&EPA
United S*i6
EiKviraimenlal Protection
Agency
2004 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program
(UATMP)
December 2005
Final Report
-------
EPA-454/R-06-001
December 2005
2004 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP)
Prepared By:
Eastern Research Group
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Margaret Dougherty and Mike Jones
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Contract No. 68-D-03-049
Delivery Orders 03 and 04
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
2004 Urban Air Toxics
Monitoring Program (UATMP)
Final Report
EPA Contract No. 68-D-03-049
Delivery Order 03
Delivery Order 04
Prepared for:
Margaret Dougherty and Mike Jones
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared by:
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
1600 Perimeter Park
Morrisville, NC 27560
December 2005
-------
DISCLAIMER
Through its Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency funded and managed the research described in this report under EPA Contract
No. 68-D-03-049 to Eastern Research Group, Inc. This report has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for their use.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures xiii
List of Tables xix
List of Acronyms xxvii
Abstract xxxi
1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 The 2004 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 2-10
2.5.3 Semivolatile Sampling and Analytical Method 2-11
2.5.4 Metals Compounds Sampling and Analytical Data 2-11
3.0 Summary of the 2004 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 3-7
3.2 UATMP Compound Groups 3-8
3.2.1 Hydrocarbons 3-8
3.2.2 Halogenated Hydrocarbons 3-9
3.2.3 Polar Compounds 3-10
3.2.4 Carbonyl Compounds 3-10
3.3 Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters 3-10
3.3.1 Maximum and Average Temperature 3-11
3.3.2 Moisture 3-11
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
age
3.3.3 Wind and Pressure Information 3-12
3.3.4 Back Trajectory Analysis 3-13
3.4 The Impact of Motor Vehicle Emissions on Spatial Variations 3-14
3.4.1 Motor Vehicle Ownership Data 3-15
3.4.2 BTEX Concentration Profiles 3-16
3.4.3 Estimated Traffic Data 3-17
3.4.4 Mobile Source Tracer Analysis 3-17
3.4.5 Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) Analysis 3-18
3.5 Variability Analysis 3-20
3.6 UATMPNATTS Sites 3-21
3.6.1 Federal Regulation Analysis 3-21
3.6.1.1 Regulations for Stationary Sources 3-21
3.6.1.2 Regulations for Mobile Sources 3-22
3.6.1.3 Future Regulation Analysis 3-23
3.6.2 Emission Tracer Analysis 3-24
3.7 Analysis of Additional Compound Types 3-25
3.8 Site Trends Analysis 3-25
3.8.1 Site Trends in Annual Averages 3-25
3.9 UATMP Historical MSA Trends Analysis 3-26
3.9.1 Pollutants of Interest 3-26
3.9.2 MSA Definitions 3-27
3.9.3 Time Period of Interest 3-28
3.9.4 Methodology 3-28
3.9.4.1 Historical Ambient Monitoring Data 3-29
3.9.4.2 Historical Emissions Data 3-29
3.9.4.3 2004 UATMP Ambient Monitoring Data 3-30
3.9.4.4 Results 3-30
3.10 Summary of Additional Analyses 3-31
4.0 Sites in Arizona 4-1
4.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Arizona Sites 4-2
4.2 Toxicity Analysis 4-2
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.4 Spatial Analysis 4-4
4.5 RFG Analysis 4-5
4.6 NATTS Site Analysis 4-6
4.6.1 Regulation Analysis 4-6
4.6.2 Emission Tracer Analysis 4-7
4.7 Trends Analysis 4-7
4.7.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses 4-7
4.7.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses 4-8
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 5-2
5.4 Spatial Analysis 5-3
5.5 NATTS Site Analysis 5-4
5.5.1 Regulation Analysis 5-4
5.5.2 Emission Tracer Analysis 5-4
5.6 Trends Analysis 5-5
5.6.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses 5-5
5.6.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses 5-5
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
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
age
6.6 Trends Analysis 6-4
6.6.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses 6-4
6.6.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses 6-4
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 7-2
7.4 Spatial Analysis 7-4
7.5 NATTS Site Analysis 7-4
7.5.1 Regulation Analysis 7-5
7.5.2 Emission Tracer Analysis 7-5
7.6 Trends Analysis 7-5
7.6.1 Site-Specific Trends Analysis 7-5
7.6.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analysis 7-6
8.0 Sites in Illinois 8-1
8.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Illinois Sites 8-2
8.2 Toxicity Analysis 8-2
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 8-7
8.6.1 Regulation Analysis 8-7
8.6.2 Emission Tracer Analysis 8-7
8.7 Trends Analysis 8-7
8.7.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses 8-8
8.7.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses 8-8
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
9.0 Site in Indiana 9-1
9.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Indiana Site 9-1
9.2 Toxicity Analysis 9-2
9.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Indiana Site 9-2
9.4 Spatial Analysis 9-3
9.5 RFG Analysis 9-3
9.6 Trends Analysis 9-4
9.6.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses 9-4
9.6.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses 9-4
10.0 Sites in Massachusetts 10-1
10.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Massachusetts Site 10-1
10.2 Toxicity Analysis 10-2
10.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Massachusetts Site 10-3
10.4 Spatial Analysis 10-3
10.5 RFG Analysis 10-4
10.6 NATTS Site Analysis 10-4
10.6.1 Regulation Analysis 10-4
10.6.2 Emission Tracer Analysis 10-5
10.7 Trends Analysis 10-5
10.7.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses 10-5
10.7.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses 10-5
11.0 Sites in Michigan 11-1
11.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Michigan Sites 11-2
11.2 Toxicity Analysis 11-3
11.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Michigan Sites 11-3
vn
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
11.4 Spatial Analysis 11-5
11.5 NATTS Site Analysis 11-6
11.5.1 Regulation Analysis 11-6
11.5.2 Emission Tracer Analysis 11-6
11.6 Trends Analysis 11-7
11.6.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses 11-7
11.6.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses 11-8
12.0 Sites in Mississippi 12-1
12.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Mississippi Sites 12-2
12.2 Toxicity Analysis 12-3
12.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Mississippi Sites 12-3
12.4 Spatial Analysis 12-5
12.5 Trends Analysis 12-6
12.5.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses 12-7
12.5.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses 12-7
13.0 Site in Missouri 13-1
13.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Missouri Site 13-1
13.2 Toxicity Analysis 13-2
13.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Missouri Site 13-3
13.4 Spatial Analysis 13-4
13.5 RFG Analysis 13-5
13.6 NATTS Site Analysis 13-6
13.6.1 Regulation Analysis 13-7
13.6.2 Emission Tracer Analysis 13-7
13.7 Trends Analysis 13-8
13.7.1 Site-Specific Analyses 13-8
13.7.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses 13-8
Vlll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
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
14.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the New Jersey Sites 14-3
14.4 Spatial Analysis 14-5
14.5 JAFG Analysis 14-6
14.6 Trends Analysis 14-8
14.6.1 Site-Specific Trends Analysis 14-8
14.6.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses 14-9
15.0 Site in North Carolina 15-1
15.1 Prevalent Compounds at the North Carolina Sites 15-2
15.2 Toxicity Analysis 15-2
15.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the North Carolina Site .... 15-2
15.4 Spatial Analysis 15-4
15.5 Trends Analysis 15-4
15.5.1 Site-Specific Trends Analysis 15-4
15.5.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses 15-4
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
16.4 Spatial Analysis 16-3
16.5 Trends Analysis 16-4
16.5.1 Site-Specific Trends Analysis 16-4
16.5.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses 16-4
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
17.0 Site in South Dakota 17-1
17.1 Prevalent Compounds at the South Dakota Sites 17-1
17.2 Toxicity Analysis 17-2
17.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the South Dakota Sites 17-3
17.4 Spatial Analysis 17-5
17.5 Trends Analysis 17-6
17.5.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses 17-6
17.5.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses 17-6
18.0 Site in Tennessee 18-1
18.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Tennessee Sites 18-2
18.2 Toxicity Analysis 18-3
18.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Tennessee Sites 18-3
18.4 Spatial Analysis 18-6
18.5 Trends Analysis 18-6
18.5.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses 18-7
18.5.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses 18-7
19.0 Site in Utah 19-1
19.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Utah Site 19-1
19.2 Toxicity Analysis 19-2
19.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Utah Site 19-3
19.4 Spatial Analysis 19-4
19.5 NATTS Site Analysis 19-5
19.5.1 Regulation Analysis 19-5
19.5.2 Emission Tracer Analysis 19-5
19.6 Trends Analysis 19-6
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
age
19.6.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses 19-6
19.6.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses 19-6
20.0 Site in Wisconsin 20-1
20.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Wisconsin Site 20-1
20.2 Toxicity Analysis 20-2
20.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Wisconsin Site 20-2
20.4 Spatial Analysis 20-4
20.5 Trends Analysis 20-4
20.5.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses 20-5
20.5.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses 20-5
21.0 Data Quality 21-1
21.1 Precision 21-2
21.1.1 Analytical Precision 21-2
21.1.2 Sampling and Analytical Precision 21-6
21.2 Accuracy 21-10
22.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 22-1
22.1 Conclusions 22-1
22.1.1 National-level Conclusions 22-1
22.1.2 State-level Conclusions 22-3
22.1.3 Data Quality 22-16
22.2 Recommendations 22-17
23.0 References 23-1
XI
-------
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
Page
AIRS Site Descriptions for the 2003 UATMP Monitoring Stations . A-l
2004 Summary of Invalidated UATMP Samples by Site B-l
2004 Summary Tables for VOC Monitoring C-l
2004 Summary Tables for SNMOC Monitoring D-l
2004 Summary Tables of Carbonyl Monitoring E-l
2004 Summary Tables for SVOC Monitoring F-l
2004 Summary Tables for Metals Monitoring G-l
2004 VOC Raw Monitoring Data H-l
2004 SNMOC Raw Monitoring Data 1-1
2004 Carbonyl Raw Monitoring Data J-l
2004 SVOC Raw Monitoring Data K-l
2004 Metal Raw Monitoring Data L-l
xn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
2-1 Monitoring Sites and Associated MS As for the 2004 UATMP 2-12
3-1 Comparison of Average Hydrocarbon Concentration vs. Vehicle Registration 3-32
3-2 Comparison of Concentration Ratios for BTEX Compounds vs. Roadside Study .... 3-33
3-3 Comparison of Average Hydrocarbon Concentration vs. Daily Traffic Counts 3-37
3-4 Comparison of Average Acetylene Concentration vs. Daily Traffic Counts 3-38
3-5 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of 1,3-Butadiene Across 27 Sites 3-39
3-6 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Acetaldehyde Across 34 Sites 3-40
3-7 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Acetonitrile Across 28 Sites 3-41
3-8 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Acrylonitrile Across 26 Sites 3-42
3-9 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Benzene Across 33 Sites 3-43
3-10 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Bromomethane Across 9 Sites 3-44
3-11 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Carbon Tetrachloride Across 32 Sites 3-45
3-12 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Formaldehyde Across 34 Sites 3-46
3-13 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of/>-Dichlorobenzene Across 17 Sites 3-47
3-14 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Tetrachloroethylene Across 25 Sites 3-48
3-15 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Xylenes (Total) Across 32 Sites 3-49
3-16 Average Seasonal 1,3-Butadiene Concentration Comparison by Season 3-50
3-17 Average Seasonal Acetaldehyde Concentration Comparison by Season 3-51
3-18 Average Seasonal Acetonitrile Concentration Comparison by Season 3-52
3-19 Average Seasonal Acrylonitrile Concentration Comparison by Season 3-53
3-20 Average Seasonal Benzene Concentration Comparison by Season 3-54
3-21 Average Seasonal Bromomethane Concentration Comparison by Season 3-55
3-22 Average Seasonal Carbon Tetrachloride Concentration Comparison by Season 3-56
3-23 Average Seasonal Formaldehyde Concentration Comparison by Season 3-57
3-24 Average Seasonal /?-Dichlorobenzene Concentration Comparison by Season 3-58
3-25 Average Seasonal Tetrachloroethylene Concentration Comparison by Season 3-59
3-26 Average Seasonal Xylenes (Total) Concentration Comparison by Season 3-60
3-27 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the APMI Monitoring Station 3-61
3-28 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the AZFL Monitoring Station 3-62
3-29 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the BTMO Monitoring Station 3-63
3-30 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the CANJ Monitoring Station 3-64
3-31 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the CHNJ Monitoring Station 3-65
3-32 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the CUSD Monitoring Station 3-66
3-33 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the DEMI Monitoring Station 3-67
3-34 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the EATN Monitoring Station 3-68
3-35 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the ELNJ Monitoring Station 3-69
3-36 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the GAFL Monitoring Station 3-70
3-37 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the GPMS Monitoring Station 3-71
3-38 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the HOMI Monitoring Station 3-72
3-39 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the JAMS Monitoring Station 3-73
3-40 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the LOTN Monitoring Station 3-74
3-41 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the NBNJ Monitoring Station 3-75
Xlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
age
3-42 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the PGMS Monitoring Station 3-76
3-43 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the PSAZ Monitoring Station 3-77
3-44 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the QVAZ Monitoring Station 3-78
3-45 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the S4MO Monitoring Station 3-79
3-46 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the SFSD Monitoring Station 3-80
3-47 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the SLMO Monitoring Station 3-81
3-48 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the SPAZ Monitoring Station 3-82
3-49 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the TUMS Monitoring Station 3-83
3-50 Comparison by Yearly Averages for the YFMI Monitoring Station 3-84
4-1 Phoenix, Arizona Site 1 (MCAZ) Monitoring Site 4-9
4-2 Phoenix, Arizona Site 2 (PSAZ) Monitoring Site 4-10
4-3 Phoenix, Arizona Site 3 (QVAZ) Monitoring Site 4-11
4-4 Phoenix, Arizona Site 4 (SPAZ) Monitoring Site 4-12
4-5 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of MCAZ, PSAZ, and SPAZ 4-13
4-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of QVAZ 4-14
4-7 Composite Back Trajectory Map for MCAZ 4-15
4-8 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PSAZ 4-16
4-9 Composite Back Trajectory Map for QVAZ 4-17
4-10 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SPAZ 4-18
4-11 Composite Back Trajectory Map for MCAZ 4-19
4-12 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PSAZ 4-20
4-13 Composite Back Trajectory Map for QVAZ 4-21
4-14 2004 Total VOC Profile at SPAZ 4-22
4-15 Acrylonitrile Pollution Rose for PSAZ 4-23
4-16 Acrylonitrile Sources Along the February 27, 2004 Back Trajectory at PSAZ 4-24
5-1 Grand Junction, Colorado (GPCO) Monitoring Site 5-6
5-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of GPCO 5-7
5-3 Composite Back Trajectory Map for GPCO 5-8
5-4 Acetaldehyde Pollutant Rose at GPCO 5-9
5-5 Formaldehyde Pollutant Rose at GPCO 5-11
5-6 Acetaldehyde Sources Along the September 6, 2004 Back Trajectory at GPCO 5-11
5-7 Formaldehyde Sources Along the September 6, 2004 Back Trajectory at GPCO .... 5-12
6-1 Hartford, Connecticut (HACT) Monitoring Station 6-5
6-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of HACT 6-6
6-3 Composite Back Trajectory Map for HACT 6-7
7-1 St. Petersburg, Florida (AZFL) Monitoring Site 7-7
7-2 Tampa, Florida (GAFL) Monitoring Site 7-8
7-3 Winter Park, Florida (ORFL) Monitoring Site 7-9
7-4 Pinellas Park, Florida (SKFL) Monitoring Site 7-10
xiv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
age
7-5 Plant City, Florida Site (SYFL) Monitoring Site 7-11
7-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of AZFL, GAFL, SKFL and SYFL 7-12
7-7 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ORFL 7-13
7-8 Composite Back Trajectory Map for AZFL 7-14
7-9 Composite Back Trajectory Map for GAFL 7-15
7-10 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ORFL 7-16
7-11 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SKFL 7-17
7-12 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SYFL 7-18
8-1 Chicago, Illinois Site 1 (NBIL) Monitoring Site 8-9
8-2 Chicago, Illinois Site 2 (SPIL) Monitoring Site 8-10
8-3 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of NBIL and SPIL 8-11
8-4 Composite Back Trajectory Map for NBIL 8-12
8-5 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SPIL 8-13
8-6 2004 Total VOC Profile at NBIL 8-14
8-7 2004 Total VOC Profile at SPIL 8-15
9-1 Gary, Indiana (INDEM) Monitoring Site 9-6
9-2 Facilities Located WithinlO Miles of INDEM 9-7
9-3 Composite Back Trajectory Map for INDEM 9-8
10-1 Boston Massachusetts (BOMA) Monitoring Site 10-6
10-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BOMA 10-7
10-3 Composite Back Trajectory Map for BOMA 10-8
11-1 Detroit, Michigan Site 1 (APMI) Monitoring Site 11-9
11-2 Detroit, Michigan Site 2 (DEMI) Monitoring Site 11-10
11-3 Houghton, Michigan (HOMI) Monitoring Site 11-11
11-4 Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan (ITCMI) Monitoring Site 11-12
11-5 Yellow Freight, Detroit, Michigan (YFMI) Monitoring Site 11-13
11-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of APMI, DEMI, and YFMI 11-14
11-7 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of HOMI 11-15
11-8 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ITCMI 11-16
11-9 Composite Back Trajectory Map for APMI 11-17
11-10 Composite Back Trajectory Map for DEMI 11-18
11-11 Composite Back Trajectory Map for HOMI 11-19
11-12 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ITCMI 11-20
11-13 Composite Back Trajectory Map for YFMI 11-21
11-14 Acetaldehyde Pollution Rose for DEMI 11-22
11-15 Formaldehyde Pollution Rose for DEMI 11-23
11-16 Acetaldehyde Sources Along the September 6, 2004 Back Trajectory
at DEMI 11-24
xv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
age
11-17 Formaldehyde Sources Along the September 6, 2004 Back Trajectory
at DEMI 11-25
11-18 Acrylonitrile Pollution Rose for DEMI 11-26
11-19 Acrylonitrile Sources Along the October 18, 2004 Back Trajectory at DEMI 11-27
12-1 Gulfport, Mississippi (GPMS) Monitoring Site 12-9
12-2 Grenada, Mississippi (GRMS) Monitoring Site 12-10
12-3 Jackson, Mississippi (JAMS) Monitoring Site 12-11
12-4 Pascagoula, Mississippi (PGMS) Monitoring Site 12-12
12-5 Tupelo, Mississippi (TUMS) Monitoring Site 12-13
12-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of GPMS 12-14
12-7 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of GRMS 12-15
12-8 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of JAMS 12-16
12-9 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of PGMS 12-17
12-10 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of TUMS 12-18
12-11 Composite Back Trajectory Map for GPMS 12-19
12-12 Composite Back Trajectory Map for GRMS 12-20
12-13 Composite Back Trajectory Map for JAMS 12-21
12-14 Composite Back Trajectory Map for PGMS 12-22
12-15 Composite Back Trajectory Map for TUMS 12-23
13-1 Bonne Terre, Missouri (BTMO) Monitoring Site 13-10
13-2 St. Louis, Missouri Site 1 (S4MO) Monitoring Site 13-11
13-3 St. Louis, Missouri Site 2 (SLMO) Monitoring Site 13-12
13-4 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BTMO 13-13
13-5 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of S4MO and SLMO 13-14
13-6 Composite Back Trajectory Map for BTMO 13-15
13-7 Composite Back Trajectory Map for S4MO 13-16
13-8 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SLMO 13-17
13-9 2004 Total VOC Profile at S4MO 13-18
13-10 Acetaldehyde Pollution Rose for S4MO 13-19
13-11 Formaldehyde Pollution Rose for S4MO 13-20
13-12 Acetaldehyde Sources Along the August 31, 2004 Back Trajectory at S4MO 13-21
13-13 Formaldehyde Sources Along the August 31, 2004 Back Trajectory at S4MO 13-22
13-14 Manganese Compound Pollution Rose for S4MO 13-23
13-15 Manganese Compound Sources Along the August 31, 2004 Back Trajectory
at S4MO 13-24
14-1 Camden, New Jersey (CANJ) Monitoring Site 14-11
14-2 Chester, New Jersey (CHNJ) Monitoring Site 14-12
14-3 Elizabeth, New Jersey (ELNJ) Monitoring Site 14-13
14-4 New Brunswick, New Jersey (NBNJ) Monitoring Site 14-14
14-5 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CANJ 14-15
xvi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
age
14-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CHNJ 14-16
14-7 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ELNJ and NBNJ 14-17
14-8 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CANJ 14-18
14-9 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CHNJ 14-19
14-10 Composite Back Trajectory Map for ELNJ 14-20
14-11 Composite Back Trajectory Map for NBNJ 14-21
14-12 2004 Total VOC Profile at CANJ 14-22
14-13 2004 Total VOC Profile at CHNJ 14-23
14-14 2004 Total VOC Profile at ELNJ 14-24
14-15 2004 Total VOC Profile at NBNJ 14-25
15-1 Candor, North Carolina (CANC) Monitoring Site 15-6
15-2 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (RTPNC) Monitoring Site 15-7
15-3 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CANC 15-8
15-4 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of RTPNC 15-9
15-5 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CANC 15-10
15-6 Composite Back Trajectory Map for RTPNC 15-11
16-1 Spirit Lake Nation, North Dakota (SLND) Monitoring Site 16-5
16-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SLND 16-6
16-3 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SLND 16-7
17-1 Custer, South Dakota (CUSD) Monitoring Site 17-7
17-2 Sioux Falls, South Dakota (SFSD) Monitoring Site 17-8
17-3 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CUSD 17-9
17-4 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SFSD 17-10
17-5 Composite Back Trajectory Map for CUSD 17-11
17-6 Composite Back Trajectory Map for SFSD 17-12
18-1 Dickson, Tennessee (DITN) Monitoring Site 18-9
18-2 Nashville Site 1, Tennessee (EATN) Monitoring Site 18-10
18-3 Kingsport, Oregon (KITN) Monitoring Site 18-11
18-4 Loudon, Tennessee (LDTN) Monitoring Site 18-12
18-5 Nashville Site 2 (LOTN) Monitoring Site 18-13
18-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DITN 18-14
18-7 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of EATN and LOTN 18-15
18-8 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of KITN 18-16
18-9 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of LDTN 18-17
18-10 Composite Back Trajectory Map for DITN 18-18
18-11 Composite Back Trajectory Map for EATN 18-19
18-12 Composite Back Trajectory Map for KITN 18-20
18-13 Composite Back Trajectory Map for LDTN 18-21
18-14 Composite Back Trajectory Map for LOTN 18-22
xvn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
age
19-1 Bountiful, Utah (BTUT) Monitoring Site 19-8
19-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BTUT 19-9
19-3 Composite Back Trajectory Map for BTUT 19-10
19-4 Acetaldehyde Pollution Rose for BTUT 19-11
19-5 Formaldehyde Pollution Rose for BTUT 19-12
19-6 Acetaldehyde Sources Along the August 31, 2004 Back Trajectory at BTUT 19-13
19-7 Formaldehyde Sources Along the August 31, 2004 Back Trajectory at BTUT 19-14
19-8 Arsenic Compound Pollution Rose for BTUT 19-15
19-9 Arsenic Compound Sources Along the December 5, 2004 Back Trajectory
at BTUT 19-16
20-1 Madison, Wisconsin (MAWI) Monitoring Site 20-6
20-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of MAWI 20-7
20-3 Composite Back Trajectory Map for MAWI 20-8
21-1 Concentration Distribution of Toluene 21-11
21-2 Concentration Distribution of Dichloromethane 21-12
21-3 Concentration Distribution of Acetonitrile 21-13
21-4 Concentration Distribution of Methyl Ethyl Ketone 21-14
xvin
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1-1 Organization of the 2004 UATMP Report 1-3
2-1 Text Descriptions of the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites 2-13
2-2 Site Descriptions for the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites 2-25
2-3 Current Monitoring Sites for the UATMP with Past Participation 2-29
2-4 VOC Average Method Detection Limits 2-32
2-5 SNMOC Average Method Detection Limits 2-34
2-6 Carbonyl Average Method Detection Limits 2-36
2-7 Semivolatile Organic Compound Average Method Detection Limits 2-37
2-8 Metal Compounds Average Method Detection Limits 2-38
2-9 Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Carbonyl, VOC, Metals,
SNMOC, and SVOC 2-39
3-1 Target Compound Detection Summaries of the VOC Concentrations 3-85
3-2 Target Compound Detection Summaries of the Carbonyl Concentrations 3-89
3-3 Range of Detectable Concentrations by Site 3-90
3-4 Geometric Means by Site 3-92
3-5a Nationwide Cancer Compound Toxicity Ranking (Prevalent Compounds Shaded) . . 3-94
3-5b Nationwide Noncancer Compound Toxicity Ranking (Prevalent
Compounds Shaded) 3-96
3-6 Summary of Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Selected Meteorological
Parameters and Prevalent Compounds 3-99
3-7 Summary of Mobile Information by Site 3-100
3-8 UATMP Sites in MS As Using Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) 3-102
3-9 Regulations Implemented After 2002 3-104
3-10 Future Regulation Analysis of Emissions forNATTS Sites 3-107
3-11 Summary of Additional Analyses 3-114
3-12 Population and 1,000 Vehicle Miles Traveled (1000VMT) Profiles for
Each MSA 3-115
3-13a Total Acetaldehyde Emission (tpy) and Concentration (|ig/m3) Comparison 3-116
3-13b Total Benzene Emission (tpy) and Concentration (|ig/m3) Comparison 3-117
3-13c Total Cadmium Emission (tpy) and Concentration (|ig/m3) Comparison 3-118
3-13d Total Ethylbenzene Emission (tpy) and Concentration (|ig/m3) Comparison 3-119
3-13e Total Formaldehyde Emission (tpy) and Concentration (|ig/m3) Comparison 3-120
3-13f Total Lead Emission (tpy) and Concentration (|ig/m3) Comparison 3-121
3-13g Total Mercury Emission (tpy) and Concentration (|ig/m3) Comparison 3-122
3-13h Total Toluene Emission (tpy) and Concentration (|ig/m3) Comparison 3-123
3-13i Total Xylene Emission (tpy) and Concentration (|ig/m3) Comparison 3-124
3-14 Summary of Additional Analyses by Site 3-125
4-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Arizona 4-25
4-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at Monitoring Sites 1, 2, 3 and 4 in
Phoenix, Arizona 4-26
xix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
4-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at Monitoring Sites 1, 2, 3. and 4
in Phoenix, Arizona 4-28
4-4 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at Monitoring Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Phoenix, Arizona 4-32
4-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Arizona Monitoring Sites . . 4-34
5-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Colorado 5-13
5-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Colorado Monitoring
Site 1 - GPCO 5-14
5-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Colorado Monitoring
Site 1 - GPCO 5-15
5-4 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at Site #1 in Grand Junction, Colorado (GPCO) 5-16
5-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Colorado Monitoring Site . . 5-17
6-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the HACT Site
in Connecticut 6-8
6-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Hartford, Connecticut
Monitoring Site - HACT 6-9
6-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Hartford, Connecticut
Monitoring Site - HACT 6-10
6-4 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Hartford, Connecticut Site (HACT) 6-11
6-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Connecticut
Monitoring Site 6-12
7-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Florida 7-19
7-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the St. Petersburg, Tampa, Winter Park,
Pinellas Park, and Plant City, Florida Monitoring Sites 7-20
7-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the St. Petersburg, Tampa,
Winter Park, Pinellas Park, and Plant City, Florida Monitoring Sites 7-21
7-4 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the St. Petersburg, Tampa, Winter Park, Pinellas Park, and Plant City,
Florida Sites 7-22
7-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Florida Monitoring Sites . . . 7-23
8-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Illinois 8-16
8-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Northbrook and Schiller Park,
Illinois Monitoring Sites 8-17
8-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Northbrook and Schiller Park,
Illinois Monitoring Sites 8-18
8-4 TNMOC Measured by the Chicago, Illinois (NBIL) Monitoring Station 8-20
8-5 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters in Northbrook and Schiller Park, Illinois Sites 8-21
xx
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
8-6 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Illinois Monitoring Sites . . . 8-22
9-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Indiana 9-9
9-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Gary, Indiana
Monitoring Site - INDEM 9-10
9-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Gary, Indiana
Monitoring Site - INDEM 9-11
9-4 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Gary, Indiana Site (INDEM) 9-12
9-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Indiana
Monitoring Site 9-13
10-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the BOMA Site in
Massachusetts 10-9
10-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Boston, Massachusetts Monitoring
Site - BOMA 10-10
10-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Boston, Massachusetts
Monitoring Site - BOMA 10-11
10-4 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Boston, Massachusetts Site (BOMA) 10-12
10-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Massachusetts
Monitoring Site 10-13
11-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Michigan 11-28
11-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Allen Park, Dearborn,
Houghton Lake, Sault Ste. Marie, and Yellow Freight, Detroit,
Michigan Monitoring Sites 11-29
11-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Allen Park, Dearborn, Houghton
Lake, Sault Ste. Marie, and Yellow Freight, Detroit, Michigan Monitoring
Sites 11-32
11-4 SVOC Concentrations for Michigan Monitoring Sites 11-36
11-5 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Allen Park, Dearborn, Sault Ste. Marie, and Yellow Freight Sites
in Detroit, Michigan 11-37
11-6 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Michigan Monitoring
Sites 11-39
12-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Mississippi .... 12-24
12-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Gulfport, Grenada, Jackson,
Pascagoula, and Tupelo, Mississippi Monitoring Sites 12-25
12-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Gulfport, Grenada, Jackson,
Pascagoula, and Tupelo, Mississippi Monitoring Sites 12-27
12-4 TNMOC Measured by the Pascagoula, Mississippi (PGMS) Monitoring Station . . . 12-31
xxi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
12-5 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Gulfport, Grenada, Jackson, Pascagoula, and
Tupelo Mississippi Sites 12-32
12-6 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Mississippi
Monitoring Sites 12-34
13-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Missouri . . . 13-25
13-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Bonne Terre, St. Louis Site 4,
and St. Louis 1, Missouri Monitoring Sites 13-26
13-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Bonne Terre, St. Louis Site 4,
and St. Louis 1, Missouri Monitoring Sites 13-27
13-4 Metals and Compounds, and SNMOC Measured by the Missouri Monitoring
Sites 13-29
13-5 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Bonne Terre, St. Louis Site 4, and St. Louis Site 1,
Missouri Sites 13-30
13-6 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Missouri
Monitoring Sites 13-31
14-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in New Jersey ... 14-26
14-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Camden, Chester, Elizabeth, and
New Brunswick, New Jersey Monitoring Sites 14-27
14-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Camden, Chester, Elizabeth, and
New Brunswick, New Jersey Monitoring Sites 14-29
14-4 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Camden, Chester, Elizabeth, New Brunswick, and New Jersey
Sites 14-33
14-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for New Jersey Monitoring
Sites 14-35
15-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Sites
in North Carolina 15-12
15-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Candor and Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina Monitoring Sites 15-13
15-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Candor and Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina Monitoring Sites 15-14
15-4 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Candor and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Sites 15-15
15-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the North Carolina
Monitoring Sites 15-16
16-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in North Dakota . 16-8
16-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Spirit Lake Nation, North Dakota
Monitoring Site - SLND 16-9
xxn
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
16-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Spirit Lake Nation, North Dakota
Monitoring Site - SLND 16-10
16-4 SVOC Concentration for the North Dakota Monitoring Site 16-11
16-5 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Spirit Lake Nation, North Dakota Site (SLND) 16-12
16-6 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the North Dakota
Monitoring Site 16-13
17-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in
South Dakota 17-13
17-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Custer and Sioux Falls,
South Dakota Monitoring Sites 17-14
17-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Custer and Sioux Falls,
South Dakota Monitoring Sites 17-15
17-4 TNMOC Measured by the Custer and Sioux Falls, South Dakota
(CUSD and SFSD) Monitoring Sites 17-17
17-5 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Custer and Sioux Falls, South Dakota Sites 17-18
17-6 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the South Dakota
Monitoring Sites 17-19
18-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Sites in Tennessee . 18-23
18-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Dickson, Nashville Site 1,
Kingsport, Loudon, and Nashville Site 2, Tennessee Monitoring Sites 18-24
18-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Dickson, Nashville Site 1,
Kingsport, Loudon, and Nashville Site 2, Tennessee Monitoring Sites 18-27
18-4 Average Metal Concentration Measured by the Nashville Monitoring Sites 18-32
18-5 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Dickson, Nashville Site 1, Kingsport, Loudon, and Nashville
Site 2, Tennessee Sites 18-33
18-6 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Tennessee
Monitoring Sites 18-35
19-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Site in Utah 19-17
19-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Bountiful, Utah
Monitoring Site - BTUT 19-18
19-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Bountiful, Utah
Monitoring Site - BTUT 19-19
19-4 TNMOC and Metal Compounds Measured by the Bountiful, Utah (BTUT)
Monitoring Site 19-21
19-5 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Bountiful, Utah Site (BTUT) 19-22
19-6 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Utah
Monitoring Site 19-23
xxin
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
20-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Wisconsin . . . 20-9
20-2 Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Madison, Wisconsin
Monitoring Site - MAWI 20-10
20-3 Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Madison, Wisconsin
Monitoring Site - MAWI 20-11
20-4 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at the Madison, Wisconsin Site (MAWI) 20-12
20-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the South Dakota
Monitoring Sites 20-13
21-1 VOC Analytical Precision: 480 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate and Collocated
Samples 21-15
21-2 VOC Analytical Precision: 190 Replicate Analyses for all Collocated Samples . . . . 21-17
21-3 VOC Analytical Precision: 290 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples 21-19
21-4 VOC Analytical Precision: 110 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in
Detroit, MI (DEMI) 21-21
21-5 VOC Analytical Precision: 18 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Grand
Junction, CO (GPCO) 21-23
21-6 VOC Analytical Precision: Eight Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in North
Brook, IL (NBIL) 21-25
21-7 VOC Analytical Precision: Four Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in Phoenix,
AZ (PSAZ) 21-27
21-8 VOC Analytical Precision: 24 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Bountiful,
UT (BTUT) 21-29
21-9 VOC Analytical Precision: Four Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in St. Louis,
MO (S4MO) 21-31
21-10 VOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses,
All Sites 21-33
21-11 VOC Analytical Precision: 100 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples 21-42
21-12 VOC Analytical Precision: 12 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in North
Brook, IL (NBIL) 21-45
21-13 VOC Analytical Precision: 24 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in
Bountiful, UT (BTUT) 21-48
21-14 VOC Analytical Precision: Four Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in
St. Louis, MO (S4MO) 21-51
21-15 SNMOC Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses,
All Sites 21-54
21-16 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 498 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate and
Collocated Samples 21-57
21-17 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 158 Replicate Analyses for all Collocated Samples 21-58
21-18 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 340 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples . 21-59
21-19 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 16 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in Tampa,
FL (SYFL) 21-60
XXIV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
21-20 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 100 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in Detroit,
MI (DEMI) 21-61
21-21 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 20 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in Grand
Junction, CO (GPCO) 21-62
21-22 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: 24 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in
Bountiful, UT (BTUT) 21-63
21-23 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: Six Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in
St. Louis, MO (S4MO) 21-64
21-24 Carbonyl Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Analyses,
All Sites 21-65
21-25 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 218 Duplicate and Collocated Samples . . 21-68
21-26 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 70 Collocated Samples 21-70
21-27 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 148 Collocated Samples 21-72
21-28 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 30 Collocated Samples in
Detroit, MI (DEMI) 21-74
21-29 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 10 Duplicate Samples in Grand
Junction, CO (GPCO) 21-76
21-30 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Four Collocate Samples in North
Brook, IL (NBIL) 21-78
21-31 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Four Collocate Samples in Phoenix,
AZ (PSAZ) 21-80
21-32 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 12 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful,
UT (BTUT) 21-82
21-33 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Two Duplicate Samples in St. Louis,
MO (S4MO) 21-84
21-34 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate
Samples, All Sites 21-86
21-35 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 52 Duplicate Samples 21-95
21-36 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Six Duplicate Samples in North
Brook, IL (NBIL) 21-98
21-37 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 12 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful,
UT (BTUT) 21-101
21-38 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Two Duplicate Samples in
St. Louis, MO (S4MO) 21-101
21-39 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate
Analyses, All Sites 21-107
21-40 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 224 Duplicate and Collocated
Samples 21-110
21-41 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 54 Collocated Samples 21-111
21-42 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 170 Duplicate Samples 21-112
21-43 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: Eight Duplicate Samples in
Tampa, FL (SYFL) 21-113
21-44 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 26 Collocated Samples in
Detroit, MI (DEMI) 21-114
XXV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
21-45 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 10 Duplicate Samples in
Grand Junction, CO (GPCO) 21-115
21-46 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 12 Duplicate Samples in
Bountiful, UT (BTUT) 21-116
21-47 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: Two Duplicate Samples in
St. Louis, MO (S4MO) 21-117
21-48 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all
Duplicate Analyses, All Sites 21-118
21-49 Metal Sampling and Analytical Precision: 106 Collocated Samples 21-121
21-50 Metal Sampling and Analytical Precision: 52 Collocated Samples in
Boston, MA (BOMA) 21-122
XXVI
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AIRS Aerometric Information and Retrieval System
AQS Air Quality Subsystem (of the Aerometric Information and Retrieval System)
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (o-, m-, and/?-xylene)
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CV coefficient of variation
DNPH 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FID flame ionization detection
GC gas chromatography
GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HPLC high-performance liquid chromatography
HYSPLIT Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory
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
xxvn
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS (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
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WB AN Weather Bureau/Army/Navy ID
xxvin
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)
Monitoring Stations
APMI Allen Park in Detroit, Michigan
AZFL Azalea Park in St. Petersburg, Florida
BOMA Boston, Massachusetts
BTMO Bonne Terre, Missouri
BTUT Bountiful, Utah
CANC Candor, North Carolina
CANJ Camden, New Jersey
CHNJ Chester, New Jersey
CUSD Custer, South Dakota
DEMI Dearborn in Detroit, Michigan
DITN Dickson, Tennessee
EATN Nashville, Tennessee (Site #1)
ELNJ Elizabeth, New Jersey
GAFL Gandy in Tampa, Florida
GPCO Grand Junction, Colorado
GPMS Gulfport, Mississippi
GRMS Grenada, Mississippi
HACT Hartford, Connecticut
HOMI Houghton Lake, Michigan
INDEM Gary, Indiana
ITCMI Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan
JAMS Jackson, Mississippi
KITN Kingsport, Tennessee
LDTN Loudon, Tennessee
LOTN Nashville, Tennessee (Site #2)
MAWI Madison, Wisconsin
MCAZ Phoenix, Arizona
NBIL Northbrook in Chicago, Illinois
NBNJ New Brunswick, New Jersey
ORFL Orlando, Florida
PGMS Pascagoula, Mississippi
PSAZ Supers!te in Phoenix, Arizona
QVAZ Queen Valley in Phoenix, Arizona
RTPNC Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
S4MO St. Louis, Missouri (Site #4)
XXIX
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)
SFSD Sioux Falls, South Dakota
SKFL Pinellas Park, Florida
SLMO St. Louis, Missouri (Site #1)
SLND Spirit Lake Nation in Fort Totten, North Dakota
SPAZ South Phoenix, Arizona
SPIL Schiller Park in Chicago, Illinois
SYFL Plant City, Florida
TUMS Tupelo, Mississippi
YFMI Yellow Freight in Detroit, Michigan
XXX
-------
Abstract
This report presents the results and conclusions from the ambient air monitoring conducted
as part of the 2004 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 2004 UATMP included 44 monitoring stations that collected 24-hour air samples,
typically on a 6- or 12-day schedule. Forty-three sites analyzed ambient air samples for
concentrations of 58 volatile organic compounds (VOC) and/or 12 carbonyl compounds. Eight
sites also analyzed for 78 speciated nonmethane organic compounds (SNMOC). Three sites
analyzed for 19 semivolatile compounds (SVOC) while five sites analyzed 11 metal compounds.
Overall, nearly 140,000 ambient air concentrations were measured during the 2004 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 2004 UATMP serve a wide range of
purposes. Not only do these data characterize the nature and extent of urban air pollution close to
the 44 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.
xxxi
-------
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 2004 UATMP
monitoring effort, which included 12 months of 6- and 12-day measurements of ambient air
quality at 44 monitoring sites in or near 29 urban/rural locations including 21 metropolitan
statistical areas (MS As). Much of the analysis and data interpretation in this report focuses on
compound-specific data trends.
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 2002-2004 "programyears"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 44 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
-------
The contents of this report offer participating agencies useful insights into important air
quality issues. For example, participating agencies can use trends and patterns in the UATMP
monitoring data to determine whether levels of air pollution present public health concerns, to
identify which emissions sources contribute most to air pollution, or to forecast whether
proposed pollution control initiatives might significantly improve air quality. Since 2001, EPA
has been actively conducting the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA), which uses air toxics
emissions to model ambient monitoring concentrations across the nation. UATMP monitoring
data may be used to compare modeling results, similarly to NATA. The data analyses in this
report present a comprehensive account of urban air pollution at every participating UATMP
monitoring station. However, state and local environmental agencies are encouraged to perform
additional analyses of the monitoring data so that the many factors that affect their specific
ambient air quality can be understood fully.
To facilitate examination of the 2004 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 23 text sections and 12 appendices.
Table 1-1 highlights the contents of each section. As with previous UATMP annual reports, all
figures and tables in this report appear at the end of their respective sections (figures first,
followed by tables).
1-2
-------
Table 1-1. Organization of the 2004 UATMP Report
Report
Section
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Section Title
The 2004 UATMP
Summary of the 2004 UATMP
Sites in Arizona
Site in Colorado
Site in Connecticut
Sites in Florida
Sites in Illinois
Site in Indiana
Site in Massachusetts
Sites in Michigan
Sites in Mississippi
Sites in Missouri
Sites in New Jersey
Sites in North Carolina
Overview of Contents
This section provides background information on the scope of the 2004 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 Grand Junction, CO (GPCO) MSA
Monitoring results for Hartford-East Hartford, CT (HACT) MSA
Monitoring results for Orlando, FL (ORFL) MSA, and Tampa-St. Petersburg-
Clearwater, FL (AZFL, GAFL, SKFL, and SYFL) MSA
Monitoring results for Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI (NBIL and SPIL) MSA
Monitoring results for Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI (INDEM) MSA
Monitoring results for Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH (BOMA) MSA
Monitoring results for Detroit- Warren-Livonia, MI (APMI, DEMI, and YFMI) 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 New York-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA (CHNJ, ELNJ, and
NBNJ) MSA and Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-ND (CANJ) MSA
Monitoring results for Durham-Chapel Hill (RTPNC) MSA and Candor, NC (CANC)
-------
Table 1-1. Organization of the 2004 UATMP Report (Continued)
Report
Section
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Section Title
Site in North Dakota
Sites in South Dakota
Sites in Tennessee
Site in Utah
Site in Wisconsin
Data Quality
Conclusions and Recommendations
References
Overview of Contents
Monitoring results for Spirit Lake Nation, ND (SLND)
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 (BTUT) MSA
Monitoring results for Madison, WI (MAWI) 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 2004 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 2004 UATMP
The 2004 UATMP included 44 monitoring stations that collected 24-hour integrated
ambient air samples for up to 12 months, at six or twelve day sampling intervals. 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, and metal
compounds from filters. The following discussion reviews the monitoring locations, compounds
selected for monitoring, sampling schedules, completeness of the 2004 UATMP dataset, and
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 based on specific siting criteria. Some monitors were placed near the centers of
heavily populated cities (e.g., Chicago, IL and Phoenix, AZ), while others were placed in
moderately populated areas (e.g., Candor, NC and Custer, SD).
Figure 2-1 shows the 29 urban and rural areas participating in the 2004 program. The
site descriptions in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 and in Appendix A provide detailed information on the
surroundings at the 2004 UATMP monitoring locations. Monitors that are designated as EPA
National Air Toxic Trend System (NATTS) sites are indicated by bold type in Table 2-1. The
monitoring sites participating in previous UATMP programs are listed in Table 2-3, and are
discussed further in Section 3.8 Trends analysis. Sections 4 through 20 are state-specific
breakdowns of the data analysis, and each contains topographic maps for each of the sites.
Industrial facilities within 10 miles of the monitoring sites are provided in these sections as well.
The location and category descriptions of these industrial emissions sources were retrieved from
the 2002 National Emission Inventory (NEI) (US EPA, 2005a).
2-1
-------
As Figure 2-1 shows, the 2004 UATMP monitoring sites are 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 most urban environments.
Chemical concentrations measured during the 2004 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 contributions of stationary source emissions on ambient
air quality at each site, Table 2-2 lists the number of people living within 10 miles of each
monitoring location, as well as the stationary source emissions in the monitor's residing county,
according to the 2002 NEI.
At every UATMP monitoring location, the air sampling equipment was installed in a
temperature-controlled enclosure (usually a trailer or a shed) with the sampling inlet probe
exposed to the ambient air. With this common setup, every UATMP 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 (VOCs), carbonyl compounds, 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 58 VOCs (12 hydrocarbons, 37 halogenated hydrocarbons, and nine polar
compounds), 12 carbonyl compounds, 78 Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compounds
(SNMOC), 19 Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOC), and 11 metal compounds. Tables 2-4,
2-5, 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8 identify the specific compounds of interest and their corresponding
experimentally determined average method detection limits (MDL).
2.3 Sampling Schedules
Table 2-9 presents the dates on which sampling began and ended for each monitoring
location. The UATMP monitoring locations started sampling in January 2004 and stopped
sampling in December 2004, with the following exceptions, five sites began sampling after
January 2004:
Allen Park in Detroit, MI (APMI) site started in October 2004;
Research Triangle Park, NC (RTPNC) site started in August 2004;
Madison, WI (MAWI) site started in October 2004;
• Skyview Elementary School site in Pinellas Park, FL (SKFL) started in July
2004;
Yellow Freight site in Detroit, MI (YFMI) started in October 2004;
Twelve sites ended sampling before December 2004:
Bonne Terre, MO site (BTMO) ended in January 2004;
Gulfport, MS site (GPMS) ended in October 2004;
-------
Hartford, CT site (HACT) ended in May 2004;
Houghton Lake, MI site (HOMI) ended in February 2004;
Jackson, MS site (JAMS) ended in October 2004;
Kingsport TN site (KITN) ended in August 2004;
Phoenix sites (MCAZ, PSAZ, QVAZ and SPAZ) ended in March 2004;
Research Triangle Park, NC site (RTPNC) ended in November 2004; and
St. Louis, MO site #1 (SLMO) ended in February 2004.
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 site, VOC and carbonyl samples were
collected concurrently, except for the following sites:
All Florida sites (AZFL, GAFL, ORFL, SKFL, and SYFL) - carbonyls 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;
All Phoenix, AZ, sites (MCAZ, PSAZ, QVAZ, and SPAZ) - VOCs only;
Hartford, CT (HART) - carbonyls only;
• Gary, IN (INDEM) - carbonyls only;
Intertribal Council site in Sault Sainte Marie, MI (ITCMI) - carbonyls only;
Research Triangle Park, NC (RTPNC) - carbonyls only;
Spirit Lake site in Fort Totten, ND (SLND) - VOC only; and
Yellow Freight site in Detroit, MI (YFMI) - VOC only.
2-4
-------
Of the 44 sites, only one did not sample for VOCs and/or carbonyls - BOMA in Boston,
MA. Only ITCMI, SLND, and YFMI collected SVOC samples. The following eight sites also
collected SNMOC samples:
Bountiful, UT (BTUT);
• Northbrook site in Chicago, IL (NBIL);
Custer, SD (CUSD);
Sioux Falls, SD(SFSD);
Pascagoula, MS (PGMS); and
St. Louis (Bonne Terre, site 1, and site 4), MO (BTMO, SLMO, and S4MO).
Five sites collected metals samples:
Boston, MA (BOMA);
Bountiful, UT (BTUT);
Nashville, TN (EATN and LOTN); and
St. Louis, MO site 4 (S4MO).
As part of the sampling schedule, site operators were instructed to collect duplicate
samples on roughly 10% of the sampling days. Sampling calendars were distributed to help site
operators schedule the collection of samples, duplicates, and field blanks. In cases where
monitors failed to collect valid samples on a scheduled sampling day, site operators sometimes
rescheduled samples for other days. This practice explains why some monitoring locations
periodically strayed from the 6- or 12-day sampling schedule. The State of Michigan prepared a
schedule that allowed Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality's laboratory to share
samples with ERG's laboratory.
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 seven 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. Table 2-9 summarizes the completeness of the monitoring data
sets collected during the 2004 UATMP:
For VOC sampling, the completeness ranged from 59 to 100%, with an overall
completeness of 94%;
For carbonyl sampling, the completeness ranged from 55 to 100% with an overall
completeness of 91%;
For SNMOC sampling, the completeness ranged from 94 to 100% with an overall
completeness of 97% for all sites;
For SVOC sampling, the completeness was 75 to 88% with an overall
completeness of 86% for all sites; and
For metals sampling, the completeness ranged from 97 to 100% with an overall
completeness of 99%.
2-6
-------
The UATMP data quality objectives are based on the 2004 EPA-approved Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), 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 Table 2-9 shows that 14 data sets (from a total of 83 data
sets) for the 2004 UATMP monitoring stations did not meet this data quality objective. These
data sets were lower than the 85% criteria because some sites ended before they made up their
required make-up samples (BTMO, EATN, HOMI, LOTN, PGMS, and QVAZ) or were having
sampling site issues that would not allow make-up samples to be performed (CHNJ, DITN, and
YFMI). Five sites which measured carbonyls (out of 34 sites), 10 VOC sites (out of 33),
five SNMOC sites (out of eight), and three Metals sites (out of five) achieved 100 percent
completeness.
2.5 Sampling and Analytical Methods
During the 2004 UATMP, four EPA-approved methods were used to characterize urban
air pollution:
• Compendium Method TO-15 was used to measure ambient air concentrations of
58 VOC and 78 SNMOC;
• Compendium Method TO-11A was used to measure ambient air concentrations of
12 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.
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 canisters
(i.e., cleaned and evacuated) 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 58 VOC (12 hydrocarbons, 37 halogenated hydrocarbons, and nine polar
compounds) and 78 SNMOC within the sample. Because isobutene and 1-butene as well as
w-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 MDLs for the laboratory analysis of the VOC samples and Table 2-5
lists the MDLs for the SNMOC samples. Although the sensitivity of the analytical method
varies from compound to compound, the average detection limit for VOC reported for every
compound is lower than 0.19 parts per billion by volume (ppbv). Speciated Nonmethane
Organic Compound (SNMOC) detection limits are expressed in parts per billion carbon (ppbC).
All of the detection limits were less than 0.83 ppbC.
2-8
-------
Appreciating Detection Limits
All detection limits of the analytical methods must be considered carefully when
interpreting the corresponding ambient air monitoring data. By definition, detection
limits represent the lowest concentrations at which laboratory equipment have been
experimentally determined to reliably quantify concentrations of selected 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.
MDLs are determined at the ERG analytical laboratory using 40 CFR, Part 136
procedures. This procedure involves analyzing at least seven 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.
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. Nondetects will not be replaced with one-half
of the compound's corresponding MDL. The nondetect is treated as a valid data point that can
be used, in conjunction with back trajectories, for validation of nearby emission sources.
Similar to 2003, the reportable SNMOC analysis option was combined with the standard
VOC sampling. These data are presented in Appendix D.
2-9
-------
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,
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.
Table 2-6 lists the MDLs reported by the analytical laboratory for measuring
concentrations of 12 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 0.025 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. ERG supplies prepared sampling media and receives the
samples from the sites for analysis only. Semivolatile sampling modules containing
polyurethane foam (PUF) and petri dishes containing filters, together with Chain of Custody
forms and all associated documentation, were shipped to the ERG laboratory from the field.
Upon receipt at the laboratory, sample preparation and analysis procedures are based on
Compendium Method TO-13A.
Table 2-7 lists the MDLs for the laboratory analysis of the SVOC samples. MDLs for
Semivolatile organic compounds ranged from 0.02 to 0.58 pg/m3, with most falling below
0.10 pg/m3 in an average sample volume of 200 m3.
2.5.4 Metal Compounds 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 part of the year for
analyses based on Compendium Method IO-3.5. For the remainder of the year, the ERG
laboratory analyzed samples in house.
Table 2-8 lists the MDLs for the laboratory analysis of the metal samples. Because the
sample volumes for the collection of metals ranged from approximately 0 to 1,839 m3, the MDLs
are presented only in total ng/filter. The average MDLs ranged from 26 to 1,850 total ng/filter.
2-11
-------
Figure 2-1. Monitoring Sites and Associated MSAs for the 2004 UATMP
to
to
Sioux Falls, SD MSA
\ Chicago, ILJVISA
Ogden-CIearfield, UT MSA
Grand Junction, CO MSA
rHoughtonLakeTMI
Madison, Wl MSA i v\ )
Boston, MA MSA
Hartford, CT MSA
New York City, NY MSA
Philadelphia, PA MSA
Kingsport.'TN MSA
Farmington, MO y-^^.^ " ]i Durham) NC MSA
NashvillerTN MSA?i7 ^X_ •Candor^NC
Knoxville.'TN MSA~
Tlipelo; MS * j \
/ 'Grenada, MS
Jackson MSMS/Vf*,
» *!',— •
Orlando, FL MSA
pulfport-Biloxi, MS MS^
Pascagoula, MS MSA Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL MSA
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites
UATMP
Code
APMI
AZFL
BOMA
Monitoring Sites
Allen Park, Detroit,
MI
Azalea Park, St.
Petersburg, FL
Boston, MA
Land Use
Commercial
Residential
Commercial
Location
Setting
Suburban
Suburban
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
60,000
51,000
27,287
Traffic
Year
Estimate
Unknown
Unknown
2000
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 within
a half-mile of the site. Of all the population-oriented sites in
the Detroit MSA, Allen Park has the highest PM10 levels.
Therefore, Allen Park has been selected as the PM2 5 trend
speciation site and the collocated site for the federal
reference method (FRM) monitors. Other criteria pollutant
measurements that are collected at Allen Park include CO,
O3, SO2, and PM10
A neighborhood spatial scale of representativeness
characterizes this monitoring site selected for the Tampa Bay
pilot project. This monitor is sited in an area of high
population density with uniform mixed land use, consisting
of residential, commercial, and industrial properties. Major
point sources are located approximately 2 to 10 miles from
the monitoring site. In addition, this site is at least 150
meters from major roadways. However, given the proximity
of motor vehicle traffic it is expected that mobile sources
will contribute appreciably to the measured samples.
The Boston site is located in a residential neighborhood on
Harrison Avenue in Dudley Square. Its purpose is to
measure population exposure for a city bus terminal which is
located across the street from the monitor and other urban
sources.
to
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
BTMO
BTUT
CANC
Monitoring Sites
Bonne Terre, MO
Bountiful, UT
Candor, NC
Land Use
Agricultural
Residential
Forest
Location
Setting
Rural
Suburban
Rural
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
4,360
33,310
100
Traffic
Year
Estimate
1995
2002
1999
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 sources within 5 miles of the site, except
VOCs/Formaldehyde from nearby forests.
The Bountiful Viewmont site is located in a suburban area of
the Ogden-Clearfield MSA, at 171 West 1370 North in
Bountiful, Utah. This site is a relocation of the BOUT site,
which was about 1 . 1 miles south of the new site. The site is
located on the grounds of Viewmont High School, adjacent
to a parking lot, tennis courts, and a football field. The
surrounding neighborhood is made up of residential
properties. BTUT is a SLAMS neighborhood-scale site for
monitoring population exposure to SO2, CO, NO2, and PM2 5;
and a NAMS neighborhood-scale site for monitoring
maximum ozone concentrations. Speciated PM2 5 sampling,
meteorological monitoring, and NATTS air toxics sampling
are also done at the Bountiful Viewmont station. Several
petroleum refineries are located two to five miles away from
the site, as are several sand and gravel mining operations.
The Candor, NC, site is in rural Montgomery Co., at the end
of a private dead end road named Perry Dr. which is off
McCallumRd. The site sits approximately 1.5 miles off a
main road (McCallum Rd.). There is not a pollution source
within 5 miles of the site. EPA also monitors next to this
site.
to
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
DEMI
Monitoring Sites
Camden, NJ
Chester, NJ
Custer, SD
Dearborn in
Detroit, MI
Land Use
Residential
Agricultural
Residential
Industrial
Location
Setting
Suburban
Rural
Suburban
Suburban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
62,000
12,623
1,940
12,791
Traffic
Year
Estimate
1986
1995
2002
1990
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
Although this monitoring site in Camden, NJ, is in a
residential area, numerous industrial facilities and busy
roadways are located within a 10 mile radius. The monitors
are situated in a parking lot of a business complex.
The Chester, NJ, site is located in a rural-agricultural,
residential section and is topographically rolling. The site is
located near Lucent Laboratory Building #1. There is
potential population exposure to, ozone, NO2, and SO2.
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.
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 site. 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.
to
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
Monitoring Sites
Land Use
Location
Setting
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
Traffic
Year
Estimate
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
DITN
Dickson, TN
Commercial
Urban
4,420
2003
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.
EATN
Nashville, TN
(Site #1)
Residential
Urban
38,450
1993
This site is located in Nashville, TN and is located on the
roof of East Nashville 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.
to
ELNJ
Elizabeth, NJ
Industrial
Suburban
170,000
Unknown
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.
GAFL
Gandy in Tampa, FL
Commercial
Suburban
81,460
Unknown
A neighborhood spatial scale of representativeness
characterizes this monitoring site selected for the Tampa Bay
Region Air Toxics Study Monitoring Stations (TBRATS)
pilot project. This monitor is sited in an area of high
population density with uniform mixed land use, consisting
of residential, commercial, and industrial properties. Major
point sources are located greater than one mile from the
monitoring site. Since the emission points from these
sources are elevated and not proximate to the monitor,
concentrations measured during this study should not be
dominated by a single source. In addition, this site is at least
150 meters from major roadways. However, given the
proximity of motor vehicle traffic, mobile sources are
expected to contribute appreciably to the measured samples.
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
GPCO
GPMS
GRMS
Monitoring Sites
Grand Junction,
CO
Gulfport, MS
Grenada, MS
Land Use
Commercial
Commercial
Agricultural
Location
Setting
Urban and
City Center
Rural
Rural
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
19,572
17,000
1,100
Traffic
Year
Estimate
2000/20017
2002
1995
2000
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
This site is located at 645 1/4 Pitkin Avenue. This site is a
small 1 -story shelter that houses the VOC/carbonyl sampler.
The inlet for this sampler is 13' above the ground and 35'
south of Pitkin Avenue. This site also has meteorological
sensors (WS, WD, T, RH) on a 10 meter tower, a carbon
monoxide sampler and a continuous PM10 sampler.
Monitoring is being conducted on the southeast side of the
downtown area. The area is very mixed usage, with
commercial business to the west, northwest and north,
residential to the northeast and east, and industrial to the
southeast, south and southwest. The location is next to one
of the major east-west roads in Grand Junction.
The Gulfport site is in a light commercial and residential
area. This site was selected because this area is believed to
have high ambient air toxic concentrations based upon
information from the NATA study and Mississippi's major
source emission inventories.
The 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 surface coating industry. The area is
moderately populated but the area itself would be considered
rural.
to
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
Monitoring Sites
Land Use
Location
Setting
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
Traffic
Year
Estimate
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
HACT
Hartford, CT
Commercial
Urban
10,000
Unknown
This CT 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.
to
oo
HOMI
Houghton Lake, MI
Forest/
Agricultural
Rural
7,000
2002
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.
INDEM
Gary, IN
Industrial
Urban
42,950
1990
This site is located in Gary is located on property now
owned by the Dunes National Lakeshore. It is
approximately one-half to three-quarter mile south west of
the USX coking battery for their mill. The site is part of the
Chicago PAMS network. It is considered a Type 2 or source
site. Monitoring for ozone, NO/NOX, ozone precursors, and
carbonyls began in 1995 as the network was deployed in
Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. Other
parameters monitored at this location are SO2, PM10, PM2 5,
speciated PM2 5, and several meteorological parameters.
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
ITCMI
JAMS
KITN
LDTN
LOTN
Monitoring Sites
Sault Sainte Marie,
MI
Jackson, MS
Kingsport, TN
Louden, TN
Nashville, TN
(Site #2)
Land Use
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Industrial
Location
Setting
Rural
Suburban
Suburban
Suburban
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
100,000
12,500
300
13,360
3,000
Traffic
Year
Estimate
1990
Unknown
1998
2003
Unknown
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
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).
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 NATA 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 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.
to
VO
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
MAWI
MCAZ
NBIL
NBNJ
Monitoring Sites
Madison, WI
Phoenix, AZ
(Site #1)
Northbrook in
Chicago, IL
New Brunswick, NJ
Land Use
Residential
Industrial
Residential
Agricultural
Location
Setting
Urban
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
23,750
3,000
29,600
63,000
Traffic
Year
Estimate
1993
Unknown
2001
Unknown
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The Madison monitoring site is located on the East High
School's Killiher Athletic field, near the corner of Hoard and
Fifth Street. The monitoring site was originally established
in 1992 as an ozone monitoring site. Air toxics monitoring
was added in 2002 as part of the Region 5 State and Local
Regional Air Toxics Monitoring Strategy. The station was
selected to provide new monitoring data for a midsize city
experiencing urban growth.
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).
The village of Northbrook is located in northeast Cook
County. This monitoring site is located at the Northbrook
Water Filtration Station at 750 Dundee Road. A forest
preserve is located immediately south with residential areas
farther south (southeast to southwest). Residential areas are
also immediately to the west. Commercial areas are located
along Dundee Road and to the east. A major expressway (I-
94) is located 1 km to the east and north. O'Hare Airport is
located 18 km to the southwest and the Chicago Loop is
located 32 km to the southeast.
The New Brunswick site is located in a suburban-
agricultural, residential area and is topographically smooth.
The actual site location is in Rutgers University's
Horticultural Farm.
to
to
o
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
ORFL
PGMS
PSAZ
QVAZ
Monitoring Sites
Orlando, FL
Pascagoula, MS
Supersite in
Phoenix, AZ
(Site #2)
Queen Valley in
Phoenix, AZ
Land Use
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Desert
Location
Setting
Urban
Urban
Urban
Rural
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
59,000
8,600
250
200
Traffic
Year
Estimate
Unknown
2000
1993
2001
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
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 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.
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 site and a PAMS
Type 3 monitoring site. 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.
to
to
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
RTPNC
S4MO
SFSD
SKFL
Monitoring Sites
Research Triangle
Park, NC
St. Louis, MO
Sioux Falls, SD
Skyview in Tampa,
FL
Land Use
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Urban
Urban
Suburban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
12,000
22,840
4,320
50,500
Traffic
Year
Estimate
2003
1995
1999
2003
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The RTF site is located on the north side of the EPA
campus. It is approximately 600 meters south of intersection
1-40. There are trees to the east of the site, but it slopes
down from the site to the trees. The height of the tallest tress
(relative to the sampling port) to the east is less than 2 times
the distance to the trees. The site has at least 270° clearance
around the site.
Blair Street has some industry around it and a fair amount of
industry to the east. The site is also only about 250 meters
from 1-70 (at its closest point).
The SFSD monitoring site is located in Sioux Falls, SD, the
largest city in the state, near two grade schools north of the
site and residential areas on the west, east, and south. The
area within 1 mile of the site is mostly residential with a few
retail businesses. The main industrial area of the city is
about 3 miles northwest and 2 miles to the west of the site.
The site was selected because it represents population
exposure to chemical and paniculate emissions from the
industrial parts of the city. The predominant wind direction
is northwest for most of the year with southeast winds during
the summer months.
This air monitoring site is located in south central Pinellas
County at Skyview Elementary School, 8601 60th St. N.,
Pinellas Park Florida. This site is a NATTS and samples for
all pollutants/parameters required by NATTS, including
VOCs, carbonyls, metals, PM-2.5 speciation, and black
carbon. In addition, measurements are made for wind speed,
wind direction, ambient pressure, and ambient temperature.
Site spatial scale is neighborhood. This is a population-
oriented site. The predominate land use around the site is
residential.
to
to
to
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
SLMO
SLND
SPAZ
Monitoring Sites
St. Louis, MO
fCitp #11
V^OILC TT 1)
Spirit Lake Nation,
ND
South Phoenix, AZ
(Site # 3)
Land Use
Residential
Residential
Residential
Location
Setting
Urban
Rural
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
15,016
925
50,000
Traffic
Year
Estimate
2,000
Estimated
from
multiple
years
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 2004.
Sampling was undertaken primarily to monitor Sioux Mfg.
Corp. Approximately 960 people live in the Fort Totten
Community, where the facility is located. The terrain is
mostly flat, with some pasture land and several hundred
acres of farmland within the facility's range of impact. Many
of the public services, administration buildings, the local
community college, public schools, and other resources of
the reservation are within a few blocks of the facility. The
PUF and AT-2 samplers are located in a trailer near the
Sioux Mfg property line. Sioux Mfg. is to the west of the
trailer and residential neighborhoods are located to the east.
Open fields are located south of the trailer. The area is
bounded by Hwy 57 to the north and Bia Road 7 to the
south.
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
-------
Table 2-1. Text Descriptions of the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
UATMP
Code
SPIL
SYFL
TUMS
YFMI
Monitoring Sites
Schiller Park in
Chicago, IL
Sydney in Plant
City, FL
Tupelo, MS
Yellow Freight in
Detroit MI
Land Use
Mobile
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Location
Setting
Suburban
Rural
Suburban
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
(# vehicles)
214,900
5,142
4,900
500
Traffic
Year
Estimate
2001
2002
1997/1995
Unknown
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
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 site in Sydney is a NATTS neighborhood/rural site.
Monitoring has been occurring at Sydney for 5 years as a
background site. Current development in the area warranted
it becoming a NATTS site. The Sydney site is also being
used for an intercomparison of the port of Tampa as
compared to a neighbor/rural site.
The Tupelo site is in a light commercial and residential area.
This site was selected because this area is believed to have
high ambient air toxic concentrations based upon
information from the NATA study and Mississippi's major
source emission inventories.
The Yellow Freight site currently collects SO2 measurements
and is located in the center of a highly industrialized area.
The primary influence is from a nearby car battery plant.
The site is about 2.25 miles away from the Dearborn site. Its
inclusion in the study provides information about the degree
of heterogeneity of toxic air contaminants across a small
scale.
to
to
BOLD = EPA-designated National Air Toxics Trend System (NATTS) site.
-------
Table 2-2. Site Descriptions for the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites
2004
UATMP
Code
APMI
AZFL
BOMA
BTMO
BTUT
CANC
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
DEMI
DITN
EATN
AQS Site Code
26-163-0001
12-103-0018
25-025-0042
29-187-0005
49-011-0004
37-123-0001
34-007-0003
34-027-3001
46-033-0003
26-163-0033
47-043-0010
47-037-0011
Location
Allen Park in Detroit,
MI
Azalea Park in St.
Petersburg, FL
Boston, MA
Bonne Terre, MO
Bountiful, UT
Candor, NC
Camden, NJ
Chester, NJ
Custer, SD
Dearborn in Detroit,
MI
Dickson, TN
Nashville, TN
(Site#l)
Population
Residing Within
10 Miles of the
Monitoring Site a
964,194
572,722
1,589,367
34,969
243,462
11,014
2,030,976
234,148
4,449
1,201,847
29,214
516,083
County-level Stationary
Source HAP Emissions in the
2002 NEIb
(tpy)
7,924
996
803
206
1,197
197
1,151
1,061
429
7,924
1,222
3,904
Closest National Weather
Service Station
Detroit/Metropolitan
Airport
St. Petersburg/Whitted
Airport
General Logan Int'l.
Airport
Farmington Regional
Airport
Salt Lake City
International
Moore County Airport
Philadelphia International
Airport
Somerville, NJ/Somerset
Airport
Custer County Airport
Detroit Metropolitan
Airport
Outlaw Field Airport
Nashville/Metro Airport
to
to
-------
Table 2-2. Site Descriptions for the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
2004
UATMP
Code
ELNJ
GAFL
GPCO
GPMS
GRMS
HACT
HOMI
INDEM
ITCMI
JAMS
KITN
LDTN
LOTN
AQS Site Code
34-039-0004
12-057-1065
08-077-0018
28-047-0008
28-043-0001
09-003-0017
26-113-0001
18-089-0022
26-033-0901
28-049-0010
47-163-1007
47-105-0108
47-037-0023
Location
Elizabeth, NJ
Gandy in Tampa, FL
Grand Junction, CO
Gulfport, MS
Grenada, MS
Hartford, CT
Houghton Lake, MI
Gary, IN
Sault Sainte Marie, MI
Jackson, MS
Kingsport, TN
Loudon, TN
Nashville, TN
(Site #2)
Population
Residing Within
10 Miles of the
Monitoring Site a
2,179,781
462,119
106,900
172,653
21,446
583,236
10,187
404,545
22,188
266,182
130,473
46,750
464,804
County-level Stationary
Source HAP Emissions in the
2002 NEIb
(tpy)
1,719
7,018
403
3,144
410
1,378
123
3,053
237
1,020
1,786
1,556
3,904
Closest National Weather
Service Station
Newark International
Tampa, FL International
Walker Field Airport
GulfPort/Biloxi
Regional Airport
Greenwood-Leflore
Airport
Hartford-Brainard
Airport
Houghton
Lake/Roscommon
County Airport
Lancing Municipal
Airport
Sault Ste. Marie
Municipal Airport
Hawkins Field Airport
Tri City Airport
McGhee Tyson Airport
Nashville Metro Airport
to
to
-------
Table 2-2. Site Descriptions for the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
2004
UATMP
Code
MAWI
MCAZ
NBIL
NBNJ
ORFL
PGMS
PSAZ
QVAZ
RTPNC
S4MO
SFSD
AQS Site Code
55-025-0041
04-013-4009
17-031-4201
34-023-0006
12-095-2002
28-059-0006
04-013-9997
04-021-8001
37-063-0014
29-510-0085
46-099-0007
Location
Madison, WI
Phoenix, AZ
(Site#l)
Northbrook in Chicago,
IL
New Brunswick, NJ
Winter Park, FL
Pascagoula, MS
Supersite in Phoenix,
AZ (Site #2)
Queen Valley in
Phoenix, AZ
Research Triangle
Park, NC
St. Louis, MO
(Site #4)
Sioux Falls, SD
Population
Residing Within
10 Miles of the
Monitoring Site a
356,676
851,962
883,969
787,380
962,938
56,235
1,409,602
61,848
380,541
822,941
154,472
County-level Stationary
Source F£AP Emissions in the
2002 NEIb
(tpy)
1,912
9,165
19,377
2,501
2,970
2,596
9,165
1,636
598
1,396
546
Closest National Weather
Service Station
Dane County Regional-
Traux Field Airport
Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport
Palwaukee Municipal
Airport
Somerville, NJ/Somerset
Airport
Orlando Executive
Airport
Pascagoula, MS/Lott
International Airport
Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport
Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport
Raleigh-Durham
International Airport
St. Louis Downtown
Airport
Joe Foss Field Airport
to
to
-------
Table 2-2. Site Descriptions for the 2004 UATMP Monitoring Sites (Continued)
2004
UATMP
Code
SKFL
SLMO
SLND
SPAZ
SPIL
SYFL
TUMS
YFMI
AQS Site Code
12-103-0026
29-510-0089
38-005-7001
04-013-4003
17-031-3103
12-057-3002
28-081-0005
26-163-0027
Location
Skyview in Tampa, FL
St. Louis, MO
(Site#l)
Spirit Lake Nation, ND
South Phoenix, AZ
(Site #3)
Schiller Park in
Chicago, IL
Sydney in Plant City,
FL
Tupelo, MS
Yellow Freight in
Detroit, MI
Population
Residing Within
10 Miles of the
Monitoring Site a
698,981
755,374
0
851,962
2,087,514
259,538
70,215
1,154,934
County-level Stationary
Source F£AP Emissions in the
2002 NEIb
(tpy)
996
1,396
77
9,165
19,377
7,018
487
7,924
Closest National Weather
Service Station
St. Pete-Clearwater
International Airport
St. Louis Downtown
Airport
Devils Lake Municipal
Airport
Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport
O'Hare International
Airport
Winter Haven's Gilbert
Airport
Tupelo Municipal
Airport
Detroit City Airport
to
to
oo
a Reference: http://zipnet.htm
b Reference: EPA, 2005a.
-------
Table 2-3. Current UATMP Monitoring Sites with Past Participation
to
to
VO
Monitoring Site
Azalea Park, St. Petersburg, FL (AZFL)
Bonne Terre, MO (BTMO)
Boston, MA (BOMA)
Bountiful, UT (BTUT)
Camden, NJ (CANJ)
Candor, NC (CANC)
Chester, NJ (CHNJ)
Northbrook, Chicago, IL (NBIL)
Schiller Park, Chicago, IL (SPIL)
Custer, SD (CUSD)
Allen Park, Detroit, MI (APMI)
Dearborn, Detroit, MI (DEMI)
Yellow Freight, Detroit, MI (YFMI)
Dickson, TN (DITN)
Elizabeth, NJ (ELNJ)
Gandy, Tampa, FL (GAFL)
Program Years During Which Station Past Participated
in the UATMP3
1994
/
1995
/
1996
/
1997
/
1998
/
1999/
2000b
/
/
2001
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2002
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2003
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
-------
Table 2-3. Current UATMP Monitoring Sites with Past Participation (Continued)
to
UJ
o
Monitoring Site
Grenada, MS (GRMS)
Gulfport, MS (GPMS)
Hartford, CT (HACT)
Houghton Lake, MI (HOMI)
Inter-Tribal Council, Sault Ste. Marie,
MI (ITCMI)
Jackson, MS (JAMS)
Kingsport, TN (KITN)
Knoxville, TN (LDTN)
Nashville, TN Site #1 (EATN)
Nashville, TN Site #2 (LOTN)
New Brunswick, NJ (NBNJ)
Pascagoula, MS (PGMS)
Queen Valley, Phoenix, AZ (QVAZ)
Sioux Falls, SD (SFSD)
Maricopa, Phoenix, AZ (MCAZ)
Supersite, Phoenix, AZ (PSAZ)
Program Years During Which Station Past Participated
in the UATMP3
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999/
2000b
/
2001
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2002
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2003
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
-------
Table 2-3. Current UATMP Monitoring Sites with Past Participation (Continued)
Monitoring Site
South Phoenix, AZ (SPAZ)
St. Louis, MO Site # 1 (SLMO)
St. Louis, MO Site # 4 (S4MO)
Tupelo, MS (TUMS)
Winter Park, FL (ORFL)
Program Years During Which Station Past Participated
in the UATMP3
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999/
2000b
2001
/
/
/
2002
/
/
/
/
2003
/
/
/
/
/
a 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
b T*neftime period for the 1999/2000 UATMP covers October 1999 to December 2000.
to
-------
Table 2-4. VOC Average 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
o-Xylene
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.04
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
0.09
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.10
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.07
0.05
2-32
-------
Table 2-4. VOC Average Method Detection Limits (Continued)
Compound
Method Detection Limit
(ppbv)
Halogenated Hydrocarbons (Continued)
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Hexachloro- 1,3-butadiene
Dichloromethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.16
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.18
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
Polar Compounds
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
0.13
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.15
0.08
0.11
0.07
0.07
Because /w-xylene and^-xylene elute from the GC column at the same time, the
VOC analytical method can report only the sum of/w-xylene and^-xylene
concentrations and not concentrations of the individual compounds.
2-33
-------
Table 2-5. SNMOC Average 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
0.06
0.26
0.52
0.52
0.13
0.08
0.29
0.12
0.32
0.20
0.26
0.26
0.16
0.29
0.27
0.43
0.28
0.78
0.78
0.20
0.29
0.19
0.07
Compound
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2-Methylhexane
3-Methylhexane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methy 1- 1 -pentene
4-Methy 1- 1 -pentene
w-Nonane
1-Nonene
w-Octane
1-Octene
n-Pentane
1 -Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
/ra»s-2-Pentene
a-Pinene
p-Pinene
Propane
w-Propylbenzene
Method Detection
Limit
ppbC
0.32
0.13
0.12
0.39
0.28
0.18
0.23
0.28
0.23
0.29
0.29
0.15
0.36
0.25
0.82
0.09
0.21
0.12
0.21
0.26
0.26
0.18
0.17
2-34
-------
Table 2-5. SNMOC Average Method Detection Limits (Continued)
Compound
/w-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
/>-Ethyltoluene
w-Heptane
1-Heptene
w-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
trans-2-tlexene
Isobutane
Isobutene/1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methyl-l-Butene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Method Detection
Limit
ppbC
0.14
0.15
0.21
0.26
0.43
0.09
0.26
0.29
0.29
0.07
0.30
0.32
0.17
0.36
0.32
0.32
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
0.12
0.18
0.82
0.35
0.78
0.78
0.13
0.21
0.15
0.82
0.43
0.36
0.59
0.59
0.22
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 report only the sum of concentrations for these two compounds
and not concentrations of the individual compounds. For the same reason, the w-xylene
and/>-xylene concentrations are reported as a sum.
2-35
-------
Table 2-6. Carbonyl Average Method Detection Limits
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5 -Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Method Detection Limit (ppbv)
0.020
0.012
0.005
0.007
0.006
0.004
0.025
0.003
0.005
0.007
0.006
0.005
Because butyraldehyde and isobutyraldehyde elute from the HPLC column at the same time, the
carbonyl analytical method can report only the sum of concentrations for these two compounds
and not concentrations of the individual compounds. For the same reason, the analytical method
also reports only the sum of concentrations for the three tolualdehyde isomers, as opposed to
reporting separate concentrations for the three individual compounds.
2-36
-------
Table 2-7. Semivolatile Organic Compound Average 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
0.09
0.58
0.35
0.19
0.35
0.17
0.17
0.14
0.14
0.10
0.17
0.15
0.16
0.14
0.17
0.10
0.22
0.11
0.16
2-37
-------
Table 2-8. Metal Compounds Average Method Detection Limits
Compound
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (total Chromium)
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Method Detection Limit
(ng/filter)
43
26
35
27
258
38
1,853
244
224
266
26
2-38
-------
Table 2-9. Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Carbonyls, VOC, Metals, SNMOC, and SVOC
Site
APMI
AZFL
BOMA
BTMO
BTUT
CANC
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
DEMI
DITN
EATN
ELNJ
Monitoring
Sites
Allen Park in
Detroit, MI
Azalea Park in
St. Petersburg,
FL
Boston, MA
Bonne Terre,
MO
Bountiful, UT
Candor, NC
Camden, NJ
Chester, NJ
Custer Park,
SD
Dearborn in
Detroit, MI
Dickson, TN
Nashville, TN
Elizabeth, NJ
Sampling Period*
Starting
Date
10/6/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
1/10/04
1/10/04
1/1/04
1/4/04
1/10/04
1/4/04
1/10/04
1/4/04
Ending
Date
12/29/04
12/29/04
12/23/04
1/28/04
12/29/04
12/23/04
12/29/04
12/29/04
12/29/04
12/29/04
12/29/04
12/23/04
12/29/04
Carbonyl
A
14
60
—
4
59
24
53
54
58
47
18
12
59
B
15
62
—
5
63
26
65
66
62
51
22
22
61
C
93
97
—
80
94
92
82
82
94
92
82
55
97
VOC
A
14
—
0
60
—
60
57
62
50
17
13
60
B
14
—
1
63
65
67
62
52
21
22
60
C
100
—
0
95
92
85
100
96
81
59
100
Metals
A
—
45
—
63
—
—
—
—
—
28
—
B
—
46
—
63
—
—
—
—
—
28
—
C
—
98
—
100
—
—
—
—
—
100
—
SNMOC
A
—
—
4
60
—
—
62
—
—
—
—
B
—
—
4
63
—
—
62
—
—
—
—
C
—
—
100
95
—
—
100
—
—
—
—
SVOC
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
C
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-------
Table 2-9. Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Carbonyls, VOC, Metals, SNMOC, and SVOC (Continued)
Site
GAFL
GPCO
GPMS
GRMS
HACT
HOMI
INDEM
ITCMI
JAMS
KITN
LDTN
LOTN
MAWI
MCAZ
Monitoring
Sites
Gandy in
Tampa, FL
Grand
Junction, CO
Gulfport, MS
Grenada, MS
Hartford, CT
Houghton
Lake, MI
Gary, IN
Sault Sainte
Marie, MI
Jackson, MS
Kingsport, TN
Loudon, TN
Nashville, TN
Madison, WI
Phoenix, AZ
Sampling Period3
Starting
Date
1/4/04
1/22/04
1/10/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
1/10/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
1/10/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
1/1/04
10/6/04
1/4/04
Ending
Date
12/29/04
12/29/04
10/12/04
12/23/04
5/27/04
2/3/04
12/29/04
12/29/04
10/2/04
8/19/04
12/29/04
12/23/04
12/29/04
3/16/04
Carbonyl
A
57
57
23
29
25
3
53
—
23
19
31
23
14
—
B
62
60
25
32
25
3
58
—
25
20
33
31
15
—
C
92
95
92
91
100
100
91
—
92
95
94
74
93
—
VOC
A
—
55
25
31
—
2
—
60
25
19
31
25
15
o
J
B
60
25
32
3
61
25
20
33
31
15
13
C
92
100
97
67
98
100
95
94
81
100
100
Metals
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
28
—
—
B
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
29
—
—
C
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
97
—
—
SNMOC
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
C
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
SVOC
A
—
—
—
—
52
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
—
—
—
60
—
—
—
—
—
—
C
—
—
—
—
87
—
—
—
—
—
—
-------
Table 2-9. Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Carbonyls, VOC, Metals, SNMOC, and SVOC (Continued)
site
NBIL
NBNJ
ORFL
PGMS
PSAZ
QVAZ
RTPNC
S4MO
SFSD
SKFL
Monitoring
Sites
Northbrook in
Chicago, IL
New
Brunswick, NJ
Orlando, FL
Pascagoula,
MS
Supersite in
Phoenix, AZ
Queen Valley
in Phoenix,
AZ
Research
Triangle Park,
NC
St. Louis, MO
Site #4
Sioux Falls,
SD
Skyview in
Tampa, FL
Sampling Period3
Starting
Date
1/4/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
1/10/04
1/4/04
1/10/04
8/1/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
7/20/04
Ending
Date
12/29/04
12/29/04
12/30/04
12/23/04
3/16/04
3/10/04
11/17/04
12/29/04
12/29/04
12/29/04
Carbonyl
A
59
52
21
—
—
9
63
62
28
B
65
53
26
—
—
9
68
71
28
C
91
95
81
—
—
100
93
87
100
VOC
A
58
60
—
27
12
5
—
65
67
—
B
61
65
27
13
6
66
71
C
95
92
100
92
83
98
94
Metals
A
—
—
—
—
61
—
B
—
—
—
—
61
—
C
—
—
—
—
100
—
SNMOC
A
42
—
15
—
—
9
67
B
43
—
15
—
—
9
71
C
98
—
100
—
—
100
94
SVOC
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
—
—
—
—
—
C
—
—
—
—
—
—
-------
Table 2-9. Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Carbonyls, VOC, Metals, SNMOC, and SVOC (Continued)
Site
SLMO
SLND
SPAZ
SPIL
SYFL
TUMS
YFMI
—
Monitoring
Sites
St. Louis, MO
(Site #1)
Spirit Lake
Nation, ND
South
Phoenix, AZ
Schiller Park
in Chicago, IL
Sydney in
Plant City, FL
Tupelo, MS
Detroit, MI
Overall
Sampling Period3
Starting
Date
1/4/04
1/22/04
1/4/04
1/4/04
1/5/04
1/10/04
10/6/04
—
Ending
Date
2/3/04
12/29/04
3/16/04
12/29/04
12/29/04
12/23/04
12/29/04
—
Carbonyl
A
5
—
—
—
60
25
—
1203
B
5
—
—
—
63
27
—
1326
C
100
—
—
—
95
93
—
91
VOC
A
—
25
13
57
—
26
14
1123
B
—
29
13
60
27
14
1197
C
—
86
100
95
96
100
94
Metals
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
225
B
—
—
—
—
—
—
227
C
—
—
—
—
—
—
99
SNMOC
A
5
—
—
—
—
—
264
B
5
—
—
—
—
—
272
C
100
—
—
—
—
—
97
SVOC
A
—
23
—
—
—
9
84
B
—
26
—
—
—
12
98
C
—
88
—
—
—
75
86
to
.u
to
a Begins with 1st valid sample and includes all five types.
