&EPA
United Sites
Environmental Protection
Agency
2002 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program
(UATMP)
October 2003
Final Report
Oes Moines, IA
Cedar Rapids. IA
Gulf Port, MS
Pascagoula, MS
St. Petersburg, FL
Tampa, FL
Underbill. VT
Rutland, VT
Brattleboro, VT
Chester, NJ
Elizabeth, NJ
New Brunswick, NJ
•Camdon. NJ
Belle Glade, FL
Defray Beach, FL
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Homestead, FL
San Juan, PR
Barceloneta,
-------
EPA-454/R-03-010
October 2003
2002 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program(UATMP)
Prepared By:
Eastern Research Group
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Sharon Nizich, Program Manager
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Contract No. EPA-454/R-03-010
Delivery Orders 18 and 23
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division
Monitoring and Quality Assurance Group
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
DISCLAIMER
Through its Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency funded and managed the research described in this report under EPA Contract
No. 68-D-99-007 to Eastern Research Group, Inc. This report has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for their use.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures viii
List of Tables xiii
List of Abbreviations xxi
Executive Summary xxv
1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 The 2002 UATMP 2-1
2.1 Monitoring Locations 2-1
2.2 Compounds Selected for Monitoring 2-3
2.3 Sampling Schedules 2-3
2.4 Completeness 2-6
2.5 Sampling and Analytical Methods 2-7
2.5.1 VOC Sampling and Analytical Method 2-8
2.5.2 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Method 2-9
2.5.3 Semivolatile and Metals Sampling and Analytical Method 2-11
2.5.4 Metals and Hexavalent Chromium Sampling and
Analytical Data 2-11
3.0 Summary of the 2002 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 3-3
3.1.5 Pearson Correlations 3-6
3.2 UATMP Compound Groups 3-7
3.2.1 Hydrocarbons 3-7
3.2.2 Halogenated Hydrocarbons 3-8
3.2.3 Polar Compounds 3-8
3.2.4 Carbonyl Compounds 3-9
3.3 Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters 3-9
3.3.1 Maximum and Average Temperature 3-10
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
age
3.3.2 Moisture Parameters 3-10
3.3.3 Wind and Pressure Information 3-11
3.4 The Impact of Motor Vehicle Emissions on Spatial Variations 3-12
3.4.1 Motor Vehicle Owner Data 3-13
3.4.2 Motor Vehicle Emission Profiles 3-13
3.4.3 Estimated Traffic Data 3-14
3.5 Variability Analysis 3-15
3.6 UATMPNATTS Sites 3-16
3.6.1 Back Trajectory Analysis 3-16
3.6.2 Federal Regulation Analysis 3-17
3.6.2.1 Regulations for Stationary Sources 3-17
3.6.2.2 Mobile Sources 3-18
3.6.2.3 Regulation Analysis 3-19
3.7 Metals Analysis 3-21
3.8 Trends Analysis 3-21
3.8.1 Trends in Annual Averages 3-21
3.8.2 Trends in Seasonal Averages 3-22
4.0 Sites in Arizona 4-1
4.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at Arizona Sites 4-1
4.2 Spatial Analysis 4-3
5.0 Sites in Colorado 5-1
5.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Colorado Sites 5-2
5.2 Spatial Analysis 5-3
5.3 Regulation Analysis 5-4
6.0 Sites in Florida 6-1
6.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Florida Sites 6-2
6.2 Spatial Analysis 6-3
6.3 Regulation Analysis 6-4
7.0 Sites in Iowa 7-1
7.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Iowa Sites 7-1
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
age
7.2 Spatial Analysis 7-4
7.3 Regulation Analysis 7-4
8.0 Sites in Michigan 8-1
8.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Michigan Sites 8-2
8.2 Spatial Analysis 8-6
8.3 Regulation Analysis 8-7
9.0 Sites in Mississippi 9-1
9.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Mississippi Sites 9-2
9.2 Spatial Analysis 9-3
10.0 Sites in Missouri 10-1
10.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Missouri Sites 10-1
10.2 Spatial Analysis 10-3
11.0 Sites in Nebraska 11-1
11.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Nebraska Sites 11-1
11.2 Spatial Analysis 11-2
12.0 Sites in New Jersey 12-1
12.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the New Jersey Sites 12-2
12.2 Spatial Analysis 12-3
13.0 Site in North Dakota 13-1
13.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the North Dakota Site 13-1
13.2 Spatial Analysis 13-2
14.0 Site in Oregon 14-1
14.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Oregon Sites 14-1
14.2 Spatial Analysis 14-2
15.0 Sites in Puerto Rico 15-1
15.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Puerto Rico Sites 15-1
15.2 Spatial Analysis 15-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
15.3 Regulation Analysis 15-3
16.0 Sites in South Dakota 16-1
16.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the South Dakota Sites 16-1
16.2 Spatial Analysis 16-3
17.0 Sites in Tennessee 17-1
17.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Tennessee Site 17-1
17.2 Spatial Analysis 17-2
18.0 Site in Texas 18-1
18.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Texas Site 18-1
18.2 Spatial Analysis 18-2
19.0 Site in Utah 19-1
19.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Utah Site 19-1
19.2 Spatial Analysis 19-2
20.0 Sites in Vermont 20-1
20.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Vermont Site 20-1
20.2 Spatial Analysis 20-3
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 21-7
21.2 Accuracy 21-12
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 22-10
22.2 Recommendations 22-10
23.0 References 23-1
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Appendix K
Appendix L
Appendix M
Appendix N
age
AIRS Site Descriptions for the 2001 UATMP Monitoring Stations A-l
2002 Summary of Invalidated UATMP Samples by Site B-l
2002 Summary Tables for VOC Monitoring C-l
2002 Summary Tables for SNMOC Monitoring D-l
2002 Summary Tables of Carbonyl Monitoring E-l
2002 Summary Tables for SVOC Monitoring F-l
2002 Summary Tables for Metals Monitoring G-l
2002 Summary Tables for Hexavalent Chromium Monitoring .... H-l
2002 VOC Raw Monitoring Data 1-1
2002 SNMOC Raw Monitoring Data J-l
2002 Carbonyl Raw Monitoring Data K-l
2002 SVOC Raw Monitoring Data L-l
2002 Metal Raw Monitoring Data M-l
2002 Hexavalent Chromium Raw Monitoring Data N-l
vn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
age
2-1 Cities Participating in the 2002 Program 2-13
2-2 Hexavalent Chromium Sampling System 2-14
3-la Comparison of the Geometric Means of the Compound Groups (ANTX-HOMI) .... 3-23
3-lb Comparison of the Geometric Means of the Compound Groups (JAMS - YFMI) . . . 3-24
3-2 Geometric Mean of 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene by Monitoring Location 3-25
3-3 Geometric Mean of Acetylene by Monitoring Location 3-26
3-4 Geometric Mean of Benzene by Monitoring Location 3-27
3-5 Geometric Mean of Chloromethane by Monitoring Location 3-28
3-6 Geometric Mean of Dichlorodifluoromethane by Monitoring Location 3-29
3-7 Geometric Mean of Ethylbenzene by Monitoring Location 3-30
3-8 Geometric Mean of Formaldehyde by Monitoring Location 3-31
3-9 Geometric Mean ofm-,p- Xylene by Monitoring Location 3-32
3-10 Geometric Mean of o-Xylene by Monitoring Location 3-33
3-11 Geometric Mean of Propylene by Monitoring Location 3-34
3-12 Geometric Mean of Toluene by Monitoring Location 3-35
3-13 Geometric Mean of Trichlorofluoromethane by Monitoring Location 3-36
