15
-0.40
0.07
0.70
NA
NA
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.30
0.36
0.18
-0.38
0.17
0.68
NA
NA
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.47
0.44
0.16
-0.41
0.12
0.70
NA
NA
Relative
Humidity
0.51
-0.31
0.09
0.10
0.23
-0.10
NA
NA
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.01
-0.01
-0.23
0.11
-0.12
0.11
NA
NA
u-component
of wind
-0.22
-0.33
-0.13
0.00
-0.07
-0.46
NA
NA
v-component
of wind
-0.41
0.08
0.36
-0.18
-0.04
0.20
NA
NA
to
o
-------
Table 20-5b. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Sioux Falls,
South Dakota Site (SFSD)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Maximum
Temperature
-0.16
0.15
-0.36
NA
-0.06
0.17
0.07
NA
Average
Temperature
-0.21
0.06
-0.27
NA
-0.08
0.21
0.02
NA
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.21
0.00
-0.19
NA
-0.11
0.29
-0.04
NA
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.21
0.03
-0.24
NA
-0.10
0.25
0.00
NA
Relative
Humidity
-0.01
-0.19
0.43
NA
-0.11
0.29
-0.25
NA
Sea Level
Pressure
0.08
0.14
-0.18
NA
0.08
-0.41
0.23
NA
u-component
of wind
0.08
-0.03
-0.59
NA
0.16
-0.11
-0.13
NA
v-component
of wind
0.43
0.01
-0.53
NA
0.01
-0.05
0.04
NA
to
o
-------
to
o
Table 20-6. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
CUSD
SFSD
Estimated
County
Population
7,467
152,545
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
8,820
148,759
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
1.18
0.98
Population
within Ten
Miles
5,094
151,161
Estimated 10-Mile
Car Registration
6,011
148,138
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
1,940
4,320
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
140.33 (±66.33)
88.97 (±14.89)
oo
-------
21.0 Sites in Tennessee
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
sites in Tennessee (DITN, EATN, KITN, LDTN, and LOTN). Two sites are located in Nashville
in central Tennessee (EATN and LOTN), one is to the west of Nashville in Dickson (DITN), one
is in Kingsport in the northeast corner of the state (KITN), and one is located to the southwest of
Knoxville (LDTN). Figures 21-1 through 21-5 are topographical maps showing the monitoring
stations in their urban locations. Figures 21-6 through 21-9 are maps identifying facilities within
ten miles of the sites that reported to the 1999 NEI. The two Nashville sites are very close to
each other and, of the five Tennessee sites, have the largest number of industrial sites within ten
miles of the monitors, with a majority of the industrial sites located to the southeast, south, and
southwest of the UATMP sites. Most of these industrial sites are surface coating, printing and
publishing, and fuel combustion facilities. The Dickson site is surrounded by the fewest
industrial sources. The Kingsport site has a few more industrial sites nearby, the majority of
which are involved in fuel combustion. The Loudon site has the same number of sources nearby
as KITN, but most of these are involved in waste treatment and polymer and resin production.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003 at four weather stations near the sites
with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The four weather stations are the Nashville International Airport,
Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport, Clarksville Outlaw Airport, and Bristol Tri-City Airport
(WBAN 13897, 13891, 03894, and 13877, respectively).
Table 21-1 highlights the UATMP average concentration at each site, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. Nashville's climate is rather moderate in nature, lacking extreme
fluctuations in temperature. The city has a long growing season and boasts four distinct seasons.
As indicated in Table 21-1, though, humidity can make the air uncomfortable. The Dickson area
has a climate similar to Nashville, although diurnal temperature fluctuations are probably greater
due to the loss of the urban heat island. Kingsport is located in northeastern Tennessee,
21-1
-------
approximately equidistant from the Appalachian Mountains to the east and the Clinch and
Cumberland Mountains to the west. The mountains tend to have a moderating effect on the
area's climate and the city sees all four seasons. Loudon is located to the southwest of
Knoxville. The Tennessee River and Watts Bar Lake run through town, influencing the area's
weather by moderating temperatures and affecting wind patterns. The Appalachian Mountains
lie to the east. The area has ample rainfall year-round and, like Kingsport and Nashville,
experiences all four seasons. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth
edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987), and at the following website:
http://www.blueshoenashville.com/weather.html.
21.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Tennessee Sites
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at each site. Tables 21-2a-e summarize the cancer
weighting scores and Tables 21-3a-e summarizes the noncancer weighting scores. For a
compound to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95%
of the total site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered
prevalent for each site.
Tables 21-2a-e show that most of the cancer compounds detected reflect the nationwide
prevalent cancer compound list, as listed in Section 3 of this report. However, as the Nashville
sites also sampled metals and compounds, several metals and compounds are considered
prevalent at these two sites. Aside from metals and compounds, only methylene chloride
(detected at DITN, EATN, KITN, and LOTN), formaldehyde (detected at all TN sites), and
trichloroethylene (detected at EATN and LOTN) were not listed among the nationwide prevalent
cancer compounds. Only acetaldehyde, benzene, and carbon tetrachloride were prevalent across
all five sites. For the noncancer compounds summarized in Tables 21-3a-e, several compounds
detected were not listed among the nationwide noncancer prevalent list, especially at the more
urbanized locations (EATN, LOTN, and KITN). Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were the only
prevalent noncancer compounds across all five sites.
21-2
-------
Toxic compounds not detected at the Tennessee sites were: acrylonitrile; 1,2-
dichloroethane; 1,3-dichloroprene; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; vinyl chloride; bromoform;
chloroprene; 1,1-dichloroethene; methyl methacrylate; 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene; chlorobenzene
and chloroethane.
21.2 Toxicity Analysis
Only acetaldehyde, benzene, and carbon tetrachloride were prevalent across all five sites,
and for the sites that did not sample metals and compounds (DITN, KITN, and LDTN), these
three compounds contributed to 71% or more of the total cancer toxicity. Of these three sites,
only KITN detected the prevalent cancer compounds more than five times. It is important to
note that LDTN and DITN sampled in the final months of 2003 only. For the sites that sampled
metals and compounds (EATN and LOTN), both arsenic and cadmium and compounds were
considered prevalent cancer compounds, and contributed to roughly 25% of the total cancer
toxicity. At four of the five sites, benzene contributed most to the total cancer toxicity (ranging
in contribution from 24% to 43%). Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were the only prevalent
noncancer compounds across all five sites, and these compounds contributed to over half of the
total noncancer toxicity at all of the sites.
The benzene cancer risk at EATN was the highest among the five sites at 11.9 in a
million, while the LOTN, KITN, and DITN benzene risk was 10.5, 9.66, and 4.39 in a million,
respectively. For the compounds which may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the
average formaldehyde noncancer toxicity at LDTN was 2.92 (over 1 indicates a significant
chance of a noncancer health effect). Of the eight adverse health concentrations measured at the
Tennessee sites, five were for formaldehyde.
21.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Tennessee Sites
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were measured at all five sites, as indicated in Tables 3-3
and 3-4. The Nashville sites opted to sample metals and compounds in addition to carbonyls and
VOC. Table 21-1 lists the average UATMP concentration for each of the sites as well as the
averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2003 to December 2003. Average
21-3
-------
metals and compound concentrations are listed in Table 21-5. Average metals concentrations are
relatively similar at both Nashville sites.
Tables 21-4a-e are the summaries of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for each
of the prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters. Identification of the
prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. Because the Dickson site did not
detect any of the prevalent compounds more than two times, a Pearson Correlation analysis
cannot be conducted. Nearly all of the correlations at LDTN were very strong. However, it is
important to keep in mind that this site sampled only carbonyls on eight days, and VOC on four
days. This small number of samples can skew the correlations. For the KITN site, nearly all of
the compounds exhibited at least moderately strong correlations with maximum, average,
dewpoint, and wet bulb temperatures, although some were positive and some were negative.
Formaldehyde had the positive strongest correlation at KITN with maximum temperature (0.72),
while/7-dichlorobenzene had the strongest negative correlation with relative humidity (-0.76).
For the Nashville sites, some of the correlation patterns were similar between EATN and
LOTN. For example, nearly all of the correlations with the u-component of the wind were
negative. Acetaldehyde, arsenic and compounds, benzene, cadmium and compounds, carbon
tetrachloride, formaldehyde, />-dichlorobenzene, and tetrachloroethylene tended to exhibit
similar correlations with a majority of the meteorological parameters at both sites.
Tetrachloroethylene had strong positive correlations with sea level pressure at both sites. Other
correlations were not consistent between EATN and LOTN. 1,3-Butadiene exhibited strong
correlations with all of the parameters at LOTN, but exhibited all weak correlations at EATN.
All but one correlation with the v-component of the wind was positive at the LOTN site, while
this trend is not consistent at EATN. Pearson correlations could not be computed for
bromomethane at LOTN due to the low number of detects (fewer than 3).
21-4
-------
21.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration and population in Davidson, Dickson, Loudon, and Sullivan
Counties were obtained from the Tennessee Department of Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau,
and are summarized in Table 21-6. Also included in Table 21-6 is the population within 10
miles of each site and the average daily traffic information, which reflects the average number of
cars passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Using
these parameters, a car registration ratio was computed. An estimation of 10-mile car
registration was computed using the 10-mile populations surrounding the monitors and the car
registration ratio. This information is compared to the average daily concentration of the
prevalent compounds at each Arizona site in Table 21-6. EATN has both the highest traffic
volume passing the site and the largest estimate registered vehicles within 10 miles, yet has the
lowest average UATMP concentration of the Tennessee sites.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.). Figure 3-1 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. The concentration ratios for both EATN and KITN generally
resemble those of the roadside study. LOTN somewhat resembles the roadside study, but its
toluene-ethylbenzene concentration ratio is significantly higher that the roadside study's.
LDTN's ratios are lower than the roadside study's and the benzene-ethylbenzene ratio is slightly
higher than the xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio, whereas the benzene-ethylbenzene ratio is lower than
the xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio for the roadside study. DITN looks the least like the roadside
study, as its xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio is the higher than the toluene-ethylbenzene ratio, and all
three ratios are significantly lower than those of the roadside study.
21-5
-------
Figure 21-1. Dickson, Tennessee (DITN) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
21-6
-------
Figure 21-2. Nashville Site 1, Tennessee (EATN) Monitoring Station
^ferr- y \ ; w m$
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
21-7
-------
Figure 21-3. Kingsport, Tennessee (KITN) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
21-8
-------
Figure 21-4. Loudon, Tennessee (LDTN) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
21-9
-------
Figure 21-5. Nashville Site 2 (LOTN) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
21-10
-------
Figure 21-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DITN
87*25'0'W B/^O'O'W SflStTW 8?°10'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
33 DITN UATMP site
',.J 10 mile radius
[County Boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (3)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (1)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (2)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (2)
3 Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (2)
I Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
21-11
-------
Figure 21-7. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of EATN and LOTN
Legend
C§) EATN UATMPsite
[g] LOTN UATMPsite
(_) 10 mile radius
| [County Boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
A Agricultural Services Facility (8)
Apparel & Other Textile Products Facility (1)
v Architecture I Serv ice s(1)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (5)
r Construction/Mining Machinery, Equipment, & Materials (1)
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (2)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (6)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2)
7 Food ^Agriculture Processes Industrial Facility (1)
G Food & Kindred Products Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (20)
+ Health Services Facility (1)
• Heavy Construction Contractors Facility (3)
9 Hotels, Rooming Houses, Camps, & Other Lodging (1)
«'4ffCrw 96"3?OTW
Note: Due to -facility density and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities wrthin the area of interest.
I Incineration Industrial Facility (1)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (11)
6 Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (G)
x Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (7)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (12)
" Motor Freight Transportation & Warehousing (1)
o Personal Services (1)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
R Printing & Publishing Facility (30)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (5)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (40)
< Textile Mill Products Facility (1)
T Transportation Equipment (3)
z> Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (3)
$ Wholesale Trade-Durable Goods (1)
6 Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods (6)
21-12
-------
Figure 21-8. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of KITN
82D30'0"W
Note: Due to facility density and coiocation.the total facilities
displayed may not represent ali facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
g| KITN UATMP site
O 10 mile radius
| [County Boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (7)
* Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (1 )
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (3)
o Personal Services (1)
a, Waste Treatment S Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
21-13
-------
Figure 21-9. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of LDTN
84'25'TO 84'20'D'W 84'15'IJ'W 841 (TOW
Note: Due to facility density and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
g] LDTN UATM P site
O 10 mile radius
| [County Boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
7 Food & Agriculture Processes Industrial Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (2)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (3)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (2)
& Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (4)
21-14
-------
Table 21-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Sites in Tennessee
Site
Name
DITN
EATN
KITN
LDTN
LOTN
Type
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
Gug/m3)
^$
39.17
(±28.56)
^^
31.94
(±6.22)
^^
40.79
(±17.95)
^^
89.31
(±17.46)
^^
37.98
(±21.25)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
66.71
(±1.85)
47.50
(±7.62)
67.68
(±1.78)
69.46
(±6.42)
65.41
(±1.70)
67.57
(±5.49)
67.45
(±1.66)
55.60
(±11.97)
67.68
(±1.78)
64.00
(±6.45)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
56.86
(±1.70)
39.38
(±1.79)
58.6
(±1.67)
60.27
(±5.91)
54.41
(±1.56)
55.80
(±5.03)
57.90
(±1.58)
48.19
(±11.63)
58.6
(±1.67)
55.00
(±6.03)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
48.64
(±1.82)
34.04
(±2.54)
48.61
(±1.77)
50.26
(±5.89)
46.21
(±1.70)
46.94
(±5.54)
49.64
(±1.74)
42.28
(±14.54)
48.61
(±1.77)
45.44
(±6.10)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
52.59
(±1.65)
37.23
(±2.17)
53.39
(±1.58)
54.79
(±5.41)
50.24
(±1.52)
51.20
(±4.93)
53.58
(±1.54)
45.62
(±12.57)
53.39
(±1.58)
50.12
(±5.59)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
76.74
(±1.21)
81.72
(±2.33)
72.39
(±1.28)
72.27
(±3.97)
76.51
(±1.10)
75.38
(±3.99)
76.20
(±1.18)
81.03
(±10.16)
72.39
(±1.28)
72.77
(±3.53)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1016.99
(±0.59)
1014.52
(±0.34)
1017.38
(±0.58)
1017.06
(±1.71)
1017.29
(±0.55)
1018.05
(±1.81)
1017.03
(±0.55)
1018.58
(±3.21)
1017.38
(±0.58)
1018.40
(±1.84)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.91
(±0.32)
5.86
(±4.09)
0.80
(±0.29)
1.05
(±1.10)
1.71
(±0.33)
1.71
(±1.07)
1.91
(±0.36)
3.39
(±3.26)
0.80
(±0.29)
0.93
(±0.97)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.38
(±0.42)
-2.07
(±1.67)
0.59
(±0.44)
0.84
(±1.77)
0.30
(±0.17)
0.68
(±0.63)
-0.01
(±0.31)
0.72
(±1.80)
0.59
(±0.44)
0.19
(±1.44)
-------
Table 21-2a. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Dickson, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - DITN
Compound
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
4.39E-06
4.25E-06
1.25E-06
2.45E-07
5.63E-09
%
Contribution
43.33
41.90
12.30
2.42
0.06
Cumulative
%
Contribution
43.33
85.23
97.53
99.94
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.563
0.283
0.566
0.521
1.023
#
Detects
2
2
1
1
1
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
4.39
4.25
1.25
<1
<1
21-16
-------
Table 21-2b. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Nashville Site 1, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - EATN
Compound
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Arsenic and Compounds
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Cadmium and Compounds
Tetrachloroethy lene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Trichloroethylene
Beryllium and Compounds
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
1.19E-05
7.94E-06
6.76E-06
6.00E-06
3.69E-06
3.17E-06
2.86E-06
1.80E-06
1.87E-07
1.85E-07
1.21E-07
1.97E-08
%
Contribution
26.67
17.79
15.14
13.44
8.27
7.10
6.41
4.04
0.42
0.41
0.27
0.04
Cumulative
%
Contribution
26.67
44.46
59.60
73.04
81.31
88.41
94.81
98.85
99.27
99.69
99.96
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
1.527
0.529
0.002
0.200
1.678
0.002
0.485
0.164
0.397
0.093
O.0001
3.586
#
Detects
24
23
23
14
23
23
8
4
17
2
10
23
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
11.9
7.94
6.76
6.00
3.69
3.17
2.86
1.80
<1
<1
<1
<1
21-17
-------
Table 21-2c. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Kingsport, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - KITN
Compound
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
9.66E-06
8.50E-06
4.00E-06
3.98E-06
2.60E-06
2.34E-06
1.71E-07
1.46E-08
%
Contribution
30.90
27.21
12.79
12.72
8.31
7.48
0.55
0.05
Cumulative
%
Contribution
30.90
58.10
70.89
83.61
91.92
99.41
99.95
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
1.238
0.567
1.817
0.133
0.236
0.396
0.363
2.659
#
Detects
26
24
26
14
6
10
13
26
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
9.66
8.50
4.00
3.98
2.60
2.34
<1
<1
21-18
-------
Table 21-2d. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Loudon, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - LDTN
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
1.13E-05
8.60E-06
6.61E-06
1.57E-07
%
Contribution
42.30
32.29
24.81
0.59
Cumulative
%
Contribution
42.30
74.60
99.41
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
5.119
1.102
0.440
28.604
#
Detects
5
4
1
5
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
11.3
8.60
6.61
<1
21-19
-------
Table 21-2e. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Nashville Site 2, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - LOTN
Compound
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Arsenic and Compounds
Acetaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Cadmium and Compounds
Tetrachloroethy lene
Trichloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Beryllium and Compounds
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
1.05E-05
7.93E-06
7.70E-06
6.07E-06
3.25E-06
2.62E-06
2.50E-06
1.61E-06
2.69E-07
2.50E-07
1.05E-07
1.94E-08
%
Contribution
24.45
18.54
18.00
14.19
7.59
6.11
5.84
3.77
0.63
0.58
0.25
0.05
Cumulative
%
Contribution
24.45
42.99
60.99
75.18
82.77
88.88
94.73
98.50
99.13
99.71
99.95
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
1.342
0.529
0.257
0.001
1.477
0.238
0.001
0.273
0.134
0.531
<0.0001
3.531
#
Detects
24
23
9
28
23
5
28
7
2
14
10
23
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
10.5
7.93
7.70
6.07
3.25
2.50
1.61
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
21-20
-------
Table 21-3a. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Dickson, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - DITN
Compound
Formaldehyde
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Toluene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Average
Toxicity
1.04E-01
6.50E-02
6.29E-02
1.88E-02
1.25E-02
6.74E-03
7.08E-03
3.04E-03
7.42E-04
5.21E-04
%
Contribution
37.06
23.06
22.34
6.66
4.45
2.39
2.51
1.08
0.26
0.18
Cumulative
%
Contribution
37.06
60.12
82.46
89.12
93.57
98.47
96.08
99.55
99.82
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
1.023
6.50
0.566
0.563
1.128
2.694
0.283
3.039
3.709
0.521
#
Detects
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21-21
-------
Table 21-3b. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Nashville Site 1,
Tennessee Monitoring Site - EATN
Compound
Formaldehyde
Manganese and
Compounds
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Cadmium and Compounds
Arsenic and Compounds
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Nickel and Compounds
Toluene
Mercury and Compounds
Lead and Compounds
Beryllium and Compounds
Cobalt and Compounds
Tetrachloroethy lene
Chloroform
Styrene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Trichloroethylene
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
Selenium and Compounds
Average
Toxicity
3.66E-01
1.98E-01
1.86E-01
1.37E-01
l.OOE-01
8.81E-02
5.24E-02
5.09E-02
4.62E-02
3.96E-02
1.32E-02
1.32E-02
1.24E-02
9.61E-03
9.23E-03
3.78E-03
2.52E-03
2.41E-03
1.80E-03
1.44E-03
8.75E-04
7.26E-04
5.48E-04
3.97E-04
2.05E-04
1.67E-04
1.54E-04
1.54E-04
1.51E-04
5.92E-05
%
Contribution
27.37
14.79
13.94
10.21
7.48
6.59
3.92
3.81
3.46
2.96
0.99
0.99
0.93
0.72
0.69
0.28
0.19
0.18
0.13
0.11
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.OOOl
Cumulative
%
Contribution
27.37
42.16
56.11
66.32
73.80
80.39
84.31
88.12
91.57
94.54
95.53
96.51
97.44
98.16
98.85
99.13
99.32
99.50
99.64
99.74
99.81
99.86
99.90
99.93
99.95
99.96
99.97
99.98
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
3.586
0.010
1.678
8.192
0.200
0.002
0.002
1.527
4.623
0.198
0.529
1.186
0.002
3.845
0.003
0.006
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
0.485
0.142
0.875
0.726
2.739
0.397
0.164
0.167
0.093
0.462
0.454
0.001
#
Detects
23
23
23
10
14
23
23
24
24
4
23
24
23
24
20
23
10
23
8
5
16
21
15
17
4
12
2
6
4
23
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21-22
-------
Table 21-3c. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Kingsport, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - KITN