A = Valid Samples
B = Total Number of Samples
C = Completeness (%)
-------
3.0 Summary of the 2004 UATMP Data
This section summarizes the data gathered during the 2004 UATMP reporting year. A
total of 70 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: hydrocarbons, halogenated hydrocarbons, and polar compounds.
These VOC compound groups and 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 L. Specifically:
• Appendix C: 2004 Summary Tables for VOC Monitoring;
Appendix D: 2004 Summary Tables for SNMOC Monitoring;
• Appendix E: 2004 Summary Tables for Carbonyl Monitoring;
• Appendix F: 2004 Summary Tables for SVOC Monitoring;
• Appendix G: 2004 Summary Tables for Metals Monitoring;
Appendix H: 2004 VOC Raw Monitoring Data;
Appendix I: 2004 SNMOC Raw Monitoring Data;
Appendix J: 2004 Carbonyl Raw Monitoring Data;
Appendix K: 2004 SVOC Raw Monitoring Data; and
• Appendix L: 2004 Metal Raw Monitoring Data.
Nearly 106,045 urban air toxics VOC and carbonyl data concentrations (including
duplicate and replicate samples) were collected at the 43 sites for the 2004 UATMP reporting
year. Additionally, eight sites chose to sample for speciated nonmethane organic compounds
(SNMOC) accounting for another 27,540 data concentrations. Semivolatile data were collected
at three sites totaling 1,597 data concentrations. Metals data were collected at five sites totaling
5-1
-------
nearly 2,926 data concentrations. These data were analyzed on a site-specific basis and results
are presented in Sections 4.0 through 20.0. Although 44 stations are listed in Section 2 of this
document, the Boston, MA (BOMA) site did not sample for either VOCs or carbonyls.
3.1 Data Summary Parameters
The summary tables in Appendices C through G were uploaded into a database for air
quality statistical analysis. This section examines five different data summary parameters for
VOCs and/or carbonyl compounds only: 1) number of sampling detects, 2) concentration range,
3) geometric means, 4) prevalence, and 5) correlation. The following paragraphs review the
basic findings determined from the statistical analysis.
To better understand, the following sections, it is important to know how the
concentration data were treated. First, all duplicate and replicate samples were averaged in order
to calculate one concentration for each compound for each sample day at each site. Second, m,p-
xylene and o-xylene concentrations were summed together and are henceforth referred to as
"total xylenes" or "xylenes (total)" throughout the remainder of this report, with the exception of
Table 3-1, where results are broken down into m,p-xy\ene and o-xylene.
3.1.1 Number of Sampling Detects
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 summarize sampling detects of the 70 VOC and carbonyl
concentrations. Less than 39 percent of the pollutants sampled were above the MDL. Of those
that were detected:
• 30.3 percent were hydrocarbons;
• 22.4 percent were halogenated hydrocarbons;
7.0 percent were polar compounds; and
40.4 percent were carbonyl compounds.
5-2
-------
The percentages determined for 2004 are consistent with those determined for the 2001-2003
UATMP data. Acetaldehyde, acetone, butyr/isobutyraldehyde, and formaldehyde had the
greatest number of detectable values reported in samples (> 1,200), while seven compounds had
zero detects (see Tables 3-1 and 3-2).
3.1.2 Concentration Range
Nearly 85 percent of the detects had concentration values less than 1 ppbv, consistent
with the trends found in the 2001-2003 data. Less than 2 percent had concentrations greater than
5 ppbv. Carbonyl compounds were observed in the highest number of samples with
concentrations greater than 5 ppbv (247); halogenated hydrocarbons were observed the least (8).
At least one compound sampled had a concentration greater than 5 ppbv on 72 of 107 total
sampling days. Twenty-five of the 70 compounds monitored never exceeded 1 ppbv.
The range of detectable values for each site is listed in Table 3-3. The CUSD, DEMI,
GPCO, GPMS, GRMS, INDEM, NBIL, NBNJ, and SLND sites had maximum concentration
values over 100 ppbv, which is unusually high when compared to the other sites. S4MO had the
greatest number of detects (1,776), as it did in 2003, while INDEM had the greatest number of
samples with concentrations greater than 5 ppbv (53).
3.1.3 Geometric Means
The geometric mean is the central tendency of lognormally distributed data, and can be
calculated by taking the "n"1" 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 or low 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 (50.37 ppbv), while the SPAZ site
had the highest geometric mean for total hydrocarbons (13.84 ppbv). The highest total
halogenated hydrocarbon geometric mean was at APMI (5.79 ppbv). These three sites had the
-------
highest geometric means for each respective VOC compound type in 2003 as well. The INDEM
site has the highest total carbonyl geometric mean (27.38 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. Beginning
with the 2003 UATMP, prevalence refers only to compounds that are identified by EPA as
cancer or noncancer compounds. 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 a cancer and noncancer compound.
UATMP concentrations are normalized based on the toxicity factor of the compound.
Accordingly, multiple compounds can be compared based on their toxicity factors on a common
level. 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 that have high measured concentrations (e.g., acetylene) are not considered
prevalent. Of the 261 total UATMP compounds, less than 100 compounds have either a URE
for cancer or RfC for noncancer (Tables 3-5a and 3-5b). Only the VOC and carbonyl
compounds (which are measured at 43 of the 44 total sites) will be used to determine nationwide
prevalence.
Each UATMP site is ranked for the level of toxicity of compounds measured. Inter- and
intra-site comparisons of the toxic compounds can now be performed because of the
normalization, and provide useful insight in and among the urban and rural areas. Site-specific
prevalence (presented in each state section) includes each compound type (VOC, metals, etc.)
sampled by each site, not just VOC and carbonyl compounds as used for nationwide prevalence.
For sites that measured both VOC and SNMOC, only VOC factors into site-specific prevalence.
5-4
-------
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 to distinguish between the most prevalent
compounds program-wide identified by the 2004 UATMP with the most prevalent compounds in
urban air pollution.
For the 2004 UATMP, a compound is considered prevalent if its average cancer and/or
noncancer toxicity across the network of sites contributed to the top 95 percent of the total
toxicity weighting for the network. Of the 18 VOC and carbonyl compounds with URE factors,
the top 12 contributed to 95 percent of the total cancer toxicity weight. Of the 33 VOC and
carbonyl compounds with RfC factors, the top 11 pollutants contributed to 95 percent of the total
noncancer toxicity weight. Tables 3-5a-b summarize the toxicity analysis. Cancer risk per
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 2004 UATMP, the program-wide prevalent compounds, organized by compound
group (as discussed further in Section 3.2) are as follows:
HYDROCARBONS
- 1,3-Butadiene
- Benzene
- Xylenes (total)
HALOGENATED HYDROCARBONS
- 1,2-Dichloroethane
- 1,2-Dichloropropane
- Bromomethane
- Carbon Tetrachloride
- Chloroprene
- cis-1,3 - Dichloropropene
- />-Dichlorobenzene
3-5
-------
- Tetrachloroethylene
- Vinyl Chloride
POLAR COMPOUNDS
- Acrylonitrile
- Acetonitrile
- Ethyl Aery late
CARBONYL COMPOUNDS
- Acetaldehyde
- Formaldehyde
Of the prevalent compounds, six have both cancer and noncancer weightings:
• 1,2-dichloropropene;
• 1,3-butadiene;
• Acetaldehyde;
• Acrylonitrile;
• Benzene;
• c/5-l,3-dichlroropropene; and
• Tetrachloroethylene.
The other cancer compounds are:
• 1,2-dichloroethane;
• Ethyl acrylate;
• Carbon tetrachloride;
• />-dichlorobenzene; and
• Vinyl chloride.
The remaining noncancer compounds are:
• Acetonitrile;
3-6
-------
• Formaldehyde;
• Bromomethane;
• Chloroprene; and
• Xylenes (total).
Readers interested in closer examination of data trends for the less program-wide
prevalent compounds should refer to the summary tables in Appendices C through G, and the
raw monitoring data in Appendices H through L. However, readers should note the limitations
posed by data sets with many nondetect observations.
3.1.5 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 0.
Therefore, the sign (positive or negative) and magnitude of the Pearson correlation coefficient
indicate the direction and strength, respectively, of data correlations. Generally, correlations
greater than 0.75 or less than -0.75 are classified as very strong; correlation between 0.50 and
0.75 and -0.50 and -0.75 are classified as strong; and correlations between 0.25 and 0.50 and
-0.25 and -0.50 are classified as moderately strong. Correlations between -0.25 and 0.25 are
classified as weak.
5-7
-------
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 0.
• 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 21),
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.
Pearson correlation computations can be found in Section 3.3.
3.2 UATMP Compound Groups
The 70 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.
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 2004 UATMP measure a subset of 37 of these
volatile compounds.
5-9
-------
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
3-10
-------
wind information. Additionally, composite back trajectory maps were prepared to identify
where air flow originated 24 hours prior to being sampled.
3.3.1 Maximum and Average Temperature
Temperature is often a component of high ambient air concentrations for some
compounds, such as ozone. Temperature helps 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. Acrylonitrile had the
strongest correlation with maximum temperature (-0.16), while acrylonitrile, 1,3-butadiene and
bromomethane shared the strongest correlation with average temperature (-0.13, -0.13, and 0.13,
respectively). It should be noted that, although the correlations shown in Table 3-6 are low, they
are mostly positive, which indicates that an increase in temperature is associated with a
proportionate increase in concentrations.
The poor correlation across the majority of the sites is not surprising due to the complex
and diverse local meteorology associated with the monitoring sites. For this report, 44 sites are
spread across 17 states. As discussed in Sections 4 through 20, the temperature parameters
correlate much better at certain individual sites.
3.3.2 Moisture
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. Higher dew point and wet bulb
temperatures indicate increasing amounts of moisture in the air, while relative humidity is
expressed as a percentage with 100 percent indicating saturation.
3-11
-------
As illustrated in Table 3-6, the three moisture parameters had mostly weak correlations
with the prevalent compounds. The strongest correlation was between the relative humidity and
the p-dichlorobenzene concentration (-0.30). The sites used for sampling in the 2004 program
year were located in different climatic zones ranging from a desert climate (Arizona) to a very
moist climate (Florida). Bromomethane concentrations had the strongest correlations with wet
bulb and dew point temperatures (0.22 with wet bulb temperature and 0.24 with dew point
temperature, respectively). As discussed in Sections 4 through 20, 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 M-component of the wind is the vector value traveling toward the x-axis in a
Cartesian grid coordinate system. The u-component is calculated as follows:
w-component = -1* (wind speed) * sin(wind direction, degrees)
Similarly, the v-component of the wind 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 allows averaging and correlation analyses with the
measured concentrations.
3-12
-------
As shown in Table 3-6, the u- and v-components of the wind 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 valleys influence
wind speed and wind direction. The sites used for sampling in the 2004 program year are
located in different geographic zones ranging from a mountainous region (Colorado) to a plains
region (South Dakota). Additionally, sites located downwind may correlate better with the
measured concentrations than sites upwind. Acrylonitrile concentrations had the strongest
correlation with the w-component of the wind speed (-0.19), while bromomethane had the
strongest correlation with the v-component of the wind speed (-0.14). As discussed in
Sections 4.0 through 20.0, the u- and v-components correlate much better at certain individual
sites.
Wind is created through changes in pressure. The magnitude of the pressure difference
(or pressure gradient) over an area is directly proportional to the magnitude of the wind speed.
The direction of the wind flow is governed by the direction of the pressure gradient. Sea level
pressure is the local station pressure corrected for elevation, in effect bringing all geographic
locations down to sea-level, thus making different topographical areas comparable.
Overall, sea level pressure correlated weakly with ambient concentration. The strongest
positive correlation occurred with 1,3-butadiene (0.19), while the strongest negative correlation
occurred with/>-dichlorobenzene (-0.12).
3.3.4 Back Trajectory Analysis
A back trajectory analysis traces the origin of an air parcel in relation to the location
where it is currently being measured. The method of constructing a back trajectory uses the
Lagrangian frame of reference. In simplest terms, an air parcel can be traced back one hour to a
new point of reference based on the current measured wind speed and direction. At this new
point of reference that is now one hour prior to the current observation, the wind speed and
direction are used again to determine where the air was one hour before. Each time segment is
referred to as a "time step." Typical back trajectories go 24 to 48 hours prior using surface and
3-13
-------
upper air meteorological observations, which was used for this report. Back trajectory
calculations are also governed by other meteorological parameters, such as pressure and
temperature.
Gridded meteorological data and the model used for back trajectory analyses were
prepared and developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The model used is the Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT).
More information on the model can be found at http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html.
The meteorological data represented the 2004 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 discuss these results in full detail.
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 five parameters to evaluate the impact of motor vehicle emissions on
ambient air quality:
• Estimated motor vehicle ownership data;
• BTEX concentration profiles;
Estimated daily traffic estimates;
3-14
-------
• Mobile source tracer analysis; and
• Reformulated gasoline (RFG) analysis.
3.4.1 Motor Vehicle Ownership Data
As an indicator of motor vehicle emissions near the UATMP monitoring sites, Table 3-7
presents estimates of the number of cars owned by residents in the county in which the monitor
is located. Car registration data are available at the state-level (EIA, 2004). 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 and Figure 3-1. The
data in the table and figure indicate a positive linear correlation between motor vehicle
ownership and ambient air concentrations of hydrocarbons. A Pearson correlation calculation
from this data yields a very strong positive correlation (0.82), where greater than 0.75 is
considered very strong. However, readers should keep in mind other factors that might impact
the reliability of motor vehicle ownership data as an indicator of ambient air monitoring data
results:
Estimates of higher car ownership surrounding a monitoring site do not
necessarily imply increased motor vehicle use in the immediate vicinity of a
monitoring site. Conversely, sparsely populated regions often contain heavily
traveled roadways.
Emissions sources in the area other than motor vehicles may significantly affect
levels of hydrocarbons in the ambient air.
3-15
-------
3.4.2 BTEX Concentration Profiles
The magnitude of emissions from motor vehicles generally depends on the volume of
traffic in urban areas, but the composition of these emissions depends more on vehicle design.
Because the distribution of vehicle designs (i.e., the relative number of motor vehicles of
different styles) is probably quite similar from one urban area to the next, the composition of air
pollution resulting from motor vehicle emissions is not expected to exhibit significant spatial
variations. In support of this hypothesis, previous air monitoring studies have observed
relatively constant composition of ambient air samples collected along heavily traveled urban
roadways (Conner et al., 1995). Roadside studies have found particularly consistent proportions
of four hydrocarbons (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and the xylene isomers - the "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 2004 UATMP
monitoring sites, Figure 3-2 compares concentration ratios for the BTEX compounds measured
during the 2004 UATMP to the ratios reported in a roadside study (Conner et al., 1995). This
comparison provides a qualitative depiction of how greatly motor vehicle emissions affect air
quality at the UATMP monitoring sites: the more similar the concentration ratios at a particular
monitoring site are to those of the roadside study, the more likely that motor vehicle emissions
impact ambient levels of hydrocarbons at that location.
As Figure 3-2 shows, the concentration ratios for BTEX compounds measured at nearly
every UATMP monitoring site bear some resemblance to the ratios reported in the roadside
study. The BTEX ratios at the ELNJ monitoring site appear to be the most similar to the
roadside study profile. For all monitoring sites, the toluene:ethylbenzene ratio is clearly the
largest value of the four ratios, with the exceptions of ITCMI, NBIL, and YFMI. The benzene:
ethylbenzene ratio is clearly the smallest value of the ratios, with the exceptions of CUSD,
DITN, ITCMI, LDTN, MAWI, NBIL, QVAZ, SFSD, and YFMI. These observations suggest,
though certainly do not prove, that emissions from motor vehicles significantly affect levels of
hydrocarbons in urban ambient air.
3-16
-------
3.4.3 Estimated Traffic Data
When a site is being characterized, a parameter often recorded is the number of vehicles
that pass the monitoring site on a daily basis. Traffic data were obtained from the site
information provided on EPA's Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) database, or by contacting state
and local agencies. Table 3-7 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 occurred at the SPIL and ELNJ sites, with over 214,900 and
170,000 vehicles passing by this monitoring site, respectively. SPIL is located near Interstate
294 near the Chicago-O'Hare International Airport, and ELNJ is located near exit 13 on
Interstate 95. The average hydrocarbon (total) value at ELNJ was 8.18 ppbv, which is ranked 6th
among sites that measured hydrocarbons. SPAZ, NBIL, PSAZ, MCAZ, and YFMI each had
average hydrocarbon concentrations greater than ELNJ, yet their traffic counts are ranked 10th,
15th, 42th, 27th, and 40th, respectively. At SPIL, the average hydrocarbon (total) value was only
4.96 ppbv, which ranked 15th. Specific characterizations for these sites appear in the separate
state sections. Estimated on-road county emissions were highest in Maricopa County, AZ,
which is the location of three UATMP sites (MCAZ, PSAZ, and SPAZ). The hydrocarbon
averages in Maricopa County, AZ were similar to one another (14.71 ppbv at SPAZ; 11.46 ppbv
at PSAZ; and 10.15 ppbv at MCAZ) and were or near the highest of the hydrocarbon
concentrations. Estimated non-road county emissions were also highest in Maricopa County,
AZ. Non-road emission sources include, but are not limited to, activities from airplanes,
construction vehicles, and lawn and garden equipment. As shown in Figure 3-3, there does not
appear to be a direct correlation between traffic counts and average hydrocarbon concentrations.
Please refer to Table 3-4 and Figure 3-3 for a more detailed look at mobile emissions and
average hydrocarbon concentrations. The calculated Pearson correlation was only 0.15,
indicating a weak relationship.
3.4.4 Mobile Source Tracer Analysis
Research has shown that acetylene can be used as a signature compound for automotive
emissions (Warneck, 1988; NRC, 1991), as this VOC is not typically emitted from biogenic or
3-17
-------
stationary sources. As summarized in Table 3-7, many UATMP sites are located in high traffic
areas (e.g., ELNJ and SPIL). Average site acetylene concentrations are also summarized in
Table 3-7. As shown in Figure 3-4, there does not appear to be a direct correlation with daily
traffic and acetylene concentrations. The calculated Pearson correlation was only 0.07 indicating
a weak relationship.
Nearly all of ethylene emissions are due to automotive sources, with the exception of
activities related to natural gas production and transmission. Ethylene is not detected as a VOC
by the TO-15 sampling method, but is detected using the SNMOC method. For sites that chose
the SNMOC option, ethylene to acetylene concentration ratios were computed and compared to a
ratio developed in numerous tunnel studies. An ethylene to acetylene ratio of 1.7 to 1 is
indicative of mobile sources (TNRCC, 2002). Of the sites that sampled SNMOC, NBIL's
ethylene to acetylene ratio was the closest to the expected 1.7 to 1 ratio (1.51 to 1). These results
are discussed further in the individual state sections.
3.4.5 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 use of gasoline that has 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-butyl ether (MTBE), ethanol, tert-amyl methyl ether
(TAME), and ethyl fert-butyl ether (ETBE). MTBE, TAME, and ETBE are compounds sampled
for the UATMP. The use of reformulated gasoline (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 Phase I RFG 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).
3-18
-------
Table 3-8 summarizes RFG programs pertaining to the UATMP sites. In reviewing the
VOC data for these sites, the purpose of this analysis was to determine: 1) if VOC concentrations
decreased during the RFG season; 2) if the BTEX compound concentrations decreased during
the RFG season; and 3) if there is 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 VOCs. 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-Buty\ Ether;
• Styrene;
• Toluene; and
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.
3-19
-------
If a site was in an MSA that participated in an 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 are 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 3-5 to 3-15 are graphical displays of site standard deviation versus
average concentration. This analysis is best suited for comparing variability across data
distributions for different sites and compounds. Most of the prevalent compounds are either in a
cluster (such as acrylonitrile), exhibit a positive linear correlation (such as 1,3-butadiene), or are
spread randomly (such as/>-dichlorobenzene). The coefficient of variation provides a relative
measure of variability by expressing variations to the magnitude of the arithmetic mean.
Seasonal variability is 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 3-16 to 3-26 provide a graphic display of the average concentrations by season for the
prevalent compounds.
Higher concentrations of the prevalent compounds tended to be sampled in autumn and
winter, although high concentrations were also sampled in other seasons. Spring is when the
lowest concentrations were measured. Other compound-specific trends were also noted, such as
3-20
-------
high concentration of: 1) benzene were sampled in winter; 2) formaldehyde in summer; and 3)
carbon tetrachloride in autumn. However, a quick review of the profiles reveals most
compounds experienced noticeable concentration evaluations or "spikes" across the sites.
3.6 UATMP NATTS Sites
Additional analyses were conducted on the EPA-designated National Air Toxics Trends
System (NATTS) sites (NATTS sites are designated in bold in Table 2-2). These monitoring
sites can be used to evaluate air quality, similar to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) monitors that measure criteria pollutants. The two additional analyses are: federal
regulation analysis and emission tracer analysis.
3.6.1 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 sites are already subject to emission limitations. Consequently, the
ambient concentrations of UATMP compounds recorded at the monitoring sites reflect, to some
degree, the emission limitations required 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 sites should decrease as facilities and
mobile sources achieve compliance with the new regulations.
3.6.1.1 Regulations for Stationary Sources
The national regulations that have the potential to reduce emissions of UATMP
pollutants from stationary sources are standards for air toxics developed under section 112(d) of
the CAA (Hazardous Air Pollutants, Emission Standards). VOC rules under section 183 are no
longer included in the UATMP reports because they apply to products and coatings
manufactured after 1999, and have been fully implemented.
3-21
-------
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 (see 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) National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 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. Please refer to Section 3.6.1.3 for further
details.
3.6.1.2 Regulations for Mobile Sources
For mobile sources, two sets of regulations have the potential to reduce ambient
concentrations of UATMP pollutants: federal and California motor vehicle emissions standards
(Tier I and II, CA LEV and LEV II, and NLEV) and Phase II Reformulated Gasoline, which is
discussed in Section 3.4.4 of this report.
Sections 202(g) and 202(h) of the 1990 CAA directs EPA to establish motor vehicle
emission standards, and section 202(i) directs EPA to determine if further regulations are
warranted. The federally mandated tailpipe emission standards, or Tier I standards, were phased
in between 1994 and model year 1997. The State of California developed its own, more
stringent standards (CA LEV) in 1990 that were phased in through model year 2003 (DieselNet,
2005).
As a segway between CA LEV and Tier I standards and prior to implementation of the
Tier II standards (see below), the National Low Emissions Vehicles (NLEV) program was
developed. 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 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. Once
adopted, the standards are enforceable in the same manner that other federal motor vehicle
3-22
-------
emissions control requirements are enforceable. Under section 177 of the CAA amendments, all
states were required to choose and implement either NLEV or CA LEV standards. New York,
Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine opted to adopt California's standards (US EPA, 2003c).
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).
In 1998, California adopted LEV II standards, which are even more stringent than the
original standards, to be phased between 2004 and 2007. Federal Tier II standards were adopted
in 1999 and are to be phased in between 2004 and 2010. Both of these standards will apply to all
vehicle weight classes (under 8500 Ibs), including SUVs, and diesel-powered vehicles
(DieselNet, 2005).
3.6.1.3 Future 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 NATTS sites, as
identified in Table 2-2. For this analysis, facilities located within 10 miles of each monitoring
site were identified using GIS (Geographic Information System) software and the 2002 NEI
(National Emissions Inventory). Emission records for UATMP compounds and their associated
Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) ID codes at these facilities were then
retrieved from the NEI. However, these records were limited to what the site actually sampled.
For example, BOMA sampled only for metals, and only the UATMP metal compound emission
records and the associated MACT ID codes were retrieved.
3-23
-------
These MACT codes correlate directly to a specific NESHAP regulations. Only MACT
codes corresponding to NESHAPs implemented after 2002 or later were considered in this
analysis. It is assumed that NESHAPs implemented prior to 2003 will be reflected in the 2002
emission estimates from the NEI. Regulations with earlier compliance dates would already be in
place and no future emission reduction would be achieved. For this analysis, New Source
Performance Standards (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 sites are not available, projections of the emission trends associated with the mobile
source regulations were also not included in this analysis. These air regulations were reviewed
to determine the types of sources and pollutants they applied to, percent reduction expected, and
date compliance is required. Information about these regulations is provided in Table 3-9.
Anticipated reduction percentages were then applied to the applicable pollutant emissions
at each facility. 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. The
pollutant emissions reduction at each facility were then summed to the pollutant level, and then
summed by pollutant-type (VOC, metals, etc). The pollutant-type emission reductions were
finally summed to the NATTS site level. The regulations applicable to each NATTS site and the
anticipated reductions are listed in Table 3-10. Further discussion is in each applicable state
section.
3.6.2 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. This analysis only reviewed NATTS sites in which a pollutant exceeded the Noncancer
3-24
-------
Benchmark. Additionally, the RfC Noncancer Benchmark value is plotted to reflect the
noncancer exceedance concentrations. Results are discussed in the individual state sections.
3.7 Analysis of Additional Compound Types
Table 3-11 summarizes the average metal compounds, SVOC, and SNMOC
concentrations that were sampled during the 2004 UATMP. Five sites opted to sample for
metals, three for SVOC, and eight for SNMOC. S4MO (38.47 ng/m3) measured the highest
metal concentrations of the five sites. Of the two Nashville sites, EATN measured a higher
average metal compounds concentration than LOTN. YFMI (52.83 ng/m3) measured the highest
SVOC concentrations of the three sites. NBIL (161.92 ppbC) measured the highest SNMOC
concentrations of the eight sites. Of the two St. Louis sites, S4MO measured a higher average
SNMOC concentration than SLMO (although SLMO sampled for a small portion of the year).
3.8 Site Trends Analysis
Table 2-1 represents past UATMP participation for sites also participating in this year's
program. For sites that participated prior to 2003 and are still participants through the 2004
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 Site Trends in Annual Averages
Figures 3-27 through 3-50 compare the yearly average concentrations of 1,3-butadiene,
benzene, and formaldehyde for each of the twenty-four sites. At sites where all three compounds
were sampled, formaldehyde measured the highest average annual concentration at almost all
sites, while 1,3-butadiene, with few exceptions, consistently measured the lowest.
Of the 20 sites that consistently 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 2004 for seven of the 20 sites. For
3-25
-------
CANJ, the site with the most years of participation, the highest average annual formaldehyde
concentration was sampled in 2004.
Average annual concentrations of 1,3-butadiene were highest at SFSD in 2002 and
PGMS in 2001 (> 1.00 ppbv). These sites had average annual concentrations nearly five times
higher than 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 YFMI, with averages greater
than 6.00 ppbv in both 2001 and 2002. Both PSAZ and SPAZ measured annual benzene
concentrations greater than 1.00 ppbv during some years. However, at most sites, the average
annual benzene concentration was less than 0.50 ppbv. CANJ sampled its highest average
benzene concentration in 1996.
3.9 UATMP Historical MSA Trends Analysis
A new analysis added to the 2004 UATMP report is the evaluation of historical
concentrations and emissions for MS As of sites participating in 2004. Since the passage of the
1990 CAA (USEPA, 2005b), EPA has spent considerable time and resources in establishing and
enabling federal regulations to reduce emissions for HAPs. The goal of this analysis is to review
HAP ambient monitoring and emissions from the last 14 years (1990-2003, if available) across
UATMP MS As with the purpose of characterizing HAP trends at each of these MS As. This
analysis considers the HAP concentration trends at each 2004 participating MSA, the HAP
emission trends at each of those MS As, and if the HAP concentration and emission trends
correlate.
3.9.1 Pollutants of Interest
Several EPA programs have been built around subsets of the total HAPs, such as the
section 112(c)(6) program (USEPA, 1998), the section 112(k) program (USEPA, 2005c), and the
3-26
-------
core HAPs designated by EPA under the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) (USEPA,
2005d). Some of these programs examine only carcinogenic and/or non-carcinogenic HAPs,
while others may focus on HAPs from mobile sources. For this study, each of the targeted HAPs
has corresponding cancer and/or noncancer toxicity factors. The following cancer and
noncancer HAPs were chosen to represent stationary and mobile sources: acetaldehyde, benzene,
cadmium, ethylbenzene, and formaldehyde. The following noncancer HAPs were also included:
lead, mercury, toluene, and xylenes (total). As with the regulation analysis, these records were
limited to what the site actually sampled during the 14-year period.
Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde do not have multiple
isomers or species, and are also considered their own pollutant group. For pollutants that have
multiple isomers or species, such as the metallic HAP compounds, lead compound, cadmium
compound, and mercury compound averages were computed. For the individual xylene species,
the isomer concentrations were summed to compute a total xylene value.
3.9.2 MSA Definitions
Twenty-one (21) MSAs were considered in this analysis, and they are listed in Table 3-
12. An MSA is defined by the counties associated with the MSA from the Office of
Management and Budget (Census Bureau, 2005). For example, Camden County, NJ (FIPS =
34007), in which CANJ (AQS site ID = 34-007-0003) is a UATMP monitor in that county, is
part of the Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA. According to the 2003
U.S. Census Bureau, ten other counties are part of this MSA:
New Castle County, DE (FIPS = 10003);
Cecil County, MD (24015);
Burlington County, NJ (34005);
Gloucester County, NJ (34015);
Salem County, NJ (34033);
Bucks County, PA (42017);
3-27
-------
Chester County, PA (42029);
Delaware County, PA (42045);
Montgomery County, PA (42091); and
Philadelphia County, PA (42101).
Ambient monitors sampling in these counties were utilized to calculate the MSA averages.
3.9.3 Time Period of Interest
The time period of interest spanned from 1990-2003. The first HAP emission inventory
developed by EPA was for the 1990 base year to coincide the passage of the 1990 CAA
amendments. HAP emission inventories were also developed for the 1996, 1999, and 2002 base
years, thus providing emissions data before and after several regulations from the CAA
amendments were implemented. Specifically over the last 10 years, EPA has implemented
several air regulations to target stationary and mobile source HAP emissions, and these
reductions should correspond to reductions in ambient monitoring concentrations and emissions.
This time period also captures the period when a number of federal, state, and local
agency HAP monitors and networks were placed or expanded across the nation, including the
UATMP, PAMS, IMPROVE, and Pilot City. The time period also does not conflict with other
EPA work in calculating nationwide HAP trends. Beginning in 2004, EPA established the
NATTS monitoring network of 22 sites to serve a similar function as the well-established criteria
pollutant monitoring network.
3.9.4 Methodology
In calculating trends for this study, two types of historical information were retrieved
from EPA: HAP ambient monitoring data and HAP emissions data.
3-28
-------
3.9.4.1 Historical Ambient Monitoring Data
The primary data sources for the historical HAP ambient monitoring data were from the
EPA historical archive (USEPA, 2004), the Air Quality Subsystem (AQS) (USEPA, 2005e), and
from the IMPROVE network (IMPROVE, 2004). The historical archive contains nationwide
HAP data from 1990-2000, the AQS data contains state/local/tribal-submitted data for 2001-
2003, and the IMPROVE data covers specific metal HAPs from 2001-2003. In fall 2004, EPA
compiled, supplemented, and quality-assured these three data sources into a single
comprehensive database. The concentrations were standardized to //g/m3. Additional quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) checks were performed on a subset of the entire data set for
approximately 30 HAPs.
To evaluate trends, historical annual MSA averages were calculated by first calculating
pollutant group averages. As described earlier, the individual metal species were averaged,
while the xylene species were summed together. Valid daily site averages from the pollutant
group averages were calculated. Most of the data in the merged database were daily samples,
and no adjustments were needed. For sub-daily data (hourly, 3-hour, 6-hour, etc.), a minimum of
18 hours of sampling data within a day was needed to establish a valid daily average. Thus, if a
site had seventeen 1-hour concentrations in a particular day, the average of those concentrations
would not be considered a valid daily average. Lastly, annual MSA averages were calculated
from the valid annual site averages. An MSA designation was applied to each of the sites. The
valid daily averages for each site within the MSA were averaged together for two time periods:
1990-1994 and 2002-2003.
3.9.4.2 Historical Emissions Data
Data from the NEI (USEPA, 2005a) for base years 1990, 1996, 1999, and 2002 were
retrieved from EPA for the targeted HAPs (Emissions data for 1990 are at the county-level, but
still delineated between stationary and mobile sources. Emissions data for 1996, 1999, and 2002
contain stationary source data at the facility- and county-level). County-level emissions by HAP
were then calculated. Emissions for each base year were summed to the county-level by each
3-29
-------
targeted HAP. Stationary and mobile source emission types were retained. Lastly, MSA-level
emissions by HAP were computed. Using the MSA-county designations, the MS As of interest
were summed by HAP and emission type.
3.9.4.3 2004 UATMP Ambient Monitoring Data
To compare these historical data with the concentration data for this report, a 2004 MSA
concentration was calculated. This concentration was computed using data from all UATMP
sites within the specified MSA and that sampled for a particular pollutant type. For example, to
determine the 2004 Chicago MSA total xylene concentration, data was used from both SPIL and
NBIL (but not INDEM because it did not sample for VOC).
3.9.4.4 Results
Discussion of each MSA takes place in the individual state sections. Tables 3-13a-i
summarize the emissions and concentration trends by HAP and MSA. Due to limited
availability of ambient monitoring data, average concentrations from 1990-1994 and 2002-2003
were calculated. A total of 112 MSA and HAP combinations were possible for this analysis.
To evaluate a trend, a comparison of the average concentrations from two time periods
was made. For each MSA and HAP, there were 38 combinations that had concentration values
during both of these time periods; of those, over 84 percent of the HAPs measured across the
MSAs presented a decrease in their HAP concentrations.
These sub-time periods overlap with the NEI base year (1990-1993) and latest year
(2002) emissions inventory. When comparing emission estimates from the 1990 NEI and the
most recent 2002 NEI, HAP emissions for each MSA decreased substantially; total emissions
across the MSAs decreased from 447,173 tpy to 220,924 tpy (51 percent reduction).
3-30
-------
3.10 Summary of Additional Anlayses
To aid in the review and understanding of this report, Table 3-14 is a summary of the
additional analyses by site, as described in Sections 3.6 and 3.9. All sites received the same
statistical, meteorological, and background analyses, but some sites had extra analyses die to the
nature of the site (NATTS, RFG-area), the pollutants measured (mobile tracer, site-specific
trends), and or adverse health concentrations (emission tracer).
3-31
-------
Figure 3-1. Comparison of Average Hydrocarbon Concentration vs. Vehicle Registration
oo
to
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
in
_o>
o
IE
o>
> 2,000,000
e
0)
«
O
o
1,500,000
1,000,000
500
6 8 10
Arithmetic Mean of Hydrocarbons (ppbv)
12
14
16
-------
Figure 3-2. Comparison of Concentration Ratios for BTEX Compounds vs. Roadside Study
DITN toluene-
ethylbenzene ratio 20.999
Roadside APMI BTUT
CANJ CHNJ CUSD
Monitoring Location
DEMI DITN EATN
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
I Toluene-Ethylbenzene
DXylenes-Ethyl benzene
-------
Figure 3-2. Comparison of Concentration Ratios for BTEX Compounds vs. Roadside Study
(Continued)
Roadside ELNJ
GPCO GPMS GRMS ITCMI JAMS
Monitoring Location
KITN
LDTN
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
I Toluene-Ethylbenzene
DXylenes-Ethyl benzene
-------
Figure 3-2. Comparison of Concentration Ratios for BTEX Compounds vs. Roadside Study
(Continued)
Roadside LOTN
MAWI MCAZ NBIL NBNJ PGMS
Monitoring Location
PSAZ
QVAZ
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
I Toluene-Ethylbenzene
DXylenes-Ethyl benzene
-------
Figure 3-2. Comparison of Concentration Ratios for BTEX Compounds vs. Roadside Study
(Continued)
Roadside
S4MO
SFSD
SLND SPAZ
Monitoring Location
SPIL
TUMS
YFMI
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
I Toluene-Ethylbenzene
DXylenes-Ethyl benzene
-------
Figure 3-3. Comparison of Average Hydrocarbon Concentration vs. Daily Traffic Counts
250,000
200,000
150,000
*j '
3
O
O
o
it
100,000
50,000
Pearson Correlation = 0.15
6 8 10
Average Hydrocarbon Concentration (ppbv)
12
14
16
-------
Figure 3-4. Comparison of Average Acetylene Concentration vs. Daily Traffic Counts
oo
oo
250,000
200,000
150,000
+j
c
D
O
O
o
it
100,000
50,000
Pearson Correlation = 0.07
468
Average Acetylene Concentration (ppbv)
10
12
-------
Figure 3-5. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of 1,3-Butadiene Across 27 Sites
oo
VO
0.16
0.14
0.12
= 0.1
o
5
a
ra
•o
c
ra
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.1 0.15
Average Concentration (ppbv)
0.2
0.25
-------
12
10
Figure 3-6. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Acetaldehyde Across 34 Sites
oo
.u
o
c
o
5
a
ra
•o
c
ra
Average Concentration (ppbv)
-------
Figure 3-7. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Acetonitrile Across 28 Sites
80
70
60
c 50
o
5
Q
ra
•o
c
20
10
+
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Average Concentration (ppbv)
-------
Figure 3-8. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Acrylonitrile Across 26 Sites
oo
.u
to
3.5
= 2.5
o
5
a
ra
•o
c
ra
2
1.5
0.5
-*—-•-
0.5
1 1.5
Average Concentration (ppbv)
2.5
-------
2 T
1.8
1.6
1.4
Figure 3-9. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Benzene Across 33 Sites
c
o
5
a
1.2
1 --
3 0.8
(0
0.6
0.4
0.2
* *• *
t *
0.5
1 1.5
Average Concentration (ppbv)
2.5
-------
Figure 3-10. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Bromomethane Across 9 Sites
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
c
o
I 0.05
0)
Q
•3 0.04
c
ra
55
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.15 0.2 0.25
Average Concentration (ppbv)
0.3
0.35
0.4
-------
0.12 T-
0.1
Figure 3-11. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Carbon Tetrachloride Across 32 Sites
0.08
c
o
5
a
ra
•o
c
ra
0.06
0.04
• *
0.02
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Average Concentration (ppbv)
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
-------
Figure 3-12. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Formaldehyde Across 34 Sites
40
35
30
= 25
o
5
a
ra
•o
c
ra
20
15
10
-» r
10
15 20 25
Average Concentration (ppbv)
30
35
40
-------
Figure 3-13. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of p-Dichlorobenzene Across 17 Sites
0.08 T
0.07
0.06
c 0.05
o
5
a
ra
•o
c
ra
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
•—*-
0.05
0.1 0.15
Average Concentration (ppbv)
0.2
0.25
0.3
-------
Figure 3-14. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Tetrachloroethylene Across 25 Sites
oo
.u
oo
•- 5
> °
0)
Q
ra
3 4
Average Concentration (ppbv)
-------
oo
.u
VO
1.2
0.8
c
o
5
a
ra
•o
c
ra
0.6
0.4
0.2
Figure 3-15. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Xylenes (Total) Across 32 Sites
0.5
1 1.5 2
Average Concentration (ppbv)
2.5
3.5
-------
0.35
Figure 3-16. Average Seasonal 1,3-Butadiene Concentration Comparison by Season
OJ
o
0.3 i
0.25
.a
0.2
O
O
0.1
0.05
Q_
<
CQ
<
O
I
O
a
co
o
LU
Q
<
LU
LLJ
O
O
CL
CD
CO ^
CO
Q_
CD
O
3 3
Site
o
CQ
CQ
CD
CL
o
OT
Q
OT
LL
D.
OT
CO
s
Z>
D Winter
I Spring
I Summer
D Autumn
-------
16
14
12
•> 10
.Q
Q.
Q.
O
* 8
0)
u
c
O R
O 6
Figure 3-17. Average Seasonal Acetaldehyde Concentration Comparison by Season
11
tt
Q_
<
O
CO
CO
O ~> ~> Q
Z 5 ? W
< < I Z)
O " O o
s
S W
LU S
Q <
^ Q 0<
—>
CO
OT O O Q
O
o
Site
D Winter
I Spring
1 Summer
D Autumn
-------
Figure 3-18. Average Seasonal Acetonitrile Concentration Comparison by Season
OJ
to
Site
D Winter
I Spring
I Summer
D Autumn
-------
Figure 3-19. Average Seasonal Acrylonitrile Concentration Comparison by Season
t.a
4
3.5
3
icentration (ppt
ro
ro ui
o
0
1.5
1
0.5
n
[|
IfltLQD rfll m •
DnlLllui fl
fl . Jl n Din
Jn
fin n rfl n II rfh
Site
DWinter
DSpring
DSummer
DAutumn
-------
Figure 3-20. Average Seasonal Benzene Concentration Comparison by Season
m
-
CO
Q N -I CO
Z < E S
cd w OT 2
D Winter
I Spring
I Summer
D Autumn
-------
0.4
Figure 3-21. Average Seasonal Bromomethane Concentration Comparison by Season
0.35
0.3
•> 0.25
a>
u
c
O 0.15
0.1
0.05
Q_
<
<
O
I
o
Q
OT
O
O
O
CL
CD
Site
o
CQ
O
s
^r
OT
D.
OT
D Winter
I Spring
I Summer
D Autumn
-------
Figure 3-22. Average Seasonal Carbon Tetrachloride Concentration Comparison by Season
0.25
0.2
1.0.15
Q.
0)
u
c
o
o
0.1
0.05
CL
<
CO O O o
Q 5 Z
I ^ ^ ^
-> Q Q
5 O W
3 O S
m °- °-
m CD CD
OT 1 1
loo
git
2
Site
g
CO
CQ
OT N
s <
CD
Q_
< i
> ^ _ _
0- O O> OT OT
Q Q
OT Z
N
1 2
1 >
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
D Autumn
-------
Figure 3-23. Average Seasonal Formaldehyde Concentration Comparison by Season
Site
D Winter
1 Spring
1 Summer
D Autumn
-------
OJ
oo
0.3
0.25
Figure 3-24. Average Seasonal p -Dichlorobenzene Concentration Comparison by Season
Site
D Winter
I Spring
I Summer
D Autumn
-------
Figure 3-25. Average Seasonal Tetrachloroethylene Concentration Comparison by Season
.
14
o
O
1
1
n ITI i-wn ru-n n
!-• rw-n ^ n
<
CQ
O
I
O
Q ^ Z
=J U £
o Q Q
LU
O
O
CL
CD
CL
CD
1 OT
§ 1
Site
o
—3
CQ
OT
D.
O
1
N
OT
CL
OT
D Winter
I Spring
D Summer
D Autumn
-------
Figure 3-26. Average Seasonal Xylenes (Total) Concentration Comparison by Season
OJ
o
D Winter
I Spring
I Summer
D Autumn
-------
Figure 3-27. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the APMI Monitoring Site
2.5
2
•§. 1.5
Q.
0)
u
c
o
o
0.5
2001
2002 2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-28. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the AZFL Monitoring Site
oo
to
oncentration (ppbv)
^ ro co
n ro en co en *
ill
o '-a
1-
0.5
/
/
/
/
7]
/
/
7\
/
S — 71
/ /
2001 2002 2003 2004
Year of Participation
• 1 ,3-Butadiene D Benzene D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-29. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the BTMO Monitoring Site
3.5
3
2.5-
Q.
Q.
0)
u
o 1.5
1-
0.5
2002
2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-30. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the CANJ Monitoring Site
.a
0.
3 4
c
o
c
0)
u
c
o
o
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year of Participation
2001
2002
2003
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-31. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the CHNJ Monitoring Site
3.5
3
2-5
Q.
Q.
I 2-
0)
u
c
O -I
o '-
0.5
2001
2002 2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-32. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the CUSD Monitoring Site
Oi
Oi
2.5
.a
a.
a.
a>
u
c
o
O
1-
0.5
2002
2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-33. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the DEMI Monitoring Site
12
10
Q.
a.
o
I 6
0)
u
c
o
O
2001
2002 2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-34. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the EATN Monitoring Site
OJ
oo
3.5-j
•3
Concentration (ppbv)
o ->• ro
D en ->. en ro en c
III
A
m
x —
/
/
^_
^
^ —
/
X
J
, —
^^
^•IJ
/
/
/
P X
2002 2003 2004
Year of Participation
• 1 ,3-Butadiene D Benzene D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-35. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the ELNJ Monitoring Site
2000
2001
2002
Year of Participation
2003
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-36. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the GAFL Monitoring Site
oo
o
t-
3.5
3
I 2.5
Q.
_a
C
O
•j= i
Concentral
o -».
D en ->. en i\
1
x — :
7i
/
x —
71
/
x —
!7|
/
x —
7]
X
2001 2002 2003 2004
Year of Participation
• 1 ,3-Butadiene D Benzene D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-37. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the GPMS Monitoring Site
4.5
3.5H
3
Q.
Q.
~ 2.5
o
'
0)
u
c
o
O
2
*-
1.5
0.5
2001
2002 2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-38. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the HOMI Monitoring Site
OJ
to
1.4
1.2
1-
.Q
a.
3 0.8
S
c
o
O
0.4
0.2
X X
X X
2002
2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-39. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the JAMS Monitoring Site
4.5
3.5
Q.
Q.
O
I 2-5
o
O
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2001
2002 2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-40. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the LOTN Monitoring Site
3.5
3
2.5-
Q.
Q.
O
•j= 2
0)
u
I
1-
0.5
2002
2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-41. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the NBNJ Monitoring Site
6-.
Q.
a.
o
i 3
0)
u
c
o
O
2
1-
2001
2002 2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-42. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the PGMS Monitoring Site
4.5
3.5
Q.
Q.
o
O
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2001
2002 2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-43. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the PSAZ Monitoring Site
1.2-.
0.8
Q.
a.
I °-6
0)
u
c
o
O
0.4
0.2
2001
2002 2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-44. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the QVAZ Monitoring Site
OJ
oo
0.3
0.25
0.2
I 0.15
0)
u
c
o
O
0.1
0.05
2001
2002 2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-45. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the S4MO Monitoring Site
OJ
VO
4.5
3.5
3
.
a.
Q.
~ 2.5
= 2
0) ^>
u
c
o
O
1.5
1-
0.5
\) ^3
2002
2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-46. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SFSD Monitoring Site
oo
o
4.5
4
3.5H
Q.
Q.
O
•• 2-5
0)
I
O
1.5
1
0.5
0
2000
2001
2002
Year of Participation
2003
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-47. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SLMO Monitoring Site
oo
25
20
•§. 15
Q.
ra
0)
u
c
o
O
10
\
2001
2002 2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-48. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SPAZ Monitoring Site
oo
to
1.4
1.2
Q.
3 0.8
8 0.6
c
o
O
0.4
0.2
2001
2002 2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-49. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the TUMS Monitoring Site
OJ
oo
6-1
Q.
a.
o
I 3
0)
u
c
o
O
2
1-
2001
2002 2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-50. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the YFMI Monitoring Site
OJ
oo
7-1
6
5
Q.
3 4
0)
u
c
o
O
2
1-
2001
2002 2003
Year of Participation
2004
11,3-Butadiene
D Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Table 3-1. Target Compound Detection 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-Trimethylbenzene
j«-,/7-Xylene
o-Xylene
1111
1119
303
1016
317
1107
673
1120
782
553
1090
1023
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.04
111
8.77
0.69
1.86
16.6
18.4
4.69
9.91
11.6
3.56
4.93
1.65
1.71
0.47
0.12
0.16
0.23
0.87
0.15
0.91
0.20
0.09
0.40
0.18
0.44
0.28
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.29
0.04
0.23
0.09
0.04
0.11
0.07
0.95
0.33
0.10
0.11
0.09
0.48
0.07
0.63
0.13
0.06
0.26
0.12
0.57
0.22
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.27
0.05
0.33
0.09
0.05
0.15
0.07
1.61
0.53
0.15
0.18
0.15
0.86
0.12
1.09
0.21
0.09
0.48
0.22
5.97
0.59
0.08
0.15
1.06
1.62
0.31
0.97
0.50
0.18
0.44
0.17
3.50
1.26
0.66
0.97
4.69
1.85
2.02
1.06
2.45
2.04
1.09
0.96
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Not Available
20
2
21
1004
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.06
8.99
0.11
0.34
0.76
0.97
0.09
0.15
0.10
0.09
0.06
0.09
0.14
0.09
0.12
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.21
0.10
0.18
0.11
2.20
0.03
0.09
0.04
2.26
0.29
0.60
0.40
-------
Table 3-1. Target Compound Detection Summaries of the VOC Concentrations (Continued)
Chemical1
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
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-l,3-Dichloropropene
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
#of
Detects
6
21
167
1108
Min.
Value
(ppbv)
0.05
0.10
0.04
0.05
Max.
Value
(ppbv)
0.13
7.09
14.36
1.94
Average
Value
(ppbv)
0.09
0.69
0.28
0.63
Mode
(ppbv)
0.14
0.04
0.52
Median
(ppbv)
0.09
0.18
0.06
0.59
1st
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.07
0.14
0.04
0.52
3rd
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.10
0.42
0.10
0.69
Standard
Deviation
(ppbv)
0.02
1.52
1.52
0.17
Coefficient
of
Variation
0.29
2.19
5.37
0.27
No Detects
1
4
Not Available
0.09
2.37
1.23
1.24
0.61
1.86
0.87
0.70
No Detects
1
1
70
1
2
o
6
10
i
2
1
53
Not Available
Not Available
0.06
0.32
0.11
0.07
0.10
0.07
0.13
0.05
0.47
Not Available
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.09
0.33
0.14
0.08
0.23
0.11
Not Available
Not
Available
0.12
0.26
0.12
0.16
0.09
0.32
0.12
0.01
0.13
0.02
0.13
0.55
0.21
Not Available
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.01
0.13
Not Available
0.05
0.16
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.02
0.17
-------
Table 3-1. Target Compound Detection Summaries of the VOC Concentrations (Continued)
Chemical1
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -butadiene
Methylene Chloride
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrach loroethylen e
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
#of
Detects
1120
47
Min.
Value
(ppbv)
0.05
0.03
Max.
Value
(ppbv)
1.70
0.05
Average
Value
(ppbv)
0.64
0.03
Mode
(ppbv)
0.50
0.03
Median
(ppbv)
0.59
0.03
1st
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.52
0.03
3rd
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.70
0.03
Standard
Deviation
(ppbv)
0.19
0.01
Coefficient
of
Variation
0.29
0.15
No Detects
564
0.08
3.30
0.21
0.08
0.13
0.09
0.20
0.26
1.27
No Detects
301
0.05
32.4
0.42
0.05
0.09
0.06
0.15
2.03
4.80
No Detects
79
0.05
1.18
0.14
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.15
0.17
1.27
No Detects
96
1114
953
6
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.86
2.82
0.53
0.23
0.15
0.34
0.11
0.14
0.05
0.30
0.10
0.09
0.30
0.10
0.16
0.06
0.26
0.09
0.09
0.18
0.36
0.11
0.18
0.14
0.18
0.03
0.06
0.92
0.52
0.28
0.42
Polar Compounds
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
fer/-Amyl Methyl Ether
Ethyl Aery late
Ethyl tort-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
488
101
7
2
1
917
213
0.13
0.08
0.07
0.06
325
8.08
0.20
0.07
9.33
0.28
0.10
0.07
0.57
0.18
0.07
1.53
0.15
0.09
0.07
0.66
0.11
0.07
0.06
5.06
0.22
0.10
0.07
27.57
0.81
0.04
0.01
2.95
2.86
0.43
0.08
Not Available
0.15
0.08
118.00
2.77
1.22
0.23
0.39
0.08
0.61
0.15
0.41
0.11
0.93
0.25
4.90
0.28
4.03
1.22
-------
Table 3-1. Target Compound Detection Summaries of the VOC Concentrations (Continued)
Chemical1
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tort-Butyl Ether
#of
Detects
39
343
Min.
Value
(ppbv)
0.11
0.07
Max.
Value
(ppbv)
6.36
48.60
Average
Value
(ppbv)
0.77
0.61
Mode
(ppbv)
0.21
0.12
Median
(ppbv)
0.40
0.26
1st
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.21
0.15
3rd
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.69
0.53
Standard
Deviation
(ppbv)
1.27
2.67
Coefficient
of
Variation
1.64
4.38
1 = BOLD indicates the compound is prevalent for 2004 Program Year.
Italics indicates the chemical is an urban air toxics strategy HAP.
oo
oo
-------
Table 3-2. Target Compound Detection 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
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
1200
1202
1149
1200
1182
249
1200
1179
438
1089
1058
1079
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
61.60
65.1
4.67
6.09
7.96
0.24
208.50
3.14
1.04
8.56
3.12
1.78
2.03
1.40
0.07
0.17
0.12
0.02
4.63
0.08
0.03
0.14
0.06
0.06
1.09
1.04
0.02
0.07
0.040
0.01
1.51
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.02
1.29
0.92
0.03
0.10
0.05
0.01
1.92
0.03
0.01
0.09
0.03
0.02
0.82
0.51
0.02
0.06
0.03
0.01
1.15
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.01
2.05
1.51
0.05
0.15
0.11
0.03
3.26
0.05
0.02
0.14
0.04
0.04
4.04
2.97
0.24
0.41
0.35
0.03
12.92
0.24
0.07
0.38
0.16
0.13
1.99
2.12
3.27
2.42
3.01
1.40
2.79
3.09
2.59
2.67
2.52
2.36
oo
VO
1 = BOLD indicates the compound is prevalent for 2004 Program Year.
Italics indicates the chemical is an urban air toxics strategy HAP.
-------
Table 3-3. Range of Detectable Concentrations by Site
UATMP Site
APMI
AZFL
BTMO
BTUT
CANC
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
DEMI
DITN
EATN
ELNJ
GAFL
GPCO
GPMS
GRMS
HACT
HOMI
INDEM
ITCMI
JAMS
KITN
LDTN
LOTN
MAWI
MCAZ
NBIL
NBNJ
ORFL
PGMS
PSAZ
QVAZ
RTPNC
S4MO
SFSD
SKFL
SLMO
SLND
Range of
Detectable Values
(ppbv)
0.01-32.40
0.004-4.02
0.005-2.12
0.003-36.9
0.004-7.53
0.004-83.00
0.00325-46.5
0.004-306.00
0.005-208.5
0.003-20.80
0.004-14.70
0.003-17.3
0.003-4.94
0.004-51.50
0.004-325.00
0.003-134.00
0.032-17.40
0.006-50.80
0.005-171.00
0.03-18.20
0.005-12.00
0.003-15.10
0.002-27.80
0.002-22.70
0.009-3.64
0.04-11.60
0.03-111.10
0.003-140.00
0.0035-5.37
0.002-46.00
0.04-4.77
0.04-0.91
0.003-3.26
0.004-35.6
0.003-16.60
0.005-57.20
0.005-3.24
0.04-118.00
Number of Valid
Sampling Days
Carbonyl
14
60
4
59
24
53
54
58
47
18
12
59
57
57
23
29
25
3
53
NA
23
19
31
23
14
NA
NA
59
52
21
NA
NA
9
62
62
28
5
NA
voc
14
NA
NA
60
NA
60
57
62
50
17
13
60
NA
55
25
31
NA
2
NA
60
25
19
31
25
15
13
58
60
NA
27
12
5
NA
65
67
NA
NA
25
Number
of Detects
390
579
39
1562
251
1616
1344
1398
1414
437
369
1714
557
1532
589
721
249
55
588
779
656
503
832
675
355
276
941
1605
579
625
277
56
86
1766
1457
266
47
372
Number of
Concentrations
> Sppbv
12
0
0
14
2
40
16
11
31
5
6
34
0
9
8
31
19
0
53
2
12
5
21
11
0
2
22
40
1
5
0
0
0
18
6
4
0
10
3-90
-------
Table 3-3. Range of Detectable Concentrations by Site (Continued)
UATMP Site
SPAZ
SPIL
SYFL
TUMS
YFMI
Range of
Detectable Values
(ppbv)
0.04-8.94
0.03-20.60
0.0045-5.40
0.003-55.5
0.03-6.35
Number of Valid
Sampling Days
Carbonyl
NA
NA
60
25
NA
voc
12
57
NA
26
14
Number
of Detects
260
976
632
633
246
Number of
Concentrations
> Sppbv
4
5
1
7
1
3-91
-------
Table 3-4. Geometric Means by Site
UATMP Site
APMI
AZFL
BOMA
BTMO
BTUT
CANC
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
DEMI
DITN
EATN
ELNJ
GAFL
GPCO
GPMS
GRMS
HACT
HOMI
INDEM
ITCMI
JAMS
KITN
LDTN
LOTN
MAWI
MCAZ
NBIL
NBNJ
ORFL
PGMS
PSAZ
QVAZ
RTPNC
S4MO
SFSD
SKFL
SLMO
Geometric Mean (ppbv)
Carbonyls
3.36
4.13
NA
3.05
7.34
2.81
5.71
3.66
3.67
6.94
3.40
6.52
7.69
3.54
5.86
2.24
4.24
14.23
1.69
27.39
NA
4.25
6.60
7.47
6.07
2.58
NA
NA
7.92
4.65
3.57
NA
NA
2.12
6.33
4.43
4.69
5.33
Halogenated
Hydrocarbons
5.79
NA
NA
NA
1.75
NA
1.95
1.66
1.63
2.64
1.62
1.81
1.76
NA
1.91
1.69
1.68
NA
2.67
NA
.91
.87
.45
.72
.77
2.74
1.98
2.47
1.83
NA
1.82
2.72
1.45
NA
2.00
1.53
NA
NA
Hydrocarbons
5.06
NA
NA
NA
4.53
NA
4.33
1.66
1.53
5.41
3.14
4.75
6.03
NA
6.88
2.21
2.83
NA
1.21
NA
1.88
4.48
2.93
2.69
3.04
3.42
8.18
3.91
3.09
NA
3.23
10.13
0.98
NA
3.99
1.64
NA
NA
Polar
3.98
NA
NA
NA
0.85
NA
2.82
1.45
1.81
1.09
2.01
2.10
2.10
NA
0.96
4.36
37.01
NA
50.37
NA
0.73
5.06
1.35
1.97
2.16
0.35
2.31
0.62
2.21
NA
1.54
3.16
0.65
NA
1.05
0.67
NA
NA
3-92
-------
Table 3-4. Geometric Means by Site (Continued)
UATMP Site
SLND
SPAZ
SPIL
SYFL
TUMS
YFMI
Geometric Mean (ppbv)
Carbonyls
NA
NA
NA
3.20
3.25
NA
Halogenated
Hydrocarbons
1.65
2.01
2.22
NA
1.77
2.88
Hydrocarbons
1.92
13.84
4.16
NA
2.44
7.32
Polar
4.21
3.22
0.73
NA
3.86
0.47
3-93
-------
Table 3-5a. Nationwide Cancer Compound Toxicity Ranking (Prevalent Compounds Shaded)
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,3 - Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Vinyl Chloride
cis-1,3 -
Dichloropropene
trans- 1, 3 -
Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichlorethane
Bromoform
Formula
Weight
53.06
165.85
78.11
153.82
98.96
54.09
44.05
147.00
112.99
100.12
62.5
110.97
110.97
131.40
98.97
253.75
#
Detects
101
301
1119
1004
2
303
1200
70
2
2
6
1
53
96
1
2
Average
Concentration
Oig/m3)
0.61
2.86
1.50
0.64
0.32
0.28
3.66
0.68
0.37
0.27
0.37
0.64
0.42
0.80
0.79
0.88
Cancer
URE1
(1/ftig/m3))
6.80 E-05
5.90 E-06
7.80 E-06
1.50 E-05
2.60 E-05
3. 00 E-05
2.20 E-06
1.10 E-05
1.90 E-05
1.40 E-05
8.80 E-06
4.00 E-06
4.00 E-06
2.00 E-06
1.60 E-06
1.10 E-06
Cancer
Weighted
Toxicity
4. 18 E-05
1.69 E-05
1.17 E-05
9.65 E-06
8.42 E-06
8.27 E-06
8.05 E-06
7.44 E-06
7.02 E-06
3.73 E-06
3. 22 E-06
2.54 E-06
1.70 E-06
1.59 E-06
1.26 E-06
9.70 E-07
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 million)
41.8
16.9
11.7
9.65
8.42
8.27
8.05
7.44
7.02
3.73
3.22
2.54
1.70
1.59
1.26
0.97
%
Contribution
Weighted
Toxicity
31.06
12.53
8.68
7.17
6.25
6.14
5.98
5.23
5.22
2.77
2.40
1.89
1.26
1.18
0.94
0.72
Cumulative %
Contribution
Weighted
Toxicity
31.06
43.60
52.28
59.45
65.70
71.85
77.83
83.36
88.57
91.34
93.74
95.63
96.89
98.07
99.01
99.73
-------
Table 3-5a. Nationwide Cancer Compound Toxicity Ranking (Prevalent Compounds Shaded) (Continued)
Compound
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Formula
Weight
84.94
30.03
#
Detects
564
1200
Average
Concentration
Oig/m3)
0.72
5.69
Cancer
URE1
(1/ftig/m3))
4.70 E-07
5.50 E-09
Total Cancer Toxicity
Cancer
Weighted
Toxicity
3. 36 E-07
3.13E-08
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 million)
0.34
0.03
%
Contribution
Weighted
Toxicity
0.25
0.02
Cumulative %
Contribution
Weighted
Toxicity
99.98
100.00
1.35 E-04 |
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 ug/m3 in air.
-------
Table 3-5b. Nationwide Noncancer Compound Toxicity Ranking (Prevalent Compounds Shaded)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Acetonitrile
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Benzene
Xylenes (Total)
cis -1,3 -
Dichloropropene
Chloroprene
trans- 1, 3 -
Dichloropropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Formula
Weight
30.03
44.05
53.06
45.07
54.09
94.94
112.99
78.11
318.48
110.97
88.5
110.97
153.82
50.49
120.39
165.85
92.13
#
Detects
1201
1201
101
488
303
21
2
1119
1091
1
1
53
1004
1108
167
301
1120
Average
Concentration
ftig/m3)
5.69
3.66
0.61
17.21
0.28
0.56
0.37
1.50
4.23
0.64
0.22
0.42
0.64
1.30
1.39
2.86
3.43
Noncancer
RfC1
(mg/m3)
0.0098
0.009
0.002
0.06
0.002
0.005
0.004
0.03
0.1
0.02
0.007
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.098
0.27
0.4
Noncancer
Weighted
Toxicity
0.58
0.41
0.31
0.29
0.14
0.11
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Adverse Health
Concentrations
102
46
3
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
Contribution
Weighted
Toxicity
26.54
18.60
14.07
13.12
6.31
5.16
4.23
2.29
1.94
1.45
1.42
0.97
0.74
0.66
0.65
0.48
0.39
Cumulative %
Contribution
Weighted
Toxicity
26.54
45.14
59.21
72.32
78.63
83.79
88.02
90.30
92.24
93.69
95.11
96.08
96.82
97.48
98.13
98.61
99.00
-------
Table 3-5b. Nationwide Noncancer Compound Toxicity Ranking (Prevalent Compounds Shaded) (Continued)
Compound
1,1 - Dichloroethene
Methyl Methacrylate
Vinyl Chloride
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl
Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Dichloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Chlorobenzene
Methyl Isobutyl
Ketone
Chloroethane
Formula
Weight
96.95
100.12
62.5
98.97
131.4
147.00
133.42
88.15
72.11
84.94
106.16
104.14
112.56
100.16
64.52
#
Detects
o
J
39
6
1
96
70
79
343
917
564
1016
673
6
213
21
Average
Concentration
(Mg/ni3)
0.91
3.16
0.37
0.79
0.80
0.68
0.74
2.19
3.59
0.72
0.67
0.66
0.40
0.95
1.82
Noncancer
RfC1
(mg/m3)
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.5
0.6
0.8
1
3
5
1
1
1
1
o
J
10
Noncancer
Weighted
Toxicity
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
Contribution
Weighted
Toxicity
0.21
0.21
0.17
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
Cumulative %
Contribution
Weighted
Toxicity
99.21
99.42
99.59
99.66
99.72
99.76
99.79
99.83
99.86
99.89
99.92
99.95
99.97
99.99
99.99
VO
-------
Table 3-5b. Nationwide Noncancer Compound Toxicity Ranking (Prevalent Compounds Shaded) (Continued)
Compound
1,2 - Dichloroethane
Formula
Weight
98.96
#
Detects
2
Average
Concentration
(Mg/ni3)
0.32
Noncancer
RfC1
(mg/m3)
2.4
Total Noncancer Toxicity
Noncancer
Weighted
Toxicity
<0.01
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
%
Contribution
Weighted
Toxicity
0.01
Cumulative %
Contribution
Weighted
Toxicity
100.00
|
1 RfC = Reference Concentration. The RfC is an estimate of a concentration in air to which a human population might be exposed that is likely to be without
appreciable risks of deleterious effects during a lifetime (assumed to be 70 years).
oo
-------
Table 3-6. Summary of Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Selected Meteorological Parameters and Prevalent Compounds
Prevalent Compound3
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromomethane
1,3 - Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
p - Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes (Total)
Maximum
Temperature
0.11
0.13
-0.16
-0.09
0.12
-0.10
0.00
0.09
0.13
-0.06
0.90
0.13
Average
Temperature
0.10
0.11
-0.13
-0.08
0.13
-0.13
0.02
0.08
0.10
-0.07
0.90
0.12
Dew Point
Temperature
0.06
0.12
-0.07
-0.08
0.24
-0.18
0.10
0.07
-0.13
-0.02
0.89
0.02
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.08
0.12
-0.10
-0.09
0.22
-0.16
0.06
0.08
-0.03
-0.05
0.89
0.07
Relative
Humidity
-0.06
0.04
0.09
0.01
0.12
-0.10
0.16
0.01
-0.30
0.08
-0.24
-0.14
Sea Level
Pressure
0.01
-0.01
-0.01
0.04
0.06
0.19
0.01
0.01
-0.12
-0.01
-0.03
0.03
u-component
of wind speed
-0.02
-0.03
-0.19
0.02
0.05
-0.08
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.13
-0.12
v-component
of wind speed
0.03
0.05
-0.05
0.06
-0.14
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.08
-0.01
0.73
0.08
a Due to the low number of detects, Peason Correlation coefficients could not be computed for 1,2-Dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, Ethyl Aery late, and
. _ 1,3-dichloropropene.
-------
Table 3-7. Summary of Mobile Information by Site
UATMP
Site
APMI
AZFL
BOMA
BTMO
BTUT
CANC
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
DEMI
DITN
EATN
ELNJ
GAFL
GPCO
GPMS
GRMS
HACT
HOMI
INDEM
ITCMI
JAMS
KITN
LDTN
LOTN
MAWI
Estimated No.
of County
Motor Vehicles
Owned
1,430,965
936,312
579,762
86,254
182,209
26,623
399,282
375,383
9,120
1,430,965
40,593
575,087
411,286
1,020,861
127,138
163,972
19,564
733,923
15,827
275,061
33,504
177,642
156,360
41,458
575,087
401,588
2003 County
Population
2,028,778
926,146
680,705
57,929
255,597
27,306
513,909
483,150
7,585
2,028,778
44,935
569,842
529,360
1,073,407
124,676
189,614
22,809
871,457
15,189
487,476
38,822
249,087
153,050
41,624
569,842
449,378
Estimated
Traffic
Near Site
60,000
51,000
27,287
4,360
33,310
100
62,000
12,623
1,940
12,791
4,420
38,450
170,000
81,400
19,572
17,000
1,100
10,000
7,000
42,950
100,000
12,500
300
13,360
3,000
23,750
County-Level
On-Road
Emissions
(tpy)
9,892
4,830
1,141
254
1,117
164
1,294
1,718
43
9,892
345
2,796
1,328
5,580
557
862
130
2,833
67
1,518
181
1,208
1,180
366
2,796
1,762
County-Level
Non-Road
Emissions
(tpy)
1,902
2,072
1,962
60
429
37
705
1,397
38
1,902
67
1,022
664
2,140
223
1,393
131
1,470
320
957
606
255
228
182
1,022
1,040
Hydrocarbon
Arithmetic
Mean
(ppbv)
5.74
NA
NA
NA
5.67
NA
5.01
2.04
1.87
6.85
4.27
5.44
8.18
NA
7.59
2.66
3.38
NA
1.22
NA
2.52
5.42
3.70
2.94
3.44
3.93
Average
Acetylene
Concentration
(ppbv)
1.87
NA
NA
NA
1.75
NA
1.36
0.66
0.67
2.21
0.83
1.40
1.50
NA
2.15
0.70
0.66
NA
0.51
NA
0.76
1.66
1.24
0.83
1.14
1.35
o
o
-------
Table 3-7. Summary of Mobile Information by Site (Continued)
UATMP
Site
MCAZ
NBIL
NBNJ
ORFL
PGMS
PSAZ
QVAZ
RTPNC
S4MO
SFSD
SKFL
SLMO
SLND
SPAZ
SPIL
SYFL
TUMS
YFMI
Estimated No.
of County
Motor Vehicles
Owned
2,870,961
2,005,291
606,794
916,248
116,592
2,870,961
175,693
259,865
244,956
152,815
936,312
244,956
6,678
2,870,961
2,005,291
1,020,861
68,191
1,430,965
2003 County
Population
3,389,260
5,351,552
780,995
964,865
133,928
3,389,260
204,148
236,781
332,223
154,617
926,146
332,223
6,881
3,389,260
5,351,552
1,073,407
77,690
2,028,778
Estimated
Traffic
Near Site
10,108
29,600
63,000
59,000
8,600
250
200
12,000
22,840
4,320
50,500
15,016
925
50,000
42,000
5,142
4,900
500
County-Level
On-Road
Emissions
(tpy)
10,069
8,766
2,361
5,584
668
10,069
1,098
1,263
1,377
547
4,830
1,377
52
10,069
8,766
5,580
438
9,892
County-Level
Non-Road
Emissions
(tpy)
5,456
5,441
1,330
2,305
1,113
5,456
223
337
482
198
2,072
482
62
5,456
5,441
2,140
179
1,902
Hydrocarbon
Arithmetic
Mean
(ppbv)
10.15
12.94
4.04
NA
3.89
11.46
1.02
NA
4.55
1.81
NA
NA
2.17
14.71
4.96
NA
2.64
8.81
Average
Acetylene
Concentration
(ppbv)
1.90
9.72
1.01
NA
0.91
3.05
0.40
NA
1.55
0.65
NA
NA
0.53
3.23
1.67
NA
0.75
2.08
-------
Table 3-8. UATMP Sites in MSAs Using Reformulated Gasoline (RFG)
Site
BOMA
CANJ
CHNJ
ELNJ
HACT
INDEM
MCAZ
NBIL
NBNJ
PSAZ
QVAZ
MSA
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester, MA
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-
NJ-MD-DE
New York-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA
New York-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI
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
Fuel Program1
RFG Opt-in
RFG Mandated
RFG Mandated
RFG Mandated
RFG Mandated
RFG Mandated
Winter-
oxygenated
RFG Mandated
RFG Mandated
Winter-
oxygenated
Winter-
oxygenated
Fuel Additive
Summer2
MTBE
TAME
MTBE
TAME
MTBE
TAME
MTBE
TAME
MTBE
TAME
Winter3
MTBE
TAME
Ethanol
MTBE
TAME
Ethanol
MTBE
TAME
Ethanol
ETBE
MTBE
TAME
Ethanol
ETBE
MTBE
TAME
Ethanol
ETBE
MTBE
Ethanol
n/a4
Ethanol
MTBE
Ethanol
MTBE
TAME
n/a4
n/a4
MTBE
TAME
Ethanol
ETBE
Ethanol
Ethanol
3-102
-------
Table 3-8. UATMP Sites in MSAs Using Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) (Continued)
Site
S4MO
SLMO
SPAZ
SPIL
MSA
St. Louis, MO-IL
St. Louis, MO-IL
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
Chicago-Naperville-Juliet, IL-IN-WI
Fuel Program1
RFG Opt-in
RFG Opt-in
Winter-
oxygenated
RFG Mandated
Fuel Additive
Summer2
MTBE
Ethanol
MTBE
Ethanol
n/a4
Winter3
MTBE
Ethanol
TAME
MTBE
Ethanol
TAME
Ethanol
MTBE
Ethanol
1 USEPA, 2003b.
2 The summer season for RFG is from 6/1 to 9/15.
3 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.
4 n/a - Indicates that summer oxygenates are not applicable to the fuel program at this site.