3-14 Comparison of Concentration Ratios for BTEX Compounds vs. Roadside Study .... 3-37
3-15 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Across 44 Sites 3-43
3-16 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Acetylene Across 44 Sites 3-44
3-17 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Benzene Across 44 Sites 3-45
3-18 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Chloromethane Across 44 Sites 3-46
3-19 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Dichlorodifluoromethane Across 44 Sites 3-47
3-20 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Ethybenzene Across 44 Sites 3-48
3-21 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Formaldehyde Across 44 Sites 3-49
3-22 Coefficient of Variance Analysis ofm-,p- Xylene Across 44 Sites 3-50
3-23 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of o-Xylene Across 44 Sites 3-51
3-24 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Propylene Across 44 Sites 3-52
3-25 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Toluene Across 44 Sites 3-53
3-26 Coefficient of Variance Analysis of Trichlorofluoromethane Across 44 Sites 3-54
3-27a Average 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE) 3-55
3-27b Average 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI) 3-56
3-28a Average Acetylene Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE) 3-57
3-28b Average Acetylene Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI) 3-58
3-29a Average Benzene Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE) 3-59
3-29b Average Benzene Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI) 3-60
3-30a Average Chloromethane Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE) 3-61
3-30b Average Chloromethane Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI) 3-62
3-3 la Average Dichlorodifluoromethane Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE) 3-63
3-3 Ib Average Dichlorodifluoromethane Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI) 3-64
3-32a Average Ethylbenzene Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE) 3-65
Vlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
age
3-32b Average Ethylbenzene Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI) 3-66
3-33a Average Formaldehyde Concentration by Season (ANTX-FLFL) 3-67
3-33b Average Formaldehyde Concentration by Season (G2CO-YFMI) 3-68
3-34a Average m-, p- Xylene Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE) 3-69
3-34b Average m-, p- Xylene Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI) 3-70
3-35a Average o-Xylene Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE) 3-71
3-35b Average o-Xylene Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI) 3-72
3-36a Average Propylene Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE) 3-73
3-36b Average Propylene Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI) 3-74
3-37a Average Toluene Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE) 3-75
3-37b Average Toluene Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI) 3-76
3-38a Average Trichlorofluoromethane Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE) 3-77
3-38b Average Trichlorofluoromethane Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI) 3-78
3-39 Average Metals Concentration 3-79
3-40a Comparison of Yearly Averages for the BUND Monitoring Station 3-80
3-40b Comparison of Yearly Averages for the CANJ Monitoring Station 3-81
3-40c Comparison of Yearly Averages for the DAIA Monitoring Station 3-82
3-40d Comparison of Yearly Averages for the DECO Monitoring Station 3-83
3-40e Comparison of Yearly Averages for the DMIA Monitoring Station 3-84
3-40f Comparison of Yearly Averages for the ELNJ Monitoring Station 3-85
3-40g Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SFSD Monitoring Station 3-86
3-40h Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SLCU Monitoring Station 3-87
3-41a Comparison of Yearly Averages for the BUND Monitoring Station 3-88
3-41b Comparison of Yearly Averages for the CANJ Monitoring Station 3-89
3-41c Comparison of Yearly Averages for the DAIA Monitoring Station 3-90
3-41d Comparison of Yearly Averages for the DECO Monitoring Station 3-91
3-41e Comparison of Yearly Averages for the DMIA Monitoring Station 3-92
3-41f Comparison of Yearly Averages for the ELNJ Monitoring Station 3-93
3-41g Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SFSD Monitoring Station 3-94
3-41h Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SLCU Monitoring Station 3-95
4-1 Phoenix, AZ Site 1 (PSAZ) Monitoring Station 4-5
4-2 Phoenix, AZ Site 2 (QVAZ) Monitoring Station 4-6
4-3 Phoenix, AZ Site 1 (SPAZ) Monitoring Station 4-7
4-4 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of PSAZ-SPAZ 4-8
4-5 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of QVAZ 4-9
5-1 Denver, CO (DECO) Monitoring Station 5-6
5-2 Denver, CO (SWCO) Monitoring Station 5-7
5-3 Denver, CO (WECO) Monitoring Station 5-8
5-4 Grand Junction, CO Site 2 (G2CO) Monitoring Station 5-9
5-5 Grand Junction, CO Site 1 (GJCO) Monitoring Station 5-10
5-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DECO 5-11
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
5-7 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SWCO 5-12
5-8 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of WECO 5-13
5-9 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of G2CO and GJCO 5-14
5-10 Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to G2CO's Highest Concentration 5-15
5-11 Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to GJCO's Highest Concentration 5-16
6-1 St. Petersburg, FL (AZFL) Monitoring Station 6-7
6-2 Belle Glade, FL (BGFL) Monitoring Station 6-8
6-3 Clearwater, FL (CWFL) Monitoring Station 6-9
6-4 Delray Beach, FL (DBFL) Monitoring Station 6-10
6-5 St. Peterburg, FL Site 2 (DNFL) Monitoring Station 6-11
6-6 Pompano Beach, FL (FLFL) Monitoring Station 6-12
6-7 Tampa, Florida Site 1 (GAFL) Monitoring Station 6-13
6-8 Tampa, Florida Site 2 (LEFL) Monitoring Station 6-14
6-9 Miami, Florida (MDFL) Monitoring Station 6-15
6-10 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of AZFL, DNFL, GAFL, LEFL, and CWFL .... 6-16
6-11 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BGFL 6-17
6-12 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DBFL and FLFL 6-18
6-13 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of MDFL 6-19
6-14 Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to AZFL, CWFL, and LEFL's
Highest Concentration 6-20
6-15 Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to DNFL's Highest Concentration 6-21
6-16 Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to GAFL's Highest Concentration 6-22
7-1 Cedar Rapids, IA Site 1 (C2IA) Monitoring Station 7-6
7-2 Davenport, IA (DAIA) Monitoring Station 7-7
7-3 Des Moines, IA (DMIA) Monitoring Station 7-8
7-4 Facilities Located within 10 Miles of C2IA 7-9
7-5 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DAIA 7-10
7-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DMIA 7-11
7-7 Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to Cedar Rapids' Highest Concentration 7-12
8-1 Detroit, MI Site 1 (APMI) Monitoring Station 8-10
8-2 Detroit, MI Site 2 (DEMI) Monitoring Station 8-11
8-3 Detroit, MI Site 3 (E7MI) Monitoring Station 8-12
8-4 Houghton Lake, MI Site 4 (HOMI) Monitoring Station 8-13