Compound
Acetonitrile
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Toluene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Styrene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Average
Toxicity
6.54E-01
2.71E-01
2.02E-01
6.63E-02
4.13E-02
3.80E-02
2.21E-02
1.42E-02
1.31E-02
6.73E-03
1.47E-03
1.24E-03
5.89E-04
3.91E-04
3.63E-04
3.02E-04
2.95E-04
2.17E-04
1.29E-04
6.60E-05
%
Contribution
49.04
20.34
15.13
4.97
3.09
2.85
1.66
1.06
0.98
0.50
0.11
0.09
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
O.OOOl
Cumulative %
Contribution
49.04
69.38
84.51
89.47
92.57
95.41
97.07
98.13
99.12
99.62
99.73
99.82
99.87
99.90
99.92
99.95
99.97
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A^g/m3)
39.255
2.659
1.817
0.133
1.238
3.797
0.110
0.567
1.182
2.693
0.396
0.122
0.589
1.953
0.363
0.302
0.236
0.217
0.387
0.198
#
Detects
7
26
26
14
26
26
4
24
26
26
10
3
23
17
13
5
6
12
2
4
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21-23
-------
Table 21-3d. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Loudon, Tennessee
Monitoring Site - LDTN
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
Styrene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Average
Toxicity
2.92E+00
5.69E-01
3.67E-02
2.43E-02
1.16E-02
1.10E-02
6.10E-03
2.04E-03
6.51E-04
5.68E-04
%
Contribution
81.66
15.91
1.03
0.51
0.32
0.31
0.17
0.06
0.02
0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
81.66
97.57
98.60
99.11
99.43
99.74
99.91
99.97
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
28.604
5.119
1.102
2.431
1.043
0.440
2.440
2.044
0.651
2.839
#
Detects
5
5
4
3
4
1
4
1
1
4
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21-24
-------
Table 21-3e. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Nashville Site 2,
Tennessee Monitoring Site - LOTN
Compound
Acetonitrile
Formaldehyde
Manganese and
Compounds
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Cadmium and Compounds
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Arsenic and Compounds
Benzene
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
Toluene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Nickel Compounds
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
Cobalt and Compounds
Lead and Compounds
Chloroform
Beryllium and Compounds
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Styrene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Methyl ferf-Butyl Ether
Mercury and Compounds
Chloroethane
(Ethyl Chloride)
Selenium and Compounds
Average
Toxicity
4.87E-01
3.60E-01
1.93E-01
1.64E-01
1.28E-01
6.95E-02
4.89E-02
4.71E-02
4.47E-02
1.88E-02
1.60E-02
1.32E-02
1.30E-02
1.08E-02
1.03E-02
3.50E-03
3.21E-03
2.99E-03
2.19E-03
1.91E-03
1.01E-03
8.40E-04
5.31E-04
3.86E-04
2.97E-04
2.24E-04
1.86E-04
1.52E-04
8.23E-05
7.92E-05
5.60E-05
%
Contribution
29.66
21.93
11.75
9.99
7.81
4.23
2.97
2.87
2.72
1.14
0.98
0.80
0.79
0.66
0.63
0.21
0.20
0.18
0.13
0.12
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
Cumulative
%
Contribution
29.66
51.59
63.34
73.32
81.14
85.37
88.34
91.21
93.93
95.07
96.05
96.85
97.64
98.30
98.93
99.14
99.33
99.52
99.65
99.77
99.83
99.88
99.91
99.93
99.95
99.97
99.98
99.99
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
29.235
3.531
0.010
1.477
0.257
0.001
4.887
0.001
1.342
0.094
6.410
0.529
1.166
0.002
30.929
O.OOOl
0.005
0.293
O.OOOl
9.526
0.273
0.840
0.531
0.386
0.238
0.134
0.186
0.457
O.OOOl
0.792
O.OOOl
#
Detects
10
23
28
23
9
28
23
28
24
2
24
23
24
28
2
28
28
6
10
13
7
15
14
9
5
2
9
6
25
1
28
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21-25
-------
Table 21-4a. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Dickson,
Tennessee Site (DITN)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Formaldehyde
Xylenes (p-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Temperature
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dew Point
Temperature
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Wet Bulb
Temperature
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Relative
Humidity
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sea Level
Pressure
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
u-component
of wind
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
v-component
of wind
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
to
-------
Table 21-4b. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
Nashville Site 1, Tennessee Site (EATN)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Arsenic and Compounds
Benzene
Cadmium and Compounds
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese and
Compounds
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes (p-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
0.03
0.51
0.50
0.58
-0.10
-0.63
0.29
0.73
-0.20
-0.80
0.51
-0.48
0.18
Average
Temperature
-0.06
0.43
0.55
0.58
-0.20
-0.66
0.26
0.69
-0.21
-0.68
0.46
-0.55
0.07
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.12
0.30
0.66
0.60
-0.18
-0.61
0.17
0.56
-0.31
0.20
0.26
-0.34
0.08
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.09
0.37
0.62
0.60
-0.19
-0.64
0.22
0.63
-0.26
-0.19
0.29
-0.46
0.08
Relative
Humidity
-0.24
-0.39
0.03
0.07
0.03
0.14
-0.29
-0.41
-0.47
0.83
0.09
0.61
0.06
Sea Level
Pressure
0.23
-0.10
0.33
-0.23
0.29
0.22
-0.08
-0.04
-0.03
0.64
0.33
0.57
0.10
u-component
of wind
-0.20
-0.24
-0.59
0.04
-0.26
-0.14
-0.14
-0.19
0.04
-0.75
-0.34
-0.44
-0.27
v-component
of wind
0.13
0.26
-0.33
-0.07
0.17
-0.10
0.18
0.20
0.04
-0.84
-0.21
-0.60
0.13
to
-------
Table 21-4c. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Kingsport,
Tennessee Site (KITN)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.45
0.63
0.26
-0.24
0.28
0.72
-0.02
-0.36
0.34
Average
Temperature
-0.46
0.55
0.30
-0.35
0.27
0.66
-0.26
-0.39
0.30
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.43
0.40
0.29
-0.30
0.14
0.49
-0.54
-0.43
0.37
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.45
0.47
0.29
-0.34
0.21
0.57
-0.44
-0.40
0.33
Relative
Humidity
-0.04
-0.20
0.13
0.06
-0.35
-0.25
-0.76
-0.38
0.41
Sea Level
Pressure
0.33
-0.08
-0.05
0.11
-0.23
0.05
0.15
-0.25
0.28
u-component
of wind
-0.05
-0.19
0.00
-0.14
0.16
-0.23
0.61
-0.39
-0.37
v-component
of wind
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.03
0.02
-0.20
-0.20
0.28
-0.12
to
oo
-------
Table 21-4d. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the London,
Tennessee Site (LDTN)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Maximum
Temperature
0.86
0.71
NA
0.81
Average
Temperature
0.74
0.93
NA
0.89
Dew Point
Temperature
0.75
0.94
NA
0.91
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.75
0.94
NA
0.90
Relative
Humidity
0.79
0.92
NA
0.91
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.03
0.13
NA
0.13
u-component
of wind
-0.91
-0.90
NA
-0.93
v-component
of wind
-0.38
-0.88
NA
-0.79
to
VO
-------
Table 21-4e. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Nashville
Site 2, Tennessee Site (LOTN)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Arsenic and Compounds
Benzene
Cadmium and Compounds
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese and
Compounds
Bromomethane
(Methyl Bromide)
£>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes (p-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.68
0.48
0.04
0.54
-0.02
-0.45
0.36
0.66
0.46
NA
0.75
-0.16
0.35
Average
Temperature
-0.82
0.40
0.17
0.53
-0.14
-0.46
0.32
0.64
0.43
NA
0.61
-0.34
0.34
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.89
0.30
0.25
0.50
-0.15
-0.44
0.33
0.58
0.30
NA
0.59
-0.56
0.35
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.87
0.36
0.22
0.52
-0.15
-0.45
0.33
0.62
0.37
NA
0.60
-0.45
0.35
Relative
Humidity
-0.61
-0.35
0.47
-0.03
-0.02
-0.02
0.17
-0.21
-0.50
NA
0.19
-0.28
0.12
Sea Level
Pressure
0.47
-0.22
-0.12
-0.09
0.15
0.24
-0.24
-0.33
-0.19
NA
-0.70
0.82
-0.11
u-component
of wind
-0.50
-0.27
0.09
-0.14
-0.34
-0.26
-0.08
-0.16
-0.15
NA
-0.02
-0.03
-0.20
v-component
of wind
0.42
0.24
0.02
-0.18
0.13
0.02
0.09
0.02
0.25
NA
0.77
0.02
0.11
-------
Table 21-5. Average Metal Concentrations Measured by the Nashville Monitoring Stations
Monitoring
Station
EATN
LOTN
Average Metals Concentration
(ng/m3)
25.23
20.93
21-31
-------
Table 21-6. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
DITN
EATN
KITN
LDTN
LOTN
Estimated
County
Population
44,231
570,785
153,051
40,631
570,785
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
39,083
590,410
160,005
35,698
590,410
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
0.88
1.03
1.05
0.88
1.03
Population
within Ten
Miles
29,329
513,967
131,461
46,361
464,054
Estimated 10-Mile
Car Registration
25,810
529,386
138,034
40,798
477,976
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
4,420
38,450
300
13,360
3,000
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
39. 17 (±28.56)
3 1.94 (±6.22)
40.79 (±17.95)
89.31 (±17.46)
37.98 (±21.25)
to
-------
22.0 Sites in Utah
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
sites in Utah (BOUT and BTUT), located in Bountiful, just north of Salt Lake City. The BOUT
site was moved in July, 2003, to a new location just north of the original location. This new
location was designated as BTUT, and for purposes of this report, will be treated as a different
site. Figures 22-1 and 22-2 are topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in their
urban locations. Figure 22-3 is a map identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites that
reported to the 1999 NEI. The map shows the nearby industrial facilities, which are mostly fuel
combustion facilities. The facilities are located mostly to the south and southwest. Hourly
meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2003 at Salt Lake City International Airport's
weather station (WBAN 24127) near the sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements.
Table 22-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at the sites, along with the
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. The Salt Lake City area has a semi-arid continental climate, with large
seasonal variations. The area is dry, located on the west side of the Wasatch Mountains, and the
Great Salt Lake tends to have a moderating influence on the city's temperature. Moderate winds
flow out of the southeast on average. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac.
fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
22.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Utah Sites
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at each site. Tables 22-2a-b summarize the cancer
weighting scores and Tables 22-3a-b summarize the noncancer weighting scores. For a
compound to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95%
of the total site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered
prevalent for each site.
22-1
-------
Tables 22-2a-b show that many of the detected cancer compounds reflect the nationwide
prevalent cancer compound list, which is listed in Section 3 of this report. However, both sites
sampled metals and compounds and SNMOC in addition to carbonyls and VOC. As a result,
arsenic, beryllium, and cadmium and compounds also appear in Tables 22-2a-b. Arsenic and
compounds, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, 1,3-butadiene, and tetrachloroethylene
are all considered prevalent cancer compounds at both sites. For the noncancer compounds
summarized in Tables 22-3a-b, many compounds detected were not listed among the nationwide
noncancer prevalent list. Manganese and compounds, acrylonitrile, acetonitrile, formaldehyde,
arsenic and compounds, acetaldehyde, nickel and compounds, and cobalt and compounds were
prevalent at both sites.
Toxic compounds not detected at the Bountiful sites were: 1,3-dichloropropene; 1,1,2-
trichloroethane; trichloroethylene; vinyl chloride; bromoform; chloroprene; chloroform; 1,1-
dichloroethene; methyl methacrylate; 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene; methyl tert-buty\ ether;
chlorobenzene and chloroethane.
22.2 Toxicity Analysis
Arsenic compounds, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, 1,3-butadiene, and
tetrachloroethylene are the only prevalent cancer compounds at both sites. Of these compounds,
acrylonitrile contributed most to each site's total cancer toxicity, even though it was detected
only once at BOUT and twice at BTUT. Benzene contributed less than 15% to the sites' total
cancer toxicity, even though it was detected the most times. Metals and compounds account for
nearly 73% of the noncancer toxicity at BOUT and 30% of the noncancer toxicity at BTUT.
The cadmium compounds cancer risk at BOUT was the highest among the two sites at
123 in a million, while at BTUT, the acrylonitrile cancer risk was 61.9 in a million. For the
compounds which may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the average cadmium
compounds toxicity at BOUT was 3.41 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer
health effect). Of the twenty-six adverse health concentrations measured at the Utah sites, 21
22-2
-------
were at the BOUT site. Manganese had the most adverse health concentrations at 14, while
cadmium had 10.
22.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Utah Sites
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were measured at this site, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and
3-4. The average total UATMP daily concentrations at both sites is presented in Table 22-1.
Table 22-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2003 to
December 2003. These sites also opted to have total and speciated nonmethane organic
compounds (TNMOC/SNMOC) sampled during air toxic sampling. These compounds are of
particular interest because of their role in ozone formation. Readers are encouraged to review
EPA's 2001 Nonmethane Organic Compounds (NMOC) and Speciated Nonmethane Organic
Compounds (SNMOC) Monitoring Program, Final Report (EPA, 2002) for more information on
SNMOC/NMOC trends and concentrations. The average total NMOC value for BOUT was
323.73 ppbC, of which nearly 64% could be identified through speciation. Of the speciated
compounds, toluene measured the highest concentration (37.74 ppbC). The average total NMOC
value for BTUT was 317.98 ppbC, of which nearly 65% could be identified through speciation.
Of the speciated compounds, toluene measured the highest concentration (28.71 ppbC). The
Utah sites opted to sample metals and compounds in addition to carbonyls, VOC, and SNMOC.
Average metals concentrations are listed in Table 22-5. The average metals concentration at
BOUT was nearly three times that of BTUT.
Tables 22-4a-b summarize the calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters. Identification of the prevalent
compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. At the BOUT site, most of the prevalent
compounds that are not metals and compounds had relatively weak correlations, with the
exception of formaldehyde. The metals and compounds all had weak, moderately strong, strong,
or very strong negative correlations with maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb
temperatures, and positive correlations with relative humidity and sea level pressure. The
strongest correlations were exhibited between cadmium and compounds and average temperature
(-0.68), although several others were very strong. Pearson correlations could not be computed
22-3
-------
for acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, cobalt and compounds, and tetrachloroethylene due to the low
number of detects (fewer than 3).
Similar correlations were not generally seen at BTUT, although formaldehyde did have
similar correlations at BOUT and BTUT. The strongest correlations were computed between
acetonitrile and several meteorological parameters, but it is important to note that this compound
was only detected five times during the sampling period. Several compounds had positive
correlations with the temperature parameters and negative correlations with relative humidity.
Pearson correlations could not be computed for acrylonitrile due to the low number of detects
(fewer than 3).
22.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level car registration and population in Davis County, UT, were obtained from
the Utah State Tax Commission and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in Table 22-6.
Also included in Table 22-6 is the population within 10 miles of each site and the average daily
traffic information, which represents the average number of cars passing the monitoring sites on
the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Using these parameters, a car registration ratio
was computed. An estimation of 10-mile car registration was computed using the 10-mile
populations surrounding the monitors and the car registration ratio. This information is
compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at each Utah site in
Table 22-6. Because the site locations are close to each other, their car registration data are the
same. However, BTUT has nearly triple the daily traffic volume of BOUT.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area (for more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.). Figure 3-1 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. BTUT most resembles the roadside study, although its toluene-
ethylbenzene ratio is somewhat higher. Unlike the roadside study, BOUT's benzene-
22-4
-------
ethylbenzene and xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio are roughly equivalent. Its toluene-ethylbenzene
ratio is also somewhat higher than the roadside study's toluene-ethylbenzene ratio.
22.5 NATTS Site Analysis
One of the Utah sites, BOUT, is an EPA-designated NATTS site. A description of the
NATTS program is given in Section 3.6. For BOUT, each of the following analyses were
conducted: a back trajectory analysis, a regulation analysis, and an emission tracer analysis.
Details on each type of analysis are also provided in Section 3.6.
22.5.1 Composite Back Trajectory Analysis
Figure 22-4 is the composite back trajectory map for the BOUT site. Each line represents
the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring location on a
sampling day. As shown in Figure 22-4, the back trajectories originated primarily from the
northwest or south of the monitoring location. The 24-hour airshed domain is large, as the
farthest away a back trajectory originated was southeast California. As each circle around the
site represents 100 miles, 70% of the trajectories originated within 200 miles and 93% within
300 miles from the BOUT site.
22.5.2 Regulation Analysis
Table 3-10 summarizes the number of facilities that account for approximately 90% of
the total UATMP pollutant emissions in the 10-mile area around the monitoring station. At
BOUT, of the four facilities listed in Table 3-11, all four are potentially subject to future
regulations. Table 22-7 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable. Based on this
analysis, the regulations shown are expected to achieve reductions in ambient concentrations of
the following UATMP pollutants: acetaldehyde, antimony and compounds, arsenic and
compounds, benzene, beryllium and compounds, cadmium and compounds, cobalt and
compounds, formaldehyde, lead and compounds, manganese and compounds, nickel and
compounds, and toluene. Reductions are projected for acetaldehyde (47%), antimony and
compounds (81%), arsenic and compounds (44%), benzene (0.3%), beryllium and compounds
(17%), cadmium and compounds (47%), cobalt and compounds (87%), formaldehyde (62%),
22-5
-------
lead and compounds (49%), manganese and compounds (59%), nickel and compounds (78%),
and toluene (0.05%) as the regulations are implemented (the latest compliance date is 2005).
The emission reductions are primarily attributed to regulation of petroleum refineries.
22.5.3 Emission Tracer Analysis
The highest concentrations of cadmium and manganese compounds occurred on January
21, 2003, while for formaldehyde, the highest occurred on June 14, 2003. Figures 22-5 through
22-7 are the pollution roses for all cadmium and compounds, manganese and compounds, and
formaldehyde samples at BOUT. As can be shown, the highest cadmium and compounds,
manganese and compounds, and formaldehyde exceedance values point to possible emission
sources southeast of the monitor. Figures 22-8 and 22-9 are maps of cadmium and compounds
and manganese and compounds stationary emission sources southeast of the BOUT monitor.
According to the 1999 NEI, cadmium and compounds sources southeast of the BOUT monitor
include: Primary Children's Medical Center, Walker Pit, Geneva Steel, Heckett Engineering,
Brigham Young University, Pipe Casting Plant, Whitehead Power Plant, A.P. Green Refractories
- Lehi Plant, and Explosives Manufacturing. Manganese and compounds sources include eight
of the above nine (not Heckett Engineering), as well as Mark Steel Corp - Jordan River Plant,
Hobusch Plant, Eidson-Brown Minneapolis Tank Division, and Pitt-Des Moines, Inc. Figure 22-
10 is the back trajectory map for January 21, 2003, which shows the air originating south to
southeast of the monitor. An analysis of the hourly meteorological data shows that winds were
primarily out of the southeast for most of the day, as well. It is likely that air sampled at BOUT
on this date passed over the above-listed facilities earlier in the day.
Figure 22-11 is a map of formaldehyde stationary emission sources southeast of the
BOUT monitor. According to the 1999 NEI, formaldehyde sources southeast of the BOUT
monitor include: Primary Children's Medical Center, Utah Metal Works, and Gravel Pit
Concrete Plant. Figure 22-12 is the back trajectory map for June 14, 2003, which shows the air
originating south to southeast of the monitor. An analysis of the hourly meteorological data
shows that winds were primarily out of the southeast for most of the day, as well. It is likely that
22-6
-------
air sampled at BOUT on this day passed over the above listed formaldehyde-emitting facilities
earlier in the day.
22-7
-------
Figure 22-1. Bountiful Site 1, Utah (BOUT) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
22-8
-------
Figure 22-2. Bountiful Site 2, Utah (BTUT) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
22-9
-------
Figure 22-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BOUT and BTUT
Davis
County
Salt Lake
County
Morgan
County
Note Due to facility density and cotocaton the total facilities
displayed may si&t represent all facilities wrthsn th© area of mte
Legend
"& BOUT UATMP site
•sV BTUT UATMP site
10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (3)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (4)
f Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (11)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (1)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (1)
M Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (2)
P Petroleum/Nat, Gas Prod, & Refining Industrial Facility (5)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
8 Utility Boilers (2)
Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
22-10
-------
Figure 22-4. Composite Back Trajectory for BOUT
to
to
-------
Figure 22-5. Cadmium Pollution Rose for BOUT
0.1 0
0.08
0.06
0.04
c
o
2 0.02
0.00
5
+-
c
o
c
o
o
c
re
~ 0.02
o
Q.
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1 0
NW
W
N
i
*
Dashed circle represents
noncancer benchmark value
SW
NE
Avg Cone = 0.07 ± 0.01 ug/m
SE
0.10 0.08 0.06
0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04
Pollutant Concentration
0.06 0.08 0.10
-------
Figure 22-6. Manganese Pollution Rose for BOUT
0.4
0.3
0.2
NW
-2 0.1
5
+-
c
o
c
o
o
c
re
0.0
W
i 0.1
o
Q.
0.2
0.3
N
Dashed circle represents
noncancer benchmark value
SW
0.4
NE
Avg Cone = 0.05 ± 0.01 ug/m
SE
0.4
0.3
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1
Pollutant Concentration
0.2
0.3
0.4
-------
Figure 22-7. Formaldehyde Pollution Rose for BOUT
c
o
'^
5
+-
c
-------
Figure 22-8. Cadmium Sources Southeast of the BOUT Monitoring Site
41.9
41.7
41.5
41.3
41.1
0)
3 40.9
v
~" 40.7
40.5
40.3
40.1
39.9
-112.9
Primary Children's
Medical Center
BOUT Monitoring
Site
Geneva Steel
Heckett Engineering
Walker Rt
Brigham Young
University
Whitehead Row er
Rant
Explosives
Manufacturing
-112.7 -112.5 -112.3 -112.1 -111.9 -111.7
Longitude
-111.5 -111.3 -111.1 -110.9
-------
Figure 22-9. Manganese Sources Southeast of the BOUT Monitoring Site
41.9
41.7
41.5
41.3
41.1
0)
3 40.9
+•»
40.7
40.5
40.3
40.1
39.9
BOUT Monitoring
Site
Primary Children's
Medical Center
Mark Steel Corp.,
Jordan River Rant
Hobusch Rant
Geneva Steel
Bdson-Brow n -
Minneapolis Tank Division
Rpe Casting Rant
Walker Rt
Brigham Young
University
Rtt-Des-Moines
Inc.