3-103
-------
Table 3-9. Regulations Implemented After 2002
MACT Source Category
Amino/Phenolic Resins Production
Secondary Aluminum Production
Petroleum Refineries - Catalytic Cracking,
Catalytic Reforming, & Sulfur Plant Units
Metal Coil (Surface Coating)
Primary Copper Smelting
Large Appliance (Surface Coating)
Municipal Waste Combustors: Small
Paper & Other Webs (Surface Coating)
Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, & Battery
Stacks
Refractory Products Manufacturing
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacturing
Brick and Structural Clay Products
Manufacturing
Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing
Semiconductor Manufacturing
Metal Furniture (Surface Coating)
Engine Test Facilities
Promulgation
Date
1/20/2000
3/23/2000
4/1 1/2002
6/10/2002
6/12/2002
7/23/2002
1/31/2003
12/4/2002
4/14/2003
4/16/2003
4/21/2003
4/29/2003
5/16/2003
5/20/2003
5/22/2003
5/23/2003
5/27/2003
Implementation
Date
1/20/2003
3/24/2003
4/1 1/2005
6/10/2005
6/12/2005
7/23/2005
1 1/6/2005
12/4/2005
4/14/2006
4/17/2006
4/21/2006
5/1/2006
5/16/2006
5/20/2006
5/22/2006
5/23/2006
5/27/2006
Applicable
Pollutant Types1
C,V
M
C, M, V
V
M
V
M
V
V
V
V
c,v
M
V
M, V
V
M, V
% Emission
Reduction
51
60
87
53
23
45
96
80
43
18.9
43
29
0.4
20
NA
70
NA
Key
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
-------
Table 3-9. Regulations Implemented After 2002 (Continued)
MACT Source Category
Printing, Coating & Dyeing Of Fabrics
Site Remediation
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing
Metal Can (Surface Coating)
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
Miscellaneous Metal Parts & Products (Surface
Coating)
Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)
Stationary Combustion Turbines
Plastic Parts & Products (Surface Coating)
Iron and Steel Foundries
Auto & Light Duty Truck (Surface Coating)
Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines
Plywood and Composite Wood Products
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers &
Process Heaters - coal
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers &
Process Heaters - gas
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers &
Process Heaters - oil
Promulgation
Date
5/29/2003
10/8/2003
11/10/2003
11/13/2003
12/11/2003
1/2/2004
2/3/2004
3/5/2004
4/19/2004
4/22/2004
4/26/2004
6/15/2004
7/30/2004
9/13/2004
9/13/2004
9/13/2004
Implementation
Date
5/29/2006
10/8/2006
11/10/2006
11/13/2006
12/11/2006
1/2/2007
2/3/2007
3/5/2007
4/19/2007
4/22/2007
4/26/2007
6/15/2007
7/30/2007
9/13/2007
9/13/2007
9/13/2007
Applicable
Pollutant Types1
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
c,v
V
M, V
V
c
c,v
M
M
M
% Emission
Reduction
60
50
69
70
64
48
28
90
80
36
60
65
46.5
56
56
56
Key
R
S
T
U
V
w
X
Y
Z
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
-------
Table 3-9. Regulations Implemented After 2002 (Continued)
MACT Source Category
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers &
Process Heaters - wood or waste
Utility Boilers: Coal
Promulgation
Date
9/13/2004
3/29/2005
Implementation
Date
9/13/2007
1/1/2010
Applicable
Pollutant Types1
M
M
% Emission
Reduction
56
20.8
Key
7
8
C = carbonyl compound; M = metal compound; V = VOC
-------
Table 3-10. Future Regulation Analysis of Emissions for NATTS Sites
NATTS
Site
BOMA
BTUT
Pollutant
Type
Metals
Carbonyls
Metals
Pollutant
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
10-Mile Point Source
Emissions - 2002
(tpy)
0.43
1.03
0.09
0.06
0.68
0.54
3.71
0.50
11.50
0.59
3.98
22.65
0.27
1.07
0.00
0.14
%
Pollutant
Reduction
0.37
3.52
1.97
7.80
5.20
1.64
1.00
8.86
0.28
19.33
9.32
11.04
21.06
19.94
0.37
22.35
%
Pollutant
Type
Reduction
1.64
10.78
5.49
% NATTS
Reduction
1.64
9.38
Future
Regulation(s) -
Key
(Table 3-9)
0, 5, 6, 8
C, E, G, J, K, L,
M, P, S, T, V,
W, Y, 2, 5
-------
Table 3-10. Future Regulation Analysis of Emissions for NATTS Sites (Continued)
NATTS
Site
Pollutant
Type
VOCs
Pollutant
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Benzene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl
Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl ene Chloride
Styrene
10-Mile Point Source
Emissions - 2002
(tpy)
19.61
0.004
5.19
1.17
0.07
0.40
0.40
17.73
0.38
8.91
22.37
8.29
0.20
31.09
31.11
%
Pollutant
Reduction
0.31
0.22
19.59
3.03
27.63
15.39
14.37
0.35
62.63
26.00
16.11
15.57
63.93
0.03
34.80
%
Pollutant
Type
Reduction
9.62
% NATTS
Reduction
Future
Regulation(s) -
Key
(Table 3-9)
o
oo
-------
Table 3-10. Future Regulation Analysis of Emissions for NATTS Sites (Continued)
NATTS
Site
DEMI
GPCO
Pollutant
Type
Carbonyls
Carbonyls
VOCs
Pollutant
Toluene
Xylenes
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl
Ketone
Styrene
Toluene
Xylenes
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
10-Mile Point Source
Emissions - 2002
(tpy)
111.85
44.47
5.20
39.21
0.11
124.05
179.63
92.57
154.01
10.59
596.52
590.51
0.58
11.41
32.17
%
Pollutant
Reduction
1.89
18.81
17.70
67.93
6.73
16.48
1.38
3.74
2.56
27.06
0.83
1.14
19.49
26.83
0.52
%
Pollutant
Type
Reduction
62.05
2.35
26.47
8.44
% NATTS
Reduction
3.71
9.21
Future
Regulation(s) -
Key
(Table 3-9)
A, C, I, K, L,
N, V, X, Y, Z, 2
R, S, W, Y, Z, 2
-------
Table 3-10. Future Regulation Analysis of Emissions for NATTS Sites (Continued)
NATTS
Site
NBIL
Pollutant
Type
VOCs
Pollutant
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Styrene
Toluene
Xylenes
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl
Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl Tert-Butyl
Ether
10-Mile Point Source
Emissions - 2002
(tpy)
10.28
11.96
10.57
112.05
48.26
0.004
2.79
93.49
1.06
70.30
11.46
903.72
346.72
1.50
0.37
%
Pollutant
Reduction
48.35
62.01
67.38
1.26
3.40
25.43
1.72
4.88
37.16
17.30
59.59
14.29
20.88
7.61
38.49
%
Pollutant
Type
Reduction
14.08
% NATTS
Reduction
14.08
Future
Regulation(s) -
Key
(Table 3-9)
A, D, H, I, K,
L, P, T, U, V,
W, X, Y, Z, 1
-------
Table 3-10. Future Regulation Analysis of Emissions for NATTS Sites (Continued)
NATTS
Site
PSAZ
S4MO
Pollutant
Type
VOCs
Carbonyls
Metals
Pollutant
Methyl ene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
Toluene
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
Xylenes
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Styrene
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
Toluene
Xylenes
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Antimony
Arsenic
10-Mile Point Source
Emissions - 2002
(tpy)
130.87
270.23
210.44
1080.72
363.49
635.93
12.61
33.54
159.29
36.84
352.50
45.92
4.42
18.07
0.27
0.77
%
Pollutant
Reduction
0.23
24.90
0.17
16.06
0.52
17.76
8.28
24.00
41.02
16.99
2.69
8.99
4.15
3.43
2.23
16.53
%
Pollutant
Type
Reduction
12.41
3.57
7.54
% NATTS
Reduction
12.41
5.46
Future
Regulation(s) -
Key
(Table 3-9)
F, K, R, V, Z
A, B, D, E, F, I,
K, L, M, P, R,
S, T, V, W, X,
Y, Z, 0, 1, 2, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8
-------
Table 3-10. Future Regulation Analysis of Emissions for NATTS Sites (Continued)
NATTS
Site
Pollutant
Type
VOCs
Pollutant
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl
Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
10-Mile Point Source
Emissions - 2002
(tpy)
0.03
1.08
1.18
0.15
4.60
14.06
0.30
2.10
1.93
191.17
81.80
2.01
152.00
167.24
0.46
%
Pollutant
Reduction
21.83
1.74
9.90
20.97
6.34
6.27
0.88
5.33
20.79
4.38
7.80
23.15
7.25
4.68
0.52
%
Pollutant
Type
Reduction
5.45
% NATTS
Reduction
Future
Regulation(s) -
Key
(Table 3-9)
-------
Table 3-10. Future Regulation Analysis of Emissions for NATTS Sites (Continued)
NATTS
Site
SYFL
Pollutant
Type
Carbonyls
Pollutant
Methyl Tert-Butyl
Ether
Methyl ene Chloride
Styrene
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
Toluene
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
Xylenes
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
10-Mile Point Source
Emissions - 2002
(tpy)
9.18
31.01
14.30
108.21
384.67
158.98
384.22
2.02
2.01
%
Pollutant
Reduction
0.57
8.80
24.48
0.09
8.44
4.40
5.99
2.76
6.69
%
Pollutant
Type
Reduction
4.72
% NATTS
Reduction
4.72
Future
Regulation(s) -
Key
(Table 3-9)
L,2
-------
Table 3-11. Summary of Additional Analyses
Monitoring
Site
BOMA
BTMO
BTUT
CUSD
EATN
ITCMI
LOTN
NBIL
PGMS
S4MO
SFSD
SLMO
SLND
YFMI
Average Metal
Compounds
Concentrations (ng/m3)
23.29
—
26.93
—
30.44
—
26.03
—
—
38.47
—
—
—
—
Average SVOC
Concentration (ng/m3)
—
—
—
—
—
27.80
—
—
—
—
—
—
4.56
52.83
Average SNMOC
Concentration (ppbC)
—
37.01
131.42
58.43
—
—
—
161.92
94.74
119.44
35.15
102.74
—
—
3-114
-------
Table 3-12. Population and 1,000 Vehicle Miles Traveled (1000VMT) Profiles for Each MSA
MSA
Boston, MA
Chicago, IL
Detroit, MI
Durham, NC
Grand Junction, CO
Gulfjport, MS
Hartford, CT
Jackson, MS
Kingsport, TN
Knoxville, TN
Madison, WI
Nashville, TN
New York, NY
Ogden, UT
Orlando, FL
Pascagoula, MS
Philadelphia, PA
Phoenix, AZ
Sioux Falls, SD
St. Louis, MO
Tampa, FL
1990 MSA
Population
4,133,895
8,181,939
4,248,699
344,665
93,145
207,875
1,123,678
446,941
275,678
534,910
432,323
1,048,216
16,863,671
351,799
1,224,844
131,916
5,435,550
2,238,498
153,500
2,599,893
2,067,959
2003 MSA
Population
4,439,971
9,333,511
4,483,853
447,066
124,676
248,965
1,177,935
510,060
299,703
636,863
526,742
1,371,302
18,640,775
468,942
1,802,986
154,335
5,772,947
3,593,408
198,377
2,759,440
2,531,908
% Change in
MSA Population
+7.4%
+14.1%
+5.5%
+14.1%
+33.9%
+19.8%
+4.8%
+14.1%
+8.7%
+19.1%
+21.8%
+30.8%
+10.5%
+33.3%
+47.2%
+17.0%
+6.2%
+60.5%
+29.2%
+6.1%
+22.4%
1990 MSA
1000VMT
18,738,370
45,066,915
28,551,395
2,719,712a
476,935 a
1,169,825
5,072,770
2,311,910
1, 160,655 a
2,873,280
1,628.995
5,696,555
82,128,650
1,410,360
6,471,450
448,002 a
24,002,035
14,473,710
623, 604 a
16,530,120
12,304,150
2003 MSA
1000VMT
32,582,820
60,512,255
36,788,715
3,102,500
638,385
1,779,010
8,038,760
3,966,090
1,261,805
4,624,185
2,972,925
11,026,285
105,869,710
3,522,980
15,156,625
524,140
37,576,750
24,942,275
805,920
22,794,250
21,258,330
% Change in
MSA 1000VMT
+73.9%
+34.3%
+28.9%
+14.1%
+33.9%
+52.1%
+58.5%
+71.6%
+8.7
+60.9%
+82.5%
+93.6%
+28.9%
+149.8%
+134.2%
+17.0%
+56.6%
+72.3%
+29.2%
+37.9%
+72.8%
1990 VMT estimate not available; VMT estimated based on ratio of 2003 VMT vs. population ratio.
-------
Table 3-13a. Total Acetaldehyde Emission (tpy) and Concentration (jig/m3) Comparison
MSA
Chicago, IL
Detroit, MI
Durham, NC
Grand Junction, CO
Gulfport, MS
Hartford, CT
Jackson, MS
Kingsport, TN
Knoxville, TN
Madison, WI
Nashville, TN
New York, NY
Ogden, UT
Orlando, FL
Pascagoula, MS
Philadelphia, PA
Sioux Falls, SD
St. Louis, MO
Tampa, FL
1990
Emissions
2,007
1,179
146
102
100
305
209
590
216
157
511
3,077
147
382
183
1,236
71
819
543
2002
Emissions
1,399
629
81
21
59
203
91
110
173
72
267
1320
64
270
57
617
41
445
360
% Change in
Emissions
-30.3%
-46.6%
-44.5%
-79.4%
-41.0%
-33.4%
-56.5%
-81.4%
-19.9%
-54.1%
-47.7%
-57.1%
-56.5%
-29.3%
-68.9%
-50.1%
-42.3%
-45.6%
-33.6%
1990-1994
Average
Concentration
2.82 ±0.44
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.75 ±0.92
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.08 ±1.28
NA
NA
NA
3. 59 ±0.40
NA
2.34 ±0.75
NA
2002-2003
Average
Concentration
1.06 ±0.09
1.84 ±0.15
NA
2.24 ±0.49
1.64 ±0.13
4.04 ±0.48
2.62 ± 0.26
1.87 ±0.23
5.68 ±1.62
0.81 ±0.10
1.75 ±0.17
2.02 ±0.14
2.50 ±0.56
1.93 ±0.21
1.93 ±0.38
1.20 ±0.20
2.58 ±0.47
4.45 ±0.37
2.08 ±0.12
% Change in
Concentration
-62.40%
NA
NA
NA
NA
-29.70%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-50.42%
NA
NA
NA
-66.71%
NA
+90.25%
NA
2004 UATMP
MSA
Concentration
2.38 ±0.34
2.84 ± 2.31
0.44 ±0.15
3.22 ±1.95
1.15 ±0.44
2.64 ±0.61
2.45 ±0.41
0.97 ±0.10
1.76 ±0.38
0.65 ±0.12
0.92 ±0.10
2.64 ± 0.73
2.21 ±0.59
1.23 ±0.13
1.06 ±0.38
5.43 ±2.09
1.95 ±0.54
1.90 ±0.50
1.54 ±0.27
Trend
Comment
SH
ND
NA
ND
ND
SL
ND
SL
SL
ND
SL
ND
ND
SL
SL
SH
ND
SL
SL
SH = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly higher than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
SL = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly lower than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
ND = 2004 UATMP concentration is not significantly different than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
NA = Not available
BOLD = significant difference between 1990-1994 average MSA concentration and 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
-------
Table 3-13b. Total Benzene Emission (tpy) and Concentration (jig/m3) Comparison
MSA
Chicago, IL
Detroit, MI
Grand Junction, CO
Gulfport, MS
Jackson, MS
Kingsport, TN
Knoxville, TN
Madison, WI
Nashville, TN
New York, NY
Ogden, UT
Pascagoula, MS
Philadelphia, PA
Phoenix, AZ
Sioux Falls, SD
St. Louis, MO
1990
Emissions
11,835
6,480
279
453
948
643
1,027
696
1,918
16,653
622
466
5,961
3,757
257
4,358
2002
Emissions
4,027
4,388
145
375
562
371
808
566
1,392
7,512
419
305
2,577
2,407
182
2,304
% Change in
Emissions
-66.0%
-32.3%
-48.0%
-17.2%
-40.7%
-42.3%
-21.3%
-18.7%
-27.4%
-54.9%
-32.6%
-34.5%
-56.8%
-35.9%
-29.2%
-47.1%
1990-1994
Average
Concentration
9.92 ±1.81
6.91 ±1.95
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.12 ±0.54
3.24 ±0.22
NA
NA
2.83 ±0.26
NA
NA
6.40 ±1.93
2002-2003
Average
Concentration
1.05 ±0.09
2.67 ±0.61
3. 15 ±0.68
1.29 ±0.19
2.03 ± 0.20
1.20 ±0.16
1.39 ±1.08
0.93 ±0.12
1.49 ±0.21
1.10 ±0.06
2.18 ±0.43
1.43 ±0.21
1.20 ±0.07
2.49 ±0.31
1.29 ±0.43
1.44 ±0.12
% Change in
Concentration
-89.43%
-61.40%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-29.54%
-66.00%
NA
NA
-57.58%
NA
NA
-77.45%
2004 UATMP
MSA
Concentration
0.68 ±0.23
0.90 ±0.22
0.70 ±0.10
0.27 ± 0.06
0.53 ±0.13
0.35 ±0.09
0.37 ±0.07
0.49 ±0.11
0.35 ±0.04
0.33 ±0.03
0.59 ±0.08
0.37 ±0.07
0.46 ±0.08
0.84 ±0.15
0.25 ±0.06
0.43 ±0.05
Trend
Comment
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
ND
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SH = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly higher than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
SL = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly lower than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
ND = 2004 UATMP concentration is not significantly different than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
NA = Not available
BOLD = significant difference between 1990-1994 average MSA concentration and 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
-------
Table 3-13c. Total Cadmium Emission (tpy) and Concentration (ng/m3) Comparison
MSA
Boston, MA
Nashville, TN
Ogden, UT
St. Louis, MO
1990
Emissions
1.0
6.4
0.1
8.7
2002
Emissions
0.4
0.4
0.1
2.7
% Change in
Emissions
-62.1%
-93.8%
<1.0%
-69.3%
1990-1994
Average
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
11.34 ±1.50
2002-2003
Average
Concentration
2.02 ± 0.24
3.27 ±0.74
13.63 ±5. 16
4.11±0.51
% Change in
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
-63.77%
2004 UATMP
MSA
Concentration
0.50 ±0.11
0.21 ±0.03
0.17 ±0.04
1.16 ±0.25
Trend
Comment
SL
SL
SL
SL
SH = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly higher than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
SL = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly lower than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
ND = 2004 UATMP concentration is not significantly different than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
NA = Not available
BOLD = significant difference between 1990-1994 average MSA concentration and 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
oo
-------
Table 3-13d. Total Ethylbenzene Emission (tpy) and Concentration (jig/m3) Comparison
MSA
Chicago, IL
Detroit, MI
Grand Junction, CO
Gulfport, MS
Jackson, MS
Kingsport, TN
Knoxville, TN
Madison, WI
Nashville, TN
New York, NY
Ogden, UT
Pascagoula, MS
Philadelphia, PA
Phoenix, AZ
Sioux Falls, SD
St. Louis, MO
1990
Emissions
5,295
3,266
81
231
399
289
479
322
986
8,439
250
280
3,387
1,490
142
2,066
2002
Emissions
2,045
1,827
52
286
310
150
379
242
648
4,205
204
160
1,347
1,095
70
1,092
% Change in
Emissions
-61.4%
-44.0%
-35.8%
23.8%
-22.3%
-48.1%
-20.9%
-24.8%
-34.3%
-50.2%
-18.4%
-42.9%
-60.2%
-26.5%
-50.7%
-47.2%
1990-1994
Average
Concentration
7.45 ±2.17
1.41 ±0.22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.30 ±0.44
2.07 ±0.19
NA
NA
1.32 ±0.16
NA
NA
0.91 ±0.24
2002-2003
Average
Concentration
0.49 ±0.08
1.00 ±0.22
1.26 ±0.29
0.97 ±0.30
1.34 ±0.19
0.57 ±0.08
NA
0.51 ±0.06
0.83 ±0.12
0.76 ± 0.05
0.78 ±0.15
1.38 ±0.27
0.62 ± 0.04
2.37 ±0.32
0.62 ± 0.27
0.96 ±0.12
% Change in
Concentration
-93.41%
-29.16%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-36.29%
-63.56%
NA
NA
-53.39%
NA
NA
+5.82%
2004 UATMP
MSA
Concentration
0.15 ±0.04
0.21 ±0.03
0.28 ± 0.04
0.09 ± 0.02
0.18 ±0.05
0.12 ±0.02
0.10 ±0.01
0.12 ±0.03
0.13 ±0.03
0.13 ±0.01
0.17 ±0.04
0.19 ±0.08
0.14 ±0.03
0.46 ± 0.09
0.07 ±0.01
0.15 ±0.02
Trend
Comment
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
NA
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SH = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly higher than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
SL = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly lower than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
ND = 2004 UATMP concentration is not significantly different than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
NA = Not available
BOLD = significant difference between 1990-1994 average MSA concentration and 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
-------
Table 3-13e. Total Formaldehyde Emission (tpy) and Concentration (jig/m3) Comparison
MSA
Chicago, IL
Detroit, MI
Durham, NC
Grand Junction, CO
Gulfport, MS
Hartford, CT
Jackson, MS
Kingsport, TN
Knoxville, TN
Madison, WI
Nashville, TN
New York, NY
Ogden, UT
Orlando, FL
Pascagoula, MS
Philadelphia, PA
Sioux Falls, SD
St. Louis, MO
Tampa. FL
1990
Emissions
6,782
4,078
595
301
294
1,108
639
550
672
512
1,364
10,430
504
1,221
312
4,348
202
2,658
1.745
2002
Emissions
2,787
1,657
334
66
199
434
362
154
294
192
558
3,988
200
915
175
2,139
92
1,263
1.081
% Change in
Emissions
-58.9%
-59.4%
-43.9%
-78.1%
-32.3%
-60.8%
-43.3%
-72.0%
-56.3%
-62.5%
-59.1%
-61.8%
-60.3%
-25.1%
-43.9%
-50.8%
-54.5%
-52.5%
-38.1%
1990-1994
Average
Concentration
4.35 ±0.52
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.02 ±0.50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.28 ±2.41
NA
NA
NA
5.63 ±0.32
NA
3. 82 ±1.16
NA
2002-2003
Average
Concentration
5.03 ±0.19
3.74 ±0.72
NA
4.22 ±0.37
3.09 ±0.45
9.28 ±1.82
3.71 ±0.53
2.74 ±0.41
35.74 ±15.40
0.71 ±0.13
3.88 ±0.52
3.61 ±0.34
2.61 ±0.91
2.61 ±0.38
3.65 ±0.68
2.25 ±0.49
4.36 ±1.68
11.41 ±1.99
3 43 ± 0 45
% Change in
Concentration
+15.63%
NA
NA
NA
NA
+85.03%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-42.50%
NA
NA
NA
-60.05%
NA
+198.67%
NA
2004 UATMP
MSA
Concentration
33. 57 ±9.42
8.24 ±7.58
1.17 ±0.60
2.30 ±1.24
0.89 ±0.45
5.62 ±1.08
0.65 ±0.14
2.55 ±0.36
6.49 ±2.85
0.98 ±0.15
2.90 ±0.41
3. 81 ±1.06
4.10 ±1.25
2.66 ±0.25
4.54 ±3.98
6.71 ±3. 13
2.32 ±0.56
3. 96 ±1.08
1.88 ±0.54
Trend
Comment
SH
ND
NA
SL
SL
SL
SL
ND
SL
ND
SL
ND
ND
ND
ND
SH
ND
SL
SL
to
o
SH = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly higher than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
SL = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly lower than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
ND = 2004 UATMP concentration is not significantly different than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
NA = Not available
BOLD = significant difference between 1990-1994 average MSA concentration and 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
-------
Table 3-13f. Total Lead Emission (tpy) and Concentration (ng/m3) Comparison
MSA
Boston, MA
Nashville, TN
Ogden, UT
St. Louis, MO
1990
Emissions
15.1
12.9
1.5
223.1
2002
Emissions
7.0
2.8
2.3
23.7
% Change in
Emissions
-53.5%
-78.3%
+53.3%
-89.4%
1990-1994
Average
Concentration
45.29 ±2.63
642.27 ± 82.28
NA
725.39 ±89.17
2002-2003
Average
Concentration
4.57 ±0.64
276.49 ±50.93
8.13 ±2.57
986.29 ± 125.6
% Change in
Concentration
-89.20%
-56.95%
NA
+35.97%
2004 UATMP
MSA
Concentration
6.42 ±0.98
6.20 ±1.54
6.63 ± 1.04
11.74 ±2.40
Trend
Comment
SH
SL
SL
SL
SH = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly higher than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
SL = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly lower than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
ND = 2004 UATMP concentration is not significantly different than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
NA = Not available
BOLD = significant difference between 1990-1994 average MSA concentration and 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
to
-------
to
to
Table 3-13g. Total Mercury Emission (tpy) and Concentration (ng/m3) Comparison
MSA
Boston, MA
Nashville, TN
Ogden, UT
St. Louis, MO
1990
Emissions
3.4
0.7
0.2
2.3
2002
Emissions
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.7
% Change in
Emissions
-84.0%
-85.7%
-50.0%
-70.4%
1990-1994
Average
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
10.31 ±0.92
2002-2003
Average
Concentration
0.92 ±0.09
1.60 ±0.31
2. 17 ±0.43
2.56 ±0.49
% Change in
Concentration
NA
NA
NA
-76.56%
2004 UATMP
MSA
Concentration
0.03 ± 0.02
0.02 ±0.01
0.02 ±0.01
0.03 ±0.01
Trend
Comment
SL
SL
SL
SL
SH = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly higher than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
SL = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly lower than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
ND = 2004 UATMP concentration is not significantly different than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
NA = Not available
BOLD = significant difference between 1990-1994 average MSA concentration and 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
-------
Table 3-13h. Total Toluene Emission (tpy) and Concentration (jig/m3) Comparison
MSA
Chicago, IL
Detroit, MI
Grand Junction, CO
Gulfport, MS
Jackson, MS
Kingsport, TN
Knoxville, TN
Madison, WI
Nashville, TN
New York, NY
Ogden, UT
Pascagoula, MS
Philadelphia, PA
Phoenix, AZ
Sioux Falls, SD
St. Louis, MO
1990
Emissions
36,507
25,103
509
1,304
2,600
3,829
3,101
2,422
7,929
56,702
1,643
1,565
24,908
9,544
857
13,682
2002
Emissions
14,602
11,907
368
1,114
1,408
1,162
2,332
1,692
4,869
24,487
1,360
813
7,565
6,523
448
6,501
% Change in
Emissions
-60.0%
-52.6%
-27.7%
-14.6%
-45.8%
-69.7%
-24.8%
-30.1%
-38.6%
-56.8%
-17.2%
-48.1%
-69.6%
-31.7%
-47.7%
-52.5%
1990-1994
Average
Concentration
20.79 ±4.69
8.83 ± 1.40
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.81 ±5.59
12.26 ±1.03
NA
NA
7.85 ±1.59
NA
NA
6.42 ±2.32
2002-2003
Average
Concentration
2.23 ±0.25
5.01 ±0.67
8.25 ±2.40
4.73 ± 1.09
9.65 ±8.91
2.66 ±0.32
3.03 ±2.64
2.11±0.33
4.93 ±1.19
4.34 ±0.29
5.37±1.15
5.45 ±1.22
4.08 ±0.34
8.67 ±1.10
6.02 ±5. 86
3. 96 ±0.44
% Change in
Concentration
-89.30%
-43.25%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-44.03%
-64.58%
NA
NA
-47.96%
NA
NA
-38.29%
2004 UATMP
MSA
Concentration
0.72 ±0.11
1.42 ±0.32
1.48 ±0.19
0.60 ±0.17
1.10 ±0.36
0.62 ±0.13
0.66 ±0.15
0.78 ±0.23
1.02 ±0.32
0.76 ±0.12
1.25 ±0.28
1.03 ±0.29
0.99 ±0.20
2.52 ±0.52
0.34 ±0.06
0.97 ±0.17
Trend
Comment
SL
SL
SL
SL
ND
SL
ND
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
ND
SL
to
oo
SH = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly higher than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
SL = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly lower than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
ND = 2004 UATMP concentration is not significantly different than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
NA = Not available
BOLD = significant difference between 1990-1994 average MSA concentration and 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
-------
Table 3-131. Total Xylene Emission (tpy) and Concentration (jig/m3) Comparison
MSA
Chicago, IL
Detroit, MI
Grand Junction, CO
Gulfport, MS
Jackson, MS
Kingsport, TN
Knoxville, TN
Madison, WI
Nashville, TN
New York, NY
Ogden, UT
Pascagoula, MS
Philadelphia, PA
Phoenix, AZ
Sioux Falls, SD
St. Louis, MO
1990
Emissions
24,344
15,393
325
955
1,624
1,411
1,979
1,402
4,783
35,141
1,027
1,261
15,071
6,261
627
9,039
2002
Emissions
10,244
7,751
220
1,279
920
696
1,496
1,162
2,794
25,055
972
1,102
5,174
4,273
335
4,638
% Change in
Emissions
-57.9%
-49.6%
-32.3%
33.9%
-43.3%
-50.7%
-24.4%
-17.1%
-41.6%
-28.7%
-5.4%
-12.6%
-65.7%
-31.8%
-46.6%
-48.7%
1990-1994
Average
Concentration
5.46 ±0.84
3. 10 ±0.85
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.03 ±0.16
NA
NA
4.04 ±1.49
NA
NA
14.84 ±6.56
2002-2003
Average
Concentration
0.75 ±0.11
0.81 ±0.13
1.88 ±0.49
1.14 ±0.37
1.85 ±0.28
0.69 ±0.11
NA
0.59 ±0.08
1.10 ±0.22
0.78 ±0.05
0.94 ±0.20
2.00 ± 0.42
0.73 ±0.05
2.67 ±0.38
0.63 ±0.30
1.21 ±0.18
% Change in
Concentration
-86.29%
-73.69%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-61.80%
NA
NA
-81.86%
NA
NA
-91.88%
2004 UATMP
MSA
Concentration
0.52 ±0.13
0.81 ±0.14
1.22 ±0.17
0.29 ±0.08
0.73 ±0.19
0.49 ±0.09
0.35 ±0.05
0.44 ±0.14
0.43 ±0.08
0.48 ±0.07
0.73 ±0.15
0.55 ±0.12
0.57 ±0.12
1.82 ±0.36
0.20 ±0.03
0.52 ±0.08
Trend
Comment
ND
ND
ND
SL
SL
ND
NA
ND
SL
SL
ND
SL
ND
SL
SL
SL
OJ
to
SH = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly higher than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
SL = 2004 UATMP concentration is significantly lower than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
ND = 2004 UATMP concentration is not significantly different than the 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
NA = Not available
BOLD = significant difference between 1990-1994 average MSA concentration and 2002-2003 average MSA concentration
-------
Table 3-14. Summary of Additional Analyses by Site
Site
APMI
AZFL
BOMA
BTMO
BTUT
CANC
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
DEMI
DITN
EATN
ELNJ
GAFL
GPCO
GPMS
GRMS
HACT
HOMI
INDEM
ITCMI
JAMS
KITN
LDTN
LOTN
MAWI
MCAZ
NBIL
NBNJ
NATTS
Site
/
/
/
/
/
Future
Regulation
Analysis
/
/
/
/
/
Emission Tracer Analysis
No Noncancer Exceedances
/
/
/
No noncancer Exceedances
RFC Analysis
VOC Not Sampled
/
/
/
VOC Not Sampled
VOC Not Sampled
/
/
/
Site-Specific
Trends
Analysis
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
MSA-Specific
Trends Analysis
/
/
/
Not in MSA
/
Not in MSA
/
/
Not in MSA
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Not in MSA
/
Not in MSA
/
Not in MSA
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Mobile Tracer
Analysis
/
/
/
/
OJ
to
-------
Table 3-14. Summary of Additional Analyses by Site (Continued)
Site
ORFL
PGMS
PSAZ
QVAZ
RTPNC
S4MO
SFSD
SKFL
SLMO
SLND
SPAZ
SPIL
SYFL
TUMS
YFMI
NATTS
Site
/
/
/
Future
Regulation
Analysis
/
/
/
Emission Tracer Analysis
/
/
No Noncancer Exceedances
RFC Analysis
/
/
/
/
/
/
Site-Specific
Trends
Analysis
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
MSA-Specific
Trends Analysis
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Not in MSA
/
/
/
Not in MSA
/
Mobile Tracer
Analysis
/
/
/
/
OJ
to
-------
4.0 Sites in Arizona
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the four
UATMP sites in Arizona (MCAZ, PSAZ, QVAZ, and SPAZ). The Arizona sites sampled for
VOC only. 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 sites in their urban
locations. Figures 4-5 and 4-6 identify facilities within 10 miles of the sites that reported to the
2002 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 no nearby
industrial sources. MCAZ, PSAZ and SPAZ are located near many different types of industries,
of which miscellaneous processes are the most numerous.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2004 at a weather station near these
sites for calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air concentration
measurements. The weather station is Phoenix-Sky Harbor International Airport (WBAN
23183).
Table 4-1 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), pressure (average sea
level pressure), and wind information (average u- and v-components of the wind) for the entire
year and on days samples were taken. 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). These sites sampled only from January
to March, which explains the significant differences between 2004 and sample day averages.
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. Table 4-2 summarizes the cancer
weighting scores and Table 4-3 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 4-2 shows that the prevalent cancer compounds reflect the nationwide prevalent
cancer list, which is in Section 3 of this report. Only acrylonitrile, benzene, and carbon
tetrachloride were prevalent across all four sites. Of the prevalent noncancer compounds
summarized in Table 4-3, ^ra«5-l,3-dichloropropene (detected atMCAZ, SPAZ, and QVAZ),
chloromethane (detected at MCAZ and QVAZ), carbon tetrachloride (detected at MCAZ, SPAZ,
and QVAZ), and toluene (detected at MCAZ and PSAZ) are not listed among the nationwide
noncancer prevalent list. The only noncancer compounds prevalent across all four sites were
acrylonitrile and benzene.
The following prevalent toxic compounds were not detected at any of the Phoenix MSA
sites: 1,2 dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, bromomethane, c/s-l,3-dichloropropene, ethyl
acrylate, vinyl chloride, and chloroprene. Note, carbonyls were not sampled at the Arizona sites;
therefore, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde would not be detected.
4.2 Toxicity Analysis
Although only detected three or fewer times, acrylonitrile contributed most to three of the
four sites' total cancer toxicity. Benzene and carbon tetrachloride had the most detects at each of
the sites. At all but one site (SPAZ), acrylonitrile also contributed most to the noncancer
toxicity.
The acrylonitrile cancer risk at PSAZ was the highest among the four sites at 247.9 in a
million, while at QVAZ, MCAZ, and SPAZ, the acrylonitrile cancer risk was 24.10, 22.14, and
4-2
-------
11.81 in a million, respectively. Cancer risk from exposure to benzene was 16.54, 25.22, and
28.36 in a million at MCAZ, PSAZ, and SPAZ, respectively. Also at PSAZ and SPAZ, 1,3-
butadiene had a cancer risk of 13.65 and 13.33 in a million, respectively.
For the compounds that may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the average
acrylonitrile toxicity at PSAZ was 1.82 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer
health effect). However, this compound was only measured once, and this acrylonitrile
concentration was above its noncancer RfC weighting factor.
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 (VOC only) are listed in Table 4-1. The SPAZ site has the
highest average UATMP concentrations (72.40 ±13.41 |ig/m3). Table 4-4 summarizes 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.
The Arizona sites exhibited some of the strongest Pearson correlations of all the UATMP
sites. This is likely due to the low number of sample days (January to March 2004). Most of the
correlations between the prevalent compounds and the temperature parameters were, at least,
moderately strong and positive. Benzene and/>-dichlorobenzene had the strongest correlations
with dewpoint temperature at QVAZ (0.92) and maximum temperature at PSAZ (0.89),
respectively. Overall, the v-component of the wind had the fewest number of correlations that
could be considered at least moderately strong. It is important to note that these sites only
sampled through March, so the overall number of detects for any pollutant is relatively low.
Figures 4-7 through 4-10 show the composite back trajectories for the Arizona sites for
the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a
parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in these figures,
these sites have very few trajectories because they only sampled through March 2004. The back
4-3
-------
trajectories tend to originate from the northeast or southwest. Each circle around the sites in
Figures 4-7 through 4-10 represents 100 miles; between 69% (MCAZ) and 100% (QVAZ) of the
trajectories originating from within 200 miles of the Arizona sites. The 24-hour airshed domain
is much smaller compared to other sites. Back trajectories originated less than 300 miles away.
4.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level vehicle registration and population in Maricopa County 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. Table 4-5 also includes a vehicle registration to county
population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is
presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10 mile
population surrounding the monitors and the vehicle registration ratio. Table 4-5 also contains
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. This information is
compared to the average daily UATMP concentration 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 10 miles. These two sites also have the highest
average daily UATMP concentrations. QVAZ, which has the lowest number of vehicles passing
by and estimated vehicle ownership, measured the lowest 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 3-2 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. The SPAZ site has a larger difference between the benzene-
ethylbenzene and xylenes-ethylbenzene ratios than the roadside study. At QVAZ, the benzene-
ethylbenzene ratio is larger than the xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio, whereas the opposite is true for
the roadside study.
4-4
-------
4.5 RFG 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 the RFG additive in the Phoenix MSA is ethanol. Figures 4-11 through 4-14 are the VOC
profiles at the Arizona sites.
At MCAZ (Figure 4-11), the total VOC concentrations were varied, with the highest
concentration occurring on March 10, 2004. On that day, the VOC non-HAP contribution was
much higher than on other sampling days. The non-BTEX mobile concentrations were typically
low or non-existent. The sampling at MCAZ ran from January 4 - March 15, thus missing three-
quarters of the year. Therefore, any reduction in total VOCs or the BTEX compounds during the
winter season cannot be determined using 2004 data alone.
At PSAZ (Figure 4-12), the total VOC concentrations were also varied, with the highest
concentration occurring on March 10, 2004. (This was also the highest concentration at MCAZ.)
On that day, all categories of VOC were slightly higher than on other sampling days. The non-
BTEX HAP concentrations were typically low. The sampling at PSAZ ran from January 4 -
March 15, thus missing a majority of the year. Any reduction in total VOCs or the BTEX
compounds during the winter season cannot be determined using 2004 data alone.
The sampling at QVAZ ran from January 10 - March 10, thus missing most of the year.
According to Figure 4-13, the total VOC concentrations were low compared to other Arizona
sites, with the highest concentration occurring on January 22, 2004. On that day, the BTEX HAP
contribution was much higher than on other sampling days. The stationary source HAP
concentrations are typically low. Any reduction in total VOCs or the BTEX compounds during
the winter season cannot be determined using 2004 data alone.
4-5
-------
At SPAZ (Figure 4-14), the total VOC concentrations were also varied, with the highest
concentration occurring on March 10, 2004 (like MCAZ and PSAZ). On that day, the BTEX
HAP contribution was much higher than other sampling days. Typically, the non-BTEX mobile
HAP concentrations were low. The sampling at SPAZ ran from January 4 - March 15, thus
missing most of the year. Any reduction in total VOCs or the BTEX compounds during the
winter season cannot be determined using 2004 data alone. It is interesting to note that the
highest concentration at each of the sites in Maricopa County occurred on the same day, March
10th.
4.6 NATTS Site Analysis
One of the Phoenix sites, PSAZ, is an EPA-designated NATTS site. A description of the
NATTS program is provided in Section 3.6. A regulation analysis and an emission tracer
analysis for each of the NATTS sites was conducted. Details on each type of analysis are also
provided in Section 3.6.
4.6.1 Regulation Analysis
Table 3-10 summarizes the reduction of emissions that is expected from the promulgation
of regulations applicable to facilities located within 10 miles of the monitoring site. This
analysis includes only regulations implemented after 2002 or later (regulations implemented
prior to 2003 would already be in effect at the time of the 2002 National Emissions Inventory and
no further reduction would be expected). As indicated in Table 3-10, five future regulations
would be applicable to the facilities located within 10 miles of PSAZ. Since PSAZ sampled only
VOC, only VOC reductions are considered. Based on analysis, the regulations shown are
expected to achieve reductions in emissions of the following UATMP VOC: ethylbenzene (8%),
methyl ethyl ketone (24%), styrene (41%), tetrachloroethylene (17%), toluene (3%), and total
xylenes (9%). A 12% reduction of VOC is expected as a result of these regulations, as shown in
Table 3-10. These reductions are expected to occur over the next few years as the last
compliance date for the applicable regulations is April 2007.
4-6
-------
4.6.2 Emission Tracer Analysis
The highest acrylonitrile noncancer toxicity score was further examined here. Figure 4-
11 is the pollution rose for acrylonitrile at PSAZ. The highest concentration of acrylonitrile
occurred on February 27, 2004 and winds on that day point to possible emission sources south of
the monitor. This was also the only time acrylonitrile was detetcted. Figure 4-12 is a back
trajectory map for this date, which shows air originating to the southwest of the monitor.
Acrylonitrile stationary emission sources near this site and in the general direction of the back
trajectory are also plotted in Figure 4-12. According to the 2002 NEI, there are a few
acrylonitrile sources located southwest of the monitoring site. Air sampled at PSAZ on this date
likely passed nearby these sources earlier in the day.
4.7 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2003 and are still participating in the
2004 program year (i.e., minimum 3 years), a site-specific trends analysis was conducted.
Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are
located in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was performed.
Details on this analysis are discussed in Section 3.9.
4.7.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses
PSAZ, QVAZ, and SPAZ have been participants in the UATMP since 2001, while
MCAZ has only participated since 2003. Benzene concentrations have varied only a little over
the last four years at PSAZ, while 1,3-butadiene has been slightly decreasing. Benzene
concentrations at QVAZ have remained fairly steady, except for an increase in 2003. 1,3-
Butadiene concentrations at QVAZ also increased significantly in 2003, but this compound was
not even detected in 2004. At SPAZ, benzene concentrations are up in 2004 from 2003 levels,
but both are less than concentrations in previous years. Levels of 1,3-butadiene at SPAZ have
been slightly decreasing since 2002. Please refer to Figures 3-43, 3-44, and 3-48.
4-7
-------
4.7.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses
All four Arizona sites reside in the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA The Phoenix, AZ
MSA has experienced a 60.5% increase in population and a 72.3% increase in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) from 1990 to 2003. VOC emissions have decreased between 27% and 36%
between 1990 and 2002. The 2004 VOC concentrations has decreased significantly from the
2002-2003 time period, according to the UATMP sites that represent this MSA. Trends for these
and other compounds of interest can be found in Table 3-13. This MSA participates in the winter
oxygenated program and participated in the reformulated gasoline program from 1992-1998.
4-8
-------
Figure 4-1. Phoenix, Arizona Site 1 (MCAZ) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
4-9
-------
Figure 4-2. Phoenix, Arizona Site 2 (PSAZ) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
4-10
-------
Figure 4-3. Phoenix, Arizona Site 3 (QVAZ) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
4-11
-------
Figure 4-4. Phoenix, Arizona Site 4 (SPAZ) Monitoring Site
%
'
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
4-12
-------
Figure 4-5. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of MCAZ, PSAZ, and SPAZ
112'25'OW 112'20DW
112'10'0'W m^'O'W
Pinal / Maricopa / L
/ \\County , County
/ X^\ , / ,
112WW
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
@ MCAZ UATMP site [§] PSAZ UATMP site $ SPAZ UATMP site 0 10 mile radius | [County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (6) \
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (1) @
z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (6) Q
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (7) 4
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (1) V
*• Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (2) u
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (9) s
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (3) 8
x Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (2) ^
Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (11)
Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2)
Papers Allied Products (1)
Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (2)
Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (3)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (6)
Utility Boilers (2)
Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (8)
4-13
-------
Figure 4-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of QVAZ
111°20'0'W nns'O'w urio'O'w
uns'O'w uno'O'w mww
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
) QVAZ UATMP site
._.) 10 mile radius
JCounty boundary
There were no facilities in the 2002 NEI within 10 miles of QVAZ.
4-14
-------
Figure 4-7. Composite Back Trajectory Map for MCAZ
-------
Figure 4-8. Composite Back Trajectory Map for PSAZ
-------
Figure 4-9. Composite Back Trajectory Map for QVAZ
-------
Figure 4-10. Composite Back Trajectory Map for SPAZ
oo
-------
Figure 4-11. 2004 Total VOC Profile for MCAZ
160
140
• VOCnon-HAPs
H Other mobile source HAPs
D BTEX compounds
D Stationary Source VOC HAP
VO
O
O
CM
O
O
CXI
O
O
O
CXI
CD
O
O
CXI
CXI
CXI
O
O
CXI
CO
CXI
O
O
CXI
CO
cxi
O
O
CXI
cxi
O
O
CXI
cxi
O
O
CXI
CXI
O
O
CXI
r-
CXI
CXI
O
O
CXI
CO
O
O
CXI
O
CO
O
O
CXI
CD
CO
Sample Date
-------
Figure 4-12. 2004 Total VOC Profile for PSAZ
100
to
o
to
E
.0
E
+->
c
0
o
c
o
o
• VOCnon-HAPs
H Other mobile source HAPs
D BTEX compounds
D Stationary Source VOC HAP
,
cxi
cxi
CO
CO
Sample Date
-------
Figure 4-13. 2004 Total VOC Profile at QVAZ
15
12
co
E
0
• VOCnon-HAPs
H Other mobile source HAPs
D BTEX compounds
D Stationary Source VOC HAP
o
o
CN
O
O
O
CN
CM
CM
O
O
CN
CO
CM
O
O
CN
O
o
CN
I"-
CM
CM
O
o
CN
O
CO
Sample Date
4-21
-------
Figure 4-14. 2004 Total VOC Profile at SPAZ
to
E
150
125
100
• VOCnon-HAPs
B Other mobile source HAPs
D BTEX compounds
D Stationary Source VOC HAP
C
o
75
to
to
c
0)
g
o
O
50
25
0
JjJ • • B-n-i-
•1
o
o
CM
o o
o o
Csl Csl
O CD
O
O
Csl
CM
CM
O
O
Csl
CO
Csl
O
O
Csl
CO
Csj
O
O
Csl
O)
csi
o
o
Csl
o
o
Csl
o
o
Csl
Csl Csl
•sf
o
o
Csl
•sf
CO
•sf
o
o
Csl
•sf
o
o
Csl
CD
CO CO
Sam pie Date
-------
Figure 4-15. Acrylonitrile Pollution Rose for PSAZ
to
OJ
4
3
oncentratior
D ->• N
Pollutant C
) ->• C
^
3
4
5
NW N
-
X
/
W /
\
V
\
Dashed circle represents
noncancer benchmark value
sw s
NE
Avg Cone = 3.65 ug/m3
\
\
} E
J
SE
1 0 1
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 4-16. Acrylonitrile Sources Along the February 27, 2004 Back Trajectory
at PSAZ
• *
Miles
i i i
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
® PSAZ UATMP site
• Facilities emitting Acrylonitrile
= 4 Hour Back Trajectory 2/27/04
County boundary
| [State boundary
4-24
-------
Table 4-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Arizona
Site
Name
MCAZ
PSAZ
QVAZ
SPAZ
Type
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
^
55.04
(±18.61)
^
58.56
(±11.50)
SSS
9.91
(±1.49)
^
72.40
(±13.41)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
85.58
(±1.68)
68.46
(±6.07)
85.58
(±1.68)
67.58
(±6.33)
85.58
(±1.68)
68.80
(±9.89)
85.58
(±1.68)
69.50
(±6.23)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
75.17
(±1.60)
58.88
(±4.81)
75.17
(±1.60)
58.20
(±5.02)
75.17
(±1.60)
59.68
(±7.42)
75.17
(±1.60)
59.41
(±5.10)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
37.99
(±1.20)
32.75
(±5.63)
37.99
(±1.20)
33.57
(±5.86)
37.99
(±1.20)
34.09
(±9.61)
37.99
(±1.20)
31.50
(±5.54)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
55.70
(±0.89)
46.95
(±3.23)
55.70
(±0.89)
46.90
(±3.50)
55.70
(±0.89)
47.94
(±4.99)
55.70
(±0.89)
46.70
(±3.47)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
32.71
(±1.87)
43.03
(±9.80)
32.71
(±1.87)
45.00
(±9.83)
32.71
(±1.87)
44.30
(±14.87)
32.71
(±1.87)
39.62
(±8.02)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1012.07
(±0.50)
1014.01
(±2.39)
1012.07
(±0.50)
1013.79
(±2.55)
1012.07
(±0.50)
1013.34
(±4.45)
1012.07
(±0.50)
1014.33
(±2.51)
Average «-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.40
(±0.31)
-2.15
(±1.76)
-0.40
(±0.31)
-1.69
(±1.57)
-0.40
(±0.31)
-2.84
(±1.86)
-0.40
(±0.31)
-1.78
(±1.75)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.80
(±0.19)
0.33
(±0.92)
0.80
(±0.19)
0.64
(±0.78)
0.80
(±0.19)
0.24
(±1.73)
0.80
(±0.19)
0.25
(±0.98)
to
-------
Table 4-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at Monitoring Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Phoenix, Arizona
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
West Broadway in Phoenix, Arizona - MCAZ
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
2.21 E-05
1.65E-05
9.41 E-06
8.66 E-06
5.95 E-06
4.17 E-06
1.50 E-06
1.18 E-06
3.03 E-07
31.69
23.68
13.47
12.39
8.52
5.97
2.15
1.69
0.43
31.69
55.37
68.84
81.24
89.76
95.72
97.87
99.57
100.00
0.33
2.12
0.31
0.58
0.54
0.71
0.38
0.59
0.64
1
13
11
13
2
11
3
1
11
22.14
16.54
9.41
8.66
5.95
4.17
1.50
1.18
0.30
Supersite in Phoenix, Arizona - PSAZ
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Trichloromethane
2.48 E-04
2.52 E-05
1.36 E-05
9.08 E-06
8.67 E-06
8.01 E-06
1.33 E-06
4.97 E-07
78.86
8.02
4.34
2.89
2.76
2.55
0.42
0.16
78.86
86.88
91.22
94.11
96.87
99.42
99.84
100.00
3.65
3.23
0.45
0.83
0.58
1.36
0.33
1.06
1
12
12
10
12
11
3
12
247.92
25.22
13.65
9.08
8.67
8.01
1.33
0.50
-------
Table 4-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at Monitoring Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Phoenix, Arizona (Continued)
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
Queen Valley in Phoenix, Arizona - QVAZ
Acrylonitrile
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
2.41 E-05
8.87 E-06
3.34 E-06
1.63 E-06
63.52
23.38
8.80
4.31
63.52
86.89
95.69
100.00
0.35
0.59
0.43
0.41
3
5
5
1
24.10
8.87
3.34
1.63
South Phoenix, Arizona - SPAZ
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrylonitrile
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloroepropene
Dichloromethane
2.84 E-05
1.33 E-05
1.18 E-05
9.26 E-06
8.41 E-06
3. 69 E-06
1.59 E-06
3.44E-07
36.93
17.36
15.37
12.06
10.96
4.81
2.07
0.45
36.93
54.29
69.66
81.72
92.68
97.48
99.55
100.00
3.64
0.44
0.17
0.84
0.56
0.63
0.40
0.73
12
11
2
10
12
9
4
10
28.36
13.33
11.81
9.26
8.41
3.69
1.59
0.34
J^.
K>
-------
Table 4-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at Monitoring Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Phoenix, Arizona
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Adverse Health
Concentrations
West Broadway in Phoenix, Arizona - MCAZ
Acrylonitrile
1,3 -Butadiene
Xylenes
Benzene
Toluene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Acetonitrile
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Trichloroethylene
Styrene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Methyl-fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
1.63E-01
1.57 E-01
1.11E-01
7.26 E-02
2.03 E-02
1.88 E-02
1.44 E-02
1.32 E-02
8.64 E-03
2.82 E-03
2.62 E-03
1.53 E-03
1.22 E-03
9.85 E-04
8.34 E-04
6.76 E-04
6.44 E-04
2.81 E-04
2.61 E-04
27.66
26.64
18.88
10.40
3.45
3.19
2.45
2.24
1.47
0.48
0.44
0.26
0.21
0.17
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.05
0.04
27.66
54.30
73.18
84.60
88.64
91.83
94.28
96.52
97.98
98.46
98.91
99.17
99.37
99.54
99.68
99.80
99.91
99.96
100.00
0.33
0.31
11.11
2.177
8.12
0.38
0.58
1.19
0.52
0.28
0.71
1.53
6.08
0.59
0.83
0.54
0.64
0.84
0.78
1
11
13
13
13
3
13
13
6
7
11
13
13
1
13
2
11
12
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 4-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at Monitoring Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 in
Phoenix, Arizona (Continued)
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Adverse Health
Concentrations
Supersite in Phoenix, Arizona - PSAZ
Acrylonitrile
1,3 -Butadiene
Xylenes
Benzene
Acetonitrile
Toluene
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Chloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Chloroform
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Dichloromethane
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Styrene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
1.82E+00
2.27 E-01
1.24E-01
1.08 E-01
4.20 E-02
2.45 E-02
1.66 E-02
1.53 E-02
1.45 E-02
5.03 E-03
4.00 E-03
2.00 E-03
1.75 E-03
1.11 E-03
1.06 E-03
1.03 E-03
5.58 E-04
1.96E-04
1.80 E-04
75.58
9.43
5.14
4.47
1.74
1.01
0.69
0.63
0.60
0.21
0.17
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
75.58
85.01
90.15
94.62
96.36
97.38
98.07
98.70
99.30
99.51
99.67
99.76
99.83
99.87
99.92
99.96
99.98
99.99
100.00
3.65
0.45
12.40
3.23
2.52
9.78
0.33
1.37
0.58
1.36
0.39
2.00
1.75
5.53
1.06
0.83
0.56
0.59
0.54
1
12
12
12
10
12
3
12
12
11
7
12
12
12
12
10
12
9
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 4-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at Monitoring Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 in
Phoenix, Arizona (Continued)
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Adverse Health
Concentrations
Queen Valley in Phoenix, Arizona - QVAZ
Acrylonitrile
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Chloromethane
Acetonitrile
Xylenes
Toluene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Ethylbenzene
1.77E-01
2.04 E-02
1.48E-02
1.43 E-02
1.23 E-02
8.14E-03
6.30 E-03
2.88 E-03
3.63 E-04
1.74E-04
68.99
7.95
5.75
5.55
4.80
3.17
2.45
1.12
0.14
0.07
68.99
76.94
82.69
88.24
93.05
96.22
98.67
99.79
99.93
100.00
0.35
0.41
0.59
0.43
1.11
0.49
0.63
1.15
1.81
0.17
3
1
5
5
5
2
4
5
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
South Phoenix, Arizona - SPAZ
Xylenes
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
Acrylonitrile
Toluene
Acetonitrile
trans- 1 ,3 ,-Dichloropropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
2.23 E-01
2.22 E-01
1.21 E-01
8.68 E-02
3. 54 E-02
3. 00 E-02
1.99 E-02
1.40 E-02
28.62
28.58
15.58
11.16
4.55
3.86
2.55
1.80
28.62
57.20
72.78
83.94
88.49
92.35
94.90
96.71
22.26
0.44
3.64
0.17
14.16
1.80
0.40
0.56
12
11
12
2
12
8
4
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 4-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at Monitoring Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 in
Phoenix, Arizona (Continued)
Compound
Chloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Styrene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Average
Toxicity
1.35E-02
3.01 E-03
2.51E-03
2.32 E-03
1.38 E-03
1.05 E-03
7.31 E-04
6.32 E-04
2.57 E-04
2.22 E-04
%
Contribution
1.74
0.39
0.32
0.30
0.18
0.14
0.09
0.08
0.03
0.03
Cumulative %
Contribution
98.44
98.83
99.15
99.45
99.63
99.76
99.86
99.94
99.97
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
1.22
3.01
0.25
0.63
6.88
0.84
0.73
0.63
0.77
0.67
# Detects
12
12
6
9
12
10
10
12
7
9
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 4-4. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at Monitoring
Sites 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Phoenix, Arizona
Compound
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
Sea Level
Pressure
M-component
of wind
v-component
of wind
West Broadway in Phoenix, Arizona - MCAZ
1,3 -Butadiene
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
fra«s-l,3,-Dichloropropene
Xylenes
0.09
-0.05
-0.48
-0.28
-0.44
-0.01
0.24
0.31
NA
0.58
0.33
0.54
0.43
0.38
0.45
-0.53
0.47
-0.18
-0.04
0.55
0.19
-0.74
0.20
-0.49
0.04
-0.26
0.13
-0.04
-0.25
-0.06
-0.11
-0.16
-0.36
NA
0.60
0.69
0.60
0.58
0.12
-0.34
0.45
0.17
-0.38
-0.67
-0.50
-0.12
-0.03
-0.12
0.02
-0.12
NA
0.74
0.64
-0.31
0.22
-0.69
-0.19
-0.06
-0.06
Supersite in Phoenix, Arizona - PSAZ
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
p-Dichlorobenzene
Xylenes
0.25
-0.31
0.02
-0.44
-0.68
-0.65
-0.41
-0.64
-0.70
-0.31
0.30
0.37
0.61
0.23
0.02
0.21
NA
0.59
0.05
0.89
0.56
0.39
0.10
0.78
0.39
-0.50
0.21
0.11
-0.40
-0.07
0.20
0.55
-0.02
-0.78
0.08
-0.63
-0.71
0.07
-0.38
-0.12
-0.01
0.54
0.21
-0.38
0.55
0.05
0.37
-0.60
0.09
Queen Valley in Phoenix, Arizona - QVAZ
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
NA
NA
0.22
-0.13
-0.25
-0.06
0.00
-0.07
-0.92
0.40
0.53
-0.59
0.29
0.32
-0.77
0.39
0.54
0.47
0.25
0.12
0.37
0.38
0.30
0.01
0.14
0.19
NA
-------
Table 4-4. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at Monitoring
Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Phoenix, Arizona (Continued)
Compound
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
Sea Level
Pressure
M-component
of wind
v-component
of wind
South Phoenix, Arizona - SPAZ
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Xylenes
0.36
-0.03
0.20
-0.24
-0.43
-0.72
-0.13
-0.55
-0.59
-0.50
0.03
0.39
0.12
0.12
-0.08
0.05
NA
0.60
0.19
0.83
0.30
0.78
0.47
0.75
0.52
0.20
0.84
0.35
0.73
0.30
0.65
-0.13
0.22
0.49
0.30
0.10
-0.67
-0.09
0.24
0.26
0.77
0.36
0.51
-0.11
0.36
-0.56
0.06
-0.32
-0.01
-0.49
-0.80
-0.61
0.31
-0.17
-0.49
-0.40
-0.50
0.38
-0.32
0.23
0.33
-0.18
-0.29
0.04
-0.48
0.11
0.19
0.23
-0.19
-0.24
0.15
-0.29
0.08
-------
Table 4-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Arizona Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Site
MCAZ
PSAZ
QVAZ
SPAZ
Estimated County
Population
3,389,260
3,389,260
204,148
3,389,260
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
2,870,961
2,870,961
175,693
2,870,961
Vehicles per
Person
(Population:
Registration)
0.85
0.85
0.86
0.85
Population within
10 Miles
851,952
1,409,602
61,848
851,962
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Registration
724,168
1,198,162
53,189
724,168
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
10,108
250
200
50,000
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(jig/m3)
55.04 ±18.61
58.56 ±11.50
9.91 ±1.49
72.40 ±13.44
-------
5.0 Site in Colorado
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for one UATMP
site in Colorado (GPCO), located in Grand Junction. Figure 5-1 is a topographical map showing
the monitoring site in its urban locations. Figure 5-2 identifies facilities within 10 miles of this
site as reported in the 2002 NEI. The Grand Junction site is surrounded by numerous sources. A
large number of sources near GPCO fall into the liquids distribution source category.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2004 at a weather station near this
site for calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air concentration
measurements. The weather station is Walker Field Airport (WBAN 23066).
Table 5-1 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), pressure (average sea level pressure), and
wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind) for the entire year and on days
samples were taken. Grand Junction is located in a mountain valley on the west side of the
Rockies. This location can help protect the area from dramatic weather changes. The area tends
to be rather dry and winds tend to flow out of the east-southeast on average, due to the valley
breeze effect. Valley breezes occur as the sun heats up the side of a mountain. The warm air
rises, creating a current that will move up the valley walls. 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). Table 5-2 summarizes
the cancer weighting scores, and Table 5-3 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 this site. Due to sampling error, the acetonitrile values can not be reported
accurately.
5-1
-------
Table 5-2 shows that the prevalent cancer compounds reflect the nationwide prevalent
cancer compound list, which is in Section 3 of this report. Of the detected compounds, trans-
1,3-dichloropropene, dichloromethane, and formaldehyde were not listed among the nationwide
prevalent cancer compounds. The prevalent noncancer compounds summarized in Table 5-3,
were all listed among the nationwide noncancer prevalent list.
The following prevalent toxic compounds were not detected at the Grand Junction site:
1,2-dichloroethane; 1,2-dichlorpropane; c/s-l,3-dichloropropene; vinyl chloride; ethyl acrylate;
and />-dichloroethane.
5.2 Toxicity Analysis
Acrylonitrile contributed to nearly 40% of the cancer toxicity, although it was detected
the least of the prevalent cancer compounds. Together, acrylonitrile, benzene, and acetaldehyde
contribute to nearly 75% of the total toxicity. The risk associated with cancer for these three
compounds is 31.14, 17.54, and 12.76 in a million, respectively.
For the compounds that may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the average
acetonitrile toxicity at GPCO was 0.819 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer
health effect). Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde both had two measured concentrations above the
noncancer RfC weighting factor.
5.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Colorado Sites
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were sampled at this site and Table 5-1 shows the
average UATMP concentration at GPCO. Table 5-4 presents 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. Moderately strong to strong negative correlations were computed between 1,3-butadiene,
benzene, and xylenes and the temperature parameters, the wet bulb temperature, and the v-
component of the wind; moderately strong to strong positive correlations between these
compounds and relative humidity and sea level pressure were also computed. Pearson
5-2
-------
correlations could not be computed for bromomethane due to the low number of detects (fewer
than 4).
Figure 5-3 shows the composite back trajectory for the GPCO site for the days on which
sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air
traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in Figure 5-3, the back
trajectories originated predominantly from the south, southwest, and northwest of the site. Each
circle around the site in Figure 5-3 represents 100 miles; 80% of the trajectories originated
within 300 miles, and 97% within 400 miles from the GPCO site. The 24-hour airshed domain is
somewhat smaller than other sites. Back trajectories originated over 400 miles away.
5.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level vehicle registration and population in Mesa County, CO were obtained
from the Colorado Department of Revenue and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in
Table 5-5. Table 5-5 also includes a vehicle registration to county population ratio (vehicles per
person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimation of
10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile population surrounding the monitor
and the vehicle registration ratio. Table 5-5 also contains 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. This information is compared to the average daily UATMP
concentration at the Colorado site in Table 5-5.
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 3-2 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 Grand Junction site generally resemble those
of the roadside study.
5-3
-------
5.5 NATTS Site Analysis
The Grand Junction site is an EPA-designated NATTS site. A description of the NATTS
program is provided in Section 3.6. A regulation analysis and an emission tracer analysis for
each of the NATTS sites was conducted. Details on each type of analysis are also provided in
Section 3.6.
5.5.1 Regulation Analysis
Table 3-10 summarizes the reduction of emissions that is expected from the promulgation
of regulations applicable to facilities located within 10 miles of the monitoring site. This
analysis includes only regulations implemented after 2002 (regulations implemented prior to
2003 would already be in effect at the time of the 2002 National Emissions Inventory and no
further reduction would be expected). As indicated in Table 3-10, six future regulations would
be applicable to the facilities located within 10 miles of GPCO. Based on analysis, the
regulations shown are expected to achieve reductions in emissions of the following UATMP
pollutants: acetaldehyde (19%), formaldehyde (27%), benzene (1%), methyl ethyl ketone (48%),
methyl methacrylate (62%), styrene (67%), toluene (1%), and total xylenes (48%). Carbonyl
compounds are expected to see the greatest reduction of the three compound types shown in
Table 3-10. These reductions are expected to occur over the next few years as the last
compliance date for the applicable regulations is June 2007.
5.5.2 Emission Tracer Analysis
The highest acetaldehyde and formaldehyde noncancer toxicity scores were further
examined. Figures 5-4 through 5-5 are the pollution roses for acetaldehyde and formaldehyde at
GPCO. The highest concentration of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde occurred on September 6,
2004 and winds on that day point to possible emission sources southeast of the monitor.
Figures 5-6 and 5-7 are back trajectory maps for this date, which shows air originating to the
south and west of the monitor. Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde stationary emission sources near
this site and in the general direction of the back trajectory are also plotted in Figures 5-6 and 5-7.
According to the 2002 NEI, there are very few, if any acetaldehyde and formaldehyde sources
located south and west of the monitoring site.
5-4
-------
5.6 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2003 and are still participating in the
2004 program year (i.e., minimum 3 years), a site-specific trends analysis was conducted.
Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are
located in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was
performed. Details on this analysis are discussed in Section 3.9.
5.6.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses
GPCO is new to the UATMP this year. Therefore, a site-specific trends analysis was not
conducted.
5.6.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses
GPCO resides in the Grand Junction, CO MSA. The Grand Junction, CO MSA has
experienced a 33.9% increase in population and an estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from
1990 to 2003. VOC and carbonyl compounds emissions have decreased between 28% and 79%
from 1990 and 2002, respectively. Concentrations for these compounds seem to be on the
decrease or holding steady, based on UATMP sites representing this MSA (GPCO). Trends for
these and other compounds of interest can be found in Table 3-13. This MSA does not
participate in either the winter oxygenated program or the reformulated gasoline program.
5-5
-------
Figure 5-1. Grand Junction, Colorado (GPCO) Monitoring Site
r:.:.:,:-. ....
,,-.•::.. , ",\ •
- ^ ' ••\*~u/r
J.__ ii!l^_ iitei_. y>j N jt_lp(lKIM
•T '^W^ff-S1 i'' fei -l»^'';"->.'•',,'"•_ L _Jrr'; " -:- _:1- -.-J-;
-•X'-^::']; "v;. ^^j ;v.--.':'ri.i:^:-'1.*»Vv'-»''"- -1^ ?'• '
1 ;f.y^7i
•^ • " Hlr^Cli
... .
•_^-'1 •-^••^
Lfe^Mi^- .,..
-.^-ra- - i» .- _ i_ .*.
A}
:1 ";X..4.-:
I-'
tff
-hi J
:
N
W^E
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
5-6
-------
Figure 5-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of GPCO
WBO'G'W 188°45'0'W 188°40'0'W 108-35'0'W irj8*38U"W
108°45'0'W 108'40'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
© GPCO UATMP site
O 10 mile radius
^County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
A Agricultural Services Facility (1)
± Automobile Dealers (1)
¥ Automotive Repair. Services. & Parking (3)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (2)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (1)
+ Health Services Facility (1)
= Instruments & Related Products Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (53)
D Medical, Dental, & Hospital Equipment and Supplies (1)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (7)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (5)
41 Transportation by Air (3)
x Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (3)
5-7
-------
Figure 5-3. Composite Back Trajectory Map for GPCO
oo
-------
Figure 5-4. Acetaldehyde Pollutant Rose at GPCO
o
'i
8
ra
+-
3
1 UU
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
mn
NW N
-
-
-
-
W £~~
V--
-
-
-
-
Dashed circle represents
noncancer benchmark value
-
sw s
NE
Avg Cone = 5.80 ± 3.50 ug/m3
^Nj E
--'
*
•
SE
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 5-5. Formaldehyde Pollutant Rose at GPCO
*t J
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
NW N
-
-
-
<--..
W /
1
\
^^ ••»••..
-
-
Dashed circle represents
noncancer benchmark value
-
sw s
NE
Avg Cone = 2.82 ± 1 .52 ug/m3
_^
^ E
^
^^^
^
SE
0)
u
c
o
O
o
Q.
45 40 35 30 25 20 15
10 5 0 5 10
Pollutant Concentration
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-------
Figure 5-6. Acetaldehyde Sources Along the September 6, 2004 Back Trajectory
atGPCO
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
@ G PCOUATM P site
• Facilities emitting Acetaldehyde
^^24 Hour Back Trajectory 9/6/04
County boundary
| [State boundary
5-11
-------
Figure 5-7. Formaldehyde Sources Along the September 6, 2004 Back Trajectory
atGPCO
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
@ GPCOUATMPsite
• Facilities emitting Formaldehyde
^^24 Hour Back Trajectory 9/6/04
| [County boundary
| [State boundary
5-12
-------
Table 5-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Colorado
Site
Name
GPCO
Type
All
2004
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
\S\S\O^
vXX^\
52.87
(±10.47)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
63.98
(±2.30)
67.31
(±5.50)
Average
Temperature
52.48
(±2.06)
55.68
(±4.76)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
28.99
(±1.07)
29.94
(±2.45)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
41.00
(±1.32)
43.05
(±2.85)
Average
Relative
Humidity
50.42
(±2.49)
47.42
(±6.17)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1015.46
(±0.84)
1013.83
(±1.88)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-1.33
(±0.26)
-1.45
(±0.60)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.38
(±0.27)
0.36
(±0.52)
-------
Table 5-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Colorado Monitoring Site - GPCO
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
1-3 -Butadiene
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Dichloromethane
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
3.11E-05
1.75E-05
1.28E-05
8.60 E-06
7.78 E-06
2.94 E-06
1.82 E-06
2.97 E-07
1.55E-08
%
Contribution
37.56
21.16
15.39
10.38
9.39
3.54
2.19
0.36
0.02
Cumulative %
Contribution
37.56
58.73
74.12
84.50
93.89
97.43
99.62
99.98
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.46
2.25
5.80
0.57
0.26
0.50
0.45
0.63
2.82
# Detects
5
55
57
47
41
23
40
1
57
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
31.14
17.54
12.76
8.60
7.78
2.94
0.30
1.82
0.02
-------
Table 5-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Colorado Monitoring Site - GPCO
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
1,3 -Butadiene
Xylenes
Benzene
Bromomethane
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Chloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
Methyl Methacrylate
Chloroform
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Dichloromethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Chloroethane
Average
Toxicity
6.44 E-01
2.88 E-01
2.29 E-01
1.30 E-01
9.00 E-02
7.50 E-02
7.38 E-02
2.27 E-02
1.44 E-02
1.43 E-02
1.40 E-02
3.11E-03
3.01 E-03
2.25 E-03
1.84 E-03
1.19 E-03
6.32 E-04
5.74E-04
2.26 E-04
1.80 E-04
3.69E-05
%
Contribution
40.06
17.91
14.24
8.07
5.60
4.66
4.59
1.41
0.89
0.89
0.87
0.19
0.19
0.14
0.11
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.00
Cumulative %
Contribution
40.06
57.98
72.21
80.28
85.88
90.54
95.12
96.54
97.43
98.32
99.19
99.38
99.57
99.71
99.82
99.90
99.94
99.97
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
5.80
2.82
0.46
0.26
9.00
2.25
0.37
0.45
1.29
0.57
5.58
2.18
0.30
2.25
0.50
1.19
0.63
2.87
0.68
0.54
0.37
# Detects
57
57
5
41
55
55
2
1
54
47
55
30
1
53
23
55
40
50
12
1
1
Adverse Health
Concentrations
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 5-4. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Site in Grand Junction, Colorado (GPCO)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
Maximum
Temperature
-0.51
0.17
0.63
-0.45
Average
Temperature
-0.54
0.11
0.68
-0.48
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.17
0.07
-0.76
0.00
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.54
0.11
0.36
-0.40
Relative
Humidity
0.46
-0.07
-0.58
0.54
Sea Level
Pressure
0.52
0.14
-0.67
0.51
M-component
of wind
-0.09
-0.06
-0.18
-0.06
v-component
of wind
-0.30
0.15
0.99
-0.33
NA
-0.15
0.08
0.06
-0.33
-0.10
0.03
0.01
-0.35
0.13
0.05
0.11
0.08
-0.07
0.04
0.04
-0.27
0.20
0.01
0.02
0.43
-0.06
0.19
0.28
0.22
-0.03
-0.09
-0.05
0.04
0.09
0.13
0.03
-0.37
-------
Table 5-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Colorado Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Site
GPCO
Estimated
County
Population
124,676
Estimated County
Number of
Vehicles Owned
127,138
Vehicles per
Person
(Population:
Registration)
1.02
Population
within
10 Miles
106,900
Estimated 10-
Mile Vehicle
Registration
109,038
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
19,572
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oig/m3)
52.87 (±10.47)
-------
6.0 Site in Connecticut
This section presents 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 site in its urban location. This site is located under the 1-84 overpass to 1-91, in
downtown Hartford. Figure 6-2 identifies facilities within 10 miles of this site that reported to
the 2002 NEI. The Hartford site is surrounded by numerous sources. Many sources near HACT
fall into three categories: surface coating, waste treatment and disposal, and fuel combustion.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2004 at the weather station nearest
this site for calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air concentration
measurements. The weather station is Hartford-Brainard Airport (WBAN 14752).
Similar to last year, 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), pressure (average sea level pressure), and
wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind) for the entire year and on days
samples were taken. Hartford's New England location ensures 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 site
score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered prevalent for this
site.
6-1
-------
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. Both 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's toxicity was over 57% of the total noncancer toxicity. The acetaldehyde cancer
risk was the highest among the toxic carbonyl compounds at 10.45 in a million. For the
compounds that may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the average formaldehyde toxicity
was 0.705 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer health effect). Of the twenty-
five measured formaldehyde concentrations, 5 were above the formaldehyde noncancer RfC
weighting factor. Two of the twenty-five acetaldehyde detections were above the acetaldehyde
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 concentration. The
average UATMP concentration was 31.92 (± 5.35) ug/m3. Sampling began in January and ended
in late May. This can explain some of the differences between the 2004 averages and the sample
day averages as shown in Table 6-1.
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 mostly poor correlations with formaldehyde, with the exception of the
v-component of the wind (0.39). This observation was also true in 2003 as well. With the
exception of the moisture parameters, the correlations tended to be poor with acetaldehyde as
well. The moisture parameter correlations with acetaldehyde were all moderate and negative,
indicating that as the moisture content increases, acetaldehyde concentrations decrease.
6-2
-------
Figure 6-3 shows the composite back trajectory for the HACT site for the days on which
sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air
traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in Figure 6-3, the back
trajectories originated predominantly from the southwest, northwest, and north of the site. Each
circle around the site in Figure 6-3 represents 100 miles; 56% of the trajectories originated
within 400 miles, and 96% within 800 miles from the HACT site. The 24-hour airshed domain
is rather large. Back trajectories originated over 800 miles away.
6.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level vehicle 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. Table 6-5 also includes a vehicle registration to county population
ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented.
An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile population
surrounding the monitors and the computed vehicle registration ratio. Table 6-5 also contains
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. This information is
compared to the average daily UATMP concentration at the HACT site in Table 6-5.
6.5 RFG Analysis
Because VOCs were not sampled at HACT, an RFG analysis was not performed.
However, the Hartford MSA is 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).
6-3
-------
6.6 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2003 and are still participating in the
2004 program year (i.e., minimum 3 years), a site-specific trends analysis was conducted.
Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are
located in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was performed.
Details on this analysis are discussed in Section 3.9.
6.6.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses
HACT has been a participant in the UATMP since 2003. Therefore, no site-specific
trends analysis has been conducted.
6.6.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses
HACT resides in the Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT MSA. The Hartford, CT
MSA has experienced a 4.8% increase in population and a 58.5% increase in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) from 1990 to 2003 (29%). Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde emissions have
decreased approximately 33% and 61% respectively, between 1990 and 2002. Acetaldehyde
concentrations decreased significantly between 1990 and 2003. Acetaldehyde concentrations at
UATMP sites that represent this MSA (HACT) seem to continue this downward trend.
Formaldehyde concentrations increased over 85% between 1990 and 2003. Research has shown
that formaldehyde concentrations tend to increase when fuels containing ethanol are combusted.
Ethanol is used in the winter time. Figure 3-23 shows formaldehyde concentrations at HACT
only being present in the winter and spring, showing the affect of reformulated gasoline. The
UATMP MSA concentration for 2004 shows a decreasing trend. Trends for these and other
compounds of interest can be found in Table 3-13. This MSA participated in the winter
oxygenated program from 1992 to 1995 and the reformulated gasoline program throughout the
duration of the time period.
6-4
-------
Figure 6-1. Hartford, Connecticut (HACT) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
6-5
-------
Figure 6-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of HACT
72°50'0"W 72°45'0'W 72°40'0'W 72°35'0"W 72^0'0'W 72'25'01W
73WW 72'55'0'W
I 10 nH
72'45I0'W 72t40'0'W 72I35'0'W 72-30'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
j? HACT U ATM P site
O 10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. Of Facilities)
z Electrical S Electronic Equipment Facility (2)
Environmental Quality & Housing (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (6)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (13)
H Furniture S Fixtures Facility (1 )
I Incineration Industrial Facility (2)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (2)
I Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (2)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (2)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (5)
R Printing & Publishing Facility (1)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (9)
8 Utility Boilers (1)
& Waste Treatment S Disposal Industrial Facility (9)
6-6
-------
Figure 6-3. Composite Back Trajectory Map for HACT
-------
Table 6-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the HACT Site in Connecticut
Site
Name
HACT
Type
All
2004
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
\S\S\SCS
vxx^\
31.92
(±5.35)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
60.10
(±1.97)
49.00
(±7.08)
Average
Temperature
51.51
(±1.85)
40.86
(±6.71)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
35.79
(±2.10)
27.85
(±8.00)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
46.30
(±1.76)
36.20
(±6.37)
Average
Relative
Humidity
67.32
(±1.51)
64.09
(±7.52)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1017.15
(±0.78)
1015.73
(±3.51)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
1.25
(±0.29)
0.97
(±1.28)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.72
(±0.47)
-2.38
(±2.15)
oo
-------
Table 6-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Hartford, Connecticut Monitoring Site - HACT
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
1.04E-05
3.80 E-08
%
Contribution
99.64
0.36
Cumulative %
Contribution
99.64
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
4.75
6.91
# Detects
25
25
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
10.45
0.04
-------
Table 6-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Hartford, Connecticut Monitoring Site - HACT
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
7.05 E-01
5.28 E-01
%
Contribution
57.18
42.82
Cumulative %
Contribution
57.18
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
6.91
4.75
# Detects
25
25
Adverse Health
Concentrations
5
2
-------
Table 6-4. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
Hartford, Connecticut Site (HACT)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Maximum
Temperature
-0.18
0.05
Average
Temperature
-0.22
0.02
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.31
-0.06
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.25
0.00
Relative
Humidity
-0.30
-0.18
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.01
-0.01
M-component
of wind
0.19
0.16
v-component
of wind
0.15
0.39
-------
Table 6-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Connecticut Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Site
HACT
Estimated
County
Population
871,457
Estimated County
Number of
Vehicles Owned
733,923
Vehicles per
Person
(Population:
Registration)
0.84
Population
within
10 Miles
583,236
Estimated
10-Mile Vehicle
Registration
489,918
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
10,000
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oig/m3)
3 1.92 (±5.35)
to
-------
7.0 Sites in Florida
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the four
UATMP sites in and near the Tampa/St. Petersburg, FL area (AZFL, GAFL, SKFL, SYFL) and
one site near Orlando, FL, area (ORFL). In the Tampa/St. Petersburg area, two of these sites are
located in Hillsborough County and two are in Pinellas County. Figures 7-1 through 7-5 are
topographical maps showing the monitoring sites in their urban locations. Figures 7-6 and
7-7 identify facilities within 10 miles of the sites and that reported to the 2002 NEI. SKFL and
AZFL are located on the Peninsula, with the bulk of the facilities to the north, and closest to
SKFL. GAFL is located near the Gandy Bridge on Highway 92. Few facilities are within a few
miles of GAFL, most are farther to the west or northeast and east of this site. SYFL is farther
inland in Plant City. Most of the facilities within 10 miles are to the west or northeast of this site.
A wide range of industries have facilities near these sites, of which surface coating processes are
the most numerous. Several facilities surround ORFL, most of which are involved in waste
treatment and disposal.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2004 at five weather stations near
these sites for calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air concentration
measurements. The five weather stations are Tampa International Airport, St.
Petersburg/Whitted Airport, St. Petersburg/Clearwater International Airport, Winter Haven's
Gilbert Airport, and Orlando Executive Airport (WBAN 12842, 92806, 12873, 12876, and
12841, respectively).
As in the past, the Florida sites sampled for carbonyl compounds only. Table 7-1
highlights the average UATMP concentration (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), pressure (average sea
level pressure), and wind information (average u- and v-components of the wind) for the entire
year and on days samples were taken. Florida's climate is subtropical, with very mild winters
and warm, humid summers, as Table 7-1 confirms. The annual average maximum temperature is
around 80°F for all locations and average relative humidity is between 72 and 79 percent.
7-1
-------
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. Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde are the
only carbonyl compounds with toxicity weighting factors. Table 7-2 summarizes the cancer
weighting scores, while Table 7-3 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
this site.
As shown in Tables 7-2 and 7-3, acetaldehyde was the only prevalent cancer compound at
each of the Florida sites, while both acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were prevalent for noncancer
compounds. Both of the toxic carbonyl compounds were detected at the Florida sites, similar to
nationwide cancer and non-cancer prevalent carbonyl compounds.
7.2 Toxicity Analysis
The number of detects of acetaldehyde was equal to the number of detects for
formaldehyde at all of the sites, with the exception of SYFL (acetaldehyde had one less).
Acetaldehyde's cancer toxicity contribution was greater than 99% at all of the sites. The
acetaldehyde cancer risk at SKFL was the highest among the five sites at 10.74 in a million, while
the remaining sites ranged from 3.44 (SYFL) to 7.37 (AZFL). Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde's
contribution to noncancer toxicity was more equal. Only one site, SKFL, detected concentrations
of either compound above the adverse noncancer threshold.
7.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Florida Sites
Only carbonyl compounds were measured at the five sites, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and
3-4. Table 7-1 lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2004 to
7-2
-------
December 2004, and for days on which sampling occurred, as well as the average UATMP
concentration at each of the sites. SKFL measured the highest average UATMP concentration
(13.34±10.98 i-ig/m3) while SYFL measured the lowest (6.23 ±0.60 |ig/m3).
Table 7-4 summarizes 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.
Generally, correlations between formaldehyde and the meterological parameter tend to be higher
than those of acetaldehyde, although most of the correlations tend to be in the weak to moderate
range.
Correlations between both compounds and the temperature parameters (average
maximum and average) were all positive, indicating that higher temperatures correspond with
higher concentrations. The strongest correlations occurred at ORFL between formaldehyde and
average maximum temperature (0.66) and average temperature (0.61).
Correlations between the prevalent compounds and the moisture parameters (dew point
temperature, wet bulb temperature, and relative humidity) were relatively weak. Again,
formaldehyde at ORFL exhibit moderately strong correlations, 0.48 with the wet bulb
temperature, and 0.40 with the dewpoint temperature. Relatively humidity did not exhibit this
same trend.
AZFL exhibited the strongest correlations with the wind parameters, although GAFL and
ORFL both had some correlations in the moderate range. Both compounds exhibited moderately
strong negative correlations at AZFL with the w-component of the wind (-0.53 with acetaldehyde
and -0.44 with formaldehyde), indicating that as winds increase from the east or west,
concentrations of the prevalent compounds decrease. The strongest correlation with sea-level
pressure also occurred at AZFL (0.29 with acetaldehyde).
7-3
-------
Figures 7-8 through 7-12 show the composite back trajectories for the Florida sites for the
days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a
parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in these figures,
the back trajectories originate from almost every direction (with the exception of SKFL, which
sampled during only a portion of the year, and therefore has fewer trajectories). Relatively few
trajectories originate from the north and north-northeast of most of the sites. Each circle around
the sites in Figure 7-8 through 7-12 represents 100 miles; between 57% and 68% of the
trajectories originated within 300 miles; and 96% to 98% within 600 miles from the Florida sites.
The 24-hour airshed domain is large, with some back trajectories originating over 600 miles
away.
7.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level vehicle registration and population information were obtained from the
Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are
summarized in Table 7-5. Table 7-5 also includes a vehicle registration to county population
ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the estimated population within 10 miles of each site is
presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile
population surrounding the monitors and the vehicle registration ratio. Table 7-5 also contains
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. This information is
compared to the average daily UATMP concentration at the Florida sites in Table 7-5. The
GAFL site has the largest amount of traffic passing by on a daily basis, while the SYFL site has
the lowest. The ORFL site has the highest estimated 10-mile vehicle ownership, while the SYFL
site has the lowest.
7.5 NATTS Site Analysis
One of the Tampa sites, SYFL, is an EPA-designated NATTS site. A description of the
NATTS program is provided in Section 3.6. A regulation analysis and an emission tracer
analysis for each of the NATTS sites was conducted. Details on each type of analysis are also
provided in Section 3.6.
7-4
-------
7.5.1 Regulation Analysis
Table 3-10 summarizes the reduction of emissions that is expected from the promulgation
of regulations applicable to facilities located within 10 miles of the monitoring site. This
analysis includes only regulations implemented after 2002 or later (regulations implemented
prior to 2003 would already be in effect at the time of the 2002 National Emissions Inventory and
no further reduction would be expected). As indicated in Table 3-10, two future regulations
would be applicable to the facilities located within 10 miles of SYFL. Since SFYL sampled only
carbonyl compounds, only carbonyl reductions are considered. Based on analysis, the regulations
shown are expected to achieve a 3% reduction in acetaldehyde and a 7% reduction in
formaldehyde. A 5% reduction of total carbonyl is expected as a result of these regulations, as
shown in Table 3-10. These reductions are expected to occur over the next few years as the last
compliance date for the applicable regulations is June 2007.
7.5.2 Emission Tracer Analysis
No prevalent noncancer compounds exceeded their noncancer adverse health threshold,
therefore, no emission tracer analysis was conducted for SYFL.
7.6 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated prior to 2003 and are still participating in the 2004 program
year (i.e., minimum 3 years), a site-specific trends analysis was conducted. Details on this
analysis can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are located in metropolitan statistical areas
(MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was conducted. Details on this analysis are discussed
in Section 3.9.
7.6.1 Site-Specific Trends Analysis
AZFL and GAFL have been participants in the UATMP since 2001. A comparison of
AZFL's annual average formaldehyde concentrations show that formaldehyde concentrations
have been steadily decreasing over the last four years. GAFL exhibits a downward trend as well,
although there was a formaldehyde concentration spike in 2002. Please refer to Figures 3-28 and
3-36.
7-5
-------
7.6.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analysis
For UATMP sites residing in MS As assigned by the U.S. Census Bureau, an MSA-
specific trends analysis was performed. All five Florida sites reside in MSAs, four in the Tampa-
St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA, and one in the Orlando, FL MSA.
The Orlando, FL MSA experienced a 47.2% increase in population and a 134.2% increase
in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 1990 to 2003. Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde emissions
decreased approximately 29% and 25% (respectively) between 1990 and 2002. The 2004
acetaldehyde concentrations for the UATMP site representing the Orlando MSA (ORFL)
decreased significantly from the 2002-2003 time period, while formaldehyde concentrations
changed little. Trends for these and other compounds of interest can be found in Table 3-13.
This MSA does not participate in either the winter oxygenated program or the reformulated
gasoline program.
The Tampa Bay MSA experienced a 22.4% rise in population and a 72.8% rise in VMT
between 1990 and 2003. Both emissions and measured concentrations of acetaldehyde have
decreased recently. Formaldehyde trends show a similar decrease in emissions and measured
concentrations. Trends for these and other compounds of interest can be found in Table 3-13.
This MSA does not participate in either the winter oxygenated or reformulated gasoline program.