8-5 Detroit, MI Site 4 (LOMI) Monitoring Station 8-14
8-6 Detroit, MI Site 5 (RRMI) Monitoring Station 8-15
8-7 Detroit, MI Site 6 (SWMI) Monitoring Station 8-16
8-8 Detroit, MI Site 7 (YFMI) Monitoring Station 8-17
8-9 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of APMI, DEMI, RRMI, SWMI, and YFMI .... 8-18
8-10 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of E7MI and LOMI 8-19
8-11 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of HOMI 8-20
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
age
8-12 Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to APMI's Highest Concentration 8-21
8-13 Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to DEMFs Highest Concentration 8-22
8-14 Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to E7MI and RRMFs Highest Concentration . . 8-23
8-15 Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to LOMFs Highest Concentration 8-24
8-16 Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to SWMFs Highest Concentration 8-25
8-17 Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to YFMFs Highest Concentration 8-26
8-18 Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to HOMFs Highest Concentration 8-27
9-1 Gulfport, MS (GPMS) Monitoring Station 9-4
9-2 Jackson, MS (JAMS) Monitoring Station 9-5
9-3 Pascagoula, MS (PGMS) Monitoring Station 9-6
9-4 Tupelo, MS (TUMS) Monitoring Station 9-7
9-5 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of GPMS 9-8
9-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of JAMS 9-9
9-7 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of PGMS 9-10
9-8 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of TUMS 9-11
10-1 Bonne Terre, MO (BTMO) Monitoring Station 10-5
10-2 St. Louis, MO Site 2 (S2MO) Monitoring Station 10-6
10-3 St. Louis, MO Site 3 (S3MO) Monitoring Station 10-7
10-4 St. Louis, MO Site 4 (S4MO) Monitoring Station 10-8
10-5 St. Louis, MO Site 1 (SLMO) Monitoring Station 10-9
10-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BTMO 10-10
10-7 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SLMO, S2MO, S3MO, and S4MO 10-11
11-1 Lincoln, NE Site 1 (LFNE) Monitoring Station 11-4
11-2 Lincoln, NE Site 2 (LONE) Monitoring Station 11-5
11-3 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of LFNE and LONE 11-6
12-1 Camden, NJ (CANJ) Monitoring Station 12-5
12-2 Chester, NJ (CHNJ) Monitoring Station 12-6
12-3 Elizabeth, NJ (ELNJ) Monitoring Station 12-7
12-4 New Brunswick, NJ (NBNJ) Monitoring Station 12-8
12-5 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CANJ 12-9
12-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CHNJ 12-10
12-7 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ELNJ and NBNJ 12-11
13-1 Beulah, ND (BUND) Monitoring Station 13-4
13-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BUND 13-5
14-1 Portland, OR (PLOR) Monitoring Station 14-3
14-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of PLOR 14-4
XI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
15-1 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BAPR 15-5
15-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SJPR 15-6
16-1 Custer, SD (CUSD) Monitoring Station 16-5
16-2 Sioux Falls, SD (SFSD) Monitoring Station 16-6
16-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CUSD 16-7
16-4 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SFSD 16-8
17-1 Nashville Site 1, TN (EATN) Monitoring Station 17-4
17-2 Nashville Site 2, TN (LOTN) Monitoring Station 17-5
17-3 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of EATN and LOTN 17-6
18-1 Arlington, TX (ANTX) Monitoring Station 18-4
18-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ANTX 18-5
19-1 Salt Lake City, UT (SLCU) Monitoring Station 19-4
19-2 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SLCU 19-5
20-1 Brattleboro, VT (BRVT) Monitoring Station 20-5
20-2 Rutland, VT (RUVT) Monitoring Station 20-6
20-3 Underbill, VT (UNVT) Monitoring Station 20-7
20-4 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BRVT 20-8
20-5 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of RUVT 20-9
20-6 Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of UNVT 20-10
xn
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1-1 Organization of the 2002 UATMP Report 1-3
2-1 Monitoring Station Past Participation in the UATMP 2-15
2-2 Text Descriptions of the 2002 UATMP Monitoring Locations 2-17
2-3 Site Descriptions for the 2002 UATMP Monitoring Stations 2-32
2-4 VOC Method Detection Limits 2-37
2-5 SNMOC Method Detection Limits 2-39
2-6 Carbonyl Method Detection Limits 2-41
2-7a Semivolatile Organic Compound Method Detection Limits Prior to 6/1/02 2-42
2-7b Semivolatile Organic Compounds Method Detection Limits After 6/1/02 2-44
2-8 Detection Limits for Metals and Hexavalent Chromium 2-46
2-9a Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Carbonyl Compounds,. VOC, SNMOC
and SVOC 2-47
2-9b Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Metals and Hexavalent Chromium 2-52
2-10 Semi-volatile and Inorganics (Metals) Which Are HAPs 2-53
3-1 Sampling Detect Summaries of the VOC Concentrations 3-96
3-2 Sampling Detect Summaries of the Carbonyl Concentrations 3-99
3-3 Range of Detectable Values by Site 3-100
3-4 Geometric Means by Site 3-102
3-5 Summary of Pearson Correlations for Selected Meteorological Parameters and Prevalent
Compounds 3-104
3-6 Summary of Mobile Information by Site 3-105
3-7 Summary of the National Emission Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds . . . 3-107
3-8 Summary of Potentially Applicable National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Pollutants 3-108
3-9 Summary of Pollutants and Sources Regulated 3-111
4-1 Average Concentrations and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Arizona 4-10
4-2a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Supersite in Phoenix, Arizona (PSAZ) 4-11
4-2b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Queen Valley in Phoenix, Arizona (QVAZ) 4-12
4-2c Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at South Phoenix, Arizona (SPAZ) 4-13
4-3 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Arizona Monitoring Sites .. 4-14
5-1 Average Concentrations and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Colorado 5-17
5-2a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Denver, Colorado (DECO) 5-18
5-2b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Denver, Colorado (SWCO) 5-19
Xlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
age
5-2c Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Denver, Colorado (WECO) 5-20
5-2d Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Grand Junction, Colorado Site 1 (GJCO) 5-21
5-2e Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Grand Junction, Colorado Site 2 (G2CO) 5-22
5-3 Average Metal Concentrations Measured by the Colorado Monitoring Stations 5-23
5-4 Average UATMP Concentrations by Wind Regime for the Grand Junction Sites .... 5-24
5-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Colorado Monitoring Sites . 5-25
5-6 Summary of Future Regulations that May Be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding GJCO and G2CO 5-26
6-1 Average Concentrations and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Florida 6-23
6-2 Formaldehyde Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters in
Florida 6-25
6-3 Average UATMP Concentrations by Wind Regime for the Tampa/