Wiitehead Row er
Rant
A. P. Green
Refractories
Lehi Rant
Explosives
Manufacturing
-112.9 -112.7 -112.5 -112.3 -112.1 -111.9 -111.7 -111.5 -111.3 -111.1 -110.9
Longitude
-------
Figure 22-10. 24-Hour Back Trajectory (50, 250, and 500 Meters Aboveground)
at BOUT on January 21, 2003
500
250
12
00
01,21
1500
1000
500
18
22-17
-------
Figure 22-11. Formaldehyde Sources Southeast of the BOUT Monitoring Site
-------
Figure 22-12. 24-Hour Back Trajectory (50, 250, and 500 Meters Aboveground)
at BOUT on June 14, 2003
500
•a-
12
06
00
06,14
1500
1000
500
18
22-19
-------
Table 22-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Sites in Utah
Site
Name
BOUT
BTUT
Type
All
2003
sample
day
All
2003
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
^^
179.97
(±61.04)
^^s
121.44
(±33.45)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
65.05
(±2.18)
59.67
(±6.57)
65.05
(±2.18)
70.19
(±9.44)
Average
Temperature
54.82
(±1.92)
49.81
(±5.48)
54.82
(±1.92)
59.49
(±8.38)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
33.31
(±0.91)
32.05
(±2.40)
33.31
(±0.91)
35.11
(±4.08)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
43.86
(±1.18)
41.15
(±3.36)
43.86
(±1.18)
46.42
(±5.34)
Average
Relative
Humidity
52.28
(±2.19)
58.50
(±7.52)
52.28
(±2.19)
47.76
(±7.87)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1014.92
(±0.76)
1013.1
(±2.50)
1014.92
(±0.76)
1015.93
(±2.22)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.63
(±0.25)
0.10
(±0.86)
-0.63
(±0.25)
-0.81
(±0.95)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
2.10
(±0.47)
0.79
(±1.63)
2.10
(±0.47)
1.55
(±2.03)
to
to
to
o
-------
Table 22-2a. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Bountiful Site 1, Utah
Monitoring Site - BOUT
Compound
Cadmium and Compounds
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic and Compounds
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Carbon Tetrachloride
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Acetaldehyde
Beryllium and Compounds
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
1.23E-04
6.64E-05
2.99E-05
1.90E-05
8.88E-06
5.17E-06
8.35E-06
5.29E-06
4.32E-06
3.75E-06
2.78E-07
1.54E-08
%
Contribution
44.66
24.16
10.90
6.92
3.23
2.14
3.04
1.92
1.57
1.37
0.10
0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
44.66
68.82
79.71
86.63
92.90
95.13
89.86
96.96
98.53
99.89
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.068
0.977
0.007
2.437
0.296
0.995
0.557
0.481
1.962
0.002
0.591
2.805
#
Detects
11
1
23
56
29
3
26
1
29
14
10
29
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
123
66.4
29.9
19.0
8.88
5.17
8.35
5.29
4.32
3.75
<1
<1
22-21
-------
Table 22-2b. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Bountiful Site 2, Utah
Monitoring Site - BTUT
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Arsenic and Compounds
Tetrachloroethy lene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
(Ethylene Bichloride)
Cadmium and Compounds
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
6.19E-05
1.53E-05
8.32E-06
7.15E-06
6.25E-06
4.44E-06
2.18E-06
2.10E-06
6.63E-07
5.15E-07
1.32E-08
%
Contribution
56.89
14.04
7.65
6.57
5.74
4.08
2.00
1.93
0.61
0.47
0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
56.89
70.93
78.58
85.15
90.89
94.97
96.97
98.90
99.51
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
Oug/m3)
0.910
1.958
3.783
0.476
0.208
0.001
0.370
0.081
<0.0001
1.097
2.407
#
Detects
2
42
21
15
31
11
5
1
2
15
21
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
61.9
15.3
8.32
7.15
6.25
4.44
2.18
2.10
<1
<1
<1
22-22
-------
Table 22-3a. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Bountiful Site 1, Utah
Monitoring Site - BOUT
Compound
Cadmium and Compounds
Manganese and
Compounds
Acrylonitrile
Acetonitrile
Formaldehyde
Arsenic and Compounds
Acetaldehyde
Nickel and Compounds
Cobalt and Compounds
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Beryllium and
Compounds
Xylenes (mixed)
Lead and Compounds
Hexane
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
Tetrachloroethy lene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Ethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Selenium and Compounds
Styrene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Mercury and Compounds
Average
Toxicity
3.41E+00
9.21E-01
4.88E-01
4.59E-01
2.86E-01
2.32E-01
2.18E-01
1.49E-01
1.40E-01
1.48E-01
8.12E-02
7.82E-02
2.55E-02
1.93E-02
1.54E-02
1.41E-02
1.39E-02
1.36E-02
3.68E-03
1.78E-03
8.73E-04
6.01E-04
5.91E-04
4.81E-04
2.67E-04
7.28E-05
O.OOE+00
%
Contribution
50.23
13.70
7.26
6.83
4.26
3.45
3.24
2.21
2.09
2.20
1.21
1.16
0.38
0.29
0.23
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Cumulative
%
Contribution
50.23
64.44
71.70
78.53
82.79
86.24
89.49
91.70
93.90
95.99
97.20
98.36
98.74
99.03
99.26
99.47
99.67
99.88
99.93
99.96
99.97
99.98
99.99
99.99
100.00
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(y"g/m3)
0.068
0.046
0.977
27.540
2.805
0.007
1.962
0.030
0.014
0.296
2.083
0.002
4.016
0.029
2.417
1.270
0.566
4.620
1.119
8.880
0.729
0.481
0.567
0.010
0.267
0.073
0.0001
#
Detects
11
27
1
1
29
23
29
27
3
29
56
14
54
25
28
28
26
56
3
10
49
1
10
26
32
3
3
Adverse
Noncancer
Concentrations
10
11
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22-23
-------
Table 22-3b. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Bountiful Site 2, Utah
Monitoring Site - BTUT
Compound
Manganese and Compounds
Acrylonitrile
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Xylenes (o-, m-, p-)
Arsenic and Compounds
Nickel and Compounds
Cobalt and Compounds
Cadmium and Compounds
Chloromethane
(Methyl Chloride)
Toluene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Hexane
Lead and Compounds
Tetrachloroethy lene
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Styrene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
(Hexone)
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
(Methyl Chloroform)
Selenium Compounds
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Ethylene Bichloride
Average
Toxicity
5.60E-01
4.55E-01
4.20E-01
2.46E-01
1.04E-01
8.72E-02
6.53E-02
4.47E-02
3.44E-02
3.03E-02
2.64E-02
1.84E-02
1.46E-02
1.41E-02
1.19E-02
1.19E-02
7.97E-03
1.37E-03
1.10E-03
7.67E-04
6.32E-04
3.88E-04
2.59E-04
1.62E-04
l.OOE-04
3.37E-05
%
Contribution
25.98
21.09
19.48
11.38
4.83
4.04
3.02
2.07
1.59
1.41
1.22
0.85
0.67
0.66
0.55
0.55
0.37
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
O.0001
<0.0001
Cumulative
%
Contribution
25.98
47.07
66.55
77.94
82.76
86.80
89.83
91.90
93.49
94.90
96.12
96.97
97.65
98.31
98.86
99.41
99.78
99.84
99.89
99.93
99.96
99.97
99.99
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(A
-------
to
to
to
Table 22-4a. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
Bountiful Site 1, Utah Site (BOUT)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic and Compounds
Benzene
Cadmium and Compounds
Carbon Tetrachloride
Cobalt and Compounds
Formaldehyde
Manganese and
Compounds
Nickel and Compounds
Tetrachloroethylene
Maximum
Temperature
-0.28
<0.01
NA
NA
-0.27
-0.39
-0.63
0.01
NA
0.42
-0.12
-0.65
NA
Average
Temperature
-0.38
-0.10
NA
NA
-0.33
-0.49
-0.68
-0.01
NA
0.39
-0.19
-0.70
NA
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.07
-0.33
NA
NA
-0.16
-0.28
-0.18
-0.10
NA
0.17
-0.01
-0.46
NA
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.31
-0.20
NA
NA
-0.32
-0.48
-0.55
-0.03
NA
0.33
-0.15
-0.67
NA
Relative
Humidity
0.56
-0.02
NA
NA
0.31
0.49
0.71
-0.01
NA
-0.34
0.22
0.61
NA
Sea Level
Pressure
0.42
0.51
NA
NA
0.32
0.53
0.14
-0.10
NA
0.05
0.23
0.57
NA
u-component
of wind
-0.02
-0.22
NA
NA
0.09
0.01
0.11
0.09
NA
-0.23
-0.14
0.24
NA
v-component
of wind
0.01
0.13
NA
NA
-0.06
0.05
0.01
-0.24
NA
0.05
0.21
-0.21
NA
-------
to
to
to
Table 22-4b. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
Bountiful Site 2, Utah Site (BTUT)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic and Compounds
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Cobalt and Compounds
Formaldehyde
Manganese and
Compounds
Nickel and Compounds
Tetrachloroethyene
Xylenes (p-, m-, p-)
Maximum
Temperature
-0.23
-0.27
0.85
NA
-0.02
-0.14
0.58
0.21
0.38
0.49
0.46
-0.22
-0.05
Average
Temperature
-0.27
-0.36
0.73
NA
-0.05
-0.19
0.59
0.11
0.40
0.50
0.46
-0.39
-0.10
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.24
-0.43
0.62
NA
0.15
-0.19
0.49
-0.55
0.44
-0.09
-0.13
-0.52
-0.09
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.26
-0.38
0.73
NA
0.05
-0.19
0.60
-0.52
0.39
0.27
0.23
-0.42
-0.09
Relative
Humidity
0.27
0.19
-0.66
NA
0.15
0.16
-0.54
-0.53
-0.21
-0.62
-0.60
0.07
0.10
Sea Level
Pressure
0.37
0.54
-0.47
NA
-0.12
0.49
-0.25
0.11
0.00
-0.39
-0.37
0.59
0.36
u-component
of wind
0.13
0.03
-0.72
NA
0.09
0.06
0.02
0.31
-0.31
-0.14
0.02
-0.08
0.10
v-component
of wind
-0.19
-0.05
0.28
NA
0.14
-0.11
-0.17
-0.53
0.15
0.10
0.02
-0.28
-0.13
-------
Table 22-5. TNMOC Measured by the Bountiful, UT (BOUT and BTUT)
Monitoring Stations
Average Ozone
Concentrations
(ppbv)
BOUT
BTUT
Average TNMOC
speciated (ppbC)
207.36
195.96
Average TNMOC w/
unknown (ppbC)
323.73
317.98
% TNMOC
Identified
64
65
SNMOC Compound
with the Highest
Concentration (ppbC)
Toluene (37.74)
Toluene (28.71)
22-27
-------
to
to
to
oo
Table 22-6. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Utah Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
BOUT
BTUT
Estimated
County
Population
249,224
249,224
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
177,652
177,652
Car
Registration/
Population
Ratio
0.71
0.71
Population
within Ten
Miles
245,409
245,409
Estimated 10-Mile
Car Registration
174,240
174,240
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
11,120
33,310
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
179.97 (±61.04)
121.44 (±33.45)
-------
Table 22-7. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding BOUT
Facility Name
Chevron USA
Flying J Refinery
(Big West Oil Co.)
Phillips 66 Co.
Salt Lake City
Refinery
Primary SIC
Code
2911
2911
2911
2911
SIC Code Description
Petroleum Refining
Petroleum Refining
Petroleum Refining
Petroleum Refining
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
uuu
40 CFR part 63, subpart
UUU
40 CFR part 63, subpart
UUU
40 CFR part 63, subpart
UUU
Regulation Name
Petroleum Refineries-Catalytic
Cracking, Catalytic Reforming,
and Sulfur Plant Units NESHAP
Petroleum Refineries-Catalytic
Cracking, Catalytic Reforming,
and Sulfur Plant Units NESHAP
Petroleum Refineries-Catalytic
Cracking, Catalytic Reforming,
and Sulfur Plant Units NESHAP
Petroleum Refineries-Catalytic
Cracking, Catalytic Reforming,
and Sulfur Plant Units NESHAP
to
to
to
VO
-------
23.0 Data Quality
This section discusses the precision and accuracy of ambient air concentration
measurements during the 2003 UATMP. As indicators of the reliability of experimental
measurements, both precision and accuracy must be considered when interpreting ambient air
monitoring results. In general, this section shows that the 2003 UATMP monitoring data are of a
known and high quality, particularly for the most program-wide prevalent compounds in urban
air. All calculations were based on sample concentrations detected above the method detection
limits for each compound. The overall precision level (the average for all sites) is within the
UATMP data quality objectives (USEPA, 2003) and guidelines in the EPA Compendium
Methods (USEPA, 1999) of 15 % coefficient of variation.
Method precision for the UATMP is determined by replicate analysis of duplicate
samples. A duplicate sample is a sample collected simultaneously with a primary sample using
the same sampling system (i.e., two separate samples through the same sampling system at the
same time). This simultaneous collection is typically achieved by teeing the line from the
sampler to each of the two canisters and doubling the flow rate applied to achieve integration
over the 24-hour collection period. Ten percent of all sample collections were duplicate
samples.
Exceptions to this approach were collocated samples collected in Arizona, Illinois,
Michigan, and Tennessee. At these sites, collocated samples were collected and analyzed in
replicate. The difference between duplicate and collocated samples is that the duplicate samples
are collected from two canisters using one collection system, whereas collocated samples are
collected at the same time but using two completely separate collection systems.
Both approaches provide valuable, but different, assessments of method precision:
Replicate analysis of duplicate samples provides information on the potential for
variability (or precision) expected from a single collection system, but does not
provide information on the variability expected between different collection
systems.
23-1
-------
Replicate analysis of collocated samples provides information on the potential for
variability (or precision) expected between different collection systems, but does
not provide information on the variability expected from single collection
systems.
23.1 Precision
Precision refers to the agreement between independent measurements performed
according to identical protocols and procedures. To quantify "sampling and analytical
precision" (i.e., how precisely the sampling and analytical methods measure ambient air
concentrations), concentrations measured during analysis of duplicate samples are compared.
Applied to ambient air monitoring data, precision is a measurement of random errors
inherent to the process of sampling and analyzing ambient air.
23.1.1 Analytical Precision
Analytical precision is a measurement of random errors associated with laboratory
analysis of environmental samples. These errors may result from various factors, but typically
originate from random "noise" inherent to analytical instruments. Laboratories can easily
evaluate analytical precision by comparing concentrations measured during replicate analysis of
the same ambient air samples. This report uses three parameters to quantify random errors
indicated by replicate analyses of 2003 UATMP samples:
Average concentration difference simply quantifies how duplicate or replicate
analytical results differ, on average, for each compound and each sample. When
interpreting central tendency estimates for specific compounds sampled during
the 2003 UATMP, participating agencies are encouraged to compare central
tendencies to the average concentration differences. If a compound's average
concentration difference exceeds or nearly equals its central tendency, the
analytical method may not be capable of precisely characterizing annual
concentrations. Therefore, data interpretation for these compounds should be
made with caution. Average concentration differences are calculated by
subtracting the first analytical result from the second analytical result and
averaging the difference for each compound.
23-2
-------
Relative percent difference (RPD) expresses average concentration differences
relative to the average concentrations detected during replicate analyses. The
RPD is calculated as follows:
IX, -X, I
= I 1 2 I
Where:
, ,
RPD = I 1 _ 2 I x 100
X
Xv is the ambient air concentration of a given compound measured in one
sample;
X2 is the concentration of the same compound measured during replicate
analysis; and
Xis the arithmetic mean of Xl and X2.
As Equation 1 shows, replicate analyses with low variability have lower RPDs
(and better precision), and replicate analyses with high variability have higher
RPDs (and poorer precision).
Coefficient of Variation (CV) provides a relative measure of data dispersion
compared to the mean.
Cv = = x WO (r\
X y '
Where:
a is the standard deviation of the sets or duplicate or replicate results; and
Xis the arithmetic mean of the sets or duplicate or replicate results.
The CV is used to measure the imprecision in survey estimates introduced from
analysis. A low coefficient of 1 % would indicate that the analytical results could
vary slightly due to sampling error, while a variation of 50% means that the
results are more imprecise.
The following approach was employed to estimate how precisely the central laboratory
analyzed 2003 UATMP samples:
CVs, RPDs and concentration differences were calculated for every replicate
analysis performed during the program. In cases where compounds were not
detected during replicate analyses, these parameters were not calculated.
23-3
-------
-D To make an overall estimate of method precision, program-average CVs, RPDs,
and absolute concentration differences were calculated for each compound by
averaging the values from the individual replicate analyses.
Tables 23-1, 23-2, and 23-3 use absolute average concentration differences, RPDs, and
CVs to characterize the analytical precision representing all sites for VOC, representing all
replicate analyses of duplicate and collocated samples, of collocated samples and of duplicate
samples, respectively.
In Table 23-1, the replicate analyses for duplicate and collocated samples show that
laboratory VOC analysis precision was within the control limits of 85 to 115 % for CV, with the
exception of methylene chloride and/>-dichlorobenzene at 16.30 and 21.67 %, respectively. The
method was most precise when measuring air concentrations for the program-wide prevalent
compounds (i.e., compounds consistently found at levels exceeding their detection limits). The
poor precision for methylene chloride was due to poor agreement from replicate samples from
BTUT, BUND, CUSD, PGMS, S4MO, SJPR, and WECO. These disagreements were due to
low detects as shown by the average concentration difference of 0.07 ppbv indicating low
variability between concentrations. The/>-dichlorobenzene was detected in only 2 % of all
replicate samples analyzed (12 samples) and had an average concentration difference of
0.06 ppbv, again showing a low variability between concentrations. In terms of overall average
concentration difference, the precision of the VOC analytical method ranged from 0.00 ppbv for
^ram--l,3-dichloropropene to 5.80 ppbv for acetonitrile. The overall compound by compound
variability average was 9.00 percent.
Table 23-2 shows the results from replicate analyses of collocated VOC samples taken at
MCAZ, PSAZ, NBIL, DEMI, HOMI, KITN, EATN, LOTN, and DITN. The replicate results
from collocated samples showed variation for the compounds ranging from 2.85 % to 13.80
percent. The overall estimate of method precision, program-average CVs, RPDs, and absolute
concentration differences were all within the program's objectives. The overall compound by
compound variability average was 7.86 percent.
23-4
-------
Table 23-3 shows the results from replicate analyses of duplicate VOC samples. The
replicate results from duplicate samples variation ranged from 6.23 % to 33.78 percent. The
CVs over the 15 % target (33.78 for/>-dichlorobenzene and 17.57 % for methylene chloride) had
average concentration differences of 0.10 and 0.08 ppbv, respectively, showing a low variability
for each compound. The overall compound by compound variability average was 10.59 percent.
Tables 23-4 and 23-5 present results from VOC replicate analyses for all of the duplicate
and collocated samples at the NATTS sites (DEMI and BTUT/BOUT). Table 23-6 presents the
overall CV for each site separately, giving the average CV per compound and per site. The
replicate results from duplicate samples show low to mid-level variability, ranging from 5.79 to
14.74 % between sites with an average at 8.94 percent, well within the NATTS required 15 %
overall CV per site.
Table 23-7 presents replicate analytical data for all duplicate SNMOC samples. Twenty-
three out of 78 SNMOCs showed greater variation than the target 15 percent. The average
concentration differences observed for replicate analyses of SNMOC compounds ranged from
0.02 to 4.14 ppbC. The total speciated and total hydrocarbons (speciated and unspeciated)
showed the greater average concentration differences, 8.50 and 28.01 ppbC, respectively, but
low CV at 5.72 and 6.78 percent. The overall compound by compound variability average was
13.22 percent.
Table 23-8 presents the overall CV for each site separately, giving the average CV per
compound and per site. The replicate results from duplicate samples show low to mid-level
variability between sites, ranging from 5.05 to 19.15 %, with the average at 12.87 percent.
In Table 23-9, the replicate analyses for duplicate and collocated samples show that
laboratory carbonyl analysis precision was within the control limits of 15 % CV, with the
exception of isovaleraldehyde 18.07 percent. The method was most precise when measuring air
concentrations for the program-wide prevalent compounds (i.e., compounds consistently found at
levels exceeding their detection limits). Isovaleraldehyde was detected in less than 40% of all
23-5
-------
replicate samples analyzed (297 samples out of a possible 758) with a relative % difference at
31.44 % and an average concentration difference at 0.004 ppbv. In terms of average
concentration difference, the precision of the carbonyl analytical method ranged from 0.003
ppbv for valeraldehyde and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde to 0.034 ppbv for formaldehyde. The
overall compound by compound variability average was 6.88 percent.
Table 23-10 shows the results from replicate analyses of collocated carbonyl samples
taken at MCAZ, PSAZ, NBIL, DEMI, HOMI, KITN, EATN, LOTN, and DITN. The replicate
results from collocated samples showed variation for the compounds ranging from 0.60 to 15.03
percent. The highest CVs calculated (isovaleraldehyde) had an average concentration difference
of 0.005 ppbv, showing a low-level variation. The overall compound by compound variability
average was 5.49 percent.
Table 23-11 shows the results from replicate analyses of duplicate carbonyl samples.
The replicate results from duplicate samples vary little for the majority of the compounds,
ranging from 0.77 to 18.97 percent. The highest CV (18.97% for isovaleraldehyde) had an
average concentration difference of 0.004, showing a low-level variability. The overall
compound by compound variability average was 6.92 percent.
Tables 23-12 through 23-14 present results from carbonyl replicate analyses for all of the
duplicate and collocated samples at the NATTS sites (AZFL/CWFL/LEFL/GAFL, DEMI and
BTUT/BOUT). Table 23-15 presents the overall CV for each site separately, giving the average
CV per compound and per site. The replicate results from duplicate samples show low level
variability, ranging from 0.85 to 9.12 % between sites and an average of 6.01 percent. This is
well within the NATTS requested 15 % overall CV per site.
Overall, replicate analyses of both duplicate and collocated samples of VOC, SNMOC,
and carbonyl compounds suggest the precision level is within the UATMP data quality
objectives (USEPA, 2003) and guidelines in the Compendium Methods (USEPA, 1999).
23-6
-------
23.1.2 Sampling and Analytical Precision
Sampling and analytical precision quantifies random errors associated not only with
analyzing ambient air samples in the laboratory but also with collecting the samples in the field.
This form of precision is most easily evaluated by comparing concentrations measured in
duplicate samples collected from the same manifold. During the 2003 UATMP, duplicate and
collocated samples were collected at least 10 % of the scheduled sampling days. Most of these
samples were analyzed in replicate.
To calculate sampling and analytical precision, data analysts compared the
concentrations between the two replicates with their respective duplicate sample. Also, the CV
for two duplicate samples was calculated for each compound and each site - the target recovery
being 15 %, similar to the replicate analyses. Tables 23-16 through 23-18, 23-22, 23-24 through
23-26, 23-31 and 23-32 present average concentration differences, RPDs, and CVs as estimates
of duplicate and collocated sampling and analytical variability for VOC, SNMOC, carbonyls,
hexavalent chromium, and metals, respectively. The number of observations from Tables 23-1
through 23-15, in comparison to the respective tables listed for duplicate analyses in Tables 23-
16 through 23-32, is approximately twice as high.
Table 23-16 presents the sampling and analytical data precision for duplicates and
collocated VOC samples. Twelve out of 58 VOCs show greater variation than the target
15 percent. The average concentration differences observed for duplicate and collocated
analyses of VOC compounds ranged from 0.01 to 42.65 ppbv. To present the distribution
associated with some of the compounds with higher CVs (CVs over 15 % and detected over 30
%) scatter graphs were created for each of the compounds. Toluene (16.7 % CV, 99 %
detected), methylene chloride (22.64 % CV, 60 % detected), acetonitrile (30.41 % CV, 34 %
detected) and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK, 32.13 % CV, 64 % detected) scatter plots are shown in
Figures 23-1 through 23-4, respectively. As the % CV increases, the outliers can be identified in
clearer detail in these figures. An outlier is defined as a data point that emanates from a different
model than the rest of the data. The data shown in all of the individual graphs appear to come
from linear models with a given variation except for the outliers which appears to have been
23-7
-------
affected by the sample generation procedures. The toluene figure shows a close correlation for
the duplicate comparisons whereas the MEK figure shows a wider scatter for the duplicate
sample comparisons.
The collocated VOC sampling and analytical data are presented in Table 23-17, and the
duplicate samples are shown in Table 23-18. Again, high average CVs are present for each
collection (duplicate and collocated) showing the combination (collocated and dupliate) table,
Table 23-16, was affected by both sampling techniques. The collocated comparisons did show
more compounds than those presented in Table 23-16, however. Propylene (18.24 %), 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (24.26 %), w-octane (27.69 %), m,p,-xy\ene (19.17 %), o-xylene (15.15 %) and
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (15.03 %) were above the 15 % program objective.
Tables 23-19 and 23-20 present the results from VOC duplicate analysis for all of the
NATTS sites (DEMI and BTUT/BOUT). Table 23-21 presents the overall CV for each site
separately, giving the average CV per compound and per site. The results from duplicate
samples show low to high-level variability, ranging from 6.20 to 25.96 % between sites with an
average at 14.73 percent. This value is just inside the NATTS-required 15 % overall CV per
site.
The SNMOC precision for duplicate samples is presented in Table 23-22. Coefficient of
variation for duplicate samples ranged from 1.31 % for c/s-2-hexene to 37.76 % for
-------
Table 23-23 presents the overall CV for each site separately, giving the average CV per
compound and per site. The duplicate samples vary for the majority of the compounds showing
mid- to high-level variability, ranging from 10.34 to 22.41 % between sites with an average at
15.39 percent, only slightly outside the NATTS-required 15 % overall CV per site.