7-6
-------
Figure 7-1. St. Petersburg, Florida (AZFL) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
7-7
-------
Figure 7-2. Tampa, Florida (GAFL) Monitoring Site
,...
f ? _ A ;L^.-i
j' //* " 'N"
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
7-8
-------
Figure 7-3. Winter Park, Florida (ORFL) Monitoring Site
TEE
'*>, rj
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
7-9
-------
Figure 7-4. Pinellas Park, Florida (SKFL) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
7-10
-------
Figure 7-5. Plant City, Florida (SYFL) Monitoring Site
• . - r
.- :''i ... (;''
. 9'
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
7-11
-------
Figure 7-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of AZFL, GAFL, SKFL, and SYFL
82°15'0'W 82°1010IW S2°5'0'W
82-55'0'W 82-50'D'W 82'45'0'W 82'40'0'W 82-K'O'W B2'30'01W a2Q25'0'W 82-20'0'W E'IS'O'W 32°10'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
> AZFL UATMP site
GAFL UATMP site
SKFL UATMP site
SYFL UATMP site |
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
* Agricultural Chemicals Production Industrial Facility (1)
¥ Automotive Repair. Services. & Parkingd)
© Business Services Facility (1)
C ChemicalsSAIIied Product s Facility (13)
Z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (4)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (7)
G Food & Kindred Products Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (6)
Incineration Industrial Facility (6)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (1)
= Instruments & Related Products Facility (2)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (7)
& Lumber & Wood Products Facility (1)
10 mile radius
JCounty boundary
D Medical, Dental. & Hospital Equipment and Supplies (2)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (8)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (5)
* Miscellaneous Repair Services (1)
" National Security & International Affairs (1)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (1)
V Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (5)
R Printing & Publishing Facility (1)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (2)
U Stone. Clay. Glass. & Concrete Products (2)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (31)
8 Utility Boilers (2)
Z Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (14)
7-12
-------
Figure 7-7. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ORFL
81°30'0'W ara'O'w 8i*20'0"vv Bns'O'w
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may hot represent all facilities within the area of interest,
Legend
& ORFLUATMPsite
'.' 10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (2)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (2)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (1)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (1)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (1)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (3)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (3)
T Transportation Equipment (1)
i V\&ste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (7)
7-13
-------
Figure 7-8. Composite Back Trajectory Map for AZFL
-------
Figure 7-9. Composite Back Trajectory Map for GAFL
-------
Figure 7-10. Composite Back Trajectory Map for ORFL
-------
Figure 7-11. Composite Back Trajectory Map for SKFL
-------
Figure 7-12. Composite Back Trajectory Map for SYFL
oo
-------
Table 7-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Florida
Site
Name
AZFL
GAFL
ORFL
SKFL
SYFL
Type
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
^
7.98
(±0.65)
^
6.32
(±0.49)
^
8.13
(±0.60)
^^
13.34
(±10.98)
^
6.23
(±0.60)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
80.37
(±0.93)
79.30
(±2.26)
80.72
(±0.91)
79.39
(±2.28)
81.26
(±0.94)
79.69
(±2.53)
80.76
(±0.92)
81.61
(±2.64)
82.11
(±0.97)
80.65
(±2.36)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
73.69
(±0.95)
72.90
(±2.32)
72.35
(±0.98)
71.28
(±2.44)
72.02
(±0.96)
70.75
(±2.55)
72.61
(±0.96)
74.34
(±2.72)
72.25
(±0.97)
71.26
(±2.36)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
63.64
(±1.01)
63.13
(±2.53)
62.45
(±1.13)
61.42
(±2.84)
62.50
(±1.16)
61.39
(±2.96)
63.32
(±1.10)
66.78
(±3.14)
61.70
(±1.11)
61.24
(±2.76)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
67.42
(±0.90)
66.86
(±2.23)
66.30
(±0.97)
65.32
(±2.44)
66.24
(±0.98)
65.15
(±2.52)
66.89
(±0.95)
69.52
(±2.79)
65.83
(±0.95)
65.24
(±2.36)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
72.30
(±0.90)
72.95
(±2.28)
73.10
(±0.97)
73.11
(±2.41)
74.46
(±1.05)
75.08
(±2.83)
74.42
(±0.90)
78.57
(±2.70)
72.33
(±1.01)
73.33
(±2.45)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1017.73
(±0.49)
1017.30
(±1.04)
1018.19
(±0.50)
1018.26
(±0.95)
1019.09
(±0.49)
1019.02
(±1.06)
1018.14
(±0.49)
1016.66
(±1.91)
1018.57
(±0.51)
1018.21
(±1.01)
Average «-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-1.80
(±0.50)
-0.79
(±1.07)
0.11
(±0.39)
0.37
(±0.82)
-0.70
(±0.47)
-0.06
(±1.09)
-0.89
(±0.47)
-1.40
(±1.57)
-1.36
(±0.47)
-0.59
(±1.07)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.54
(±0.50)
-1.10
(±1.28)
-0.39
(±0.37)
-1.32
(±0.89)
-0.07
(±0.44)
-0.46
(±1.06)
-0.61
(±0.49)
-0.48
(±2.18)
-0.44
(±0.44)
-0.69
(±0.98)
VO
-------
Table 7-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the
St. Petersburg, Tampa, Winter Park, Pinellas Park, and Plant City, Florida Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
St. Petersburg, Florida - AZFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
7.37 E-06
9.79 E-09
99.78
0.13
99.78
100.00
3.35
1.78
60
60
7.37
0.01
Tampa, Florida - GAFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
5. 26 E-06
1.51E-08
99.78
0.22
99.78
100.00
2.39
2.09
57
57
5.26
0.01
Winter Park, Florida - ORFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
4.89 E-06
1.80E-08
99.63
0.37
99.63
100.00
2.22
3.27
52
52
4.89
0.02
Pinellas Park, Florida - SKFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1.07E-05
2.52 E-08
99.77
0.23
99.77
0.23
4.58
4.58
28
28
10.74
0.03
Plant City, Florida - SYFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
3. 44 E-06
1.10 E-08
99.68
0.32
99.68
100.00
1.56
1.99
59
60
3.44
0.01
to
o
-------
Table 7-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the
St. Petersburg, Tampa, Winter Park, Pinellas Park, and Plant City, Florida Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Adverse Health
Concentrations
St. Petersburg, Florida - AZFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
3.12E-01
1.82E-01
67.21
32.79
67.21
100.00
3.35
1.78
60
60
0
0
Tampa, Florida - GAFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
2.06 E-01
2.14 E-01
55.43
44.57
55.43
100.00
2.39
2.09
57
57
0
0
Winter Park, Florida - ORFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
3.33 E-01
2.47 E-01
57.45
42.55
57.45
100.00
3.27
2.22
52
52
0
0
Pinellas Park, Florida - SKFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
5. 42 E-01
4.68 E-01
53.70
46.30
53.70
100.00
4.88
4.58
28
28
1
1
Plant City, Florida - SYFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
2.03 E-01
1.74 E-01
53.94
46.06
53.94
100.00
1.99
1.56
60
59
0
0
to
-------
Table 7-4. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
St. Petersburg, Tampa, Winter Park, Pinellas Park, and Plant City, Florida Sites
Compound
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
Sea Level
Pressure
M-component
of wind
v-component
of wind
St. Petersburg, Florida - AZFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
0.10
0.21
0.01
0.16
-0.04
0.14
-0.02
0.15
-0.14
-0.03
0.29
0.16
-0.53
-0.44
-0.09
-0.03
Tampa, Florida - GAFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
0.13
0.22
0.06
0.16
0.03
0.15
0.04
0.15
-0.10
0.03
0.27
0.25
-0.32
-0.12
0.27
0.27
Winter Park, Florida - ORFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
0.04
0.66
0.02
0.61
-0.10
0.40
-0.07
0.48
-0.30
-0.27
-0.23
-0.25
0.33
0.32
0.12
0.32
Pinellas Park, Florida - SKFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
0.22
0.31
0.15
0.25
0.11
0.22
0.12
0.23
0.03
0.01
0.14
0.04
-0.05
-0.02
-0.05
-0.02
Plant City, Florida - SYFL
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
0.07
0.17
0.05
0.15
0.00
0.11
0.01
0.12
-0.23
-0.19
-0.11
-0.10
0.03
0.18
0.20
0.16
to
to
-------
Table 7-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Florida Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
AZFL
GAFL
ORFL
SKFL
SYFL
Estimated
County
Population
926,146
1,073,407
964,865
926,146
1,073,407
Estimated County
Number of
Vehicles Owned
936,194
1,020,861
916,248
936,194
1,020,861
Vehicles per
Person
(Population:
Registration)
1.01
0.95
0.95
1.01
0.95
Population
within
10 Miles
572,722
462,119
962,938
698,981
259,538
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle Registration
578,449
439,013
914,791
705,971
246,561
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
51,000
81,400
59,000
50,000
5,142
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oig/m3)
7.98 (±0.65)
6.32 (±0.49)
8.13 (±0.60)
13.34 (±10.98)
6.23 (±0.60)
to
-------
8.0 Sites in Illinois
This section presents 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 sites in their urban locations. Figure 8-3 identifies
facilities within 10 miles of these sites that reported to the 2002 NEI. The NBIL and SPIL sites
are within several miles of each other, with numerous sources surrounding them. SPIL is
surrounded by more sources than NBIL. Fuel combustion facilities are the most numerous
source category group surrounding these sites.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2004 at two weather stations near
these sites for calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air concentration
measurements. The two weather stations are Palwaukee Municipal Airport and O'Hare
International Airport (WBAN 4838 and 94846, respectively).
SPIL sampled for VOC only while NBIL sampled for VOC and SNMOC. Table 8-1
highlights the average UATMP concentration (VOC only) at each of these sites, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dewpoint temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), pressure (average sea level pressure), and
wind information (average u- and v-components of the wind) for the entire year and on days
samples were taken. 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).
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. Table 8-2 summarizes the cancer
weighting scores, while Table 8-3 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.
As can be shown in Table 8-2, all of the prevalent cancer compounds reflect the
nationwide prevalent cancer compound list, as listed in Section 3 of this report. Only
acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, l,3-butadiene,/?-dichlorobenzene, and
tetrachloroethylene were considered prevalent at both sides. For the noncancer compounds
summarized in Table 8-3, most of the prevalent non-cancer compounds were listed among the
nationwide noncancer prevalent list. Only rram--l,3-dichloroprene (at both sites), carbon
tetrachloride (at both sites), and chloroform (at NBIL) were considered prevalent and were not
on the nationwide noncancer prevalent list.
Prevalent toxic compounds not detected at either of the Chicago sites were: c/s-1,3-
dichloropropene; vinyl chloride; and ethyl acrylate. Note, carbonyl compounds were not
sampled at the IL sites. Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde would therefore not be detected.
8.2 Toxicity Analysis
At the SPIL site, acrylonitrile made up over 50% of the cancer toxicity score, while only
making up 25% of the toxicity at the NBIL site. Interestingly, acrylonitrile was only detected
once at NBIL and twice at SPIL. Benzene had the largest number of detects at both sites.
At both sites, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, and 1,3-butadiene made up at least 50% of the
total noncancer toxicity. As previously mentioned, benzene, which was detected the most, only
contributed to 9% of the noncancer toxicity at NBIL, and 5% at SPIL.
8-2
-------
The acrylonitrile cancer risk at SPIL was the highest between the two sites at 45.01 in a
million, while at NBIL, the acrylonitrile cancer risk was 26.56 in a million. For the compounds
that may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the average acetonitrile toxicity at SPIL was
0.33 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer health effect). None of the measured
concentrations at these sites was above their noncancer RfC weighting factor.
8.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Illinois Sites
As previously mentioned, the Chicago sites did not sample for carbonyl compounds. As
indicated in Table 8-1, the average UATMP (VOC only) concentration at NBIL was higher than
the average UATMP concentration at SPIL.
The NBIL site also opted to have total and speciated nonmethane organic compounds
(TNMOC/SNMOC) sampled during its 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 NBIL was
244.69 ppbC, of which nearly 79% could be identified through speciation. Of the speciated
compounds, ethylene measured the highest concentration at the NBIL site (931.00 ppbC). This
information is presented in Table 8-4.
Table 8-5 presents 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 SPIL, most of the
correlations between the weather parameters and the prevalent compounds were weak. The
strongest correlations were between xylenes (total) and the temperature parameters, dewpoint,
and wet bulb temperature. However, it is interesting to note than all of the correlations between
the prevalent compounds and the maximum, average, dewpoint, and wet bulb temperatures were
all positive. Pearson correlations could not be computed for acrylonitrile, bromomethane, p-
dichlorobenzene, and frvms'-l,3-dichloropropene due to the low number of detects (fewer than 4).
8-3
-------
The NBIL site had stronger correlations. The strongest correlation was between 1,3-
butadiene and wet bulb temperature (-0.80). This compound also had very strong negative
correlations with temperature variables and dewpoint, and a strong negative correlation with sea
level pressure. Benzene had moderately strong negative correlations with the temperature
variables, dewpoint and wet bulb temperatures. Acetonitrile had a strong negative correlation
with relative humidity and a strong positive correlation with the w-component of the wind.
Pearson correlations could not be computed for seven prevalent compounds due to the low
number of detects (fewer than 4).
Figures 8-4 and 8-5 show the composite back trajectories for the Chicago, IL sites for the
days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a
parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in these figures,
the back trajectories primarily originate from the southwest, northwest, and north. Each circle
around the sites in Figures 8-4 and 8-5 represents 100 miles; 63% to 64% of the trajectories
originated within 400 miles, and 97% to 98% within 700 miles from the Illinois sites. The 24-
hour airshed domain for SPIL appears somewhat larger than for NBIL. The farthest a SPIL back
trajectory originated was over 800 miles away, while the farthest a NBIL back trajectory
originated was about 700 miles away.
8.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level vehicle 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 8-6. Table 8-6 also includes a vehicle registration to county population ratio. In addition,
the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle
registration was computed using the 10-mile population surrounding the monitors and the vehicle
registration ratio. Table 8-6 also contains 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. This information is compared to the average daily UATMP concentration at each
Illinois site in Table 8-6. The SPIL site has both the largest amount of traffic passing by on a
8-4
-------
daily basis and the largest estimated number of vehicles owned within a 10 mile radius of the
Illinois sites. The SPIL site also has the largest traffic volume of any UATMP 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 3-2 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. SPIL more closely resembles the ratios of the roadside study of
the two Chicago sites, although its benzene-ethylbenzene ratio and its xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio
are closer together than those of the roadside study. At NBIL, the benzene-ethylbenzene ratio is
the highest and the xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio is the lowest, unlike the roadside study.
As previously stated, NBIL sampled for SNMOC in addition to VOC. Acetylene and
ethylene are SNMOCs that are primarily emitted from mobile sources. Tunnel studies conducted
on mobile source emissions have found that ethylene and acetylene are typically detected in a 1.7
to 1 ratio. For more information, please refer to Section 3.4.4. Listed in Table 8-4 is the
ethylene-acetylene ratio for NBIL and what percent of the expected 1.7 ratio it represents. As
shown, NBIL's ethylene-acetylene ratio is within 89% of the expected 1.7 ratio (1.51). This
would indicate that the concentrations near NBIL are influenced primarily by mobile source
emissions.
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).
8-5
-------
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 8-6 and 8-7 are the VOC profiles at the Illinois sites.
At NBIL (Figure 8-6), the total VOC concentrations were highest in December, although
the highest concentration occurred on July 14, 2004. On that day, the stationary source and VOC
non-HAP contribution was much higher than other sampling days. The mobile non-BTEX HAP
concentrations were low throughout the year. The sampling at NBIL ran from January 4 -
December 29. 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 less than at BTUT
(9.01 |ig/m3 vs. 12.71 |ig/m3, respectively). It appears that the RFG requirements may be
effective at NBIL.
At SPIL (Figure 8-7), the total VOC concentrations were highest in late summer and fall,
with the highest concentration occurring on September 30, 2004. On that day, the BTEX and
VOC non-HAP contribution was much higher than other sampling days. The sampling at SPIL
ran from January 4 - December 29. The non-HAP VOC concentrations were fairly low. 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 at SPIL than ELNJ (9.02 |ig/m3 vs. 11.43 |ig/m3, respectively), which
indicates that the RFG requirements may be more effective at SPIL.
8-6
-------
8.6 NATTS Site Analysis
One of the Chicago sites, NBIL, is an EPA-designated NATTS site. A description of the
NATTS program is provided in Section 3.6. A regulation analysis and an emission tracer
analysis for each of the NATTS sites was conducted. Details on each type of analysis are also
provided in Section 3.6.
8.6.1 Regulation Analysis
Table 3-10 summarizes the reduction of emissions that is expected from the promulgation
of regulations applicable to facilities located within 10 miles of the monitoring site. This
analysis includes only regulations implemented after 2002 (regulations implemented prior to
2003 would already be in effect at the time of the 2002 National Emissions Inventory and no
further reduction would be expected). As indicated in Table 3-10, fifteen future regulations
would be applicable to the facilities located within 10 miles of NBIL. Since NBIL sampled only
VOC, only VOC reductions are considered. Based on analysis, the regulations shown are
expected to achieve between less than 1% (dichloromethane, tetrachloroethylene, and
trichloroethylene) and 60% (chloromethane) reduction in emissions of various VOC. A 14%
reduction of total VOC is expected as a result of these regulations, as shown in Table 3-10.
These reductions are expected to occur over the next few years as the last compliance date for the
applicable regulations is April 2007.
8.6.2 Emission Tracer Analysis
No prevalent noncancer compounds exceeded their noncancer adverse health threshold,
therefore, no emission tracer analysis was conducted for NBIL.
8.7 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2003 and are still participating in the
2004 program year (i.e., minimum 3 years), a site-specific trends analysis was conducted.
Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are
located in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was performed.
Details on this analysis are discussed in Section 3.9.
8-7
-------
8.7.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses
NBIL and SPIL have been participants in the UATMP since 2003. Therefore, a site-
specific trends analysis was not conducted.
8.7.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses
Both Chicago sites reside in the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI MSA. The Chicago
MSA has experienced a 14.1% increase in population and a 34.3% increase in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) from 1990 to 2003. VOC emissions have decreased up to 66% between 1990
and 2002. VOC measured concentrations have decreased significantly during this time period
(up to 93%), as well. 2004 VOC concentrations for this MSA, as represented by UATMP sites
NBIL and SPIL, appear to continue this decreasing trend, with the exception of xylenes, which
show little change. Trends for these and other compounds of interest can be found in Table 3-13.
This MSA participates in the reformulated gasoline program.
-------
Figure 8-1. Chicago, Illinois Site 1 (NBIL) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
8-9
-------
Figure 8-2. Chicago, Illinois Site 2 (SPIL) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
8-10
-------
Figure 8-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of NBIL and SPIL
88'10'O'W 88°5'0'W ffl'O'O'W 87°S5TJ'W ffWO'W 87'46'0'W 87'40'0'W ff'S'O'W 37'3D J""
mow ee-s'O'w aeww wss'O'w e/wo'w a/^eirvv s/wo'w 87°B'0'w
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
@ NBIL UATMP site
SPIL UATMP site
10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities} I
A Agricultural Services Facility (5) J
¥ Automotive Repair, Services, & Parking (4) •=•
© Business Services Facility (1)
Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (13)
5 Educational Services Facility (20)
Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (10)
Fabricated Metal Products Facility (22)
G Food &Kindred Products Facility (4)
d Food Stores (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (272)
H Furniture 8. Fixtures Facility (1)
f General Merchandise Stores (1)
+ Health Services Facility (1)
EH HouseholdAccessories Facility (3)
Incineration Industrial Facility (3) V
Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (18) Q
•=• Instruments & Related Products Facility (3) R
* Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (6) 4
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (29) []
D Medical. Dental, & Hospital Equipment and Supplies (4} Y
O Membership Organizations (1) D
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (10) U
X Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (21) S
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (87) 41
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (23) J,
@ Paper &Allied Products (5) 8
0 Personal Services (12) &
P PetroleunVNat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (1) 4.
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (3)
Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (1)
Primary Metal Industries Facility (2)
Printings; Publishing Facility (31)
Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (3)
Pulp SPaper Production Facility (1)
Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (9)
Special Trade Contractors Facility (1)
Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (5)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (63)
Transportation byAir (2)
U.S. Postal Service (t)
Utility Boilers (3)
Mfeste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (5)
V*od Furniture Facility (1)
8-11
-------
Figure 8-4. Composite Back Trajectory Map for NBIL
oo
I
to
-------
Figure 8-5. Composite Back Trajectory Map for SPIL
oo
600 ^\
Miles
-------
Figure 8-6. 2004 Total VOC Profile at NBIL
oo
200
„ 175
co
E
"B) 150
2.
§ 125
2 100
c
0
c 75 -
0
O
50 ^
25
o
BVOCnon-HAPs
D Other mobile source HAPs
D BTEX compounds
D Stationary Source VOC HAP
.1 0 1 D I 1 B lllllllflllll
• 1
Mm
il 1
R
1 1
MM
\
D
ooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooo
CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCXICXICXICXI
^cx!^cxi2Scxi§
t- CXI CO ^t
bi^^^oo^^^^^^
LOCD h~ OOCT)CT)Ot-T-
Sample Date
1
o o
o o
CXI CXI
•«- CXI
CXI CXI
-------
Figure 8-7. 2004 Total VOC Profile at SPIL
oo
90
75
CO
E
• VOCnon-HAPs
D Other mobile source HAPs
D BTEX compounds
D Stationary Source VOC HAP
-si- -si- -si- -si-
00000
O O O O O
CM CM CM CM CM
s s s s s
O O O O O
CM CM CM CM CM
o5
Csj
Sample Date
-------
Table 8-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Illinois
Site
Name
NBIL
SPIL
Type
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
^sSXS^
41.11
(±12.40)
^\S\S\S^
28.19
(±4.26)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
58.57
(±2.06)
59.98
(±5.28)
58.31
(±2.06)
57.02
(±5.68)
Average
Temperature
50.58
(±1.90)
51.81
(±4.74)
50.34
(±1.91)
49.01
(±5.12)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
40.97
(±1.90)
41.33
(±4.56)
39.90
(±1.90)
37.84
(±5.05)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
45.97
(±1.76)
46.73
(±4.30)
45.38
(±1.75)
43.81
(±4.65)
Average
Relative
Humidity
72.05
(±1.22)
70.47
(±3.00)
69.85
(±1.20)
68.11
(±3.26)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1018.15
(±0.71)
1018.42
(±1.56)
1017.36
(±0.71)
1017.90
(±1.64)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
1.46
(±0.44)
1.61
(±1.09)
1.59
(±0.54)
1.39
(±1.53)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.34
(±0.52)
0.23
(±1.23)
0.08
(±0.53)
-0.07
(±1.35)
oo
-------
Table 8-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Northbrook and Schiller Park, Illinois Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
Northbrook, Illinois
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
/>-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorpropane
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropane
Trichloroethylene
Bromoform
Dichloromethane
2.66 E-05
2.12E-05
1.32 E-05
1.04 E-05
9.47 E-06
7.94 E-06
7.90 E-06
3.66 E-06
1.82 E-06
1.24 E-06
9.70 E-07
4.02 E-07
25.36
20.20
12.62
9.94
9.04
7.58
7.54
3.50
1.73
1.19
0.93
0.38
25.36
45.55
58.17
68.11
77.15
84.73
92.27
95.77
97.50
98.69
99.62
100.00
0.39
2.71
0.88
0.35
0.36
0.72
0.42
0.62
0.45
0.62
0.88
0.86
1
58
55
11
1
2
1
15
2
19
2
42
26.56
21.16
13.22
10.42
9.47
7.94
7.90
3.66
1.82
1.24
0.97
0.40
Schiller Park, Illinois
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3 -Butadiene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropane
Dichloromethane
4.50 E-05
1.18 E-05
1.09 E-05
8.05 E-06
4.41 E-06
3. 90 E-06
2. 10 E-06
1.51 E-06
3. 79 E-07
51.07
13.44
12.40
9.13
5.00
4.42
2.38
1.72
0.43
51.07
64.51
76.91
86.05
91.05
95.47
97.85
99.57
100.00
0.66
1.52
0.73
0.27
0.40
0.66
1.05
0.38
0.81
2
57
55
31
3
31
35
3
45
45.01
11.85
10.93
8.05
4.41
3.90
2.10
1.51
0.38
oo
-------
Table 8-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Northbrook and Schiller Park, Illinois Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Adverse Health
Concentrations
Northbrook, Illinois
Acrylonitrile
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetonitrile
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Benzene
Bromomethane
Chloroform
Chloroprene
Xylenes
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Toluene
«-Hexane
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Ethylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Styrene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1.95E-01
1.60E-01
1.04E-01
1.04E-01
8.16E-02
7.25 E-02
4.83 E-02
3. 10 E-02
2.75 E-02
2.27 E-02
2.20 E-02
1.63 E-02
5.00E-03
3.20E-03
2.30 E-03
1.04E-03
9.91 E-04
9.02 E-04
8.56 E-04
5. 94 E-04
5. 66 E-04
4.60 E-04
3. 68 E-04
3. 49 E-04
3. 11 E-04
21.63
17.75
11.56
11.52
9.04
8.03
5.34
3.44
3.04
2.51
2.44
1.81
0.55
0.35
0.25
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
21.63
39.39
50.94
62.46
71.49
79.52
84.87
88.30
91.35
93.86
96.30
98.11
98.66
99.02
99.27
99.39
99.50
99.60
99.69
99.76
99.82
99.87
99.91
99.95
99.98
0.39
0.32
6.26
0.42
2.45
0.36
4.73
0.22
2.75
0.45
0.88
1.47
2.00
0.64
0.62
0.62
0.20
0.72
0.86
1.78
0.57
0.46
1.84
0.35
0.31
1
11
10
1
58
3
41
1
54
2
55
58
57
42
15
19
1
2
42
6
50
1
44
29
10
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
-------
Table 8-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Northbrook and Schiller Park, Illinois
Monitoring Sites (Cont.)
Compound
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Average
Toxicity
1.52E-04
%
Contribution
0.02
Cumulative %
Contribution
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.36
# Detects
1
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
Schiller Park, Illinois
Acrylonitrile
Acetonitrile
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Benzene
Xylenes
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Toluene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
3.31 E-01
2.13 E-01
1.34 E-01
1.24 E-01
5.06E-02
3.76E-02
1.89E-02
1.82E-02
1.53E-02
8.07 E-03
2.45 E-03
2.39 E-03
1.75 E-03
8.07 E-04
6.10E-04
5. 66 E-04
5.01 E-04
3. 29 E-04
2.73 E-04
2.61 E-04
34.45
22.14
13.97
12.93
5.27
3.91
1.97
1.90
1.60
0.84
0.25
0.25
0.18
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
34.45
56.59
70.55
83.48
88.75
92.66
94.63
96.53
98.13
98.97
99.22
99.47
99.65
99.74
99.80
99.86
99.91
99.94
99.97
100.00
0.66
12.76
0.27
0.62
1.52
3.76
0.38
0.73
1.38
3.23
0.66
0.23
1.05
0.81
0.61
0.57
0.40
1.65
0.27
0.78
2
10
31
1
57
56
3
55
57
57
31
8
35
45
54
43
3
45
5
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oo
VO
-------
Table 8-4. TNMOC Measured by the Chicago, Illinois (NBIL) Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Site
NBIL
Average
TNMOC
Speciated (ppbC)
192.86
Average TNMOC
w/ Unknowns
(ppbC)
244.69
% TNMOC
Identified
79%
SNMOC Compound
with the Highest
Concentration (ppbC)
Ethylene(931.00)
Ethylene to
Acetylene
Ratio
1.51
%of
Expected
Ratio
89%
oo
to
o
-------
Table 8-5. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters
in Northbrook and Schiller Park, Illinois Sites
Compound
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
Sea Level
Pressure
M-component
of wind
v-component
of wind
Northbrook, Illinois - NBIL
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chloroprene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Xylenes
NA
NA
-0.78
0.15
-0.79
0.26
-0.79
0.07
-0.80
0.17
-0.13
-0.69
0.66
-0.40
0.37
0.62
-0.28
0.00
NA
-0.35
-0.35
-0.37
-0.36
-0.12
0.06
0.20
-0.13
NA
0.20
0.14
0.25
0.20
0.26
0.14
0.25
0.17
0.03
-0.15
0.08
0.04
-0.13
0.05
-0.16
-0.19
NA
NA
0.06
-0.05
-0.09
-0.06
0.02
0.58
-0.28
0.04
NA
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.25
0.04
0.06
-0.17
0.04
Schiller Park, Illinois - SPIL
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Xylenes
0.14
0.00
0.09
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.07
0.03
-0.06
-0.27
0.15
-0.18
-0.20
0.15
0.14
-0.06
NA
0.27
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.08
0.12
-0.16
0.17
NA
0.27
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.10
-0.01
-0.11
0.14
NA
0.07
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.28
-0.20
0.24
NA
0.40
0.39
0.37
0.38
0.03
0.05
-0.18
0.11
-------
oo
to
to
Table 8-6. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Illinois Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Site
NBIL
SPIL
Estimated County
Population
5,351,552
5,351,552
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
2,005,291
2,005,291
Vehicles per
Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.37
0.37
Population within
10 Miles
883,969
2,087.514
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Registration
327,069
772,380
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
29,600
214,900
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oig/m3)
41. 11 (±12.40)
28. 19 (±4.26)
-------
9.0 Site in Indiana
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Indiana (INDEM). This site is located in the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI
metropolitan statistical area (MSA). Figure 9-1 is a topographical map showing the monitoring
site in their urban locations. Figure 9-2 identifies facilities within 10 miles of these sites that
reported to the 2002 NEI. Due in part to INDEM's proximity to Lake Michigan, most of the
facilities near INDEM are located in part to the east or west of the monitor. The bulk of these
facilities are involved in fuel combustion.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2004 at a weather station near this
site for calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air concentration
measurements. The closest weather station is Lancing Municipal Airport (WBAN 04879).
This Chicago area site sampled for carbonyls only. Table 9-1 highlights the average
UATMP concentration (carbonyl only) for this site, along with temperature (average maximum
and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and
average relative humidity), pressure (average sea level pressure), and wind information (average
u- and v-components of the wind) for the entire year and on days samples were taken. Gary is
located to the southeast of Chicago, and at the southern-most tip of Lake Michigan. Gary's
proximity to Lake Michigan is an important factor controlling the weather of the area. In the
summer, warm temperatures can be suppressed, while cold winter temperatures are often
moderated. Winds that blow across Lake Michigan and over Gary in the winter can provided
abundant amounts of lake-effect snow. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac.
fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987) and at http://www.garychamber.com/geoclimate.asp.
9.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Indiana 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 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
9-1
-------
site score. In the aforementioned tables, compounds that are shaded are considered prevalent for
each site.
As can be shown in Tables 9-2 and 9-3, the prevalent compounds reflect the nationwide
prevalent compound list, as listed in Section 3 of this report. Acetaldehyde was the only
prevalent compound at INDEM, while both acetaldehyde and formaldehyde are considered
prevalent noncancer compounds. Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde are the only nationwide
prevalent carbonyl compounds.
9.2 Toxicity Analysis
At the INDEM site, acetaldehyde made up nearly 98% of the cancer toxicity score, while
only making up 10% of the noncancer toxicity, even though the number of detects is the same
for both acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. The cancer risk of acetaldehyde was 9.44 in a million
at this site. Forty-seven of fifty-three formaldehyde concentrations exceeded the adverse
noncancer threshold at INDEM, while only one acetaldehyde concentration exceeded the adverse
noncancer threshold.
9.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Indiana Site
Only carbonyl compounds were measured at this site, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and 3-4.
The average UATMP concentration at this site is presented in Table 9-1. This table also lists the
averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2004 to December 2004, and for
days on which sampling occurred.
Table 9-4 presents 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. As previously
mentioned, the INDEM site sampled only for carbonyl compounds. At INDEM, the correlations
between the temperature and moisture parameters (with the exception of relative humidity) and
the prevalent compounds were fairly strong, while the correlations with relative humidity,
pressure, and wind components were weak.
9-2
-------
Figure 9-3 shows the composite back trajectory for the INDEM site for the days on which
sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air
traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in Figure 9-3, the back
trajectories originated predominantly from the south, southwest, northwest, and north of this site.
Each circle around the site in Figure 9-3 represents 100 miles; 68% of the trajectories originated
within 400 miles, and 97% within 800 miles from the INDEM site. The 24-hour airshed domain
is extremely large. Back trajectories originated nearly 900 miles away.
9.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level vehicle registration and population information for Lake County, IN were
obtained from the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are
summarized in Table 9-5. Table 9-5 also includes a vehicle registration to county population
ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented.
An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile population
surrounding the monitors and the vehicle registration ratio. Table 9-5 also contains 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. This information is compared to the average daily
UATMP concentration at the Indiana site in Table 9-5.
9.5 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
9-3
-------
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). Because VOCs were not sampled at INDEM, a RFG analysis was
not performed.
9.6 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2003 and are still participating in the
2004 program year (i.e., minimum 3 years), a site-specific trends analysis was conducted.
Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are
located in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was
performed. Details on this analysis are discussed in Section 3.9.
9.6.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses
INDEM is new to the UATMP this year, therefore, no site-specific trends analysis was
conducted.
9.6.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses
INDEM resides in the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI MSA. The Chicago MSA
has experienced a 14.1% increase in population and a 34.3% increase in vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) from 1990 to 2003. Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde emissions have decreased
approximately 30% and 59% respectively, between 1990 and 2002. Acetaldehyde concentrations
have decreased significantly between 1990-1994 and 2002-2003, although the 2004 average
concentration, based on UATMP site that represent this MSA (INDEM), appears to be up from
the 2002-2003 average. While formaldehyde emissions have decreased significantly over the
period, concentrations have risen and the 2004 UATMP MSA average is much higher than both
the 1990-1994 and 2002-2003 average. This observation is similar to the formaldehyde trend in
the Hartford, CT MSA. Research has shown that formaldehyde concentrations tend to increase
when fuels containing ethanol are combusted. Ethanol is one of the components in the
9-4
-------
formulated gasoline that this MSA uses. Trends for these and other compounds of interest can be
found in Table 3-13.
9-5
-------
Figure 9-1. Gary, Indiana (INDEM) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
9-6
-------
Figure 9-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of INDEM
87°25'0'W B/'SO'O'W R7°15TJ"W ffiHO'O'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
@ INDEM UATMP site
O 10 mile radius
[County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
•a* Business Services Facility (1)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (3)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (5)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (5)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (38)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (2)
* Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (12)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (8)
x Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (3)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (4)
2 Nonmetallic Minerals, Except Fuels (1)
P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (2)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (2)
# Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
I Railroad Transportation (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
8 Utility Boilers (3)
T Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (2)
6 Wholesale Trade- Nondurable Goods (1)
9-7
-------
Figure 9-3. Composite Back Trajectory Map for INDEM
oo
-------
Table 9-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Site in Indiana
Site
Name
INDEM
Type
All
2004
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
^^
55.15
(±12.74)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
60.02
(±2.09)
62.72
(±4.61)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
51.82
(±1.91)
54.03
(±4.24)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
42.70
(±1.89)
44.26
(±4.11)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
47.35
(±1.77)
49.12
(±3.87)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
73.47
(±1.17)
72.15
(±2.49)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1017.10
(±6.47)'
1017.08
(±1.19)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
1.55
(±0.49)
1.55
(±1.15)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.97
(±0.55)
0.67
(±1.13)
Sea-level pressure was not recorded at this station. Station pressure in inches of Mercury was converted to mb to yield an "uncorrected sea level pressure."
-------
Table 9-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Gary, Indiana Monitoring Site - INDEM
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
9.44 E-06
2.27 E-07
Contribution
97.65
2.35
Cumulative %
Contribution
97.65
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
4.29
41.23
# Detects
53
53
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
9.44
0.23
VO
o
-------
Table 9-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Gary, Indiana Monitoring Site - INDEM
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
4.21 E+00
4.77 E-01
%
Contribution
89.82
10.18
Cumulative %
Contribution
89.82
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
41.23
4/29
# Detects
53
53
Adverse Health
Concentrations
47
1
-------
Table 9-4. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters
in Gary, Indiana (INDEM)
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Maximum
Temperature
0.59
0.46
Average
Temperature
0.61
0.46
Dew Point
Temperature
0.59
0.46
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.61
0.47
Relative
Humidity
-0.08
0.02
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.16
0.02
M-component
of wind
0.03
0.05
v-component
of wind
0.14
0.16
VO
to
-------
VO
oo
Table 9-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Indiana Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Site
INDEM
Estimated County
Population
487,476
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
275,061
Vehicle per
Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.56
Population
within 10 Miles
404,545
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Registration
226,545
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
42,950
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oig/m3)
55. 15 (±12.74)
-------
10.0 Site in Massachusetts
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Massachusetts (BOMA). This site is located in the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester
metropolitan statistical area (MSA). Figure 10-1 is a topographical map showing the monitoring
site in its urban location. Figure 10-2 identifies facilities within 10 miles of this site that reported
to the 2002 NEI. BOMA is located near a number of facilities, mainly to the north and west of
the site. A majority of the industries are involved in waste treatment and disposal and liquids
distribution.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2004 at a weather station near this
site for 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 10-1 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), pressure
(average sea level pressure), and wind information (average u- and v-components of the wind)
for the entire year and on days samples were taken. 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).
10.1 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 10-2 summarizes the cancer
weighting scores, while Table 10-3 summarizes the noncancer weighting scores. For a
compound to be considered prevalent at a site, its toxicity score must contribute to the top 95%
10-1
-------
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 metal compounds are listed in the tables
of toxic cancer and noncancer compounds, which is reflected in Tables 10-2 and 10-3. 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 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.
10.2 Toxicity Analysis
Arsenic and cadmium compounds are the prevalent cancer compounds at the BOMA site.
Arsenic compounds contribute to 77% of the average cancer toxicity, although both arsenic and
cadmium had the same number of detects. Manganese compounds contribute to 58% of the
average noncancer toxicity, while the other three prevalent noncancer metals, nickel, arsenic, and
cadmium compounds, contribute almost equally to the toxicity scores.
The arsenic compounds cancer risk was the highest among the toxic metal compounds at
3.12 in a million. For the compounds that may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the
average manganese compound toxicity was 0.114 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a
noncancer health effect). None of the metal compound concentrations were above their
noncancer RfC weighting factors.
10-2
-------
10.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Massachusetts Site
Only metal compounds were sampled at BOMA, and the average metal concentration is
listed in Table 10-1. Table 10-4 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 weak. The strongest correlation was computed
between the v-component of the wind and nickel compounds (-0.45).
Figure 10-3 shows the composite back trajectory for the BOMA site for the days on
which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air
traveled toward the monitoring location on a sampling day. As shown in Figure 10-3, the back
trajectories originate from many directions, although there is a large cluster originating from the
southwest and another from the northwest of this site. Each circle around the site in Figure 10-3
represents 100 miles; 60% of the trajectories originated within 400 miles, and 96% within 800
miles from the BOMA site. The 24-hour airshed domain is extremely large. Back trajectories
originated over 800 miles away.
10.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level vehicle registration was not available in Suffolk County, MA. Thus, state-
level vehicle registration from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) was allocated to the
county-level using the county-level population proportion. County-level population information
was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, and is summarized in Table 10-5. Table 10-5 also
includes a vehicle registration to county population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the
population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimate of 10-mile vehicle registration
was computed using the 10-mile population surrounding the monitors and the vehicle registration
ratio. Table 10-5 also contains traffic information, which represents 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. This information is compared to the average daily
metals concentration at the BOMA site in Table 10-5.
10-3
-------
10.5 RFG Analysis
Since VOCs were not sampled at BOMA, an RFG analysis could not be performed.
However, 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).
10.6 NATTS Site Analysis
The Boston site is an EPA-designated NATTS site. A description of the NATTS program
is provided in Section 3.6. A regulation analysis and an emission tracer analysis for each of the
NATTS sites was conducted. Details on each type of analysis are also provided in Section 3.6.
10.6.1 Regulation Analysis
Table 3-10 summarizes the reduction of emissions that is expected from the promulgation
of regulations applicable to facilities located within 10 miles of the monitoring location. This
analysis includes only regulations implemented after 2002 (regulations implemented prior to
2003 would already be in effect at the time of the 2002 National Emissions Inventory and no
further reduction would be expected). As indicated in Table 3-10, four future regulations would
be applicable to the facilities located within 10 miles of BOMA. Since BOMA sampled only
metal compounds, only metal reductions are considered. Based on analysis, the regulations
shown are expected to achieve less than a 2% reduction in emissions of UATMP metal
compounds. Individual pollutant reductions are less than 1% (antimony and nickel compounds)
to up to 19% (selenium compounds). These reductions are expected to occur over the next
several years as the last compliance date for the applicable regulations is January 2010.
10-4
-------
10.6.2 Emission Tracer Analysis
No prevalent noncancer compounds exceeded their noncancer adverse health threshold at
BOMA. Therefore, an emission tracer analysis was not conducted.
10.7 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2003 and are still participating in the
2004 program year (i.e., minimum 3 years), a site-specific trends analysis was conducted.
Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are
located in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was performed.
Details on this analysis are discussed in Section 3.9.
10.7.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses
BOMA has been a participant in the UATMP since 2003. Therefore, a site-specific
trends analysis could was not conducted.
10.7.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses
BOMA resides in the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH MSA The Boston MSA has
experienced a 47.4% increase in population and a 73.9% increase in vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) from 1990 to 2003. Metal compound emissions have decreased between 54% and 84%
between 1990 and 2002. Lead concentrations have decreased 89% primarily due to the phase-out
of leaded gasoline. The 2004 cadmium and mercury concentrations, based on the UATMP site
that represents this MSA (BOMA), have decreased significantly from the 2002-2003 time period,
while lead concentrations have increased. Trends for these and other compounds of interest can
be found in Table 3-13. This MSA voluntarily participates in the reformulated gasoline program.
10-5
-------
Figure 10-1. Boston, Massachusetts (BOMA) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
10-6
-------
Figure 10-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BOMA
Legend
@ BOMA UATMP site
{_..'' 10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
C Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (3)
5 Educational Services Facility (1)
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (2)
Z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (4)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (4)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (3)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (1)
•= Instruments & Related Products Facility (1)
* Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (9)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (6)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
" Pulp & Paper Production Facility (1)
u Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (5)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (2)
8 Utility Boiler (5)
I Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (12)
10-7
-------
Figure 10-3. Composite Back Trajectory Map for BOMA
oo
0 50 100 200 300 400
Miles
-------
Table 10-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the BOMA Site in Massachusetts
Site
Name
BOMA
Type
All
2004
sample
day
Average Metals
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
^
0.023
(±0.009)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
57.49
(±1.87)
57.60
(±4.89)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
50.49
(±1.76)
50.75
(±4.75)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
38.26
(±2.03)
39.17
(±5.82)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
45.21
(±1.67)
45.92
(±4.63)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
65.58
(±1.64)
67.44
(±4.75)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1016.83
(±0.81)
1015.68
(±2.23)
Average «-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
2.63
(±0.65)
2.55
(±1.59)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.40
(±0.57)
-0.07
(±1.63)
-------
Table 10-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Boston, Massachusetts Monitoring Site - BOMA
Compound
Arsenic Compounds
Cadmium Compounds
Beryllium Compounds
Average
Toxicity
3.21 E-06
9.15E-07
3.26E-08
%
Contribution
77.19
22.02
0.78
Cumulative %
Contribution
77.19
99.22
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
7.46 E-04
5.08E-04
1.36E-05
# Detects
45
45
33
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
3.21
0.91
0.03
o
o
-------
Table 10-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Boston, Massachusetts Monitoring Site - BOMA
Compound
Manganese Compounds
Cadmium Compounds
Arsenic Compounds
Nickel Compounds
Lead Compounds
Cobalt Compounds
Beryllium Compounds
Mercury Compounds
Selenium Compounds
Average
Toxicity
1.14E-01
2.54 E-02
2.49 E-02
2.33 E-02
4.28 E-03
3.96E-03
6.79 E-04
1.06E-04
4.33 E-05
%
Contribution
58.06
12.89
12.61
11.84
2.17
2.01
0.34
0.05
0.02
Cumulative %
Contribution
58.06
70.95
83.56
95.40
97.57
99.58
99.92
99.98
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
5. 72 E-03
5. 08 E-04
7.46 E-04
4.67 E-03
6.42 E-03
3. 96 E-04
1.36 E-05
3. 18 E-05
8.65 E-04
# Detects
45
45
45
45
45
45
33
29
44
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 10-4. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Boston,
Massachusetts Site (BOMA)
Compound
Arsenic Compounds
Cadmium Compounds
Manganese Compounds
Nickel Compounds
Maximum
Temperature
0.21
-0.13
0.15
-0.32
Average
Temperature
0.22
-0.09
0.15
-0.28
Dew Point
Temperature
0.18
-0.11
0.09
-0.23
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.20
-0.11
0.12
-0.25
Relative
Humidity
0.03
-0.12
-0.07
0.03
Sea Level
Pressure
0.24
0.27
0.21
-0.14
M-component
of wind
-0.05
-0.03
-0.05
-0.23
v-component
of wind
0.06
-0.16
0.06
-0.45
o
to
-------
Table 10-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Massachusetts Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Site
BOMA
Estimated County
Population
680,705
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
579,762
Vehicles per
Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.85
Population within
10 Miles
1,589,367
Estimated
10-Mile
Vehicle
Registration
1,350,962
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
27,287
Average Daily
Metals
Concentration
Oig/m3)
0.023 (±0.009)
-------
11.0 Sites in Michigan
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the five
UATMP sites in Michigan. Three sites, APMI, DEMI, and YFMI, are located in the Detroit area,
while the HOMI site is in north-central Michigan near Hougton Lake, and the ITCMI site is in
Sault Saint Marie on the Upper Pennisula. Figures 11-1 through 11-5 are topographical maps
showing the monitoring sites in their urban and rural locations. Figures 11-6 through 11-8
identify facilities within 10 miles of the sites that reported to the 2002 NEI. The Detroit sites are
within a few miles of each other. Many facilities surround these sites, mostly fuel combustion or
waste treatment facilities. HOMI has few industrial facilities nearby, most of which are involved
in waste treatment and disposal. All of the industrial facilities within 10 miles of ITCMI are
involved in waste treatment and disposal.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2004 at four weather stations near the
sites for 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 11-1 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 southwest on
average. 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
11-1
-------
allows a greater temperature fluctuation than in the Detroit area. Sault Saint Marie is located on
the northeast edge of Michigan's Upper Pennisula. While this area also experiences an active
weather pattern, its climate is somewhat tempered by the surrounding waters of Lakes Superior
and Huron, as the city resides on the channel between the two lakes. This location experiences
ample precipitation, especially during 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.
11.1 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. Table 11-2 summarizes the cancer
weighting scores, while Table 11-3 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. It is important to note that not all of the Michigan sites sampled for the
same types of compounds. APMI, HOMI, and DEMI sampled carbonyl compounds and VOC;
ITCMI and YFMI sampled for VOC and SVOC. Therefore, the site-specific prevalent
compounds are going to vary somewhat from site to site.
As shown in Table 11-2, all of the prevalent cancer compounds for these sites reflect the
nationwide prevalent cancer compounds list, as listed in Section 3 of this report. For the
noncancer compounds summarized in Table 11-3, most of the prevalent noncancer compounds
reflect the nationwide prevalent noncancer compounds list. However, many of the other detected
compounds do not.
Prevalent toxic compounds not detected at any of the Michigan sites were: 1,2-
dichloropropane; chloroprene; and ethyl acrylate.
11-2
-------
11.2 Toxicity Analysis
Benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and carbon tetrachloride were the only prevalent cancer
compounds at all five sites. Tetrachloroethylene contributed to over 70% of the cancer toxicity
score at APMI and HOMI, while acrylonitrile contributed to over 80% of the cancer toxicity
score at DEMI and ITCMI. Benzene was detected most frequently at four of the five sites. The
acrylonitrile cancer risk at DEMI was the highest among the five sites at 416.64 in a million,
while at ITCMI, the acrylonitrile cancer risk was 233.16 in a million. The tetrachloroethylene
cancer risk at APMI was 196.82 in a million, and ranged from 4.64 to 39.22 in a million at the
other sites.
For the compounds that may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, an average toxicity
over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer health effect. At DEMI, acrylonitrile and
formaldehyde's average toxicity was greater than 1 (3.06 and 1.29, respectively); at HOMI,
acetonitrile's average toxicity was greater than 1 (1.54); and at ITCMI, acrylonitrile's average
toxicity was greater than 1 (1.71). Of the 10 adverse health concentrations measured at the
Michigan sites, two were acrylonitrile, two were acetonitrile, two were actaldehyde, and four
were formaldehyde.
11.3 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. HOMI had the highest UATMP concentration (76.75 ±58.31 |ig/m3) of the
Michigan sites, while ITCMI (19.38 ±4.75) had the lowest. SVOC were sampled at the ITCMI
and YFMI sites. The average SVOC concentration at ITCMI was 27.80 ng/m3 and 52.83 ng/m3
at YFMI. Information on SVOC is given in Table 11-4.
Table 11-5 summarizes 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. For compounds detected fewer
than four times, Pearson correlations were not computed. The HOMI site only sampled for these
days in January, therefore no Pearson correlations were computed.
11-3
-------
At each of the Detroit sites, 1,3-butadiene had negative correlations with the temperature
and moisture parameters (except relative humidity), while the remaining compounds (with few
exceptions) had positive correlations with these parameters. This trend is especially noticeable
with carbon tetrachloride, where the correlations ranged from moderately strong to very strong.
1,3-butadiene and benzene each have strong positive correlations with relative humidity at YFMI,
and although considerably weaker, the positive correlations continued DEMI and APMI.
Benzene also has a strong positive correlation with the v-component of the wind at YFMI, and,
although much weaker, this trend continues at APMI and DEMI.
All of the correlations at ITCMI were weak. The strongest correlations occurred between
carbon tetrachloride and both the dewpoint and wet bulb temperatures (both 0.24). Pearson
correlations could not be computed for 1,3-butadiene, acrylonitrile, or bromomethane due to the
low number of detects (fewer than 4).
Figures 11-9 through 11-13 show the composite back trajectories for the Michigan sites
for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along
which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. For the Detroit sites
(APMI, DEMI, and YFMI), only DEMI sampled throughout the entire year. As shown in
Figures 11-9, 11-10, and 11-13, the DEMI back trajectories originate primarily from the
southwest, northwest, and north. This trend is apparent with both the APMI and YFMI sites as
well, although there are fewer trajectories. Each circle around the sites in Figure 11-9 through
11-10 and 11-13 represents 100 miles; between 30% (APMI) and 76% (DEMI) of the trajectories
originated within 300 miles, and between 80% (APMI) and 90% (DEMI) within 600 miles from
the Detroit sites. The 24-hour airshed domain is large. Back trajectories originated over
700 miles away.
Figure 11-11 shows few back trajectories as HOMI sampled during only January and
February 2004. There are too few trajectories to determine where back trajectories
predominantly originated from. Each circle around the site in Figure 11-11 represents 100 miles;
67% of the trajectories originated within 100 miles, and 100% within 900 miles from the HOMI
11-4
-------
site (HOMI had three sample days in 2004). The 24-hour airshed domain for HOMI appears
extremely large. One back trajectory originated over 800 miles away.
Figure 11-12 shows that back trajectories originated predominantly from the southwest,
northwest, and north of ITCMI. There is an apparent lack of trajectories from the east. Each
circle around the site in Figure 11-12 represents 100 miles; 62% of the trajectories originated
within 400 miles, and 92% within 700 miles from the ITCMI site. The 24-hour airshed domain
for ITCMI is also large. Back trajectories originated over 700 miles away.
11.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level vehicle registration and population information for Chippewa County,
Missaukee County, and Wayne County, Michigan, were obtained from the Michigan Secretary of
State and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in Table 11-6. Table 11-6 also contains a
vehicle registration to county population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population
within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was
computed using the 10-mile population surrounding the monitors and the vehicle registration
ratio. Table 11-6 also contains traffic information, which represents the average number of cars
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. This
information is compared to the average daily UATMP concentration at the sites listed in Table
11-6. The Dearborn site (DEMI) has the highest estimated vehicle ownership within a 10-mile
radius, although the ITCMI site has the highest daily traffic volume passing a Michigan monitor.
Figure 3-2 depicts the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites. APMI and DEMFs ratios most
resemble those of the roadside study, although both of their benzene-ethylbenzene and xylenes-
ethylbenzene ratios are much closer together, and their toluene-ethylbenzene ratios are higher.
ITCMI's benzene-ethylbenzene and toluene-ethylbenzene ratios are nearly equal. YFMI's
benzene-ethylbenzene ratio is the highest and xylene-ethylbenzene ratio is the lowest, unlike the
roadside study. Ethylbenzene was not detected at HOMI and is therefore not included in the
BTEX analysis.
11-5
-------
11.5 NATTS Site Analysis
One of the Detroit sites, DEMI, is an EPA-designated NATTS site. A description of the
NATTS program provided in Section 3.6. A regulation analysis and an emission tracer analysis
for each of the NATTS sites was conducted. Details on each type of analysis are also provided in
Section 3.6.
11.5.1 Regulation Analysis
Table 3-10 summarizes the reduction of emissions that is expected from the promulgation
of regulations applicable to facilities located within 10 miles of the monitoring site. This analysis
includes only regulations implemented after 2002 (regulations implemented prior to 2003 would
already be in effect at the time of the 2002 National Emissions Inventory and no further reduction
would be expected). As indicated in Table 3-10, eleven future regulations would be applicable to
the facilities located within 10 miles of DEMI. Based on analysis, the regulations shown are
expected to achieve reductions in emissions of the following UATMP pollutants: acetaldehyde
(18%), formaldehyde (68%), benzene (1%), 1,3-butadiene (7%), benzene (16%), ethylbenzene
(1%), methyl ethyl ketone (4%), methyl isobutyl ketone (3%), styrene (27%), toluene (1%), and
total xylenes (1%). Carbonyl compounds are expected to see the greatest reduction of the two
compound types shown in Table 3-10. These reductions are expected to occur over the next few
years as the last compliance date for the applicable regulations is June 2007.
11.5.2 Emission Tracer Analysis
The highest acrylonitrile, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde noncancer toxicity scores were
further examined. Figures 11-14 through 11-15 are the pollution roses for acetaldehyde and
formaldehyde at DEMI. The highest concentration of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde occurred
on September 6, 2004 and winds on that day point to possible emission sources south of the
monitor. Figures 11-16 and 11-17 are back trajectory maps for this date, which shows air
originating to the south of the monitor. Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde stationary emission
sources near this site and in the general direction of the back trajectory are also plotted in
Figures 11-16 and 11-17. According to the 2002 NEI, several acetaldehyde and many
11-6
-------
formaldehyde sources are located to the south of the monitoring site. Air sampled at DEMI on
this date probably passed over these sources earlier in the day.
Figure 11-18 is the pollution rose for acrylonitrile at DEMI. The highest concentration of
acrylonitrile occurred on October 18, 2004 and winds on that day point to possible emission
sources east of the monitor. Figure 11-19 is a back trajectory map for this date, which shows air
originating to the east of the monitor. Acrylonitrile stationary emission sources near this site and
in the general direction of the back trajectory are also plotted in Figure 11-19. According to the
2002 NEI, there is one acrylonitrile source located to the east of the monitoring site. This site is
located within three miles of DEMI. Air sampled at DEMI on this date likely passed nearby this
source earlier in the day.
11.6 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2003 and are still participating in the
2004 program year (i.e., minimum 3 years), a site-specific trends analysis was conducted. Details
on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are located in
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was performed. Details
on this analysis are discussed in Section 3.9.
11.6.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses
APMI and DEMI have been participants in the UATMP since 2001; HOMI since 2002;
ITCMI since 2003; and YFMI since 2001, although it did not participate in 2003. Different
combinations of pollutants have been sampled for at each site. For example, APMI sampled for
VOC and carbonyl compounds in 2001, 2002, and 2004, but only VOC in 2003. It is important
to keep this in mind when referring to the figures and reading the text of the site-specific trends
analysis.
At APMI, all three pollutants appeared to have increased in 2004 from 2002 and 2003
levels (although no 2003 formaldehyde level was available). This is true at DEMI as well,
especially for formaldehyde. At HOMI, formaldehyde concentrations decreased from 2003 while
11-7
-------
benzene slightly increased (1,3-butadiene was not detected any of the years). However, HOMI
only sampled for a month in 2004. Benzene levels for 2004 at YFMI are down significantly from
2001 and 2002, while 1,3-butadiene concentrations increased somewhat from 2002. A site-
specific trends analysis was not conducted for ITCMI. Please refer to Figures 3-27, 3-33, 3-38,
and 3-50.
11.6.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses
Three Michigan sites reside in the Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI MSA (APMI, DEMI, and
YFMI). The Detroit, MI MSA has experienced a 5.5% increase in population and a 28.9%
increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 1990 to 2003. VOC and carbonyl compound
emissions have decreased between 1990 and 2002. The 2004 Detroit MSA VOC and carbonyl
compound concentrations, as represented by the UATMP sites APMI, DEMI, and YFMI, have
either decreased significantly from the 2002-2003 time period or stayed about the same. Trends
for these and other compounds of interest can be found in Table 3-13. This MSA does not
participate in either the winter oxygenated program or the reformulated gasoline program.
11-8
-------
Figure 11-1. Detroit, Michigan Site 1 (APMI) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
11-9
-------
Figure 11-2. Detroit, Michigan Site 2 (DEMI) Monitoring Site
i*s«? .*-- 5; -;*?i<-.««!»-«Kjfc•*-=
^r«^ '"^--
«r<>'^
,-•'• v.^xX'
y»i/i . * \ \ vA ''"\ t&Kfi" 't .,iw--j>«—" " - \
^ , '>4»»v\\- ^"j^T -'-n/-'^Sr.'/ xx\?!
- / sMJ,/, A • ^ ;i - {''is 'v X--VY .^'jiy-A:^ - v"
<-\ <-^ \t•-•"-'- .^vi- t~-rf **' I
• ^S»^ts^ ' '' "t* "" -"v ^ ' i"Ji ' Jf
• • >A '- 4J*^'- .-*"• V-/VSF ,* ^
/>X-r^' -...;-./ A* .1
' • "^ .'*.%•: V*> 4. J» f^^s
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
11-10
-------
Figure 11-3. Houghton Lake, Michigan (HOMI) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
11-11
-------
Figure 11-4. Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan (ITCMI) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
11-12
-------
Figure 11-5. Yellow Freight, Detroit, Michigan (YFMI) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
11-13
-------
Figure 11-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of APMI, DEMI, and YFMI
B3-20'0'W B3°15'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
ARM I U ATM P site
j DEMI UATMP site
YFMI UATMP site
10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
¥ Automotive Repair, Services. & Parking (5)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (6)
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (3)
z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1 )
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (7)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (56)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (3)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (2)
*• Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (2)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (10)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (10)
x Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (7)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2)
1 Petroleum & Coal Products (1)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (1)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (3)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (3)
" Pulp & Paper Production Facility (1)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (2)
u Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (3)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
T Transportation Equipment (1)
8 Utility Boilers (8)
i Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (17)
$ Wholesale Trade-Durable Goods (1)
11-14
-------
Figure 11-7. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of HOMI
84°45'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
® HOMI UATMP site
O 10 mile radius
[County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (2)
& Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (11)
11-15
-------
Figure 11-8. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ITCMI
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
tV ITCMI UATMPsite
O 10 mile radius
^Jcounty boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
T Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (27)
11-16
-------
Figure 11-9. Composite Back Trajectory Map for APMI
0 50 100 200 300 400
-------
Figure 11-10. Composite Back Trajectory Map for DEMI
oo
'
v \ 1
'< \ \
\ \ \
v \
\ \
v. V
\ \ ^7
\ \>
\ xs
\
V \
\ X
\ \
\ \
\
\
\
-------
Figure 11-11. Composite Back Trajectory Map for HOMI
-------
Figure 11-12. Composite Back Trajectory Map for ITCMI
to
o
' / ' / / l
' 0 75 150
300 450
600 M
M Miles
-------
Figure 11-13. Composite Back Trajectory Map for YFMI
-------
Figure 11-14. Acetaldehyde Pollution Rose for DEMI
to
to
0)
u
c
o
o
+J
CO
1 £-\J
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
~7 A
70
80
90
100
110
i?n
NW N
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*
-
^ ^ J
W
i i i i i i i i i \\
%"».
-
-
-
-
-
Dashed circle represents
noncancer benchmark value
-
sw s
NE
Avg Cone = 6.25 ± 5.35 ug/m3
^
E
^i i i i i i i i i i i
-•"
• SE
120110100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 11-15. Formaldehyde Pollution Rose for DEMI
to
£.\J\J
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
o 80
'Q 60
i 40
o 20
J °
+- 20
i 40
^ 60
S. 80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
?fin
NW N
-
-
-
-
-
*
W
V
-
-
-
Dashed circle represents
noncancer benchmark value
_
-
-
sw s
NE
Avg Cone = 12.60 ± 1 1 .99 ug/m3
E
-*
SE
260240220200180160140120100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200220240260
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 11-16. Acetaldehyde Sources Along the September 6, 2004 Back Trajectory
at DEMI
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
<§i DEMI UATMP site
• Facilities emitting Acetaldehyde
3 Hour Back Trajectory 9/6/04
| County Boundary
| | State Boundary
11-24
-------
Figure 11-17. Formaldehyde Sources Along the September 6, 2004 Back Trajectory
at DEMI
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
%) DEMI UATMP site
• Facilities emitting Formaldehyde
3 Hour Back Trajectory 9/6/04
^^ County Boundary
| | State Boundary
11-25
-------
Figure 11-18. Acrylonitrile Pollution Rose for DEMI
to
_c NW N
1b
14
12
10
8
•2
co 4
S 2
S o I W f *«
o u i i i i i i i \ *'
S 2
1 4
^6
8
10 '
I Dashed circle represents
12 noncancer benchmark value
I4 i
16 sw s
1 s I
NE
Avg Cone = 6.1 3 ± 9.1 3 ug/m3
E
_,'''
SE
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 11-19. Acrylonitrile Sources Along the October 18, 2004 Back Trajectory
at DEMI
Note: Due to facility density and colldcation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
@ DEMI UATMP site
• Facilities emitting Acrylonitrile
— 15 Hour Back Trajectory 10/18/04
County Boundary
State Boundary
11-27
-------
Table 11-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Michigan
Site
Name
APMI
DEMI
HOMI
ITCMI
YFMI
Type
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
^$$$
75.93
(±33.62)
^^
62.16
(±24.26)
^^
76.75
(±58.31)
^^
19.38
(±4.75)
^^
41.67
(±10.00)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
57.99
(±2.04)
49.07
(±7.12)
57.99
(±2.04)
59.60
(±5.13)
52.78
(±2.14)
23.33
(±6.15)
47.96
(±2.10)
48.30
(±4.93)
57.52
(±2.03)
49.00
(±6.68)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
50.01
(±1.90)
42.88
(±5.87)
50.01
(±1.90)
51.27
(±4.65)
43.68
(±1.94)
13.89
(±10.97)
40.09
(±1.96)
40.01
(±4.61)
50.31
(±1.91)
43.54
(±5.59)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
40.82
(±1.88)
35.21
(±5.85)
40.82
(±1.88)
41.50
(±4.71)
35.30
(±1.86)
8.40
(±12.54)
32.69
(±1.97)
32.13
(±4.69)
39.99
(±1.84)
36.58
(±5.49)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
45.59
(±1.76)
39.54
(±5.43)
45.59
(±1.76)
46.54
(±4.31)
39.84
(±1.79)
12.61
(±11.03)
36.99
(±1.86)
36.76
(±4.39)
45.35
(±1.74)
40.47
(±5.16)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
72.90
(±1.10)
76.59
(±6.20)
72.90
(±1.10)
71.75
(±3.09)
75.22
(±1.11)
78.92
(±6.36)
76.85
(±1.11)
75.62
(±2.67)
70.28
(±1.27)
78.36
(±6.06)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1017.65
(±0.73)
1017.58
(±4.07)
1017.65
(±0.73)
1017.55
(±1.91)
1017.31
(±0.76)
1017.88
(±8.89)
1016.19
(±0.79)
1016.12
(±1.92)
1017.71
(±0.74)
1016.90
(±4.06)
Average «-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
2.22
(±0.51)
3.26
(±2.58)
2.22
(±0.51)
2.57
(±1.32)
1.84
(±0.48)
6.12
(±4.44)
1.03
(±0.49)
1.86
(±1.05)
1.47
(±0.49)
2.86
(±2.13)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.51
(±0.53)
0.28
(±2.44)
0.51
(±0.53)
0.26
(±1.20)
0.34
(±0.42)
-0.08
(±4.37)
-0.40
(±0.36)
-0.17
(±0.88)
0.01
(±0.50)
0.39
(±2.22)
to
oo
-------
Table 11-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Allen Park, Dearborn, Houghton Lake, Sault Ste. Marie, and
Yellow Freight, Detroit, Michigan Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
Allen Park, Michigan - APMI
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachl oride
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
1.97E-04
1.69E-05
1.66E-05
1.09E-05
2.99 E-06
1.82E-07
9.87 E-09
80.52
6.91
6.81
4.45
1.22
0.07
<0.01
80.52
87.43
94.25
98.70
99.92
100.00
100.00
33.36
2.17
1.11
0.36
1.36
0.39
1.79
14
14
14
5
14
7
14
196.82
16.89
16.65
10.88
2.99
0.18
0.01
Dearborn, Michigan - DEMI
Acrylonitrile
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
p-Di chl orob enzene
cis- 1 , 3 -Di chl oropropene
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichl oropropene
Vinyl Chloride
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
4.17E-04
2.80 E-05
1.68E-05
1.38 E-05
1.15 E-05
9.00 E-06
7.37 E-06
5.29 E-06
2.54 E-06
2.39 E-06
1.66 E-06
1.57 E-06
1.26 E-06
2.33 E-07
6.93 E-08
80.40
5.41
3.25
2.65
2.22
1.74
1.42
1.02
0.49
0.46
0.32
0.30
0.24
0.04
0.01
80.40
85.82
89.06
91.72
93.94
95.68
97.10
98.12
98.61
99.07
99.39
99.70
99.94
99.99
100.00
6.13
4.75
2.16
6.25
0.77
0.30
0.28
0.48
0.64
1.20
0.42
0.18
0.79
0.50
12.60
3
47
50
47
49
20
1
O
1
4
3
1
1
36
47
416.64
28.04
16.83
13.75
11.53
9.00
7.37
5.29
2.54
2.39
1.66
1.57
1.26
0.23
0.07
-------
Table 11-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Allen Park, Dearborn, Houghton Lake, Sault Ste. Marie, and
Yellow Freight, Detroit, Michigan Monitoring Sites (Cont.)
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
Houghton Lake, Michigan - HOMI
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
Carbon Tetrachl oride
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
3.92E-05
9.44 E-06
4.86 E-06
1.49 E-06
4.05 E-09
71.30
17.16
8.83
2.70
0.01
71.30
88.46
97.29
99.99
100.00
6.65
0.63
0.62
0.68
0.74
2
1
2
3
3
39.22
9.44
4.86
1.49
0.00
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan - ITCMI
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
p-Di chl orob enzene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Di chl oromethane
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
2.33 E-04
1.21E-05
1.20E-05
7.96 E-06
4.63 E-06
1.54 E-06
2.53 E-07
1.81E-07
1.71 E-07
5.11E-08
4.99 E-08
4.13E-08
2.92 E-08
6.20 E-09
85.66
4.45
4.41
2.93
1.70
0.57
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
<0.01
85.66
90.11
94.52
97.44
99.15
99.71
99.81
99.87
99.93
99.95
99.97
99.99
100.00
100.00
3.43
1.55
0.80
0.27
0.42
0.39
<0.01
<0.01
0.36
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1
60
55
1
1
2
14
41
13
51
49
51
50
52
233.16
12.11
11.99
7.96
4.63
1.54
0.25
0.18
0.17
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.01
Yellow Freight, Detroit, Michigan - YFMI
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
4.82 E-05
1.74E-05
59.59
21.52
59.59
81.12
6.18
1.16
14
13
48.24
17.42
-------
Table 11-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Allen Park, Dearborn, Houghton Lake, Sault Ste. Marie, and
Yellow Freight, Detroit, Michigan Monitoring Sites (Cont.)
Compound
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene
Di chl oromethane
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Chrysene
Average
Toxicity
8.25 E-06
4.64 E-06
1.13 E-06
5.60E-07
3.45E-07
1.08E-07
8.79 E-08
8.53 E-08
6.02 E-08
1.41 E-08
%
Contribution
10.19
5.74
1.40
0.69
0.43
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.02
Cumulative %
Contribution
91.31
97.04
98.44
99.13
99.56
99.69
99.80
99.91
99.98
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.27
0.79
<0.01
<0.01
0.73
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
# Detects
7
10
8
3
10
9
9
9
8
9
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
8.25
4.64
1.13
0.56
0.34
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.06
0.01
-------
Table 11-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Allen Park, Dearborn, Houghton Lake, Sault Ste. Marie, and
Yellow Freight, Detroit, Michigan Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Adverse Health
Concentrations
Allen Park, Michigan - APMI
Acetonitrile
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
Benzene
Bromomethane
Xylenes
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Toluene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Di chl oromethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Styrene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroethane
3.31E-01
1.83E-01
1.81E-01
1.51E-01
1.24E-01
7.22 E-02
5.44E-02
5. 22 E-02
2.77 E-02
2.00 E-02
1.04 E-02
3.14E-03
7.91 E-04
3.87E-04
3. 37 E-04
3. 04 E-04
2.70 E-04
2.35 E-04
4.88 E-05
27.29
15.11
14.96
12.45
10.19
5.95
4.48
4.30
2.29
1.65
0.86
0.26
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
<0.01
27.29
42.40
57.37
69.81
80.01
85.96
90.44
94.75
97.04
98.68
99.55
99.80
99.87
99.90
99.93
99.95
99.98
100.00
100.00
19.85
1.79
0.36
1.36
33.36
2.17
0.27
5.22
1.11
1.80
4.18
0.31
0.79
0.39
0.34
0.30
0.81
1.18
0.49
8
14
5
14
14
14
1
14
14
14
14
4
14
7
6
7
4
9
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dearborn, Michigan - DEMI
Acrylonitrile
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
3.06E+00
1.29E+00
6.95 E-01
55.44
23.28
12.57
55.44
78.72
91.28
6.13
12.60
6.25
3
47
47
1
4
2
-------
Table 11-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Allen Park, Dearborn, Houghton Lake, Sault Ste. Marie,
and Yellow Freight, Detroit, Michigan Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Compound
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Acetonitrile
Zylenes
c/'s- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Chloromethane
Toluene
Chloroform
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
Vinyl Chloride
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
p-Di chl orob enzene
Chlorobenzene
Di chl oromethane
Styrene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Chloroethane
Average
Toxicity
1.50E-01
7.19E-02
6.64 E-02
6.10E-02
3. 18 E-02
2.08 E-02
1.92 E-02
1.76 E-02
1.65 E-02
1.38 E-02
2.95 E-03
1.99E-03
1.79 E-03
1.58 E-03
9.11E-04
6.01 E-04
5.98E-04
4.96 E-04
4.26 E-04
3. 85 E-04
3. 38 E-04
2. 14 E-04
2. 10 E-04
1.18 E-04
2.64 E-05
%
Contribution
2.71
1.30
1.20
1.10
0.57
0.38
0.35
0.32
0.30
0.25
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Cumulative %
Contribution
94.00
95.30
96.50
97.61
98.18
98.56
98.91
99.22
99.52
99.77
99.82
88.86
99.89
99.92
99.94
99.95
99.96
99.97
99.98
99.98
99.99
99.99
100.00
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
Gig/m3)
0.30
2.16
3.98
6.10
0.64
0.42
0.77
4.75
1.48
5.51
0.29
1.20
0.18
0.79
0.91
0.48
0.60
0.50
0.43
1.93
0.34
0.64
0.63
0.28
0.26
# Detects
20
50
22
50
1
3
49
47
49
50
11
4
1
1
50
3
1
36
30
36
8
21
1
1
1
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 11-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Allen Park, Dearborn, Houghton Lake, Sault Ste. Marie,
and Yellow Freight, Detroit, Michigan Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Adverse Health
Concentrations
Houghton Lake, Michigan - HOMI
Acetonitrile
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Xylenes
Chloroform
Toluene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
1.54E+00
7.52E-02
7.50 E-02
2.46 E-02
2.08 E-02
1.57 E-02
1.37 E-02
9.12E-03
5.78 E-03
2.68 E-03
2.21 E-04
86.35
4.23
4.22
1.38
1.17
0.88
0.77
0.51
0.32
0.15
0.01
86.35
90.58
94.80
96.18
97.35
98.23
99.00
99.51
99.84
99.99
100.00
92.17
0.74
0.68
6.65
0.62
0.63
1.23
0.91
0.57
1.07
1.11
2
3
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan - ITCMI
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Xylenes
Chloromethane
Toluene
Chloroform
Naphthalene
p-Di chl orob enzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
1.71E+00
1.33E-01
6.98 E-02
5. 17 E-02
4.66 E-02
2.00 E-02
1.93 E-02
1.87 E-02
1.59 E-02
4.59 E-03
2.61 E-03
9.60 E-04
5. 26 E-04
4.93 E-04
81.60
6.32
3.32
2.46
2.22
0.95
0.92
0.89
0.76
0.22
0.12
0.05
0.03
0.02
81.60
87.92
91.24
93.71
95.92
96.88
97.79
98.68
99.44
99.66
99.78
99.83
99.85
99.88
3.43
0.27
4.19
1.55
0.23
0.80
0.39
1.87
1.43
1.83
0.26
<0.01
0.42
2.47
1
1
15
60
1
55
2
57
58
60
5
52
1
44
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 11-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Allen Park, Dearborn, Houghton Lake, Sault Ste. Marie,
and Yellow Freight, Detroit, Michigan Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Compound
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Di chl oromethane
Ethylbenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Styrene
Chlorobenzene
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Chloroethane
Average
Toxicity
4.60 E-04
3.63E-04
3. 52 E-04
3. 49 E-04
3. 38 E-04
3. 22 E-04
3. 12 E-04
1.15 E-04
%
Contribution
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
Cumulative %
Contribution
99.90
99.91
99.93
99.95
99.96
99.98
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
1.38
0.36
0.35
0.35
0.34
0.32
0.94
1.15
# Detects
3
13
39
10
17
1
1
4
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yellow Freight, Detroit, Michigan - YFMI
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Xylenes
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chl oromethane
Toluene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chloroform
Naphthalene
Ethylbenzene
Di chl oromethane
Styrene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Chloroethane
2.06 E-01
1.37E-01
6.41 E-02
2.90 E-02
1.94 E-02
1.47 E-02
2.91 E-03
2.81 E-03
1.01 E-03
9.37 E-04
7.33 E-04
4.00 E-04
3.41 E-04
3. 00 E-04
2.00 E-04
4.75 E-05
42.90
28.61
13.34
6.04
4.04
3.05
0.61
0.59
0.21
0.19
0.15
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.01
42.90
71.51
84.85
90.89
94.93
97.98
98.59
99.18
99.38
99.58
99.73
99.82
99.89
99.95
99.99
100.00
6.18
0.27
6.41
1.16
1.75
5.86
0.79
0.28
<0.01
0.94
0.73
0.40
0.34
1.50
0.60
0.47
14
7
14
13
14
14
10
5
9
14
10
10
4
10
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 11-4. SVOC Concentrations for Michigan Monitoring Sites
Monitoring Station
ITCMI
YFMI
Average SVOC
Concentration (ng/m3)
27.80
52.83
SVOC Compound with the Highest
Concentration (ng/m3)
Phenanthrene (56.2)
Phenanthrene (59.4)
-------
Table 11-5. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
Allen Park, Dearborn, Sault Ste. Marie, and Yellow Freight Sites in Detroit, Michigan
Compound
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
Sea Level
Pressure
M-component
of wind
v-component
of wind
Allen Park, Michigan - APMI
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
-0.43
0.28
0.04
0.15
-0.68
0.22
-0.09
0.04
-0.86
0.17
-0.12
0.06
-0.82
0.19
-0.11
0.05
0.10
-0.05
-0.09
0.11
0.71
0.37
0.11
0.54
0.29
-0.13
-0.52
-0.31
0.25
0.25
-0.86
0.24
NA
0.76
0.44
0.39
0.47
0.82
0.31
0.34
0.40
0.82
0.16
0.35
0.41
0.84
0.24
0.35
0.41
0.01
-0.29
0.02
0.09
-0.31
0.41
-0.12
0.19
0.03
0.02
-0.19
-0.21
0.58
0.43
-0.06
0.48
Dearborn, Michigan - DEMI
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
-0.10
0.26
-0.07
0.24
-0.05
0.22
-0.07
0.23
0.07
-0.05
0.04
0.01
-0.36
-0.08
-0.20
0.22
NA
0.35
0.31
0.26
-0.12
0.33
0.31
0.25
-0.13
0.36
0.33
0.23
-0.16
0.34
0.32
0.24
-0.15
0.17
0.17
-0.05
-0.10
0.15
0.03
0.00
0.22
-0.30
-0.07
-0.08
-0.17
0.21
0.20
0.23
-0.02
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan - ITCMI
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
NA
-0.21
-0.15
-0.13
-0.14
0.00
0.15
-0.11
-0.07
NA
-0.07
0.09
-0.07
-0.08
0.08
0.13
-0.12
-0.01
NA
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.12
0.13
0.12
0.08
Yellow Freight, Detroit, Michigan - YFMI
1,3 -Butadiene
Benzene
-0.32
0.39
-0.26
0.52
0.12
0.71
-0.13
0.62
0.58
0.52
0.27
-0.15
-0.50
0.14
0.28
0.58
-------
Table 11-5. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
Allen Park, Dearborn, Sault Ste. Marie, and Yellow Freight Sites in Detroit, Michigan (Continued)
Compound
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Xylenes
Maximum
Temperature
0.68
0.76
0.34
0.50
0.43
Average
Temperature
0.72
0.74
0.28
0.49
0.43
Dew Point
Temperature
0.70
0.63
0.24
0.54
0.52
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.73
0.71
0.27
0.53
0.48
Relative
Humidity
0.00
-0.19
0.01
0.18
0.28
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.48
-0.20
0.33
0.15
0.19
M-component
of wind
0.12
0.48
-0.21
-0.02
-0.14
v-component
of wind
0.33
0.59
0.13
0.39
0.30
oo
-------
Table 11-6. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Michigan Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Site
APMI
DEMI
HOMI
ITCMI
YFMI
Estimated County
Population
2,028,778
2,028,778
15,189
38,822
2,028,778
Estimated County
Number of
Vehicles Owned
1,430,965
1,430,965
15,827
33,504
1,430,965
Vehicles per
Person
(Population:
Registration)
0.71
0.71
1.04
0.86
0.71
Population
within
10 Miles
964,194
1,201,847
10,187
22,188
1,154,934
Estimated 10-
Mile Vehicle
Registration
684,578
853,311
10,594
19,082
820,003
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
60,000
12,791
7,000
100,000
500
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oig/m3)
75. 93 ±33.62
62. 16 ±24.26
76.75 ±58.31
19.38 ±4.75
41.67 ±10.00
VO
-------
12.0 Sites in Mississippi
This section presents 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 12-1 through 12-5 are topographical maps showing the monitoring sites in their
urban and rural locations. Figures 12-6 through 12-10 identify facilities within 10 miles of the
sites that reported to the 2002 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 and east of the monitoring site, and are mostly surface coating or chemical
products facilities. GPMS is farther west along the Mississippi shoreline, and the few nearby
sources, which are mainly involved in surface coating, are also mainly to the north. Very few
facilities are located near the GRMS site, which is located in central Mississippi. Most of the
facilities are located to the south of the monitor and the majority are involved in surface coating
processes or fuel combustion industries. JAMS is located in the state capital of Jackson, 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 southwest of the site. A large number of the sources
near the TUMS site are involved in polymer and resin production, surface coating processes, and
chemical and allied products.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2004 at five weather stations near
these sites for calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air concentration
measurements. The weather observations were reported from Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport,
Greenwood-Leflore Airport, Hawkins Field Airport, Pascagoula-Lott International Airport, and
Tupelo Municipal Airport (WBAN 93874, 3978, 13927, 53858, and 93862, respectively).
Table 12-1 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), pressure (average sea level pressure), and
wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind) for the entire year and on days
12-1
-------
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 12-1
reflects this coastal location, as GPMS and PGMS have the highest maximum, average, dew
point, and wet bulb temperatures. 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).
12.1 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. Table 12-2 summarizes the cancer
weighting scores, while Table 12-3 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 12-2 shows that most of the detected cancer compounds reflect the nationwide
prevalent cancer compound list, discussed in Section 3 of this report. Zhms-l^-dichloropropene
(detected at GPMS, GRMS, and JAMS), dichloromethane (detected at all of the Mississippi
sites), formaldehyde (detected at all five sites), and trichloroethylene (detected at GRMS) were
not listed among the nationwide prevalent cancer compounds. Acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, and acetaldehyde were the only prevalent cancer compounds across all five sites.
For the noncancer compounds summarized in Table 12-3, 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 ^ram--l,3-dichloropropene (GPMS and JAMS).
Acrylonitrile, acetonitrile, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and xylenes were the only noncancer
compounds to be considered prevalent across all five sites.
12-2
-------
Nationwide prevalent compounds not detected at the Mississippi sites were: 1, 2-
Dichloroethane, bromomethane, chloroprene, c/s-l,3-dichloropropene, and 1,2-dichloropropane.
12.2 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 most of the other prevalent compounds.