St. Petersburg Sites 6-26
6-4 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Florida Monitoring Sites . . . 6-27
6-5 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding AZFL 6-28
6-6 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding CWFL 6-29
6-7 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding DNFL 6-31
6-8 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding GAFL 6-32
6-9 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding LEFL 6-34
7-1 Average Concentrations and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Iowa 7-13
7-2a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Cedar Rapids, Iowa (C2IA) 7-14
7-2b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Davenport, Iowa (DAIA) 7-15
7-2c Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Des Moines, Iowa (DMIA) 7-16
7-3 TNMOC and Ozone Measured by the Iowa Monitoring Stations 7-17
7-4 Average UATMP Concentrations by Wind Regime for the Cedar Rapids Site 7-18
7-5 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Iowa Monitoring Sites 7-19
7-6 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding C2IA 7-20
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
age
8-1 Average Concentrations and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Michigan 8-28
8-2a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Allen Park in Detroit, Michigan (APMI) 8-30
8-2b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Dearborn, Michigan (DEMI) 8-31
8-2c Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at E7 Mile in Detroit, Michigan (E7MI) 8-32
8-2d Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Houghton Lake in Detroit, Michigan (HOMI) 8-33
8-2e Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Lodge, Michigan (LOMI) 8-34
8-2f Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at River Rouge, Michigan (RRMI) 8-35
8-2g Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at South West High School in Detroit, Michigan (SWMI) 8-36
8-2h Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Yellow Freight, Michigan (YFMI) 8-37
8-3 Hexavalent Chromium Concentration Correlations with Selected Meterological
Parameters with the Michigan Sites 8-38
8-4 TNMOC, SVOC, Hexavalent Chromium, Metal, and Ozone Measured by the Michigan
Monitoring Stations 8-39
8-5 Average UATMP Concentrations by Wind Regime for the Detroit Sites 8-40
8-6 Average UATMP Concentrations by Wind Regime for the Houghton Lake Site .... 8-41
8-7 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentrations for Michigan
Monitoring Sites 8-42
8-8 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding APMI 8-43
8-9 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding DEMI 8-44
8-10 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding E7MI 8-45
8-11 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding RRMI 8-46
8-12 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding SWMI and YFMI 8-47
9-1 Average Concentrations and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Mississippi .... 9-12
9-2a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Gulf Port, Mississippi (GPMS) 9-13
9-2b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Jackson, Mississippi (JAMS) 9-14
9-2c Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Pascagoula, Mississippi (PGMS) 9-15
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
age
9-2d Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Tupelo, Mississippi (TUMS) 9-16
9-3 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Mississippi Monitoring Sites 9-17
10-1 Average Concentrations and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Missouri 10-12
10-2a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Bonne Terre and St. Louis, Missouri Site 4 (S4MO) 10-13
10-2b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at St. Louis, Missouri Site 2 (S2MO) 10-14
10-2c Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at St. Louis, Missouri Site 3 (S3MO) 10-15
10-2d Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at St. Louis, Missouri Site 1 (S1MO) 10-16
10-3 SVOC, Ozone, and SNMOC Measured by the Missouri Monitoring
Station 10-17
10-4 Motor Vehicle Information vs Daily Concentration for Missouri Monitoring Sites . 10-18
11-1 Average Concentrations and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Nebraska 11-7
1 l-2a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Lincoln, Nebraska Site 1 (LINE) 11-8
1 l-2b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Lincoln, Nebraska Site 2 (LONE) 11-9
11-3 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Nebraska
Monitoring Sites 11-10
12-1 Average Concentrations and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in New Jersey 12-12
12-2a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Camden, New Jersey (CANJ) 12-13
12-2b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Chester, New Jersey (CHNJ) 12-14
12-2c Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Elizabeth, New Jersey (ELNJ) 12-15
12-2d Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at New Brunswick, New Jersey (NBNJ) 12-16
12-3 SVOC Measured by the New Jersey Monitoring Station 12-17
12-4 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the New Jersey
Monitoring Site 12-18
13-1 Average Concentrations and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in North Dakota .. 13-6
13-2 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Beulah, North Dakota (BUND) 13-7
13-3 TNMOC and Ozone Measured by the Beulah, North Dakota Monitoring Station .... 13-8
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
age
13-4 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for North Dakota
Monitoring Sites 13-9
14-1 Average Concentrations and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Oregon 14-5
14-2 Hexavalent Chromium Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at Portland, Oregon (PLOR) 14-6
14-3 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Oregon
Monitoring Site 14-7
15-1 Average Concentrations and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Puerto Rico ... 15-7
15-2a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Barceloneta, Puerto Rico (BAPR) 15-8
15-2b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at San Juan, Puerto Rico (SJPR) 15-9
15-3 TNMOC Measured by the Puerto Rico Monitoring Stations 15-10
15-4 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentrations for Puerto Rico
Monitoring Sites 15-11
15-5 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding BAPR 15-12
15-6 Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities
Surrounding SJPR 15-13
16-1 Average Concentrations and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in
South Dakota 16-9
16-2a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Custer, South Dakota (CUSD) 16-10
16-2b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlation with Selected Meteorological Parameters
at Sioux Falls, South Dakota (SFSD) 16-11
16-3 TNMOC and Ozone Measured by the Custer (CUSD) and Sioux Falls, SD (SFSD)
Monitoring Stations 16-12
16-4 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the South Dakota
Monitoring Site 16-13
17-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Sites in Tennessee . . 17-7
17-2a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at Nashville, Tennesee Site 1 (EATN) 17-8