Table 23-24, presenting the sampling and analytical data for carbonyl compounds, shows
that the total duplicate and collocated samples collected during the 2003 UATMP varied with 4
compounds above the 15 % target criterion (isovaleraldehyde (23.86%), valeraldehyde (17.56%),
tolualdehydes (17.92%), and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde (17.23%)). The 2,5-
dimethylbenzaldehyde was collected in less than 6 % of the samples. The average concentration
difference ranged from 0.003 ppbv for 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde to 0.422 ppbv for
formaldehyde.
The collocated carbonyl sampling and analytical data are presented in Table 23-25, and
the duplicate samples results are shown in Table 23-26. Isovaleraldehyde and 2,5-
dimethylbenzaldehyde exceeded the 15 % criterion for both collocated and duplicate samples.
Tables 23-27 through 23-29 present results from carbonyl duplicate sample analyses for
the NATTS sites (AZFL/CWFL/LEFL/GAFL, DEMI and BTUT/BOUT). Table 23-30 presents
the overall CV for each site separately, giving the average CV per compound and per site. The
duplicate sample results show low to high level variability, ranging from 2.85 to 48.20 %
between sites and an average of 12.33 percent. The carbonyl sampling and analytical precision
data differ from the analytical replicate precision data as presented in tables above. This
difference suggests that limitations associated with laboratory analysis of the carbonyl samples
during the 2003 UATMP did not affect random errors associated with sampling procedures.
Duplicate analytical data for hexavalent chromium (Cr6+) samples are presented in Table
23-31. The CV is 13.54 % for this collocated site in Portland, OR. The sampling and analytical
variation for duplicate metals samples are presented in Table 23-32. The average CV values, as
well as the average RPD values, are show low- to high-level variability, ranging from 6.83 to
23-9
-------
28.58 % between sites with an average at 13.59 percent, just inside the NATTS required 15 %
overall CV per site.
23.2 Accuracy
Highly accurate air sampling and analytical methods can measure air concentrations in
very close agreement to actual ambient levels. Laboratories typically evaluate their accuracy by
analyzing external audit samples and comparing measured concentrations to the known
concentrations of the audit samples.
Accuracy indicates the extent to which experimental measurements represent their
corresponding "true" or "actual" values.
Air Toxics Pilot Laboratory Intercomparison studies were performed in August 2003. A
Quality Assurance Report for all laboratories that participated in this study is available on EPA's
AMTIC web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files. ERG has also prepared audit standards
for different State laboratories.
The accuracy of the 2003 UATMP monitoring data can also be assessed qualitatively by
reviewing the accuracy of the monitoring methods and how they were implemented:
-D The sampling and analytical methods used in the 2003 UATMP (i.e.,
Compendium Methods TO-11A and TO-15) have been approved by EPA for
accurately measuring ambient levels of VOC and carbonyl compounds,
respectively—an approval that is based on many years of research into the
development of ambient air monitoring methodologies.
-D When collecting and analyzing ambient air samples, all field sampling staff and
laboratory analysts strictly followed quality control and quality assurance
guidelines detailed in the respective monitoring methods. This strict adherence to
the well-documented sampling and analytical methods suggests, though certainly
does not prove, that the 2003 UATMP monitoring data accurately represent
ambient air quality.
23-10
-------
Figure 23-1. Scatter Plot for Toluene Duplicate Samples
Toluene (ppbv)
to
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
328 out of 332 possible samples
16.87% CV
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
-------
Figure 23-2. Scatter Plot for Methylene Chloride Duplicate Samples
to
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
0.00
1.00
Methylene Chloride
210 out of 332 possible samples
22.64% CV
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
-------
Figure 23-3. Scatter Plot for Acetonitrile Duplicate Samples
Acetonitrile (ppbv)
to
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
113 out of 332 possible sarrples
30.41% CV
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00 1200.00
-------
Figure 23-4. Scatter Plot for Methyl Ethyl Ketone Duplicate Samples
12.00
10.00
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ppbv)
to
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
215 out of 332 possible samples
32.13% CV
8.00
10.00
12.00
-------
Table 23-1. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
515 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Number of
Observations
515
515
515
514
0
4
86
4
1
221
516
3
0
318
475
0
0
167
305
0
1
0
44
0
0
30
515
131
1
0
0
0
17
15
2
15
2
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
10.72
16.32
9.75
8.01
NA
NA
11.42
5.67
NA
10.19
16.16
9.85
NA
22.14
14.74
NA
NA
16.77
14.92
NA
0.21
NA
14.73
NA
NA
8.14
9.94
8.47
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.58
15.84
8.12
14.53
4.12
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.19
0.10
0.08
0.07
NA
NA
0.08
0.09
0.10
5.80
0.07
0.30
NA
0.07
0.02
NA
NA
0.11
0.29
NA
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.34
NA
NA
NA
0.06
0.15
0.01
0.11
0.00
0.10
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.28
10.26
7.19
6.07
NA
NA
11.64
4.13
NA
8.76
8.87
6.64
NA
16.30
11.48
NA
NA
6.10
11.00
NA
NA
NA
8.64
NA
NA
7.22
6.49
7.36
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.16
12.67
5.52
10.24
2.85
NA
23-15
-------
Table 23-1. Continued
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
507
0
0
54
67
4
373
483
0
93
0
380
97
262
0
0
12
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
12.02
NA
NA
12.16
15.07
12.68
13.08
12.92
NA
13.74
NA
12.52
9.30
15.14
NA
NA
25.69
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.19
NA
NA
0.09
0.67
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.15
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
NA
NA
0.06
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.18
NA
NA
7.75
11.05
9.64
8.23
8.36
NA
10.74
NA
8.39
8.11
8.90
NA
NA
21.67
NA
NA
NA
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold
font.
23-16
-------
Table 23-2. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
216 Replicate Analyses for all Collocated Samples
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Number of
Observations
216
215
215
214
0
0
34
2
1
58
216
3
0
131
198
0
0
63
165
0
1
0
37
0
0
18
216
62
1
0
0
0
6
0
2
4
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
10.64
16.11
9.00
7.67
NA
NA
6.82
5.67
NA
7.80
15.89
9.85
NA
16.27
13.42
NA
NA
18.54
10.69
NA
0.21
NA
9.27
NA
NA
5.36
9.25
7.06
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.56
NA
8.12
16.45
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.16
0.08
0.07
0.06
NA
NA
0.06
0.01
0.10
9.75
0.06
0.30
NA
0.05
0.02
NA
NA
0.09
0.21
NA
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.34
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
0.01
0.07
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
8.25
11.60
6.88
5.90
NA
NA
6.80
4.13
NA
6.08
8.51
6.64
NA
13.80
11.08
NA
NA
6.57
8.44
NA
NA
NA
8.06
NA
NA
7.21
6.67
6.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.41
NA
5.52
11.80
23-17
-------
Table 23-2. Continued
Compound
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
2
0
216
0
0
14
34
0
172
206
0
64
0
160
42
115
0
0
8
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
4.12
NA
11.18
NA
NA
8.71
12.85
NA
12.61
12.72
NA
9.63
NA
11.38
6.87
15.26
NA
NA
14.97
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.00
0.10
0.21
NA
NA
0.07
0.34
0.07
0.04
0.08
0.15
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
2.85
NA
7.53
NA
NA
8.52
8.59
NA
7.90
8.28
NA
9.64
NA
7.59
6.21
9.31
NA
NA
9.55
NA
NA
NA
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold
font.
23-18
-------
Table 23-3. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
299 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
299
300
300
300
0
4
52
2
0
163
300
0
0
187
277
0
0
104
140
0
0
0
7
0
0
12
299
69
0
0
0
0
11
15
0
11
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
10.81
16.54
10.51
8.35
NA
NA
16.02
NA
NA
12.58
16.43
NA
NA
28.01
16.06
NA
NA
15.01
19.15
NA
NA
NA
20.19
NA
NA
10.92
10.64
9.88
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.61
15.84
NA
12.62
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.22
0.12
0.09
0.08
NA
NA
0.09
0.18
NA
1.86
0.07
NA
NA
0.08
0.02
NA
NA
0.13
0.37
NA
NA
NA
0.05
NA
NA
0.02
0.07
0.09
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.10
0.15
NA
0.15
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.32
10.39
7.29
6.23
NA
NA
11.38
NA
NA
9.12
8.71
NA
NA
17.57
11.91
NA
NA
6.89
13.47
NA
NA
NA
12.91
NA
NA
7.36
6.84
6.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.54
12.67
NA
9.53
NA
23-19
-------
Table 23-3. Continued
Compound
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
291
0
0
40
33
4
201
277
0
29
0
220
55
147
0
0
4
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
12.86
NA
NA
15.62
17.29
12.68
13.54
13.11
NA
17.85
NA
13.66
11.73
15.02
NA
NA
36.41
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
NA
0.16
NA
NA
0.11
1.00
0.03
0.05
0.09
NA
0.09
NA
0.06
0.05
0.07
NA
NA
0.10
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
7.14
NA
NA
11.66
12.32
9.64
8.36
8.37
NA
11.98
NA
8.70
7.94
9.24
NA
NA
33.78
NA
NA
NA
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold
font.
23-20
-------
Table 23-4. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
52 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in Detroit, MI (DEMI)
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Number of
Observations
52
52
52
51
0
0
18
0
0
15
52
0
0
43
46
0
0
0
32
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
52
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
19.75
11.48
9.35
12.14
NA
NA
20.53
NA
NA
24.87
10.15
NA
NA
17.85
17.81
NA
NA
NA
33.95
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.85
7.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.52
0.11
0.06
0.10
NA
NA
0.05
NA
NA
0.44
0.03
NA
NA
0.04
0.02
NA
NA
NA
0.16
NA
0.42
NA
0.06
NA
NA
0.07
0.07
0.07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
13.83
8.06
6.99
8.95
NA
NA
11.81
NA
NA
17.59
7.40
NA
NA
12.02
12.98
NA
NA
NA
19.35
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.06
5.06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23-21
-------
Table 23-4. Continued
Compound
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
0
52
0
0
2
18
0
43
52
0
9
0
42
17
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
9.68
NA
NA
NA
11.88
NA
17.91
10.73
NA
3.03
NA
15.52
22.18
13.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
NA
NA
0.15
NA
NA
0.15
1.58
NA
0.04
0.05
NA
0.06
NA
0.04
0.05
0.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
7.47
NA
NA
NA
7.95
NA
13.38
8.30
NA
2.24
NA
11.48
13.09
10.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold
font.
23-22
-------
Table 23-5. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
20 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BOUT & BTUT)
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Number of
Observations
20
20
20
20
0
0
9
0
0
1
20
0
0
10
19
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
7.04
13.68
7.40
7.69
NA
NA
27.38
NA
NA
NA
8.94
NA
NA
20.89
16.73
NA
NA
NA
1.81
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.14
0.10
0.05
0.05
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
1.20
0.06
NA
NA
0.06
0.02
NA
NA
NA
0.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
5.06
8.88
5.12
5.56
NA
NA
20.99
NA
NA
NA
6.26
NA
NA
16.28
13.82
NA
NA
NA
1.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23-23
-------
Table 23-5. Continued
Compound
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
0
20
0
0
7
0
0
15
20
0
0
0
19
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
3.55
NA
NA
8.50
NA
NA
7.60
5.50
NA
NA
NA
7.43
NA
11.78
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
NA
NA
0.05
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.03
0.03
NA
NA
NA
0.02
NA
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
2.53
NA
NA
5.99
NA
NA
5.36
3.81
NA
NA
NA
5.09
NA
9.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold
font.
23-24
-------
Table 23-6. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Average
7.28
10.26
7.19
6.07
NA
NA
11.64
4.13
NA
8.76
8.87
6.64
NA
16.30
11.48
NA
NA
6.10
11.00
NA
NA
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
3.15
10.70
6.40
4.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.70
6.07
NA
NA
11.94
19.38
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O
Z
.aO
JS Z
IB
7.70
9.30
8.99
7.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.84
NA
NA
20.05
13.40
NA
NA
NA
19.75
NA
NA
Bountiful, UT
(Sitel - BOUT)
4.75
13.39
5.99
5.58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.03
NA
NA
NA
12.83
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bountiful, UT
(Site 2 - BTUT) |
5.36
4.36
4.26
5.54
NA
NA
20.99
NA
NA
NA
6.49
NA
NA
16.28
14.82
NA
NA
NA
1.29
NA
NA
1-9
Z
Cs
1^
•o ^
1*
u$i
5.38
6.72
5.25
4.22
NA
NA
18.45
NA
NA
4.35
6.74
NA
NA
13.59
7.52
NA
NA
6.35
5.67
NA
NA
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
8.79
17.78
6.28
8.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.25
12.29
NA
NA
12.44
12.79
NA
NA
7.33
17.81
NA
NA
O
VI
£&
% 53
3 ^
U^
15.15
14.17
2.60
4.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.45
3.90
NA
NA
16.82
12.56
NA
NA
1.74
12.77
NA
NA
O
SJ
— i
o>
> ^
a
2.86
3.15
3.38
2.19
NA
NA
6.76
NA
NA
4.40
6.02
NA
NA
10.02
8.79
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O
U
o w
°£
£ '
o> n
Ss
£&.
7.31
10.00
9.73
12.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.56
8.51
NA
NA
34.62
11.97
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HH
§_
•*^ HH
'O §
•£ w
a«
13.83
8.06
6.99
8.95
NA
NA
11.81
NA
NA
17.59
7.40
NA
NA
12.02
12.98
NA
NA
NA
19.35
NA
NA
to
to
-------
Table 23-6. Continued
Compound
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Average
NA
8.64
NA
NA
7.22
6.49
7.36
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.16
12.67
5.52
10.24
2.85
NA
7.18
NA
NA
7.75
11.05
9.64
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.76
15.93
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.92
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O
Z
.aO
JS Z
IB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.71
6.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.53
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bountiful, UT
(Site 1 - BOUT)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.40
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.41
NA
NA
6.15
NA
NA
Bountiful, UT
(Site 2 - BTUT) |
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.65
NA
NA
5.84
NA
NA
1-9
Z
Cs
1^
•o ^
1*
u$i
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.64
3.70
3.07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.87
NA
NA
9.08
NA
NA
NA
6.97
NA
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.94
12.51
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.11
15.40
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.11
NA
NA
11.91
NA
NA
O
VI
£&
% 53
3 ^
U^
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.85
NA
NA
NA
28.28
NA
0
o w
U 0
£ '
0> ^H
Z*
o£
NA
12.91
NA
NA
NA
4.51
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.51
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.96
NA
NA
6.43
6.20
NA
O
U
o w
°£
£ '
o> n
Z*
0&
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.93
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.65
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HH
§_
•*^ HH
'O §
% W
a«
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.06
5.06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.47
NA
NA
NA
7.95
NA
to
oo
to
-------
Table 23-6. Continued
Compound
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Average
Average
8.23
8.36
NA
10.74
NA
8.39
8.11
8.90
NA
NA
21.67
NA
NA
NA
9.00
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
7.51
3.72
NA
NA
NA
16.42
NA
11.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.70
Q
Z
JS &
3§
MS
10.35
2.53
NA
NA
NA
7.23
10.88
12.36
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.42
Bountiful, UT
(Site 1 - BOUT)
5.57
5.96
NA
NA
NA
4.91
NA
8.99
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.84
Bountiful, UT
(Site 2 - BTUT)
5.15
1.65
NA
NA
NA
5.26
NA
9.31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.96
1-9
Z
1^
? z
1 <
u$i
7.39
6.15
NA
NA
NA
9.70
2.83
7.83
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.20
^
Z
Cs
« ^
•S* T'
ja
f>w
9.06
11.32
NA
3.79
NA
9.01
15.49
10.47
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.73
Q
VI
£&
« 53
3 &
U^
8.68
11.77
NA
18.20
NA
9.90
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.27
0
O a
w o
c '
g ^
a 5
Q&
3.13
4.59
NA
12.78
NA
3.12
5.70
6.38
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.94
O
U
0 g
^^
C •
JJ ^
£ 4»
c -^
0^-
2.83
10.42
NA
NA
NA
4.07
2.83
8.61
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.26
HH
§_
•*J~ h?1
2^
i Cd
ol
13.38
8.30
NA
2.24
NA
11.48
13.09
10.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.30
to
oo
to
-------
Table 23-6. Continued
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Average
7.28
10.26
7.19
6.07
NA
NA
11.64
4.13
NA
8.76
8.87
6.64
NA
16.30
11.48
NA
NA
6.10
11.00
NA
NA
NA
8.64
Dickson, TN
(DITN)
1.89
10.05
5.01
6.22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.42
9.20
NA
NA
NA
3.72
NA
NA
NA
8.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
11.11
11.80
5.83
7.90
NA
NA
15.80
NA
NA
9.10
11.99
NA
NA
14.95
10.23
NA
NA
11.18
17.53
NA
NA
NA
NA
Granada, MS
(GRMS)
6.05
13.51
14.80
10.67
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.21
15.32
NA
NA
NA
10.79
NA
NA
NA
14.56
NA
NA
NA
NA
VI
§
+J
0 VI
^ s
**
f>P.
8.65
16.91
9.37
5.55
NA
NA
6.15
NA
NA
20.35
10.91
NA
NA
NA
4.48
NA
NA
NA
5.89
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table 23-6. Continued
Compound
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Average
NA
NA
7.22
6.49
7.36
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.16
12.67
5.52
10.24
2.85
NA
7.18
NA
NA
7.75
11.05
9.64
8.23
8.36
Dickson, TN
(DITN)
NA
NA
NA
1.81
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
NA
NA
NA
8.62
11.79
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.88
19.98
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.98
NA
NA
6.73
9.24
NA
7.41
7.11
Granada, MS
(GRMS)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.56
26.02
VI
§
+J
!• ^^.
0 VI
^ s
**
f>P.
NA
NA
NA
11.90
5.66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.96
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.43
7.60
-------
Table 23-6. Continued
Compound
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Average
Average
NA
10.74
NA
8.39
8.11
8.90
NA
NA
21.67
NA
NA
NA
9.00
Dickson, TN
(DITN)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.79
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
NA
NA
NA
7.96
NA
17.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.92
Granada, MS
(GRMS)
NA
NA
NA
24.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.74
w
§
+J
o 5T
&H 5
**
o£
NA
NA
NA
9.73
NA
5.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.70
Houghton Lake,
MI (HOMI)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.27
VI
§
Cv
§§
3S
33.
NA
NA
NA
10.14
NA
7.49
NA
NA
33.78
NA
NA
NA
9.10
Z
H
tf
o
O. >^
X
-------
Table 23-6. Continued
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
Average
7.28
10.26
7.19
6.07
NA
NA
11.64
4.13
NA
8.76
8.87
6.64
NA
16.30
11.48
NA
NA
6.10
11.00
NA
NA
NA
8.64
NA
IVashville, TN
(EATN)
7.86
5.15
7.88
8.18
NA
NA
72.29
4.13
NA
3.39
8.34
NA
NA
8.82
7.52
NA
NA
5.26
4.63
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nashville, TN
(LOTN)
11.74
20.74
20.36
5.80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.79
NA
NA
7.42
9.10
NA
NA
NA
8.75
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
New
Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
8.30
9.19
5.50
5.42
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.17
9.66
NA
NA
9.25
12.04
NA
NA
3.68
8.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pascagoula,
MS (PGMS)
3.87
12.11
13.45
4.45
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.64
13.34
NA
NA
32.64
14.85
NA
NA
NA
5.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SI
<
Cs
.2 '
'3 ^ CT
S£^
£'£%
7.07
7.48
5.74
6.85
NA
NA
5.58
NA
NA
8.46
10.12
6.64
NA
4.83
9.62
NA
NA
5.96
9.34
NA
NA
NA
4.15
NA
SI
<
|^
1*5
<£&§
7.25
9.16
6.30
7.40
NA
NA
2.52
NA
NA
NA
7.17
NA
NA
8.66
14.80
NA
NA
10.85
8.21
NA
NA
NA
0.42
NA
0
§
5
'5 o
3%
. •*
%Q
9.08
6.31
4.64
5.72
NA
NA
10.46
NA
NA
11.11
6.46
NA
NA
18.56
10.76
NA
NA
4.66
8.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
«
0.