Benzene 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 GRMS was the highest among the five sites at 31.54 in a
million, while the GPMS, JAMS, TUMS, and PGMS risk ranged from 16.97 to 27.15 in a
million. For the compounds that may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the average
acetonitrile toxicity at GRMS was 1.40 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer
health effect). Of the thirty-one acetonitrile detects at GRMS, fifteen concentrations were above
the adverse health concentrations.
12.3 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 12-1 lists the average UATMP concentrations for each of the sites
that sampled in Mississippi. The GRMS site had the highest average UATMP concentration
while TUMS had the lowest. Table 12-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological
parameters from January 2004 to December 2004, and for days on which sampling occurred.
The PGMS site also opted to have total and speciated nonmethane organic compounds
(TNMOC/SNMOC) sampled during 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
12-3
-------
SNMOC/NMOC trends and concentrations. The average total NMOC value of the PGMS was
28.90 ppbC, of which nearly 36% could be identified through speciation. Of the speciated
compounds, isopentane measured the highest concentration at the PGMS site (28.90 ppbC).
Table 12-5 presents 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.
Several correlations could not be computed or were removed due to the low number of detects
(fewer than four).
The strongest correlations at GPMS occurred with 1,3-butadiene and the temperature and
moisture parameters, although this compound was only detected four times. Acetaldehyde and
formaldehyde, both carbonyls, had moderately strong negative correlations with the temperature
and moisture parameters. These compounds also exhibited strong correlations with the
w-component of the wind.
Several compounds at GRMS exhibited moderately strong correlations with the
temperature and moisture parameters. Benzene had the strongest negative correlations, while
formaldehyde had the strongest positive correlations. Acetonitrile had the strongest wind
correlation, 0.43 with the v-component of the wind.
Tetrachloroethylene, 1,3-butadiene, and/?-dichlorobenzene all had strong negative
correlations with the temperature and moisture parameters at JAMS, and strong positive
correlations with sea level pressure. Acrylonitrile had strong positive correlations with the
moisture parameters, and also had strong positive correlations with the wind parameters.
Xylenes exhibited the strongest correlations at PGMS, with maximum and average
temperature (0.64 and 0.63), dew point and wet bulb temperatures (0.63 and 0.63), and the
12-4
-------
v-component of the wind (0.62). In fact, all compounds at PGMS exhibited at least one
moderately strong correlation and most had several moderately strong correlations, indicating
meteorology has a large influence on concentration levels at PGMS.
Formaldehyde had the strongest correlations with the temperature and moisture
parameters at TUMS, although acetaldehyde and acrylonitrile also had strong correlations with
these parameters. Similar to PGMS, most compounds at TUMS had at least one, if not more,
moderately strong correlation with the meteorological parameters.
Figures 12-11 through 12-15 show the composite back trajectories for the Mississippi
sites for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along
which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in these
figures, the back trajectories generally originated from a southerly or northerly direction. Each
circle around the sites in Figure 12-11 through 12-15 represents 100 miles; between 58%
(GRMS) and 74% (TUMS) of the trajectories originated within 300 miles, and between 87%
(GRMS) and 96% (GPMS and JAMS) within 500 miles from the Mississippi sites. The 24-hour
airshed domain is large. Back trajectories originated over 500-600 miles away.
12.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level vehicle registration and population information for Grenada County,
Harrison County, Hinds County, Jackson County, and Lee County, MS, were obtained from the
Mississippi State Tax Commission and the U.S. Census Bureau, and is summarized in Table 12-
5. Table 12-5 also contains a vehicle registration to county population ratio (vehicles per
person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimation of
10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile population surrounding the
monitors and the vehicle registration ratio. Table 12-5 also contains traffic information, which
represents the average number of cars passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to
each site on a daily basis. This information is compared to the average daily UATMP
concentration at the Mississippi sites in Table 12-5. The JAMS site has the largest estimated
vehicle ownership within a 10 mile radius, while GPMS has the highest traffic volume passing
12-5
-------
by the site on a daily basis. However, GRMS has approximately twice the concentration of the
these sites.
Figure 3-2 depicts the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites. All of the five sites' ratios
looked relatively similar to those of the roadside study, although JAMS and PGMS resemble it
the most. At GPMS, the benzene-ethylenzene ratio and the xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio are much
closer together than the roadside study. At GRMS, the benzene-ethylbenzene ratio is much
lower than the other ratios. At TUMS, the toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is much larger than the
others.
PGMS sampled for SNMOC in addition to VOC and carbonyl compounds. Acetylene
and ethylene are SNMOCs that are primarily emitted from mobile sources. Tunnel studies
conducted on mobile source emissions have found that ethylene and acetylene are typically
detected in a 1.7 to 1 ratio. For more information, please refer to Section 3.4.4. Listed in Table
12-4 is the ethylene-acetylene ratio for PGMS and what percent of the expected 1.7 ratio it
represents. As shown, PGMS's ethylene-acetylene ratio is only within 64% of the expected
1.7 ratio (1.08). This would indicate that the concentrations near SFSD are influenced by mobile
source emissions.
12.5 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2003 and are still participating in the
2004 program year (i.e., minimum 3 years), a site-specific trends analysis was conducted.
Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are
located in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was
performed. Details on this analysis are discussed in Section 3.9.
12-6
-------
12.5.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses
GPMS, JAMS, PGMS, and TUMS have been participants in the UATMP since 2001.
GRMS began sampling in 2003. Formaldehyde concentrations have decreased at all the sites
from year to year since 2001, except at PGMS, where the 2004 concentration increased. Each
site shows a slow decrease in benzene concentrations over the period. Concentrations of
1,3-butadiene had little change, except at PGMS, where a significant decrease occurred after
2001. Please refer to Figures 3-37, 3-39, 3-42, and 3-49.
12.5.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses
Three Mississippi sites reside in MSAs, GPMS in the Gulfport-Biloxi, MS MSA; JAMS
in the Jackson, MS MSA; and PGMS in the Pascagoula, MS MSA. Trends for carbonyl and
VOC compounds can be found in Table 3-13. None of these MSAs participate in either the
winter oxygenated program or the reformulated gasoline program. A comparison of the 2002-
2003 average concentrations to the 2004 average concentrations of the UATMP sites
representing the Gulfport MSA (GPMS) shows decreasing concentrations for all of the pollutants
except acetaldehyde, where concentration is holding steady.
The Gulfport MSA has experienced a 19.8% increase in population and a 52.1% increase
in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 1990 to 2003. Carbonyl and VOC emissions generally
seem to be on the decrease at this MSA, although ethylbenzene emissions have increased. A
comparison of the 2002-2003 average concentrations to the 2004 average concentrations of the
UATMP site representing this MSA (GPMS), shows decreasing concentrations for all of the
pollutants except acetaldehyde, which has changed little.
The Jackson, MS MSA has experienced a 14.1% increase in population and a 71.6%
increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 1990 to 2003. Emissions and measured
concentrations of carbonyl and VOC have generally decreased or held steady over the time
period.
12-7
-------
The Pascagoula, MS MSA has experienced a 17.0% increase in population and estimated
VMT. Both emissions and concentrations have decreased over the time frame, with the
exception of formaldehyde, as concentrations appear to have little change this year from the
2002-2003 average, based on UATMP sites representing the Pascagoula MSA (PGMS).
12-8
-------
Figure 12-1. Gulfport, Mississippi (GPMS) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
12-9
-------
Figure 12-2. Grenada, Mississippi (GRMS) Monitoring Site
*TT ^ $O "->"•-~-v
./'' > ^ '"
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
12-10
-------
Figure 12-3. Jackson, Mississippi (JAMS) Monitoring Site
f/r
'
.r?.
TY,-"
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
12-11
-------
Figure 12-4. Pascagoula, Mississippi (PGMS) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
12-12
-------
Figure 12-5. Tupelo, Mississippi (TUMS) Monitoring Site
f-^w'^-CC'^
.* #:$%?•• " '
SESii^iWS #'f:-;r-
••••:^.
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
12-13
-------
Figure 12-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of GPMS
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
@ GPMS UATMP site
O 10 mile radius
Q^ County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (1 )
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (1)
• National Security & International Affairs (1)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1 )
u Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (1 )
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (5)
s Utility Boilers (1)
T \Afeste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
12-14
-------
Figure 12-7. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of GRMS
Note. Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
"& GRMS UATMP site
V 10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (2)
& 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)
12-15
-------
Figure 12-8. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of JAMS
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
© JAMS UATMP site O 10 mile radius
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
¥ Automotive Repair, Services, & Parking (1)
@ Business Services Facility (1)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (1)
z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (4)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (3)
r Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (1)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (2)
x Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (1)
County boundary
National Security & International Affairs (1)
Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (1)
Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (2)
Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (4)
Utility Boilers (1)
12-16
-------
Figure 12-9. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of PGMS
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
© PGMS UATMP site
O 10 mile radius
^County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
C Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (3)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (1)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (2)
P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (2)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (1)
n Pulp & Paper Production Facility (1)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (5)
8 Utility Boilers (1)
12-17
-------
Figure 12-10. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of TUMS
W SS'45'n'W 88'40'0'W aB-35'O'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
fg; TUMS UATMP site
O 10 mile radius
^County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (5)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (1)
+ Health Services Facility (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (1)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (4)
u Stone. Clay, Glass. & Concrete Products (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (5)
I Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
12-18
-------
Figure 12-11. Composite Back Trajectory Map for GPMS
to
VO
-------
Figure 12-12. Composite Back Trajectory Map for GRMS
to
o
-------
Figure 12-13. Composite Back Trajectory Map for JAMS
to
to
-------
Figure 12-14. Composite Back Trajectory Map for PGMS
to
to
-------
Figure 12-15. Composite Back Trajectory Map for TUMS
to
0 37.5 75 150 225 300
-------
Table 12-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Mississippi
Site
Name
GPMS
GRMS
JAMS
PGMS
TUMS
Type
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
^$$$
56.31
(±46.56)
^^
115.00
(±19.17)
^
45.48
(±7.24)
^^
37.93
(±8.59)
^^
33.01
(±8.22)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
76.11
(±1.28)
76.88
(±5.18)
73.67
(±1.53)
72.39
(±6.36)
74.37
(±1.42)
75.48
(±5.81)
77.32
(±1.25)
75.41
(±5.44)
71.60
(±1.54)
70.67
(±7.02)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
67.90
(±1.33)
67.42
(±5.49)
63.46
(±1.50)
60.91
(±6.01)
64.80
(±1.40)
64.92
(±5.91)
66.77
(±1.30)
64.13
(±5.57)
61.84
(±1.51)
59.97
(±6.50)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
59.27
(±1.50)
55.95
(±6.83)
54.92
(±1.58)
51.02
(±6.11)
55.46
(±1.57)
53.44
(±6.60)
59.07
(±1.47)
54.58
(±6.41)
52.81
(±1.68)
49.97
(±6.94)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
62.90
(±1.31)
61.11
(±5.66)
58.64
(±1.44)
55.48
(±5.68)
59.56
(±1.37)
58.58
(±5.77)
62.28
(±1.30)
58.88
(±5.61)
56.95
(±1.48)
54.66
(±6.28)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
76.40
(±1.13)
69.78
(±4.86)
76.46
(±1.06)
73.48
(±3.09)
74.63
(±1.24)
70.03
(±4.55)
78.95
(±0.95)
74.40
(±3.60)
72.02
(±1.15)
72.94
(±3.79)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1018.09
(±0.55)
1018.82
(±1.87)
1018.39
(±0.58)
1020.04
(±1.80)
1018.03
(±0.56)
1019.10
(±1.94)
1018.53
(±0.55)
1019.09
(±1.77)
1018.59
(±0.58)
1019.64
(±1.92)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-1.15
(±0.37)
0.20
(±1.03)
-0.38
(±0.28)
-0.24
(0.82)
-0.35
(±0.33)
-0.03
(±1.12)
-1.04
(±0.27)
0.21
(±0.80)
-0.14
(±0.24)
0.18
(±0.77)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.24
(±0.45)
-1.39
(1.74)
0.90
(±0.49)
-0.13
(±1.47)
0.92
(±0.40)
(-0.50)
(±1.14)
-0.47
(±0.37)
-2.33
(1.42)
0.13
(±0.47)
-1.92
(±1.54)
to
to
-------
Table 12-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Gulfport, Grenada, Jackson, Pascagoula,
and Tupelo, Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
Gulfport, Mississippi - GPMS
Acrylonitrile
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
p-Di chl orob enzene
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
Ethyl Aery late
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
1.70E-05
8.78 E-06
6.81 E-06
6. 10 E-06
5.29 E-06
4.56 E-06
4.40 E-06
4.01 E-06
1.82 E-06
2.64 E-07
6.02 E-09
28.76
14.88
11.54
10.33
8.97
7.73
7.46
6.80
3.08
0.45
0.01
28.76
43.64
55.18
65.51
74.48
82.20
89.67
96.47
99.54
99.99
100.00
0.25
0.59
0.87
0.20
0.48
2.07
0.75
0.29
0.45
0.56
1.09
2
23
25
4
1
23
1
1
1
3
23
16.97
8.78
6.81
6.10
5.29
4.56
4.40
4.01
1.82
0.26
<0.01
Grenada, Mississippi - GRMS
Acrylonitrile
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
3.15E-05
8. 13 E-06
4.76 E-06
4.20 E-06
1.82 E-06
9.00 E-07
2.29 E-07
1.55E-08
61.13
15.77
9.22
8.15
3.52
1.74
0.44
0.03
61.13
76.89
86.12
94.26
97.78
99.53
99.97
100.00
0.46
0.54
2.16
0.54
0.45
0.45
0.49
2.81
8
27
29
31
1
2
5
29
31.54
8.13
4.76
4.20
1.82
0.90
0.23
0.02
Jackson, Mississippi - JAMS
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
27.2 E-05
1.33E-05
32.35
15.88
32.35
48.22
0.40
1.71
5
25
27.15
13.33
-------
Table 12-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Gulfport, Grenada, Jackson, Pascagoula,
and Tupelo, Mississippi Monitoring Sites (Cont.)
Compound
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
p-Di chl orob enzene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
9.94 E-06
9.69 E-06
8.95 E-06
6.66 E-06
6. 19 E-06
1.82 E-06
1.99E-07
4.40 E-09
%
Contribution
11.84
11.55
10.67
7.94
7.38
2.16
0.24
0.01
Cumulative %
Contribution
60.07
71.61
82.28
90.22
97.59
99.76
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.33
4.41
0.60
1.13
0.56
0.45
0.42
0.80
# Detects
13
23
22
5
9
1
9
23
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
9.94
9.69
8.95
6.66
6.19
1.82
0.20
<0.00
Pascagoula, Mississippi - PGMS
Acrylonitrile
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
p-Di chl orob enzene
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
1.92E-05
9.05 E-06
8.49 E-06
6.61 E-06
5.53 E-06
4.20 E-06
1.96E-07
3.07E-08
35.99
16.98
15.93
12.41
10.38
7.88
0.37
0.06
35.99
52.97
68.90
81.31
91.69
99.57
99.94
100.00
0.28
0.60
1.09
0.60
0.18
1.91
0.42
5.58
2
24
27
1
7
21
4
20
19.18
9.05
8.49
6.61
5.53
4.20
0.20
0.03
Tupelo, Mississippi - TUMS
Acrylonitrile
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Vinyl Chloride
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
1.71E-05
8.62 E-06
6.35 E-06
4.75 E-06
4.42 E-06
4.20 E-06
2.76 E-07
8.40 E-09
37.42
18.84
13.89
10.38
9.67
9.18
0.60
0.02
37.42
56.26
70.15
80.53
90.20
99.38
99.98
100.00
0.25
0.57
0.81
2.16
0.15
0.48
0.59
1.53
5
24
26
25
3
O
6
25
17.12
8.62
6.35
4.75
4.42
4.20
0.28
0.01
-------
Table 12-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Gulfport, Grenada, Jackson, Pascagoula, and
Tupelo, Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Adverse Health
Concentrations
Gulfport, Mississippi - GPMS
Acetonitrile
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Xylenes
Chloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chloroform
Styrene
p-Di chl orob enzene
Di chl oromethane
Ethylb enzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
6.25 E-01
2.30 E-01
1.25 E-01
1.12 E-01
1.02 E-01
2.91 E-02
2.27 E-02
2. 12 E-02
1.52 E-02
1.46 E-02
6.54 E-03
5.67E-03
2.76 E-03
2.01 E-03
1.28 E-03
6.01 E-04
5.62E-04
3. 84 E-04
3. 75 E-04
8.41 E-05
47.47
17.50
9.48
8.49
7.72
2.21
1.72
1.61
1.15
1.11
0.50
0.43
0.21
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.01
47.47
64.96
74.44
82.93
90.65
92.86
94.58
96.19
97.35
98.46
98.96
99.39
99.60
99.75
99.85
99.89
99.94
99.97
99.99
100.00
37.49
2.07
0.25
1.09
0.20
0.87
0.45
2.12
1.37
0.59
1.31
2.27
0.75
0.20
1.28
0.48
0.56
0.38
1.87
0.25
22
23
2
23
4
25
1
24
25
23
1
25
1
4
16
1
3
21
20
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grenada, Mississippi - GRMS
Acetonitrile
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Xylenes
1.40E+00
2.87 E-01
2.40 E-01
2.32 E-01
6.54 E-02
60.64
12.45
10.43
10.07
2.84
60.64
73.09
83.52
93.59
96.43
83.80
2.81
2.16
0.46
6.54
31
29
29
8
31
15
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 12-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Gulfport, Grenada, Jackson, Pascagoula, and
Tupelo, Mississippi Monitoring Sites (Cont.)
Compound
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
Di chl oromethane
Styrene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroethane
Average
Toxicity
2.27 E-02
1.80E-02
1.39 E-02
1.36 E-02
1.11 E-02
9.12E-04
7.50 E-04
4.86 E-04
4.57 E-04
3. 78 E-04
5.54E-05
%
Contribution
0.99
0.78
0.60
0.59
0.48
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.00
Cumulative %
Contribution
97.41
98.19
98.80
99.38
99.87
99.91
99.94
99.96
99.98
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.45
0.54
1.25
0.54
4.45
0.91
0.45
0.49
0.46
1.89
0.55
# Detects
1
31
31
27
31
30
2
5
18
29
2
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Jackson, Mississippi - JAMS
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Xylenes
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Toluene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
p-Di chl orob enzene
4.89 E-01
2.00 E-01
1.66 E-01
1.61 E-01
8. 16 E-02
5. 70 E-02
5. 38 E-02
2.27 E-02
1.49 E-02
1.48 E-02
1.04 E-02
4.18E-03
2.51E-03
8.02 E-04
7.04 E-04
38.21
15.59
12.94
12.58
6.37
4.45
4.20
1.77
1.17
1.15
0.81
0.33
0.20
0.06
0.05
38.21
53.80
66.74
79.31
85.68
90.13
94.33
96.10
97.27
98.42
99.23
99.56
99.75
99.82
99.87
4.41
0.40
0.33
9.66
0.80
1.71
5.38
0.45
0.60
1.33
4.16
1.13
0.25
0.80
0.56
23
5
13
23
23
25
25
1
22
25
25
5
6
25
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 12-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Gulfport, Grenada, Jackson, Pascagoula, and
Tupelo, Mississippi Monitoring Sites (Cont.)
Compound
Di chl oromethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Styrene
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Chloroethane
Average
Toxicity
4.24 E-04
3.64E-04
3. 39 E-04
3. 11 E-04
1.78 E-04
2.90 E-05
%
Contribution
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
Cumulative %
Contribution
99.90
99.93
99.96
99.98
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.42
1.82
0.34
0.93
0.53
0.29
# Detects
9
22
19
20
2
1
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pascagoula, Mississippi - PGMS
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes
Chl oromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
w-Hexane
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
p-Di chl orob enzene
Styrene
Di chl oromethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
5.69E-01
2.12 E-01
1.62E-01
1.41 E-01
8.27 E-02
3.56E-02
3. 31 E-02
1.75 E-02
1.51 E-02
8.78 E-03
2.70 E-03
2.01 E-03
7.75 E-04
7.52 E-04
4.90 E-04
4. 17 E-04
3. 60 E-04
1.20 E-04
44.28
16.52
12.63
10.98
6.44
2.77
2.57
1.36
1.17
0.68
0.21
0.16
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.01
44.28
60.80
73.43
84.40
90.84
93.61
96.19
97.55
98.72
99.41
99.62
99.77
99.83
99.89
99.93
99.96
99.99
100.00
5.58
1.91
9.73
0.28
0.17
1.07
3.31
1.57
0.60
3.51
0.54
0.20
0.77
0.60
0.49
0.42
1.80
0.36
20
21
16
2
7
27
27
27
24
27
15
3
27
1
19
4
23
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 12-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Gulfport, Grenada, Jackson, Pascagoula, and
Tupelo, Mississippi Monitoring Sites (Cont.)
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Adverse Health
Concentrations
Tupelo, Mississippi - TUMS
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Formaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Toluene
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroform
Di chl oromethane
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Styrene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
2.40 E-01
2.00 E-01
1.56 E-01
1.26 E-01
7.37 E-02
2.72 E-02
2. 16 E-02
1.44 E-02
1.40 E-02
7.40 E-03
4.77 E-03
2.01 E-03
5.88E-04
3.53E-04
3.33E-04
2.77 E-04
1.09E-04
27.01
22.49
17.54
14.17
8.30
3.06
2.43
1.62
1.58
0.83
0.54
0.23
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.01
27.01
49.50
67.05
81.22
89.53
92.58
95.02
96.63
96.63
99.05
99.59
99.81
99.88
99.92
99.96
99.99
100.00
2.16
11.98
1.53
0.25
0.15
0.81
2.16
0.57
0.57
2.96
0.48
0.20
0.59
0.35
1.66
0.28
0.33
25
22
25
5
3
26
26
24
24
26
3
1
6
26
22
15
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
to
OJ
o
-------
Table 12-4. TNMOC Measured by the Pascagoula, Mississippi (PGMS) Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Site
PGMS
Average
TNMOC
Speciated (ppbC)
98.51
Average
TNMOC w/
Unknowns
(ppbC)
158.04
%
TNMOC
Identified
62
SNMOC Compound
with the Highest
Concentration (ppbC)
Isopentane (28.9)
Ethylene to
Acetylene
Ratio
1.08
% of Expected
Ratio
64%
-------
Table 12-5. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Gulfport,
Grenada, Jackson, Pascagoula, and Tupelo Mississippi Sites
Compound
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
Sea Level
Pressure
M-component
of wind
v-component
of wind
Gulfport, Mississippi - GPMS
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Ethyl Acrylate
Formaldehyde
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Xylenes
-0.95
-0.45
0.20
-0.98
-0.42
0.17
-0.99
-0.32
0.17
-0.99
-0.38
0.17
-0.85
0.01
0.12
0.83
-0.08
-0.13
0.29
0.52
-0.24
-0.59
-0.29
0.10
NA
-0.21
0.17
-0.29
0.19
-0.25
0.23
-0.28
0.21
-0.05
0.22
0.26
-0.43
0.09
-0.08
0.18
-0.05
NA
-0.44
-0.35
-0.24
-0.31
0.10
-0.10
0.53
-0.31
NA
NA
NA
0.02
-0.10
-0.05
-0.08
0.11
0.18
0.00
0.24
Grenada, Mississippi - GRMS
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Xylenes
0.38
0.37
0.09
-0.49
-0.06
0.40
0.34
0.34
0.11
-0.48
0.01
0.41
0.30
0.31
0.16
-0.46
-0.01
0.43
0.32
0.32
0.14
-0.48
0.00
0.42
-0.14
-0.12
0.37
-0.03
-0.12
0.13
-0.07
-0.34
-0.12
0.33
-0.06
-0.18
-0.15
-0.38
-0.26
0.32
-0.10
0.05
-0.10
0.43
-0.38
-0.29
0.23
0.02
NA
-0.18
-0.24
-0.27
-0.25
-0.14
0.19
0.10
-0.25
Jackson, Mississippi - JAMS
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
-0.62
0.10
0.27
0.19
-0.28
-0.70
0.04
0.25
0.45
-0.34
-0.65
-0.04
0.22
0.72
-0.33
-0.69
-0.01
0.23
0.70
-0.34
-0.23
-0.26
0.01
0.61
-0.11
0.58
-0.02
-0.13
0.19
0.24
0.23
-0.17
-0.20
0.36
0.16
-0.08
0.17
0.32
0.57
0.05
to
OJ
to
-------
Table 12-5. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Gulfport,
Grenada, Jackson, Pascagoula, and Tupelo Mississippi Sites (Cont.)
Compound
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Xylenes
Maximum
Temperature
0.45
0.39
-0.48
-0.62
Average
Temperature
0.45
0.36
-0.60
-0.63
Dew Point
Temperature
0.42
0.26
-0.60
-0.63
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.42
0.30
-0.62
-0.63
Relative
Humidity
0.11
-0.21
-0.33
-0.10
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.37
-0.18
0.72
0.58
M-component
of wind
-0.11
-0.46
0.04
0.58
v-component
of wind
0.40
0.26
0.26
-0.16
NA
-0.19
-0.27
-0.30
-0.30
-0.19
0.21
0.14
0.13
Pascagoula, Mississippi - PGMS
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
p-Dichlorobenzene
Xylenes
0.15
-0.35
0.16
0.17
-0.33
0.01
0.20
-0.41
-0.05
0.18
-0.37
-0.03
0.39
-0.45
-0.09
-0.07
0.37
-0.34
-0.22
0.06
0.12
0.53
-0.30
0.04
NA
0.53
0.45
-0.44
0.52
0.47
-0.37
0.53
0.50
-0.43
0.53
0.48
-0.40
0.41
0.38
-0.42
-0.21
-0.55
0.19
-0.35
-0.08
0.33
0.60
0.31
-0.29
NA
0.64
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.42
-0.27
-0.32
0.62
Tupelo, Mississippi - TUMS
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes
NA
0.64
0.17
0.59
-0.21
0.00
0.78
0.60
0.15
0.61
-0.24
0.08
0.77
0.57
0.11
0.49
-0.31
0.14
0.75
0.58
0.12
0.53
-0.29
0.11
0.76
0.07
-0.08
-0.06
-0.39
0.21
0.22
0.09
0.04
-0.17
0.45
-0.39
-0.34
-0.23
0.03
0.47
0.15
0.19
-0.38
0.44
0.12
0.41
0.11
-0.18
0.43
NA
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.22
0.05
-0.03
-0.12
0.38
to
-------
Table 12-6. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Mississippi Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Site
GPMS
GRMS
JAMS
PGMS
TUMS
Estimated
County
Population
189,614
22,809
249,087
133,928
77,690
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
163,972
19,564
177,642
116,592
68,191
Vehicles per
Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.86
0.86
0.71
0.87
0.88
Population
within
10 Miles
172,653
21,446
266,182
56,235
70,215
Estimated 10-Mile
Car Registration
148,482
18,444
188,989
48,924
61,789
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
17,000
1,100
12,500
8,600
4,900
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oig/m3)
56.31
(± 46.56)
115.00
(± 19.17)
45.48
(±7.24)
37.93
(± 8.59)
33.01
(± 8.22)
to
-------
13.0 Sites in Missouri
This section presents 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 13-1 through 13-3 are topographical maps showing the monitoring sites in their
urban locations. Figures 13-4 and 13-5 identify facilities within 10 miles of the sites that
reported to the 2002 NEI. Numerous sources are located near the St. Louis sites, most of which
are surface coating and miscellaneous industries, while BTMO has very few nearby sources.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2004 at two weather stations near these sites
for calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements.
The weather stations are Cahokia-St. Louis and Farmington (WBAN 3960 and 93996,
respectively).
Table 13-1 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), pressure (average sea level
pressure), and wind information (average u- and v-components of the wind) for the entire year
and on days samples were taken. 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 13-1. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and
Bair, 1987). BTMO sampled only in January and SLMO sampled through the beginning of
February. This explains the large discrepancies between the 2004 and sample day averages.
13.1 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. 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
13-1
-------
each site. It is important to note which types of compounds each site sampled in 2003. The
BTMO and SLMO sites sampled carbonyl compounds and SNMOC; the S4MO site sampled all
compound types except SVOC.
As can be shown in Table 13-2, two of the three 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. Only formaldehyde is not a prevalent nationwide cancer compound. At
S4MO, seven of the nine prevalent cancer compounds are also considered prevalent nationwide.
Only arsenic and cadmium compounds are not on the nationwide cancer list. A similar pattern is
exhibited for the noncancer compounds summarized in Table 13-3. At BTMO, the same three
cancer compounds are also noncancer compounds. At SLMO, total xylenes are considered
prevalent in addition to acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and benzene. With the exception of several
metal compounds and w-hexane, the noncancer prevalent compounds at S4MO reflect the
nationwide noncancer list. Only formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene are prevalent across
all three sites.
Prevalent toxic compounds not detected at the Missouri sites were: 1,2-dichloroethane;
1,2-dichloropropane; vinyl chloride; chloroprene; c/'s-l,3-dichloropropene; and ethyl acrylate.
13.2 Toxicity Analysis
Benzene and acetaldehyde contributed to over 99% of the total cancer toxicity at both
BTMO and SLMO, while only contributing to about 20% at S4MO. The cancer risk from
benzene at BTMO was roughly half of that at SLMO and S4MO (5.68, 12.14, and 10.72 in a
million, respectively). At S4MO, acrylonitrile contributed to 31% of the total cancer toxicity,
and has a cancer risk of 25.41 in a million. Prevalent metal compounds contributed to 12% of
the total cancer toxicity.
Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene contribute to 92% or more of the total
noncancer toxicity at BTMO and SLMO. The highest average toxicity between these two sites
was 0.436 for acetaldehyde at SLMO (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer health
13-2
-------
effect). No adverse health concentrations were measured at these sites. Metal compounds at
S4MO contributed to nearly 22% of the total noncancer toxicity, with manganese compounds
contributing over 16%. Six adverse health concentrations were measured at this site, with one
for manganese compounds, four for formaldehyde, and one for acetaldehyde.
13.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Missouri Sites
Carbonyl compounds and SNMOC were measured at all three Missouri sites, and VOC
and metal 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 13-1. Also listed in Table 13-1 are
the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2004 to December 2004.
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 203.40 ppbC, of which nearly 52% could be
identified through speciation. Of the speciated compounds, w-hexane measured the highest
concentration at the SLMO site (30.40 ppbC). The average total NMOC value for S4MO was
160.74 ppbC, of which nearly 76% could be identified through speciation. Of the speciated
compounds, n-hexane measured the highest concentration at the S4MO site (83.20 ppbC). The
average total NMOC value for BTMO was 92.35 ppbC, of which nearly 43% could be identified
through speciation. Of the speciated compounds at BTMO, propane measured the highest
concentration (6.55 ppbC). This information is given in Table 13-4. Also included in Table 13-
4 is the average metals concentration at S4MO.
Table 13-5 is 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. Many of the pearson correlations
for BTMO and SLMO appear to be very strong. However, the number of detects of each
13-3
-------
compound at BTMO was four and at SLMO was five. This small sample size may drastically
skew the correlations, making them appear stronger than they really are.
At S4MO, benzene and total xylenes exhibited moderately strong to strong negative
correlations with maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures, while acetaldehyde,
acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, formaldehyde, and tetrachloroethylene exhibited moderately strong to
strong positive correlations with these same parameters. Strong positive correlations were also
computed between w-hexane and the moisture parameters. Acrylontrile and w-hexane exhibited
strong negative correlations with sea level pressure. Most of the correlations between the
prevalent compounds and the wind components were weak or moderate.
Figures 13-6 through 13-8 show the composite back trajectories for the Missouri sites for
the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a
parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in these figures,
SLMO and BTMO sampled very few days in 2004. There are too few trajectories to determine
where back trajectories predominantly originated from for these two sites. Back trajectories at
S4MO originated from nearly all directions, although there is a lower number of them from the
east or the west. Each circle around the site in Figures 13-6 through 13-8 represents 100 miles;
between 40% (SLMO) and 57% (S4MO) of the trajectories originated within 300 miles, and
between 75% (BTMO) and 96% (SLMO) within 700 miles from the Missouri sites. The 24-hour
airshed domain for the sites appears large. Back trajectories originated as far away as 700-800
miles.
13.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level vehicle registration and population in St. Francois and St. Louis Counties
were obtained from the Missouri Department of Revenue and the US Census Bureau, and are
summarized in Table 13-6. Table 13-6 also contains a vehicle registration to county population
ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented.
An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile population
surrounding the monitors and the vehicle registration ratio. Table 13-6 also contains traffic
13-4
-------
information, which represents the average number of cars passing the monitoring sites on the
nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. This information is compared to the average daily
UATMP concentration at the sites listed in the Table 13-6. The St. Louis sites had higher traffic
volume and vehicle ownership that BTMO, and S4MO had the highest traffic volume and
vehicle ownership.
Figure 3-2 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 xylene-ethylbenzene ratio is somewhat
lower than that of the roadside study.
All three Missouri sites sampled for SNMOC in addition to carbonyl compounds.
Acetylene and ethylene are SNMOCs that are primarily emitted from mobile sources. Tunnel
studies conducted on mobile source emissions have found that ethylene and acetylene are
typically detected in a 1.7 to 1 ratio. For more information, please refer to Section 3.4.4. Listed
in Table 13-4 is the ethylene-acetylene ratio for these sites and what percent of the expected
1.7 ratio it represents. As shown, BTMO's ethylene-acetylene ratio is within 54% of the
expected 1.7 ratio (0.91); S4MO's ethylene-acetylene ratio is within 52% of the expected
1.7 ratio (0.88); SLMO's ethylene-acetylene ratio is only within 43% of the expected 1.7 ratio
(0.73). This would indicate that the emissions near these sites may not be primarily from mobile
sources.
13.5 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).
13-5
-------
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 13-9 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 highest concentration
occurring on August 31, 2004. On August 31, the non-HAP VOC and BTEX concentrations
were higher than other sampling days. The non-HAP BTEX mobile concentrations were
typically low or nonexistent. The sampling at S4MO ran from January 4 - December 29. Total
VOC concentrations appear to be lower in the late spring and early summer months compared to
the rest of the year.
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
(9.51 |ig/m3 vs. 5.50 |ig/m3, respectively), suggesting that the RFG requirements may not be
effective.
13.6 NATTS Site Analysis
One of the St. Louis sites, S4MO, is an EPA-designated NATTS site. A description of
the NATTS program is provided in Section 3.6. A regulation analysis and an emission tracer
analysis for each of the NATTS sites was conducted. Details on each type of analysis are also
provided in Section 3.6.
13-6
-------
13.6.1 Regulation Analysis
Table 3-10 summarizes the reduction of emissions that is expected from the promulgation
of regulations applicable to facilities located within 10 miles of the monitoring site. This
analysis includes only regulations implemented after 2002 (regulations implemented prior to
2003 would already be in effect at the time of the 2002 National Emissions Inventory and no
further reduction would be expected). As indicated in Table 3-10, twenty-six future regulations
would be applicable to the facilities located within 10 miles of S4MO. Based on analysis, the
regulations shown are expected to achieve a 4% reduction in emissions of carbonyl compounds,
an 8% reduction of metal compounds, and a 5% reduction of VOC. Individual pollutant
emissions are expected to be reduced between 1% (mercury compounds, tetrachloroethylene,
methyl methacrylate, and methyl tert-butyl ether) and 24% (styrene). These reductions are
expected to occur over the next several years as the last compliance date for the applicable
regulations is January 2010.
13.6.2 Emission Tracer Analysis
The highest acetaldehyde and formaldehyde noncancer toxicity scores were further
examined. Figures 13-10 through 13-11 are the pollution roses for acetaldehyde and
formaldehyde at S4MO. The highest concentration of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde occurred
on August 31, 2004 and winds on that day point to possible emission sources north of the
monitor. Figures 13-12 and 13-13 are back trajectory maps for this date, which shows air
originating to the north and northwest of the monitor. Also plotted in Figure 13-12 and 13-13
are acetaldehyde and formaldehyde sources near the monitor. These figures show many sources
to the north and northwest of the monitor. Air likely passed nearby these sources prior to being
sampled.
The highest manganese noncancer toxicity score was further examined. Figure 13-14 is
the pollution rose for manganese compounds at S4MO. The highest concentration of manganese
compounds also occurred on August 31, 2004 and winds on that day point to possible emission
sources north of the monitor. Figure 13-15 is a back trajectory map for this date, which shows
air originating to the north and northwest of the monitor. Also plotted in Figure 13-15 are
13-7
-------
manganese compound sources near the monitor. These figures show many sources to the north
and northwest of the monitor. Air likely passed nearby these sources prior to being sampled.
13.7 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2003 and are still participating in the
2004 program year (i.e, minimum 3 years), an site-specific trends analysis was conducted.
Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are
located in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was performed.
Details on this analysis are discussed in Section 3.9.
13.7.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses
BTMO and S4MO have been participants in the UATMP since 2002, and SLMO has
participated since 2001. BTMO has not sampled for VOC as part of the UATMP, so only
formaldehyde concentration data is available BTMO's formaldehyde concentration for 2004
appears to be down considerably from 2003, although it is important to note that BTMO sampled
only in January. For the last two years, SLMO has sampled only for carbonyl compounds. It
appears that formaldehyde concentrations have decreased significantly since 2001. However, it
is important to note that, like BTMO, SLMO sampled only through the beginning of February in
2004.
S4MO's formaldehyde, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene concentrations have changed little
from their 2003 values. As S4MO did not sample for VOC until 2003, only formaldehyde
concentrations were available in 2002. Formaldehyde concentrations were lower in 2002 than in
2003 and 2004. Please refer to Figures 3-29, 3-45, and 3-47.
13.7.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses
S4MO and SLMO reside in the St. Louis, MO-IL MSA. The St. Louis MSA has
experienced a 6.1% increase in population and a 37.9% increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
from 1990 to 2003. VOC, carbonyl and metal compound emissions have decreased between
46% and 89% respectively, between 1990 and 2002. However, formaldehyde concentrations
13-8
-------
increased significantly (+198) during the time period. Research has shown that formaldehyde
compounds tend to increase when fuels containing ethanol are combusted. The 2004
concentrations, as calculated from the UATMP sites representing this MSA (SLMO and S4MO),
have decreased significantly from the 2002-2003 time period. Trends for these and other
compounds of interest can be found in Table 3-13. This MSA has opted to participate in the
reformulated gasoline program.
13-9
-------
Figure 13-1. Bonne Terre, Missouri (BTMO) Monitoring Site
X J 0/>- ^Ki^^K
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
13-10
-------
Figure 13-2. St. Louis, Missouri Site 1 (S4MO) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
13-11
-------
Figure 13-3. St. Louis, Missouri Site 2 (SLMO) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
13-12
-------
Figure 13-4. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BTMO
arao'w
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
@ BTMO UATM P site
O 10 mile radius
| County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (2)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (2)
u Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
I \Afeste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
* Wood Furniture Facility (1)
13-13
-------
Figure 13-5. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of S4MO and SLMO
sreotrw so'is'O'w anotrvy aretrw
Note1 Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
$? S4MO UATMP site tgj SLMO UATMP site
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) -=-
f Agricultural Chemicals Production Industrial Facility (2) \
¥ Automotive Repair, Services, & Parking (1) 0
''§' Business Services Facility (1) P
C Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (14) >
T Construction/Mining Machinery, Equipment, & Materials (1) Q
Z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (2) R
• Engineering & Management Services Facility (1) #
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (9) 4
G Food & Kindred Products Facility (1) I
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (58)
H Furniture & Fixtures Facility (1)
+ Health Services Facility (4)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (5) <
* Integrated I ron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (2) 8
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (10) X
i Locai & I nterurban Passenger Transit (1) $
& Lumber & Wood Products Facility (1) 6
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (5) A
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (124)
'..J 10 mile radius County boundary
Motor Freight Transportation & Warehousing (2)
Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (8)
Personal Services (7)
Petroleum/Nat, Gas Prod, & Refining Industrial Facility (1)
Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (4)
Primary Metal Industries Facility (3)
Printing & Publishing Facility (12)
Production of Inorganic Chemicals I ndustrial Facility (1)
Production of Organic Chemicals industrial Facility (10)
Railroad Transportation (1)
Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (1)
Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (9)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (14)
Textile Mill Products Facility (1)
Utility Boilers (2)
Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (5)
Wholesale Trade - Durable Goods (6)
Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods (2)
Wood Furniture Facility (1)
13-14
-------
Figure 13-6. Composite Back Trajectory Map for BTMO
-------
Figure 13-7. Composite Back Trajectory Map for S4MO
0 50 100 200 300 400 f
Miles
-------
Figure 13-8. Composite Back Trajectory Map for SLMO
-------
Figure 13-9. 2004 Total VOC Profile at S4MO
oo
75
60-
• VOCnon-HAPs
D Other mobile source HAPs
n BTEX compounds
D Stationary Source VOC HAP
o
o
CXI
o
o
CXI
cxi
CM
o
o
CXI
o5
CXI
o
o
CXI
f-^
CXI
cxi
o
o
CXI
CD
CO
o
o
CXI
o
o
CXI
CXI
o
o
CXI
o
o
CXI
f-^
CXI
O
O
CXI
^
CD
o
o
CXI
o
o
CXI
o
CXI
o
o
CXI
CO
o o
o o
CXI CXI
to cxi
CXI T-
oo o5
o
o
CXI
o5
o
o
o
CXI
CXI
o
o
o
CXI
o
CO
o
o
CXI
O
O
CXI
CO
CXI
o
o
CXI
ro
cxi
o
o
CXI
CXI
Sample Date
-------
Figure 13-10. Acetaldehyde Pollution Rose for S4MO
30
25
15
10
= o
o
o
c
o n
o
n £
+J 3
_3
£ 10
15
20
30
NW
N
NE
Avg Cone = 3.39 ± 0.97 ug/m
W
sw
Dashed circle represents
noncancer benchmark value
SE
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10
Pollutant Concentration
15
20
25
30
35
-------
Figure 13-11. Formaldehyde Pollution Rose for S4MO
Pollutant Concentratio
45 _____________^^
40
35 NW N
30
25
20
15
10 *•'•*•
/''
0 I i
U i i i i i 1
W \
5 \
,0
15
20
^ I Dashed circle represents
so I noncancer benchmark value
35
40
sw s
45 L____________^^
*
NE
Avg Cone = 5.08 ± 1 .41 |jg/m3
~~~N
i
) E
!"":
SE
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Pollutant Concentration
to
o
13-20
-------
Figure 13-12. Acetaldehyde Sources Along the August 31, 2004 Back Trajectory
atS4MO
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the tola! facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
@ S4MO UATMP site
• Facilities emitting Acetaldehyde
^^24 Hour Back trajectory 8/31/04
| [County boundary
| [State boundary
13-21
-------
Figure 13-13. Formaldehyde Source Along the August 31, 2004 Back Trajectory
atS4MO
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
tgj S4MO UATMP site
• Facilities emitting Formaldehyde
^^24 Hour Back trajectory 8/31/04
| [County boundary
| State boundary
13-22
-------
Figure 13-14. Manganese Compound Pollution Rose for S4MO
to
o
43
2
•4-1
§
c
o
O
•4-1
re
o
o.
tuu
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
4nn
NW N
-
-
-
-
Dashed circle represents
noncancer benchmark value
,'-""
W /
i i i i i i 1 1
\
«
*•«•««.
-
-
-
-
-
sw s
» NE
""~»*
E
i i i i i i i i
i
t
^~*
Avg Cone = 18.31 ±12.15 ng/m3
SE
400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 13-15. Manganese Compound Sources Along the August 31, 2004 Back
Trajectory at S4MO
Note: Dueto facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
@ S4MO UATMP site
• Facilities emitting Manganese
^^24 Hour Back trajectory 8/31/04
[County boundary
State boundary
13-24
-------
Table 13-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Missouri
Site
Name
BTMO
S,MO
SLMO
Type
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
\^s^
5.31
(± 1.29)
sSXSN
36.60
(± 4.92)
sSXSN
10.51
(±3.01)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
65.31
(±1.84)
40.50
(±4.41)
65.68
(±1.87)
64.64
(± 4.32)
65.68
(±1.87)
35.60
(±3.49)
Average
Temperature
55.84
(±1.74)
33.04
(± 4.79)
55.95
(±1.77)
55.07
(±4.01)
55.95
(±1.77)
26.58
(± 4.87)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
46.04
(±1.95)
21.63
(± 8.65)
47.18
(±1.90)
46.13
(± 4.24)
47.18
(±1.90)
17.15
(±8.17)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
51.06
(±1.70)
29.20
(± 5.05)
51.53
(±1.70)
50.58
(± 3.81)
51.53
(±1.70)
23.81
(± 5.59)
Average
Relative
Humidity
72.77
(±1.51)
65.97
(± 14.93)
75.08
(±1.29)
74.93
(±3.14)
75.08
(±1.29)
69.80
(± 13.36)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1017.87
(±5.80) '
1019.94
(± 6.99)
1018.32
(±0.65)
1019.07
(± 1.58)
1018.32
(±0.65)
1024.36
(± 5.53)
Average «-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.75
(±0.28)
1.05
(± 1.53)
0.36
(±0.37)
0.19
(± 0.78)
0.36
(±0.37)
3.66
(±3.30)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
1.00
(±0.46)
-0.56
(±4.87)
0.16
(±0.48)
-0.05
(± 0.96)
0.16
(±0.48)
-3.22
(± 2.95)
Sea level pressure was not recorded at this station. Station pressure in inches of Mercury was converted to mb to yield an "uncorrected sea level pressure."
to
-------
Table 13-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Bonne Terre, St. Louis Site 4,
and St. Louis 1, Missouri Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
Bonne Terre, Missouri - BTMO
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
5.68 E-06
2.75 E-06
1.13E-08
67.24
32.63
0.13
67.24
99.87
100.00
0.73
1.25
2.05
4
4
4
5.68
2.75
0.01
St. Louis Site 4, Missouri - S4MO
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
p-Di chl orob enzene
Arsenic Compounds
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
Cadmium Compounds
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
Beryllium Compounds
2.54 E-05
1.07E-05
9.08 E-06
7.51 E-06
7.47 E-06
7.40 E-06
7. 17 E-06
3. 25 E-06
2.08 E-06
1.95 E-06
6.63 E-07
5.20 E-07
2.80 E-08
2.58 E-08
30.51
12.87
10.90
9.02
8.97
8.89
8.62
3.90
2.50
2.34
0.80
0.62
0.03
0.03
30.51
43.39
54.29
63.30
72.27
81.16
89.77
93.67
96.17
98.52
99.31
99.94
99.97
100.00
0.37
1.37
0.61
0.25
3.39
0.67
<0.00
0.55
<0.00
0.49
0.33
1.11
5.09
<0.00
16
65
57
23
63
13
61
13
61
4
6
49
63
34
25.41
10.72
9.08
7.51
7.47
7.40
7.17
3.25
2.08
1.95
0.66
0.52
0.03
0.03
St. Louis Site 1, Missouri - SLMO
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1.21 E-05
8.64 E-06
1.16 E-08
58.39
41.56
0.06
58.39
99.94
100.00
1.56
3.93
2.11
5
5
5
12.14
8.64
0.01
to
-------
Table 13-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Bonne Terre, St. Louis Site 4,
and St. Louis 1, Missouri Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Adverse Health
Concentrations
Bonne Terre, Missouri - BTMO
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Xylenes
w-Hexane
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
2.09 E-01
1.39E-01
2.43 E-02
4.88 E-03
2.67 E-03
1.73 E-03
1.81E-04
54.71
36.46
6.36
1.28
0.70
0.45
0.05
54.71
91.17
97.52
98.80
99.50
99.95
100.00
2.05
1.25
0.73
0.49
0.53
0.69
0.18
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
St. Louis Site 4, Missouri - S4MO
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Manganese Compounds
Bromomethane
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Cadmium Compounds
Arsenic Compounds
Benzene
Xylenes
w-Hexane
Acetonitrile
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Toluene
Lead Compounds
Nickel Compounds
5. 19 E-01
3. 77 E-01
3. 66 E-01
2.64 E-01
1.87 E-01
1.24 E-01
5.78 E-02
5. 56 E-02
4.64 E-02
3. 77 E-02
3. 27 E-02
2.50 E-02
2.44 E-02
1.51 E-02
1.43 E-02
9. 13 E-03
7.83 E-03
6.70 E-03
23.76
17.27
16.76
12.09
8.55
5.68
2.64
2.55
2.12
1.72
1.50
1.14
1.12
0.69
0.65
0.42
0.36
0.31
23.76
41.03
57.79
69.88
78.43
84.11
86.76
89.30
91.43
93.15
94.65
95.79
96.91
97.60
98.25
98.67
99.03
99.34
5.09
3.39
0.02
1.32
0.37
0.25
<0.00
<0.00
1.39
3.77
6.54
1.50
0.49
0.61
1.28
3.65
0.01
<0.00
63
63
61
1
16
23
61
61
65
65
9
32
4
57
63
65
61
61
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 13-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Bonne Terre, St. Louis Site 4, St. Louis 1,
Missouri Monitoring Sites (Cont.)
Compound
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Cobalt Compounds
Di chl oromethane
p-Di chl orob enzene
Ethylbenzene
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
Beryllium Compounds
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Styrene
Chl orob enzene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Mercury Compounds
Selenium Compounds
Average
Toxicity
4.68 E-03
2.04 E-03
1.80 E-03
1.11 E-03
8.41 E-04
6.59 E-04
5. 52 E-04
5. 37 E-04
5. 18 E-04
4.60 E-04
3. 49 E-04
3. 38 E-04
3. 13 E-04
1.92 E-04
8.83 E-05
4.23 E-05
%
Contribution
0.21
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
Cumulative %
Contribution
99.55
99.64
99.73
99.78
99.81
99.84
99.87
99.89
99.92
99.94
99.96
99.97
99.99
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.46
0.55
<0.00
1.11
0.67
0.66
0.33
<0.00
0.52
2.30
0.35
0.34
0.94
0.58
<0.00
<0.00
# Detects
9
13
61
49
13
65
6
34
2
51
42
3
20
3
31
61
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
St. Louis Site 1, Missouri - SLMO
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Xylenes
w-Hexane
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
4.36 E-01
2.16 E-01
5.19E-02
3.04E-02
2.15E-02
1.03E-02
8. 84 E-04
4.50 E-04
56.86
28.11
6.76
3.96
2.80
1.34
0.12
0.06
56.86
84.97
91.73
95.69
98.49
99.83
99.94
100.00
3.93
2.11
1.56
3.04
4.30
4.10
0.88
0.45
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 13-4. Metals and Compounds, and SNMOC Measured by the Missouri Monitoring Sites
Site
BTMO
S4MO
SLMO
Average Metals
Concentration
(ng/m3)
—
38.47
—
TNMOC
Speciated
(ppbC)
39.70
121.42
105.52
TNMOC
with
Unknowns
(ppbC)
92.35
160.74
203.40
%of
TNMOC
Identified
43%
76%
52%
SNMOC
Compound with
the Highest
Concentration
(ppbC)
Propane (6. 55)
n-Hexane(83.20)
n-Hexane (30.40)
Ethylene to
Acetylene
Ratio
0.91
0.88
0.73
%of
Expected
Ratio
54%
52%
43%
to
VO
-------
Table 13-5. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Bonne Terre,
St. Louis Site 4, and St. Louis Site 1, Missouri Sites
Compound
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
Sea Level
Pressure
M-component
of wind
v-component
of wind
Bonne Terre, Missouri - BTMO
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Formaldehyde
0.62
0.38
-0.04
0.27
0.08
-0.52
-0.12
-0.18
-0.91
0.00
-0.13
-0.76
-0.45
-0.37
-1.00
0.31
0.45
0.80
-0.84
-0.86
0.18
0.99
0.93
0.25
St. Louis Site 4, Missouri - S4MO
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic Compounds
Benzene
Bromomethane
Cadmium Compounds
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese Compounds
«-Hexane
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
0.03
0.35
0.53
0.44
0.00
-0.52
-0.06
0.30
0.57
0.49
-0.06
-0.55
-0.10
0.27
0.59
0.54
-0.08
-0.48
-0.09
0.29
0.59
0.51
-0.07
-0.52
-0.14
-0.03
0.24
0.36
-0.08
0.07
0.17
0.01
-0.33
-0.63
0.15
0.27
0.37
0.00
-0.24
0.13
-0.36
0.02
-0.12
0.07
0.23
0.05
0.18
-0.15
NA
0.15
0.07
0.48
0.13
0.04
0.21
0.38
-0.35
0.17
0.08
0.44
0.10
0.35
0.23
0.36
-0.41
0.21
0.18
0.40
0.11
0.57
0.24
0.40
-0.38
0.20
0.14
0.43
0.11
0.47
0.24
0.38
-0.40
0.19
0.33
0.00
0.06
0.75
0.19
0.34
-0.04
-0.16
-0.08
-0.07
0.07
-0.71
0.16
0.35
0.24
-0.23
-0.32
-0.04
-0.04
0.03
-0.08
-0.08
0.13
0.07
0.20
0.15
-0.03
-0.34
0.27
0.00
-0.05
St. Louis Site 1, Missouri - SLMO
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Xylenes
-0.80
-0.35
-0.04
-0.61
-0.80
-0.69
-0.77
-0.79
-0.62
-0.75
-0.82
-0.60
-0.76
-0.74
-0.80
-0.74
-0.35
-0.65
-0.71
-0.32
0.74
0.90
0.45
0.68
-0.38
-0.54
0.43
-0.54
0.91
0.87
-0.01
0.83
-------
Table 13-6. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Missouri Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Site
BTMO
S4MO
SLMO
Estimated
County
Population
57,929
332,223
332,223
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
86,254
244,956
244,956
Vehicles per
Person
(Registration:
Population)
1.49
0.74
0.74
Population
within
10 Miles
34,969
822,941
755,374
Estimated 10-Mile
Vehicle
Registration
52,104
608,976
558,977
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
4,360
22,840
15,016
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oig/m3)
5.31 ±1.29
36.60 ±4.92
10.51 ±3.01
-------
14.0 Sites in New Jersey
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the four
UATMP sites in New Jersey (CANJ, CHNJ, ELNJ, and NBNJ). The four sites are located in
different cities (Camden, Chester, Elizabeth, and New Brunswick, respectively). Figures 14-1
through 14-4 are topographical maps showing the monitoring sites in their urban locations.
Figures 14-5 through 14-7 identify facilities within 10 miles of the sites that reported to the 2002
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 eight industrial sites nearby, most of which lie just within the ten mile radius from the site.
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 liquid distribution
facilities, miscellaneous industries, and chemicals and allied product facilities.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2004 at three weather stations near
these sites for calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air concentration
measurements. The weather stations are Philadelphia International, Newark International
Airport, and Somerville-Somerset Airport, NJ (WBAN 13739, 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), pressure (average sea level
pressure), and wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind) for the entire year
and on days samples were taken. 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 for ample annual precipitation and often high humidity. A southwesterly wind is most
14-1
-------
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. Table 14-2 summarizes the cancer
weighting scores and Table 14-3 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 14-2 shows that most of the prevalent cancer compounds reflect the nationwide
prevalent cancer compounds, as listed in Section 3 of this report. Only trichloroethylene,
rram--l,3-dichloropropene, dichloromethane, and formaldehyde (each detected at all four sites)
are listed in Table 14-2 and are not listed among the nationwide prevalent cancer compounds.
For the noncancer compounds summarized in Table 14-3, many of the detected compounds are
not listed on the nationwide prevalent noncancer compound list. However, only two sites had a
prevalent noncancer compound (7ram'-l,3-dichloropropene) not on the nationwide list.
Prevalent toxic compounds not detected at the New Jersey sites were: 1,2-dichloroethane;
c/s-l,3-dichloropropene; chloroprene; and ethyl acrylate.
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
contributed most to the total cancer toxicity at all of the four sites, although it consistently had a
low number of detects. Benzene had the highest number of detects of the prevalent cancer
compounds at all four sites. At all of the sites except CHNJ, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde
14-2
-------
together contributed to over 65% of the total noncancer toxicity. The number of formaldehyde
detects equaled the number of acetaldehyde detects at all four sites.
The acrylonitrile cancer risk at CHNJ was the highest among the four sites at 37.6 in a
million, while the acrylonitrile cancer risk at CANJ, CHNJ, and ELNJ was 22.1, 22.6, and 22.6
in a million, respectively. For the compounds that may lead to adverse noncancer health effects,
the average acetaldehyde toxicity at CANJ was 1.09 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a
noncancer health effect). Of the fifty-two acetaldehyde detects at CANJ, thirteen concentrations
were of adverse health concentrations. Concentrations greater than the adverse health effect
threshold occurred at all four sites.
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 CANJ was the highest
(61.54 ±13.48 |ig/m3) while CHNJ was the lowest (31.67 ±8.19 |ig/m3), as indicated in
Table 14-1. Table 14-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from
January 2004 to December 2004, and for days on which samples were taken.
Table 14-4 presents 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 correlation at CANJ
was computed between acrylonitrile and the v-component of the wind. However, this compound
was only detected four times, which can skew the correlations. Acetonitrile and formaldehyde
exhibited strong, positive correlations with the temperature and moisture variables, except
relative humidity. Moderately strong to strong positive correlations ofp-dichlorobenzene were
shown with sea level pressure and the w-component of wind, and a moderately strong negative
correlation with relative humidity.
14-2
-------
At CHNJ, moderately strong to strong negative correlations were computed between
tetrachloroethylene and trans-l,3-dichloropropene and maximum, average, dewpoint, and wet
bulb temperatures (ranging from -0.37 to -0.50). Very strong to strong negative correlations
were also exhibited between these compounds and the v-component of the wind. However, it is
important to note that fewer than five concentrations were detected for
^ram--l,3-dichloropropene.
At ELNJ, acetaldehyde and acetonitrile had moderately strong positive correlations with
maximum, average, dewpoint and wet bulb temperature, while tetrachloroethylene had
moderately strong negative correlations with these same parameters. Acetaldehyde and benzene
had the strongest correlations with the v-component of wind (both 0.45), while acrylonitrile had
the strongest correlation with the w-component of the wind (-0.43).
At NBNJ, 1,3-butadiene exhibited very strong correlations with average maximum
temperature (-0.81). However, this compound was only detected four times, and the low number
of detects could skew the correlations. The carbonyl compounds both exhibited moderately
strong positive correlations with the temperature and moisture variables (except relative
humidity). Moderately strong correlations also occurred between tetrachloroethylene and
maximum temperature (0.32) and relative humidity (-0.45).
Figures 14-8 through 14-11 show the composite back trajectories for the New Jersey sites
for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along
which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in these
figures, the back trajectories look like pinwheels around the monitoring sites, with back
trajectories originating from almost every direction. There does, however, appear to be an
absence of trajectories originating from the east and southeast of most of the sites. Each circle
around the sites in Figure 14-8 through 14-11 represents 100 miles; between 80% (CANJ) and
84% (ELNJ) of the trajectories originated within 600 miles, and 98% (all sites) within 1000 miles
14-4
-------
from the New Jersey sites. The 24-hour airshed domain is extremely large. Back trajectories
originated nearly 1100 miles away.
14.4 Spatial Analysis
County level vehicle registration information was not available for Camden, Middlesex,
Morris, and Union Counties. Thus, state-level vehicle registration, from the Energy Information
Administration (EIA), was allocated to the county level using the county-level population
proportion. County-level population information in these counties was obtained from the U.S.
Census Bureau, and is included in Table 14-5. Table 14-5 also includes a vehicle registration to
county population ratios (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of
each site is presented. An estimation of the 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the
10-mile population surrounding the monitor and the vehicle registration ratio. Table 14-5 also
contains traffic information, which represents the average number of cars passing the monitoring
sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. This information is compared to the
average daily UATMP concentration 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.
Figure 3-2 depicts the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites. Although all of the New Jersey
sites somewhat resemble the roadside study, ELNJ resembles it the most. The benzene-
ethylbenzene and xylenes-ethylbenzene concentration ratios are closer together than those of the
roadside study at CHNJ. CANJ and NBNJ's toluene-ethylbenzene ratio are higher than the
roadside study's and their benzene-ethylbenzene and xylenes-ethylbenzene ratios are somewhat
closer together than the roadside study's. Interestingly, ELNJ is located near interchange 13 on
1-95 in Elizabeth, NJ.
14-5
-------
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 RFG 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
also averaged 9.87%, 0.12%, and 0.35% by weight, respectively from the winter survey (EPA,
2003b). Figure 14-12 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). 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 14-13 through 14-15 are the VOC profiles at the New York MSA
sites (CHNJ, ELNJ, and NBNJ).
At CANJ (Figure 14-12), the total VOC concentrations varied throughout the year,
although May through August saw a noticable rise in concentrations. The highest concentration
14-6
-------
occurred on July 14, 2004. 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
highest in Autumn. The stationary source concentrations increased dramatically during the
summer season. The sampling at CANJ ran from January 10 - December 29. 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 less than at APMI (9.92 |ig/m3 vs. 12.35 |ig/m3,
respectively), suggesting that the RFG requirement may be effective.
At CHNJ (Figure 14-13), the total VOC concentrations varied throughout the year, with
the highest concentration occurring on June 2, 2004. On that day, the BTEX HAP and stationary
source contribution was much higher than other sampling days. The sampling at CHNJ ran from
January 1 - December 29. The stationary source HAP and BTEX concentrations were highest in
the summer. The non-HAP and other mobile 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 (4.39 |ig/m3 vs.
12.06 |ig/m3, respectively), suggesting that the RFG requirement may be effective.
At ELNJ (Figure 14-14), the total VOC concentrations varied throughout the year, with
the highest concentration occurring on August 1, 2004. On that day, the stationary, other mobile,
and non-HAP contribution was much higher than other sampling days. The sampling at ELNJ
ran from January 4 - December 29. The ELNJ BTEX concentration was compared to the SPIL
BTEX concentration. SPIL is also located in a RFG area and these sites have the two highest
traffic volumes of all the sites (ELNJ = 170,000; ITCMI = 214,900). The BTEX concentration
at ELNJ is somewhat higher than the SPIL concentration (11.43 |ig/m3 vs. 9.02 |ig/m3,
respectively). It appears as if the RFG requirement may not be effective but there are also a high
number of stationary sources emitting BTEX compounds near ELNJ.
14-7
-------
At NBNJ (Figure 14-15), the total VOC concentrations varied throughout the year, with
the highest concentration occurring on June 2, 2004. On that day, the stationary source HAP and
VOC non-HAP contribution was much higher than other sampling days. The sampling at ELNJ
ran from January 4 - December 29. The NBNJ 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 (NBNJ = 63,000; APMI = 60,000). The BTEX concentration at NBNJ
less than at APMI (7.58 |ig/m3 vs. 12.35 |ig/m3, respectively), suggesting that the RFG
requirements may be effective at NBNJ.
14.6 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2003 and are still participating in the
2004 program year (i.e., minimum 3 years); a site-specific trends analysis was conducted.
Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are
located in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was performed.
Details on this analysis are discussed in Section 3.9.
14.6.1 Site-Specific Trends Analysis
CANJ has participated in the UATMP since 1994; ELNJ since 1999; and CHNJ and
NBNJ since 2001. A comparison of concentrations of 1,3-butadiene, benzene, and formaldehyde
at CANJ shows that there has been a lot of variation of the last ten years. Formaldehyde
concentrations for 2004 are the highest over the time frame; 1,3-butadiene concentrations were
highest in 2000; and benzene concentrations peaked in 1996. Please refer to Figure 3-30.
1,3-Butadiene concentrations at CHNJ in 2004 are equal to these in 2001, sharing the
highest concentration in CHNJ's four year UATMP sampling history. Benzene concentrations
have changed little since 2001. Formaldehyde concentrations decreased steadily from 2001 to
2003, but increased slightly in 2004. Please refer to Figure 3-31.
14-8
-------
Formaldehyde concentrations at ELNJ have been on the rise since 2003, after falling in
2001 and 2002. Benzene concentrations have been slowly decreasing since 2002, while 1,3-
butadiene concentrations have shown little change since 2002. Please refer to Figure 3-35.
At NBNJ, formaldehyde concentrations have been on the rise since 2003, although
concentrations nearly doubled in 2004. Concentrations of benzene and 1,3-butadiene have
shown little change over the four-year period. Please refer to Figure 3-41.
14.6.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses
All four New Jersey sites reside in MSAs, three in the New York-Northen New Jersey-
Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MSA (CHNJ, ELNJ, and NBNJ), and one in the Philadelphia-Camden-
Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD MSA. The New York MSA has experienced a 10.5% increase in
population and 28.9% increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 1990 to 2003. Carbonyl
and VOC emissions have decreased between 29% to 84% between 1990 and 2002. Measured
concentrations of these compounds have decreased as well, ranging from 43% to 66%.
Formaldehyde concentrations decreased by 43% throughout the time period, even though ethanol
is used an oxygenate. However, the ethanol blend is very low (<1%), and much lower than other
MSAs (St. Louis, for example). Concentration of each of the VOC considered in this analysis
appear to be decreasing, and each of the carbonyl compounds appear to be holding steady for
2004, according to the UATMP sites representing the New York MSA (CHNJ, ELNJ, and
NBNJ). This MSA participates in the winter oxygenenated program and the reformulated
gasoline program. Trends for these and other compounds of interest can be found in Table 3-13.
The Philadelphia MSA has experienced a 6.2% increase in population and a 56.6%
increase in VMT from 1990 and 2003. Emissions of VOC and carbonyl compounds have
decreased substantially over the period, as have measured concentrations of these pollutants.
Formaldehyde concentrations decreased by 60% throughout the time period, even though ethanol
is used as an oxygenate. However, similar to the New York MSA, the ethanol blend is very low
(<1%). For the UATMP site representing this MSA (CANJ), 2004 VOC concentrations continue
14-9
-------
to decrease. However, both acetaldehyde and formaldehyde concentrations show an increasing
trend for 2004. This MSA participates in both the winter-oxygenated program and the
reformulated gasoline program. Please refer to Table 3-13 for more information.
14-10
-------
Figure 14-1. Camden, New Jersey (CANJ) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
14-11
-------
Figure 14-2. Chester, New Jersey (CHNJ) Monitoring Site
\
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
14-12
-------
Figure 14-3. Elizabeth, New Jersey (ELNJ) Monitoring Site
fiS • • • '
K£S / • • * •
m, .-.••>
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
14-13
-------
Figure 14-4. New Brunswick, New Jersey (NBNJ) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000
14-14
-------
Figure 14-5. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CANJ
, Montgomery * ," Philadelphia
\ County I / County^ J.
75'15'0'W 75'10'0'W 75'5I0'W 75TTOW
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
® CANJ UATMP site 0 10 mile radius |~ ^County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
* Agricultural Chemicals Production Industrial Facility (1)
¥ Automotive Repair, Services, & Parking (1)
: Business Services Facility (1)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility
z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (9)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (3)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (58)
+ Health Services Facility (1)
Incineration Industrial Facility (4)
= Instruments & Related Products Facility (1)
*• Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (11)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1)
x Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (3)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (11)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (4)
i Petroleum & Coal Products (2)
P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (3)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (2)
R Printing & Publishing Facility (1)
# Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (3)
" Pulp & Paper Production Facility (1)
u Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (8)
8 Utility Boilers (8)
I Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (3)
14-15
-------
Figure 14-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CHNJ
W 74'50I01W 74'45'0'W 74°4D'0IW 74°35'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
@ CHNJ UATMP site
O 10 mile radius
^County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (1)
z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (2)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (1)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
•T \Afeste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
14-16
-------
Figure 14-7. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ELNJ and NBNJ
74°35'0'W 74°30'0'W 74°25'0'W 74I20'0'W 74°15'0'W 74'10'0'W 74°5'0'W 74WW ISf&OVt
74'45'0'W 74'40'0'W 74135'0'W 74°30'0'W 74t25'0'W 74t20'0'W 74'15'0'W 74'10'0'W 74°5'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
l_6 €16 tld displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
@ ELNJ UATMP site 0 NBNJ UATMP site 0 10 mile radius Q ^County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
f Agricultural Chemicals Production Industrial Facility (3)
•§' Business Services Facility (2)
C Chem icals S Allied Products Facility (37)
E Electric. Gas. & Sanitary Services (2)
Z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (9)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (11)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (4)
•= Instruments & Related Products Facility (1)
t Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (1)
- Leather & Leather Products Facility (2)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (23)
'/ Metal Mining (1)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (3)
X Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (27)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (3)
I Petroleums Coal Products (1)
P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (1)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (8)
V Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (4)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (7)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (10)
" Pulp S Paper Production Facility (2)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (6)
D Special Trade Contractors Facility (1)
U Stone, Clay. Glass. & Concrete Products (2)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (17)
T Transportation Equipment (1)
+ Transportation by Air (1)
? Unknown (1)
8 Utility Boilers (6)
I Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (8)
6 Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods (3)
14-17
-------
Figure 14-8. Composite Back Trajectory Map for CANJ
oo
-------
Figure 14-9. Composite Back Trajectory Map for CHNJ
0 50 100 200 300
-------
Figure 14-10. Composite Back Trajectory Map for ELNJ
to
o
-------
Figure 14-11. Composite Back Trajectory Map for NBNJ
-------
Figure 14-12. 2004 Total VOC Profile at CANJ
to
to
200 n
175
— 150
<«•} I OU
E
i! 125
c
•2 -inn
£
+•>
o 75
8 /o
c
O
O 50
25
o
R III
l flnilil 1 nlfllflnllllil
1
1
____ • VOC non-HAPs _____
n Other mobile source HAPs
D BTEX compounds
D Stationary Source VOC HAP
1
•
mmm \l\mm
\mM
W T I III III 111 111 111 III 111 111 111 III 11 111 11 III 111 111 111 III 111 111 111 I
^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D ^D
oooooooooooooooooooooo
C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^C^CslCNCNCN
^^^coS^S^S^r^^^OT^S^^S^S^
T-T-CM CO "^-LO CD [^00 OTOO^-T-T-CMCM
Sample Date
-------
Figure 14-13. 2004 Total VOC Profile at CHNJ
100
80
— 60
to
C
0)
o
c
o
o
40
20
0
iVOCnon-HAPs
I Other mobile source HAPs
IBTEX compounds
I Stationary Source VOC HAP
o
o
C\J
O
O
C\J
C\J
o o o
o o o
og og c\j
CD
CO
O
o
CN
C\J
CsJ
C\J
o
o
CN
CN
O
O
CN
LO
O
o
CsJ
r^
CsJ
LO
o
o
C\J
-3-
CD
o
o
C\J
C\J
o
o
C\J
o
C\J
o
o
CN
oo
o
o
C\J
LO
00
o
o
C\J
eg
o5
o
o
C\J
o
£0
o5
o
o
C\J
00
o
o
o
C\J
C\J
o
o
o
C\J
o o o
o o o
C\J C\J C\J
LO
C\J
-3-
C\J
o
o
C\J
O)
C\J
C\J
Sample Date
-------
Figure 14-14. 2004 Total VOC Profile at ELNJ
100
80
|VOCnon-HAPs
I Other mobile source HAPs
| BTEX compounds
I Stationary Source VOC HAP
to
o
o
c\i
Sample Date
-------
Figure 14-15. 2004 Total VOC Profile at NBNJ
350
250
200
to
o
'•?
c
0)
o
3 10°
50
0
Hll
iVOCnon-HAPs
I Other mobile source HAPs
IBTEX compounds
I Stationary Source VOC HAP
ooooooooooooooooo
00000000000000000
CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN
sss
o
CN
o
CN
o
CN
s
o
CN
s
o
CN
eg
C\J CO
10 CD
o
Sample Date
-------
Table 14-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in New Jersey
Site
Name
CANJ
CHNJ
ELNJ
NBNJ
Type
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
SSfc
61.54
(±13.48)
^
31.67
(±8.19)
^S
50.21
(±5.70)
^^
56.20
(±17.54)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
63.12
(±1.90)
63.10
(±4.15)
62.01
(±1.91)
60.34
(±4.31)
61.92
(±1.92)
62.46
(±4.36)
62.01
(±1.91)
61.77
(±4.25)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
55.57
(±1.78)
55.44
(±3.92)
52.33
(±1.77)
50.97
(±4.08)
54.51
(±1.82)
54.85
(±4.21)
52.33
(±1.77)
51.95
(±4.10)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
42.87
(±2.02)
42.80
(±1.55)
41.71
(±2.02)
40.65
(±4.78)
41.76
(±2.03)
42.23
(±4.76)
41.71
(±2.02)
41.60
(±4.80)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
49.63
(±1.69)
49.54
(±3.75)
47.49
(±1.71)
46.37
(±3.99)
48.61
(±1.72)
48.99
(±3.99)
47.49
(±1.71)
47.28
(±4.00)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
65.39
(±1.53)
65.33
(±3.52)
70.34
(±1.38)
70.88
(±3.49)
65.03
(±1.56)
65.46
(±3.68)
70.34
(±1.38)
70.90
(±3.36)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1017.94
(±0.73)
1017.47
(±1.78)
1017.28
(±0.75)
1016.79
(±2.03)
1017.55
(±0.75)
1016.37
(±1.92)
1017.28
(±0.75)
1016.76
(±1.93)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
1.86
(±0.53)
2.14
(±1.37)
-0.07
(±0.23)
-0.05
(±0.64)
1.88
(±0.54)
2.36
(±1.25)
-0.07
(±0.23)
0.13
(±0.57)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.66
(±0.49)
-1.40
(±1.24)
-0.99
(±0.30)
-1.31
(±0.70)
-1.65
(±0.53)
-1.62
(±1.31)
-0.99
(±0.30)
-1.13
(±0.68)
to
-------
Table 14-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Camden, Chester, Elizabeth, and
New Brunswick, New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
Camden, New Jersey - CANJ
Acrylonitrile
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Carbon Tetrachloride
p-Di chl orob enzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
trans- 1 ,3 -dichloropropene
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
2.21 E-05
2.15E-05
1.14 E-05
8.99E-06
8.77 E-06
7.05 E-06
3.91 E-06
2.59 E-06
1.72 E-06
1.65 E-06
2.82 E-07
4.53 E-08
24.57
23.91
12.67
9.98
9.74
7.82
4.34
2.87
1.91
1.83
0.31
0.05
24.57
48.48
61.15
71.12
80.86
88.68
93.02
95.89
97.81
99.64
99.95
100.00
0.33
9.79
1.46
0.30
0.58
0.64
0.66
0.29
0.43
0.82
0.60
8.24
4
52
60
18
57
8
24
2
2
20
40
52
22.14
21.54
11.41
8.99
8.77
7.05
3.91
2.59
1.72
1.65
0.28
0.05
Chester, New Jersey - CHNJ
Acrylonitrile
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
trans- 1 ,3 -dichloropropene
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
Di chl oromethane
3. 76 E-05
8.83 E-06
5. 40 E-06
5. 31 E-06
4.36 E-06
2. 84 E-06
1.95 E-06
5. 37 E-07
3. 77 E-07
55.96
13.12
8.03
7.90
6.48
4.22
2.90
0.80
0.56
55.96
69.09
77.11
85.01
91.49
95.71
98.61
99.41
99.97
0.55
0.59
0.69
0.18
1.98
0.48
0.49
0.27
0.80
3
45
55
2
54
11
4
2
29
37.63
8.83
5.40
5.31
4.36
2.84
1.95
0.54
0.38
to
-------
Table 14-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Camden, Chester, Elizabeth,
and New Brunswick, New Jersey Monitoring Sites (Cont.)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
1.89E-08
%
Contribution
0.03
Cumulative %
Contribution
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
3.44
# Detects
54
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
0.02
Elizabeth, New Jersey - ELNJ
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
p-Di chl orob enzene
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
2.26 E-05
1.17E-05
1.05 E-05
8.51E-06
7.95 E-06
5.73 E-06
3. 33 E-06
1.75 E-06
5.64E-07
4.01 E-07
2.50 E-08
30.91
16.08
14.31
11.65
10.88
7.85
4.56
2.40
0.77
0.55
0.03
30.91
46.99
61.30
72.95
83.84
91.69
96.24
98.64
99.42
99.97
100.00
0.33
1.51
4.75
0.57
0.26
0.52
0.56
0.44
0.28
0.85
4.55
5
59
59
51
27
O
27
3
4
50
59
22.58
11.74
10.45
8.51
7.95
5.73
3.33
1.75
0.56
0.40
0.03
New Brunswick, New Jersey - NBNJ
Acrylonitrile
Acetaldehyde
p-Di chl orob enzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
2.26 E-05
1.61 E-05
1.22 E-05
8.66 E-06
7.56 E-06
6. 15 E-06
4.48 E-06
3.41 E-06
1.63 E-06
9. 14 E-07
2.30 E-07
3. 27 E-08
26.94
19.12
14.57
10.31
9.00
7.32
5.33
4.06
1.95
1.09
0.27
0.04
26.94
46.06
60.63
70.94
79.94
87.26
92.59
96.65
98.60
99.69
99.96
100.00
0.33
7.30
1.11
0.58
0.97
0.32
0.15
0.58
0.41
0.46
0.49
5.95
3
59
1
55
60
1
4
17
3
2
49
59
22.63
16.06
12.24
8.66
7.56
6.15
4.48
3.41
1.63
0.91
0.23
0.03
-------
Table 14-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Camden, Chester, Elizabeth,
and New Brunswick, New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
Gig/m3)
# Detects
Adverse Health
Concentrations
Camden, New Jersey - CANJ
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Bromomethane
Benzene
Xylenes
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Toluene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Chloroform
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
p-Di chl orob enzene
Ethylbenzene
Di chl oromethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Styrene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
1.09E+00
8.41 E-01
4.19 E-01
1.63 E-01
1.50 E-01
1.34 E-01
4.88 E-02
4.18E-02
2. 16 E-02
1.46 E-02
1.39 E-02
9.31E-03
6.15E-03
2.94 E-03
2.45 E-03
2.39 E-03
1.37 E-03
1.01 E-03
8.01 E-04
6.11E-04
6.00 E-04
4.96 E-04
4.37 E-04
4.30 E-04
2.40 E-04
36.70
28.36
14.13
5.49
5.05
4.53
1.65
1.41
0.73
0.49
0.47
0.31
0.21
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
36.70
65.06
79.19
84.68
89.73
94.27
95.91
97.32
98.05
98.54
99.01
99.32
99.53
99.63
99.71
99.79
99.84
99.98
99.90
99.92
99.94
99.96
99.97
99.99
100.00
9.79
8.24
25.12
0.33
0.30
0.67
1.46
4.18
0.43
0.58
1.25
3.72
1.23
0.29
0.66
0.23
0.82
3.03
0.64
0.61
0.60
2.48
0.44
0.43
0.72
52
52
29
4
18
10
60
60
2
57
59
59
1
2
24
4
20
57
8
60
40
54
1
47
21
13
12
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 14-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Camden, Chester, Elizabeth,
and New Brunswick, New Jersey Monitoring Sites (Cont.)
Compound
Chloroethane
Average
Toxicity
8.97E-05
%
Contribution
0.00
Cumulative %
Contribution
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.90
# Detects
2
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
Chester, New Jersey - CHNJ
Formaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Bromomethane
1,3-Butadiene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Benzene
Xylenes
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Toluene
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Di chl oromethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Styrene
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Chloroethane
3.51E-01
2.77 E-01
2.20 E-01
1.91 E-01
9.32 E-02
8.85 E-02
2.44 E-02
2.31 E-02
1.77 E-02
1.47 E-02
1.28 E-02
4.41 E-03
3.77E-03
1.78 E-03
8.02 E-04
5.46E-04
4.70 E-04
4.52 E-04
4.48 E-04
3. 46 E-04
2.66 E-04
2.49 E-04
6.07 E-05
26.42
20.85
16.60
14.43
7.02
6.67
1.84
1.74
1.34
1.11
0.97
0.33
0.28
0.13
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.00
26.42
47.27
63.86
78.29
85.32
91.99
93.82
95.56
96.90
98.01
98.98
99.31
99.59
99.73
99.79
99.83
99.86
99.90
99.93
99.96
99.98
100.00
100.00
3.44
0.55
1.98
11.49
0.47
0.18
0.49
0.69
1.77
0.59
1.16
1.76
0.37
0.48
0.80
0.55
2.35
0.45
0.27
0.35
0.80
0.75
0.61
54
3
54
33
1
2
4
55
54
45
57
57
2
11
29
1
46
19
2
46
6
31
1
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 14-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Camden, Chester, Elizabeth,
and New Brunswick, New Jersey Monitoring Sites (Cont.)
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Adverse Health
Concentrations
Elizabeth, New Jersey - ELNJ
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Xylenes
Benzene
Acetonitrile
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Methyl Methacrylate
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Toluene
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Di chl oromethane
Ethylbenzene
p-Di chl orob enzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Styrene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
5.28 E-01
4.65 E-01
1.66 E-01
1.32 E-01
5.54E-02
5.02E-02
4.34 E02
2.19E-02
1.47E-02
1.42E-02
1.33E-02
9.39 E-03
2.51E-03
2.09 E-03
1.22 E-03
8.54E-04
7.70 E-04
6.51E-04
4.89 E-04
4.70 E-04
2.91 E-04
2.70 E-04
1.76 E-04
34.66
30.49
10.90
8.70
3.64
3.29
2.85
1.44
0.97
0.93
0.88
0.62
0.16
0.14
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
34.66
65.15
76.05
84.75
88.38
91.68
94.53
95.97
96.93
97.87
98.74
99.36
99.52
99.66
99.74
99.80
99.85
99.89
99.92
99.97
99.97
99.99
100.00
4.75
4.55
0.33
0.26
5.54
1.51
2.61
0.44
10.30
0.57
1.20
3.75
0.25
0.56
3.66
0.85
0.77
0.52
2.44
0.29
0.29
0.27
0.53
59
59
5
27
59
59
26
O
5
51
58
60
8
27
55
50
58
O
51
3
O
43
12
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 14-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Camden, Chester, Elizabeth,
and New Brunswick, New Jersey Monitoring Sites (Cont.)