17-2b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at Nashville, Tennesee Site 2 (LOTN) 17-9
17-3 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Tennessee
Monitoring Sites 17-10
xvn
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
age
18-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Texas 18-6
18-2 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at Arlington, Texas (ANTX) 18-7
18-3 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Texas Monitoring Site . . 18-8
19-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Utah 19-6
19-2 Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at Salt Lake City, Utah (SLCU) 19-7
19-3 TNMOC and Ozone Measured by the Salt Lake City, Utah (SLCU)
Monitoring Station 19-8
19-4 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Utah Monitoring Site . . . 19-9
20-1 Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Vermont . . . 20-11
20-2a Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at Battleboro, Vermont (BRVT) 20-12
20-2b Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at Rutland, Vermont (RUVT) 20-13
20-2c Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological
Parameters at Underbill, Vermont (UNVT) 20-14
20-3 Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Vermont
Monitoring Site 20-15
21-1 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 640 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate and
Collocated Samples 21-13
21-2 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Total 184 Replicate Analyses of Collocated
Samples 21-15
21-3 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Total 456 Replicate Analyses of Duplicate
Samples 21-17
21-4 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Total 48 Replicate Analyses of Duplicate
Samples in Puerto Rico 21-19
21-5 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Total 44 Replicate Analyses of Duplicate
Samples in Grand Junction, CO 21-21
21-6 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Total 24 Replicate Analyses of Duplicate
Samples in Cedar Rapids, IA 21-23
21-7 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Total 104 Replicate Analyses of Collocated
Samples in Detroit, Michigan 21-25
21-8 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficients of Variation for each Compound
for all Replicate Analyses, All Sites 21-27
21-9 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 184 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate
Samples 21-36
21-10 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 40 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate
Samples in Puerto Rico 21-39
xvin
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
age
21-11 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 28 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate
Samples in Cedar Rapids, IA 21-42
21-12 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate
Analyses 21-45
21-13 Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision: 722 Replicate Analyses for all
Duplicate and Collocated Sample 21-49
21-14 Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision: 96 Replicate Analyses for all
Collocated Samples 21-50
21-15 Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision: 626 Replicate Analyses for all
Duplicate Samples 21-51
21-16 Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision: 52 Replicate Analyses for all
Duplicate Samples in Puerto Rico 21-52
21-17 Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision: 52 Replicate Analyses in Grand
Junction, CO 21-53
21-18 Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision: 28 Replicate Analyses in Cedar
Rapids, IA 21-54
21-19 Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision: 84 Replicate Samples for all
Collocated Samples in Detroit, MI 21-55
21-20 Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision: 112 Replicate Analyses for all
Duplicate Samples in Florida 21-56
21-21 Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all
Replicate Samples 21-57
21-22 SVOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 35 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples
in Michigan 21-60
21-23 Hexavalent Chromium Sampling and Analytical Precision: Total 40 Replicates on
Collocated Samples 21-60
21-24 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Total 334 Duplicate and Collocated
Samples 21-61
21-25 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Total 102 Collocated Samples 21-63
21-26 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Total 232 Duplicate Samples 21-65
21-27 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Total 26 Duplicate Samples from Two Sites in
Puerto Rico 21-67
21-28 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Total 12 Duplicate Samples from Cedar Rapids,
IA 21-69
21-29 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Total 62 Collocated Samples from Two Sites in
Detroit Metropolitan Area, Michigan 21-71
21-30 VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate and
Collocated Samples 21-73
21-31 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 98 Duplicate Samples 21-82
21-32 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 22 Duplicate Samples in Puerto
Rico 21-85
21-33 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: 14 Duplicate Samples in Cedar
Rapids, IA 21-88
xix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
age
21-34 SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate
Samples 21-91
21-35 Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision: 352 Replicate Samples for all
Duplicate and Collocated Samples 21-95
21-36 Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision: 48 Replicate Samples for all
Collocated Samples 21-96
21-37 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 304 Duplicate Samples 21-97
21-38 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 26 Duplicate Samples in Puerto
Rico 21-98
21-39 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 26 Duplicate Samples in Grand Junction,
CO 21-99
21-40 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 14 Duplicate Samples in Cedar
Rapids, IA 21-100
21-41 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 42 Replicate Samples for all Collocated
Samples in Michigan 21-101
21-42 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: 76 Duplicate Samples in Florida . . . 21-102
21-43 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision: Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate
Samples 21-103
21-44 SVOC Sampling and Analytical Precision: Total 49 Collocated Samples in
Michigan 21-106
21-45 Hexavalent Chromium Sampling and Analytical Precision: Total 20 Collocated
Samples 21-107
21-46 Metals Sampling and Analytical Precision for 22 Duplicate Samples 21-107
xx
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIRS Aerometric Information and Retrieval System
AQS Air Quality Subsystem (of the Aerometric Information and Retrieval System)
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (o-, m-, and/?-xylene)
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR code of federal regulation
CV Coefficient of Variation
DNPH 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FID flame ionization detection
GC gas chromatography
GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant
HPLC high-performance liquid chromatography