Cv
e
« _
*£
§^
££
3.10
9.30
8.16
9.24
NA
NA
14.44
NA
NA
8.69
7.89
NA
NA
36.73
10.22
NA
NA
NA
15.97
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cv
C« ,— s
= Q
r£ ^
to ta
M VI
3 ^
.2 0
VI Vl
3.10
9.30
8.16
9.24
NA
NA
14.44
NA
NA
8.69
7.89
NA
NA
36.73
10.22
NA
NA
NA
15.97
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
VI
§
41
II
8.14
4.58
9.23
1.70
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.21
12.84
NA
NA
2.72
14.02
NA
NA
NA
16.32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
to
oo
-------
Table 23-6. Continued
Compound
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
Average
NA
7.22
6.49
7.36
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.16
12.67
5.52
10.24
2.85
NA
7.18
NA
NA
7.75
11.05
9.64
8.23
8.36
NA
10.74
NA
Nashville, TN
(EATN)
NA
NA
3.63
6.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.90
NA
NA
NA
10.86
NA
4.25
4.18
NA
6.93
NA
Nashville, TN
(LOTN)
NA
NA
8.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.96
10.43
NA
NA
NA
New
Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
NA
NA
4.67
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.65
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.81
9.79
NA
NA
NA
Pascagoula,
MS (PGMS)
NA
7.86
4.61
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.34
NA
NA
5.24
18.63
NA
5.92
8.66
NA
NA
NA
SI
<
Cs
_* i
'3 ^ CT
2%<
£'£%
NA
7.21
5.60
6.61
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.16
NA
5.52
9.92
2.85
NA
4.85
NA
NA
5.55
5.94
NA
3.88
5.00
NA
4.67
NA
SI
<
4~§
0 o> •<,
o> 43 {j
£ £§
NA
NA
8.00
3.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.46
NA
NA
11.49
7.33
NA
11.29
9.16
NA
7.22
NA
0
§
Cv
GA
'§2
H-l §
ti£
NA
5.06
7.87
5.66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.86
NA
NA
5.32
NA
NA
10.39
9.94
9.64
9.99
7.19
NA
NA
NA
tf
0.
a
« _
*Z
|a
NA
NA
4.65
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.52
NA
NA
8.32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.99
13.27
NA
18.45
NA
Cv
C« ,— s
§|
M VI
3 ^
.2 0
VI VI
NA
NA
4.65
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.52
NA
NA
8.32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.99
13.27
NA
18.45
NA
VI
§
0 5T
•Is
s-p
nb
NA
8.32
9.06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.22
2.35
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table 23-6. Continued
Compound
o - Xylene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Average
Average
8.39
8.11
8.90
NA
NA
21.67
NA
NA
NA
9.00
Nashville, TN
(EATN)
3.22
6.28
5.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.43
Nashville, TN
(LOTN)
6.93
NA
12.26
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.84
New
Brunswick, NJ
(NBNJ)
6.22
7.44
4.82
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.86
Pascagoula,
MS (PGMS)
6.05
12.50
5.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.99
SI
SI <
< £
^ PH
- '
'3 ^
S2
££
4.58
4.91
4.56
NA
NA
9.55
NA
NA
NA
6.47
SI
<
IN g
O gj •<
-------
Table 23-7. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
138 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples
Compound
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
«-Butane
trans -2-Butene
c/s-2-Butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
«-Pentane
Isoprene
fra«s-2-Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2 -butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3 -Methylpentane
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl- 1 -butene
«-Hexane
fra«5-2-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Number of
Observations
138
138
136
138
138
0
138
138
77
138
107
116
10
135
120
96
138
120
119
98
86
136
78
15
127
130
138
138
2
96
0
138
4
6
137
120
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
6.37
8.05
2.85
8.84
5.91
NA
6.91
10.05
9.55
5.63
24.03
28.24
3.58
9.04
16.95
12.59
6.34
17.22
16.35
20.48
12.42
29.91
17.26
14.99
16.62
19.53
13.96
27.19
NA
34.00
NA
12.09
4.67
13.46
14.12
17.78
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.25
0.27
0.44
0.14
0.72
NA
0.27
0.23
0.05
0.35
0.20
0.19
0.16
0.55
0.22
0.11
0.29
0.20
0.15
0.20
4.14
0.18
0.12
0.12
0.15
0.28
0.39
0.49
0.81
0.41
NA
0.41
0.02
0.09
0.19
0.20
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
4.34
5.44
2.06
5.89
3.14
NA
4.55
7.20
6.79
3.86
17.17
18.37
2.59
6.60
10.66
10.07
4.41
10.75
11.33
15.91
8.96
16.26
12.46
10.99
12.12
15.14
8.79
15.22
NA
23.82
NA
8.58
3.30
10.39
9.50
12.63
23-34
-------
Table 23-7. Continued
Compound
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
«-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
«-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
«-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
«-Propylbenzene
ra-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
6-Pinene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
«-Decane
1 ,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
«-Undecane
Number of
Observations
138
133
133
110
38
138
134
129
71
129
138
122
112
29
133
137
138
115
138
19
138
86
66
111
137
123
122
116
14
134
0
117
95
99
82
11
122
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
6.99
25.95
26.42
32.73
11.38
18.19
17.39
18.89
20.20
13.42
6.84
25.75
24.60
15.02
22.41
16.23
27.56
37.98
18.75
13.01
25.56
22.40
40.30
22.91
17.38
29.40
24.46
18.43
8.64
14.69
NA
36.05
21.90
27.43
26.33
25.23
15.39
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.18
0.21
0.28
0.38
0.17
0.25
0.16
0.20
0.19
0.13
0.47
0.20
0.18
0.21
0.14
0.15
0.34
0.25
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.21
0.25
0.14
0.10
0.14
0.11
0.16
0.27
0.15
NA
0.41
0.21
0.18
0.21
0.22
0.21
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
4.97
13.86
15.98
18.06
7.74
10.71
10.87
12.11
13.75
9.25
4.71
19.82
17.08
13.54
13.05
10.60
9.15
15.48
12.02
8.81
15.22
17.37
19.51
16.21
10.90
16.95
15.51
13.18
6.36
9.51
NA
18.41
14.32
19.46
18.50
15.83
9.81
23-35
-------
Table 23-7. Continued
Compound
1-Dodecene
«-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Number of
Observations
2
52
0
2
138
138
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
14.78
NA
43.74
8.54
9.84
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.57
0.42
NA
0.76
8.50
28.01
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
11.16
NA
39.58
5.72
6.78
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font
23-36
-------
Table 23-8. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites
Compound
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
n-Butane
trans-2-Butene
c/s-2-Butene
3-Methyl- 1 -butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
«-Pentane
Isoprene
fra«s-2-Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2 -butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
Average
4.34
5.44
2.06
5.89
3.14
NA
4.55
7.20
6.79
3.86
17.17
18.37
2.59
6.60
10.66
10.07
4.41
10.75
11.33
15.91
8.96
16.26
12.46
Bountiful, UT
(Site 1 - BOUT)
1.77
1.18
1.16
1.97
1.10
NA
0.72
1.26
9.36
1.40
7.40
10.59
1.98
9.37
5.66
6.80
2.03
12.73
9.33
11.69
8.95
6.28
10.33
Bountiful, UT
(Site 2 - BTUT)
1.55
3.51
1.22
3.49
2.89
NA
2.90
2.66
6.98
1.71
20.86
19.51
NA
2.09
5.60
6.06
2.31
19.30
6.24
13.11
13.72
15.83
8.17
Q
VI ^
£fi
£ £
Sg
u y>
7.25
8.85
3.08
9.31
2.50
NA
9.42
11.40
3.43
9.08
15.89
13.60
NA
16.74
6.56
5.51
9.30
12.13
11.89
7.35
3.10
22.26
5.26
W
O
Cv
£>
-£
20
g o
£fe
6.63
7.45
0.55
0.44
1.26
NA
1.45
3.08
4.31
0.69
10.53
1.58
3.20
0.23
6.44
7.29
1.37
4.55
6.42
5.27
4.52
0.60
8.82
°f
^§
»r c«
'§-
nj g
%'&
8.67
7.55
4.30
11.21
9.58
NA
7.37
12.52
7.68
7.66
31.62
34.44
NA
6.52
29.17
11.26
8.03
14.84
19.43
27.83
8.27
25.92
7.32
of
§ s
* •<*•
af C«
§4
hJ g
%'&
2.68
3.99
1.69
4.20
2.65
NA
3.93
5.92
8.87
3.62
24.60
26.30
NA
7.62
14.97
7.50
3.89
14.04
17.57
15.52
14.56
16.59
19.05
O
§
wa /-»\
'50
^
*J M
vi S
3.06
4.78
1.21
8.70
2.22
NA
6.76
13.21
NA
3.59
NA
NA
NA
7.03
9.89
NA
4.76
2.95
NA
NA
NA
23.33
26.64
Q
VI
(/3
~&
at
o to
X £
3.11
6.19
3.24
7.81
2.91
NA
3.83
7.55
6.93
3.11
9.25
22.54
NA
3.15
7.03
26.11
3.61
5.45
8.45
30.61
9.62
19.31
14.07
to
oo
-------
Table 23-8. Continued
Compound
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
Cyclopentane
2, 3 -Dimethy Ibutane
2-Methylpentane
3 -Methylpentane
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl- 1 -butene
«-Hexane
trans -2-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3 -Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
«-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Average
10.99
12.12
15.14
8.79
15.22
NA
23.82
NA
8.58
3.30
10.39
9.50
12.63
4.97
13.86
16.14
15.98
18.06
7.74
10.71
10.87
12.11
13.75
9.25
Bountiful, UT
(Site 1 - BOUT)
9.30
9.85
8.78
4.12
7.58
NA
8.88
NA
3.60
NA
NA
4.17
6.81
1.64
6.75
10.12
7.31
15.37
8.68
10.06
7.62
2.13
23.41
4.28
Bountiful, UT
(Site 2 - BTUT)
NA
9.05
9.12
2.00
3.34
NA
42.39
NA
1.97
3.24
9.09
3.72
6.55
3.24
8.97
5.36
3.94
4.06
1.57
2.78
3.22
4.41
19.19
6.06
Q
VI
£&
% 53
3 &
U^
NA
16.14
13.73
15.16
14.70
NA
9.65
NA
9.34
NA
NA
15.04
12.36
9.68
19.02
12.93
28.62
29.71
2.72
16.47
16.33
14.95
NA
13.07
W
0
£
-^
-£
« <-s
u U
g o
£&,
NA
2.06
3.54
4.79
5.03
NA
NA
NA
6.32
NA
NA
4.95
5.35
2.99
3.18
3.06
1.53
5.30
11.83
2.32
1.63
3.39
3.19
0.76
°l
S§
»?<«
§-
J «
%'&
11.99
19.64
20.48
10.70
18.44
NA
28.08
NA
11.64
NA
NA
11.85
24.62
8.15
28.67
25.68
27.50
10.17
NA
11.84
14.56
21.99
12.34
20.08
if
w-Si
§4
J «
£&
18.78
11.69
18.11
9.06
19.81
NA
20.15
NA
5.81
3.35
11.70
7.89
16.62
5.86
17.50
16.26
15.06
12.20
4.21
7.13
8.57
16.35
15.34
9.25
0
§
wa /-»\
'50
-°g
X&
NA
20.96
24.76
16.94
25.86
NA
19.39
NA
20.84
NA
NA
10.97
6.56
3.74
6.79
29.04
19.96
35.27
10.34
25.95
22.13
16.01
NA
9.07
Q
VI
**
in
"sS
at
o to
X £1
3.90
7.58
22.57
7.52
26.98
NA
38.20
NA
9.13
NA
NA
17.41
22.14
4.45
19.98
26.65
23.90
32.39
14.81
9.16
12.89
17.63
9.05
11.43
to
oo
oo
-------
Table 23-8. Continued
Compound
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3 -Methylheptane
1-Octene
«-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
«-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
«-Propylbenzene
w-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
6-Pinene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
«-Decane
1 ,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
w-Diethylbenzene
Average
4.71
19.82
17.08
13.54
13.05
10.60
9.15
15.48
12.02
8.81
15.22
17.37
19.51
16.21
10.90
16.95
15.51
13.18
6.36
9.51
NA
18.41
14.32
19.46
Bountiful, UT
(Site 1 - BOUT)
2.91
8.62
11.40
49.00
2.57
7.33
5.08
22.37
6.95
12.86
5.53
10.12
9.16
8.54
5.15
9.31
7.11
11.57
NA
3.28
NA
28.74
6.99
16.94
Bountiful, UT
(Site 2 - BTUT)
1.89
21.56
18.27
NA
8.85
3.92
3.01
9.76
3.72
NA
7.03
NA
11.23
13.18
4.15
15.79
12.01
13.67
NA
7.83
NA
11.34
16.78
20.41
Q
VI
£&
% v>
3 ^
U^
6.85
18.34
19.32
6.17
21.34
16.77
12.91
27.80
18.17
12.40
25.50
16.57
14.17
19.63
15.77
25.09
27.80
11.25
7.26
13.81
NA
41.48
9.56
9.28
W
0
£
-^
-£
2o
g o
£&,
1.14
3.33
6.24
NA
1.04
2.33
1.14
7.85
1.91
NA
0.48
NA
59.04
6.48
4.01
2.88
1.74
9.66
NA
2.35
NA
6.45
4.56
NA
i!
£V1
'i-
J %
%'£
10.37
26.08
30.05
5.96
26.56
15.46
12.11
19.88
24.95
NA
26.86
34.11
26.50
22.97
15.19
19.47
18.03
21.80
NA
11.17
NA
24.04
27.19
29.24
il
w-tt
§4
J $
%'<&
4.24
18.13
18.19
3.24
13.22
12.04
7.15
8.65
10.66
8.80
15.34
22.82
21.03
19.69
8.23
16.01
11.53
16.11
NA
8.11
NA
22.86
21.76
21.28
0
§
Cv
C« ,— s
•50
-°g
Z&
4.82
13.96
23.23
3.32
14.60
12.35
10.35
7.02
12.98
1.19
17.73
4.73
10.47
21.16
18.92
27.23
25.94
1.25
NA
15.38
NA
4.49
6.68
17.56
Q
VI
*v
X
"sS
at
o to
VI £
5.47
48.53
9.94
NA
16.20
14.64
21.46
20.54
16.80
NA
23.28
15.85
4.47
18.02
15.78
19.79
19.98
20.11
5.45
14.11
NA
7.90
21.01
21.46
to
oo
VO
-------
Table 23-8. Continued
Compound
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
«-Undecane
1-Dodecene
«-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Average
Average
18.50
15.83
9.81
NA
11.16
NA
39.58
5.72
6.78
NA
11.85
^B
p,o
3«
* i
*J ^H
a «
5 .ts
M£
17.84
15.83
7.51
NA
10.61
NA
NA
1.19
2.15
NA
9.73
^
*£
3«
<£ i
-S n
a «
5 .ts
ea ^
27.25
NA
11.23
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.48
9.57
NA
9.30
Q
VI
*v '^
g VI
14.33
NA
11.97
NA
5.07
NA
NA
9.71
8.28
NA
75.57
0
.ts
^
S o
0 ®
NA
NA
1.10
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.14
0.93
NA
5.05
Qo
^2 ^^
^^ ^j
»T O5
'5 '
0 -H
— 1 K
. ."S
20.07
NA
11.37
NA
25.72
NA
NA
9.29
8.96
NA
19.15
of
g ^
»T O5
5 '
— i ^
. ."S
18.25
NA
9.56
NA
6.49
NA
NA
4.95
7.14
NA
72.75
0
§
af , ,
'5 O
^M
NA
NA
7.26
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.39
9.47
NA
14.54
Q
»r
"sS
to sr
SS
•2 ^
13.28
NA
18.50
NA
7.88
NA
39.58
7.60
7.76
NA
16.88
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
-------
Table 23-9. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
758 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
758
757
754
710
694
756
756
297
754
758
754
58
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
1.08
1.20
1.30
4.49
9.86
5.40
9.11
31.44
9.59
17.95
10.06
15.85
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.034
0.015
0.013
0.004
0.011
0.006
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.005
0.004
0.003
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.74
0.87
0.94
3.83
7.30
3.21
7.02
18.07
7.64
11.90
7.60
13.45
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
Table 23-10. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
168 Replicate Analyses for all Collocated Samples
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
168
168
168
156
160
168
168
94
168
168
168
24
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
1.03
0.86
0.96
4.59
7.36
2.86
12.90
22.45
9.86
9.26
5.99
20.35
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.053
0.012
0.024
0.006
0.010
0.009
0.010
0.005
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.004
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.71
0.60
0.68
3.39
4.95
1.97
7.90
15.03
6.74
6.44
4.14
13.34
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
23-41
-------
Table 23-11. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
590 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
590
589
586
554
534
588
588
203
586
590
586
34
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
1.11
1.29
1.40
4.81
10.50
5.79
9.01
34.64
10.04
19.98
11.13
17.39
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.031
0.015
0.011
0.004
0.011
0.005
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.005
0.003
0.003
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
0.77
0.92
0.98
3.38
7.54
3.81
6.24
18.97
7.33
12.47
7.88
12.78
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
Table 23-12. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
184 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in Tampa and St. Petersburg, FL
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
184
184
183
172
173
184
184
112
184
184
184
11
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
0.75
0.71
1.72
6.27
6.79
5.22
9.54
21.13
10.12
16.38
14.20
28.69
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.018
0.009
0.011
0.005
0.004
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.005
0.003
0.002
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
0.53
0.50
1.23
4.50
4.78
3.60
6.60
13.32
7.03
12.32
10.33
20.70
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
23-42
-------
Table 23-13. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
84 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in Detroit, MI (DEMI)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
84
84
84
84
82
84
84
56
84
84
84
16
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
1.01
0.99
1.25
5.83
11.57
3.15
7.38
28.50
5.19
13.93
8.19
21.94
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.030
0.011
0.011
0.008
0.006
0.005
0.003
0.005
0.002
0.004
0.005
0.002
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.63
0.69
0.86
4.03
7.50
2.19
4.99
16.48
3.39
9.08
5.74
11.74
to
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
Table 23-14. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
28 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BOUT & BTUT)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
28
28
28
28
26
28
28
0
28
28
28
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
0.89
1.34
1.11
9.61
13.80
5.50
9.82
NA
11.42
16.80
16.69
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.021
0.021
0.019
0.004
0.016
0.005
0.004
NA
0.004
0.007
0.009
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.62
0.95
0.78
6.57
8.84
3.59
6.65
NA
8.27
10.03
12.36
NA
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
23-43
-------
Table 23-15. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
0.74
0.87
0.94
3.83
7.30
3.21
7.02
18.07
7.64
11.90
7.60
13.45
6.88
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
0.67
0.24
0.22
2.08
11.65
5.77
3.10
20.26
8.81
24.37
12.71
NA
8.17
-J
to
Cv
hJ
PQ to
^g
go
2 ^
Q to
1.24
1.24
1.39
5.24
32.44
4.38
8.06
NA
8.74
19.41
7.53
NA
8.97
-------
Table 23-15. Continued
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
0.74
0.87
0.94
3.83
7.30
3.21
7.02
18.07
7.64
11.90
7.60
13.45
6.88
0
O tj
U 0
£ '
0> ^H
$z
3£
0.33
0.28
0.32
1.62
0.82
0.52
0.15
NA
3.65
0.49
0.36
NA
0.85
O
U
o w
s^
£ '
o> n
^
3£
0.31
0.18
0.41
2.29
13.70
1.19
8.75
NA
17.10
11.23
8.94
NA
6.41
HH
§_
•*^ HH
'O §
£ W
a«
0.63
0.69
0.86
4.03
7.50
2.19
4.99
16.48
3.39
9.08
5.74
11.74
5. 61
Dickson, TN
(DITN)
0.98
0.47
0.21
1.24
2.59
1.61
2.49
NA
14.72
7.87
6.94
NA
197
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
0.90
3.29
1.64
5.37
7.52
3.13
5.69
38.51
5.29
11.39
8.34
6.91
8.16
Pompano
Beach, FL
(FLFL)
0.17
0.22
1.33
3.89
4.96
3.82
7.08
5.66
12.03
15.15
2.70
NA
5.18
-J
to
iff
S s« •<
H *£^
0.54
0.30
0.77
2.91
5.40
5.34
5.42
19.89
5.87
6.94
9.33
25.92
7.39
w
§
-^
o 5T
&H S
•*" «
"3 P^
0^
1.58
1.40
3.64
6.94
3.61
7.73
17.40
NA
5.81
32.38
10.71
NA
9.72
Granada, MS
(GRMS)
2.85
3.56
2.72
3.36
3.57
3.13
7.89
28.34
4.16
13.59
3.65
NA
6.98
to
oo
-------
Table 23-15. Continued
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2, 5 -Dimethylbenzaldehy de
Average
Average
0.74
0.87
0.94
3.83
7.30
3.21
7.02
18.07
7.64
11.90
7.60
13.45
6.88
Hartford, CT
(HACT)
0.59
0.99
0.64
4.46
4.33
1.83
1.38
22.53
10.56
3.83
5.72
16.40
6.10
Jackson, MS
(JAMS)
0.68
0.66
0.56
2.56
4.96
2.42
3.83
18.55
3.72
8.69
9.88
NA
5.14
Kingsport, TN
(KITN)
0.88
0.75
0.93
0.92
6.62
1.84
8.91
14.51
5.07
9.12
3.75
NA
4.84
Lou don, TN
(LDTN)
1.21
0.67
0.92
8.22
3.93
0.42
21.06
NA
2.58
2.66
0.56
11.86
4.92
Lincoln, NE
(LONE)
0.17
0.15
0.17
1.03
7.59
2.36
8.15
NA
3.25
15.55
16.35
NA
5.48
Tampa (Lewis), FL
(LEFL)
0.61
0.64
0.97
3.19
1.52
3.20
5.86
7.78
5.51
6.31
8.19
NA
3.98
Nashville, TN
(EATN)
0.30
0.23
0.41
2.26
6.69
4.45
4.91
18.70
7.43
3.25
2.18
NA
4. 62
Nashville, TN
(LOTN)
0.39
0.43
0.76
2.61
3.00
1.45
11.57
2.93
3.45
9.26
4.06
NA
3.63
-J
to ^
f£
a -
§S
0.30
0.40
2.03
8.46
7.93
2.81
10.60
NA
7.93
20.31
16.46
NA
7.72
to
oo
a\
-------
Table 23-15. Continued
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2, 5 -Dimethylbenzaldehy de
Average
Average
0.74
0.87
0.94
3.83
7.30
3.21
7.02
18.07
7.64
11.90
7.60
13.45
6.88
Orlando, FL
(ORFL)
0.54
0.35
0.41
1.55
1.11
2.78
5.67
21.75
7.70
14.64
4.99
11.48
6.08
New Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
0.70
0.36
0.34
2.85
5.66
3.41
4.13
7.92
2.23
14.08
5.60
7.44
4.56
Pascagoula, MS
(PGMS)
1.07
1.51
1.23
3.17
9.22
4.68
9.37
16.55
3.43
8.36
4.11
13.78
6.37
if
w-tt
1^
J £
$'<&
0.86
0.79
0.87
1.58
7.65
2.05
5.32
29.21
5.84
9.45
4.11
NA
6.16
|t
^ J
»?!«
1-
J $
ti'£
0.70
0.91
1.03
2.72
2.31
3.32
4.00
7.64
5.70
7.92
4.82
NA
3.73
0
§
Cv
C« ,— s
3 0
*.*
y. PQ
\J1 •'w'
0.34
0.48
0.41
5.10
2.16
8.31
8.53
NA
13.01
11.02
9.66
NA
5.90
«
0.