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Adverse Health
Concentrations
New Brunswick, New Jersey - NBNJ
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Toluene
Methyl Methacrylate
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Chloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
p-Di chl orob enzene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
Ethylb enzene
Di chl oromethane
Styrene
8.11E-01
6.07 E-01
2.16 E-01
1.66 E-01
8.09 E-02
7.47 E-02
3.23 E-02
3. 12 E-02
2.04 E-02
1.44 E-02
1.36 E-02
7.55 E-03
4.39 E-03
2.36 E-03
2. 14 E-03
1.87 E-03
1.50 E-03
1.39 E-03
1.20 E-03
1.16 E-03
7.61 E-04
5.41 E-04
4.88 E-04
3. 47 E-04
38.75
29.01
10.30
7.95
3.86
3.57
1.54
1.49
0.98
0.69
0.65
0.36
0.21
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
38.75
67.75
78.05
86.00
89.86
93.42
94.97
96.46
97.43
98.12
98.77
99.13
99.34
99.46
99.56
99.65
99.72
99.79
99.84
99.90
99.93
99.96
99.98
100.00
7.30
5.95
12.93
0.33
0.32
0.15
0.97
3.12
0.41
0.58
1.22
3.02
3.07
0.23
0.58
18.71
4.49
1.11
3.59
5.82
0.46
0.54
0.49
0.35
59
59
37
3
1
4
60
59
3
55
59
60
1
9
17
1
54
1
3
52
2
58
49
31
13
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 14-4. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Camden,
Chester, Elizabeth, and New Brunswick, New Jersey Sites
Compound
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
Sea Level
Pressure
M-component
of wind
v-component
of wind
Camden, New Jersey - CANJ
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
0.00
0.32
0.49
-0.35
-0.10
0.08
0.08
0.53
0.13
-0.11
-0.02
0.29
0.53
-0.26
-0.11
0.11
0.10
0.51
0.00
-0.05
-0.11
0.26
0.52
-0.25
-0.12
0.09
0.11
0.45
-0.13
-0.03
-0.07
0.28
0.54
-0.25
-0.12
0.09
0.11
0.49
-0.06
-0.05
-0.26
0.12
0.20
-0.05
-0.10
0.05
0.06
0.14
-0.42
0.00
0.45
-0.28
-0.20
-0.50
0.29
-0.36
0.07
-0.27
0.53
0.21
-0.08
-0.03
-0.05
-0.38
0.05
0.13
-0.08
-0.09
0.42
-0.18
-0.02
-0.03
0.32
-0.69
0.16
-0.12
0.00
0.14
-0.10
-0.05
NA
Chester, New Jersey - CHNJ
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
NA
0.23
0.16
0.20
0.16
0.19
0.21
0.20
0.18
0.10
0.23
-0.11
-0.17
0.04
0.13
0.01
-0.04
NA
-0.22
-0.21
-0.10
-0.17
0.25
-0.16
0.12
0.25
NA
0.18
0.31
-0.50
-0.42
0.21
0.28
-0.42
-0.45
0.20
0.26
-0.37
-0.41
0.21
0.28
-0.40
-0.44
0.05
0.11
0.19
-0.14
-0.06
-0.13
0.22
0.27
0.13
0.05
-0.20
-0.19
-0.03
0.00
-0.50
-0.87
Elizabeth, New Jersey - ELNJ
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
-0.10
0.46
0.42
-0.11
0.43
0.46
-0.02
0.39
0.44
-0.09
0.41
0.46
0.21
0.07
0.19
0.22
0.15
-0.29
-0.14
0.00
0.02
0.23
0.45
0.22
-------
Table 14-4. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Camden,
Chester, Elizabeth, and New Brunswick, New Jersey Sites (Cont.)
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Xylenes
Maximum
Temperature
-0.09
-0.02
0.04
0.12
Average
Temperature
0.04
-0.02
0.07
0.10
Dew Point
Temperature
0.07
0.07
0.10
0.03
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.06
0.02
0.08
0.07
Relative
Humidity
0.31
0.26
0.10
-0.14
Sea Level
Pressure
0.06
0.12
0.07
0.13
M-component
of wind
-0.43
0.06
0.09
0.11
v-component
of wind
-0.10
0.45
0.13
0.14
NA
-0.40
-0.43
-0.38
-0.42
0.08
0.26
-0.18
-0.03
NA
0.04
0.02
0.09
0.04
0.23
0.09
-0.02
0.37
New Brunswick, New Jersey - NBNJ
1 ,2-Dichloropropene
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
NA
-0.81
0.35
0.04
-0.38
0.37
0.01
-0.33
0.34
-0.01
-0.33
0.36
0.00
-0.23
0.13
-0.07
-0.43
-0.05
-0.19
0.28
0.01
0.09
-0.04
-0.08
-0.25
NA
-0.17
0.13
0.32
-0.16
0.14
0.34
-0.08
0.15
0.32
-0.13
0.15
0.34
0.17
0.10
0.13
0.12
0.08
-0.07
-0.02
-0.04
0.01
0.24
-0.03
-0.08
NA
0.32
0.14
0.23
0.19
0.10
0.24
0.16
0.22
-0.45
0.24
-0.06
0.00
0.14
-0.04
-0.26
0.30
-------
Table 14-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for New Jersey Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Site
CANJ
CHNJ
ELNJ
NBNJ
Estimated
County
Population
513,909
483,150
529,360
780,995
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned1
399,282
375,383
411,286
606,794
Vehicles per
Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.78
Population
within
10 Miles
2,030,976
234,148
2,179,781
787,380
Estimated 10-Mile
Vehicle
Registration
1,584,161
182,635
1,700,229
614,156
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
62,000
12,623
170,000
63,000
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oig/m3)
61.54 (±13.48)
3 1.67 (±8. 19)
50.21 (± 5.70)
56.20 (± 17.54)
County level vehicle ownership data was not available. State level registration data was therefore allocated to the country-level using county-level population
data.
-------
15.0 Sites in North Carolina
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
sites in North Carolina (CANC and RTPNC). CANC is a rural site located in Candor near the
Uwharrie National Forest. RTPNC is an urban site located in the Research Triangle Park area.
Figures 15-1 through 15-2 are topographical maps showing the monitoring sites in their rural and
urban locations. Figures 15-3 through 15-4 identify facilities within 10 miles of these sites as
reported to the 2002 NEI. The CANC site has very few sources nearby, mostly located to the
north or west of the site, and most are involved in fuel combustion industries or lumber and
wood products. The RTPNC site has a few more facilities nearby, mostly to the north and east,
and the majority of them are involved in fuel combustion. Hourly meteorological data were
retrieved for all of 2004 at the Moore County Airport and Raleigh-Durham International Airport
(WBAN 3720 and 13722, respectively) for calculating correlations of meteorological data with
ambient air concentration measurements.
Table 15-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at these sites, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), pressure (average sea level pressure), and
wind information (average u- and v-components of the wind) for the entire year and on 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. Research Triangle Park is located between
Raleigh and Durham in central North Carolina. Its Southeastern location allows for warm,
usually muggy summers, and generally mild winters. Afternoon thunderstorms are typical
during the summer, although rainfall is distributed rather equally throughout the year. This
information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
15-1
-------
15.1 Prevalent Compounds at the North Carolina Sites
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.
The North Carolina sites sampled only carbonyls. As can be shown in Tables 15-2 and
15-3, acetaldehyde was the only prevalent cancer compound at both sites, while both
acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were prevalent for noncancer compounds. Both toxic carbonyl
compounds were detected at CANC and RTPNC.
15.2 Toxicity Analysis
Acetaldehyde contributed to over 99% of the total toxicity for cancer compounds while
the contribution to total noncancer toxicity was somewhat more evenly distributed. The number
of detections of acetaldehyde equaled the number of detections of formaldehyde at both sites.
The acetaldehyde cancer risk was the highest among the toxic carbonyl compounds at
CANC at 2.58 in a million. For the compounds that may lead to adverse noncancer health
effects, the highest average noncancer toxicity was 0.199 (over 1 indicates a significant chance
of a noncancer health effect) for formaldehyde at CANC. None of the carbonyl compound
concentrations at either site were above their noncancer RfC weighting factors.
15.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the North Carolina Site
Carbonyl compounds were measured at each site, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. The
average total UATMP daily concentration (carbonyl compounds only) at CANC was 6.00 (±
1.52) |ig/m3, while at RTPNC the average concentration was 3.89 (±0.88) |ig/m3. Table 15-1
also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2004 to December
2004, and for days on which sampling occurred.
15-2
-------
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 formaldehyde and the average temperature (0.56). Formaldehyde and
maximum temperature, dew point temperature, and wet bulb temperature also had strong
positive correlations, indicating that formaldehyde concentrations increase as temperature and
moisture content increase. Acetaldehyde correlations at CANC were generally weak, with the
exception of the v-component of the wind (0.27).
All but one correlation at the RTPNC site were at least moderately strong. All of the
correlations between acetaldehyde and the temperature and moisture parameters were negative
and very strong. Formaldehyde correlations with these same parameters tended to be positive
and strong. These compounds also had moderately strong to strong correlations with the wind
components. All of this would indicate that RTPNC prevalent compounds are strongly
influenced by the meteorology of the area. However, there were only nine sample days at
RTPNC. This small number of measurements could make the correlations appear stronger than
they might with a larger sample size.
Figures 15-5 and 15-6 show the composite back trajectories for the CANC and RTPNC
sites for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along
which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in
Figure 15-5, the back trajectories originated predominantly from the west, northwest, and north
of the CANC site. Each circle around the site in Figure 15-5 represents 100 miles; 79% of the
trajectories originated within 500 miles, and 96% within 900 miles from the CANC site. The 24-
hour airshed domain is extremely large. Back trajectories originated over 900 miles away.
Figure 15-6 shows few back trajectories as RTPNC sampled during only a portion of
2004. Back trajectories originated more frequently from the northwest. Each circle around the
site in Figure 15-6 represents 100 miles; 67% of the trajectories originated within 400 miles, and
15-3
-------
89% within 900 miles from the RTPNC site. The 24-hour airshed domain for RTPNC appears
extremely large. Back trajectories originated nearly 1000 miles away.
15.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level vehicle registration and population in Montgomery and Durham counties,
NC, were obtained from the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the U.S. Census
Bureau, and are summarized in Table 15-5. Table 15-5 also includes a vehicle registration to
county population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each
site is presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile
population surrounding the monitors and the vehicle registration ratio. Table 15-5 also contains
traffic information, which represents the average number of cars passing the monitoring sites on
the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. This information is compared to the average
daily UATMP concentration at the CANC and RTPNC site in Table 15-5. Although RTPNC has
a higher population, more vehicles owned, and a larger traffic volume, its concentration is two-
thirds that of the CANC site.
15.5 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2003 and are still participating in the
2004 program year (i.e., minimum 3 years), a site-specific trends analysis was conducted.
Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are
located in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was performed.
Details on this analysis are discussed in Section 3.9.
15.5.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses
CANC participated in the 2003 and 2004 UATMP, while RTPNC has only participated in
2004. Therefore, site-specific trends analyses were not conducted for these two sites.
15-4
-------
15.5.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses
RTPNC resides in the Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA, while CANC is not in a designated
MSA. The Durham-Chapel Hill MSA has experienced a 14.1% increase in population and
estimated increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 1990 to 2003. Acetaldehyde and
formaldehyde emissions have decreased significantly between 1990 and 2002. However, no
prior concentration data is available via AQS for the 1990-2003 time frame, so no concentration
comparison can be made. Trends for these and other compounds of interest can be found in
Table 3-13. This MSA does not participate in either the winter oxygenated program or the
reformulated gasoline program.
15-5
-------
Figure 15-1. Candor, North Carolina (CANC) Monitoring Site
^: »~-
m? ..•
\ \ * •' ' - J—'J" \ . I /—
' M 'If \ /
ser ;f
. .J^i
, i - • ••' • - '• ".(i
I - ; • Y!V - . • i
-
T • . • -;. I .' f I - ; !
:» • S i i if
. fe • ,'/;K^,tPANC,C _&'•? i \s
,.,.
, ^
y fe< i
^—:
I ' g«
• |«/^ ^-:; ^ ,; •- . - . ,
-L-^y^/v-. //-;:"N--^x. ^»sfe5s^ v. i - !- N&2 •
i • '>;^ x
i -IP 5;i '
-• * {!' -,.
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
15-6
-------
Figure 15-2. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (RTPNC) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24, 000.
15-7
-------
Figure 15-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CANC
80WW 79°55'0'W 79WO'W 79'45'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
© CANC UATMP site
O 10 mile radius
(County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (4)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (1)
* Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (1)
& Lumber & Wood Products Facility (3)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (2)
I Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
15-8
-------
Figure 15-4. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of RTPNC
79WW TB'SS'O'W 78°50'0"W 7B°45'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may hot represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
@ RTPNC UATMP site
\J 10 mile radius
|County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (1)
z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (10)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (2)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (4)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (3)
Q Primary Metal Industries Facility (2)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (1)
u Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
15-9
-------
Figure 15-5. Composite Back Trajectory Map for CANC
-------
Figure 15-6. Composite Back Trajectory Map for RTPNC
-------
Table 15-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Sites in North Carolina
Site
Name
CANC
RTPNC
Type
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
^^N
6.00
(±1.52)
\^^
3.89
(±0.88)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
71.78
(±1.68)
68.55
(±6.79)
70.15
(±1.62)
74.33
(±6.18)
Average
Temperature
61.38
(±1.62)
58.66
(±6.27)
60.23
(±1.59)
64.56
(±6.44)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
49.63
(±1.93)
47.45
(±7.27)
49.63
(±1.89)
56.83
(±8.08)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
55.37
(±1.59)
53.09
(±6.12)
54.84
(±1.58)
60.27
(±6.84)
Average
Relative
Humidity
69.16
(±1.56)
70.18
(±6.40)
71.27
(±1.44)
78.44
(±6.21)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1019.14
(±6.33) '
1016.63
(±2.21)
1018.75
(±0.68)
1016.90
(±3.33)
Average «-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.91
(±0.35)
1.32
(±1.27)
0.94
(±0.36)
-0.09
(±7. 1 7.^
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.56
(±0.34)
-0.71
(±0.34)
0.64
(±0.37)
-0.64
(±0.98)
1 Sea level pressure are not recorded in this station. Station pressure in inches of Mercury was converted to mb to yield an
"uncorrected" sea level pressure.
to
-------
Table 15-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Candor and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
Candor, North Carolina - CANC
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
2.58 E-06
1.07E-08
99.59
0.41
99.59
100.00
1.17
1.95
24
24
2.58
0.01
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina - RTPNC
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1.75 E-06
7.93 E-09
99.55
0.45
99.55
100.00
0.80
1.44
9
9
1.75
0.01
-------
Table 15-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Candor and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Adverse Health
Concentrations
Candor, North Carolina - CANC
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1.99E-01
1.30E-01
60.44
39.56
60.44
100.00
1.95
1.17
24
24
0
0
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina - RTPNC
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1.47E-01
8.84E-02
62.47
37.53
62.47
100.00
1.44
0.80
9
9
0
0
-------
Table 15-4. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Candor and
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Sites
Compound
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
Sea Level
Pressure
M-component
of wind
v-component
of wind
Candor, North Carolina - CANC
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
0.13
0.53
0.14
0.56
0.12
0.51
0.11
0.53
-0.03
0.11
0.13
0.14
0.23
0.01
0.27
0.36
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
-0.70
0.69
-0.79
0.71
-0.87
0.69
-0.85
0.71
-0.76
0.41
0.25
0.01
0.49
-0.25
-0.51
0.43
-------
Table 15-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the North Carolina Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
CANC
RTPNC
Estimated
County
Population
27,306
236,781
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
26,623
259,865
Vehicle per
Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.97
1.10
Population
within
10 Miles
11,014
380,541
Estimated 10-Mile
Vehicle
Registration
10,684
417,640
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
100
12,000
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oig/m3)
6.00 (±1.52)
3.89 (±0.88)
-------
16.0 Site in North Dakota
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in North Dakota (SLND). This site is located on the Spirit Lake Nation Reservation, and
Figure 16-1 is a topographical map showing the monitoring site in its urban location. Figure 16-
2 identifies facilities within 10 miles of the site that reported to the 2002 NEI. The SLND site
has no sources located within a ten mile radius. Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for
all of 2004 at the Devils Lake Municipal Airport (WBAN 94928) for 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), pressure (average sea level pressure), and
wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind) for the entire year and on sampling
days. The Spirit Lake Indian Reservation is located in the northeast quadrant of North Dakota.
It is bordered by Devil's Lake to the north and by the Sheyenne River to the south. Its climate is
continental in nature, where temperature extremes are common and precipitation is moderate.
Low temperatures in winter can dip into the -40s. This information can be found at
http://www.mnisose.org/profiles/splake.htm and http://www.cbhma.org/militaryposts.htm.
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 all four of the prevalent cancer compounds at SLND reflect the
nationwide prevalent cancer compound list, as listed in Section 3 of this report. However,
several other detected compounds do not reflect this nationwide list. This is because SLND
sampled VOC and SVOC only and only VOC and carbonyl compounds were considered for
16-1
-------
nationwide prevalence. For the noncancer compounds summarized in Table 16-3, four of the
seven prevalent noncancer compounds were listed among the nationwide noncancer prevalent
list.
Prevalent toxic compounds not detected at the North Dakota site were: c/s-1,3-
dichloropropene; 1,3-butadiene; ethyl acrylate; 1,2-dichloroethane; 1,2-dichloropropane;
tetrachloroethylene; vinyl chloride; bromomethane; and chloroprene.
16.2 Toxicity Analysis
Acrylonitrile and carbon tetrachloride contributed to nearly 75% of the site's cancer
toxicity, although benzene had the highest number of detects. Acrylonitrile also made up over
60% of the site's noncancer toxicity value. The acrylonitrile cancer risk was the highest among
the toxic compounds at 22.43 in a million. For the compounds that may lead to adverse
noncancer health effects, the average acrylonitrile toxicity was 0.0165 (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
VOC and SVOC were measured at this site, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. The
average total UATMP daily concentration (VOC only) at SLND was 49.02 (± 28.50) |ig/m3.
Table 16-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2004 to
December 2004, and for days on which sampling occurred. As previously stated, SLND opted to
sample for SVOC in addition to VOC. The average SVOC concentration is presented in
Table 16-4. Also listed in Table 16-4 is the SVOC compound with the highest concentration.
Table 16-5 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. Strong correlations between
acrylonitrile and nearly all of the weather parameters were computed at SLND. However,
acrylonitrile was only detected five times at SLND, which can lead to unusually high
16-2
-------
correlations. Acetonitrile and chloromethane both exhibited moderately strong positive
correlations with the temperature and moisture parameters (except relative humidity), while
benzene had moderately strong negative correlations with these parameters. The strongest
correlation with the wind was between acetonitrile and the u-component (-0.34). Correlations
for/>-dichlorobenzene could not be computed due to the low number of detects (fewer than 4).
Figure 16-3 shows the composite back trajectory for the SLND site for the days on which
sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air
traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in Figure 16-3, the back
trajectories originated predominantly from the south or northwest of the site. Each circle around
the site in Figure 16-3 represents 100 miles; 67% of the trajectories originated within 400 miles,
and 97% within 700 miles from the SLND site. The 24-hour airshed domain is large. Back
trajectories originated over 700 miles away.
16.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level vehicle registration and population in Benson County, ND, were obtained
from the Motor Vehicle Division of the North Dakota Department of Transportation and the U.S.
Census Bureau, and are summarized in Table 16-6. Table 16-6 also includes a vehicle
registration to county population (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within 10
miles of each site is presented. An estimation of 10-mile car registration was computed using the
10-mile population surrounding the monitors and the car registration ratio. Table 16-6 also
contains traffic information, which represents the average number of cars passing the monitoring
sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. This information is compared to the
average daily UATMP concentration at the Spirit Lake Nation site in Table 16-6.
Figure 3-2 depicts the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares
them to the concentration ratios at the monitoring site. The SLND site's concentration ratios
resemble those of the roadside study. However, the xylenes-ethylbenzene and toluene-
ethylbenzene ratios are significantly lower than those of the roadside study, while the benzene-
ethylbenzene ratio at SLND is somewhat higher than that of the roadside study.
16-3
-------
16.5 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2003 and are still participating in the
2004 program year (i.e., minimum 3 years), a site-specific trends analysis was conducted.
Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are
located in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was
performed. Details on this analysis are discussed in Section 3.9.
16.5.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses
SLND is new to the UATMP this year, therefore, no site-specific trends analysis was
conducted.
16.5.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses
SLND does not reside in a U.S. Census Bureau-designated MSA. Therefore, no MSA-
specific trends analysis was conducted.
16-4
-------
Figure 16-1. Spirit Lake Nation, North Dakota (SLND) Monitoring Site
' - .
•-
\1
I 5s
/
&,.. *&
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
16-5
-------
Figure 16-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SLND
99*5'0'W 99WW SB'SS'O'W fflWO'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
SUM DUATMP site
10 mile radius
ICounty boundary
* There were no facilities in the 2002 NEI within 10 miles of SLND.
16-6
-------
Figure 16-3. Composite Back Trajectory Map for SLND
-------
Table 16-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in North Dakota
Site
Name
SLJND
Type
All
2004
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
^OOC\
vVxC\
49.02
(±28.50)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
47.42
(±2.39)
53.62
(±7.94)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
39.28
(±2.24)
45.16
(±7.41)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
29.97
(±2.12)
35.28
(±7.25)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
35.40
(±2.04)
40.78
(±6.79)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
72.14
(±1.31)
71.04
(±4.36)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1015.22
(±7.26)'
1014.44
(±2.72)
Average «-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
1.08
(±0.62)
1.99
(±2.01)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.73
(±0.69)
0.66
(±2.11)
Sea level pressure are not recorded in this station. Station pressure in inches of Mercury was converted to mb to yield an "uncorrected" sea level pressure.
oo
-------
Table 16-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Spirit Lake Nation, North Dakota Monitoring Site - SLND
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
p-Di chl orob enzene
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
Di chl oromethane
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
Average
Toxicity
2.24 E-05
8.34E-06
5.43 E-06
3.97E-06
9.67 E-07
1.31E-07
4.06 E-08
6.77 E-09
6.77 E-09
6. 16 E-09
4.89 E-09
8.00E-10
%
Contribution
54.27
20.18
13.13
9.60
2.34
0.32
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
Cumulative %
Contribution
54.27
74.45
87.58
97.18
99.52
99.84
99.94
99.95
99.97
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.33
0.56
0.70
0.36
0.48
0.28
<0.00
<0.00
<0.00
<0.00
<0.00
<0.00
# Detects
5
22
25
1
1
2
3
10
8
9
9
18
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
22.43
8.34
5.43
3.97
0.97
0.13
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
<0.00
<0.00
-------
Table 16-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Spirit Lake Nation, North Dakota Monitoring Site - SLND
Compound
Acrylonitrile
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Xylenes
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Toluene
Styrene
Methyl Methacrylate
Tri chl oroethy 1 ene
p-Di chl orob enzene
Naphthalene
Ethylb enzene
Di chl oromethane
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Chloroethane
Average
Toxicity
1.65E-01
2.47 E-02
2.32 E-02
1.89 E-02
1.39 E-02
1.28 E-02
7.04 E-03
2.93 E-03
1.70 E-03
1.62 E-03
8.06 E-04
4.51E-04
4.45 E-04
2.95 E-04
2.78 E-04
2.42 E-04
3.43E-05
%
Contribution
60.15
8.99
8.46
6.88
5.07
4.68
2.57
1.07
0.62
0.59
0.29
0.16
0.16
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.01
Cumulative %
Contribution
60.15
69.14
77.60
84.47
89.55
94.23
96.79
97.86
98.48
99.07
99.36
99.53
99.69
99.80
99.90
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.33
1.48
0.70
1.89
0.56
1.16
35.18
1.17
1.70
1.13
0.48
0.36
<0.00
0.29
0.28
0.73
0.34
# Detects
5
8
25
23
22
25
24
25
20
3
1
1
22
23
2
4
1
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 16-4. SVOC Concentrations for the North Dakota Monitoring Site
Monitoring Site
SLND
Average Total SVOC
Concentration (ng/m3)
4.56
SVOC Compound with the
Highest Concentration (ng/m3)
Naphthalene (17.1)
16-11
-------
Table 16-5. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Spirit Lake
Nation, North Dakota Site (SLND)
Compound
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
p-Dichlorobenzene
Xylenes
Maximum
Temperature
0.27
0.51
-0.38
0.08
0.32
0.20
Average
Temperature
0.31
0.56
-0.40
0.04
0.28
0.22
Dew Point
Temperature
0.32
0.54
-0.38
0.09
0.28
0.28
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.32
0.56
-0.40
0.07
0.28
0.26
Relative
Humidity
0.12
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.03
0.22
Sea Level
Pressure
0.14
-0.41
-0.15
0.01
-0.22
-0.21
M-component
of wind
-0.34
0.55
0.19
0.28
-0.09
-0.01
v-component
of wind
-0.07
-0.49
0.12
0.02
0.05
-0.24
NA
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.06
-0.09
0.12
-0.08
to
-------
Table 16-6. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the North Dakota Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Site
SLND
Estimated
County
Population
6,881
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
6,678
Vehicles per
Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.97
Population
within
10 Miles
Oa
Estimated 10-Mile
Vehicle
Registration
0
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
925
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oig/m3)
49.20 (±28.50)
a Not available.
-------
17.0 Sites in South Dakota
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
sites in South Dakota (CUSD and SFSD). One site is located in Sioux Falls, situated in
southeastern South Dakota, and the other is in Custer, in western South Dakota, south of Rapid
City. Figures 17-1 and 17-2 are topographical maps showing the monitoring sites in their urban
and rural locations. Figures 17-3 and 17-4 identify facilities within 10 miles of the sites that
reported to the 2002 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 map
shows no facilities nearby. Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2004 at the
Sioux Falls Joe Foss Field Airport (WBAN 14944) and the Custer County Airport weather
station (WBAN 94032) near the sites for calculating correlations of meteorological data with
ambient air concentration measurements.
Table 17-1 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), pressure (average sea level pressure), and
wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind) for the entire year and on days
samples were taken. 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).
17.1 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. Table 17-2 summarizes the cancer
17-1
-------
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.
Table 17-2 shows that most of the detected cancer compounds reflect the nationwide
prevalent cancer compound list, as listed in Section 3 of this report. Only trans-1,3-
dichloropropene (detected at CUSD), dichloromethane (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, with
the exception of ^ram--l,3-dichloropropene. For the noncancer compounds summarized in
Table 17-3, only one compound not listed on the nationwide prevalent noncancer compound list
was detected at CUSD and SFSD. However, all of the site-specific prevalent noncancer
compounds are also on the nationwide noncancer prevalent list.
Prevalent toxic compounds not detected at the South Dakota sites were: 1,2-
dichloroethane; 1,2-dichloropropane; chloroprene; c/'s-l,3-dichloropropene; ethyl acrylate;
/>-dichlorobenzene; and vinyl chloride.
17.2 Toxicity Analysis
Acrylonitrile, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and acetaldehyde were the
only prevalent cancer compounds across both sites. At both sites, acrylonitrile and carbon
tetrachloride made up over fifty percent of the total cancer toxicity, although the number of
detects of acrylonitrile was low. Conversely, benzene was detected the most at each site, but
contributed to about 12% of the total cancer toxicity or less at both sites.
Acetonitrile, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, acylontrile, and benzene were
the prevalent noncancer compounds at both sites. At both sites, benzene was detected the most
17-2
-------
frequently of the noncancer prevalent compounds, but accounted for less than three percent of the
total noncancer toxicity.
The acrylonitrile cancer risk at CUSD was the highest between the two sites at 17.46 in a
million, while at SFSD, the acrylonitrile cancer risk was 14.76 in a million. For the compounds
that may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, the highest average acetonitrile toxicity was at
CUSD at 0.73 (over 1 indicates a significant chance of a noncancer health effect). Of the eleven
adverse health concentrations measured at the South Dakota sites, four were for acetonitrile.
17.3 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 48.73 (± 23.63) |ig/m3,
while at SFSD it was considerably lower, 22.77 (± 2.19) |ig/m3. Table 17-1 also lists the
averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2004 to December 2004, and for
days on which sampling occurred.
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
151.58 ppbC, of which nearly 25% could be identified through speciation. Of the speciated
compounds, w-hexane measured the highest concentration at the SFSD site (36.48 ppbC). The
average total NMOC value for CUSD was 217.13 ppbC, of which nearly 27% could be identified
through speciation. Of the speciated compounds, propane measured the highest concentration at
the CUSD site (431.00 ppbC). This information is presented in Table 17-4.
17-3
-------
Table 17-5 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. At CUSD, 1,3-butadiene had the strongest
correlations with relative humidity (-0.81). This compounds had moderately strong negative
correlations with the other two moisture parameters and both wind components as well. Benzene
had moderately strong to strong negative correlations with maximum, average, dewpoint, and
wet bulb temperatures. The remainder of the correlations at CUSD were relatively weak.
Most of the correlations between the prevalent compounds and weather variables were
rather weak at the SFSD site. However, strong positive correlations were computed between
formaldehyde and the temperature parameters, dew point, and wet bulb temperature. Pearson
correlations could not be computed for 1,3-butadiene due to the low number of detects (fewer
than 4).
Figures 17-5 and 17-6 show the composite back trajectories for the CUSD and SFSD sites
for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along
which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in Figure
17-5, the back trajectories originated predominantly from the southwest, west, and northwest of
the CUSD site. Each circle around the site in Figure 17-5 represents 100 miles; 88% of the
trajectories originated within 500 miles, and 98% within 900 miles from the CUSD site. The 24-
hour airshed domain is extremely large. Back trajectories originated over 900 miles away.
Figure 17-6 shows that back trajectories originated predominantly from the south,
northwest, and north of SFSD. Each circle around the site in Figure 17-6 represents 100 miles;
64% of the trajectories originated within 400 miles, and 99% within 800 miles from the SFSD
site. The 24-hour airshed domain for SFSD is also large. Back trajectories originated over
800 miles away.
17-4
-------
17.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level vehicle registration and population in Custer County 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 17-6.
Table 17-6 also includes a vehicle registration to county population ratio (vehicles per person).
In addition, the population within 10 miles of each site is presented. An estimation of 10-mile
car registration was computed using the 10-mile population surrounding the monitors and the
vehicle registration ratio. Table 17-6 also contains traffic information, which represents the
average number of cars passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a
daily basis. This information is compared to the average daily UATMP concentration at each
South Dakota site in Table 17-6. SFSD has both the largest daily traffic volume and the largest
vehicle ownership within a ten mile radius, compared to CUSD, although CUSD's average daily
UATMP concentration is nearly twice that of SFSD.
Figure 3-2 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
CUSD resemble those of the SFSD. For each site, the benzene-ethylbenzene ratio is higher than
the xylene-ethylbenzene ratio, whereas the reverse is true for the roadside study.
CUSD and SFSD sampled for SNMOC in addition to VOC and carbonyl compounds.
Acetylene and ethylene are SNMOCs that are primarily emitted from mobile sources. Tunnel
studies conducted on mobile source emissions have found that ethylene and acetylene are
typically detected in a 1.7 to 1 ratio. For more information, please refer to Section 3.4.4. Listed
in Table 17-4 is the ethylene-acetylene ratio for these sites and what percent of the expected
1.7 ratio it represents. As shown, SFSD's ethylene-acetylene ratio is only within 52% of the
expected 1.7 ratio (0.85). This would indicate that the emissions near SFSD may not be
primarily from mobile sources. CUSD's ethylene-acetylene ratio is within 62% of the expected
1.7 ratio (1.05). This would indicate that the concentrations near SFSD are influenced by mobile
source emissions.
17-5
-------
17.5 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2003 and are still participating in the
2004 program year (i.e., minimum 3 years), a site-specific trends analysis was conducted.
Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are
located in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was performed.
Details on this analysis are discussed in Section 3.9.
17.5.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses
SFSD has been a participant in the UATMP since 1999, while CUSD has participated
since 2002. A comparison of SDSD's annual average formaldehyde and benzene concentrations
show that concentrations have been decreasing since 2002. Concentrations of 1,3-butadiene
spiked in 2002, dropped significantly in 2003, and are up slightly for 2004. Please refer to
Figure 3-46.
Concentrations at CUSD have not changed significantly over the last three years.
Formaldehyde concentrations have decreased; 1,3-butadiene concentrations increased slightly
from 2003; and benzene concentrations have decreased slightly since 2003. Please refer to
Figure 3-32.
17.5.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses
SFSD resides in the Sioux Falls, SD MSA. The Sioux Falls, SD MSA has experienced a
29.2% increase in population and estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 1990 to 2003.
Emissions at the Sioux Falls MSA have decreased for each pollutant considered between 1990
and 2002. The 2004 concentrations, based on the UATMP site representing this MSA (SFSD),
decrease slightly from the 2002-2003 time period. Trends for these and other compounds of
interest can be found in Table 3-13. This MSA does not participate in either the winter
oxygenated program or the reformulated gasoline program.
17-6
-------
Figure 17-1. Custer, South Dakota (CUSD) Monitoring Site
•
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
17-7
-------
Figure 17-2. Sioux Falls, South Dakota (SFSD) Monitoring Site
^_ •
L.-.^-
1 ,
^^ ?!
te& "I
• r**-''
m
•j )f /
i '• v •- n
/•, ->, •
| , ' :
/•-•' ;• ••
.;:•//;/:- ,-
-/;;,;•.•
.
•
> PiV;
•'-'i: r\ 4JI."
^s^;.1
-7 W ? 'fed '
U
,
i
i' / \
• •*
TI_
. \
v " t^S v J-\;*/
>*_/ • \^
'/ /r^ A n ••-•\
/ \ / v i
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
17-8
-------
Figure 17-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CUSD
in-i5nil',' IU3'45'0'W 103°40'0'W HE-KEY/ (OS^O'O'W 103°25'0'W
Legend
iV1 CUSD UATMP site
'_' 10 mile radius
County boundary
' There were no facilities in the 2002 NEI within 10 miles of CUSD.
17-9
-------
Figure 17-4. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SFSD
S'SO'O'W S6°45'D'W S6°40'0'W 36°35'Q'W SB°30'D'W
Note1 Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
lir SFSD UATMP site
•_' 10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
¥ Automotive Repair, Services, & Parking (1)
z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1)
G Food & Kindred Products Facility (1)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (2)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
17-10
-------
Figure 17-5. Composite Back Trajectory Map for CUSD
-------
Figure 17-6. Composite Back Trajectory Map for SFSD
to
\ \
-------
Table 17-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in South Dakota
Site
Name
CUSD
SFSD
Type
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ug/m3)
^^N
48.73
(±23.63)
\^S
22.77
(±2.19)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
54.60
(±1.78)
55.52
(±4.73)
57.04
(±2.21)
52.63
(±5.21)
Average
Temperature
43.97
(±1.59)
44.52
(±4.26)
47.16
(±2.09)
43.08
(±4.79)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
27.65
(±1.30)
26.83
(±3.50)
36.84
(±2.01)
33.04
(±4.55)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
36.65
(±1.78)
36.52
(±3.43)
42.26
(±1.91)
38.55
(±4.34)
Average
Relative
Humidity
57.67
(±1.53)
54.82
(±3.36)
70.22
(±1.19)
70.45
(±2.79)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1014.71
(±0.72)
1014.02
(±1.69)
1016.37
(±0.80)
1017.16
(±1.96)
Average «-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
2.44
(±0.41)
2.81
(±0.94)
0.27
(±0.53)
0.32
(±1.16)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.95
(±0.28)
-1.11
(±0.68)
0.36
(±0.64)
0.76
(±1.45)
-------
Table 17-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Custer and Sioux Falls, South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
Custer, South Dakota - CUSD
Acrylonitrile
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
1.75E-05
8.16E-06
7.69 E-06
5.61 E-06
4.77 E-06
3. 10 E-06
1.80 E-06
9.39 E-07
1.46E-08
35.24
16.46
15.53
11.32
9.63
6.26
3.63
1.90
0.03
35.24
51.70
67.23
78.55
88.18
94.44
98.07
99.97
100.00
0.26
0.54
0.26
0.72
2.17
0.53
0.45
2.00
2.65
3
54
6
62
58
2
O
7
58
17.46
8.16
7.69
5.61
4.77
3.10
1.80
0.94
0.01
Sioux Falls, South Dakota - SFSD
Acrylonitrile
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
1.48E-05
8.74 E-06
7.72 E-06
6.64 E-06
5. 56 E-06
8. 11 E-07
1.57E-08
33.36
19.76
17.45
15.00
12.56
1.83
0.04
33.36
53.12
70.57
85.57
98.13
99.96
100.00
0.22
0.58
3.51
0.22
0.71
1.73
2.85
2
51
62
1
67
3
62
14.76
8.74
7.72
6.64
5.56
0.81
0.02
-------
Table 17-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Custer and Sioux Falls, South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Adverse Health
Concentrations
Custer, South Dakota - CUSD
Acetonitrile
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Bromomethane
Benzene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Xylenes
w-Hexane
Toluene
Di chl oromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Styrene
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
7.33 E-01
2.71 E-01
2.41 E-01
1.28 E-01
1.11 E-01
7.77 E-02
2.40 E-02
2.25 E-02
1.36 E-02
1.30 E-02
3.22E-03
3.12E-03
2.83 E-03
2.00 E-03
1.95 E-03
5.84E-04
2.87 E-04
2.84E-04
2.42 E-04
1.37 E-04
44.24
16.33
14.55
7.75
6.72
4.69
1.45
1.36
0.82
0.79
0.32
0.19
0.17
0.12
0.12
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
44.24
60.57
75.13
82.88
89.60
94.29
95.73
97.09
97.91
98.70
99.37
99.50
99.67
99.79
99.91
99.94
99.96
99.98
99.99
100.00
43.96
2.65
2.17
0.26
0.22
0.39
0.72
0.45
0.54
1.17
0.64
0.62
1.13
2.00
0.53
0.58
0.86
1.42
0.24
0.41
33
58
58
3
6
1
62
3
54
62
67
62
62
7
2
39
41
49
49
1
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sioux Falls, South Dakota - SFSD
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Acrylonitrile
3. 90 E-01
2.91 E-01
1.11 E-01
1.09 E-01
38.87
29.04
11.03
10.82
38.87
67.91
78.94
89.76
3.51
2.85
0.22
0.22
62
62
1
2
3
2
0
0
-------
Table 17-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Custer and Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Monitoring Sites (Cont.)
Compound
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Xylenes
w-Hexane
Toluene
Di chl oromethane
Styrene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Average
Toxicity
3.20E-02
2.37 E-02
1.46E-02
1.22 E-02
1.07 E-02
3.22E-03
2.97 E-03
1.73E-03
5.97E-04
3.27E-04
2.93 E-04
2.54 E-04
1.43 E-04
%
Contribution
3.19
2.37
1.45
1.22
1.07
0.32
0.30
0.17
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.01
Cumulative %
Contribution
92.94
95.31
96.76
97.98
99.05
99.37
99.67
99.84
99.90
99.93
99.96
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
1.92
0.71
0.58
1.10
1.07
0.64
1.19
1.73
0.60
1.64
0.88
0.25
0.43
# Detects
18
67
51
66
67
67
67
3
30
51
27
66
2
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 17-4. TNMOC Measured by the Custer and Sioux Falls, South Dakota (CUSD and SFSD) Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Site
CUSD
SFSD
Average TNMOC
Speciated (ppbC)
58.16
38.31
Average TNMOC
w/ Unknowns
(ppbC)
217.13
151.58
%
TNMOC
Identified
27%
25%
SNMOC Compound
with the Highest
Concentration (ppbC)
Propane (43 1.00)
w-Hexane (36.48)
Ethylene to
Acetylene
Ratio
1.05
0.88
% of Expected
Ratio
62%
52%
-------
Table 17-5. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Custer and
Sioux Falls, South Dakota Sites
Compound
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
Sea Level
Pressure
M-component
of wind
v-component
of wind
Custer, South Dakota - CUSD
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
-0.18
0.22
0.27
-0.29
0.20
0.23
-0.48
0.06
0.29
-0.36
0.15
0.26
-0.81
-0.27
0.05
0.14
0.11
0.12
-0.36
-0.16
-0.12
-0.35
-0.02
0.01
NA
-0.48
-0.50
-0.50
-0.51
0.06
0.22
0.12
0.06
NA
-0.07
0.21
-0.07
0.19
-0.03
0.05
-0.05
0.14
0.05
-0.26
-0.09
0.13
0.20
-0.16
-0.08
-0.03
NA
NA
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
NA
0.25
-0.20
0.24
-0.22
0.23
-0.18
0.24
-0.20
-0.03
0.12
0.04
0.38
-0.05
-0.13
0.03
0.21
NA
-0.18
0.03
0.51
-0.14
0.05
0.51
-0.08
0.07
0.50
-0.11
0.05
0.51
0.23
0.07
-0.05
-0.06
-0.17
-0.13
-0.01
0.05
-0.06
-0.24
-0.04
0.21
oo
-------
Table 17-6. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the South Dakota Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Site
CUSD
SFSD
Estimated
County
Population
7,585
154,617
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
9,120
152,815
Vehicles per
Person
(Registration:
Population)
1.20
0.99
Population
within
10 Miles
4,449
154,472
Estimated 10-Mile
Vehicle
Registration
5,339
152,927
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
1,940
4,320
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oig/m3)
48.73 (±23.63)
22.77 (±2. 19)
VO
-------
18.0 Sites in Tennessee
This section presents 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 18-1 through 18-5 are topographical maps showing the monitoring
sites in their urban locations. Figures 18-6 through 18-9 identify facilities within 10 miles of the
sites that reported to the 2002 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 10 miles of the
monitors, with a majority of the industrial sites located to the southeast, south, and southwest of
the UATMP sites. Many of these industrial sites are surface coating, printing and publishing,
and liquids distribution facilities. The Dickson site is surrounded by the fewest industrial
sources. The Kingsport also site has few industrial sites nearby. The Loudon site has more
sources nearby than DITN and KITN, and several of these are involved in waste treatment and
disposal or rubber and miscellaneous plastics. Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all
of 2004 at four weather stations near the sites for calculating correlations of meteorological data
with ambient air concentration measurements. The four weather stations are the
Nashville/Metropolitan International Airport, Knoxville McGhee-Tyson Airport, Clarksville
Outlaw Airport, and Bristol Tri-City Airport (WBAN 13897, 13891, 3894, and 13877,
respectively).
Table 18-1 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), pressure (average sea level pressure), and
wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind) for the entire year and on days
samples were taken. Nashville's climate is rather moderate in nature, lacking extreme
fluctuations in temperature. The city has a long growing season and boasts four distinct seasons.
The Dickson area has a climate similar to Nashville, although diurnal temperature fluctuations
are probably greater due to the loss of the urban heat island. Kingsport is located in northeastern
Tennessee, approximately equidistant from the Appalachian Mountains to the east and the Clinch
18-1
-------
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.
18.1 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. Table 18-2 summarizes the cancer
weighting scores and Table 18-3 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 18-2 shows that most of the prevalent cancer compounds at the TN sites reflect the
nationwide prevalent cancer compound list, as listed in Section 3 of this report. However, as the
Nashville sites also sampled metal compounds, arsenic compounds are considered prevalent at
these two sites. Aside from arsenic compounds, only £ram--l,3-dichloropropene was considered
prevalent (at DITN and LOTN) and was not listed among the nationwide prevalent cancer
compounds. Only acetaldehyde, benzene, tetrachloroethylene, and carbon tetrachloride were
prevalent across all five sites. For the noncancer compounds summarized in Table 18-3, most of
the prevalent compounds were listed among the nationwide noncancer prevalent list, although
many others detected were not, especially at the more urbanized locations (EATN and LOTN).
Formaldehyde, benzene, and acetaldehyde were the only prevalent noncancer compounds across
all five sites. For the two sites that sampled metal compounds, arsenic and manganese
compounds were considered prevalent.
18-2
-------
Prevalent toxic compounds not detected at the Tennessee sites were: 1,2-dichloroethane;
1,2-dichloropropane; vinyl chloride; bromomethane; chloroprene; 1,1-dichloroethene; and cis-
1,3 -dichloropropene.
18.2 Toxicity Analysis
At three of the five sites (EATN, KITN, and LDTN), acrylonitrile, benzene, and carbon
tetrachloride contributed to nearly 60% or more of the total cancer toxicity. For the other two
sites (LOTN and DITN), benzene and carbon tetrachloride contributed to the most to cancer
toxicity. For the two sites that sampled metal compounds, EATN and LOTN, arsenic compounds
contributed to 9% and 17%, respectively, of the total cancer toxicity. The acrylonitrile cancer
risk was highest of all the compounds, at 38.74 in a million at LDTN, 21.77 in a million at
EATN, and 13.28 in a million at KITN.
For the compounds that may lead to adverse noncancer health effects, acetaldehyde and
formaldehyde contributed to nearly 43% or more of the noncancer toxicity. The average toxicity
was highest for formaldehyde at LDTN at 0.813, where over 1 indicates a significant chance of a
noncancer health effect. Of the eight adverse health concentrations measured at the Tennessee
sites, all eight were at LDTN for formaldehyde.
18.3 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 metal compounds in addition to carbonyls and
VOC. Table 18-1 lists the average UATMP concentration for each of the sites as well as the
averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2004 to December 2004, and on
days samples were taken. Average metal compound concentrations are listed in Table 18-4. The
average metals concentration at EATN was somewhat higher than at LOTN.
Table 18-5 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. The highest correlation at the Dickson site
18-3
-------
was between acetonitrile and maximum temperature (-0.94). Many of the other correlations with
acetonitrile are also strong. However, the compound was detected only six times, and this low
number of detects can skew the correlations. Formaldehyde had strong positive correlations with
maximum and average temperature, dew point, and wet bulb temperature, and carbon
tetrachloride had moderately strong positive correlations with these same parameters and relative
humidity. All of the correlations with the w-component of the wind were negative, indicating that
concentrations of the prevalent compounds at DITN increase as winds decrease from the east or
west. Pearson correlations could not be computed for tetrachloroethylene and trans-1,3-
dichloropropene at DITN due to the low number of detects (fewer than 4).
The strongest correlations at LDTN were computed between acrylonitrile and several of
the meteorological parameters. However, this compound was detected only four times, and this
low number of detects can skew the correlations. Similar to DITN, moderately strong positive
correlations were computed between carbon tetrachloride and maximum temperature, average
temperature, dew point, and wet bulb temperature. A moderately strong negative correlation was
computed between acetaldehyde and relative humidity (-0.38) and moderately strong positive
correlations were computed between acetaldehyde and both wind components (0.36 and 0.43).
Most of the remaining correlations at LDTN were weak. Pearson correlations could not be
computed for 1,3-butadiene, tetrachloroethylene, and frvms-l^-dichloropropene at LDTN due to
the low number of detects (fewer than 4).
Moderately strong to very strong correlations were computed between tetrachloroethylene
and all of the weather parameters at KITN. However, this compound was detected only four
times, and this low number of detects can skew the correlations. Similar to DITN, formaldehyde
and carbon tetrachloride had moderately strong to strong positive correlations with maximum
temperature, average temperature, dew point, and wet bulb temperature, as did acetaldehyde and
acetonitrile. Acetonitrile and carbon tetrachloride also had strong positive correlations with
relative humidity. Five of the prevalent compounds at KITN had strong positive correlations
with the v-component of the wind, indicating that concentrations of the prevalent compounds
tend to increase and winds increase from the north or south. Pearson correlations could not be
18-4
-------
computed for acrylonitrile,/>-dichlorobenzene, and ^ram'-l,3-dichloropropene at KITN due to the
low number of detects (fewer than 4).
At the Nashville sites, formaldehyde exhibited strong to very strong positive correlations
with maximum temperature, average temperature, dew point, and wet bulb temperature, while
total xylenes exhibited moderately strong correlations with the same parameters. Interestingly,
formaldehyde has strong positive correlations with these parameters at all five TN sites. At
EATN, several of the compounds exhibited moderately strong to strong positive correlations with
the v-component of the wind. With the exception of carbon tetrachloride, all of the prevalent
compounds had positive correlations with the v-component of the wind, indicating that as winds
increase from the north or south, concentrations of the prevalent compounds also increase. This
trend is not evident at LOTN. At LOTN, nearly all of the prevalent compounds exhibited
negative correlations with relative humidity. This trend is not evident at EATN. Pearson
correlations could not be computed for acrylonitrile and ethyl acrylate at EATN and frans-1,3-
dichloropropene at LOTN due to the low number of detects (fewer than 4).
Figures 18-10 through 18-14 show the composite back trajectories for the Tennessee sites
for the days on which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along
which a parcel of air traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in these
figures, the back trajectories originate from many different directions around the monitoring
sites, although there does appear to be fewer trajectories originating from the east and southeast
of the sites. Each circle around the sites in Figures 18-10 through 18-14 represents 100 miles;
between 53% (LDTN) and 74% (KITN) of the trajectories originated within 300 miles, and
between 90% (KITN) and 96% (EATN) within 700 miles from the Tennessee sites. The 24-hour
airshed domain is extremely large. Back trajectories originated over 800 miles away at most of
the sites.
18-5
-------
18.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level vehicle 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 18-6. Table 18-6 also includes vehicle registration to
county population ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of each
site is presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile
population surrounding the monitors and the vehicle registration ratio. Table 18-6 also contains
traffic information, which represents the average number of cars passing the monitoring sites on
the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. This information is compared to the average
daily UATMP concentration of the prevalent compounds at each Tennessee site in Table 18-6.
EATN has both the highest traffic volume passing the site and the largest estimate registered
vehicles within 10 miles but has the second highest average UATMP concentration of the
Tennessee sites.
Figure 3-2 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
EATN, LOTN, and KITN generally resemble those of the roadside study. At LDTN, 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's toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is the highest of all the UATMP sites, and nearly twice that of
the next highest toluene-ethylbenzene ratio for any site. Its benzene-ethylbenzene ratio is slightly
higher than its xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio, unlike that of the roadside study.
18.5 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2003 and are still participating in the
2004 program year (i.e., minimum 3 years), a site-specific trends analysis was conducted.
Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are
located in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was performed.
Details on this analysis are discussed in Section 3.9.
18-6
-------
18.5.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses
EATN and LOTN have been participants in the UATMP since 2002, while the other three
Tennessee sites have participated since 2003. A comparison of EATN's annual average
formaldehyde concentrations shows that formaldehyde concentrations have increased in 2004
after a slight decrease in 2003. Benzene concentrations have been decreasing slightly since
2002, while 1,3-butadiene concentrations have changed little at EATN. Interestingly, trends at
LOTN are very similar to those at EATN. Please refer to Figures 3-34 and 3-40.
18.5.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses
All five Tennessee sites reside in MSAs, three in the Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro,
TN MSA (EATN, LOTN, DITN), one in the Knoxville, TN MSA (LDTN), and one in the
Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA MSA (KITN). The Nashville MSA has experienced a 30.8%
increase in population and a 93.6% increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 1990 to 2003.
VOC, metal and carbonyl compound emissions have decreased between 27% and 94% between
1990 and 2002. The 2004 concentrations of these compounds for the UATMP sites representing
this MSA (EATN and LOTN) have decreased significantly from the 2002-2003 time period.
This MSA does not participate in either the winter oxygenated program or the reformulated
gasoline program.
The Knoxville MSA has experienced a 19.1% increase in population and a 60.9%
increase in VMT from 1990 to 2003. VOC and carbonyl compound emissions have decreased
between 20% and 56% from 1990 to 2002. Concentrations in 2004 of these compounds are
unchanged, based on concentrations of the UATMP site representing this MSA (LDTN).
However, both ethylbenzene and total xylenes had no previous concentration to compare with.
This MSA does not participate in either the winter oxygenated program or the reformulated
gasoline program.
The Kingsport MSA has experienced a 8.7% increase in population and estimated VMT.
VOC and carbonyl compound emissions have decreased between 42% and 81% from 1990 to
2002. The 2004 VOC and carbonyl compound concentrations, as represented by the UATMP
18-7
-------
site residing in this MSA (KITN), appear to be decreasing or holding steady compared to the
2002-2003 average concentrations. This MSA does not participate in either the winter
oxygenated program or the reformulated gasoline program. Trends for these and other
compounds of interest can be found in Table 3-13.
18-8
-------
Figure 18-1. Dickson, Tennessee (DITN) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
18-9
-------
Figure 18-2. Nashville Site 1, Tennessee (EATN) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
18-10
-------
Figure 18-3. Kingsport, Tennessee (KITN) Monitoring Site
fee-
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
18-11
-------
Figure 18-4. Loudon, Tennessee (LDTN) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
18-12
-------
Figure 18-5. Nashville Site 2 (LOTN) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
18-13
-------
Figure 18-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DITN
87-20'0'W 87'15'0'W 37°10'a'W
Note. Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
@ DITN UATMP site
(._) 10 mile radius
| [County Boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (1)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2)
v Polymers 8 Resins Production Industrial Facility (2)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
T Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
18-14
-------
Figure 18-7. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of EATN and LOTN
Legend
i§? EATN UATMP site
87WVV 86°55'0'W ffiWO'W 86'45'0'W 86'40'0'W 66I35'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
LOTN UATMP site
10 mile radius
(County boundary
Source Category Group (No, of Facilities)
Apparel & Other Textile Products Facility (1)
v Architectural Services (1)
¥ Automotive Repair, Services, & Parking (1)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (8)
E Electric, Gas, & Sanitary Services (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (6)
G Food & Kindred Products Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (8)
H Furniture & Fixtures Facility (1)
+ Health Services Facility (3)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (14)
& Lumber & Wood Products Facility (2)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (9)
x Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (7)
R Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (12)
@ Paper SAIIied Products (1)
o Personal Services (8)
R Printing & Publishing Facility (25)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (4)
Y Rubber & Miscellaneous Plastic Products Facility (5)
u Stone, Clay, Glass, £ Concrete Products (1)
a Hotels, Rooming Houses, Camps, S Other Lodging (1) s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (20)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (1) < Textile Mill Products Facility (1)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (2) I- Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (3)
t Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (1) A Wood Furniture Facility (3)
18-15
-------
Figure 18-8. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of KITN
S2°35'0'W B2"30'0'W 82°25'0'W
Note1 Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
KITN UATMPsite
_) 10 mile radius
_ jCourity boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility ( 1 )
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (2)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1)
4 Production of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1 )
^ Pulp & Paper Production Facility (1)
i V\iaste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
18-16
-------
Figure 18-9. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of LDTN
84°25'0'W B4°20'0'W 84'15'0'W 84'10'0'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
@ LDTN UATMP site
i'.j 10 mile radius
| [County Boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (1)
7 Food & Agriculture Processes Industrial Facility (1)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
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 (1)
T. \AfesteTreatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (4)
18-17
-------
Figure 18-10. Composite Back Trajectory Map for DITN
oo
I
oo
600 ' I
Miles
-------
Figure 18-11. Composite Back Trajectory Map for EATN
oo
I
VO
-------
Figure 18-12. Composite Back Trajectory Map for KITN
oo
to
o
-------
Figure 18-13. Composite Back Trajectory Map for LDTN
oo
I
to
-------
Figure 18-14. Composite Back Trajectory Map for LOTN
oo
to
to
«. 0 50 100 200 300 400
Miles
-------
Table 18-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Sites in Tennessee
Site
Name
DITN
EATN
KITN
LDTN
LOTN
Type
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
All
2004
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
$$$^
36.41
(±11.17)
^\
43.91
(± 8.94)
^S
38.73
(± 9.82)
^S
48.45
(± 8.35)
^^
36.12
(± 5.44)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
67.93
(±1.70)
60.17
(± 7.82)
69.00
(±1.63)
69.23
(± 6.63)
66.57
(±1.64)
68.47
(± 7.05)
68.34
(±1.60)
69.63
(± 5.27)
69.00
(±1.63)
66.94
(± 5.72)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
58.08
(±1.65)
50.55
(± 7.44)
60.03
(±1.61)
59.67
(± 6.38)
55.97
(±1.57)
57.71
(±6.71)
59.05
(±1.55)
60.28
(±5.14)
60.03
(±1.61)
57.57
(± 5.49)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
48.11
(±1.79)
40.69
(±7.83)
48.43
(±1.75)
45.97
(± 6.92)
46.73
(±1.75)
47.35
(± 7.25)
49.02
(±1.75)
48.42
(±5.91)
48.43
(±1.75)
44.74
(± 5.79)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
52.92
(±1.59)
45.88
(± 7.02)
53.98
(±1.53)
52.67
(± 5.98)
51.25
(±1.53)
52.27
(± 6.46)
53.84
(±1.51)
54.16
(± 5.00)
53.98
(±1.53)
51.09
(± 5.09)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
72.38
(±1.23)
71.69
(± 4.72)
68.43
(±1.27)
63.59
(±4.36)
73.91
(±1.10)
71.10
(±3.77)
72.09
(±1.29)
67.87
(±4.43)
68.43
(±1.27)
65.36
(± 4.04)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1018.51
(±0.61)
1021.20
(±3.19)
1018.72
(±0.60)
1019.49
(± 2.20)
1018.71
(±0.62)
1017.33
(± 2.33)
1018.44
(±0.60)
1019.00
(± 1.81)
1018.72
(±0.60)
1019.16
(±2.14)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.75
(±0.32)
0.06
(± 1.64)
0.57
(±0.29)
0.79
(± 1.06)
1.69
(±0.30)
2.65
(± 1.41)
1.57
(±0.37)
1.94
(± 1.35)
0.57
(±0.29)
0.96
(± 0.93)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.40
(±0.45)
0.59
(± 1.94)
0.43
(±0.48)
-0.95
(± 1.50)
0.26
(±0.17)
0.34
(± 0.63)
-0.23
(±0.35)
0.18
(± 1.33)
0.43
(±0.48)
-0.49
(±1.37)
oo
to
-------
Table 18-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Dickson, Nashville Site 1, Kingsport, Loudon, and
Nashville Site 2, Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
Dickson, Tennessee - DITN
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
8.61 E-06
7.28 E-06
2.64 E-06
2. 10 E-06
1.82 E-06
2.40 E-07
1.09E-08
37.95
32.07
11.62
9.26
8.00
1.06
0.05
37.95
70.02
81.63
90.89
98.89
99.95
100.00
0.57
0.93
1.20
0.36
0.45
0.51
1.98
14
17
18
2
O
5
18
8.61
7.28
2.64
2.10
1.82
0.24
0.01
Nashville Site 1, Tennessee - EATN
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
1,3-Butadiene
Arsenic Compounds
Acetaldehyde
Ethyl Acrylate
Cadmium Compounds
Di chl oromethane
Beryllium Compounds
Formaldehyde
2.18E-05
1.02E-05
8.60 E-06
6.94 E-06
6.60 E-06
6.20 E-06
4.35 E-06
3. 44 E-06
3.71 E-07
3. 38 E-07
6.93 E-08
2.33 E-08
31.59
14.81
12.48
10.07
9.57
9.01
6.31
4.99
0.54
0.49
0.10
0.03
31.59
46.40
58.89
68.96
78.53
87.53
93.84
98.84
99.38
99.87
99.97
100.00
0.32
1.31
0.57
1.18
0.22
<0.00
1.98
0.25
<0.00
0.72
<0.00
4.24
2
13
11
6
8
28
12
1
28
9
28
12
21.77
10.20
8.60
6.94
6.60
6.20
4.35
3.44
0.37
0.34
0.07
0.02
Kingsport, Tennessee - KITN
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1.33E-05
8. 84 E-06
7.60 E-06
28.03
18.66
16.05
28.03
46.69
62.74
0.20
1.13
0.51
1
19
17
13.28
8.84
7.60
-------
Table 18-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Dickson, Nashville Site 1, Kingsport, Loudon, and
Nashville Site 2, Tennessee Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Compound
1,3-Butadiene
p-Di chl orob enzene
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
5.28 E-06
3.97E-06
3. 83 E-06
2.60 E-06
1.45 E-06
5.03 E-07
1.72E-08
%
Contribution
11.15
8.37
8.08
5.49
3.07
1.06
0.04
Cumulative %
Contribution
73.89
82.27
90.35
95.84
98.90
99.96
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.18
0.36
1.74
0.44
0.36
1.07
3.13
# Detects
9
1
19
4
1
5
19
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
5.28
3.97
3.83
2.60
1.45
0.50
0.02
Loudon, Tennessee - LDTN
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Acetaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
3.87E-05
9.32 E-06
8.24 E-06
6.99 E-06
5.75 E-06
2.40 E-06
2.31 E-06
4.25 E-07
4.38 E-08
52.19
12.56
11.10
9.42
7.75
3.23
3.12
0.57
0.06
52.19
64.74
75.84
85.27
93.02
96.25
99.37
99.94
100.00
0.57
1.19
0.55
3.18
0.19
0.41
0.58
0.90
7.97
4
31
29
31
O
1
1
5
31
38.74
9.32
8.24
6.99
5.75
2.40
2.31
0.42
0.04
Nashville Site 2, Tennessee - LOTN
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Arsenic Compounds
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Cadmium Compounds
Di chl oromethane
9. 13 E-06
9.06 E-06
7.04 E-06
6.81 E-06
4.06 E-06
2.40 E-06
1.51 E-06
3. 78 E-07
1.90 E-07
22.42
22.27
17.30
16.74
9.98
5.90
3.72
0.93
0.47
22.42
44.69
61.99
78.74
88.72
94.62
98.33
99.26
99.73
1.17
0.60
0.23
<0.00
1.85
0.41
0.38
<0.00
0.40
25
24
9
28
23
4
3
28
19
9.13
9.06
7.04
6.81
4.06
2.40
1.51
0.38
0.19
-------
Table 18-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Dickson, Nashville Site 1, Kingsport, Loudon, and
Nashville Site 2, Tennessee Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Compound
Beryllium Compounds
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
8.50E-08
2.44 E-08
%
Contribution
0.21
0.06
Cumulative %
Contribution
99.94
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
<0.00
4.44
# Detects
28
23
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
0.09
0.02
oo
to
-------
Table 18-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Dickson, Nashville Site 1, Kingsport, Loudon, and
Nashville Site 2, Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Compound
Average
Toxicity
%
Contribution
Cumulative %
Contribution
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
# Detects
Adverse Health
Concentrations
Dickson, Tennessee - DITN
Acetonitrile
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Xylenes
Toluene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Styrene
Chloroethane
Di chl oromethane
Ethylbenzene
2.31 E-01
2.02 E-01
1.33 E-01
3.11E-02
2.27 E-02
2.01 E-02
1.57 E-02
1.44 E-02
1.36 E-02
1.32E-03
9.42 E-04
9.27 E-04
7.49 E-04
6.28 E-04
5. 11 E-04
3. 45 E-04
33.50
29.36
19.31
4.51
3.29
2.91
2.28
2.08
1.97
0.19
0.14
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.07
0.05
33.50
62.86
82.17
86.68
89.97
92.88
95.16
97.25
99.21
99.40
99.54
99.68
99.78
99.88
99.95
100.00
13.86
1.98
1.20
0.93
0.45
2.01
6.29
0.57
1.22
0.36
4.71
2.78
0.75
6.28
0.51
0.35
6
18
18
17
3
17
17
14
17
2
15
9
11
1
5
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nashville Site 1, Tennessee - EATN
Formaldehyde
Manganese Compounds
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Acetonitrile
Arsenic Compounds
Benzene
Xylenes
4.32 E-01
2.79 E-01
2.20 E-01
1.60 E-01
1.10E-01
1.01 E-01
4.81 E-02
4.36 E-02
4.35 E-02
28.50
18.37
14.48
10.55
7.25
6.63
3.17
2.87
2.87
28.50
46.87
61.35
71.90
79.14
85.77
88.94
91.82
94.68
4.24
0.01
1.98
0.32
0.22
6.03
<0.00
1.31
4.35
12
28
12
2
8
10
28
13
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 18-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Dickson, Nashville Site 1, Kingsport, Loudon, and
Nashville Site 2, Tennessee Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Compound
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Cadmium Compounds
Nickel Compounds
Toluene
Cobalt Compounds
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Lead Compounds
Styrene
Beryllium Compounds
Ethylbenzene
Di chl oromethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Mercury Compounds
Selenium Compounds
Average
Toxicity
1.43E-02
1.31E-02
1.03E-02
9.02 E-03
8.00E-03
5.73 E-03
5. 02 E-03
4.35 E-03
4.35 E-03
2.60 E-03
1.44 E-03
8.50E-04
7.19E-04
4.31E-04
1.84E-04
1.35E-04
6.90 E-05
4.60 E-05
%
Contribution
0.94
0.86
0.68
0.59
0.53
0.38
0.33
0.29
0.29
0.17
0.10
0.06
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
Cumulative %
Contribution
95.63
96.49
97.17
97.76
98.29
98.67
99.00
99.29
99.57
99.74
99.84
99.90
99.94
99.97
99.98
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.57
1.17
<0.00
<0.00
3.20
0.00
0.49
1.18
0.01
2.60
<0.00
0.85
0.72
2.16
0.55
0.40
<0.00
<0.00
# Detects
11
13
28
28
13
28
1
6
28
10
28
13
9
10
6
4
13
28
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Kingsport, Tennessee - KITN
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes
Acetonitrile
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
3.20 E-01
1.93E-01
9.77 E-02
8.81 E-02
3. 78 E-02
3. 65 E-02
1.82 E-02
1.82 E-02
37.67
22.80
11.51
10.38
4.46
4.31
2.15
2.14
37.67
60.47
71.99
82.37
86.83
91.13
93.28
95.42
3.13
1.74
0.20
0.18
1.13
3.65
1.09
0.36
19
19
1
9
19
18
11
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 18-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Dickson, Nashville Site 1, Kingsport, Loudon, and
Nashville Site 2, Tennessee Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Compound
Chloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
Tetrachloroethylene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Di chl oromethane
Ethylbenzene
p-Di chl orob enzene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Styrene
Chloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Average
Toxicity
1.44E-02
1.27E-02
5.87E-03
1.63E-03
1.13E-03
1.07E-03
5.07E-04
4.51E-04
4.09 E-04
3.99E-04
1.74 E-04
8.41 E-05
%
Contribution
1.70
1.49
0.69
0.19
0.13
0.13
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.01
Cumulative %
Contribution
97.12
98.62
99.31
99.50
99.64
99.76
99.82
99.87
99.92
99.97
99.99
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
1.30
0.51
2.35
0.44
5.65
1.07
0.51
0.36
1.23
0.40
1.74
0.25
# Detects
18
17
19
4
16
5
18
1
11
10
1
1
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Loudon, Tennessee - LDTN
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Xylenes
Chloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Toluene
Chloroform
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Tetrachloroethylene
Di chl oromethane
8.13E-01
3.53E-01
2.85 E-01
9.59 E-02
3.98E-02
2.89 E-02
2.54 E-02
1.44 E-02
1.37 E-02
6.18E-03
4.44 E-03
1.55E-03
1.51 E-03
9.03 E-04
48.23
20.96
16.90
5.69
2.36
1.72
1.51
0.86
0.81
0.37
0.26
0.09
0.09
0.05
48.23
69.18
86.08
91.76
94.13
95.84
97.35
98.21
99.02
99.39
99.65
99.74
99.83
99.89
7.97
3.18
0.57
0.19
1.19
0.58
2.54
1.30
0.55
2.47
0.43
7.77
0.41
0.90
31
31
4
3
31
1
30
29
29
31
16
29
1
5
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 18-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Dickson, Nashville Site 1, Kingsport, Loudon, and
Nashville Site 2, Tennessee Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Compound
Styrene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Ethylbenzene
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Chloroethane
Average
Toxicity
7.42 E-04
4.49 E-04
4.28 E-04
2.36 E-04
3.69E-05
%
Contribution
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.00
Cumulative %
Contribution
99.93
99.96
99.98
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.74
1.35
0.43
0.71
0.37
# Detects
27
18
29
3
2
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
Nashville Site 2, Tennessee - LOTN
Formaldehyde
Manganese Compounds
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
1,3-Butadiene
Arsenic Compounds
Benzene
Xylenes
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Cadmium Compounds
Nickel Compounds
Toluene
Cobalt Compounds
Lead Compounds
Chloroform
Beryllium Compounds
Tetrachloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
4.53 E-01
2.11E-01
2.05 E-01
1.28 E-01
1.17E-01
5.28 E-02
3.90E-02
3. 39 E-02
1.89 E-02
1.51 E-02
1.32 E-02
1.05 E-02
8.48 E-03
6.22 E-03
5.05 E-03
3. 92 E-03
2. 11 E-03
1.77 E-03
1.51 E-03
5. 00 E-04
4.26 E-04
34.05
15.91
15.44
9.60
8.83
3.97
2.93
2.55
1.42
1.14
0.99
0.79
0.64
0.47
0.38
0.29
0.16
0.13
0.11
0.04
0.03
34.05
49.96
65.40
75.00
83.83
87.80
90.74
93.29
94.71
95.85
96.84
97.63
98.27
98.74
99.12
99.41
99.57
99.70
99.82
99.86
99.89
4.44
0.01
1.85
7.66
0.23
<0.00
1.17
3.39
0.38
0.60
1.19
<0.00
<0.00
2.49
<0.00
0.01
0.21
<0.00
0.41
0.50
2.13
23
28
23
20
9
28
25
24
3
24
25
28
28
25
28
28
5
28
4
24
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table 18-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Dickson, Nashville Site 1, Kingsport, Loudon, and
Nashville Site 2, Tennessee Monitoring Sites (Continued)
Compound
Di chl oromethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Styrene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Mercury Compounds
Selenium Compounds
Average
Toxicity
4.05 E-04
3.00E-04
2.56 E-04
2.49 E-04
1.67 E-04
7.41 E-05
4.51 E-05
%
Contribution
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
Cumulative %
Contribution
99.92
99.94
99.96
99.98
99.99
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.40
0.30
0.26
0.75
0.50
<0.00
<0.00
# Detects
19
2
12
4
11
14
28
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oo
oo
-------
Table 18-4. Average Metal Concentrations Measured by the Nashville Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Site
EATN
LOTN
Average Metals
Concentration
(ng/m3)
30.44
26.03
18-32
-------
Table 18-5. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Dickson,
Nashville Site 1, Kingsport, London, and Nashville Site 2, Tennessee Sites
Compound
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
Sea Level
Pressure
M-component
of wind
v-component
of wind
Dickson, Tennessee - DITN
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Xylenes
0.06
-0.94
-0.19
0.28
0.58
-0.03
-0.90
-0.21
0.26
0.56
-0.04
-0.80
-0.12
0.33
0.47
-0.04
-0.86
-0.16
0.30
0.51
0.02
-0.04
0.31
0.43
-0.12
-0.06
0.63
0.04
-0.33
-0.14
-0.42
-0.17
-0.28
-0.57
-0.09
0.21
-0.40
-0.10
-0.30
0.30
NA
-0.03
0.00
0.09
0.05
0.35
-0.06
-0.53
0.09
NA
0.06
0.03
0.10
0.07
0.35
-0.05
-0.38
-0.09
Nashville Site 1, Tennessee - EATN
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic Compounds
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Ethyl Acrylate
Formaldehyde
Manganese Compounds
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
-0.20
0.17
0.24
-0.30
0.12
0.23
-0.34
0.00
0.36
-0.34
0.05
0.28
-0.15
-0.32
0.55
0.61
0.19
0.05
-0.23
-0.46
-0.12
0.52
0.03
0.22
NA
0.01
0.30
-0.28
-0.01
0.21
-0.23
-0.08
0.22
-0.14
-0.03
0.20
-0.20
-0.23
0.19
0.22
0.48
0.22
0.02
-0.19
0.00
0.08
0.12
0.38
-0.19
NA
0.90
0.13
0.31
0.54
0.91
0.09
0.28
0.44
0.89
-0.03
0.14
0.43
0.91
0.04
0.18
0.43
0.17
-0.37
-0.09
0.18
-0.51
0.26
-0.76
0.12
-0.11
0.09
0.29
-0.07
0.73
0.20
0.20
0.47
Kingsport, Tennessee - KITN
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
-0.25
0.47
0.46
-0.24
0.36
0.47
-0.18
0.26
0.52
-0.21
0.30
0.50
0.21
-0.18
0.73
0.13
0.10
-0.34
-0.08
-0.42
0.00
0.02
0.41
0.49
NA
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.07
-0.08
-0.09
0.46
-------
Table 18-5. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the Dickson,
Nashville Site 1, Kingsport, London, and Nashville Site 2, Tennessee Sites (Continued)
Compound
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Xylenes
Maximum
Temperature
0.48
0.52
Average
Temperature
0.47
0.48
Dew Point
Temperature
0.49
0.39
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.48
0.43
Relative
Humidity
0.41
-0.13
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.06
-0.11
M-component
of wind
-0.46
-0.11
v-component
of wind
0.19
0.32
NA
-0.97
-0.93
-0.93
-0.93
0.65
0.60
-0.43
-0.44
NA
0.10
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.22
0.22
-0.38
0.53
Loudon, Tennessee - LDTN
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
NA
-0.03
0.63
0.08
0.34
-0.12
-0.07
0.45
0.09
0.27
-0.14
-0.17
0.28
0.11
0.27
-0.21
-0.13
0.40
0.11
0.27
-0.18
-0.38
0.19
0.10
0.12
-0.27
0.07
-0.63
0.30
-0.02
-0.01
0.36
-0.30
-0.15
-0.29
0.22
0.43
-0.33
-0.13
-0.15
0.26
NA
NA
Nashville Site 2, Tennessee - LOTN
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Arsenic Compounds
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese Compounds
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Xylenes
0.12
0.08
-0.14
0.12
0.15
0.17
0.75
0.22
0.02
0.04
0.05
-0.09
0.16
0.09
0.19
0.77
0.21
0.06
-0.06
-0.09
-0.09
0.09
0.05
0.16
0.69
0.06
0.11
-0.02
-0.03
-0.09
0.14
0.06
0.18
0.74
0.15
0.08
-0.38
-0.42
-0.07
-0.18
-0.08
-0.06
-0.11
-0.39
0.17
0.07
0.30
0.11
0.00
0.24
-0.04
-0.19
-0.02
-0.37
-0.11
-0.06
0.02
0.18
-0.01
-0.30
0.04
0.34
0.22
-0.05
0.12
-0.24
0.02
0.26
-0.52
0.34
0.09
-0.07
NA
0.36
0.32
0.27
0.29
-0.07
0.16
-0.04
0.31
-------
Table 18-6. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Tennessee Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Site
DITN
EATN
KITN
LDTN
LOTN
Estimated
County
Population
44,935
569,842
153,050
41,624
569,842
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
40,593
575,087
156,360
41,458
575,087
Vehicle per
Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.90
1.01
1.02
1.00
1.01
Population
within
10 Miles
29,214
516,083
130,473
46,750
464,804
Estimated 10-Mile
Vehicle
Registration
26,293
521,244
133,082
46,750
469,452
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
4,420
38,450
300
13,360
3,000
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oig/m3)
36.41 ±11. 17
43.91 ±8.94
38.73 ±9.82
48.45 ±8.35
36.12 ±5.44
oo
-------
19.0 Site in Utah
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Utah (BTUT), located in Bountiful, just north of Salt Lake City. Figure 19-1 is a
topographical map showing the monitoring site in its urban location. Figure 19-2 identifies
facilities within 10 miles of the sites that reported to the 2002 NEI. The map shows that the
nearby industrial facilities are involved in a variety of industries. The facilities are located
mostly to the south and southwest. Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2004 at
Salt Lake City International Airport's weather station (WBAN 24127) near the site for
calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements.
Table 19-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at the site, along with the
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), pressure (average sea level pressure), and
wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind) for the entire year and on days
samples were taken. 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).
19.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Utah Site
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at this site. Table 19-2 summarizes the cancer
weighting scores and Table 19-3 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 19-2 shows that many of the prevalent cancer compounds reflect the nationwide
prevalent cancer compound list, which is listed in Section 3 of this report. However, this site
19-1
-------
sampled metal compounds and SNMOC in addition to carbonyls and VOC. As a result, arsenic,
beryllium, and cadmium compounds also appear in Table 19-2. For the noncancer compounds
summarized in Table 19-3, many compounds detected were not listed among the nationwide
noncancer list. However, the majority of the prevalent noncancer compounds at BTUT are also
nationwide noncancer prevalent compounds. Only manganese compounds, arsenic compounds,
and ^ram--l,3-dichloropropene are considered prevalent at BTUT but are not nationwide
noncancer prevalent compounds.
Prevalent toxic compounds not detected at the Bountiful site were: cis-1,3-
dichloropropene; 1,2-dichloroethane; 1,2-dichloropropane; bromomethane; vinyl chloride;
chloroprene; and ethyl acrylate.
19.2 Toxicity Analysis
Acrylonitrile, benzene, and/>-dichlorobenzene contributed to nearly 60% of the total
cancer toxicity, although/>-dichlorobenzene and acrylonitrile were detected fewer times than
most of the prevalent cancer compounds. Arsenic compounds contributed to less than 12% of
the site's total cancer toxicity, even though it was detected the most. Metal compounds account
for 13% of the cancer toxicity at BTUT. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde contributed to 51% of
the noncancer toxicity, and were each detected 59 times. Benzene and total xylenes were each
detected 60 times but together only account for less than 5% of the total noncancer toxicity.
Metal compounds account for less than 15% of the noncancer toxicity at BTUT.
The acrylonitrile and/>-dichlorobenzene cancer risk at BTUT were the highest at 30.14
and 18.52 in a million, respectively. For the compounds that may lead to adverse noncancer
health effects, the average formaldehyde toxicity at BTUT was 0.51 (over 1 indicates a
significant chance of a noncancer health effect). Of the 7 adverse health concentrations
measured at the Utah site, four were formaldehyde, two were acetaldehyde, and one was arsenic
compounds.
19-2
-------
19.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Utah Site
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were measured at this site, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and
3-4. The average total UATMP daily concentration at this site is presented in Table 19-1.
Table 19-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2004 to
December 2004, and for days on which samples were taken. This site 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 BTUT was 187.02 ppbC, of which nearly 71% could be identified through
speciation. Of the speciated compounds, propane measured the highest concentration
(100.00 ppbC). This information can be found in Table 19-4. The Utah site opted to sample
metal compounds in addition to carbonyls, VOC, and SNMOC. The average metal compound
concentration is listed in Table 19-4.
Table 19-5 summarizes 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.
Several of the compounds (1,3-butadiene, acrylonitrile, arsenic compounds, benzene,
tetrachloroethylene, and total xylenes) exhibited moderately strong to strong negative
correlations with average maximum temperature, average temperature, dew point, and wet bulb
temperature. Interestingly, these same compounds had moderately strong to strong positive
correlations with relative humidity (except tetrachloroethylene). Both 1,3-butadiene and
benzene had strong positive correlations with sea level pressure (0.62 and 0.61, respectively).
The strongest correlation with the wind components occurred between manganese compounds
and the v-component of the wind (0.39). Pearson correlations could not be computed forp-
dichlorobenzene due to the low number of detects (fewer than 4).
19-3
-------
Figure 19-3 shows the composite back trajectory for the BTUT site for the days on which
sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air
traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in Figure 19-3, the back
trajectories generally originated from a northwesterly or southerly direction from the site. Each
circle around the site in Figure 19-3 represents 100 miles; 63% of the trajectories originated
within 200 miles, and 92% within 400 miles from the BTUT site. The 24-hour airshed domain is
somewhat smaller than other sites. Back trajectories originated less than 500 miles away.
19.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level vehicle registration and population in Davis County, UT, were obtained
from the Utah State Tax Commission and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are summarized in
Table 19-6. Table 19-6 also includes a vehicle registration to county population ratio (vehicles
per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of the each site is presented. An
estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile population
surrounding the monitor and the vehicle registration ratio. Table 19-6 also contains traffic
information, which represents the average number of cars passing the monitoring sites on the
nearest roadway to the site on a daily basis. This information is compared to the average daily
UATMP concentration at the Utah site in Table 19-6.
Figure 3-2 depicts the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites. BTUT resembles the roadside
study, although its toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is higher, and its benzene-ethylbenzene and
xylenes-ethylbenzene ratios are closer together.
BTUT sampled for SNMOC in addition to VOC and carbonyl compounds. Acetylene
and ethylene are SNMOCs that are primarily emitted from mobile sources. Tunnel studies
conducted on mobile source emissions have found that ethylene and acetylene are typically
detected in a 1.7 to 1 ratio. For more information, please refer to Section 3.4.4. Listed in
Table 19-4 is the ethylene-acetylene ratio for BTUT and what percent of the expected 1.7 ratio it
represents. As shown, BTUT's ethylene-acetylene ratio is only within 50% of the expected
19-4
-------
1.7 ratio (0.85). This would indicate that the emissions near BTUT may not be primarily from
mobile sources.
19.5 NATTS Site Analysis
The Bountiful site is an EPA-designated NATTS site. A description of the NATTS
program is provided in Section 3.6. A regulation analysis and an emission tracer analysis for
each of the NATTS sites was conducted. Details on each type of analysis are also provided in
Section 3.6.