HYSPLIT Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MEK methyl ethyl ketone
MDL Method Detection Limit
MTBE methyl tert-butyl ether
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NATTS National Air Toxics Trends System
NA not applicable
ND nondetect
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution
NLEV National Low Emissions Vehicles
NMOC Nonmethane Organic Compounds
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOX oxides of nitrogen
NSPS New Source Standards of Performance
NTI National Toxics Inventory
OTC Ozone Transport Commission
ppbC parts per billion Carbon
ppbv parts per billion (by volume)
PM particulate matter
RFG Reformulated Gasoline
xxi
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
R^x maximum radius of concern
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
WB AN Weather Bureau/Army/Navy ID
xxn
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
Monitoring Stations
ANTX Arlington, Texas
APMI Allen Park in Detroit, Michigan
AZFL Azalea Park in St. Petersburg, Florida
BAPR Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
BGFL Belle Glade, Florida
BRVT Brattleboro, Vermont
BTMO Bonne Terre, Missouri
BUND Beulah, North Dakota
C2IA Cedar Rapids, Iowa
CANJ Camden, New Jersey
CHNJ Chester, New Jersey
CUSD Custer, South Dakota
CWFL Clear-water, Florida
DAIA Davenport, Iowa
DBFL Delray Beach, Florida
DECO Denver, Colorado (Site #1)
DEMI Dearborn in Detroit, Michigan
DMIA Des Moines, Iowa
DNFL Dunedin in St. Petersburg, Florida
E7MI E7 Mile in Detroit, Michigan
EATN Nashville, Tennessee (Site #1)
ELNJ Elizabeth, New Jersey
FLFL Pompano Beach, Florida
G2CO Grand Junction, Colorado (Site #2)
GAFL Gandy in Tampa, Florida
GJCO Grand Junction, Colorado (Site #1)
GPMS Gulfport, Mississippi
HOMI Houghton Lake, Michigan
JAMS Jackson, Mississippi
LEFL Lewis in Tampa, Florida
LINE Lincoln, Nebraska (Site # 1)
LOMI Lodge in Detroit, Michigan
LONE Lincoln, Nebraska (Site #2)
LOTN Nashville, Tennessee (Site #2)
MDFL Miami, Florida
xxiii
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
NBNJ New Brunswick, New Jersey
PGMS Pascagoula, Mississippi
PLOR Portland, Oregon
PSAZ Supers!te in Phoenix, Arizona
QVAZ Queen Valley in Phoenix, Arizona
RRMI River Rouge in Detroit, Michigan
RUVT Rutland, Vermont
S2MO St. Louis, Missouri (Site #2)
S3MO St. Louis, Missouri (Site #3)
S4MO St. Louis, Missour (Site #4)
SFSD Sioux Falls, South Dakota
SJPR San Juan, Puerto Rico
SLCU Salt Lake City, Utah
SLMO St. Louis, Missouri (Site #1)
SPAZ South Phoenix, Arizona
SWCO Denver, Colorado (Site #3)
SWMI South West High School in Detroit, Michigan
TUMS Tupelo, Mississippi
UNVT Underbill, Vermont
WECO Denver, Colorado (Site #2)
YFMI Yellow Freight in Detroit, Michigan
xxiv
-------
Executive Summary
This report presents the results and conclusions from the ambient air monitoring conducted
as part of the 2002 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 2002 UATMP included 56 monitoring stations that collected 24-hour air samples,
typically on a 6- or 12-day schedule. Thirty-four sites analyzed ambient air samples for
concentrations of 59 volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 16 carbonyl compounds. Thirteen
sites also analyzed for 80 speciated nonmethane organic compounds (SNMOC). Twelve sites
analyzed for 92 semivolatile compounds (SVOC). Six sites analyzed metal compounds, while
five sites analyzed hexavalent chromium. Overall, nearly 300,000 ambient air concentrations
were measured during the 2002 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 2002 UATMP serve a wide range of
purposes. Not only do these data characterize the nature and extent of urban air pollution close to
the 56 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.
xxv
-------
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 its inception 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 2002 UATMP monitoring effort,
which included 12 months of six- and twelve-day measurements of ambient air quality at
55 monitoring sites in or near 32 urban locations. An additional site (PLOR) only measured
hexavalent chromium which is included in this report. Much of the analysis and data
interpretation in this report focuses on compound-specific data trends.
Note: In previous years, the UATMP sampling 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 "program year" follows the same convention as last year.
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 56 different air
sampling locations (including PLOR), a site-specific approach that allows for much more
detailed analyses of the factors (e.g., motor vehicle emission sources, industrial sources, natural
sources) that affect air quality differently from one urban center to the next.
1-1
-------
Ultimately, the contents of this report should offer participating agencies useful insights
into important air quality issues. For example, participating agencies can use trends and patterns
in the UATMP monitoring data to determine whether levels of air pollution present public health
concerns, to identify which emissions sources contribute most strongly to air pollution, or to
forecast whether proposed pollution control initiatives might significantly improve air quality.
Recently, EPA has been actively participating in the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA)
which uses air toxic emissions to model ambient monitoring concentrations across the nation.
UATMP monitoring data may be used to compare modeling results, similar to those of NATA.
Though they are extensive, the analyses in this report should not be viewed as a comprehensive
account of urban air pollution at every UATMP monitoring station. State and local
environmental agencies are encouraged to perform additional analyses of the monitoring data so
that the many factors that affect ambient air quality can be appreciated fully.
To facilitate examination of the 2002 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/airaqs/index.htm.
The remainder of this report is organized into twenty-three text sections and
14 appendices. Table 1-1 highlights the contents of each section. As with previous UATMP
annual reports, all figures and tables in this report appear at the end of their respective sections
(figures first, followed by tables).
1-2
-------
Table 1-1
Organization of the 2002 UATMP Report
Report
Section
Section Title
Overview of Contents
The 2002 UATMP
This section provides background information on the scope of the 2002 UATMP and
includes information about the:
• Monitoring locations
• Compounds selected for monitoring
• Sampling and analytical methods
• Sampling schedules
• Completeness of the air monitoring program.
Overview of Compounds
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 interpret the significance of the observed spatial and
temporal variations.
10
Monitoring results for Phoenix, AZ
(PSAZ, QVAZ, and SPAZ)
Monitoring results for Denver (DECO,
SWCO, and WECO) and Grand Junction,
CO (G2CO and GJCO)
Monitoring results for South Florida
(BGFL, DBFL, FLFL, and MDFL), St.
Petersburg (AZFL, CWFL, and DNFL)
and Tampa, FL (GAFL and LEFL)
Monitoring results for Cedar Rapids
(C2IA), Davenport (DAIA), and Des
Moines (DMIA)
These sections summarize the 2002 UATMP monitoring data collected in the
respective cities and analyze in detail ambient air concentrations of selected nitriles
and oxygenated compounds.