c~
-------
Table 23-16. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
332 Duplicate and Collocated Samples
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
332
332
332
331
0
2
55
1
3
113
332
3
0
201
304
0
0
92
215
0
0
0
27
0
0
15
331
66
1
0
0
0
13
9
1
9
1
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
12.95
22.42
7.25
9.08
NA
NA
24.51
NA
NA
64.84
24.82
NA
NA
69.60
16.35
NA
NA
12.44
60.40
NA
NA
NA
13.49
NA
NA
30.68
16.38
8.43
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.72
34.20
NA
23.99
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.20
0.12
0.05
0.06
NA
NA
0.06
0.16
0.11
42.65
0.10
1.95
NA
0.10
0.03
NA
NA
0.14
0.89
NA
NA
NA
0.05
NA
NA
0.09
0.06
0.08
0.34
NA
NA
NA
0.12
0.43
0.12
0.26
0.10
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
8.73
14.77
6.08
6.94
NA
NA
19.14
NA
NA
30.41
13.73
NA
NA
22.64
13.95
NA
NA
8.49
32.13
NA
NA
NA
11.20
NA
NA
12.33
10.56
6.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.94
31.16
NA
16.75
NA
23-48
-------
Table 23-16. Continued
Compound
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethy Ibenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
328
0
0
34
57
2
246
315
0
54
0
252
61
176
0
0
6
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
129.77
NA
NA
36.41
28.17
4.17
23.79
21.81
NA
28.42
NA
20.87
14.35
16.51
NA
NA
51.40
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
NA
0.48
NA
NA
0.13
19.04
0.01
0.08
0.13
NA
0.14
NA
0.07
0.04
0.07
NA
NA
0.10
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
16.87
NA
NA
13.61
23.96
3.01
15.40
12.35
NA
16.27
NA
12.81
11.10
11.11
NA
NA
35.13
NA
NA
NA
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
23-49
-------
Table 23-17. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
176 Collocated Samples
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
176
176
176
175
0
0
29
1
3
31
176
3
0
103
163
0
0
35
144
0
0
0
22
0
0
9
175
37
1
0
0
0
6
2
1
3
1
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
15.09
23.86
5.53
8.75
NA
NA
16.18
NA
NA
75.40
17.70
NA
NA
78.16
16.08
NA
NA
13.05
78.06
NA
NA
NA
22.39
NA
NA
52.76
20.08
5.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.67
15.38
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.21
0.13
0.04
0.06
NA
NA
0.05
0.16
0.11
79.23
0.06
1.95
NA
0.07
0.02
NA
NA
0.19
0.97
NA
NA
NA
0.05
NA
NA
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.34
NA
NA
NA
0.14
0.02
0.12
0.33
0.10
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
11.45
18.24
4.70
6.98
NA
NA
15.35
NA
NA
28.60
11.63
NA
NA
25.56
13.03
NA
NA
8.57
34.95
NA
NA
NA
12.59
NA
NA
24.26
12.55
3.77
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.48
11.79
NA
NA
NA
23-50
-------
Table 23-17. Continued
Compound
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethy Ibenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
176
0
0
9
38
0
143
173
0
40
0
139
32
100
0
0
4
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
223.45
NA
NA
56.22
32.94
NA
27.83
30.43
NA
33.75
NA
21.34
16.20
20.48
NA
NA
61.42
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
NA
0.73
NA
NA
0.09
38.02
NA
0.08
0.12
NA
0.18
NA
0.06
0.04
0.07
NA
NA
0.09
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
20.72
NA
NA
27.69
33.76
NA
19.39
19.17
NA
17.00
NA
15.15
12.39
15.03
NA
NA
33.38
NA
NA
NA
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
23-51
-------
Table 23-18. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
156 Duplicate Samples
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
156
156
156
156
0
2
26
0
0
82
156
0
0
98
141
0
0
57
71
0
0
0
5
0
0
6
156
29
0
0
0
0
7
7
0
6
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
10.81
20.98
8.97
9.41
NA
NA
32.84
NA
NA
54.29
31.94
NA
NA
61.05
16.63
NA
NA
11.83
42.73
NA
NA
NA
4.60
NA
NA
8.60
12.67
11.83
NA
NA
NA
NA
32.77
53.02
NA
23.99
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.19
0.10
0.06
0.07
NA
NA
0.08
NA
NA
6.08
0.14
NA
NA
0.13
0.03
NA
NA
0.08
0.81
NA
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.11
0.05
0.10
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.10
0.84
NA
0.20
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.68
13.16
6.98
6.86
NA
NA
20.59
NA
NA
30.65
15.41
NA
NA
20.35
13.18
NA
NA
8.19
27.32
NA
NA
NA
3.14
NA
NA
6.37
8.72
8.39
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.67
37.62
NA
16.75
NA
23-52
-------
Table 23-18. Continued
Compound
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethy Ibenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
152
0
0
25
19
2
103
142
0
14
0
113
29
76
0
0
2
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
36.09
NA
NA
16.59
23.40
4.17
19.75
13.19
NA
23.09
NA
20.41
12.50
12.54
NA
NA
41.38
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
NA
0.23
NA
NA
0.16
0.06
0.01
0.08
0.14
NA
0.09
NA
0.08
0.05
0.08
NA
NA
0.12
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
13.58
NA
NA
13.17
15.19
3.01
13.55
9.49
NA
18.40
NA
12.97
9.07
9.94
NA
NA
36.89
NA
NA
NA
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
23-53
-------
Table 23-19. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
32 Collocated Samples in Detroit, MI (DEMI)
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl chloride
1,3 -butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - dichloroethylene
1,1 - dichloroethane
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Methyl ethyl ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1,2-dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-butyl ether
1,2 - dichloroethane
1,1,1 - trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
fert-amyl methyl ether
1,2 - dichloropropane
Ethyl acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl methacrylate
cis -1,3 - dichloropropene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Number of
Observations
32
32
32
31
0
0
12
0
0
6
32
0
0
24
27
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
32
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
6.96
9.16
4.28
10.69
NA
NA
10.57
NA
NA
23.84
4.30
NA
NA
14.30
11.08
NA
NA
NA
22.07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.97
3.47
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.13
0.06
0.03
0.09
NA
NA
0.02
NA
NA
0.70
0.01
NA
NA
0.03
0.02
NA
NA
NA
0.16
NA
NA
NA
0.06
NA
NA
NA
0.04
0.08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
12.23
13.48
10.96
13.75
NA
NA
28.48
NA
NA
15.08
11.03
NA
NA
19.25
17.14
NA
NA
NA
23.34
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.09
2.53
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23-54
-------
Table 23-19. Continued
Compound
trans - 1,3 - dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2 - trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-dibromoethane
«-octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - tetrachloroethane
o - xylene
1 , 3 ,5 -trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene
m - dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - dichlorobenzene
o - dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
0
32
0
0
1
13
0
27
32
0
4
0
27
12
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
6.75
NA
NA
NA
6.83
NA
18.94
7.15
NA
9.09
NA
9.56
8.95
9.08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
NA
NA
0.08
NA
NA
0.11
0.50
NA
0.03
0.03
NA
0.08
NA
0.02
0.04
0.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
11.82
NA
NA
NA
14.69
NA
23.24
13.14
NA
6.73
NA
17.99
20.98
15.73
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
23-55
-------
Table 23-20. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
12 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BOUT & BTUT)
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
Number of
Observations
12
12
12
12
0
0
3
0
0
3
12
0
0
8
11
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
9.80
12.56
7.47
4.36
NA
NA
28.57
NA
NA
28.65
182.95
NA
NA
408.87
20.55
NA
NA
NA
104.26
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.85
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.22
0.10
0.04
0.03
NA
NA
0.08
NA
NA
1.15
0.65
NA
NA
0.45
0.04
NA
NA
NA
0.53
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.45
9.77
4.94
3.19
NA
NA
17.68
NA
NA
17.72
40.40
NA
NA
31.11
15.96
NA
NA
NA
48.30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.90
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23-56
-------
Table 23-20. Continued
Compound
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
12
0
0
6
0
0
9
12
0
0
0
12
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
14.22
NA
NA
7.91
NA
NA
9.80
7.97
NA
NA
NA
18.19
NA
23.68
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
NA
0.20
NA
NA
0.02
NA
NA
0.04
0.04
NA
NA
NA
0.04
NA
0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
10.10
NA
NA
5.52
NA
NA
8.13
6.28
NA
NA
NA
13.43
NA
19.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
23-57
-------
Table 23-21. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Average
8.73
14.77
6.08
6.94
NA
NA
19.14
NA
NA
30.41
13.73
NA
NA
22.64
13.95
NA
NA
8.49
32.13
NA
NA
NA
11.20
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
1.08
5.09
2.07
14.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
35.50
5.84
NA
NA
14.19
24.75
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Beulah, ND
(BUND)
7.59
13.64
11.78
10.60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.91
NA
NA
35.36
10.78
NA
NA
NA
18.70
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bountiful, UT
(Site 1 - BOUT)
5.46
12.07
6.96
4.49
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
40.39
NA
NA
10.88
8.84
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bountiful, UT
(Site 2 - BTUT)
9.44
7.48
2.93
1.89
NA
NA
17.68
NA
NA
17.72
40.42
NA
NA
51.35
23.08
NA
NA
NA
48.30
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cam den, NJ
(CANJ)
6.08
6.18
6.96
7.60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.95
8.39
NA
NA
31.36
8.42
NA
NA
3.25
32.52
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
17.24
28.70
17.46
18.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
43.14
24.58
NA
NA
21.81
17.85
NA
NA
7.66
27.68
NA
NA
NA
NA
-J
HH
O*
M^
2 d
•Jg
u G
4.63
16.31
3.01
4.60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.85
NA
NA
27.76
8.56
NA
NA
NA
34.13
NA
NA
NA
22.92
Q
VI ^
£&
« 55
*g
u y>
4.42
13.05
3.16
2.45
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.11
20.31
NA
NA
9.43
11.66
NA
NA
23.22
49.43
NA
NA
NA
NA
O
O tj
w o
£ '
0> ^H
Ss
o£
2.13
6.12
7.98
3.23
NA
NA
24.15
NA
NA
89.83
1.00
NA
NA
6.52
7.09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.66
O
U
o w
8^
£ '
o> n
Ss
o£
1.39
12.35
13.39
9.50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.56
5.50
NA
NA
31.04
15.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
to
oo
oo
-------
Table 23-21. Continued
Compound
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Average
NA
NA
12.33
10.56
6.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.94
31.16
NA
16.75
NA
NA
16.87
NA
NA
13.61
23.96
3.01
15.40
12.35
NA
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
NA
NA
NA
5.47
14.63
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.34
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.75
2.66
NA
Beulah, ND
(BUND)
NA
NA
NA
32.18
11.79
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
107.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bountiful, UT
(Site 1 - BOUT)
NA
NA
NA
4.07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.28
NA
NA
5.66
NA
NA
NA
3.41
NA
Bountiful, UT
(Site 2 - BTUT)
NA
NA
NA
7.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.92
NA
NA
5.39
NA
NA
8.13
9.15
NA
Cam den, NJ
(CANJ)
NA
NA
7.86
12.20
6.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.43
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.25
15.12
NA
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
NA
NA
NA
21.48
6.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
44.22
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.91
NA
NA
0.25
NA
NA
14.05
10.86
NA
-J
HH
O*
M^
2 d
•Jg
u G
NA
NA
NA
11.42
6.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72.80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.71
28.74
NA
Q
VI ^
£&
% 55
*g
u y>
NA
NA
NA
10.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
64.93
NA
NA
NA
NA
37.38
NA
NA
NA
21.76
NA
65.27
42.88
NA
O
O tj
w o
£ '
0> ^H
Z*
o£
NA
NA
NA
7.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
27.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.03
NA
NA
7.44
6.64
NA
7.26
2.76
NA
O
U
o w
8^
£ '
o> n
Z*
o£
NA
NA
NA
2.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.42
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.32
4.72
NA
to
oo
VO
-------
Table 23-21. Continued
Compound
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Average
Average
16.27
NA
12.81
11.10
11.11
NA
NA
35.13
NA
NA
NA
15.61
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
NA
NA
10.10
NA
4.88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.10
Beulah, ND
(BUND)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24.36
Bountiful, UT
(Site 1 - BOUT)
NA
NA
10.55
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.00
Bountiful, UT
(Site 2 - BTUT)
NA
NA
16.30
NA
19.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.64
Cam den, NJ
(CANJ)
NA
NA
14.35
6.15
1.64
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.89
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
19.25
NA
7.07
10.18
9.31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.47
-J
HH
d~
M^
2 d
•Jg
u G
NA
NA
14.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.45
Q
VI ^
£&
« 55
*g
u y>
3.75
NA
22.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.55
O
O tj
w o
£ '
0> ^H
Ss
o£
13.22
NA
5.22
6.67
3.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.58
O
U
o w
8^
£ '
o> n
^
o£
NA
NA
5.24
18.45
2.67
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.43
to
oo
-------
Table 23-21. Continued
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Average
8.73
14.77
6.08
6.94
NA
NA
19.14
NA
NA
30.41
13.73
NA
NA
22.64
13.95
NA
NA
8.49
32.13
NA
NA
NA
11.20
Detroit, MI
(DEMI)
12.23
13.48
10.96
13.75
NA
NA
28.48
NA
NA
15.08
11.03
NA
NA
19.25
17.14
NA
NA
NA
23.34
NA
NA
NA
NA
_0j
s^
!l
1*
3£
23.91
22.34
6.45
8.72
NA
NA
11.87
NA
NA
NA
15.80
NA
NA
29.63
14.19
NA
NA
NA
46.09
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dickson, TN
(DITN)
7.78
33.67
1.30
2.89
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
80.68
39.60
NA
NA
NA
7.44
NA
NA
NA
30.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
6.59
7.77
6.36
8.41
NA
NA
26.19
NA
NA
5.88
11.67
NA
NA
12.57
8.74
NA
NA
7.71
31.58
NA
NA
NA
NA
Granada, MS
(GRMS)
5.24
36.89
5.09
5.72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
98.77
2.18
NA
NA
NA
7.44
NA
NA
NA
30.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
Gulf Port, MS
(GPMS)
13.36
6.36
9.84
10.91
NA
NA
20.20
NA
NA
8.05
11.45
NA
NA
NA
23.57
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Houghton Lake,
MI (HOMI)
5.05
0.00
7.44
5.09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.74
7.44
NA
NA
17.68
7.44
NA
NA
NA
1.63
NA
NA
NA
6.15
Jackson, MS
(JAMS)
2.30
3.63
2.30
3.09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.68
5.34
NA
NA
NA
27.42
NA
NA
4.72
43.13
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kingsport, TN
(KITN)
6.09
7.05
2.17
1.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.12
NA
NA
51.61
11.40
NA
NA
NA
35.09
NA
NA
NA
NA
to
oo
-------
Table 23-21. Continued
Compound
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Average
NA
NA
12.33
10.56
6.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.94
31.16
NA
16.75
NA
NA
16.87
NA
NA
13.61
23.96
3.01
15.40
12.35
Detroit, MI
(DEMI)
NA
NA
NA
12.09
2.53
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.82
NA
NA
NA
14.69
NA
23.24
13.14
—
S^
HH §
?J
£*
+J "—
-±
et
H-l &
c §
|0
&*>5^
O HH
ffi§
NA
NA
NA
8.32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.73
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Jackson, MS
(JAMS)
NA
NA
NA
4.50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.87
3.28
Kingsport, TN
(KITN)
NA
NA
NA
5.67
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.05
6.39
to
oo
to
-------
Table 23-21. Continued
Compound
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Average
Average
NA
16.27
NA
12.81
11.10
11.11
NA
NA
35.13
NA
NA
NA
15.61
Detroit, MI
(DEMI)
NA
6.73
NA
17.99
20.98
15.73
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.18
—
S^
HH §
?J
£*
+J •—
Si «
Q a.
NA
NA
NA
16.42
6.10
13.26
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.87
Dickson, TN
(DITN)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.27
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
NA
NA
NA
8.11
NA
4.80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.41
Granada, MS
(GRMS)
NA
NA
NA
5.44
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.45
Gulf Port, MS
(GPMS)
NA
NA
NA
16.44
NA
11.47
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.70
f^
o>
-±
«
H-l &
c §
|0
&*>5^
O HH
ffi§
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.39
Jackson, MS
(JAMS)
NA
NA
NA
5.83
NA
4.92
NA
NA
36.89
NA
NA
NA
10.38
Kingsport, TN
(KITN)
NA
NA
NA
4.99
NA
5.85
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.34
to
oo
ON
-------
Table 23-21. Continued
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Average
8.73
14.77
6.08
6.94
NA
NA
19.14
NA
NA
30.41
13.73
NA
NA
22.64
13.95
NA
NA
8.49
32.13
NA
NA
NA
11.20
Lincoln, NE
(LONE)
10.77
18.93
4.35
1.08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
33.57
2.57
NA
NA
NA
28.28
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nashville, TN
(EATN)
6.05
9.18
4.02
13.73
NA
NA
8.68
NA
NA
15.14
6.75
NA
NA
6.69
15.26
NA
NA
2.73
2.95
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nashville, TN
(LOTN)
9.85
16.99
2.48
4.65
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.89
NA
NA
36.89
11.56
NA
NA
NA
96.72
NA
NA
NA
NA
New Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
3.60
8.25
2.17
3.74
NA
NA
12.86
NA
NA
11.96
8.60
NA
NA
7.01
11.00
NA
NA
2.96
7.73
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pascagoula, MS
(PGMS)
16.43
8.70
3.32
12.08
NA
NA
34.69
NA
NA
31.50
12.05
NA
NA
NA
14.28
NA
NA
NA
23.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
f,
II
15.91
15.50
7.39
7.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.33
45.81
NA
NA
11.31
10.44
NA
NA
15.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
to
oo
-------
Table 23-21. Continued
Compound
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Average
NA
NA
12.33
10.56
6.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.94
31.16
NA
16.75
NA
NA
16.87
NA
NA
13.61
23.96
3.01
15.40
12.35
^incoln, NE
(LONE)
NA
NA
NA
2.72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.23
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.89
Nashville, TN
(EATN)
NA
NA
NA
5.14
4.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.20
3.85
Nashville, TN
(LOTN)
NA
NA
NA
17.35
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.43
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.63
30.72
New Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
NA
NA
NA
3.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.05
4.41
w
§
Cv
et
If
£ ^
£&
NA
NA
NA
11.40
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.82
NA
NA
NA
19.11
NA
40.15
22.97
it
+j
C/3,
SI
< ~
M-N
•- <
8 ™
® *
qj **H
-= 1
0. —
NA
NA
24.26
31.01
4.94
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
33.11
NA
NA
48.07
18.89
NA
32.32
31.20
it
+j
C/3,
SI
^sT
M «!
'a W
o 5
QJ ^H
-= 1
Q- n
NA
NA
NA
10.95
2.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
26.80
NA
NA
7.32
2.25
NA
10.21
14.94
O
§
*v
X ^_^
'5 o~
0 *H
hJ %
. -*f
tiQ
NA
NA
4.88
5.13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.64
NA
NA
7.87
NA
NA
21.13
19.58
3.01
4.40
3.82
tf
0.
« _
^£
_ Q-
£Q
NA
NA
NA
6.93
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.87
NA
NA
6.20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.45
8.38
Q
VI
(/3
"«
II
££
NA
NA
NA
8.28
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.44
15.79
VI
§_
o
£b
NA
NA
NA
6.97
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.41
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.45
2.32
to
oo
-------
Table 23-21. Continued
Compound
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Average
Average
NA
16.27
NA
12.81
11.10
11.11
NA
NA
35.13
NA
NA
NA
15.61
^incoln, NE
(LONE)
NA
NA
NA
4.88
NA
23.57
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.24
Nashville, TN
(EATN)
NA
7.64
NA
0.43
0.38
9.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6. 66
Nashville, TN
(LOTN)
NA
NA
NA
19.41
NA
18.86
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.32
New Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
NA
NA
NA
4.35
NA
4.56
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.20
vi
§
Cv
«
If
£ ^
£fe
NA
NA
NA
38.52
5.66
3.97
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.06
it
+j
C/3,
SI
< ~
M-N
•- <
8 ™
® «
qj **H
-= 1
0. —
NA
NA
NA
28.17
32.42
23.87
NA
NA
33.38
NA
NA
NA
25.96
it
+j
C/3,
SI
^sT
* «!
'a W
o 5
QJ ^H
-= 1
Q- n
NA
7.44
NA
12.36
2.08
18.61
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.07
O
§
*v
X ^_^
'5 o~
0 *H
hJ %
. -*f
tiQ
NA
NA
NA
6.30
5.91
4.83
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.72
05
0.
« ^^
^£
_ Q-
£Q
NA
NA
NA
7.39
7.54
3.52
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.31
Q
VI
(/3
"«
II
££
NA
25.89
NA
21.02
21.76
35.83
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.12
VI
§_
o
^b
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7120
to
oo
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
-------
Table 23-22. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
74 Duplicate Samples
Compound
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
«-Butane
trans -2-Butene
c/s-2-Butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
«-Pentane
Isoprene
fra«s-2-Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2 -butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3 -Methylpentane
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl- 1 -butene
«-Hexane
trans -2-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Number of
Observations
74
74
74
74
74
0
74
74
40
74
56
60
5
72
62
54
74
64
62
49
47
73
42
9
64
67
74
74
1
51
0
74
3
3
73
62
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
11.04
4.95
4.28
13.22
7.95
NA
28.85
27.69
9.66
9.47
13.66
9.47
7.64
26.27
61.80
21.70
29.28
17.30
10.86
12.79
21.34
18.00
31.20
58.15
33.76
15.98
28.50
34.56
NA
31.81
NA
20.08
NA
1.87
14.40
8.55
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.40
0.22
0.65
0.40
1.79
NA
1.74
0.56
0.05
1.29
0.14
0.06
0.13
3.78
0.57
0.13
2.01
0.32
0.11
0.12
5.63
0.12
0.22
0.41
0.48
0.28
1.05
0.98
1.08
0.24
NA
1.16
0.38
0.32
0.32
0.09
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.48
3.62
3.14
9.29
6.39
NA
10.71
15.54
7.06
6.67
8.34
6.96
5.61
11.24
26.64
11.60
11.14
11.42
8.14
10.09
19.03
12.63
18.83
30.37
18.07
11.38
19.47
19.00
NA
17.29
NA
14.52
NA
1.31
9.69
6.40
23-67
-------
Table 23-22. Continued
Compound
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3 -Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
«-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
«-Octane
Ethylbenzene
w-Xylene//>-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
«-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
«-Propylbenzene
w-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
6-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
«-Decane
1,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
«-Undecane
Number of
Observations
74
70
73
69
59
22
74
72
66
40
68
74
63
57
18
71
74
74
65
74
13
74
45
36
58
74
66
66
61
7
73
0
60
49
53
44
8
66
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
8.14
14.85
32.65
19.58
31.15
32.01
16.09
22.83
19.21
20.69
12.29
21.68
15.57
22.53
41.68
11.92
17.70
19.02
94.05
18.37
27.03
20.50
19.30
60.00
21.07
16.20
15.68
17.64
21.42
52.10
22.33
NA
35.82
26.89
27.30
29.19
15.69
20.32
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.24
0.17
0.42
0.29
0.56
0.28
0.29
0.43
0.24
0.23
0.11
1.47
0.11
0.14
0.39
0.12
0.16
0.77
0.37
0.22
0.23
0.10
0.13
0.51
0.10
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.13
0.58
0.21
NA
0.44
0.14
0.17
0.24
0.19
0.38
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
5.81
8.86
21.60
15.88
21.15
24.46
10.32
13.98
11.67
14.16
8.86
13.72
11.30
14.83
28.75
8.98
12.70
16.52
34.27
14.19
16.51
14.72
13.72
37.76
11.78
11.66
10.23
10.64
13.52
24.18
16.38
NA
20.06
15.49
17.78
17.58
10.19
14.76
23-68
-------
Table 23-22. Continued
Compound
1-Dodecene
«-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Number of
Observations
0
29
0
1
74
74
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
20.94
NA
NA
12.24
15.96
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
NA
0.67
NA
1.74
15.96
39.05
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
18.49
NA
NA
7.46
10.46
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
23-69
-------
Table 23-23. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Analyses, All Sites
Compound
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
«-Butane
trans-2-Butene
c/s-2-Butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
«-Pentane
Isoprene
fra«s-2-Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2 -butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
Average
7.48
3.62
3.14
9.29
6.39
NA
10.71
15.54
7.06
6.67
8.34
6.96
5. 61
11.24
26.64
11.60
11.14
11.42
8.14
10.09
19.03
12.63
18.83
Bountiful, UT
(Site 1 - BOUT)
5.10
3.05
2.17
5.80
3.13
NA
3.14
8.24
8.74
1.60
5.66
4.00
NA
1.55
43.35
7.27
6.54
26.10
5.25
10.53
3.21
3.39
30.07
Bountiful, UT
(Site 2 - BTUT)
12.79
8.01
6.69
10.62
8.80
NA
9.88
8.08
13.56
8.63
4.65
13.74
NA
22.09
36.45
12.31
11.65
5.99
11.94
10.46
24.18
15.81
45.67
Q
VI ^
£&
% 55
*g
u 5r-
6.76
3.24
3.28
8.12
6.41
NA
25.97
11.95
1.94
16.05
6.51
7.76
NA
37.89
34.81
9.74
22.97
9.12
6.98
8.36
7.83
12.75
22.13
W
O
£
-^
-£
2S
g o
£fe
7.68
3.29
6.13
12.35
7.62
NA
0.18
7.64
9.23
8.15
8.90
4.88
5.61
1.01
17.26
7.20
6.19
NA
5.62
6.60
7.07
18.36
1.97
|i
« J
£V1
1-
J $
%&
4.39
3.81
3.09
5.01
3.61
NA
4.01
29.39
5.14
3.61
15.21
4.11
NA
4.34
5.86
5.28
5.02
2.70
5.99
3.95
9.34
6.04
6.46
i!