19.5.1 Regulation Analysis
Table 3-10 summarizes the reduction of emissions that is expected from the promulgation
of regulations applicable to facilities located within 10 miles of the monitoring site. This
analysis includes only regulations implemented after 2002 (regulations implemented prior to
2003 would already be in effect at the time of the 2002 National Emissions Inventory and no
further reduction would be expected). As indicated in Table 3-10, fifteen future regulations
would be applicable to the facilities located within 10 miles of BTUT. Based on analysis, the
regulations shown are expected to achieve an 11% reduction in emissions of carbonyl
compounds, a 5% reduction of metal compounds, and a 10% reduction of VOC. Individual
pollutant concentrations are expected to be reduced between less than 1% (beryllium compounds,
chromium compounds, cobalt compound, benzene, and dichloromethane) and 64% (methyl
methacrylate). These reductions are expected to occur over the next few years as the last
compliance date for the applicable regulations is September 2007.
19.5.2 Emission Tracer Analysis
The highest acetaldehyde and formaldehyde noncancer toxicity scores were further
examined. Figures 19-4 and 19-5 are the pollution roses for acetaldehyde and formaldehyde at
BTUT. The highest concentration of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde occurred on August 31,
2004 and winds on that day point to possible emission sources southeast of the monitor.
Figures 19-6 and 19-7 are back trajectory maps for this date, which shows air originating to the
east of the monitor. Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde stationary emission sources near this site
19-5
-------
and in the general direction of the back trajectory are also plotted in Figures 19-6 and 19-7.
According to the 2002 NEI, there are no acetaldehyde stationary sources air would have passed
over. There are a few formaldehyde sources air would have passed over prior to arriving at
BTUT, and one in particular is very near the monitoring site.
The highest arsenic compound noncancer toxicity score was further examined.
Figure 19-8 is the pollution rose for arsenic compounds at BTUT. The highest concentration of
arsenic compounds occurred on February 15, 2004 and winds on that day point to possible
emission sources south of the monitor. Figure 19-9 is the back trajectory map for this date,
which shows air originating to the south and southwest of the monitor. Arsenic compound
stationary emission sources near this site and in the general direction of the back trajectory are
also plotted in Figure 19-9. According to the 2002 NEI, there are several arsenic compound
sources air would have likely passed over.
19.6 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2003 and are still participating in the
2004 program year (i.e., minimum 3 years), a site-specific trends analysis was conducted.
Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are
located in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was performed.
Details on this analysis are discussed in Section 3.9.
19.6.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses
BTUT has been a participant in the UATMP since 2003. Therefore, a site-specific trends
analysis was not conducted.
19.6.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses
BTUT resides in the Ogden-Clearfield, UT MSA The Ogden MSA has experienced a
33.3% increase in population and a 149.8% increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 1990
to 2003. VOC and carbonyl compound emissions have decreased between 5% and 60%
respectively, between 1990 and 2002. While mercury emissions have decreased over 50% over
19-6
-------
the period, cadmium emissions have changed little, and lead emissions have increased over 53%.
The 2004 concentrations of these compounds, calculated from the UATMP site representing this
MSA (BTUT), have either decreased significantly or remained unchanged compared to the 2002-
2003 time period. Trends for these and other compounds of interest can be found in Table 3-13.
This MSA does not participate in either the winter oxygenated program or the reformulated
gasoline program.
19-7
-------
Figure 19-1. Bountiful, Utah (BTUT) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
19-8
-------
Figure 19-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BTUT
ni-55'O'w mwo'w m^s'O'w nr«rajw
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of inferest.
Legend
@ BTUT U ATM P site (j 10 mile radius | jCounty boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) & Lumber & Wood Products Facility (1)
r Construction/Mining Machinery, Equipment, & Materials (1) B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (2)
Z Electrical & Electronic Equipment Facility (1) P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (4)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (3) \ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (5) P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (6)
Incineration Industrial Facility (1) U Stone, Clay, Glass, & Concrete Products (2)
J Industrial Machinery & Equipment Facility (1) S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (4)
= Instruments & Related Products Facility (1) -f Transportation by Air (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (3) 8 Utility Boilers (1)
•I Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (2)
19-9
-------
Figure 19-3. Composite Back Trajectory Map for BTUT
-------
Figure 19-4. Acetaldehyde Pollution Rose for BTUT
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
q
6
3
n
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
??
NW N
-
*
W /
ii i i i i i » 1 i i
^ 1
Dashed circle represents
noncancer benchmark value
sw s
NE
Avg Cone = 3.98 ± 1.07 ug/m3
\
E
i i i i i i i i
i
*
SE
.o
'•£
2
0)
u
c
o
O
ra
o
Q.
33 30 27 24 21 18 15 12
9630369
Pollutant Concentration
12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33
-------
Figure 19-5. Formaldehyde Pollution Rose for BTUT
to
utant Concentratior
->•->• IV) W W •£>• -t
O5OO5IV)OD-P>.OO5IV)C
o 12
Q.
18
24
30
36
42
48
4
NW N
•
/"**
W /'
* \
^
-
Dashed circle represents
noncancer benchmark value
sw s
NE
AVQ Cone = 5.03 ± 1 .54 ug/rn3
— . *
^
E
i
t
^-'•'
•
SE
8 42 36 30 24 18 12 6 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 19-6. Acetaldehyde Sources Along the August 31, 2004 Back Trajectory
at BTUT
5 10 20
H 1 1 1 1 1 1
Miles
Note1 Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent ail facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
© BT UTUATM P site
• Facilities emitting Acetaldehyde
Hour Back Trajectory 8/31/04
[ County boundary
I State boundary
19-13
-------
Figure 19-7. Formaldehyde Sources Along the August 31, 2004 Back Trajectory
atBTUT
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i \
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
t§? BTUT UATMP site
• Facilities emitting Formaldehyde
^^24 Hour Back Trajectory 8/31/04
| [County boundary
| [State boundary
19-14
-------
Figure 19-8. Arsenic Compound Pollution Rose for BTUT
cjO
40
30
20
*_
o
1 10
§
c
o n
o u
re
-3 10
o
CL
20
30
40
^n
5
NW N
-
*
y
t'
t
1
W i1
1
t
1
1
t
\
\
\
*•»
Dashed circle represents
noncancer benchmark value
sw s
0 40 30 20 10 C
NE
Avg Cone = 2.79 ±1.18 ng/m3
%X
\
*
\ E
f
i
/
S
SE
) 10 20 30 40 5
0
Pollutant Concentration
-------
Figure 19-9. Arsenic Compound Sources Along the December 5, 2004 Back Trajectory
0 10 20
I 1 1 1 1 1
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
© BTUTUATMPsite
• Facilities emitting Arsenic
^^24 Hour Back Trajectory 2/15/04
| (County boundary
| [State boundary
19-16
-------
Table 19-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Utah
Site
Name
BTUT
Type
All
2004
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
\S\S\SCS
vxx^\
44.30
(±7.58)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
61.67
(±2.26)
61.79
(±5.46)
Average
Temperature
52.29
(±1.98)
52.65
(±4.73)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
32.93
(±1.01)
33.89
(±2.43)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
42.43
(±1.32)
42.95
(±3.17)
Average
Relative
Humidity
55.58
(±2.18)
56.48
(±5.02)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1015.84
(±0.83)
1015.25
(±2.04)
Average «-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.57
(±0.25)
-0.07
(±7.58)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
1.46
(±0.44)
0.63
(±0.91)
VO
-------
Table 19-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Bountiful, Utah Monitoring Site - BTUT
Compound
Acrylonitrile
p-Di chl orob enzene
Benzene
Arsenic Compounds
Acetaldehyde
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,3-Butadiene
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Cadmium Compounds
Di chl oromethane
Beryllium Compounds
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
3.01 E-05
1.85E-05
1.31 E-05
1.20 E-05
8.75 E-06
8.05 E-06
8.05 E-06
4.59 E-06
1.63 E-06
3.08E-07
2.22 E-07
4.27 E-08
2.77 E-08
%
Contribution
28.60
17.57
12.39
11.39
8.30
7.64
7.64
4.36
1.55
0.29
0.21
0.04
0.03
Cumulative %
Contribution
28.60
46.17
58.56
69.95
78.25
85.89
93.52
97.88
99.43
99.72
99.93
99.97
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.44
1.68
1.67
<0.00
3.98
0.54
0.27
0.78
0.41
<0.00
0.47
<0.00
5.03
# Detects
12
1
60
63
59
51
17
8
1
49
32
29
59
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
30.14
18.52
13.05
12.00
8.75
8.05
8.05
4.59
1.63
0.31
0.22
0.04
0.03
VO
oo
-------
Table 19-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Bountiful, Utah Monitoring Site - BTUT
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Manganese Compounds
1,3-Butadiene
Arsenic Compounds
Acetonitrile
Benzene
Xylenes
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Chloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Nickel Compounds
Toluene
w-Hexane
Cadmium Compounds
Lead Compounds
Tetrachloroethylene
p-Di chl orob enzene
Chloroform
Cobalt Compounds
Beryllium Compounds
Ethylb enzene
Di chl oromethane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Styrene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Average
Toxicity
5.14E-01
4.42 E-01
2.22 E-01
1.79 E-01
1.24 E-01
9.30 E-02
9.07 E-02
5.58 E-02
4.03 E-02
2.04 E-02
1.40 E-02
1.34 E-02
1.16 E-02
1.07 E-02
1.06 E-02
8.55 E-03
4.42 E-03
2.88 E-03
2. 10 E-03
2.01 E-03
1.87 E-03
8.89E-04
6.62 E-04
4.73 E-04
4.38 E-04
4.33 E-04
2.73 E-04
1.87 E-04
%
Contribution
27.52
23.67
11.87
9.60
6.66
4.98
4.86
2.99
2.16
1.09
0.75
0.72
0.62
0.57
0.57
0.46
0.24
0.15
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
Cumulative %
Contribution
27.52
51.19
63.06
72.66
79.33
84.31
89.17
92.16
94.32
95.41
96.17
96.88
97.50
98.08
98.64
99.10
99.34
99.49
99.61
99.71
99.81
99.86
99.90
99.92
99.95
99.97
99.98
99.99
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
5.03
3.98
0.44
0.01
0.25
<0.00
5.44
1.67
4.03
0.41
1.26
0.54
<0.00
4.29
2.11
<0.00
0.01
0.78
1.68
0.20
<0.00
<0.00
0.66
0.47
2.19
0.43
0.27
0.56
# Detects
59
59
12
63
17
63
18
60
60
1
60
51
63
60
60
49
63
8
1
1
58
29
59
32
48
41
1
3
Adverse Health
Concentrations
4
2
0
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
-------
Table 19-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Bountiful, Utah Monitoring Site - BTUT (Cont.)
Compound
Mercury Compounds
Selenium Compounds
Average
Toxicity
5.80E-05
1.42E-04
%
Contribution
0.00
0.00
Cumulative %
Contribution
100.00
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
<0.00
<0.00
# Detects
4
49
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
VO
to
o
-------
VO
to
Table 19-4. TNMOC and Metal Compounds Measured by the Bountiful, Utah (BTUT) Monitoring Site
Site
BTUT
Average Metals
Concentration
(ng/m3)
26.93
Average
TNMOC
speciated (ppbC)
132.70
Average TNMOC
w/ unknown
(ppbC)
187.02
% TNMOC
Identified
71%
SNMOC Compound with
the Highest
Concentration (ppbC)
Propane (100.00)
Ethylene to
Acetylene
Ratio
0.85
%of
Expected
Ratio
50%
-------
Table 19-5. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
Bountiful, Utah Site (BTUT)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic Compounds
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Manganese Compounds
p-Dichlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Xylenes
Maximum
Temperature
-0.40
0.18
0.34
-0.43
-0.38
-0.59
0.06
0.25
0.46
Average
Temperature
-0.44
0.15
0.34
-0.44
-0.41
-0.61
0.04
0.22
0.46
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.47
-0.05
0.16
-0.44
-0.40
-0.54
0.05
0.04
0.25
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.47
0.08
0.26
-0.46
-0.43
-0.62
0.03
0.16
0.39
Relative
Humidity
0.30
-0.21
-0.36
0.39
0.34
0.58
0.03
-0.26
-0.46
Sea Level
Pressure
0.62
0.08
-0.07
0.29
0.37
0.61
0.08
-0.01
-0.30
M-component
of wind
0.11
-0.09
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.22
-0.02
-0.07
-0.24
v-component
of wind
-0.17
-0.03
-0.01
-0.10
-0.09
-0.23
0.09
-0.04
0.39
NA
-0.34
-0.35
-0.70
-0.48
0.10
-0.14
0.01
-0.26
NA
-0.41
-0.43
-0.40
-0.45
0.40
0.38
0.16
-0.18
to
to
-------
Table 19-6. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Utah Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Site
BTUT
Estimated
County
Population
255,597
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
182,209
Vehicles per
Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.71
Population
within
10 Miles
243,462
Estimated 10-Mile
Vehicle
Registration
172,858
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
33,310
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oig/m3)
44.30 ±7.58
to
-------
20.0 Site in Wisconsin
This section presents meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Wisconsin (MAWI), located in Madison. Figure 20-1 is a topographical map showing the
monitoring site in its urban location. Figure 20-2 identifies facilities within ten miles of the sites
that reported to the 2002 NEI. The map shows that nearby industrial facilities, of which the
majority are fuel combustion facilities, are scattered around the monitor. Hourly meteorological
data were retrieved for all of 2004 at Dane County Regional Traux Field Airport's weather
station (WBAN 14837) near the site for calculating correlations of meteorological data with
ambient air concentration measurements.
Table 20-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at the site, along with the
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), pressure (average sea level pressure), and
wind information (average u- and v- components of the wind) for the entire year and on days
samples were taken. Madison is wedged between Lake Mendota and Lake Monona, in south-
central Wisconsin. Its Great Lakes location ensures that the area experiences frequent weather
systems, fairly typical of a continental climate. Temperatures can fluctuate drastically with
potent weather systems, and the frozen lakes offer little moderating effects in the winter. Spring
and summer tend to bring the most precipitation, but Madison receives its fair share of snow.
Average wind direction depends on season. Summer and fall tend to bring southerly winds,
while northwesterly winds are mostly common in the winter and spring. This information can be
found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
20.1 Prevalent Compounds at the Wisconsin Site
Using the toxicity weighting factors (URE and RfC), cancer and noncancer weighting
scores were computed for each compound at this site. Table 20-2 summarizes the cancer
weighting scores and Table 20-3 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.
20-1
-------
Table 20-2 shows that all of the prevalent cancer compounds for MAWI reflect the
nationwide prevalent cancer compound list, which is listed in Section 3 of this report. For the
noncancer compounds summarized in Table 20-3, only two of the prevalent noncancer
compounds for MAWI were not listed among the nationwide noncancer prevalent list
(chloromethane and carbon tetrachloride).
Nationwide prevalent toxic compounds not detected at the Madison site were:
acrylonitrile; l,2-dichloroethane;/?-dichlorobenzene; 1,2-dichloropropane; ethyl acrylate; vinyl
chloride; c/'s-l,3-dichloropropane; acetonitrile; bromomethane; and chloroprene.
20.2 Toxicity Analysis
Of the prevalent cancer compounds, carbon tetrachloride and benzene contributed most
to the site's total cancer toxicity, and were each detected fifteen times at MAWI. Concentrations
of 1,3-butadiene contributed to nearly 15% of the total toxicity, although it was detected only
once. The carbon tetrachloride and benzene cancer risks at MAWI were two to three times
higher than for the remaining cancer compounds (16.9 and 12.2 in a million, respectively).
Of the prevalent noncancer compounds, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene
contributed to nearly 75% of the site's total noncancer toxicity. While acetaldehyde and
formaldehyde were each detected fourteen times at MAWI, 1,3-butadiene was only detected
once. No adverse health concentrations were measured at MAWI.
20.3 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Wisconsin Site
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were measured at this site, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and
3-4. The average total UATMP daily concentration at this site is presented in Table 20-1.
Table 20-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2004 to
December 2004, and for days on which sampling occurred.
20-2
-------
Table 20-4 summarizes 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.
A low number of detects can lead to unusually high correlations, therefore,
tetrachloroethylene and 1,3-butadiene's correlations will not be considered here. Chloromethane
had the strongest correlations with the temperature parameters (0.86 and 0.87). All of the
compounds exhibited positive correlations with the temperature parameters, which indicates that
concentrations of the prevalent compounds tend to increase as temperature increases.
Both carbon tetrachloride and chloromethane exhibited strong to very strong correlations
with the dew point temperature and the wet bulb temperature. In fact, all of the compounds had
positive correlations with these two parameters, indicating that as the amount of moisture in the
atmosphere increases, concentration increases as well. However, this trend does not hold true
with the relative humidity.
Acetaldehyde had the strongest correlation with the w-component of the wind (-0.50)
while chloromethane had the strongest correlation with the v-component of the wind (0.41).
Interestingly, all of the correlations between the w-component of the wind and the prevalent
compounds are negative, while all of the correlations with the v-component of the wind and the
prevalent compounds are positive. This indicates that concentrations increase as winds increase
out of the north or south, and decrease as winds increase from the east or west. Chloromethane
and carbon tetrachloride also had the strongest correlations with the sea level pressure (-0.58 and
-0.42, respectively). However, all the remaining correlations were moderate and positive.
Figure 20-3 shows the composite back trajectory for the MAWI site for the days on
which sampling occurred. Each line represents the 24-hour trajectory along which a parcel of air
traveled toward the monitoring site on a sampling day. As shown in Figure 20-3, the back
trajectories originated predominantly from the west, northwest, and north of the site. Each circle
around the site in Figure 20-3 represents 100 miles; 53% of the trajectories originated within
20-3
-------
400 miles, and 93% within 700 miles from the MAWI site. The 24-hour airshed domain is large.
Back trajectories originated over 700 miles away.
20.4 Spatial Analysis
County-level vehicle registration and population in Dane County, WI, were obtained
from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the U.S. Census Bureau, and are
summarized in Table 20-6. Table 20-6 also includes a vehicle registration to county population
ratio (vehicles per person). In addition, the population within 10 miles of the each site is
presented. An estimation of 10-mile vehicle registration was computed using the 10-mile
population surrounding the monitors and the vehicle registration ratio. Table 20-6 also contains
traffic information, which represents the average number of cars passing the monitoring sites on
the nearest roadway to the site on a daily basis. This information is compared to the average
daily UATMP concentration at the Wisconsin site in Table 20-6.
Figure 3-2 depicts the average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares
them to the concentration ratios at each of the monitoring sites. At MAWI, the toluene-
ethylbenzene ratio is the highest, like that of the roadside study. However, the benzene-
ethylbenzene ratio is higher than the xylenes-ethylbenzene ratio, unlike those of the roadside
study. Also, the difference between these two ratios is much less than it is for the roadside
study.
20.5 Trends Analysis
For sites that participated in the UATMP prior to 2003 and are still participating in the
2004 program year (i.e., minimum 3 years), a site-specific trends analysis was conducted.
Details on how this analysis was conducted can be found in Section 3.8. For sites that are
located in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), an MSA-specific trends analysis was
performed. Details on this analysis are discussed in Section 3.9.
20-4
-------
20.5.1 Site-Specific Trends Analyses
MAWI is new to the UATMP this year. Therefore, a site-specific trends analysis was not
conducted.
20.5.2 MSA-Specific Trends Analyses
MAWI resides in the Madison, WI MSA. The Madison,WI MSA has experienced a
21.8% increase in population and a 82.5% increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 1990
to 2003. Carbonyl and VOC emissions have decreased between 1990 and 2003, ranging from a
19% and 63% decrease. Although 1990-1994 concentrations are not available, VOC and
carbonyl concentrations decrease slightly between 2002-2003 and 2004, with the exception of
acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, based on the UATMP site representing the Madison MSA
(MAWI). Carbonyl compound concentrations tend to be unchanged. Trends for these and other
compounds of interest can be found in Table 3-13. This MSA does not participate in either the
winter oxygenated program or the reformulated gasoline program.
20-5
-------
Figure 20-1. Madison, Wisconsin (MAWI) Monitoring Site
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
20-6
-------
Figure 20-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of MAWI
Legend
%) MAWI UATM P site
10 mile radius
83<25'0'W W°XVV/ BISOTV 89'10'D'W
Note: Due to facility density and collocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
JGounty boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
* Agricultural Chemicals Production Industrial Facility (2)
® Business Services Facility (1)
c Chemicals & Allied Products Facility (2)
s Educational Services Facility (1)
D Fabricated Metal Products Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (15)
+ Health Services Facility (1)
* Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing Facility (1)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (3)
s Lumbers Wood Products Facility (1)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (4)
x Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (1)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2)
- Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (3)
v Polymers & Resins Production Industrial Facility (1)
R Printing & Publishing Facility (2)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (4)
8 Utility Boilers (1)
•I Waste Treatment & Disposal Industrial Facility (5)
$ Wholesale Trade-Durable Goods (1)
4 Wood Furniture Facility (1)
20-7
-------
Figure 20-3. Composite Back Trajectory Map for MAWI
to
o
oo
••
0 50 100 200 300 400
-------
Table 20-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Wisconsin
Site
Name
MAWI
Type
All
2004
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ug/m3)
\S\S\O^
vXX^\
29.49
(±4.25)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
55.89
(±2.11)
47.67
(±8.28)
Average
Temperature
47.56
(±1.98)
39.50
(±7.28)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
37.84
(±2.01)
29.99
(±7.16)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
43.10
(±1.85)
35.61
(±6.71)
Average
Relative
Humidity
71.37
(±1.20)
70.82
(±5.85)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1017.28
(±0.74)
1017.90
(±4.16)
Average «-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.66
(±0.40)
1.24
(±2.30)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.60
(±0.47)
-00.39
(±1.93)
to
o
-------
Table 20-2. Summary of the Toxic Cancer Compounds at the Madison, Wisconsin Monitoring Site - MAWI
Compound
Carbon Tetrachloride
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Tetrachl oroethy 1 ene
Di chl oromethane
Formaldehyde
Average
Toxicity
1.69E-05
1.22E-05
5.75 E-06
2.57 E-06
2. 13 E-06
2.39 E-07
6.60 E-09
%
Contribution
42.37
30.74
14.45
6.45
5.36
0.60
0.02
Cumulative %
Contribution
42.37
73.11
87.57
94.02
99.38
99.98
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
1.12
1.57
0.19
1.17
0.36
0.51
1.20
# Detects
15
15
1
14
3
7
14
Cancer Risk
(Out of
1 Million)
16.9
12.2
5.75
2.57
2.13
0.24
0.01
to
o
-------
Table 20-3. Summary of the Toxic Noncancer Compounds at the Madison, Wisconsin Monitoring Site - MAWI
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
1,3-Butadiene
Benzene
Xylenes
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Toluene
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Di chl oromethane
Styrene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Average
Toxicity
1.30E-01
1.22E-01
9.59 E-02
5.23 E-02
3. 26 E-02
2.81 E-02
1.91 E-02
7.36 E-03
2.01 E-03
1.34 E-03
1.17 E-03
5.41 E-04
5.07E-04
2.27 E-04
2. 14 E-04
1.30 E-04
%
Contribution
26.28
24.81
19.42
10.59
6.60
5.69
3.86
1.49
0.41
0.27
0.24
0.11
0.10
0.05
0.04
0.03
Cumulative %
Contribution
26.28
51.10
70.52
81.11
87.71
93.40
97.27
98.76
99.16
99.44
99.67
99.78
99.88
99.93
99.97
100.00
Average
Concentration
(ug/m3)
1.17
1.20
0.19
1.57
3.26
1.12
1.72
2.95
0.20
0.36
1.17
0.54
0.51
0.23
1.07
0.39
# Detects
14
14
1
15
15
15
15
15
1
O
14
15
7
O
8
1
Adverse Health
Concentrations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
to
o
-------
Table 20-4. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at the
Madison, Wisconsin Site (MAWI)
Compound
1,3 -Butadiene
Acetaldehyde
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Formaldehyde
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylenes
Maximum
Temperature
Average
Temperature
Dew Point
Temperature
Wet Bulb
Temperature
Relative
Humidity
Sea Level
Pressure
M-component
of wind
v-component
of wind
NA
0.36
0.13
0.55
0.86
0.28
0.31
0.12
0.58
0.87
0.22
0.33
0.18
0.55
0.75
0.16
0.31
0.14
0.58
0.84
0.19
0.23
0.24
-0.05
-0.25
-0.08
0.11
0.33
-0.42
-0.58
0.25
-0.50
-0.29
-0.15
-0.00
-0.36
0.10
0.06
0.24
0.41
0.10
NA
0.34
0.31
0.33
0.31
0.14
0.28
-0.36
0.05
to
o
-------
Table 20-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Wisconsin Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Site
MAWI
Estimated
County
Population
449,378
Estimated County
Number of Vehicles
Owned
401,588
Vehicle per
Person
(Registration:
Population)
0.89
Population
within
10 Miles
356,676
Estimated 10-Mile
Vehicle
Registration
317,442
Traffic
Data (Daily
Average)
23,750
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
Oig/m3)
29.49 (±4.25)
to
o
-------
21.0 Data Quality
This section discusses the data quality for the ambient air concentrations. In accordance
with the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), the following data calculations were
performed: precision, accuracy (also called bias), and completeness. Completeness statistics are
in Section 3 of this report. The QAPP goal of 85% completeness was met by most sites. As
indicators of the reliability and representativeness of experimental measurements, both precision
and bias are considered when interpreting ambient air monitoring data. The quality assessment
presented in this section show that the UATMP monitoring data are of a known and high quality,
particularly for the most prevalent program-wide compounds in urban air. All calculations are
based on sample concentrations detected above the method detection limits (MDLs) for each
compound. The overall precision level (the average for all sites) meets the UATMP data quality
objectives and adheres to the guidelines in the Compendium Methods (US EPA, 1999a; US
EPA, 1999b), which are 15 percent coefficient of variation.
Method precision for the UATMP is determined by repeated analyses 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,
Massachuetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. At these sites, collocated
samples were collected and analyzed in replicate. Collocated samples are samples that are
collected simultaneously 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
21-1
-------
provide information on the variability expected between different collection
systems (intra-system assessment).
Replicate analysis of collocated samples provide information on the potential for
variability (or precision) expected between different collection systems, but does
not provide information on the variability expected from single collection systems
(intra-system assessment).
21.1 Precision
Precision refers to the agreement between independent measurements performed
according to identical protocols and procedures. To quantify "analytical precision" (i.e., how
precisely the analytical methods measure ambient air concentrations), concentrations measured
during analysis of duplicate samples are replicated. To quantify "sampling and analytical
precision" (i.e., how precisely the sampling and analytical methods measure ambient air
concentrations), concentrations measured during replicate analyses of duplicate samples are
compared. Two types of precision will be discussed: Analytical Precision and Sampling
Precision.
Applied to ambient air monitoring data, precision is a measurement of random errors
inherent to the process of sampling and analyzing ambient air.
21.1.1 Analytical Precision
Analytical precision is a measurement of random errors associated with the process of
analyzing environmental samples. These errors may result from various factors, but typically
originate from random "noise" inherent to analytical instruments. Laboratories can easily
evaluate analytical precision by comparing concentrations measured during replicate analysis of
the same ambient air samples. This report uses three parameters to quantify random errors
indicated by replicate analyses of UATMP samples:
Average concentration difference simply quantifies how duplicate or replicate
analytical results differ, on average, for each compound and each sample. When
interpreting central tendency estimates for specific compounds sampled during the
21-2
-------
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.
Relative percent difference (RPD) expresses average concentration differences
relative to the average concentrations detected during replicate analyses. The
RPD is calculated as follows:
i .i ~ \.*
RPD = I ' _ 2 x 100 (1)
X
Where:
Xv is the ambient air concentration of a given compound measured in one
slfmple;
X2 is the concentration of the same compound measured during replicate
analysis; and
Xis the arithmetic mean of Xl and X2.
As this equation shows, replicate analyses with low variability have lower RPDs
(and better precision), and replicate analyses with high variability have higher
RPDs (and poorer precision).
Coefficient of Variation (CV) provides a relative measure of data dispersion
compared to the mean.
Cv = = x 100 (2\
X l '
Where:
a is the standard deviation of the sets of duplicate or replicate results;
X is the arithmetic mean of the sets of duplicate or replicate results;
The CV is used to measure the imprecision in survey estimates introduced from
analysis. A coefficient of 1 percent would indicate that the analytical results
could vary slightly due to sampling error, while a variation of 50 percent means
that the results are more imprecise.
21-3
-------
The following approach was employed to estimate how precisely the central laboratory
analyzed UATMP samples:
- CVs, RPDs and concentration differences were calculated for every replicate
analyses performed during the program. In cases where compounds were not
detected during replicate analyses, these parameters were not calculated.
- To make an overall estimate of method precision, program-average CVs, RPDs,
and absolute concentration differences were calculated for each compound by
averaging the values from the individual replicate analyses.
Tables 21-1,21-2, and 21-3 use absolute average concentration differences, RPDs, and
CVs to characterize the analytical precision for all sites sampling for VOC, representing all
replicate analyses of duplicate and collocated samples, of collocated samples, and of duplicate
samples, respectively.
In Table 21-1, the replicate analyses of duplicate and collocated samples show that
laboratory VOC analysis precision was within the control limits of 15 percent for CV. The
method is most precise when measuring air concentrations for the prevalent compounds
program-wide (i.e., compounds consistently found at levels exceeding their detection limits). In
terms of overall average concentration difference, the precision of the VOC analytical method
ranges from 0.001 ppbv for 1,1-dichloroethane, dibromochloromethane, and chlorobenzene to
0.56 ppbv for acetonitrile. The overall compound by compound average variability is
4.28 percent.
Table 21-2 shows the results from replicate analyses of collocated VOC samples taken at
MCAZ, PSAZ, NBIL, DEMI, MAWI, KITN, EATN, LDTN, LOTN, and DITN. The replicate
results from collocated samples shows variation for the compounds ranging from 0.17 to
9.01 percent. The overall estimate of method precision, using program-average CVs, RPDs, and
absolute concentration differences, is within the program's objectives. The overall compound-
by-compound average variability is 4.94 percent.
21-4
-------
Table 21-3 shows the results from replicate analyses of duplicate VOC samples. The
replicate results from duplicate samples variation ranges from 0.19 to 11.16 percent. The CVs
are within the control limits of 15 percent. The overall compound-by-compound average
variability is 4.85 percent.
Tables 21-4 through 21-9 present results from VOC replicate analyses for all of the
duplicate and collocated samples at the NATTS sites (DEMI, GPCO, NBIL, PSAZ, BTUT, and
S4MO). Table 21-10 presents the average CV per compound and per site. The replicate results
from duplicate samples show low to mid-level variability among the sites, ranging from 3.86 to
11.64 percent, with an average of 7.61 percent. This is within the NATTS requested 15 percent
overall CV per site.
Table 21-11 presents replicate analytical data for all duplicate SNMOC samples. The
CVs are within the control limits of 15 percent. The average concentration differences observed
for replicate analyses of SNMOC compounds ranges from 0.004 to 1.81 ppbC. The total
speciated and total hydrocarbons (speciated and unspeciated) show greater average concentration
differences, 24.28 and 28.82 ppbC, respectively, but low-to mid-range variability at 10.07 and
8.28 percent. The overall compound-by-compound average variability is 7.39 percent.
Tables 21-12 through 21-14 present results from SNMOC replicate analyses for all of the
duplicate and collocated samples at the NATTS sites (NBIL, BTUT, and S4MO). Table 21-15
presents the average CV per compound and per site. The replicate results from duplicate
samples show low- to mid-level variability among the sites, ranging from 4.84 to 14.18 percent,
with an average of 9.28 percent.
In Table 21-16, the replicate analyses for duplicate and collocated samples show that
laboratory carbonyl analysis precision is within the control limits of 15 percent CV. In terms of
average concentration difference, the precision of the carbonyl analytical method ranges from
0.002 ppbv for valeraldehyde and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde to 0.068 ppbv for formaldehyde.
The overall compound-by-compound average variability is 3.37 percent.
21-5
-------
Table 21-17 shows the results from replicate analyses of collocated carbonyl samples
taken at DEMI, CANC, RTPNC, KITN, EATN, LDTN, LOTN, and DITN. The replicate results
from collocated samples show variation for the compounds ranging from 0.96 to 4.44 percent.
The overall compound-by-compound average variability is 2.86 percent.
Table 21-18 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 0.76 to 6.59 percent. The overall compound by compound average variability was
3.61 percent.
Tables 21-19 through 21-23 present results from carbonyl replicate analyses for all of the
duplicate and collocated samples at the NATTS sites (SYFL, DEMI, GPCO, BTUT, and S4MO).
Table 21-24 presents the average CV per compound and per site. The replicate results from
duplicate samples show low-level variability among the sites, ranging from 1.97 to 6.94 percent,
and an average of 3.72 percent. This is within the NATTS requested 15 percent overall CV per
site.
Overall, replicate analyses, both duplicate and collocated, of VOC, SNMOC, and
carbonyl compounds suggest the analytical precision level is within the UATMP data quality
objectives and guidelines in the Compendium Methods.
21.1.2 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. This type
of precision is most easily evaluated by comparing concentrations measured in duplicate samples
collected from the same air parcel. During the UATMP, duplicate and collocated samples were
collected at least 10 percent of the scheduled sampling days. Most of these samples were
analyzed in replicate.
21-6
-------
To calculate sampling and analytical precision, data analysts compared the
concentrations between the two replicates with each respective duplicate or collocated sample.
Also, the CV for two duplicate samples was calculated for each compound and each site with the
target recovery being 15 percent, similar to the replicate analyses. Tables 21-25 through 21-33,
21-35 through 21-38, 21-40 through 21-47, 21-49, and 21-50 present average concentration
differences, RPDs, and CVs as estimates of duplicate and collocated sampling and analytical
variability for VOC, SNMOC, carbonyls, and metal compounds, respectively. Tables 21-34, 21-
39, and 21-48 present the average CVs per compound and per site. The number of observations
from Tables 21-1 through 21-24, in comparison to the respective tables listed for duplicate
analyses in Tables 21-25 through 21-48, is approximately twice as high.
Table 21-25 presents the sampling and analytical data precision for duplicates and
collocated VOC samples. Four 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 range from 0.001 to 3.26 ppbv. To present the distribution associated with
some of the compounds with higher CVs (CVs over 15 percent and total number detected over
30 percent), scatter plots are presented the show distribution for each of the compounds.
Toluene (15.83 percent CV, 100 percent detected), dichloromethane (17.83 percent CV, 53
percent detected), acetonitrile (17.90 percent CV, 60 percent detected), and methyl ethyl ketone
(MEK, 27.26 percent CV, 78 percent detected) scatter plots are shown in Figures 21-1 through
21-4, respectively. As the percent 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 appear to have been affected by the
sampling generation procedures. Figure 21-2 shows a close correlation for the duplicate
comparisons for methylene chloride, whereas Figure 21-1 shows a wider scatter for the duplicate
sample comparisons for acetonitrile.
The collocated VOC sampling and analytical data are presented in Table 21-26, and the
duplicate samples are shown in Table 21-27. Again, average CVs greater than 15 percent are
21-7
-------
present for each collection type (duplicate and collocated). This shows that the CVs in Table 21-
25 were affected by both sampling techniques. However, more compounds in the collocated
comparisons had CVs greater than 15 percent than those presented in the duplicate comparisons.
Acetylene (18.48 percent), propylene (20.54 percent), acetonitrile (19.86 percent),
trichlorofluoromethane (18.24 percent), methylene chloride (21.59 percent), methyl ethyl ketone
(28.81 percent), chloroform (17.55 percent), carbon tetrachloride (15.39 percent), methyl
isobutyl ketone (15.03 percent), toluene (23.40 percent), ethylbenzene (21.09 percent), m,p,-
xylene (21.49 percent), o-xylene (19.03 percent) and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (19.36 percent)
were above the 15 percent program objective.
Tables 21-28 through 21-33 present the results from VOC duplicate analysis for all of the
NATTS sites (DEMI, GPCO, NBIL, PSAZ, BTUT, and S4MO). Table 21-34 presents the
average CV per compound and per site. The results from duplicate samples show low to high-
level variability among sites, ranging from 5.14 to 76.05 percent, with an average of
15.79 percent. This is slightly higher than the NATTS requested 15 percent overall CV per site.
Exclusion of the NBIL site CV from the variability produces an average of 13.28 percent
variability.
The SNMOC precision for duplicate samples is presented in Table 21-35. Coefficient of
variation for duplicate samples ranged from 0.15 percent for 1-dodecene to 41.67 percent for n-
decane. The compounds with the highest variation are ones with a non-target peak eluting very
close to the elution time of the target peak, which can interfere with the correct concentration
determination for that analyte. For example, a target analyte, 2-methyl-2-butene, has methylene
chloride, a non-target analyte, eluting in close proximity which can interfere with the integration
of the analyte peak. The VOC and SNMOC sampling and analytical precision data differs from
the analytical precision data as presented in tables above. This difference suggests that
limitations associated with laboratory analysis of the VOC and SNMOC samples during the
UATMP did not affect random errors associated with sampling procedures.
21-8
-------
Tables 21-36 through 21-38 present the results from SNMOC duplicate analysis for all of
the NATTS sites (NBIL, BTUT, and S4MO). Table 21-39 presents the average CV per
compound and per site. The results from duplicate samples show mid to high-level variability
among sites, ranging from 5.13 to 71.27 percent, with an average of 22.18 percent. This is higher
than the NATTS requested 15 percent overall CV per site. Exclusion of the NBIL site CV from
the variability produces an average of 12.36 percent variability.
Table 21-40, presenting the sampling and analytical data for carbonyl compounds, shows
that the total duplicate and collocated samples precision was within the control limits of
15 percent CV. The average concentration difference ranged from 0.002 ppbv for 2,5-
dimethylbenzaldehyde to 0.183 ppbv for formaldehyde.
The collocated carbonyl sampling and analytical data are presented in Table 21-41, and
the duplicate samples results are shown in Table 21-42. Propionaldehyde exceeded the
15 percent criterion for the collocated samples and tolualdehydes exceeded the 15 percent
criterion for the duplicate samples.
Tables 21-43 through 21-47 present results from carbonyl duplicate sample analyses for
the NATTS sites (SYFL, DEMI, GPCO, BTUT, and S4MO). Table 21-48 presents the average
CV per compound and per site. The duplicate sample results show low to high level variability
among the sites, ranging from 5.69 to 26.13 percent, with an average of 11.35 percent. The
carbonyl sampling and analytical precision data differs from the analytical replicate precision
data as presented in tables above. This difference suggests that limitations associated with
laboratory analysis of the carbonyl samples during the UATMP did not affect random errors
associated with sampling procedures.
The sampling and analytical variation for collocated metals samples are presented in
Tables 21-49. The average CV values, as well as the average RPD values, show low to high-level
variability among the sites, with CVs ranging from 7.10 to 23.58 percent, with an average at
13.80 percent. This is within the NATTS requested 15 percent overall CV per site. Table 21-50
21-9
-------
presents the results from collocated metals sample analyses for the NATTS site (BOMA). No
replicate samples were collected at this site.
Duplicate/collocated and replicate samples were not collected for semi-volatile
compounds (SVOC) due to sampling occurring at only three sites. Therefore, precision for
SVOC is not discussed in this section.
21.2 Accuracy
Laboratories typically evaluate their accuracy by analyzing external audit samples and
comparing the measured concentrations obtained to the known concentrations of the audit
samples.
Accuracy indicates the extent to which experimental measurements represent their
corresponding "true" or "actual" values.
The accuracy of the UATMP monitoring data can also be assessed qualitatively by
reviewing the accuracy of the monitoring methods and how they were implemented:
The sampling and analytical methods used in the UATMP (i.e., Compendium
Methods TO-11A and TO-15) have been approved by EPA for accurately
measuring ambient levels of VOC and carbonyl compounds, respectively—an
approval that is based on many years of research into the development of ambient
air monitoring methodologies.
When collecting and analyzing ambient air samples, all field sampling staff and
laboratory analysts strictly followed quality control and quality assurance
guidelines detailed in the respective monitoring methods. This strict adherence to
the well-documented sampling and analytical methods suggests, though certainly
does not prove, that the UATMP monitoring data accurately represent ambient air
quality.
21-10
-------
Figure 21 -1. Concentration Distribution of Toluene
25
20
218 out of 218 possible samples
15.83 % CV
c
O 15
*J
s
+J
d>
o
c
o
o
a, 10
re
o
"5.
3
Q
10 15
Primary Concentration (ppbv)
20
25
-------
Figure 21-2. Concentration Distribution of Dichloromethane
25
20
Q.
o 15
o>
o
C
o
O
Si 10
re
o
115 out of 218 possible samples
17.83 % CV
10 15
Primary Concentration (ppbv)
20
25
-------
Figure 21-3. Concentration Distribution of Acetonitrile
25
20
£1
Q.
Q.
15
0)
o
c
o
O
Si 10
re
o
130 out of 218 possible samples
17.90 % CV
10 15
Primary Concentration (ppbv)
20
25
-------
Figure 21-4. Concentration Distribution of Methyl Ethyl Ketone
25
20
169 out of 218 possible samples
27.26 % CV
£1
O.
o 15
c
0)
o
c
o
O
o> 10
re
o
Q.
3
Q
10 15
Primary Concentration (ppbv)
20
25
-------
Table 21-1. VOC Analytical Precision:
480 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
468
476
478
478
0
0
163
8
3
276
478
46
0
256
401
0
2
158
366
0
0
0
71
0
0
25
479
447
4
0
0
4
16
14
0
94
16
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
9.97
8.70
6.15
11.26
NA
NA
7.33
2.00
0.80
11.65
8.85
2.01
NA
10.49
9.27
NA
0.67
5.43
11.37
NA
NA
NA
4.37
NA
NA
0.60
7.64
10.28
0.89
NA
NA
0.13
1.34
1.22
NA
4.25
1.96
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.14
0.06
0.05
0.06
NA
NA
0.03
0.01
0.003
0.56
0.03
0.15
NA
0.04
0.01
NA
0.001
0.03
0.13
NA
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.002
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
0.01
NA
0.03
0.002
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
6.85
6.24
4.72
5.87
NA
NA
4.98
1.13
0.51
7.41
6.27
1.47
NA
7.39
6.78
NA
0.44
4.14
7.94
NA
NA
NA
2.61
NA
NA
0.46
5.44
7.29
0.57
NA
NA
0.09
0.96
0.86
NA
3.04
1.35
NA
21-15
-------
Table 21-1. VOC Analytical Precision:
480 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate and Collocated Samples (Cont.)
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
480
4
0
165
204
2
475
478
0
348
0
476
302
389
0
0
35
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
7.29
0.17
NA
6.28
5.62
0.67
9.76
8.69
NA
14.06
NA
9.88
12.29
15.36
NA
NA
3.28
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.07
0.001
NA
0.07
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.03
NA
0.02
NA
0.01
0.02
0.03
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
5.32
0.12
NA
4.34
3.98
0.44
6.69
6.13
NA
9.01
NA
7.00
7.97
10.08
NA
NA
2.30
NA
NA
NA
21-16
-------
Table 21-2. VOC Analytical Precision:
190 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
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Number of
Observations
180
187
189
189
0
0
75
0
0
91
189
9
0
108
154
0
2
24
143
0
0
0
50
0
0
22
190
188
0
0
0
4
8
0
0
61
12
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
12.06
7.00
6.30
6.94
NA
NA
8.80
NA
NA
7.15
7.22
0.24
NA
10.83
10.29
NA
1.67
7.33
11.67
NA
NA
NA
10.09
NA
NA
1.50
7.86
11.28
NA
NA
NA
0.33
0.75
NA
NA
7.00
4.48
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.23
0.05
0.07
0.07
NA
NA
0.02
NA
NA
0.21
0.03
0.25
NA
0.04
0.02
NA
0.003
0.03
0.15
NA
NA
NA
0.08
NA
NA
0.01
0.03
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.03
0.003
NA
NA
0.04
0.005
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.66
5.05
4.42
4.92
NA
NA
6.15
NA
NA
4.95
5.15
0.17
NA
7.69
7.48
NA
1.09
6.14
8.07
NA
NA
NA
5.89
NA
NA
1.15
5.42
7.96
NA
NA
NA
0.24
0.49
NA
NA
5.10
3.10
NA
21-17
-------
Table 21-2. VOC Analytical Precision:
190 Replicate Analyses for all Collocated Samples (Cont.)
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
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
190
4
0
58
139
2
190
190
0
123
0
190
129
173
0
0
15
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
6.93
0.43
NA
4.23
7.65
1.67
10.26
9.66
NA
12.71
NA
9.57
14.18
12.41
NA
NA
5.29
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.10
0.004
NA
0.12
0.02
0.002
0.02
0.04
NA
0.02
NA
0.02
0.02
0.03
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
4.90
0.29
NA
3.17
5.44
1.09
6.76
6.62
NA
8.46
NA
6.72
9.01
8.45
NA
NA
3.66
NA
NA
NA
21-18
-------
Table 21-3. VOC Analytical Precision:
290 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 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
Number of
Observations
288
289
289
289
0
0
88
5
2
185
289
37
0
148
247
0
0
134
223
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
289
259
2
0
0
0
8
13
0
33
4
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
8.57
9.84
6.06
14.14
NA
NA
6.34
3.33
1.33
14.65
9.94
3.20
NA
10.26
8.60
NA
NA
4.16
11.17
NA
NA
NA
0.56
NA
NA
NA
7.49
9.62
1.48
NA
NA
NA
1.73
2.04
NA
2.41
0.28
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.08
0.07
0.04
0.05
NA
NA
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.80
0.03
0.08
NA
0.03
0.01
NA
NA
0.02
0.12
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.02
0.01
0.003
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
NA
0.02
0.0003
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
6.31
7.04
4.91
6.50
NA
NA
4.20
1.89
0.86
9.04
7.02
2.33
NA
7.19
6.31
NA
NA
2.81
7.85
NA
NA
NA
0.43
NA
NA
NA
5.46
6.85
0.94
NA
NA
NA
1.28
1.44
NA
1.66
0.19
NA
21-19
-------
Table 21-3. VOC Analytical Precision:
290 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples (Cont.)
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
290
0
0
107
65
0
285
288
0
225
0
286
173
216
0
0
20
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
7.53
NA
NA
7.64
4.26
NA
9.43
8.05
NA
14.96
NA
10.09
11.03
17.32
NA
NA
1.95
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.06
NA
NA
0.04
0.01
NA
0.01
0.03
NA
0.02
NA
0.01
0.02
0.03
NA
NA
0.02
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
5.60
NA
NA
5.12
3.01
NA
6.65
5.81
NA
9.37
NA
7.19
7.27
11.16
NA
NA
1.39
NA
NA
NA
21-20
-------
Table 21-4. VOC Analytical Precision:
110 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 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
Number of
Observations
101
108
110
110
11
1
40
1
1
62
109
3
0
62
100
0
2
2
77
1
3
0
14
0
1
11
110
110
0
0
0
0
8
1
0
31
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
9.45
7.59
7.44
7.43
NA
NA
10.07
NA
NA
18.38
7.19
NA
NA
8.46
12.59
NA
16.67
25.00
10.51
NA
NA
NA
13.68
NA
NA
4.17
8.61
12.92
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.49
NA
NA
13.64
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.33
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.02
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.46
0.04
2.14
NA
0.05
0.02
NA
0.03
0.05
0.15
NA
0.08
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.03
0.04
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
0.06
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
6.96
6.41
5.68
5.50
NA
NA
6.93
NA
NA
14.26
5.36
NA
NA
6.18
9.04
NA
10.88
20.20
7.32
NA
NA
NA
10.70
NA
NA
3.21
5.92
8.85
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.92
NA
NA
10.35
NA
NA
21-21
-------
Table 21-4. VOC Analytical Precision:
110 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in Detroit, MI (DEMI) (Cont.)
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
110
0
0
28
108
2
110
110
0
60
0
110
75
99
0
0
6
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
5.22
NA
NA
NA
7.60
16.67
7.03
6.86
NA
9.20
NA
7.89
8.13
11.75
NA
NA
14.29
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.08
NA
NA
0.07
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.04
NA
0.02
NA
0.02
0.01
0.03
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
3.76
NA
NA
NA
5.65
10.88
4.98
4.88
NA
6.26
NA
5.50
5.77
8.59
NA
NA
10.88
NA
NA
NA
21-22
-------
Table 21-5. VOC Analytical Precision:
18 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Grand Junction, CO (GPCO)
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
trans- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Number of
Observations
18
18
18
18
0
0
12
0
0
0
18
3
0
6
18
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
12
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
6
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
9.78
12.17
8.05
9.69
NA
NA
11.71
NA
NA
NA
9.74
NA
NA
12.50
11.10
NA
NA
NA
30.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.90
14.86
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.36
NA
20.22
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.11
0.05
0.04
0.05
NA
NA
0.02
NA
NA
NA
0.02
0.14
NA
0.07
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.04
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.10
NA
0.02
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.41
10.67
6.71
7.80
NA
NA
7.98
NA
NA
NA
7.89
NA
NA
8.32
9.17
NA
NA
NA
21.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.04
10.51
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.66
NA
12.99
NA
NA
21-23
-------
Table 21-5. VOC Analytical Precision:
18 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Grand Junction, CO (GPCO) (Cont.)
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
18
0
0
8
6
0
18
18
0
18
0
18
17
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
8.95
NA
NA
6.25
21.43
NA
12.18
9.98
NA
10.74
NA
10.12
21.52
13.81
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.07
NA
NA
0.04
0.03
NA
0.02
0.04
NA
0.02
NA
0.02
0.02
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.41
NA
NA
4.16
13.55
NA
10.48
8.37
NA
8.95
NA
8.47
14.88
10.42
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-24
-------
Table 21-6. VOC Analytical Precision:
Eight Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL)
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
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Number of
Observations
8
8
8
8
1
0
0
2
0
4
8
0
0
6
8
0
0
0
8
0
1
0
8
0
0
2
8
8
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
18.69
8.50
6.52
3.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.80
8.97
NA
NA
5.39
7.03
NA
NA
NA
10.02
NA
NA
NA
49.66
NA
NA
NA
10.61
9.00
NA
NA
NA
3.27
NA
NA
NA
6.73
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.27
0.05
0.06
0.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.96
0.09
NA
NA
0.05
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.21
NA
NA
NA
0.65
NA
NA
NA
0.03
0.03
NA
NA
NA
0.25
NA
NA
NA
0.07
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
13.47
6.29
4.70
2.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.69
6.52
NA
NA
3.80
4.79
NA
NA
NA
7.39
NA
NA
NA
20.96
NA
NA
NA
7.55
6.49
NA
NA
NA
2.35
NA
NA
NA
5.10
NA
NA
21-25
-------
Table 21-6. VOC Analytical Precision:
Eight Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL) (Cont.)
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
w-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
8
4
0
2
5
0
8
8
2
4
0
8
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
7.19
4.29
NA
NA
10.00
NA
15.58
16.59
NA
20.00
NA
16.16
2.78
17.06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.09
0.04
NA
0.13
0.02
NA
0.03
0.06
NA
0.03
NA
0.03
0.003
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
4.97
2.93
NA
NA
6.43
NA
10.10
10.50
NA
12.86
NA
10.67
1.89
10.88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-26
-------
Table 21-7. VOC Analytical Precision:
Four Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in Phoenix, AZ (PSAZ)
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
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Number of
Observations
4
4
4
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
4
2
0
4
4
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
3
0
0
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
3.75
1.63
3.54
6.34
NA
NA
5.00
NA
NA
8.16
4.74
2.35
NA
10.93
15.00
NA
NA
NA
7.91
NA
NA
NA
20.00
NA
NA
1.72
1.80
14.09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.09
0.02
0.02
0.04
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
0.18
0.02
0.04
NA
0.04
0.02
NA
NA
NA
0.14
NA
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
2.70
1.16
2.57
4.63
NA
NA
3.72
NA
NA
6.02
3.30
1.68
NA
8.41
11.58
NA
NA
NA
5.82
NA
NA
NA
15.71
NA
NA
1.20
1.27
10.44
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-27
-------
Table 21-7. VOC Analytical Precision:
Four Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in Phoenix, AZ (PSAZ) (Cont.)
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
yO-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
4
0
0
3
4
0
4
4
0
4
0
4
4
4
0
0
3
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
8.79
NA
NA
NA
16.67
NA
4.00
7.70
NA
6.25
NA
3.70
NA
7.05
NA
NA
14.29
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.14
NA
NA
0.04
0.02
NA
0.01
0.05
NA
0.01
NA
0.01
NA
0.02
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
6.53
NA
NA
NA
13.00
NA
2.95
5.71
NA
4.16
NA
2.67
NA
5.18
NA
NA
10.88
NA
NA
NA
21-28
-------
Table 21-8. VOC Analytical Precision:
24 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (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
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Number of
Observations
24
24
24
23
0
0
15
0
0
12
24
11
0
9
20
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
19.49
9.99
11.24
5.64
NA
NA
23.37
NA
NA
13.50
17.67
8.14
NA
10.27
19.65
NA
NA
NA
13.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.22
0.09
0.07
0.08
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
0.08
0.05
0.03
NA
0.04
0.02
NA
NA
NA
0.07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
12.61
7.24
8.92
4.13
NA
NA
14.56
NA
NA
8.65
11.23
5.90
NA
7.17
14.16
NA
NA
NA
8.41
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-29
-------
Table 21-8. VOC Analytical Precision:
24 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT) (Cont.)
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
24
0
0
19
4
0
24
24
0
23
0
24
16
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
6.66
NA
NA
11.98
6.25
NA
8.61
7.06
NA
13.34
NA
7.05
16.88
9.51
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.08
NA
NA
0.02
0.01
NA
0.01
0.04
NA
0.01
NA
0.02
0.01
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
4.61
NA
NA
7.53
4.71
NA
5.83
4.80
NA
8.86
NA
4.94
10.39
6.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-30
-------
Table 21-9. VOC Analytical Precision:
Four Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO)
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
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Number of
Observations
4
4
4
4
0
0
2
0
0
4
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
3.07
1.94
NA
9.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
73.66
7.14
NA
NA
8.61
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.06
22.22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.06
0.01
NA
0.05
NA
NA
0.07
NA
NA
0.25
0.02
NA
NA
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.04
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
2.12
1.37
NA
7.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
34.41
5.29
NA
NA
5.77
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.98
17.68
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-31
-------
Table 21-9. VOC Analytical Precision:
Four Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO) (Cont.)
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
4
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
4
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
5.26
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.09
9.22
NA
NA
NA
5.00
NA
22.22
NA
NA
11.11
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.03
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
0.02
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
3.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.44
6.85
NA
NA
NA
3.72
NA
17.68
NA
NA
8.32
NA
NA
NA
21-32
-------
Table 21-10. VOC 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
Bromochloromethane
Average
6.85
6.24
4.91
5.87
NA
NA
10.38
28.28
NA
9.26
6.27
6.12
NA
8.44
7.45
NA
NA
9.94
8.40
NA
NA
NA
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
12.61
7.24
8.92
4.13
NA
NA
14.56
NA
NA
8.65
11.23
5.90
NA
7.17
14.16
NA
NA
NA
8.41
NA
NA
NA
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
5.96
6.48
3.54
7.15
NA
NA
14.56
NA
12.86
1.86
9.30
7.44
NA
9.35
5.96
NA
NA
4.29
7.91
NA
NA
NA
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
10.68
15.45
10.87
13.38
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.38
11.02
NA
NA
3.33
3.45
NA
NA
4.60
7.40
NA
NA
NA
Q
VI ^
£fi
"83
% ^
U^
5.64
6.89
13.56
12.10
NA
NA
NA
28.28
NA
10.21
14.17
5.66
NA
12.69
11.05
NA
NA
5.36
8.81
NA
NA
NA
Detroit, MI
(DEMI)
6.96
6.41
5.68
5.50
NA
NA
6.93
NA
NA
14.26
5.36
NA
NA
6.18
9.04
NA
10.88
20.20
7.32
NA
NA
NA
Dickson, TN
(DITN)
4.38
8.29
6.76
6.96
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.44
NA
NA
16.97
12.57
NA
NA
NA
12.94
NA
NA
NA
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
5.47
5.37
3.83
4.44
NA
NA
7.23
NA
NA
5.60
4.34
7.07
NA
4.76
4.68
NA
NA
4.34
4.57
NA
NA
NA
Grand Junction,
CO (GPCO)
7.41
10.67
6.71
7.80
NA
NA
7.98
NA
NA
NA
7.89
NA
NA
8.32
9.17
NA
NA
NA
21.17
NA
NA
NA
Grenada, MS
(GRMS)
5.58
10.91
4.02
5.13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.56
4.05
8.95
NA
21.61
7.61
NA
NA
NA
10.16
NA
NA
NA
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
6.81
7.09
3.20
2.36
NA
NA
15.54
NA
NA
3.70
4.53
NA
NA
3.66
5.51
NA
NA
NA
4.23
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table 21-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Compound
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
trans - 1,3 -
Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Average
8.70
NA
NA
3.83
5.58
7.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.79
9.27
NA
7.26
8.46
NA
5.49
NA
NA
8.86
7.77
10.88
6.87
6.30
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.70
8.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.61
NA
NA
7.53
4.71
NA
5.83
4.80
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.55
8.03
14.14
NA
NA
NA
13.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.97
NA
NA
9.73
4.32
NA
3.41
4.29
1-9
Z
£$
-------
Table 21-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
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
9.85
NA
7.20
10.36
10.43
NA
NA
8.48
NA
NA
NA
8.45
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
NA
8.86
NA
4.94
10.39
6.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.97
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
NA
9.71
NA
5.01
5.33
5.04
NA
NA
3.77
NA
NA
NA
7.77
1-9
Z
£$
-------
Table 21-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
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
Average
6.85
6.24
4.91
5.87
NA
NA
10.38
28.28
NA
9.26
6.27
6.12
NA
8.44
7.45
NA
NA
9.94
8.40
NA
NA
NA
8.70
NA
Jackson, MS
(JAMS)
8.57
3.05
2.54
1.99
NA
NA
3.16
NA
NA
4.39
1.95
NA
NA
4.67
14.06
5.13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.09
4.31
NA
Z
H
-*^
•_
o
o. >^
X
-------
Table 21-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
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
Average
NA
3.83
5.58
7.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.79
9.27
NA
7.26
8.46
NA
5.49
NA
NA
8.86
7.77
10.88
6.87
6.30
NA
Jackson, MS
(JAMS)
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.86
1.82
NA
NA
11.11
6.29
NA
2.48
NA
8.41
6.11
3.85
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Z
H
-*^
•_
o
o. ^
X
-------
Table 21-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
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
9.85
NA
7.20
10.36
10.43
NA
NA
8.48
NA
NA
NA
8.45
it
NA
NA
NA
3.86
2.11
NA
NA
2.18
8.72
NA
NA
4.95
Z
H
o
~ Z
ll
15.71
NA
7.23
7.86
1.54
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.22
-J
HH
O
o
M ^
f s
Z £•
12.86
NA
10.67
1.89
10.88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.48
Nashville, TN
(EATN)
14.90
NA
12.69
20.40
12.40
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.80
Nashville, TN
(LDTN)
3.53
NA
3.63
6.43
5.10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.42
Nashville, TN
(LOTN)
5.29
NA
5.50
3.63
9.28
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.14
HH
X ^
'•3 «<
14.28
NA
7.07
11.79
9.82
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.05
New Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
13.54
NA
5.95
3.21
6.58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.36
£
"3 ^
7.33
NA
3.65
5.03
2.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.86
SI R
IcS
'3 ^
4.16
NA
2.67
NA
5.18
NA
NA
10.88
NA
NA
NA
5.86
oo
-------
Table 21-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
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
Average
6.85
6.24
4.91
5.87
NA
NA
10.38
28.28
NA
9.26
6.27
6.12
NA
8.44
7.45
NA
NA
9.94
8.40
NA
NA
NA
8.70
NA
NA
N"
"1
M i
'3 <^
%%
££
13.55
3.37
2.79
3.56
NA
NA
8.08
NA
NA
9.11
3.13
NA
NA
10.46
3.17
NA
NA
5.83
6.56
NA
NA
NA
2.72
NA
NA
0
§
Cv
GA
'§2
H-l §
ti£
2.12
1.37
NA
7.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
34.41
5.29
NA
NA
5.77
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Q
VI
**
X
"«
H&
i£
££
5.32
8.53
4.10
6.35
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.02
5.64
NA
NA
10.88
7.86
NA
NA
3.93
10.16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Q
Z
«T
^
«
JQ
•!§
££
4.12
5.62
2.65
2.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.10
2.89
NA
NA
NA
9.44
NA
NA
NA
3.51
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
vi
§
o ^
•Is
&p
nb
8.43
7.68
3.98
18.23
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.22
8.69
NA
NA
8.08
3.49
NA
NA
NA
12.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
VO
-------
Table 21-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Compound
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
o - Xylene
Average
3.83
5.58
7.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.79
9.27
NA
7.26
8.46
NA
5.49
NA
NA
8.86
7.77
10.88
6.87
6.30
NA
9.85
NA
7.20
N"
"1
M i
'3 <^
%%
££
NA
2.15
7.97
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.27
NA
NA
4.65
NA
NA
7.54
4.65
NA
3.76
4.02
NA
7.58
NA
3.26
0
§
Cv
GA
'§2
H-l §
ti£
NA
5.98
17.68
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.44
6.85
NA
NA
NA
3.72
Q
VI
**
X
~&
H&
i£
££
NA
7.09
5.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.63
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.43
4.66
NA
12.84
NA
7.88
Q
Z
«T
^
«
JQ
•!§
££
NA
4.06
5.55
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.48
9.94
NA
10.88
NA
15.11
vi
§
o ^
•Is
&p
nb
NA
3.90
5.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.59
NA
NA
16.53
NA
NA
8.73
7.92
NA
12.26
NA
8.17
-------
Table 21-10. VOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Compound
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
10.36
10.43
NA
NA
8.48
NA
NA
NA
8.45
N"
M~ i
'3 <^
O -fcj
4.03
7.60
NA
NA
14.89
NA
NA
NA
5.87
0
Cv
3 O
® ^H
NA
17.68
NA
NA
8.32
NA
NA
NA
9.04
Q
VI
**
X
^ s
o to
* •• ^J}
^f^ ^^^
15.71
10.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.43
Q
Z
.£
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.03
0&
|p
22.44
24.26
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.38
to
-------
Table 21-11. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
100 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-l -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
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Number of
Observations
96
100
98
99
100
0
100
93
3
99
64
55
4
83
52
14
100
79
58
54
24
33
19
4
71
66
97
93
0
43
0
100
0
0
99
56
99
41
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
7.38
5.29
5.76
4.69
4.50
NA
5.71
7.72
0.80
10.14
22.53
14.57
0.97
5.37
21.27
1.66
9.14
15.92
26.51
29.15
11.24
12.01
3.76
0.87
15.82
10.17
7.02
14.47
NA
17.00
NA
6.11
NA
NA
7.47
15.99
4.31
12.64
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Anlyses
(ppbC)
0.10
0.14
0.38
0.05
0.50
NA
0.15
0.09
0.05
0.37
0.06
0.09
0.004
0.26
0.18
0.66
0.22
0.09
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.16
0.15
0.01
0.07
0.13
0.13
0.27
NA
0.18
NA
0.08
NA
NA
0.06
0.13
0.08
0.12
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
6.53
4.21
4.57
3.41
3.87
NA
4.75
5.63
0.56
5.63
14.98
9.66
0.71
3.66
9.40
1.21
6.30
11.01
16.06
15.93
7.41
9.07
2.66
0.60
10.91
7.60
5.04
10.10
NA
11.66
NA
4.76
NA
NA
5.24
11.61
3.14
10.20
21-42
-------
Table 21-11. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
100 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples (Cont.)
Compound
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
m,p-Xy\ene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
«-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
«-Propylbenzene
w-Ethyltoluene
/>-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
6-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
«-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
w-Diethylbenzene
/>-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
«-Undecane
1-Dodecene
«-Dodecane
Number of
Observations
57
52
98
0
84
86
89
4
38
100
23
28
0
75
95
100
38
98
5
74
20
66
63
95
63
80
82
31
86
0
70
68
45
53
0
41
5
17
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
25.13
13.80
14.76
NA
5.64
9.48
12.44
1.71
7.43
5.37
1.53
5.35
NA
11.23
9.31
7.16
5.28
10.14
4.25
11.68
15.12
37.22
14.43
8.24
11.75
17.66
15.19
5.03
10.33
NA
13.77
25.60
11.96
15.98
NA
11.15
2.46
17.91
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Anlyses
(ppbC)
0.23
0.37
0.16
NA
0.09
0.12
0.08
0.03
0.06
0.20
0.15
0.15
NA
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.20
0.08
0.23
0.07
0.16
0.33
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.12
0.08
0.36
0.14
NA
0.21
0.16
0.09
0.17
NA
0.89
0.07
1.81
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
12.52
10.08
11.52
NA
4.03
7.29
9.17
1.29
5.88
4.31
1.12
3.60
NA
7.95
6.52
5.35
3.83
7.59
2.65
8.32
10.57
8.56
9.99
6.11
8.77
11.74
11.24
3.90
7.44
NA
10.48
15.90
8.80
12.44
NA
10.12
1.88
16.35
21-43
-------
Table 21-11. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
100 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples (Cont.)
Compound
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Number of
Observations
0
0
100
100
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
21.47
12.95
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Anlyses
(ppbC)
NA
NA
24.28
28.82
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
10.07
8.28
21-44
-------
Table 21-12. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
12 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL)
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-l -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
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Number of
Observations
8
12
10
12
12
0
12
10
0
12
3
2
0
6
2
0
12
12
3
4
0
5
7
0
7
8
12
12
0
3
0
12
0
0
12
8
12
4
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
12.02
8.11
11.01
6.69
7.49
NA
5.63
4.58
NA
6.17
24.11
0.00
NA
4.29
13.27
NA
24.28
7.83
3.77
34.47
NA
11.27
7.68
NA
5.82
3.82
12.34
14.41
NA
35.46
NA
6.56
NA
NA
9.51
14.18
7.55
9.18
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.10
0.09
1.08
0.06
0.43
NA
0.09
0.03
NA
0.16
0.07
0.16
NA
0.08
0.03
NA
0.41
0.11
0.16
0.06
NA
0.16
0.12
NA
0.09
0.09
0.15
0.11
NA
0.22
NA
0.11
NA
NA
0.07
0.08
0.12
0.04
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.85
5.96
7.52
4.94
5.42
NA
4.17
3.26
NA
4.55
15.21
0.00
NA
2.87
8.80
NA
12.51
5.57
2.72
18.88
NA
7.35
5.78
NA
4.25
2.72
8.48
9.93
NA
21.30
NA
4.66
NA
NA
6.38
9.68
5.42
6.70
21-45
-------
Table 21-12. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
12 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL) (Cont.)
Compound
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
ra,p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
«-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
«-Propylbenzene
ra-Ethyltoluene
/>-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
6-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
«-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
w-Diethylbenzene
/>-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
«-Undecane
1-Dodecene
«-Dodecane
Number of
Observations
8
8
12
0
12
9
12
0
8
12
2
3
0
8
12
12
7
12
4
10
2
9
8
12
8
10
9
6
12
0
9
8
8
7
0
8
0
3
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
35.99
18.70
12.74
NA
5.26
9.08
14.64
NA
5.01
4.89
2.35
0.79
NA
9.46
11.02
11.05
10.37
10.46
25.52
8.00
13.76
197.90
18.85
5.48
7.43
37.85
18.47
8.62
7.37
NA
9.69
35.90
25.58
7.16
NA
10.91
NA
19.49
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.18
0.18
0.09
NA
0.09
0.21
0.07
NA
0.04
0.25
0.01
0.16
NA
0.06
0.10
0.14
0.37
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.15
1.32
0.16
0.08
0.06
0.42
0.11
0.40
0.09
NA
0.39
0.24
0.15
0.09
NA
0.17
NA
0.50
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
16.33
12.03
8.15
NA
3.60
5.89
9.06
NA
3.69
3.59
1.68
0.56
NA
6.64
7.61
6.65
7.26
6.97
15.87
5.44
9.10
33.85
11.96
3.82
4.79
20.52
10.41
6.67
5.66
NA
6.48
19.91
16.00
5.27
NA
7.54
NA
12.56
21-46
-------
Table 21-12. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
12 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL) (Cont.)
Compound
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Number of
Observations
0
0
12
12
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
8.35
4.54
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
NA
NA
6.92
7.00
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
5.62
3.20
21-47
-------
Table 21-13. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
24 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT)
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-l -butene
n-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-l -butene
n-Hexane
fra«5-2-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Number of
Observations
24
24
24
24
24
0
24
24
3
24
24
24
4
24
20
11
24
24
24
24
15
16
8
0
22
24
24
24
0
13
0
24
2
1
24
24
24
20
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
11.53
4.27
7.02
2.86
2.14
NA
1.85
5.98
4.83
9.67
29.63
29.49
5.82
3.12
12.63
5.74
4.22
22.41
23.07
28.98
2.03
16.00
9.72
NA
7.84
6.30
5.15
9.65
NA
28.51
NA
4.56
NA
NA
6.23
13.60
2.51
8.96
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.29
0.30
0.60
0.06
0.55
NA
0.35
0.09
0.29
1.02
0.07
0.09
0.023
0.40
0.06
0.21
0.26
0.10
0.09
0.16
0.06
0.10
0.04
NA
0.09
0.10
0.15
0.26
NA
0.24
NA
0.14
0.31
NA
0.09
0.10
0.07
0.10
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
12.95
2.91
5.53
2.00
1.51
NA
1.32
4.15
3.33
6.52
16.44
16.77
4.27
2.28
8.29
4.24
2.88
14.31
13.60
16.80
1.44
10.58
6.42
NA
5.47
4.58
3.52
6.86
NA
19.56
NA
3.12
NA
NA
4.26
8.56
1.77
6.08
21-48
-------
Table 21-13. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
24 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT) (Cont.)
Compound
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
m,p-Xy\ene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
«-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
«-Propylbenzene
w-Ethyltoluene
/•-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
6-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
«-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
ra-Diethylbenzene
/>-Diethylbenzene
7-Undecene
«-Undecane
1-Dodecene
«-Dodecane
Number of
Observations
20
24
24
0
24
24
24
4
22
24
17
18
0
24
24
24
12
24
1
24
7
21
19
24
21
24
24
3
23
0
19
20
15
14
0
16
5
4
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
66.22
17.46
7.53
NA
5.50
4.79
10.07
10.24
8.23
2.11
6.85
13.18
NA
8.10
6.83
2.34
7.36
8.29
NA
8.29
23.54
8.21
22.13
7.48
12.38
6.89
17.34
NA
11.65
NA
16.48
11.09
13.00
24.54
NA
9.21
14.77
5.30
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.28
0.22
0.09
NA
0.11
0.09
0.12
0.17
0.12
0.21
0.09
0.13
NA
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.12
NA
0.06
0.38
0.07
0.12
0.06
0.09
0.04
0.10
0.43
0.22
NA
0.16
0.08
0.16
0.17
NA
0.09
0.44
0.56
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
25.55
11.30
5.00
NA
3.86
3.39
6.86
7.75
5.77
1.47
5.04
9.28
NA
5.61
4.65
1.64
5.31
5.77
NA
5.88
17.74
5.88
13.59
5.00
8.40
4.75
12.95
NA
8.80
NA
10.47
8.20
10.18
21.31
NA
6.94
11.28
3.65
21-49
-------
Table 21-13. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
24 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT) (Cont.)
Compound
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Number of
Observations
0
0
24
24
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
17.62
15.57
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
NA
NA
66.25
65.70
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
19.64
15.50
21-50
-------
Table 21-14. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
Four Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO)
Compound
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
Isobutane
Isobutene/1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
«-Butane
fra«s-2-Butene
cis-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
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Number of
Observations
4
4
4
4
4
0
4
4
0
4
4
3
0
4
1
0
4
0
3
1
4
0
1
0
4
4
4
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
2
4
3
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
0.93
4.47
0.82
2.82
2.39
NA
4.93
9.40
NA
1.01
12.71
8.81
NA
2.14
NA
NA
5.40
NA
87.67
NA
20.40
NA
NA
NA
39.26
2.84
3.98
17.79
NA
NA
NA
1.33
NA
NA
3.97
16.20
1.67
6.97
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.04
0.26
0.10
0.04
0.35
NA
0.12
0.17
NA
0.06
0.03
0.09
NA
0.09
NA
NA
0.13
NA
0.30
NA
0.11
NA
NA
NA
0.11
0.01
0.06
0.33
NA
NA
NA
0.02
NA
NA
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.17
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.66
3.08
0.58
2.02
1.66
NA
3.58
6.14
NA
0.71
9.94
6.51
NA
1.49
NA
NA
3.71
NA
43.10
NA
16.06
NA
NA
NA
22.74
1.96
2.89
13.78
NA
NA
NA
0.93
NA
NA
2.71
10.60
1.17
5.11
21-51
-------
Table 21-14. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
Four Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO) (Cont.)
Compound
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
w-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3 -Methylheptane
1-Octene
«-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
«-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
o-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
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
«-Undecane
1-Dodecene
n-Dodecane
Number of
Observations
0
3
4
0
4
4
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
4
4
0
4
0
4
0
0
4
4
2
2
4
0
3
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
25.83
38.10
NA
3.66
4.61
12.70
NA
NA
3.99
NA
NA
NA
17.32
7.28
2.96
NA
7.76
NA
16.79
NA
NA
5.98
5.77
6.64
12.78
6.61
NA
14.40
NA
5.43
9.90
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
NA
0.35
0.44
NA
0.05
0.03
0.04
NA
NA
0.16
NA
NA
NA
0.08
9.00
0.06
NA
0.05
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.02
NA
0.15
NA
0.02
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
20.97
33.33
NA
2.64
3.20
9.61
NA
NA
2.82
NA
NA
NA
11.27
4.92
2.11
NA
5.41
NA
11.98
NA
NA
4.07
3.95
4.54
9.66
4.85
NA
9.50
NA
3.95
6.55
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-52
-------
Table 21-14. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
Four Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO) (Cont.)
Compound
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Number of
Observations
0
0
4
4
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
0.73
2.24
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbC)
NA
NA
0.60
2.50
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
0.52
1.60
21-53
-------
Table 21-15. SNMOC 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
«-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 -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
Average
6.53
4.21
4.57
3.41
3.87
NA
4.75
5.63
3.33
5.63
14.98
77.59
4.27
4.39
11.28
3.64
6.30
13.21
16.06
19.12
77.77
13.61
5.32
3.60
10.91
7.60
5.04
10.10
NA
17.49
NA
4.76
NA
NA
5.24
11.61
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
12.95
2.91
5.53
2.00
1.51
NA
1.32
4.15
3.33
6.52
16.44
16.77
4.27
2.28
8.29
4.24
2.88
14.31
13.60
16.80
1.44
10.58
6.42
NA
5.47
4.58
3.52
6.86
NA
19.56
NA
3.12
NA
NA
4.26
8.56
Q
VI
£&
% 53
3 &
rN,
12.84
9.73
9.69
6.23
11.56
NA
13.92
10.26
NA
15.42
15.10
13.59
NA
11.41
6.02
3.04
13.19
11.88
8.17
23.44
2.84
12.11
3.76
NA
18.19
18.77
7.31
9.32
NA
7.60
NA
11.20
NA
NA
10.56
12.10
-J
HH
^
o
o
M ^
•* d
£3
z£
7.85
5.96
7.52
4.94
5.42
NA
4.17
3.26
NA
4.55
15.21
NA
NA
2.87
8.80
NA
12.51
5.57
2.72
18.88
NA
7.35
5.78
NA
4.25
2.72
8.48
9.93
NA
21.30
NA
4.66
NA
NA
6.38
9.68
Pascagoula, MS
(PGMS)
0.82
0.81
1.10
0.87
1.53
NA
1.91
3.96
NA
2.41
2.64
4.23
NA
NA
7.63
NA
2.09
13.73
2.61
2.35
24.10
NA
NA
NA
5.00
3.37
3.57
5.86
NA
NA
NA
1.72
NA
NA
3.38
2.25
0
§
-------
Table 21-15. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
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
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
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
Average
3.14
12.24
15.03
15.12
77.52
NA
4.03
7.29
9.17
7.75
8.83
4.31
3.36
7.20
NA
7.95
6.52
5.35
5.74
7.59
15.87
8.32
15.86
70.27
9.99
6.11
8.77
11.74
11.24
7.80
7.44
NA
10.48
15.90
13.20
14.93
NA
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
1.77
6.08
25.55
11.30
5.00
NA
3.86
3.39
6.86
7.75
5.77
1.47
5.04
9.28
NA
5.61
4.65
1.64
5.31
5.77
NA
5.88
17.74
5.88
13.59
5.00
8.40
4.75
12.95
NA
8.80
NA
10.47
8.20
10.18
21.31
NA
Q
VI
£&
% 53
3 ^
rN,
4.88
8.60
10.45
16.18
9.00
NA
3.96
13.79
6.04
NA
NA
13.41
NA
11.77
NA
6.09
11.13
13.61
5.33
14.48
NA
12.58
21.37
4.53
13.37
11.56
13.56
14.18
13.54
5.46
7.85
NA
17.29
25.22
18.57
20.65
NA
-J
HH
^
o
o
« ^
43 H-l
~ —
£ PQ
Z*
5.42
6.70
16.33
12.03
8.15
NA
3.60
5.89
9.06
NA
3.69
3.59
1.68
0.56
NA
6.64
7.61
6.65
7.26
6.97
15.87
5.44
9.10
33.85
11.96
3.82
4.79
20.52
10.41
6.67
5.66
NA
6.48
19.91
16.00
5.27
NA
Pascagoula, MS
(PGMS)
1.39
NA
11.03
NA
5.42
NA
3.17
1.77
8.47
NA
1.12
1.72
NA
NA
NA
2.54
1.37
1.60
NA
1.68
NA
1.48
NA
2.23
3.32
1.97
3.84
3.75
5.44
11.27
2.05
NA
11.38
9.53
NA
9.06
NA
0
§
Cv
GA
'if
j §
*§
1.17
5.11
NA
20.97
33.33
NA
2.64
3.20
9.61
NA
NA
2.82
NA
NA
NA
11.27
4.92
2.11
NA
5.41
NA
11.98
NA
NA
4.07
3.95
4.54
9.66
4.85
NA
9.50
NA
3.95
6.55
NA
NA
NA
Q
VI
**
X
"sS
U
li
4.21
34.69
11.78
NA
8.26
NA
6.93
15.70
14.94
NA
24.72
2.84
NA
NA
NA
15.56
9.44
6.47
5.07
11.24
NA
12.59
15.23
4.87
13.65
10.32
17.51
17.59
20.25
NA
10.82
NA
13.33
25.99
8.03
18.38
NA
21-55
-------
Table 21-15. SNMOC Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Compound
«-Undecane
1-Dodecene
«-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Average
Average
72.75
NA
24.52
NA
NA
10.07
8.28
9.09
H
Cs
"2
5P
^
oa S
6.94
11.28
3.65
NA
NA
19.64
15.50
8.23
Q
VI
£ VI
U ^
34.14
NA
52.19
NA
NA
28.01
23.50
14.18
-J
HH
4^
O
O
pa ^
•s d
z £•
7.54
NA
12.56
NA
NA
5.62
3.20
5.72
§
es
S ^^
§J^
CJ ^J
b fe
3.12
NA
29.69
NA
NA
1.78
2.94
4.84
0
S
W5
g O
J§
S ££
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.52
1.60
7.31
Q
^O
T3
to gs
^ ^^
o to
S 5S
9.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.86
2.95
12.39
21-56
-------
Table 21-16. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
498 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
498
498
498
446
495
498
480
210
451
448
490
91
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
1.52
1.23
1.31
5.25
5.22
3.89
5.35
8.65
5.83
7.62
5.32
7.63
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.068
0.019
0.018
0.009
0.003
0.005
0.003
0.005
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.002
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
1.07
0.86
0.92
3.40
3.59
2.72
3.72
5.78
4.24
5.20
3.70
5.26
21-57
-------
Table 21-17. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
158 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
158
158
158
154
157
158
157
91
156
152
156
44
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
1.64
1.37
1.81
4.91
4.59
3.39
5.43
5.67
3.91
6.46
5.01
4.66
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.154
0.025
0.032
0.008
0.003
0.006
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.001
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
1.18
0.96
1.27
3.62
3.18
2.38
3.85
4.08
2.85
4.44
3.45
3.06
21-58
-------
Table 21-18. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
340 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
340
340
340
292
338
340
323
119
295
296
334
47
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
1.46
1.17
1.07
5.40
5.52
4.12
5.32
10.06
6.74
8.17
5.47
9.04
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.027
0.017
0.011
0.009
0.003
0.004
0.002
0.006
0.003
0.004
0.002
0.002
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
1.02
0.82
0.76
3.30
3.79
2.88
3.65
6.59
4.89
5.56
3.82
6.30
21-59
-------
Table 21-19. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
16 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in Tampa, FL (SYFL)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
5
16
16
16
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
2.43
3.93
1.69
3.20
6.23
5.17
3.42
2.38
5.04
8.48
6.67
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.023
0.029
0.007
0.002
0.005
0.007
0.001
0.010
0.002
0.003
0.002
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
1.75
2.73
1.20
2.31
4.23
3.74
2.51
1.64
3.56
5.89
4.54
NA
21-60
-------
Table 21-20. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
100 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
100
100
100
100
99
100
100
56
100
100
100
27
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
0.82
0.90
1.24
4.56
4.08
3.41
4.15
13.16
3.20
7.59
5.05
13.11
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses (ppbv)
0.346
0.117
0.093
0.025
0.008
0.034
0.003
0.021
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.002
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.58
0.63
0.87
3.39
2.83
2.39
2.94
9.01
2.25
5.31
3.62
9.41
21-61
-------
Table 21-21. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
20 Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in Grand Junction, CO (GPCO)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
20
20
20
15
20
20
20
5
15
20
20
3
Average RPD for
Replicate
Analyses (%)
0.92
0.78
0.52
4.62
3.89
4.94
4.30
6.97
5.53
4.85
6.38
9.09
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.016
0.012
0.009
0.013
0.002
0.005
0.002
0.002
0.005
0.001
0.002
0.008
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.65
0.55
0.37
3.36
2.71
3.42
2.93
5.11
3.77
3.44
4.40
6.73
21-62
-------
Table 21-22. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
24 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
16
24
24
24
8
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
1.37
0.66
0.76
2.94
4.94
4.51
5.12
29.56
3.49
10.84
3.19
32.94
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.038
0.010
0.012
0.004
0.002
0.008
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.005
0.003
0.003
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.97
0.46
0.54
2.08
3.43
3.31
3.49
14.29
2.49
8.60
2.31
23.16
21-63
-------
Table 21-23. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
Six Replicate Analyses for Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
3
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses (%)
0.63
0.00
0.40
0.75
5.53
1.52
11.11
36.67
21.41
8.07
1.29
25.00
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.017
0.000
0.007
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.005
0.006
0.012
0.004
0.001
0.003
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.44
0.00
0.29
0.53
3.85
1.07
7.22
21.89
18.06
6.33
0.92
15.71
21-64
-------
Table 21-24. Carbonyl 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 -Dimethy Ibenzaldehy de
Average
Average
1.10
0.88
0.92
3.59
3.81
2.69
3.76
8.31
4.53
5.55
4.04
12.27
4.29
St. Petersburg, FL
(AZFL)
1.41
1.40
1.52
4.53
1.48
3.51
3.37
12.64
3.33
3.39
4.04
NA
3.69
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
0.97
0.46
0.54
2.08
3.43
3.31
3.49
14.29
2.49
8.60
2.31
23.16
5.43
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
0.42
0.18
0.27
NA
4.71
2.54
3.38
NA
5.20
8.18
3.21
NA
172
Candor, NC
(CANC)
1.28
1.17
1.24
2.08
2.26
2.25
2.77
5.66
NA
2.05
NA
NA
2.37
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
0.80
0.60
0.58
2.66
3.27
3.33
2.25
15.68
6.09
8.15
4.06
10.10
4.80
VI
U
Q
tT
U
1.00
0.73
0.63
9.69
5.45
4.40
3.49
5.42
4.24
2.27
6.58
NA
199
Detroit, MI
(DEMI)
0.58
0.63
0.87
3.39
2.83
2.39
2.94
9.01
2.25
5.31
3.62
9.41
3.60
Dickson, TN
(DITN)
0.97
0.98
2.49
3.45
7.34
2.27
1.80
NA
2.94
8.49
7.80
NA
3.85
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
0.56
0.15
0.62
5.18
3.45
1.37
4.07
12.76
3.82
7.33
5.21
17.36
5.16
•o
« ^
to to
0.80
0.92
0.84
3.44
2.99
3.16
6.22
2.21
4.19
4.01
4.97
NA
107
a\
-------
Table 21-24. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2, 5 -Dimethy Ibenzaldehy de
Average
Average
1.10
0.88
0.92
3.59
3.81
2.69
3.76
8.31
4.53
5.55
4.04
12.27
4.29
Grand Junction,
CO (GPCO)
0.65
0.55
0.37
3.36
2.71
3.42
2.93
5.11
3.77
3.44
4.40
6.73
172
VI
§
•^^
0 &
o.S
**" «
"3 P^
3 P.
1.56
0.71
1.02
1.65
7.38
2.67
4.97
NA
NA
5.44
3.62
NA
122
Grenada, MS
(GRMS)
0.55
0.34
0.50
2.48
3.22
1.10
3.01
7.02
5.68
5.71
2.26
10.11
3.50
Jackson, MS
(JAMS)
0.95
0.77
0.88
3.00
2.84
5.07
1.82
NA
9.56
2.87
4.47
NA
122
Kingsport, TN
(KITN)
0.54
0.02
0.92
2.41
3.60
2.60
4.60
12.55
1.75
4.76
3.86
11.79
4.12
Lou don, TN
(LDTN)
2.79
0.74
0.48
1.71
4.82
0.32
7.87
1.82
3.24
3.20
6.11
3.93
3.08
Nahsville, TN
(EATN)
1.49
2.01
1.76
2.20
3.79
2.43
2.92
5.06
1.16
1.45
2.82
2.44
2.46
Nahsville, TN
(LOTN)
1.86
2.05
.74
.44
.85
.59
.64
2.62
1.09
4.15
1.62
NA
7.97
Madison, WI
(MAWI)
NA
0.38
0.58
13.86
2.11
0.73
7.07
NA
7.07
10.55
NA
NA
5 .30
Orlando, FL
(ORFL)
2.31
1.46
0.94
3.96
4.17
3.04
1.49
11.71
2.31
7.92
5.82
24.50
5.80
New Brunswick, NJ
(NBNJ)
0.80
0.47
0.75
3.25
3.50
1.67
5.51
4.50
2.53
5.61
3.03
11.99
3.63
Oi
Oi
-------
Table 21-24. Carbonyl Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
1.10
0.88
0.92
3.59
3.81
2.69
3.76
8.31
4.53
5.55
4.04
12.27
4.29
if
o rh
wir
«s fe,
u ^~*
% &
£s
1.14
0.73
0.54
1.70
3.37
2.30
3.48
6.22
4.88
9.80
0.91
NA
179
Cv
^ ^
*%
Q. Z
JS aj Pi
sis
4» « ^
»» .3 r •>
0> C U
05 H Z
1.14
0.61
1.36
2.02
NA
6.82
3.07
NA
6.15
NA
5.24
NA
3.30
if
w-Si
14
J «
S^
0.44
NA
0.29
0.53
3.85
1.07
7.22
21.89
18.06
6.33
0.92
15.71
6.94
-J
u.
i^
n
1.05
1.49
1.20
3.34
2.84
2.87
2.05
NA
4.11
2.68
3.74
NA
2.54
-J
u.