Monitoring results for Detroit, MI
(APMI, DEMI, E7MI, HOMI, LOMI,
RRMI, SWMI, and YFMI)
Monitoring results for St. Louis, MO
(BTMO, S2MO, S3MO, S4MO, and
SLMO)
Monitoring results for Gulfport (GPMS),
Jackson (JAMS), Pascagoula (PGMS),
and Tupelo, MS (TUMS)
-------
Table 1-1. (Continued)
Report
Section
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Section Title
Monitoring results for Beulah, ND
(BUND)
Monitoring results for Lincoln, NE (LINE
and LONE)
Monitoring results for Camden (CANJ),
Chester (CHNJ), Elizabeth (ELNJ), and
New Brunswick, NJ (NBNJ)
Monitoring results for Portland, OR
(PLOR)
Monitoring results for Barceloneta
(BAPR) and San Juan, PR (SJPR)
Monitoring results for Custer (CUSD)
and Sioux Falls, SD (SFSD)
Monitoring results for Nashville, TN
(EATN and LOTN)
Monitoring results for Arlington, TX
(ANTX)
Monitoring results for Salt Lake City, UT
(SLCU)
Monitoring results for Brattleboro
(BRVT), Rutland (RUVT), and
Underbill, VT (UNVT)
Data Quality
Conclusions and Recommendations
References
Overview of Contents
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 2002 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 2002 UATMP
The 2002 UATMP included 56 monitoring stations that collected 24-hour integrated
canister and cartridge samples of ambient air for up to 12 months at six and twelve day sampling
intervals. One site, DEMI, changed its sampling intervals from every day, three, six, and twelve
days, every quarter. All UATMP samples were analyzed in a central laboratory for
concentrations of selected hydrocarbons, halogenated hydrocarbons, and polar compounds from
the canister samples, carbonyl compounds from the cartridge samples, semivolatiles from the
XAD-2® thimbles, hexavalent chromium from pre-treated filters, and metal compounds from
filters. The following discussion reviews the monitoring locations, the compounds selected for
monitoring, the sampling schedules, the completeness of the 2002 UATMP, and the sampling
and analytical methods.
2.1 Monitoring Locations
Although EPA sponsors the UATMP, EPA does not dictate where the UATMP
monitoring stations are located. Rather, representatives from the state and local agencies that
voluntarily participate in the program and contribute to the overall monitoring costs select the
monitoring locations. Some monitors were placed near the centers of heavily populated cities
(e.g., Denver, CO and Phoenix, AZ), while others were placed in moderately populated areas
(e.g., Beulah, ND and Des Moines, IA). The monitoring stations participating in previous
UATMP programs are listed in Table 2-1.
Figure 2-1 shows the 37 cities participating in the 2002 program. The site descriptions in
Table 2-2 and in Appendix A provide detailed information on the surroundings at the 2002
UATMP monitoring locations. Monitors that are designated as EPA National Air Toxic Trend
System (NATTS) sites are bolded in Table 2-2. Sections 4 through 20 contain topographic maps
for each of the sites, if available. Industrial facilities within 10 miles of the monitoring sites
were plotted in these sections, as well. The locations and category descriptions of these
industrial emission sources were report in the 1999 National Emission Inventory (NEI) (EPA,
2002).
2-1
-------
As Figure 2-1 shows, the 2002 UATMP monitoring sites were distributed across the
country. The monitoring data from these stations may indicate certain air quality trends that are
common to all urban environments, but may also show distinct geographic trends. The analyses
in this report differentiate those trends that appear to be site-specific from those that appear to be
common to urban environments.
Chemical concentrations measured during the 2002 UATMP varied significantly from
monitoring location to monitoring location. As discussed throughout this report, the proximity
of the monitoring locations to different emissions sources, especially industrial facilities and
heavily traveled roadways, often explains the observed spatial variations in ambient air quality.
To provide a first approximation of the respective contributions of motor vehicle emissions and
industrial emissions on ambient air quality at each site, Table 2-3 lists the number of people
living within 10 miles of each monitoring location, as well as the stationary source emissions in
the monitor's residing county, according to the 1999 NEI.
At every UATMP monitoring location, the air sampling equipment was installed in a
small temperature-controlled enclosure (usually a trailer or a shed) with the sampling inlet probe
protruding through the roof. With this common setup, every UATMP monitor sampled ambient
air at heights approximately 5 to 20 feet above local ground level.
For record keeping and reporting purposes, each of these locations was assigned:
A unique four-character UATMP site code - used to track samples from the monitoring
locations to the laboratory; and
A unique nine-digit AQS site code - used to index monitoring results in the AQS
database.
This report often cites these codes when presenting selected monitoring results.
2-2
-------
2.2 Compounds Selected for Monitoring
Urban air pollution typically contains hundreds of components, including, but not limited
to, volatile organic compounds (VOC), metals, inorganic acids, and paniculate matter. Because
the sampling and analysis to monitor for every component of air pollution has been prohibitively
expensive, the UATMP instead focuses on measuring ambient levels of 59 VOCs
(13 hydrocarbons, 37 halogenated hydrocarbons, and 9 polar compounds), 13 carbonyl
compounds, 80 Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compounds (SNMOC), 106 Semivolatile
Compounds (SVOC), 11 metals, and hexavalent chromium. Tables 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7a and b, and
2-8 identify the specific compounds of interest.
2.3 Sampling Schedules
Tables 2-9a and 2-9b present the dates on which sampling began and ended for each
monitoring location. With the following exceptions, the UATMP monitoring locations started
sampling in January 2002 and stopped sampling in December 2002. The following fifteen sites
did not start at the beginning of the sampling period:
Arlington, Texas site started in June 2002;
Denver, Colorado sites 2 and 3 (SWCO and WECO) started in July 2002 and May 2002,
respectively;
• St. Petersburg site in Clearwater started in July 2002;
The South Florida sites (Homestead, Fort Lauderdale, Delray Beach, and Belle Glade)
started in November 2002;
Houghton Lake site in Michigan started in August 2002;
• St. Louis, Missouri site 4 (S4MO) and Bonne Terre started in December 2002;
Lincoln site 2 (LONE) started in October 2002;
Custer, South Dakota site started in March 2002;
• Nashville, TN sites (EATN and LOTN) started in May and April 2002, respectively.
-------
Ten sites ended sampling before December 2002: Grand Junction sites ended in April
2002; Dunedin-St. Petersburg site ended in July 2002; Des Moines, Iowa finished in June 2002;
Lodge-Detroit site ended in May 2002; E7Mile-Detroit site ended in August 2002; Allen Park-
and Yellow Freight-Detroit sites ended in September 2002; and St. Louis sites 2 and 3 ended in
May 2002. One site, Lincoln, NE site 1, began sampling in March and ended in September.