w-tt
14
J $
%&
4.88
1.13
0.91
6.66
1.52
NA
2.04
15.50
9.37
1.38
11.91
8.44
NA
7.40
19.11
9.16
2.02
4.20
7.81
3.31
11.88
7.45
11.02
0
§
Cv
C« S-*,
•30
*t
y. P3
\J1 ^^-^
6.36
4.02
2.01
9.76
2.51
NA
6.02
23.24
NA
2.11
NA
4.81
NA
9.47
NA
NA
4.36
4.52
3.67
NA
NA
18.95
14.69
Q
VI
**
X
~&
H&
i£
^^
11.89
2.43
0.82
15.99
17.52
NA
34.44
20.29
1.46
11.86
5.55
7.96
NA
6.18
29.66
30.20
30.40
27.34
17.88
27.43
69.70
18.29
18.61
to
oo
-------
Table 23-23. Continued
Compound
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
Cyclopentane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3 -Methylpentane
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-l-butene
«-Hexane
trans -2-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
3 -Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
«-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
Average
30. 3 7
18.07
11.38
19.47
19.00
NA
17.29
NA
14.52
NA
1.31
9.69
6.40
5.81
8.86
21.60
15.88
21.15
24.46
10.32
13.98
11.67
14.16
8.86
Bountiful, UT
(Site 1 - BOUT)
NA
10.25
10.64
6.06
26.26
NA
29.80
NA
8.19
NA
NA
3.07
7.38
3.66
3.96
7.49
12.49
9.02
20.93
4.36
16.46
7.01
NA
8.72
Bountiful, UT
(Site 2 - BTUT)
NA
11.63
13.19
11.48
5.84
NA
18.41
NA
8.09
NA
NA
9.33
11.16
10.15
7.55
23.50
15.18
8.19
11.54
9.67
5.10
6.66
21.77
12.78
Q
VI ^
£&
% 55
*g
u B
NA
12.19
6.29
24.19
17.05
NA
17.44
NA
12.77
NA
NA
9.51
7.15
7.49
19.59
8.56
5.00
23.62
NA
12.68
14.95
7.88
NA
10.20
W
O
Cv
>%
+^
S^
« <-s
o U
g o
£fe
NA
10.36
18.51
21.60
28.05
NA
NA
NA
25.30
NA
NA
13.45
0.59
5.07
1.62
32.45
13.38
37.42
27.88
5.39
40.93
10.15
21.39
1.52
|t
^ J
£V1
1-
J $
%&
10.31
8.13
4.68
7.62
6.80
NA
10.04
NA
6.25
NA
NA
6.30
4.31
4.92
6.45
18.47
17.12
6.53
NA
6.32
6.80
6.10
8.56
7.33
il
£V1
14
J $
ti'£
44.37
3.95
3.22
6.96
14.51
NA
21.12
NA
6.25
NA
1.31
6.23
4.60
3.39
4.65
17.84
6.38
13.10
30.52
13.86
6.59
13.63
10.94
8.71
0
§
Cv
C« ,— s
3 0
^
SS
NA
32.13
26.69
44.01
20.45
NA
9.17
NA
29.04
NA
NA
9.99
3.72
6.06
14.67
15.87
13.35
37.69
32.52
19.25
13.27
11.11
NA
4.02
Q
VI
*v
Ifl
~&
H&
i£
^^
36.44
55.89
7.78
33.85
33.00
NA
15.02
NA
20.25
NA
NA
19.62
12.29
5.77
12.37
48.65
44.18
33.66
23.36
11.04
7.72
30.83
8.14
17.60
to
-------
Table 23-23. Continued
Compound
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
«-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
«-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
«-Propylbenzene
w-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
6-Pinene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
«-Decane
1,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
ra-Diethylbenzene
Average
7172
11.30
14.83
28.75
8.98
12.70
16.52
34.27
14.19
16.51
14.72
13.72
37.76
11.78
11.66
10.23
10.64
13.52
24.18
16.38
NA
20.06
15.49
17.78
Bountiful, UT
(Site 1 - BOUT)
6.44
4.12
10.36
28.37
4.20
10.23
0.89
17.52
3.05
5.75
6.55
9.15
32.77
8.00
7.09
9.29
7.86
7.68
NA
11.14
NA
16.91
12.89
23.32
Bountiful, UT
(Site 2 - BTUT)
8.80
11.66
12.10
48.60
10.35
12.42
11.32
18.05
12.54
22.85
9.81
NA
38.97
2.94
8.02
13.80
4.54
20.06
NA
11.32
NA
13.79
11.47
20.70
Q
VI ^
£&
% 55
*g
u B
36.67
17.50
15.47
27.86
16.25
37.61
32.40
38.81
45.64
NA
24.88
12.14
57.75
28.43
29.50
13.75
16.22
14.27
43.41
24.72
NA
34.35
NA
6.06
W
O
Cv
>%
+^
S^
« <-s
o U
g o
£fe
21.64
5.56
12.86
NA
8.02
4.95
6.97
94.71
5.25
NA
2.48
NA
NA
13.95
2.62
4.13
1.07
8.93
NA
10.38
NA
NA
1.83
NA
|t
« J
£V1
1-
J $
%&
12.16
11.93
11.82
4.29
7.45
16.73
15.20
12.27
23.97
NA
15.22
7.50
18.88
9.61
7.16
5.23
8.50
10.13
NA
8.45
NA
9.18
27.35
20.80
il
£V1
14
J $
a£
6.22
13.33
3.86
14.77
8.75
5.06
4.41
11.79
6.35
20.94
10.91
8.03
28.90
14.57
7.81
6.61
11.35
14.91
NA
5.67
NA
14.02
24.56
27.14
0
§
Cv
C« ,— s
3 0
^
SS
7.47
19.18
33.54
48.60
11.47
11.78
21.36
37.31
8.29
NA
26.96
27.23
38.90
NA
18.32
11.33
NA
NA
NA
40.22
NA
9.57
NA
2.29
Q
VI
*v
X
~&
H&
i£
££
10.40
7.10
18.62
NA
5.35
2.83
39.59
43.66
8.44
NA
20.94
18.27
48.12
4.98
12.75
17.73
24.95
18.66
4.96
19.12
NA
42.62
14.85
24.13
to
to
-------
Table 23-23. Continued
Compound
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
«-Undecane
1-Dodecene
«-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Average
Average
17.58
10.19
14.76
NA
18.49
NA
NA
7.46
10.46
13.95
Bountiful, UT
(Site 1 - BOUT)
13.34
4.66
12.61
NA
1.25
NA
NA
1.07
4.99
10.38
Bountiful, UT
(Site 2 - BTUT)
10.44
15.71
9.06
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.99
13.50
13.40
Q
20.08
NA
29.36
NA
18.81
NA
NA
18.64
18.02
20.82
O
Cv
r~»
+*
S2
0 °
NA
NA
3.39
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.76
3.58
14.30
'3 '
o ^
21.14
NA
12.50
NA
4.44
NA
NA
4.80
5.72
10.34
if
a? <*2
o ""fr
14.48
NA
7.55
NA
9.99
NA
NA
2.92
6.97
11.54
0
Cv
If
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.44
14.51
19.91
Q
VI
~&
3 VI
O M^
• •• ^fi
^j^ ^_^
25.98
NA
28.88
NA
57.94
NA
NA
16.08
16.42
22.41
to
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
-------
Table 23-24. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
430 Duplicate and Collocated Samples
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5 -Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
430
429
429
406
410
429
429
165
428
430
428
27
Average RPD for
Replicate
Analyses (%)
15.31
13.92
16.57
15.48
20.72
12.83
20.43
42.13
30.80
33.01
19.32
22.82
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.422
0.137
0.131
0.012
0.020
0.021
0.010
0.008
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.003
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.08
7.64
10.26
10.44
11.71
8.65
11.43
23.86
17.56
17.92
13.30
17.23
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
Table 23-25. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
84 Collocated Samples
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5 -Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
84
84
84
78
83
84
84
47
84
84
84
10
Average RPD for
Replicate
Analyses (%)
4.66
4.12
8.21
11.59
8.58
6.80
17.90
37.33
11.93
15.40
7.80
22.80
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.239
0.062
0.228
0.013
0.007
0.060
0.020
0.007
0.006
0.010
0.005
0.005
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
4.60
4.11
6.90
8.46
6.80
6.08
11.73
26.29
9.57
11.11
6.35
18.34
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
23-74
-------
Table 23-26. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
298 Duplicate Samples
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2, 5 -Dimethylbenzaldehy de
Number of
Observations
298
297
297
280
279
297
297
106
296
298
296
17
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
17.88
16.46
18.79
15.97
22.74
13.58
21.68
39.85
33.42
36.88
20.78
21.31
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Anlyses
(ppbv)
0.413
0.146
0.117
0.011
0.020
0.015
0.008
0.007
0.009
0.010
0.013
0.002
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
7.50
7.44
10.18
9.79
13.00
9.03
11.25
24.14
19.23
20.19
14.45
17.37
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
Table 23-27. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
96 Duplicate Samples in Tampa and St. Petersburg, FL
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
96
96
96
90
91
96
96
60
96
96
96
5
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
6.74
8.75
17.37
10.15
10.97
14.00
9.88
20.87
23.83
25.85
27.80
14.84
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.141
0.120
0.071
0.009
0.012
0.016
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.006
0.006
0.002
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
5.93
7.18
11.98
8.66
8.69
10.44
7.76
17.03
17.80
17.47
17.84
11.34
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
23-75
-------
Table 23-28. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
42 Collocated Samples in Detroit, MI (DEMI)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
42
42
42
42
41
42
42
28
42
42
42
6
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
10.05
10.38
10.98
10.18
12.52
10.47
15.34
29.12
11.96
30.45
13.38
21.06
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.462
0.147
0.120
0.018
0.013
0.023
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.011
0.010
0.002
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
16.24
15.56
15.41
16.01
14.84
15.10
19.06
22.15
16.44
23.32
14.92
16.99
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
Table 23-29. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
14 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BOUT & BTUT)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
0
14
14
14
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
2.32
3.18
3.32
11.39
15.19
8.90
12.39
NA
17.32
22.41
13.22
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.047
0.088
0.053
0.007
0.003
0.009
0.006
NA
0.011
0.011
0.017
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
1.54
3.05
2.23
10.35
6.73
6.99
8.46
NA
18.77
13.38
13.61
NA
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
23-76
-------
Table 23-30. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Analyses, All Sites
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5 -Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
7.08
7.64
10.26
10.44
11.71
8.65
11.43
23.86
17.56
17.92
13.30
17.23
13.09
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
18.43
13.54
15.53
13.08
12.89
6.69
13.46
40.05
19.77
30.12
29.52
NA
19.37
-J
to
«T
•o
«
3 j
*§
£&
10.45
12.60
3.98
20.42
2.96
4.26
16.87
NA
49.31
37.95
24.16
NA
18.30
Bountiful, UT
(Site 1 - BOUT)
2.34
3.47
3.45
8.39
8.37
8.40
11.87
NA
15.75
16.87
14.45
NA
9.34
^R
^H
2*
'•C n
a «
5 .ts
M£
0.74
2.64
1.02
12.30
5.09
5.57
5.04
NA
21.79
9.89
12.77
NA
7. 69
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
43.73
47.74
52.46
52.62
50.64
25.87
63.73
NA
56.33
58.91
29.98
NA
48.20
^,
Z
Cs
*$
JS
6^
2.59
2.49
8.05
6.93
10.85
10.60
7.82
10.44
16.71
17.69
16.57
NA
10.07
Q
VI
£&
« 53
3 &
u^
5.69
7.50
4.23
10.02
20.03
8.57
11.96
NA
13.03
10.34
8.59
NA
10.00
Clearwater, FL
(CWFL)
10.14
12.26
13.94
13.87
13.42
15.19
14.17
29.08
35.60
30.03
22.96
NA
19.15
o
s« ^
0> hJ
« |S
>,P3
ffo
•— ^— '
5 ^
Q u.
5.43
16.44
8.86
11.94
4.20
4.23
4.61
NA
20.38
3.56
9.07
NA
8.87
to
-------
Table 23-30. Continued
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
7.08
7.64
10.26
10.44
11.71
8.65
11.43
23.86
17.56
17.92
13.30
17.23
13.09
0
o w
U 0
c '
o> —
$$
£*
0.03
0.36
0.05
5.21
7.16
1.71
2.00
NA
2.93
6.97
2.09
NA
2.85
O
U
Og
U^
C '
o> n
£ *»
c +j
3£
2.64
2.44
1.90
4.15
20.32
5.39
15.11
NA
30.40
27.54
4.44
NA
11.43
HH
§_
•*^ HH
'O §
£ W
a«
16.24
15.56
15.41
16.01
14.84
15.10
19.06
22.15
16.44
23.32
14.92
16.99
17.17
Dickson, TN
(DITN)
4.46
0.51
0.94
0.19
3.13
1.23
3.90
NA
11.34
12.77
11.39
NA
4.99
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
14.71
8.50
18.00
14.38
19.31
12.35
13.27
31.34
21.16
20.48
20.45
3.48
16.45
Pompano
Beach, FL
(FLFL)
3.03
5.28
14.41
11.11
11.09
14.58
9.90
NA
22.43
15.48
15.08
NA
12.24
-J
u.
|t|
S s« •<
H ^^
6.29
10.56
20.23
5.83
12.74
12.77
8.86
12.31
15.14
17.00
19.79
11.34
12.74
VI
§
-^
o 5T
&H S
•*" «
"3 P^
0^
2.60
10.24
8.11
7.54
6.32
16.04
8.16
NA
15.75
17.31
12.28
NA
10.43
Granada, MS
(GRMS)
3.16
7.84
15.85
7.05
5.28
8.18
4.41
5.58
20.84
17.45
19.21
NA
10.44
to
oo
-------
Table 23-30. Continued
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5 -Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
7.08
7.64
10.26
10.44
11.71
8.65
11.43
23.86
17.56
17.92
13.30
17.23
13.09
Hartford, CT
(HACT)
1.49
5.43
5.35
4.73
9.59
4.30
5.19
52.67
14.68
8.87
5.73
21.38
11.62
Jackson, MS
(JAMS)
1.52
0.82
2.66
3.85
8.66
2.55
2.67
7.96
3.89
9.15
2.52
NA
4.20
Z
H
•c
o
O. >^
X
-------
Table 23-30. Continued
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
7.08
7.64
10.26
10.44
11.71
8.65
11.43
23.86
17.56
17.92
13.30
17.23
13.09
Orlando, FL
(ORFL)
10.58
13.85
32.57
14.21
16.57
8.41
18.64
21.49
17.87
21.01
12.59
25.28
77.75
New Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
5.82
4.85
12.31
5.10
14.76
9.98
9.00
12.08
10.13
15.26
15.81
29.21
12.02
Pascagoula, MS
(PGMS)
8.17
10.18
9.75
2.79
14.73
2.98
4.54
11.39
10.06
18.89
6.93
13.55
9.50
if
£V1
'% +
J £
%'£
4.53
2.71
4.65
3.05
7.28
3.30
9.85
32.46
6.78
15.61
5.47
NA
8.70
if
£V1
§-
J £
%'<&
28.09
10.47
10.19
21.00
10.17
22.03
37.51
36.36
46.64
36.47
53.56
NA
28.41
0
§
Cv
C« ,— s
•50
*.$
+J SB
vi
-------
Table 23-31. Hexavalent Chromium Sampling and Analytical Precision:
6 Collocated Samples
Compound
iexavalent Chromium
Number of
Observations
6
Average
RPD for
Replicate
Analyses (%)
6.84
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.05
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
13.54
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
Table 23-32. Metal Sampling and Analytical Precision:
6 Collocated Samples
Compound
Antimony and Compounds
Arsenic and Compounds
Beryllium and Compounds
Cadmium and Compounds
Chromium and Compounds
Cobalt and Compounds
Lead and Compounds
Manganese and Compounds
Mercury and Compounds
Nickel and Compounds
Selenium and Compounds
Number of
Observations
78
78
38
72
78
72
78
78
61
78
74
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
10.92
12.40
33.57
32.30
6.47
15.45
9.50
5.06
26.98
16.01
15.73
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Anlyses (ppbv)
173.30
122.27
20.04
245.09
312.54
79.75
819.58
1501.32
17.61
607.45
100.15
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
10.75
12.10
28.58
16.86
7.51
14.51
9.71
6.83
20.59
12.50
9.51
NA: Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
23-81
-------
24.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
As indicated throughout this report, UATMP monitoring data offer a wealth of
information for evaluating trends and patterns in air quality and should ultimately help a wide
range of audiences understand the complex nature of urban air pollution. The following
discussion summarizes the main conclusions of this report and presents recommendations for
ongoing urban air monitoring efforts.
24.1 Conclusions
Analyses of the 2003 UATMP monitoring data identified the following notable trends
and patterns in national-level and state-by-state urban air pollution:
24.1.1 National-level Conclusions
• Ambient air concentration data sets generally met data quality objectives for
completeness. Completeness, or the number of valid samples collected compared to the
number expected from a 6 or 12 day sampling schedule, measures the reliability of the
sampling and analytical equipment as well as the efficiency of the program. Typically, a
completeness of 85-100% is desired for a complete data set. Only eight of ninety-six data
sets failed to comply with the data quality objective of 85% completeness. Twenty-six of
ninety-six data sets achieved 100% completeness.
• Several UATMP sites are also NATTS sites. Seven of the fifty-four sites are EPA-
designated NATTS sites (PSAZ, LEFL, NBIL, BOMA, DEMI, SLMO, and BOUT).
These sites have more detailed analyses included in their respective sections.
• Total number of samples for UATMP compounds. Nearly 118,600 measurements of
VOC and carbonyl compounds were made: 36,894 measurements of SNMOC; 551
measurements of SVOC; 2,255 measurements of metals and compounds; and
85 measurements of hexavalent chromium. This total number of samples is about 25%
less than the 2002 sampling season.
• Total number of samples for VOC and carbonyl compounds. Of the 118,600
measurements of VOC and carbonyl compounds, 30.8% were hydrocarbons, 23.3% were
halogenated hydrocarbons, 5.5% were polar compounds, and 40.4% were carbonyl
compounds.
• Ambient air concentrations of VOC and carbonyl compounds. Nearly 86% of the
measured concentrations of VOC and carbonyl compounds were less than 1 ppbv. Less
than 5% of the concentrations were greater than 5 ppbv.
24-1
-------
Detects. Detection of a UATMP pollutant is subject to the analytical methods used and
the limitations of the instruments. Method detection limits are the lowest concentration
an instrument can reliably quantify. Hence, a compound present in very low
concentrations in the air may not be detected by the instrument. For 2003, ten
compounds (chloromethylbenzene, 1,2-dibromoethane, m-dichlorobenzene,
1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene,
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, ethyl acrylate, and ethyl tert-buty\
ether) were not detected at any of the participating sites.
Nationwide Prevalent Cancer Compounds. Prevalence was determined differently for the
2003 program year. Toxicity values were used to determine which compounds were
most detrimental to human health. Seven cancer compounds (tetrachloroethylene,
acrylonitrile, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, /?-dichlorobenzene, and
acetaldehyde) were considered prevalent, based on weighted toxicity, across the entire
program.
Nationwide Prevalent Noncancer Compounds. Nine noncancer compounds (acetonitrile,
acrylonitrile, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, bromomethane, 1,3-butadiene,
tetrachloroethylene, xylenes (total), and benzene) were considered prevalent, based on
weighted toxicity, across the entire program. Several compounds are listed as both cancer
and noncancer compounds as they can induce other health ailments, such as asthma, as
well as cancer.
Pearson Correlations. Pearson Correlations were computed at each site between each
compound and various meteorological parameters. Generally, the meteorological
parameters had poor correlations with the nationwide prevalent compounds across all the
sites. The Pearson Correlations were much stronger at the individual sites.
Automobile impacts. Maricopa County, AZ had both the highest car registration and
highest hydrocarbon average concentration of all the UATMP counties. The Schiller
Park site (SPIL) near Chicago had the highest daily traffic passing by the monitor
(214,900), as well as the highest onroad and nonroad emissions (21,526 and 6,715 tpy,
respectively) of all the participating sites. The Barceloneta site (BAPR) in Puerto Rico
has the lowest daily traffic volume (10).
Reformulated Gasoline areas. Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) programs, either mandated
or voluntary, are intended to reduce ozone-forming compounds and toxic air pollutants.
These programs can last year-round or may be required only in specific seasons. Sixteen
participating UATMP sites are in RFG areas: the New Jersey, Connecticut, and Chicago
sites (CHNJ, ELNJ, HACT, NBIL, NBNJ, and SPIL) are required to participate in RFG
programs year-round. The Colorado and Arizona sites (DECO, MCAZ, PSAZ, QVAZ,
SJAZ, SPAZ, and WECO) are required to participate only during the winter season. The
Boston and St. Louis sites have opted to participate year-round.
Gasoline Additives. The following observations were made:
24-2
-------
> ETBE (ethyl tert-buty\ ether) is a gasoline additive used near the CHNJ, ELNJ,
HACT, and NBNJ sites. However, ETBE was not detected at any of the New
Jersey sites. The Hartford site sampled only carbonyl compounds and therefore
no assessment can be made of ETBE concentrations.
> TAME (tert-amyl methyl ether) is a gasoline additive used near the BOMA,
CANJ, CHNJ, ELNJ, HACT, NBNJ, S4MO, and SLMO sites. TAME was
detected 42 times at the above sites, with the exceptions of HACT and BOMA.
These sites did not sample VOC and therefore no assessment can be made of
TAME concentrations.
*• MTBE (methyl tert-buty\ ether) is also a gasoline additive and was used near the
BOMA, CANJ, CHNJ, ELNJ, HACT, NBIL, NBNJ, S4MO, SLMO, and SPIL
sites. This compound was detected on 394 occasions at these sites, with the
exception of BOMA and HACT. These sites did not sample VOC and therefore
no assessment can be made of MTBE concentrations.
• Multi-Year Trends Analysis. The following observations were made:
*• Since 2001, average formaldehyde concentrations have decreased every year at
the following sites: AZFL, BAPR, BUND, CANJ, CHNJ, GPMS, JAMS, LEFL,
PGMS, SLMO, and TUMS.
> Since 2001, average benzene concentrations have slightly decreased every year at
the following sites: DECO, ELNJ, SFSD, SPAZ, and TUMS.