8S~ ^T"
Q. "
c ^
ll
1.75
2.73
1.20
2.31
4.23
3.74
2.51
1.64
3.56
5.89
4.54
NA
170
Q
VI
(/3
"es
*=!
o to
^^
0.73
0.46
0.74
7.54
7.53
2.73
5.57
NA
3.71
6.66
5.83
NA
4.15
vi
§
-sf
0> f,
II
1.48
1.39
0.94
2.05
1.55
3.35
2.54
4.16
5.47
1.31
2.69
NA
2.45
a\
-------
Table 21-25. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
218 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 tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloromethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
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
215
215
216
217
0
0
73
0
0
130
216
16
0
115
173
0
0
79
169
0
0
0
31
0
0
8
218
200
0
0
0
0
4
7
0
39
10
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
14.82
23.22
6.31
10.22
NA
NA
10.00
NA
NA
47.47
22.54
2.18
NA
23.16
9.67
NA
NA
3.81
46.89
NA
NA
NA
461.04
NA
NA
4.60
12.38
29.26
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.57
5.22
NA
25.04
0.67
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.44
0.13
0.06
0.08
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
3.26
0.12
0.09
NA
0.12
0.01
NA
NA
0.03
0.44
NA
NA
NA
0.80
NA
NA
0.04
0.05
0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.21
NA
0.13
0.001
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
11.87
14.42
4.53
7.21
NA
NA
7.24
NA
NA
17.90
12.96
1.67
NA
17.83
6.82
NA
NA
3.51
27.26
NA
NA
NA
7.53
NA
NA
4.06
9.03
11.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.44
5.98
NA
7.22
0.49
NA
21-68
-------
Table 21-25. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
218 Duplicate and Collocated Samples (Cont.)
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethy Ibenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/7-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
218
0
0
75
79
0
214
218
0
158
0
216
136
179
0
0
14
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
46.58
NA
NA
51.99
2.79
NA
40.83
42.46
NA
29.03
NA
37.42
10.63
20.45
NA
NA
1.17
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.34
NA
NA
0.60
0.03
NA
0.04
0.12
NA
0.03
NA
0.04
0.02
0.06
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
15.83
NA
NA
7.13
2.38
NA
13.72
14.75
NA
13.37
NA
13.39
9.55
14.27
NA
NA
0.88
NA
NA
NA
21-69
-------
Table 21-26. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 70 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-Dichloromethane
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
Number of
Observations
67
67
69
69
0
0
28
0
0
32
69
3
0
38
46
0
0
10
52
0
0
0
20
0
0
6
70
67
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
8
0
70
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
25.50
38.82
7.57
12.63
NA
NA
16.67
NA
NA
84.53
37.79
0.91
NA
27.76
12.23
NA
NA
2.49
53.69
NA
NA
NA
1150.94
NA
NA
11.49
19.03
55.50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
58.48
0.83
NA
96.33
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.82
0.19
0.09
0.13
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
2.38
0.22
0.17
NA
0.19
0.02
NA
NA
0.03
0.70
NA
NA
NA
1.98
NA
NA
0.08
0.07
0.08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.25
0.001
NA
0.55
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
18.48
20.54
5.05
7.54
NA
NA
9.67
NA
NA
19.86
18.24
0.67
NA
21.59
8.42
NA
NA
1.68
28.81
NA
NA
NA
17.55
NA
NA
10.15
11.94
15.39
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.03
0.61
NA
23.40
21-70
-------
Table 21-26. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 70 Collocated Samples (Cont.)
Compound
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
w-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
0
15
46
0
70
70
0
44
0
70
47
65
0
0
4
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
124.22
2.96
NA
86.84
88.01
NA
42.21
NA
75.93
13.50
28.33
NA
NA
1.11
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
NA
NA
1.46
0.05
NA
0.07
0.18
NA
0.04
NA
0.06
0.03
0.07
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
14.01
2.08
NA
21.09
21.49
NA
12.47
NA
19.03
12.05
19.36
NA
NA
0.83
NA
NA
NA
21-71
-------
Table 21-27. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 148 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
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Number of
Observations
148
148
147
148
0
0
45
0
0
98
147
13
0
77
127
0
0
69
117
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
148
133
0
0
0
0
3
7
0
16
2
0
148
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
7.71
12.83
5.48
8.62
NA
NA
5.55
NA
NA
22.76
12.38
3.02
NA
20.10
7.96
NA
NA
4.69
42.36
NA
NA
NA
1.11
NA
NA
NA
7.95
11.77
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.95
8.69
NA
2.75
0.56
NA
13.42
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.19
0.09
0.04
0.05
NA
NA
0.05
NA
NA
3.85
0.05
0.03
NA
0.07
0.01
NA
NA
0.04
0.27
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.04
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.35
NA
0.05
0.001
NA
0.19
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.46
10.33
4.19
6.99
NA
NA
5.61
NA
NA
16.58
9.43
2.34
NA
15.32
5.76
NA
NA
4.73
26.24
NA
NA
NA
0.86
NA
NA
NA
7.10
8.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.73
9.97
NA
2.02
0.41
NA
10.79
21-72
-------
Table 21-27. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 148 Duplicate Samples (Cont.)
Compound
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
0
60
33
0
144
148
0
114
0
146
89
114
0
0
10
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
3.84
2.69
NA
10.16
12.10
NA
20.24
NA
11.75
8.72
15.20
NA
NA
1.20
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
NA
NA
0.02
0.01
NA
0.02
0.07
NA
0.02
NA
0.03
0.01
0.04
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
2.54
2.57
NA
8.81
10.25
NA
13.98
NA
9.63
7.88
10.87
NA
NA
0.91
NA
NA
NA
21-73
-------
Table 21-28. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
30 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
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
28
28
30
30
0
0
8
0
0
19
29
0
0
14
20
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
30
28
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
8
4
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
6.15
9.50
7.37
7.07
NA
NA
17.17
NA
NA
38.57
10.06
NA
NA
12.69
6.18
NA
NA
NA
24.31
NA
NA
NA
20.00
NA
NA
NA
9.15
13.80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.87
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.05
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
1.20
0.06
NA
NA
0.04
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.15
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.04
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.10
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
4.13
6.57
4.89
5.06
NA
NA
11.45
NA
NA
42.25
6.05
NA
NA
9.69
4.34
NA
NA
NA
17.18
NA
NA
NA
15.71
NA
NA
NA
6.83
9.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.20
NA
NA
21-74
-------
Table 21-28. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
30 Collocated Samples in Detroit, MI (DEMI) (Cont.)
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
30
0
0
3
30
0
30
30
0
14
0
30
20
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
10.44
NA
NA
NA
14.95
NA
4.98
6.27
NA
49.51
NA
12.18
8.09
9.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.05
NA
NA
0.04
0.14
NA
0.005
0.02
NA
0.04
NA
0.01
0.02
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
5.91
NA
NA
NA
10.98
NA
3.67
4.43
NA
22.35
NA
7.87
5.95
6.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-75
-------
Table 21-29. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
10 Duplicate Samples in Grand Junction, CO (GPCO)
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
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Number of
Observations
10
10
10
10
0
0
6
0
0
0
10
0
0
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
7
0
0
0
0
4
3
10
0
0
5
3
0
10
0
10
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
11.98
14.83
12.93
13.59
NA
NA
19.52
NA
NA
NA
10.61
NA
NA
14.61
NA
90.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.37
18.70
NA
NA
NA
NA
34.44
23.08
12.31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.03
NA
25.25
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.11
0.06
0.05
0.06
NA
NA
0.02
NA
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
0.01
NA
0.42
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.03
0.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.07
0.11
0.07
NA
NA
0.02
0.03
NA
0.01
NA
0.07
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.84
9.44
7.47
8.20
NA
NA
14.21
NA
NA
NA
6.50
NA
NA
9.23
NA
34.51
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.74
14.75
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.05
18.45
7.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.96
NA
21.54
21-76
-------
Table 21-29. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
10 Duplicate Samples in Grand Junction, CO (GPCO) (Cont.)
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
10
0
0
10
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
15.08
10.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.27
NA
NA
10.35
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.01
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.08
0.04
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
10.85
6.76
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.29
NA
NA
6.15
NA
NA
NA
21-77
-------
Table 21-30. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Four Collocate Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL)
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
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Number of
Observations
4
4
4
4
1
0
0
1
0
2
4
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
4
4
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
98.11
86.15
17.16
44.36
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00
229.86
NA
NA
90.00
20.83
NA
NA
NA
140.51
NA
NA
NA
11461.13
NA
NA
NA
62.85
452.98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate
Analyses (ppbv)
6.14
0.43
0.16
0.35
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.52
1.76
NA
NA
1.40
0.03
NA
NA
NA
1.94
NA
NA
NA
19.72
NA
NA
NA
0.14
0.69
NA
NA
NA
6.30
NA
NA
NA
0.77
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
87.11
48.77
10.84
22.26
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00
99.81
NA
NA
115.71
12.19
NA
NA
NA
79.05
NA
NA
NA
139.67
NA
NA
NA
35.78
82.54
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-78
-------
Table 21-30. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Four Collocate Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL) (Cont.)
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 -Trimethy Ibenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethy Ibenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
4
2
0
0
3
0
4
4
1
1
0
4
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
400.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
600.28
695.91
NA
NA
NA
608.89
66.67
67.86
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate
Analyses (ppbv)
1.40
1.23
NA
NA
0.03
NA
0.43
1.27
NA
NA
NA
0.43
0.14
0.31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
90.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
107.69
111.99
NA
NA
NA
105.15
70.71
72.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-79
-------
Table 21-31. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Four Collocate Samples in Phoenix, AZ (PSAZ)
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
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Number of
Observations
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
1
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
0.40
13.73
2.82
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.52
6.06
NA
NA
8.11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
69.47
1.82
9.09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.01
0.14
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.41
0.02
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.66
0.01
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.28
10.42
2.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.58
4.42
NA
NA
5.98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
75.27
1.27
6.73
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-80
-------
Table 21-31. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Four Collocate Samples in Phoenix, AZ (PSAZ) (Cont.)
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
1.25
NA
NA
16.67
NA
NA
12.00
2.78
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.29
10.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.02
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
0.03
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
0.89
NA
NA
10.88
NA
NA
9.03
1.99
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.88
6.73
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-81
-------
Table 21-32. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
12 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (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
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Number of
Observations
12
12
12
12
0
0
8
0
0
6
12
5
0
4
10
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
12
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
7.79
8.27
4.20
3.37
NA
NA
7.31
NA
NA
22.62
3.22
11.54
NA
5.43
14.02
NA
NA
NA
45.38
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.90
14.68
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.15
0.06
0.03
0.02
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
0.18
0.01
0.05
NA
0.02
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.03
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
5.58
6.58
3.00
2.45
NA
NA
5.49
NA
NA
13.78
2.27
9.22
NA
3.99
10.21
NA
NA
NA
35.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.43
11.08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-82
-------
Table 21-32. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
12 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT) (Cont.)
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
12
0
0
9
2
0
12
12
0
12
0
12
8
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
2.45
NA
NA
6.76
NA
NA
3.68
1.27
NA
16.94
NA
2.73
6.25
10.64
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.03
NA
NA
0.02
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
NA
0.01
NA
0.01
0.003
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
1.76
NA
NA
4.61
NA
NA
2.51
0.90
NA
11.31
NA
1.93
3.93
6.70
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-83
-------
Table 21-33. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Two Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO)
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
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Number of
Observations
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
4.98
1.96
NA
8.16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.18
NA
NA
NA
4.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.76
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.11
0.01
NA
0.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.06
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
3.61
1.37
NA
5.55
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.79
NA
NA
NA
3.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-84
-------
Table 21-33. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Two Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO) (Cont.)
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
/>-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
4.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.34
NA
NA
NA
9.09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
3.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.71
NA
NA
NA
6.73
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-85
-------
Table 21-34. 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
Average
11.87
14.42
4.72
7.51
NA
NA
18.09
NA
NA
24.86
13.50
10.45
NA
21.91
10.17
NA
NA
8.27
30.50
NA
NA
NA
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
5.58
6.58
3.00
2.45
NA
NA
5.49
NA
NA
13.78
2.27
9.22
NA
3.99
10.21
NA
NA
NA
35.33
NA
NA
NA
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
5.03
9.72
6.10
6.21
NA
NA
22.33
NA
NA
3.50
10.72
NA
NA
8.71
9.66
NA
NA
4.89
17.56
NA
NA
NA
^
Z
^
JS
6^
2.80
7.32
2.66
4.34
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.24
4.37
NA
NA
5.66
4.18
NA
NA
2.79
11.90
NA
NA
NA
Q
VI
^G
« 53
3 &
u^
6.76
5.67
3.07
9.49
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
41.03
9.88
NA
NA
47.14
9.85
NA
NA
11.23
20.94
NA
NA
NA
HH
§_
•*^ HH
'O §
£ W
Q«
4.13
6.57
4.89
5.06
NA
NA
11.45
NA
NA
42.25
6.05
NA
NA
9.69
4.34
NA
NA
NA
17.18
NA
NA
NA
Z
H
Cs
§z
J3H
.a s
5 S
13.18
16.53
3.86
12.41
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.61
NA
NA
NA
23.57
NA
NA
NA
42.60
NA
NA
NA
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
5.98
3.74
1.11
4.65
NA
NA
7.82
NA
NA
21.91
7.32
6.73
NA
7.66
3.03
NA
NA
7.83
35.90
NA
NA
NA
Grand Junction,
CO (GPCO)
7.84
9.44
7.47
8.20
NA
NA
14.21
NA
NA
NA
6.50
NA
NA
9.23
NA
34.51
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.74
Grenada, MS
(GRMS)
12.75
15.90
12.74
9.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
37.22
27.38
19.11
NA
3.63
14.03
NA
NA
NA
21.88
NA
NA
NA
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
7.07
12.63
1.84
2.16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
29.53
1.52
NA
NA
14.89
NA
NA
NA
NA
32.62
NA
NA
NA
oo
-------
Table 21-34. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites (Cont.)
Compound
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
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
Average
26.55
NA
NA
50.73
8.58
13.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.98
77.72
NA
29.49
6.15
NA
16.19
NA
NA
21.90
6.89
NA
14.94
14.16
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.43
11.08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.76
NA
NA
4.61
NA
NA
2.51
0.90
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.71
5.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.35
NA
NA
14.30
2.48
NA
6.88
4.99
1-9
Z
^
S &
U^
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.86
11.77
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.15
NA
15.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.00
10.22
HH
§_
•*^ HH
'O §
% W
£0
15.71
NA
NA
NA
6.83
9.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.20
NA
NA
5.91
NA
NA
NA
10.98
NA
3.67
4.43
Z
H
*v
£•
O *?•
VI f-*
X H
.a s
3 &
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
101.75
NA
NA
59.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.49
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.59
8.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
130.49
NA
11.79
NA
NA
3.58
NA
NA
1.86
4.75
NA
2.70
3.50
Grand Junction,
CO (GPCO)
14.75
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.05
18.45
7.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.96
NA
21.54
10.85
6.76
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Grenada, MS
(GRMS)
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.68
12.68
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.19
26.18
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.26
7.49
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.39
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.44
7.39
oo
-------
Table 21-34. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites (Cont.)
Compound
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ra-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o -Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Average
Average
NA
16.97
NA
14.78
15.37
16.33
NA
NA
12.33
NA
NA
NA
18.21
H
P
Cv
3
Js C"
*£
= H
wS
NA
11.31
NA
1.93
3.93
6.70
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.96
1-9
Z
Cv
s»
•o g
e ^j
§ <5
U^
NA
6.71
NA
4.87
6.63
5.59
NA
NA
1.81
NA
NA
NA
7.56
1-9
z
•s z
DH
6 y<
NA
12.86
NA
10.43
NA
9.43
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.29
Q
VI
£ Vl
V) | 1
U ^
NA
27.68
NA
9.16
NA
34.67
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.45
-£3 ^J
o 9,
NA
22.35
NA
7.87
5.95
6.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.45
Z
H
o ^
s 9-
NA
NA
NA
10.59
NA
36.66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
27.25
^
Z
Cv
.=
-s ff
•aS
N J
sa
NA
7.60
NA
4.15
7.91
6.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.64
Cv
e
_o
y R
c w
s U
^ dn
•o c5
C Ci
o£
NA
24.05
NA
24.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.48
Vl
*S
-^
0 ^
£r%
•3 ^
0^
NA
28.81
NA
2.48
11.87
9.48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.93
oo
oo
-------
Table 21-34. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites (Cont.)
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
Average
11.87
14.42
4.72
7.51
NA
NA
18.09
NA
NA
24.86
13.50
10.45
NA
21.91
10.17
NA
NA
8.27
30.50
NA
NA
NA
26.55
NA
Jackson, MS
(JAMS)
28.44
23.63
6.93
3.15
NA
NA
34.35
NA
NA
22.12
17.03
NA
NA
NA
21.65
37.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.77
9.32
NA
Z
H
-*^
•_
o _
o,^
VI f-t
OK H
c —
S£
3.14
19.65
3.70
5.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-J
HH
Cv
-±
O
o
M ^
:Sd
og
z e.
87.11
48.77
10.84
22.26
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
99.81
NA
NA
115.71
12.19
NA
NA
NA
79.05
NA
NA
NA
139.67
NA
Nashville, TN
(EATN)
13.48
50.55
1.09
5.59
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
70.41
1.16
6.73
NA
42.98
NA
NA
NA
NA
57.72
NA
NA
NA
7.44
NA
Nashville, TN
(LDTN)
5.09
0.84
0.99
2.76
NA
NA
37.22
NA
NA
NA
1.83
NA
NA
NA
7.35
NA
NA
NA
37.31
NA
NA
NA
3.05
NA
Nashville, TN
(LOTN)
30.25
24.15
4.20
2.83
NA
NA
28.28
NA
NA
67.98
23.03
NA
NA
14.63
11.91
NA
NA
9.43
20.30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Madison, WI
(MAWI)
16.37
17.04
14.32
17.09
NA
NA
8.32
NA
NA
NA
15.23
NA
NA
11.22
15.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
New Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
6.12
6.78
3.60
2.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.31
20.12
NA
NA
8.69
2.63
NA
NA
12.80
19.36
NA
NA
NA
12.86
NA
Pascagoula, MS
(PGMS)
1.38
7.62
1.44
2.89
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.90
6.88
NA
NA
37.22
NA
NA
NA
NA
43.40
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SI
SI <
< £
^ PH
- '
'3 ^
0> aj
o -5
££
0.28
10.42
2.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.58
4.42
NA
NA
5.98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
oo
VO
-------
Table 21-34. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites (Cont.)
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
w,£>-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
Average
NA
50.73
8.58
13.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.98
77.72
NA
29.49
6.15
NA
16.19
NA
NA
21.90
6.89
NA
14.94
14.16
NA
16.97
Jackson, MS
(JAMS)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
46.66
NA
NA
3.07
24.96
NA
38.37
NA
24.35
35.80
33.84
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Z
H
-*^
•_
o _
o,^
VI f-t
OK H
c —
S£
NA
NA
5.01
10.10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.76
NA
NA
2.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.71
4.98
NA
15.71
-J
HH
Cv
-±
O
o
M ^
:Sd
og
z e.
NA
NA
35.78
82.54
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
90.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
107.69
111.99
NA
NA
Nashville, TN
(EATN)
NA
NA
18.56
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.59
NA
NA
121.41
NA
NA
47.71
38.62
NA
59.46
Nashville, TN
(LDTN)
NA
NA
11.05
2.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.15
NA
5.16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.89
4.53
NA
3.63
Nashville, TN
(LOTN)
NA
NA
12.72
22.96
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.36
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.15
14.64
NA
15.27
Madison, WI
(MAWI)
NA
26.19
17.68
15.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.64
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.13
17.85
NA
NA
New Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
NA
NA
3.54
10.36
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.71
NA
NA
NA
6.43
NA
8.31
7.86
NA
1.89
Pascagoula, MS
(PGMS)
NA
NA
3.39
2.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.18
NA
NA
4.16
NA
NA
8.81
8.28
NA
8.34
SI
SI <
< £
^ PH
- '
'3 ^
0> aj
o -5
££
NA
75.27
1.27
6.73
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.89
NA
NA
10.88
NA
NA
9.03
1.99
NA
NA
VO
o
-------
Table 21-34. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites (Cont.)
Compound
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
w-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Average
Average
NA
14.78
15.37
16.33
NA
NA
12.33
NA
NA
NA
18.21
Jackson, MS
(JAMS)
NA
NA
38.57
35.83
NA
NA
33.05
11.79
NA
NA
25.13
Z
H
-*^
•_
o _
o,^
VI f-t
OK H
c —
S£
NA
5.05
NA
5.89
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.94
-J
HH
Cv
-±
O
o
M ^
:Sd
og
z e.
NA
105.15
70.71
72.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
76.05
Nashville, TN
(EATN)
NA
25.25
NA
25.59
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
34.13
Nashville, TN
(LDTN)
NA
NA
12.86
1.63
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.09
Nashville, TN
(LOTN)
NA
7.86
4.71
10.10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.39
Madison, WI
(MAWI)
NA
21.06
9.43
18.68
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.27
New Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
NA
6.03
7.14
7.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.12
Pascagoula, MS
(PGMS)
NA
12.57
NA
1.90
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.03
SI
SI <
< £
^ p^
- '
'3 ^
0> aj
o -5
££
NA
NA
10.88
6.73
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.69
to
-------
Table 21-34. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites (Cont.)
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
Average
11.87
14.42
4.72
7.51
NA
NA
18.09
NA
NA
24.86
13.50
10.45
NA
21.91
10.17
NA
NA
8.27
30.50
NA
NA
NA
26.55
NA
NA
Phoenix, AZ
(Site 2 - MCAZ)
11.79
10.91
4.64
2.00
NA
NA
11.44
NA
NA
4.42
8.17
NA
NA
15.69
9.16
NA
NA
7.41
8.74
NA
NA
NA
9.60
NA
NA
0
§
Cv
tt
'if
j §
xl
3.61
1.37
NA
5.55
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.79
NA
NA
NA
3.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Q
VI
**
X
"sS
si
li
5.00
8.64
8.04
12.35
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.71
5.90
NA
NA
NA
8.65
NA
NA
9.76
31.72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Q
Z
«T
-£
«
«i
it
1.25
20.20
2.95
1.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.43
NA
NA
NA
6.73
NA
NA
NA
33.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
vi
§
o &>
•Is
ap
£b
12.26
15.73
1.86
30.06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.73
15.20
NA
NA
50.63
8.14
NA
NA
NA
18.09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
VO
to
-------
Table 21-34. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites (Cont.)
Compound
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,/>-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
Average
50.73
8.58
13.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.98
77.72
NA
29.49
6.15
NA
16.19
NA
NA
21.90
6.89
NA
14.94
14.16
NA
16.97
NA
14.78
Phoenix, AZ
(Site 2 - MCAZ)
NA
5.78
4.32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.59
NA
NA
19.42
NA
NA
7.86
9.79
NA
7.92
8.39
NA
8.27
NA
7.44
0
§
Cv
tt
'if
j §
xl
NA
3.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.71
NA
NA
NA
6.73
Q
VI
**
X
~£
si
li
NA
8.13
15.21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.66
11.19
NA
22.45
NA
11.83
Q
Z
«T
-£
«
«i
it
NA
3.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.88
NA
NA
NA
NA
vi
§
o &>
•Is
ap
£b
NA
3.60
11.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.68
NA
NA
10.10
NA
NA
6.73
8.26
NA
12.05
NA
11.07
VO
-------
Table 21-34. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples, All Sites (Cont.)
Compound
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
Average
Average
15.37
16.33
NA
NA
12.33
NA
NA
NA
18.21
Phoenix, AZ
(Site 2 - MCAZ)
5.94
9.68
NA
NA
8.32
NA
NA
NA
8.59
0
Cv
j|
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.14
Q
VI
Cv
GA
%G
3 W
o fe
7.86
17.96
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.76
Q
Z
-£
^0
"C Z
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.56
||
26.25
23.61
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.18
VO
-------
Table 21-35. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 52 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
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
Number of
Observations
50
52
51
52
52
0
52
49
2
52
34
29
2
44
27
7
52
40
28
27
12
18
13
2
39
35
51
49
0
20
0
52
0
0
52
30
52
22
30
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
12.42
11.43
61.81
27.36
61.84
NA
71.88
35.15
0.83
64.69
12.28
5.30
1.21
16.99
20.30
0.68
44.10
16.69
5.27
14.63
3.23
4.06
22.11
3.00
18.95
12.66
101.74
111.67
NA
36.73
NA
29.23
NA
NA
34.39
12.15
17.67
3.77
35.49
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.56
0.17
7.22
0.22
3.50
NA
0.80
0.42
0.005
1.08
0.05
0.08
0.005
1.33
0.23
0.77
0.57
0.15
0.14
0.07
0.22
0.26
0.27
0.02
0.10
0.33
0.72
0.62
NA
0.24
NA
0.47
NA
NA
0.15
0.19
0.18
0.08
0.31
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
11.30
7.27
21.05
14.98
22.14
NA
22.83
24.99
0.60
22.65
9.20
4.01
0.88
13.06
14.28
0.47
18.76
9.99
3.81
14.45
2.46
2.81
15.20
1.95
10.59
10.75
18.03
25.47
NA
11.88
NA
16.78
NA
NA
15.71
7.58
9.94
2.50
22.58
21-95
-------
Table 21-35. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 52 Duplicate Samples (Cont.)
Compound
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
n-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
«-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
«-Propylbenzene
w-Ethyltoluene
/•-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
6-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethy Ibenzene
1-Decene
«-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Diethylbenzene
/>-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
«-Undecane
1-Dodecene
«-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
Number of
Observations
27
51
0
45
47
49
0
19
52
14
14
0
40
51
52
21
52
0
39
11
35
34
50
35
42
43
16
44
0
36
35
25
28
0
23
2
10
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
7.60
31.23
NA
23.23
15.17
43.50
NA
4.36
65.61
1.06
4.52
NA
17.50
122.70
127.62
20.39
116.34
NA
146.46
8.43
36.75
22.44
145.20
22.37
68.14
74.77
62.32
126.02
NA
52.99
28.41
21.49
11.32
NA
144.31
0.21
86.02
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.28
0.35
NA
0.28
0.20
0.23
NA
0.11
1.47
0.21
0.25
NA
0.18
0.47
1.47
0.77
0.50
NA
0.69
0.28
0.45
0.23
0.46
0.40
0.33
0.27
0.78
0.74
NA
1.68
0.21
0.21
0.33
NA
6.21
0.003
4.15
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
5.82
18.95
NA
13.46
13.70
20.54
NA
3.38
20.54
0.78
2.94
NA
16.42
26.42
27.35
10.78
27.31
NA
28.48
5.09
17.80
22.29
34.49
20.48
23.38
26.37
20.06
36.00
NA
41.67
25.57
18.76
8.35
NA
36.02
0.15
11.97
NA
NA
21-96
-------
Table 21-35. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 52 Duplicate Samples (Cont.)
Compound
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
Number of
Observations
52
52
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
58.28
54.06
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
30.78
66.14
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
21.87
23.11
21-97
-------
Table 21-36. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Six Duplicate Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL)
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-l -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
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Number of
Observations
4
6
5
6
6
0
6
5
0
6
1
0
0
3
1
0
6
6
1
2
0
2
4
0
4
4
6
6
0
1
0
6
0
0
6
4
6
2
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
38.14
39.83
358.12
109.01
339.79
NA
367.12
76.28
NA
259.43
NA
NA
NA
47.16
NA
NA
113.62
32.88
NA
67.05
NA
0.00
59.29
NA
1.60
23.32
549.08
535.61
NA
NA
NA
130.70
NA
NA
130.84
11.80
77.20
0.00
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
2.64
0.33
42.55
0.82
16.95
NA
3.37
0.54
NA
4.17
NA
NA
NA
4.07
NA
NA
1.34
0.34
NA
0.29
NA
0.95
0.25
NA
0.18
1.18
3.76
2.00
NA
NA
NA
2.23
NA
NA
0.52
0.30
0.69
0.37
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
41.23
22.69
117.50
52.83
104.36
NA
102.29
41.61
NA
87.23
NA
NA
NA
43.64
NA
NA
56.68
19.01
NA
71.32
NA
0.00
33.05
NA
1.14
18.66
74.46
77.91
NA
NA
NA
73.42
NA
NA
56.77
8.87
39.23
0.00
21-98
-------
Table 21-36. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Six Duplicate Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL) (Cont.)
Compound
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
m,p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
«-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
«-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
/>-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
6-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethy Ibenzene
1-Decene
«-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
w-Diethylbenzene
/>-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
«-Undecane
1-Dodecene
«-Dodecane
Number of
Observations
4
4
6
0
6
4
6
0
4
6
1
1
0
4
6
6
3
6
2
5
1
5
4
6
4
5
5
2
6
0
4
4
4
3
0
4
0
1
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
67.96
19.21
49.08
NA
85.16
59.75
209.79
NA
20.92
329.31
NA
NA
NA
65.19
658.79
685.92
0.00
615.09
0.00
801.10
NA
148.41
78.50
726.22
74.42
348.07
362.02
0.00
575.82
NA
87.38
65.37
63.63
0.00
NA
83.15
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.77
0.45
0.41
NA
0.98
0.93
1.00
NA
0.54
6.81
NA
NA
NA
0.77
2.31
7.27
2.16
2.36
0.58
3.76
NA
0.81
.12
.78
.66
.39
.26
.69
2.99
NA
5.17
0.74
0.64
0.52
NA
2.71
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
72.79
15.02
31.05
NA
41.49
60.25
87.23
NA
16.52
85.93
NA
NA
NA
68.39
106.32
109.36
0.00
105.21
0.00
117.06
NA
61.79
91.36
102.90
83.81
104.07
93.64
0.00
94.05
NA
109.73
68.67
65.98
0.00
NA
100.63
NA
NA
21-99
-------
Table 21-36. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Six Duplicate Samples in North Brook, IL (NBIL) (Cont.)
Compound
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
Number of
Observations
0
0
6
6
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
293.80
250.31
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
NA
NA
137.10
279.80
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
92.63
86.77
21-100
-------
Table 21-37. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
12 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT)
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-l -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
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Number of
Observations
12
12
12
12
12
0
12
12
2
12
12
12
2
12
10
5
12
12
12
12
8
8
4
0
12
12
12
12
0
5
0
12
0
0
12
12
12
10
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
10.71
4.98
4.32
6.74
2.23
NA
0.59
14.16
5.00
4.97
10.51
11.11
7.23
6.26
24.74
4.06
2.45
7.58
9.15
8.41
3.21
11.38
37.35
NA
10.03
6.91
1.81
9.82
NA
4.18
NA
1.80
NA
NA
4.05
3.16
4.29
2.42
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.29
0.22
0.25
0.09
0.56
NA
0.09
0.44
0.029
0.44
0.03
0.03
0.029
0.82
0.36
0.37
0.22
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.19
NA
0.06
0.16
0.06
0.22
NA
0.19
NA
0.07
NA
NA
0.05
0.03
0.13
0.02
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
8.27
3.61
2.93
5.41
1.60
NA
0.41
11.69
3.63
3.58
8.43
8.52
5.31
4.89
21.21
2.80
1.75
5.46
6.66
6.14
2.32
7.25
27.08
NA
6.78
5.42
1.29
7.18
NA
3.01
NA
1.27
NA
NA
2.97
2.26
2.98
1.73
21-101
-------
Table 21-37. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
12 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT) (Cont.)
Compound
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
m,p-Xy\ene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
«-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
«-Propylbenzene
w-Ethyltoluene
/>-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
6-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
«-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
w-Diethylbenzene
/>-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
«-Undecane
1-Dodecene
«-Dodecane
Number of
Observations
10
12
12
0
12
12
12
2
11
12
8
8
0
12
12
12
6
12
0
12
3
11
9
12
11
12
12
1
11
0
9
9
8
7
0
8
2
3
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
7.20
8.01
7.58
NA
7.83
4.58
7.72
NA
3.43
1.80
5.39
10.71
NA
5.09
6.00
1.62
14.52
2.65
NA
8.95
3.08
14.84
11.73
7.64
16.96
9.90
13.28
NA
17.66
NA
1.40
7.27
13.72
13.57
NA
10.11
1.27
11.98
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.05
0.14
0.11
NA
0.13
0.06
0.08
NA
0.09
0.12
0.05
0.03
NA
0.05
0.07
0.06
0.59
0.03
NA
0.05
0.19
0.11
0.08
0.05
0.11
0.06
0.05
NA
0.38
NA
0.19
0.07
0.09
0.10
NA
0.10
0.02
0.44
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
4.88
6.15
5.89
NA
5.31
3.15
5.12
NA
2.49
1.25
3.99
6.56
NA
3.47
4.25
1.14
10.93
1.83
NA
6.04
2.21
10.71
8.51
5.16
10.66
6.48
8.70
NA
10.89
NA
0.98
5.34
11.21
8.85
NA
7.16
0.89
7.99
21-102
-------
Table 21-37. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
12 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT) (Cont.)
Compound
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/unknowns)
Number of
Observations
0
0
12
12
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
1.58
8.13
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
NA
NA
2.37
15.77
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
1.13
6.22
21-103
-------
Table 21-38. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Two Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO)
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
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Number of
Observations
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
1
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
1
2
2
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
2.93
3.52
1.67
NA
3.31
NA
2.13
59.09
NA
2.02
7.66
NA
NA
1.26
NA
NA
1.71
NA
NA
NA
16.16
NA
NA
NA
14.98
5.03
1.86
50.00
NA
NA
NA
2.74
NA
NA
5.56
NA
0.83
5.43
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
0.14
0.21
0.20
NA
0.50
NA
0.05
1.10
NA
0.13
0.02
NA
NA
0.05
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
NA
0.09
NA
NA
NA
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.67
NA
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.04
NA
0.02
0.02
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
2.04
2.53
1.17
NA
2.38
NA
1.52
59.30
NA
1.42
5.22
NA
NA
0.89
NA
NA
1.22
NA
NA
NA
12.43
NA
NA
NA
9.85
3.47
1.31
28.28
NA
NA
NA
1.91
NA
NA
3.83
NA
0.59
3.74
21-104
-------
Table 21-38. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Two Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO) (Cont.)
Compound
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
w-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
«-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xy\ene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
«-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
«-Propylbenzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
6-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
«-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
ra-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
«-Undecane
1-Dodecene
«-Dodecane
Number of
Observations
0
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
1
1
2
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
3.39
NA
7.09
2.91
0.93
NA
NA
5.75
NA
NA
NA
5.47
15.55
18.34
NA
22.15
NA
18.97
NA
NA
14.35
47.11
NA
NA
27.82
NA
65.63
NA
NA
43.20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
NA
NA
0.04
NA
0.09
0.02
0.003
NA
NA
0.23
NA
NA
NA
0.03
0.13
0.42
NA
0.17
NA
0.05
NA
NA
0.03
0.25
NA
NA
0.08
NA
0.40
NA
NA
0.11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
2.44
NA
5.20
2.09
0.66
NA
NA
4.19
NA
NA
NA
3.98
11.92
14.28
NA
17.61
NA
14.82
NA
NA
10.93
43.58
NA
NA
22.85
NA
69.07
NA
NA
38.96
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-105
-------
Table 21-38. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Two Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO) (Cont.)
Compound
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Number of
Observations
0
0
2
2
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
NA
NA
5.58
2.65
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbC)
NA
NA
4.70
3.00
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
NA
NA
4.06
1.90
21-106
-------
Table 21-39. 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
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
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
30.37
18.07
11.38
19.47
19.00
NA
17.29
NA
14.52
NA
1.31
9.69
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
8.27
3.61
2.93
5.41
1.60
NA
0.41
11.69
3.63
3.58
8.43
8.52
5.31
4.89
21.21
2.80
1.75
5.46
6.66
6.14
2.32
7.25
27.08
NA
6.78
5.42
1.29
7.18
NA
3.01
NA
1.27
NA
NA
2.97
a
VI
U
Q
VI
&'&
2.04
2.53
1.17
NA
2.38
NA
1.52
59.30
NA
1.42
5.22
NA
NA
0.89
NA
NA
1.22
NA
NA
NA
12.43
NA
NA
NA
9.85
3.47
1.31
28.28
NA
NA
NA
1.91
NA
NA
3.83
Q
Vl
(/3
~&
at
In
8.70
7.02
2.26
10.83
8.04
NA
12.12
11.09
NA
13.10
20.25
6.36
NA
19.02
3.99
NA
19.63
14.36
1.40
4.92
NA
2.66
31.08
11.68
30.33
28.00
11.54
17.32
NA
34.34
NA
12.08
NA
NA
11.79
21-107
-------
Table 21-39. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Compound
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
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
6.40
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
7152
24.18
16.38
NA
20.06
15.49
17.78
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
2.26
2.98
1.73
4.88
6.15
5.89
NA
5.31
3.15
5.12
NA
2.49
1.25
3.99
6.56
NA
3.47
4.25
1.14
10.93
1.83
NA
6.04
2.21
10.71
8.51
5.16
10.66
6.48
8.70
NA
10.89
NA
0.98
5.34
11.21
Q
VI
P
U
Q
VI
1
in
U
3.86
4.03
7.89
12.12
11.10
17.21
NA
8.00
4.60
3.77
NA
NA
15.33
NA
8.07
NA
14.78
18.01
13.73
20.34
13.56
NA
17.57
3.61
19.85
11.33
16.22
6.70
17.65
18.01
23.02
35.95
NA
42.12
20.55
11.72
-J
HH
Cv
-±
o
o
•_
PQ
£d
og
z 5,
8.87
39.23
NA
72.79
15.02
31.05
NA
41.49
60.25
87.23
NA
16.52
85.93
NA
NA
NA
68.39
106.32
109.36
NA
105.21
NA
117.06
NA
61.79
91.36
102.90
83.81
104.07
93.64
NA
94.05
NA
109.73
68.67
65.98
Pascagoula, MS
(PGMS)
9.72
4.15
NA
42.40
0.14
23.62
NA
7.39
2.71
17.59
NA
1.03
2.44
NA
NA
NA
3.31
6.59
13.10
NA
13.91
NA
4.57
NA
8.79
3.58
22.43
13.59
4.91
10.19
9.49
1.86
NA
88.19
7.25
NA
of
s|
»r c«
'l±
hJ U
vi Q
NA
0.59
3.74
NA
NA
2.44
NA
5.20
2.09
0.66
NA
NA
4.19
NA
NA
NA
3.98
11.92
14.28
NA
17.61
NA
14.82
NA
NA
10.93
43.58
NA
NA
22.85
NA
69.07
NA
NA
38.96
NA
Q
VI
(/3
~&
at
o to
ft Q
20.79
8.68
1.61
3.29
2.53
33.47
NA
13.39
9.38
8.86
NA
0.24
14.09
0.71
2.99
NA
4.60
11.43
12.48
33.38
11.71
NA
10.80
24.73
5.68
8.03
16.63
8.10
7.16
4.83
87.83
4.16
NA
9.01
12.65
23.64
21-108
-------
Table 21-39. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
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
21.87
23.11
14.33
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
8.85
NA
7.16
0.89
7.99
NA
NA
1.13
6.22
5.13
a
Vl
U
Q
Vl
iT
-*j
U
12.60
NA
69.43
NA
63.81
NA
NA
7.91
10.39
17.18
-J
HH
Cv
O
O
o 5
z &
NA
NA
100.63
NA
NA
NA
NA
92.63
86.77
71.27
Cs
"3 ^
||
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.75
12.74
10.97
o|
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.06
1.90
12.86
Q
Vl
^ s
•i ^
28.68
NA
38.92
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.75
20.63
15.65
21-109
-------
Table 21-40. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
224 Duplicate and Collocated Samples
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
224
224
224
198
222
224
215
97
199
200
220
42
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
12.14
9.49
12.30
19.16
14.82
13.21
12.68
16.17
16.65
21.79
19.37
10.20
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.183
0.108
0.131
0.017
0.008
0.016
0.006
0.004
0.005
0.009
0.011
0.002
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
7.51
6.71
8.34
13.37
9.82
9.68
8.53
11.18
10.97
14.85
12.34
6.77
21-110
-------
Table 21-41. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
54 Collocated Samples
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
54
54
54
52
54
54
54
38
53
51
53
20
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
21.56
12.58
10.63
26.90
20.92
11.52
15.94
5.42
12.95
16.31
17.40
12.16
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.297
0.093
0.139
0.018
0.007
0.013
0.010
0.004
0.006
0.012
0.016
0.002
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
12.08
9.16
7.60
19.62
13.16
8.74
9.82
3.96
9.41
11.34
11.59
7.97
21-111
-------
Table 21-42. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
170 Duplicate Samples
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
170
170
170
146
168
170
161
59
146
149
167
22
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
8.18
8.19
13.00
15.91
12.25
13.92
11.31
20.70
18.20
24.09
20.20
9.37
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.135
0.114
0.128
0.017
0.008
0.017
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.007
0.008
0.002
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
5.58
5.67
8.66
10.74
8.41
10.07
7.99
14.22
11.62
16.33
12.65
6.26
21-112
-------
Table 21-43. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Eight Duplicate Samples in Tampa, FL (SYFL)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
2
8
8
8
0
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
20.15
5.87
6.86
18.07
9.54
36.36
18.24
23.53
8.75
12.93
19.30
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.159
0.036
0.026
0.012
0.010
0.097
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.005
0.006
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
12.27
3.93
5.00
11.37
6.87
33.29
11.16
14.89
6.98
9.49
12.63
NA
21-113
-------
Table 21-44. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
26 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
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
21
26
26
26
11
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
31.96
18.50
21.41
53.45
48.63
14.84
33.66
14.17
26.17
20.45
14.50
18.80
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.382
0.127
0.231
0.018
0.013
0.023
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.009
0.008
0.005
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
11.52
9.63
14.24
13.46
13.77
10.35
14.58
9.07
13.50
16.39
10.50
14.33
21-114
-------
Table 21-45. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
10 Duplicate Samples in Grand Junction, CO (GPCO)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
10
10
10
7
10
10
10
2
7
10
10
2
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
2.11
3.60
3.25
14.84
5.77
9.68
8.93
23.08
23.21
32.90
16.40
0.00
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.036
0.050
0.054
0.019
0.002
0.011
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.009
0.004
0.013
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
1.49
2.48
2.26
10.02
4.11
6.53
6.32
14.63
14.08
21.73
12.32
0.00
21-115
-------
Table 21-46. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
12 Duplicate Samples in Bountiful, UT (BTUT)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
8
12
12
12
4
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
10.59
11.27
25.11
16.86
14.08
25.52
16.78
20.00
51.07
35.14
94.90
40.00
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.332
0.183
0.330
0.023
0.005
0.032
0.006
0.002
0.020
0.015
0.064
0.003
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
6.67
7.27
13.88
10.28
8.78
14.56
10.39
12.74
22.64
21.43
31.24
22.10
21-116
-------
Table 21-47. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Two Duplicate Samples in St. Louis, MO (S4MO)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
3.64
2.13
3.66
7.41
6.38
6.73
2.04
16.67
20.59
0.00
12.50
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.090
0.030
0.060
0.008
0.003
0.015
0.001
0.001
0.007
0.00
0.007
NA
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
2.62
1.52
2.64
5.44
4.66
4.92
1.46
12.86
16.23
0.00
9.43
NA
21-117
-------
Table 21-48. 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 -Dimethy Ibenzaldehy de
Average
Average
7.51
6.71
8.34
13.88
9.82
9.68
8.86
17.76
11.84
16.04
12.81
16.61
11.66
St. Petersburg,
FL (AZFL)
5.19
2.11
7.29
15.22
4.48
4.35
11.26
38.57
11.07
17.33
7.60
NA
11.32
Bountiful, UT
(BTUT)
6.67
7.27
13.88
10.28
8.78
14.56
10.39
12.74
22.64
21.43
31.24
22.10
15.16
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
3.15
2.64
6.60
NA
7.90
6.07
7.28
NA
12.41
18.18
14.30
NA
8.73
Candor, NC
(CANC)
30.68
24.20
15.74
51.12
33.47
30.06
7.53
NA
31.43
22.81
14.28
NA
26.13
Z
Cs ^i^
^ ^^
U5 ^— I
Ja ffi
2.89
5.72
4.56
6.91
5.42
11.25
7.21
29.04
4.61
23.41
14.32
20.20
11.30
Q
*j yv
X ^
10.49
11.85
10.34
27.40
12.52
21.17
14.74
22.78
10.92
14.51
15.63
NA
15.67
HH
+•* HH
11.52
9.63
14.24
13.46
13.77
10.35
14.58
9.07
13.50
16.39
10.50
14.33
12.61
Z
H
Cs
W5 ^—^
X. H
.a ~
5 a
1.48
3.04
3.06
11.28
9.91
2.42
3.37
NA
5.12
16.14
18.01
NA
7.38
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
2.00
1.39
4.08
7.76
6.98
1.92
4.71
16.32
4.55
19.68
6.20
28.28
8.65
Tampa (Gandy),
FL (GAFL)
7.82
11.42
14.02
15.41
12.76
14.33
6.45
35.90
25.07
19.64
14.89
NA
16.16
oo
-------
Table 21-48. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2, 5 -Dimethy Ibenzaldehy de
Average
Average
7.51
6.71
8.34
13.88
9.82
9.68
8.86
17.76
11.84
16.04
12.81
16.61
11.66
Grand Junction,
CO (GPCO)
1.49
2.48
2.26
10.02
4.11
6.53
6.32
14.63
14.08
21.73
12.32
NA
8.72
Gulfport, MS
(GPMS)
17.00
15.08
10.03
19.55
12.69
15.98
NA
NA
NA
12.86
6.00
NA
13.65
Grenada, MS
(GRMS)
2.28
1.83
4.87
2.24
5.81
7.82
9.25
10.88
6.63
21.48
11.04
13.47
8.13
Jackson, MS
(JAMS)
3.29
5.60
7.52
8.14
8.97
10.80
4.02
NA
18.54
9.86
6.40
NA
8.31
Kingsport, TN
(KITN)
2.10
0.63
2.80
4.29
3.59
4.60
6.44
NA
6.68
10.12
8.46
12.86
5. 69
Loudon, TN
(LDTN)
2.93
2.80
2.10
3.61
9.00
2.63
14.95
4.18
8.88
8.53
13.66
1.89
6.26
Nashville, TN
(EATN)
11.48
11.25
10.93
12.59
9.69
12.64
11.79
NA
7.44
7.14
13.20
16.97
11.37
Nahsville, TN
(LOTN)
4.23
4.78
4.64
0.73
9.18
5.52
7.07
18.45
2.24
9.61
14.63
17.68
8.23
Orlando, FL
(ORFL)
8.21
8.42
22.40
4.83
15.47
11.35
6.57
12.49
8.20
17.63
11.41
27.50
12.87
New Brunswick,
NJ (NBNJ)
1.46
1.57
8.29
5.94
4.76
2.26
7.43
4.71
7.79
11.36
12.51
7.44
6.29
-------
Table 21-48. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Analyses, All Sites (Cont.)
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
7.57
6.71
8.34
13.88
9.82
9.68
8.86
17.76
11.84
16.04
12.81
16.61
77. 66
VI
cS
3 ^
cS ^
§
£ fe
3.50
6.28
5.87
9.96
6.18
8.93
6.04
16.10
5.52
10.70
2.97
NA
7.46
"oi
e
•_
H
|^U
eg „ ^
»5 "S H
a £ &
32.23
17.00
7.30
59.92
16.64
1.70
12.86
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.09
0
f,
'1 0
® t!
hJ S
a &
2.62
1.52
2.64
5.44
4.66
4.92
1.46
12.86
16.23
NA
9.43
NA
6.18
to
-J
to
o.
S
«
H
10.90
15.74
11.08
27.78
11.33
7.29
17.52
NA
24.24
37.09
22.89
NA
18.59
J
£
-J
u.
o.
S
«
H
12.27
3.93
5.00
11.37
6.87
33.29
11.16
14.89
6.98
9.49
12.63
NA
11.62
Q
VI
X
S-
'S. ^
3 s
• •• ^^
^o ^^^
3.84
1.48
10.84
9.95
12.83
5.29
11.86
NA
8.76
19.25
13.15
NA
9.72
23
o ^
—• 5
o. §
H b
0.98
1.45
12.90
5.83
7.34
3.27
8.19
28.28
12.52
4.64
15.38
NA
9.16
to
O
-------
Table 21-49. Metal Sampling and Analytical Precision:
106 Collocated Samples
Compound
Antimony Compounds
Arsenic Compounds
Beryllium Compounds
Cadmium Compounds
Chromium Compounds
Cobalt Compounds
Lead Compounds
Manganese Compounds
Mercury Compounds
Nickel Compounds
Selenium Compounds
Number of
Observations
90
106
11
100
106
87
106
106
23
106
91
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
7.81
11.91
10.49
25.04
13.73
25.66
15.55
8.58
40.90
48.49
16.93
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ng/m3)
155.50
289.34
88.32
139.41
379.23
105.20
1105.73
1701.78
92.72
1141.59
313.64
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
9.30
11.40
7.10
14.97
11.31
13.81
12.84
9.54
23.58
22.86
15.03
21-121
-------
Table 21-50. Metal Sampling and Analytical Precision:
52 Collocated Samples in Boston, MA (BOMA)
Compound
Antimony Compounds
Arsenic Compounds
Beryllium Compounds
Cadmium Compounds
Chromium Compounds
Cobalt Compounds
Lead Compounds
Manganese Compounds
Mercury Compounds
Nickel Compounds
Selenium Compounds
Number of
Observations
52
52
3
52
52
50
52
52
9
52
44
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses (%)
8.06
13.45
NA
85.97
12.42
13.25
13.55
10.91
21.94
19.46
27.68
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ng/m3)
142.65
416.68
247.90
536.54
615.12
48.21
1045.51
1385.87
17.45
702.97
1103.10
Coefficient of
Variation (%)
11.86
19.65
NA
33.50
16.75
12.54
13.74
16.26
32.48
10.07
20.77
21-122
-------
22.0 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.
22.1 Conclusions
Analyses of the 2004 UATMP monitoring data identified the following notable trends
and patterns in national-level and state-by-state urban air pollution:
22.1.1 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. Fourteen of eight-three data
sets failed to comply with the data quality objective of 85% completeness. Twenty-three
data sets achieved 100% completeness.
• Several UATMP sites are also NATTS sites. Eight of the forty-four sites are EPA-
designatedNATTS sites (PSAZ, NBIL, BOMA, DEMI, GPCO, S4MO, SYFL, and
BTUT). These sites have more detailed analyses included in their respective sections.
• Total number of samples for UATMP compounds. Nearly 106,045 measurements of
VOC and carbonyl compounds were made: 27,540 measurements of SNMOC;
1,597 measurements of SVOC; and 2,926 measurements of metal compounds. This total
number of samples is about 15% less than the 2003 sampling season. However, ten less
sites participated in the 2004 UATMP than in 2003.
• Total number of samples for VOC and carbonyl compounds. Of the 106,115
measurements of VOC and carbonyl compounds, 30.3% were hydrocarbons, 22.4% were
halogenated hydrocarbons, 7.0% were polar compounds, and 40.4% were carbonyl
compounds. These percentages are very close to the 2003 percentages.
• Ambient air concentrations of VOC and carbonyl compounds. Nearly 85% of the
measured concentrations of VOC and carbonyl compounds were less than 1 ppbv. Less
than 2% of the concentrations were greater than 5 ppbv.
22-1
-------
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 2004, seven
compounds (chloromethylbenzene, 1,2-dibromoethane, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene,
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, bromochloroethane, and 1,1,2-
trichloroethane) were not detected at any of the participating sites.
Nationwide Prevalent Cancer Compounds. Prevalence was determined differently for
the 2004 program year. As in 2003, toxicity values were used to determine which
compounds were most detrimental to human health. Twelve cancer compounds (1,2-
dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, c/s-l,3-dichloropropene, ethyl acrylate,/?-dichlorobenzene,
tetrachloroethylene, and vinyl chloride) were considered prevalent, based on weighted
toxicity, across the entire program.
Nationwide Prevalent Noncancer Compounds. Eleven noncancer compounds (1,2-
dichloropropane, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
bromomethane, chloroprene, c/'s-l,3-dichloropropene, formaldehyde, andxylenes (total))
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), while the Arizona sites in Maricopa County had the highest onroad and
nonroad emissions of all the participating sites. The Candor site (CANC) in North
Carolina has the lowest daily traffic volume (100).
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. Fifteen
participating UATMP sites are in RFG areas: the New Jersey, Connecticut, and Chicago
sites (CANJ, CHNJ, ELNJ, HACT, INDEM, NBIL, NBNJ, and SPIL) are required to
participate in RFG programs year-round. The Arizona sites (MCAZ, PSAZ, QVAZ, and
SPAZ) are required to participate only during the winter season. The Boston and St.
Louis sites (BOMA, S4MO, and SLMO) have opted to participate year-round.
Gasoline Additives. The following observations were made:
22-2
-------
> 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 4 times at the CANJ and ELNJ sites only. However, the HACT and
BOMA sites did not sample VOC and therefore no assessment can be made of
TAME concentrations.
> MTBE (methyl tert-buty\ ether) is a gasoline additive used near the BOMA,
CANJ, CHNJ, ELNJ, HACT, NBIL, NBNJ, S4MO, SLMO, and SPIL sites. This
compound was detected on 200 occasions at the New Jersey and St. Louis sites
only. However, the BOMA and HACT sites did not sample VOC and therefore
no assessment can be made of MTBE concentrations.
> Ethanol is a gasoline additive used near all of the JAFG sites. Increases in
formaldehyde concentrations in the trends analysis due to combustion of ethanol
occurred at the sites in Chicago, Hartford, and St. Louis, where the ethanol blend
is high (75%).
• Multi-Year Trends Analysis. The following observations were made:
> Since 2002, average formaldehyde concentrations have decreased every year at
the following sites: AZFL, CUSD, GAFL, GPMS, JAMS, SFSD, SLMO, and
TUMS.
> Since 2002, average benzene concentrations have slightly decreased every year at
the following sites: CANJ, CHNJ, EATN, ELNJ, GPMS, JAMS, LOTN, NBNJ,
SFSD, and TUMS.
22.1.2 State-level Conclusions
• Arizona.
The prevalent compounds at each site are:
MCAZ: 1,3-butadiene, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon tetrachloride,
chloromethane, />-dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, total xylenes,
toluene, and fr'am'-l,3-dichloropropene.
PSAZ: 1,3-butadiene, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride,/7-dichlorobenzene, and total xylenes.
22-3
-------
QVAZ: acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon tetrachloride,
chloromethane, and ^ram--l,3-dichloropropene.
SPAZ: 1,3-butadiene, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, />-dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, total
xylenes.
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: 0.74 between total xylenes and maximum temperature and -0.74
between benzene and relative humidity.
PSAZ: 0.89 between/>-dichlorobenzene and maximum temperature.
QVAZ: -0.92 between benzene and dew point temperature.
SPAZ: 0.84 between/?-dichlorobenzene and average temperature.
The Phoenix MSA sites are subject to RFG regulations during the winter season.
Impacts of RFG regulations could not be determined because the Phoenix sites on
sampled through the middle of March.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, the airshed domain
reached is smaller than most sites, as the farthest away a back trajectory
originated is 300 miles. However, these sites sampled for only the first quarter of
the year.
PSAZ is a NATTS site. The regulation analysis shows that a 12% reduction in
VOC is expected after the five applicable regulations are implemented.
A high acrylonitrile concentration was measured at PSAZ on February 27, 2004
The emission tracer analysis determined that the air being sampled on this day
originated to the south of the monitoring site. However, the back trajectory for
this day originates to the southwest of the monitor. According to the NEI, there
are a few acrylonitrile-emitting sources located to the southwest of the site that
may have contributed to the high concentration.
Colorado.
The prevalent compounds at the GPCO site were: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde,
acrylonitrile, benzene, bromomethane, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde,
tetrachloroethylene, and total xylenes.
22-4
-------
Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed are 0.99 between acrylonitrile and the v-component of the
wind.
As illustrated by its composite 24-hour back trajectory map, the airshed domain
reached greater than 400 miles. However, 80% of the trajectories were within
300 miles of the site, and 97% were within 400 miles.
GPCO is a NATTS site. The regulation analysis shows that an 8% reduction in
VOC and a 26% reduction in carbonyl compounds is expected after the six
applicable regulations are implemented.
High acetaldehyde and formaldehyde concentrations were measured at GPCO on
September 6, 2004. The emission tracer analysis determined that the air being
sampled on this day originated to the southeast of the monitoring site. However,
the back trajectory for this day originates to the south and west of the monitor.
According to the NEI, there are few, if any, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde
sources are located in this direction.
Connecticut.
The prevalent compounds at HACT are acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. This site
sampled carbonyl compounds only.
Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for the site. The strongest
correlation is 0.39 between formaldehyde and the v-component of the wind.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory map, the airshed domain
reached greater than 800 miles. However, 56% of the trajectories were within
400 miles of the site, and 96% were within 800 miles.
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. These sites sampled carbonyl compounds only.
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:
22-5
-------
AZFL: -0.53 between acetaldehyde and the w-component of the wind
GAFL: -0.32 between acetaldehyde and the w-component of the wind
ORFL: 0.66 between formaldehyde and the maximum temperature
SKFL: 0.31 between formaldehyde and the maximum temperature
SYFL: -0.23 between acetaldehyde and the relative humidity
> As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, the airshed domain
reached greater than 600 miles, although the number and length of back
trajectories varied by site.
> SYFL is a NATTS site. The regulation analysis shows that a 5% reduction in
carbonyl compounds is expected after the two applicable regulations are
implemented. As no prevalent compound noncancer concentration exceeded its
adverse health threshold, an emission tracer analysis was not conducted.
Illinois.
> The prevalent compounds at each site are:
NBIL: 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, 1,3-butadiene,
acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene, bromomethane, carbon tetrachloride,
chloroform, chloroprene, />-dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, total
xylenes, and ^rara'-l,3-dichloropropene.
SPIL: 1,3-butadiene, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene, bromomethane,
carbon tetrachloride, /?-dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, total
xylenes, and frvms'-l,3-dichloropropene.
> 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: -0.80 between 1,3-butadiene and wet bulb temperature
SPIL: 0.40 between total xylenes and maximum temperature.
> In addition to VOC, NBIL sampled for SNMOC. Of the total NMOC measured
(244.69 ppbC), 79% could be identified through speciation at NBIL.
> The Chicago MSA sites are subject to RFG regulations year-round. For
comparison:
22-6
-------
The NBIL 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 less than the BTUT concentrations (9.01 |ig/m3 vs.
12.71 |ig/m3). The RFG requirements may be effective at NBIL.
The SPIL 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 lower than the ELNJ concentrations (9.02 |ig/m3 vs.
11.43 |ig/m3). The RFG requirements may be more effective at SPIL.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, the airshed domain
reached greater than 700 miles at each site, although the number and length of
back trajectories varied by site.
NBIL is a NATTS site. The regulation analysis shows that a 14% reduction in
VOC is expected after the fifteen applicable regulations are implemented. There
were no exceedances of the noncaner benchmarks, so no emission tracer analysis
was conducted.
Indiana.
The prevalent compounds at INDEM are acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. This
site sampled carbonyl compounds only.
Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for the site. The strongest
correlation is 0.61 between acetaldehyde and both the average temperature and
wet bulb temperature.
The INDEM site is subject to RFG regulations year-round. However, this site did
not sample for VOCs, so an RFG analysis of VOC concentrations could not be
conducted.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory map, the airshed domain
reached greater than 900 miles. However, 68% of the trajectories were within
400 miles of the site, and 97% were within 800 miles.
Massachusetts.
The BOMA site sampled for metal compounds only. The prevalent compounds at
BOMA are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, manganese compounds,
and nickel compounds.
Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
22-7
-------
correlations computed was -0.45 between nickel compounds and the v-component
of the wind.
> 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.
> As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory map, the airshed domain
reached greater than 800 miles at BOMA. However, 60% of the trajectories were
within 400 miles of the site, and 96% were within 800 miles.
> BOMA is a NATTS site. The regulation analysis shows that a less than 2%
reduction in metal compounds is expected after the four applicable regulations are
implemented. There were no exceedances of the noncaner benchmarks, so no
emission tracer analysis was conducted.
Michigan.
> The prevalent compounds at each site are:
APMI: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, benzene, bromomethane,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, tetrachloroethylene, and total xylenes.
DEMI: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, formaldehyde, and tetrachloroethylene.
HOMI: acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, benzene, carbon tetrachloride,
formaldehyde, and tetrachloroethylene.
ITCMI: 1,3-butadiene, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene, bromomethane,
and carbon tetrachloride.
YFMI: 1,3-butadiene, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloromethane,
tetrachloroethylene, toluene, and total xylenes.
> 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: -0.86 between 1,3-butadiene and dew point, and between
acetonitrile and the v-component of the wind.
DEMI: 0.36 between benzene and dew point, and -0.36 between 1,3-
butadiene and the w-component of the wind.
22-8
-------
HOMI: none
ITCMI: 0.24 between carbon tetrachloride and both the dew point and wet
bulb temperatures.
YFMI: 0.76 between chloromethane and maximum temperature.
> As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, the airshed domain
for the Michigan sites reached greater than 700 miles at each site, although the
number and length of back trajectories varied by site.
> ITCMI and YFMI also sampled SVOC. The average SVOC concentration was
27.80 ng/m3 at ITCMI and 52.83 ng/m3 at YFMI.
»• DEMI is a NATTS site. The regulation analysis shows that an 2% reduction in
VOC and a 62% reduction in carbonyl compounds is expected after the eleven
applicable regulations are implemented.
> High concentrations of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were measured at DEMI
on September 6, 2004. The emission tracer analysis determined that the air being
sampled on these days originated to the south of the monitoring site. The back
trajectory for this day confirms the wind direction. According to the NEI, there
are acetaldehyde and formaldehyde sources are located in this direction. A high
acetonitrile concentration was measured on October 18, 2004. The emission tracer
analysis determined that the air being sampled on this day originated to the east of
the monitoring site. The back trajectory for this day confirms the wind direction.
According to the NEI, there is one acrylonitrile source located in this direction.
Mississippi.
> The prevalent compounds at each site are:
GPMS: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, ethyl acrylate, formaldehyde, /?-dichlorobenzene,
tetrachloroethylene, frvms-l^-dichloropropene, and total xylenes.
GRMS: acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, formaldehyde, £ra«s-l,3-dichloropropene, and total xylenes.
JAMS: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, /?-dichlorobenzene,
tetrachloroethylene, frvms-l^-dichloropropene, and total xylenes.
22-9
-------
PGMS: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, /?-dichlorobenzene, and total xylenes.
TUMS: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, vinyl chloride, and total xylenes.
> 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: -0.99 between 1,3-butadiene and both the dewpoint and wetbulb
temperatures.
GRMS: -0.48 between benzene and average temperature.
JAMS: 0.72 between both acrylonitrile and dew point and
/7-dichlorobenzene with sea level pressure.
PGMS: 0.64 between total xylenes and maximum temperature.
TUMS: 0.78 between formaldehyde and maximum temperature.
> As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, the airshed domain
for the Michigan sites reached greater than 500 miles at each site, although the
number and length of back trajectories varied by site.
> The PGMS site sampled SNMOC in addition to VOC and carbonyl compounds.
Of the total NMOC measured (158.04 ppbC), 62% could be identified through
speciation.
Missouri.
> The prevalent compounds at each site are:
BTMO: acetaldehyde, benzene, and formaldehyde.
S4MO: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, arsenic
compounds, benzene, bromomethane, cadmium compounds, carbon
tetrachloride, formaldehyde, manganese compounds, w-hexane, p-
dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, and total xylenes.
SLMO: acetaldehyde, benzene, formaldehyde, and total xylenes.
22-10
-------
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: 0.99 between acetaldehyde and the v-component of the wind.
S4MO: 0.75 between w-hexane and relative humidity.
SLMO: 0.91 between acetaldehyde and the v-component of the wind.
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 (9.51 |ig/m3 vs. 5.50
|ig/m3). The RFG requirements may not be effective at S4MO.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory map for S4MO, the
airshed domain reached greater than 700 miles at each site. However, over half of
the trajectories originated within 300 miles of this site.
The Missouri sites sampled SNMOC in addition to VOC and/or carbonyl
compounds. Of the total NMOC measured at BTMO, S4MO, and SLMO (92.35,
160.74, and 203.40 ppbC, respectively), 43%, 76%, and 52%, respectively, could
be identified through speciation.
S4MO also sampled metal compounds. The average metal compound
concentration was 38.47 ng/m3.
S4MO is a NATTS site. The regulation analysis shows that a 5% reduction in
VOC, a 8% reduction in metal compounds, and a 4% reduction in carbonyl
compounds is expected after the twenty-six applicable regulations are
implemented.
High concentrations of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were measured at S4MO
on August 31, 2004. The emission tracer analysis determined that the air being
sampled on this day originated to the north of the monitoring site. The back
trajectory for this day originates to the north and northwest. According to the
NEI, there are many acetaldehyde and formaldehyde sources are located in this
direction. A high manganese compound concentration was measured on this day
as well. According to the NEI, there are many manganese compound sources
located in this direction.
22-11
-------
New Jersey.
> The prevalent compounds at each site are:
CANJ: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
bromomethane, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, />-dichlorobenzene,
tetrachloroethylene, and vinyl chloride.
CHNJ: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
bromomethane, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, tetrachloroethylene,
and ^ram--l,3-dichloropropene.
ELNJ: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, />-dichlorobenzene,
tetrachloroethylene, total xylenes, and /ram--l,3-dichloropropene.
NBNJ: 1,2-dichloropropane, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile,
acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, p-
dichlorobenzene, and total xylenes.
> 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: -0.69 between acrylonitrile and the v-component of the wind.
CHNJ: -0.87 between ^ram--l,3-dichloropropene and the v-component of
the wind.
ELNJ: 0.46 between acetonitrile and the average temperature and wet
bulb temperature, as well as 0.46 between acetaldehyde and maximum
temperature.
NBNJ: -0.81 between 1,3-butadiene and maximum 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 at both sites are
less than at APMI (CANJ = 9.92 |ig/m3; NBNJ = 7.58 |ig/m3; and APMI =
12.35 |ig/m3). The RFG requirements may be effective at CANJ and
NBNJ.
22-12
-------
The CHNJ and JAMS (located in a non-RFG area) sites both have similar
traffic volumes. The BTEX concentrations at CHNJ are less than half of
the JAMS concentrations (CHNJ = 4.39 |ig/m3; JAMS = 12.06 |ig/m3).
The JAFG 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 higher than SPIL concentrations (11.43 |ig/m3 vs. 9.02
|ig/m3). The JAFG 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.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, the airshed domain
for the New Jersey sites reached greater than 1100 miles, although the number
and length of back trajectories varied by site.
North Carolina.
The prevalent compounds at both sites are acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. Both
sites sampled carbonyl compounds only.
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:
CANC: 0.56 between formaldehyde and average temperature.
RTPNC: -0.87 between acetaldehyde and dew point temperature.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, the airshed domain
for the North Carolina sites reached greater than 900 miles, although the number
and length of back trajectories varied by site.
North Dakota.
The prevalent compounds at SLND are acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, chloromethane, methyl ethyl ketone, />-dichlorobenzene, and total
xylenes. SLND sampled VOC and SVOC only.
Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlation computed is 0.56 between acrylonitrile and both average temperature
and wet bulb temperature.
22-13
-------
> As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory map, the airshed domain
reached greater than 700 miles. However, 67% of the trajectories were within
400 miles of the site, and 97% were within 700 miles.
> SLND also sampled SVOC. The average SVOC concentration was 4.56 ng/m3.
South Dakota.
> The prevalent compounds at each site are:
CUSP: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, tetrachloroethylene, and trans-1,3-
dichloropropene.
SFSD: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
bromomethane, carbon tetrachloride, 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:
CUSP: -0.81 between 1,3-butadiene and relative humidity.
SFSD: 0.51 between formaldehyde and maximum, average, and wet bulb
temperatures.
> The South Dakota sites sampled SNMOC in addition to VOC and carbonyl
compounds. Of the total NMOC measured, 27% could be identified through
speciation at CUSD, while only 25% (of 151.58 ppbC) could be identified at
SFSD.
> As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, the airshed domain
for the South Dakota sites reached greater than 800 miles, although the number
and length of back trajectories varied by site.
Tennessee.
> The prevalent compounds at each site are:
DITN: acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, benzene, carbon tetrachloride,
formaldehyde, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, £ra«s-l,3-dichloropropene,
and total xylenes.
22-14
-------
Utah.
EATN: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, arsenic
compounds, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, ethyl acrylate, formaldehyde,
manganese compounds, tetrachloroethylene, and total xylenes.
KITN: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, />-dichlorobenzene,
tetrachloroethylene, ^ram--l,3-dichloropropene, and total xylenes.
LDTN: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrylonitrile, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, formaldehyde, tetrachloroethylene, and trans-1,3-
dichloropropene.
LOTN: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, arsenic compounds,
benzene, carbon tetrachloride, formaldehyde, manganese compounds,
tetrachloroethylene, ^ram--l,3-dichloropropene, and total xylenes.
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:
DITN: -0.94 between benzene and maximum temperature.
EATN: 0.91 between formaldehyde and both average temperature and wet
bulb temperature.
KITN: -0.97 between tetrachloroethylene and maximum temperature.
LDTN: 0.63 between acrylonitrile and maximum temperature, and -0.63
between acrylonitrile and sea level pressure.
LOTN: 0.77 between formaldehyde and average temperature.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory maps, the airshed domain
for the Tennessee sites reached greater than 800 miles, although the number and
length of back trajectories varied by site.
The Nashville sites also sampled metal compounds. The average metal
compound concentration was 30.44 ng/m3 at EATN and at 26.03 ng/m3 LOTN.
The prevalent compounds at BTUT are 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile,
acrylonitrile, arsenic compounds, benzene, cadmium compounds, carbon
tetrachloride, formaldehyde, manganese compounds, />-dichlorobenzene,
tetrachloroethylene, frvms-l^-dichloropropene, and total xylenes.
22-15
-------
Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed is -0.70 between tetrachloroethylene and dew point.
As illustrated by a composite 24-hour back trajectory map, the airshed domain
reached over 400 miles. However, 63% of the trajectories generally originated
within 200 miles away from the site, and 92% were within 400 miles.
BTUT is a NATTS site. The regulation analysis shows that a 10% reduction in
VOC, a 5% reduction in metal compounds, and a 11% reduction in carbonyl
compounds is expected after the fifteen applicable regulations are implemented.
High concentrations of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde were measured at BTUT
on August 31, 2004. The emission tracer analysis determined that the air being
sampled on this day originated to the east of the monitoring site. The back
trajectory for this day originates to the east and northeast. According to the NEI,
there are no acetaldehyde sources and a few formaldehyde sources are located in
this direction. A high arsenic compound concentration was measured on
February 15, 2004. The emission tracer analysis determined that the air being
sampled on this days originated to the south of the monitoring site. The back
trajectory for this day originates to the south and southwest. According to the
NEI, there are several arsenic compound sources located in this direction.
Wisconsin.
The prevalent compounds at MAWI are 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, benzene,
carbon tetrachloride, chloromethane, formaldehyde, tetrachloroethylene, and total
xylenes.
Pearson Correlations were computed between the site-specific prevalent
compounds and various meteorological parameters for each site. The strongest
correlations computed is 0.67 between chloromethane and average temperature.
As illustrated by the composite 24-hour back trajectory map, the airshed domain
reached greater than 700 miles. However, 53% of the trajectories were within
400 miles of the site, and 93% were within 700 miles.
22.1.3 Data Quality
The precision of the sampling methods and concentration measurements was analyzed for
the 2004 UATMP using relative percent difference (RPD), coefficient of variation (CV), and
average concentration difference calculations based on duplicate and collocated samples. The
overall precision was well within UATMP data quality objectives and Monitoring Method
22-16
-------
guidelines. Sampling and analytical method accuracy is assured by using proven methods and
following strict quality control and quality assurance guidelines.
22.2 Recommendations
In light of the lessons learned from the 2004 UATMP, a number of recommendations for
future ambient air monitoring are supported:
Use risk calculations to design SIPs to implement policies that will reduce the potential
for human health risk.
Encourage state/local/tribal agencies to develop and/or verify HAP and VOC emission
inventories. State/local/tribal agencies should use the data collected from the UATMP to
develop and validate an emissions inventory, or at the very least, identify and/or verify
emission sources of concern. Ideally, state/local/tribal agencies would compare the
ambient monitoring results with an emission inventory for source category completeness.
The emissions inventory would then be used to develop modeled concentrations useful to
compare against ambient monitoring data.
Continue to identify and implement improvements to the sampling and analytical
methods. The improvements made to the analytical methods prior to the 1999-2000
UATMP allowed for measurement of ambient air concentrations of 11 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.
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.
22-17
-------
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.
22-18
-------
23.0 References
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.
DieselNet, 2005. Emission Standards, USA: Cars and Light-Duty Trucks. Internet Address:
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html
Draxler, R.R. and Rolph, G.D., 2003. HYSPLIT (Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated
Trajectory) Model access via NOAA ARL READY Website
(http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html). NOAA Air Resources Laboratory. Silver
Spring. MD.
Eastern Research Group, Inc., 2004. "Support for the EPA National Monitoring Programs
(NMOC, UATMP, PAMS, HAPs, and NATTS), Quality Assurance Project Plan,
Category 1,2004/2005." Internet address:
http://www.ergweb2.com/uatmp/user/index.cfm
EIA, 2004. Energy Information Administration. Car Registration by State. October 2004.
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.
IMPROVE, 2004. Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE),
Administered by Colorado State University. Internet address:
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/
NRC, 1991. "Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution." National
Research Council: National Academy Press, 1991.
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.
23-1
-------
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.
TNRCC, 2002. "Technical Support Document." Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission, Technical Analysis Division, Air Modeling and Data Analysis Section.
June 5, 2002.
Topozone. Maps a la Carte, Inc. 2003. www.topozone.com
US Census Bureau, 2005. Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, 2003. Internet
address: http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metroarea.html
USEPA, 1994. "Vehicle Fuels and the 1990 Clean Air Act." U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Mobile Sources. August, 1994.
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, 1998. Notice of Source Category Listings for Specific Pollutants: Section 112(c)(6).
Internet address: http://www.epa.gOv/ttn/atw/l 12c6/l 12c6fac.html
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.
23-2
-------
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.
USEPA, 2003c. "Fact Sheet Addendum, EPA Policy on Cross Border Sales of 2003 MY
California Vehicles."
USEPA, 2004. Historical Archive of Ambient Monitoring Data. Data retrieved from Mr. Jawad
Touma,U.S. EPA.
USEPA, 2005a. National Emission Inventories for the U.S. Internet address:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html
USEPA, 2005b. U.S. EPA. Clean Air Act Amendments. OAQPS. Internet address:
http ://www. epa. gov/air/oaq_caa.html/
USEPA, 2005c. Air Toxics Strategy: Overview. Internet address:
http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/atw/urban/urb anpg.html
USEPA, 2005d. The National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment. Internet address:
http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/atw/nata/
USEPA, 2005e. About the AQS Subsystem. Internet address:
http ://www. epa. gov/air/data/aqsdb .html
Warneck, 1988. "Chemistry of the Natural Atmosphere." Peter Warneck Academic Press, Inc.
1998.
23-3
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-454/R-06-001
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
2004 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP)
Final Report
5. REPORT DATE
December 2005
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
OAQPS-EMAD
7. AUTHOR(S)
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
1600 Perimeter Park
Morrisville, NC 27560-8421
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D-03-049
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
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 2004
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Reporting data results for the Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP) for 2004.
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, Risk, Trends
Air Pollution control
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
741 + 1351
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-06-001
Environmental Protection Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division December 2005
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
------- |