24.1.2 State-level Conclusions
• Arizona.
• The prevalent compounds at each site are:
MCAZ: 1,3-butadiene, 1,3-dichloropropene, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile,
benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroprene, chloromethane,
/>-dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, and xylenes (total).
PSAZ: 1,3-butadiene, 1,3-dichloropropene, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile,
benzene, carbon tetrachloride, />-dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene,
toluene, and xylenes (total).
QVAZ: 1,3-butadiene, acrylonitrile, tetrachloroethylene, and xylenes
(total).
SPAZ: 1,3-butadiene, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride,/>-dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, and xylenes (total).
24-3
-------
> Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed are listed as follows:
MCAZ: -0.69 between/>-dichlorobenzene and relative humidity
PSAZ: -0.63 between 1,3-butadiene and dew point temperature
QVAZ: 0.74 between acrylonitrile and dew point temperature
SPAZ: 0.58 between benzene and sea-level pressure
> The Phoenix MSA sites are subject to RFG regulations during the winter season.
Analysis of VOC concentrations indicated that there was not a decrease in the
mobile source VOC HAPs or total VOCs during this season.
*• PSAZ is a NATTS site. As illustrated by the its composite 24-hour back
trajectory map, the airshed domain reached greater than 600 miles. However,
71% of the trajectories were within 200 miles of the site and 87% were within
300 miles.
*• A high acrylonitrile concentration was measured at PSAZ on October 12, 2003.
The emission tracer analysis determined that the air being sampled on this day
originated to the east of the monitoring site. According to the NEI, there are two
nearby acrylonitrile-emitting landfills to the east of the site that may have
contributed to the high concentration.
Colorado.
*• The prevalent compounds at each site are:
PECO: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, arsenic and compounds,
benzene, carbon tetrachloride, 1,2-dichloroethane, formaldehyde,
manganese and compounds, tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and
xylenes (total).
WECO: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, arsenic and
compounds, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, manganese and
compounds, /?-dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, and xylenes (total).
> Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed are listed as follows:
PECO: -0.62 between tetrachloroethylene and relative humidity.
24-4
-------
WECO: -0.68 between tetrachloroethylene and wet bulb temperature and
the u-component of the wind.
> The Denver MSA sites are subject to RFG regulations during the winter season.
Analysis of VOC concentrations indicated that there was not a decrease in the
mobile source VOC HAPs or total VOCs during this season.
Connecticut.
> The prevalent compounds at HACT are formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.
*• Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for the site. The strongest
correlation is 0.49 between formaldehyde and the v-component of the wind.
> The Connecticut site is subject to RFG regulations year-round. However, the
HACT site did not sample for VOCs, so an RFG analysis of VOC concentrations
could not be conducted.
Florida.
The prevalent compounds at all of the Florida sites are acetaldehyde and
formaldehyde.
Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed are listed as follows:
AZFL: -0.43 between acetaldehyde and the u-component of the wind.
BGFL: -0.50 between formaldehyde and relative humidity.
CWFL: -0.43 between acetaldehyde and relative humidity.
DBFL: -0.79 between acetaldehyde and average temperature.
FLFL: 0.69 between acetaldehyde and the u-component of the wind.
GAFL: -0.43 between acetaldehyde and relative humidity.
LEFL: -0.56 between acetaldehyde and dew point temperature.
MDFL: 0.43 between acetaldehyde and the u-component of the wind.
ORFL: -0.60 between acetaldehyde and relative humidity.
24-5
-------
> LEFL is a NATTS site. As illustrated by the its composite 24-hour back
trajectory map, the airshed domain reached greater than 700 miles. However,
63% of the trajectories were within 300 miles of the site, and 84% were within
400 miles.
Illinois.
> The prevalent compounds at each site are:
NBIL: acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon tetrachloride,
tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene.
SPIL are: 1,3-butadiene, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, 1,2-
dichloroethane, bromomethane, chloromethane, tetrachloroethylene,
toluene, trichloroethylene, and xylenes (total).
> Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed are listed as follows:
NBIL: 0.60 between acetonitrile and the u-component of the wind.
SPIL: 0.96 between methyl bromide and sea level pressure.
> The Chicago MSA sites are subject to RFG regulations year-round. For
comparison:
The SPIL and BTUT (located in a non-RFG area) sites both have similar
traffic volumes and both sampled for VOCs. The BTEX concentrations at
NBIL are a third less than the BTUT concentrations (7.90 //g/m3 vs. 25.63
//g/m3). The RFG requirements may be effective at NBIL.
The NBIL and ELNJ (also located in a RFG area) sites both have similar
traffic volumes, and both sampled for VOCs. The BTEX concentrations
at SPIL are higher than the ELNJ concentrations (7.03 //g/m3 vs. 14.80
//g/m3). The RFG requirements may be effective at NBIL.
*• NBIL is a NATTS site. As illustrated by its composite 24-hour back trajectory
map, the airshed domain reached greater than 700 miles. However, 60% of the
trajectories were within 300 miles of the site, and 66% were within 400 miles.
> A high acetonitrile concentration was measured at NBIL on June 26, 2003. The
emission tracer analysis determined that the air being sampled on this day
originated to the west of the monitoring site. According to the NEI, there is one
nearby acetonitrile-emitting source to the west of the site that may have
contributed to the high concentration.
24-6
-------
Massachusetts.
> The BOMA site sampled for metals and compounds only. The prevalent
compounds at BOMA are arsenic and compounds, cadmium and compounds,
manganese and compounds, and nickel and compounds.
> Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed was -0.81 between nickel and compounds and maximum
temperature.
*• The Boston MSA site is voluntarily subject to RFG regulations year-round. The
BOMA site did not sample for VOC, so an analysis of VOC concentrations could
not be conducted.
> BOMA is a NATTS site. As illustrated by its composite 24-hour back trajectory
map, the airshed domain reached greater than 600 miles. However, 50% of the
trajectories were within 300 miles of the site, and 63% were within 400 miles.
Michigan.
> The prevalent compounds at each site are:
APMI: 1,3-butadiene, acrylonitrile, benzene, and tetrachloroethylene.
DEMI: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, formaldehyde, tetrachloroethylene, and xylenes (total).
E7MI: 1,3-butadiene, benzene, toluene, and xylenes (total).
HOMI: Acetonitrile, formaldehyde, bromomethane, and
tetrachl oroethy 1 ene.
ITCMI: 1,3-butadiene, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, chloromethane,/>-dichlorobenzene, trichloroethylene, and
xylenes (total).
> Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed are listed as follows:
APMI: 0.65 between benzene and sea level pressure.
DEMI: -0.79 between acetonitrile and both maximum and wet bulb
temperature.
24-7
-------
E7MI: -0.31 between 1,3-butadiene and the u-component of the wind.
HOMI: 0.83 between formaldehyde and both maximum and average
temperature.
ITCMI: -0.79 between/>-dichlorobenzene and relative humidity.
> DEMI is a NATTS site. As illustrated by its composite 24-hour back trajectory
map, the airshed domain reached greater than 600 miles. However, 56% of the
trajectories were within 300 miles of the site, and 76% were within 400 miles.
*• A high tetrachloroethylene concentration was measured at DEMI on October 6,
2003. The emission tracer analysis determined that the air being sampled on this
day originated to the east of the monitoring site. According to the NEI, there are
five nearby tetrachloroethylene-emitting sources to the east of the site that may
have contributed to the high concentration.
Mississippi.
*• The prevalent compounds at each site are:
GPMS: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, and xylenes (total).
GRMS: acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, formaldehyde, and xylenes (total).
JAMS: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, />-dichlorobenzene, and xylenes
(total).
PGMS: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, chloromethane, methylene chloride,
tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and xylenes (total).
TUMS: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, and xylenes (total).
*• Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed are listed as follows:
GPMS: -0.73 between 1,3-butadiene and relative humidity.
GRMS: 0.73 between formaldehyde and wet-bulb temperature.
24-8
-------
JAMS: -0.59 between 1,3-butadiene and maximum temperature.
PGMS: -0.97 between tetrachloroethylene and dew point temperature.
TUMS: 0.62 between methyl chloride and dew point and wet-bulb
temperature.
Missouri.
> The prevalent compounds at each site are:
BTMO: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, benzene, and formaldehyde.
S4MO: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, arsenic
and compounds, benzene, cadmium and compounds, carbon tetrachloride,
formaldehyde, manganese and compounds, />-dichlorobenzene,
tetrachloroethylene, toluene, trichloroethylene, and xylenes (total).
SLMO: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, benzene, and formaldehyde.
*• Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed are listed as follows:
BTMO: 0.82 between formaldehyde and maximum temperature.
S4MO: -0.78 between tetrachloroethylene and maximum temperature.
SLMO: 0.36 between acetaldehyde and maximum temperature.
*• The St. Louis MSA sites voluntarily participate in RFG regulations year-round.
However, SLMO did not sample for VOCs. For comparison:
The S4MO and GPMS (located in a non-RFG area) sites both have similar
traffic volumes, and both sampled for VOCs. The BTEX concentrations
at S4MO are higher than the GPMS concentrations (18.96 //g/m3 vs. 12.01
Mg/m3). The RFG requirements may not be effective at S4MO.
*• SLMO is a NATTS site. As illustrated by its composite 24-hour back trajectory
map, the airshed domain reached greater than 900 miles. However, 52% of the
trajectories were within 300 miles of the site, and 66% were within 400 miles.
> Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde measured high concentrations at SLMO on
April 9, 2003. The emission tracer analysis determined that the air being sampled
24-9
-------
on this day originated to the north of the monitoring site. According to the NEI,
there are three nearby acetaldehyde-emitting sources and eight formaldehyde-
emitting sources to the north of the site that may have contributed to the high
concentration.
Nebraska.
> The prevalent compounds at LONE are 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile,
acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, and bromomethane.
*• Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed are 0.64 between acetonitrile and both average and wet
bulb temperature.
New Jersey.
*• The prevalent compounds at each site are:
CANJ: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, bromomethane, /?-dichlorobenzene,
tetrachloroethylene, and xylenes (total).
CHNJ: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, chloromethane, tetrachloroethylene,
and xylenes (total).
ELNJ: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, bromomethane, tetrachloroethylene,
and xylenes (total).
NBNJ: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, bromomethane, tetrachloroethylene,
and xylenes (total).
*• Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed are listed as follows:
CANJ: -0.83 between acrylonitrile and wet bulb temperature.
CHNJ: -0.98 between acrylonitrile and both average and dew point
temperature.
ELNJ: 0.91 between acrylonitrile and maximum temperature.
24-10
-------
NBNJ: -0.83 between acrylonitrile and wet-bulb temperature.
•• The Philadelphia MSA site (CANJ) and New York MSA sites (CHNJ, ELNJ, and
NBNJ) are subject to RFG regulations year-round. For comparison:
The CANJ and NBNJ sites both have traffic volumes similar to APMI
(located in a non-RFG area). The BTEX concentrations are similar as
well (CANJ = 8.93 //g/m3; NBNJ = 8.59 //g/m3; and APMI = 9.51 //g/m3).
The RFG requirements may be effective at CANJ and NBNJ.
The CHNJ and JAMS (located in a non-RFG area) sites both have similar
traffic volumes. The BTEX concentrations at CFINJ are less than half of
the JAMS concentrations (CFINJ = 5.28 //g/m3; JAMS = 11.53 //g/m3).
The RFG requirements may be effective at CHNJ.
The ELNJ and SPIL (also located in a RFG area) sites both have similar
traffic volumes, and both sampled for VOCs. The BTEX concentrations
at ELNJ were nearly double the NBIL concentrations (14.80 //g/m3 vs.
7.90 //g/m3). The RFG requirements may not be effective at ELNJ.
However, this observation may point to stationary sources of the BTEX
compounds surrounding the ELNJ as the reason for the higher
concentrations.
North Carolina.
> The prevalent compounds at CANC are acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
*• Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlation computed is 0.67 between acetaldehyde and the v-component of the
wind.
North Dakota.
*• The prevalent compounds at BUND are acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, formaldehyde, chloromethane, and xylenes (total).
*• Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlation computed is -0.83 between benzene and both maximum and average
temperature.
24-11
-------
Oklahoma.
> The prevalent compounds at POOK are 1,3-butadiene, benzene, hexane, toluene,
and xylenes (total).
*• Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed is 0.62 between hexane and maximum temperature.
Oregon.
> The prevalent compound at both PLOR and PNW is hexavalent chromium.
*• Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compound and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed are listed as follows:
PLOR: 0.30 between hexavalent chromium and relative humidity.
PNW: -0.24 between hexavalent chromium and the v-component of the
wind.
Puerto Rico.
> The prevalent compounds at each site are:
BAPR: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, formaldehyde, chloromethane, methylene chloride,
/>-dichlorobenzene, and xylenes (total).
SJPR: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, chloroprene, formaldehyde, />-dichlorobenzene, and xylenes
(total).
*• Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed are listed as follows:
BAPR: -0.81 between 1,3-butadiene and dew point temperature.
SJPR: -0.69 between/>-dichlorobenzene and average temperature.
South Dakota.
*• The prevalent compounds at each site are:
24-12
-------
CUSP: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, formaldehyde, />-dichlorobenzene, and tetrachloroethylene
(total).
SFSD: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, and tetrachloroethylene (total).
> Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed are listed as follows:
CUSP: -0.98 between formaldehyde and the average and wet-bulb
temperature.
SFSD: 0.67 between acetonitrile and the u-component of the wind.
Tennessee.
*• The prevalent compounds at each site are:
DITN: acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, benzene, carbon tetrachloride,
formaldehyde, and xylenes (total).
EATN: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, arsenic and compounds,
benzene, cadmium and compounds, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde,
manganese and compounds, bromomethane, />-dichlorobenzene,
tetrachloroethylene, and xylenes (total).
KITN: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, formaldehyde, /?-dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, and
xylenes (total).
LDTN: acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, and formaldehyde.
LOTN: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, arsenic and compounds,
benzene, cadmium and compounds, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde,
manganese and compounds, bromomethane, /?-dichlorobenzene,
tetrachloroethylene, and xylenes (total).
> Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed are listed as follows:
24-13
-------
DITN: none (only two sample days).
EATN: -0.80 between bromomethane and maximum temperature.
KITN: -0.76 between/>-dichlorobenzene and relative humidity.
LDTN: 0.94 between benzene and both wet bulb and dew point
temperature.
LOTN: -0.89 between 1,3-butadiene and wet bulb temperature.
Utah.
> The prevalent compounds at each site are:
BOUT: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, arsenic and
compounds, benzene, cadmium and compounds, carbon tetrachloride,
cobalt and compounds, formaldehyde, manganese and compounds, nickel
and compounds, and tetrachloroethylene.
BTUT are: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, arsenic
and compounds, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, cobalt and compounds,
formaldehyde, manganese and compounds, nickel and compounds,
tetrachloroethylene, and xylenes (total).
> Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed are listed as follows:
BOUT: -0.70 between nickel and compounds and average temperature.
BTUT: -0.79 between acetonitrile and both maximum and wet bulb
temperature.
> As illustrated by a composite 24-hour back trajectory map, the airshed domain
reached over 400 miles. However, 70% of the trajectories generally originated
within 200 miles away from the site, and 93% were within 300 miles.
*• At BOUT, the emission tracer analysis suggests that the high cadmium and
compounds and manganese and compounds concentrations that occurred on
January 21, 2003 were contributed by nine cadmium and twelve manganese
sources southeast of the monitoring location. The high formaldehyde
concentrations that occurred on June 14, 2003 was contributed by three
formaldehyde sources to the southeast of the monitor.
24-14
-------
24.1.3 Data Quality
The precision of the sampling methods and concentration measurements was analyzed for
the 2003 UATMP using relative percent difference (RPD), coefficient of variation (CV), and
average concentration difference calculations based on duplicate and collocated samples. The
overall precision was well within UATMP data quality objectives and Compendium Method
guidelines. Sampling and analytical method accuracy is assured by using proven methods and
following strict quality control and quality assurance guidelines.
24.2 Recommendations
In light of the lessons learned from the 2003 UATMP, a number of recommendations for
future ambient air monitoring are warranted:
Encourage state/local/tribal agencies to develop HAP and VOC emission inventories.
State/local/tribal agencies should use the data collected from the UATMP to develop and
validate an emissions inventory, or at the very least, identify emission sources of concern.
Ideally, state/local/tribal agencies would compare the ambient monitoring results with an
emission inventory for source category completeness. The emissions inventory would
then be used to develop modeled concentrations useful to compare against ambient
monitoring data.
Continue to identify and implement improvements to the sampling and analytical
methods. The improvements made to the analytical methods prior to the 1999-2000
UATMP allowed for measurement of ambient air concentrations of 11 compounds that
were not measured during previous programs. This improvement provides sponsoring
agencies and a variety of interested parties with important information about air quality
within their urban areas. Further research is encouraged to identify other method
improvements that would allow the UATMP to characterize an even wider range of
components in urban air pollution.
Continue to strive to develop standard conventions for interpreting air monitoring data.
The lack of consistent approaches to present and summarize ambient air monitoring data
complicates or invalidates comparisons between different studies. Additional research
should be conducted on the feasibility of establishing standard approaches for analyzing
and reporting air monitoring data.
Prepare a report characterizing all years of the UATMP and then update it yearly to
better assess trends and better understand the nature of U.S. urban air pollution.
24-15
-------
Expand the analyses used for NATTS sites to be used for non-NATTS sites. The
additional analyses (composite back trajectory analysis, regulation analysis, and emission
tracer analysis) used for NATTS sites may be beneficial to other state/local/tribal
agencies for their sites.
Consider more rigorous study of the impact of automobile emissions on ambient air
quality using the complete UATMP data set. Because the UATMP has monitoring sites
where years of continuous data are collected, a real opportunity exists to evaluate the
importance and impact of automobile emissions on ambient air quality. Suggested areas
of study include:
1. Signature Compound Assessment. Sample data from each site should be
evaluated to look for signature compounds from mobile sources—that is, species
typically associated with only diesel and/or gasoline combustion. If the
appropriate compounds are included in the UATMP speciation, sites lacking these
compounds can be excluded from subsequent analyses.
2. Parking Lot Characterizations. Several monitoring locations are situated in or
near parking lots. Evaporative emissions from parked gasoline vehicles could
have a very significant impact on the monitors for these sites (depending upon the
species of concern). Therefore we recommend determining the size of the lots in
question in terms of number of spaces, as well as an average occupancy rate with
total vehicles per day (to determine the number of start episodes). The occupancy
rate should be a 24 hour annual average, and can be established either through
observation or local "experts" (e.g., the lot operator). Also, it should be
determined if the parking is covered or open—covered lots can significantly
decrease crankcase temperatures and therefore lower evaporative emissions rates.
Encourage continued participation in the UATMP. Ongoing ambient air monitoring at
fixed locations can provide insight into long-term trends in urban air quality and the
potential for urban air pollution to cause adverse health effects among the general
population. Therefore, state and local agencies should be strongly encouraged either to
develop and implement their own ambient air monitoring programs or to participate in
future UATMP monitoring efforts.
24-16
-------
25.0 References
CARB, 1993. California Air Resources Board Standard Operating Procedure 039-3.0.
Extraction and Analysis of Hexavalent Chromium by Ion Chromatography. August 1,
1993. Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/aaqm/sop/SOP039_fin.pdf.
Conner, et al., 1995. "Transportation-Related Volatile Hydrocarbon Source Profiles Measured
in Atlanta." Teri L. Conner, William A. Lonneman, Robert L. Seila. Journal of the Air
and Waste Management Association, 45: 383-394. 1995.
Draxler, R.R. and Rolph, G.D., 2003. HYSPLIT (Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated
Trajectory) Model access via NOAA ARL READY Website
(http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.htmn. NOAA Air Resources Laboratory. Silver
Spring. MD.
EIA, 2003. Energy Information Administration. Car Registration by State. October 2003.
Fujita, et al., 1994. "Validation of the Chemical Mass Balance Receptor Model Applied to
Hydrocarbon Source Apportionment in the Southern California Air Quality Study." Eric
M. Fujita, John G. Watson, Judith C. Chow, and Zhiqiang Lu. Environmental Science
and Technology, 28:1633-1649. 1994.
Godish, 1997. "Air Quality." Thad Godish. Lewis Publishers. 1997.
Harnett, 1982. "Statistical Methods." Donald L. Harnett, Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, Third Edition. 1982.
Ramamoorthy and Ramamoorthy, 1997. "Chlorinated Organic Compounds in the Environment:
Regulatory and Monitoring Assessment." Sub Ramamoorthy and Sita Ramamoorthy.
Lewis Publishers. 1997.
Rogers and Yau, 1989. "A Short Course in Cloud Physics." R. R. Rogers and M. K. Yau.
Pergamon Press. 1989.
Ruffner and Bair, 1987. "The Weather Almanac." James A. Ruffner and Frank E. Bair. Gale
Research Company. 1987.
Seinfeld, 1986. "Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics of Air Pollution." John H. Seinfeld. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1986.
Topozone. Maps a la Carte, Inc. 2003. www.topozone.com
USEPA, 1994. "Vehicle Fuels and the 1990 Clean Air Act." U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Mobile Sources. August, 1994.
25-1
-------
USEPA, 1997. "National Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1900- 1996." U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. December, 1997.
USEPA, 1999a. "Compendium Method TO-11 A: Determination of Formaldehyde in Ambient
Air Using Adsorbent Cartridge Followed by High Performance Liquid Chromatography
(HPLC)." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research
and Information. EPA/625/R-96/010b. January, 1999.
USEPA, 1999b. "Compendium Method TO-15: Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC) in Ambient Air Collected in Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed by Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Center for Environmental Research and Information. EPA/625/R-96/010b.
January, 1999.
USEPA, 1999c. "Phase II Reformulated Gasoline: The Next Major Step Toward Cleaner Air."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. November, 1999.
USEPA, 2001. "State Winter Oxygenated Fuel Program Requirements for Attainment or
Maintenance of CO NAAQS." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality. October, 2001.
USEPA, 2002. "2001 Nonmethane Organic Compounds (NMOC) and Speciated Nonmethane
Organic Compounds (SNMOC) Monitoring Program." July 2002.
USEPA, 2003a. 1999 National Emissions Inventory. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Emission Factors and Inventory Group. Downloaded from the internet at:
ftp.epa.gov/Emis Inventory/
USEPA, 2003b. "Information on Gasoline Properties and Emissions Performance by Area and
Season." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality. November, 2003.
25-2
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-454/R-04-003
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
2003 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP)
Final Report
5. REPORT DATE
July 2004
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
OAQPS-EMAD-MQAG
7. AUTHOR(S)
Eastern Research Group
1600 Perimeter Park
Morrisville NC 27560-8421
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D-03-049
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Annual 2003
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Reporting data results for the Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP) for 2003.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Carbonyls, SNMOC, VOC, Semivolatiles,
Dioxins, Metals, Hexavalent chromium,
Analysis and Monitoring
Air Pollution control
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
758 + 1223
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
United States Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Publication No. EPA-454/R-04-003
Environmental Protection Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division July 2004
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
|