According to the UATMP schedule, 24-hour integrated samples were to be collected at
every monitoring location approximately once every 6 or 12 days and each sample collection
began and ended at midnight, local standard time. At each test site, VOC and carbonyl samples
were collected concurrently, except for: South Florida (Belle Glade, Delray Beach, Fort
Lauderdale, and Homestead)-carbonyl only; St. Petersburg, Florida (Azalea Park, Clearwater,
and Dunedin); Tampa, Florida (Gandy and Lewis)-carbonyl only; Detroit, Michigan (East 7 Mile
for SVOCs and Houghton Lake for VOC); St. Louis sites 2, 3, 4-VOC only, and Bonne Terre-
carbonyl only; the Phoenix sites (South Phoenix, Supersite, and Queen Valley)-VOC only; and
the Vermont sites (Brattleboro, Rutland, and Underbill)-VOC only. The following thirteen sites
also collected SNMOC samples:
• Barceloneta, Puerto Rico;
• Beulah, North Dakota;
• Cedar Rapids, Iowa;
• Custer, South Dakota;
• Davenport, Iowa;
• Des Moines, Iowa;
• Detroit (East 7 Mile only), Michigan;
• Salt Lake City, Utah;
• San Juan, Puerto Rico;
2-4
-------
• Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and
• St. Louis (Bonne Terre, Site 1, and Site 4 only), Missouri.
Twelve sites collected SVOC samples:
• All seven Detroit, Michigan sites;
• All four New Jersey sites; and
• St. Louis (Site 1 only), Missouri.
Six sites collected Metals samples:
• All Colorado sites; and
• Detroit, Michigan (South West High School only)
Five sites collected Hexavalent Chromium samples:
• Detroit, Michigan (Allen Park, Dearborn, Lodge 696, and River Rouge); and
• Portland, Oregon.
As part of the sampling schedule, site operators were instructed to collect duplicate
samples on roughly 10 percent of the sampling days. Sampling calendars were distributed to
help site operators schedule the collection of samples, duplicates, and field blanks. In cases
where monitors failed to collect valid samples on a scheduled sampling day, site operators
sometimes rescheduled samples for other days. This practice explains why some monitoring
locations periodically strayed from the 6- or 12-day sampling schedule. The state of Michigan
prepared a schedule that allowed the Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality's
laboratory to share samples with ERG's laboratory.
2-5
-------
The 6- or 12-day sampling schedule permits cost-effective data collection for
characterization (annual-average concentrations) of toxic compounds in ambient air and ensures
that sampling days are evenly distributed among the 7 days of the week to allow comparison of
air quality on weekdays to air quality on weekends.
2.4 Completeness
Completeness refers to the number of valid samples collected compared to the number of
samples expected from a 6- or 12-day sampling cycle. Monitoring programs that consistently
generate valid results have higher completeness than programs that consistently invalidate
samples. The completeness of an air monitoring program, therefore, is a qualitative measure of
the reliability of air sampling equipment and laboratory analytical equipment and a measure of
the efficiency with which the program was managed.
Appendix B identifies samples that were invalidated and lists the specific reasons why
the samples were invalidated. Tables 2-9a and 2-9b summarize the completeness of the
monitoring data sets collected during the 2002 UATMP:
For VOC sampling, the completeness ranged from 69 to 100 percent, with an overall
completeness of 91 percent;
For carbonyl sampling, the completeness ranged from 63 to 100 percent with an overall
completeness of 93 percent;
For SNMOC sampling, the completeness ranged from 75 to 100 percent with an overall
completeness of 92 percent for all sites;
For SVOC sampling, the completeness ranged from 60 to 100 percent with an overall
completeness of 92 percent;
For Metals sampling, the completeness ranged from 97 to 100 percent with an overall
completeness of 99 percent; and
For Hexavalent Chromium, the completeness ranged from 90 to 100 percent with an
overall completeness of 96 percent.
2-6
-------
The UATMP data quality objectives are based on the 2002 Quality Assurance Plan,
85-100% completeness for a given monitoring station must be analyzed successfully to generate
a sufficiently complete data set for estimating annual average air concentrations. The data in
Tables 2-9a and 2-9b show that 18 data sets (from a total of 131 data sets) from the 2002
UATMP monitoring stations did not meet this data quality objective. Thirteen sites which
measured carbonyls (out of 46 sites), 4 VOC sites (out of 45), 3 SNMOC sites (out of 13), 2
SVOC sites (out of 12), 5 Metals sites (out of 6), and 4 Hexavalent Chromium sites (out of 5)
achieved 100% completeness.
2.5 Sampling and Analytical Methods
During the 2002 UATMP, five EPA-approved methods were used to characterize urban
air pollution:
• Compendium Method TO-15 was used to measure ambient air concentrations of 59 VOC
and 80 SNMOC;
• Compendium Method TO-11A was used to measure ambient air concentrations of
15 carbonyl compounds; and
• Compendium Method TO-13A was used to collect ambient air concentrations of 91
SVOC. Analysis was performed following SW-846 Method 8270 protocols.
• Compendium MethodIO-3.0 was used to collect ambient concentration of 11 metals.
Analysis was performed following Conpendium Method IO-3.5 protocols.
• Modified CARB Method 039 and ERGs revised method was used to collect ambient air
concentrations of hexavalent chromium.
The following discussion presents an overview of these sampling and analytical methods.
For detailed descriptions of the methods, readers should refer to EPA's original documentation
of the Compendium Methods (USEPA, 1999a).
2-7
-------
2.5.1 VOC Sampling and Analytical Method
As specified in the EPA method, ambient air samples for VOC analysis were collected in
passivated stainless steel canisters. The central laboratory distributed the prepared (i.e., cleaned
and evacuated) canisters to the UATMP monitoring stations before each scheduled sampling
event, and site operators connected the canisters to air sampling equipment prior to each
sampling day. Before their use in the field, the passivated canisters had internal sea level
pressures much lower than atmospheric. Because of this sea level pressure differential, ambient
air naturally flowed into the canisters once they were opened, and pumps were not needed to
collect ambient air for VOC analysis. A flow controller on the sampling device ensured that
ambient air entered the canister at a constant rate across the collection period. At the end of the
24-hour sampling period, a solenoid valve automatically stopped ambient air from flowing into
the canister, and site operators returned the canisters to the central laboratory for analysis.
By analyzing each sample with gas chromatography incorporating mass selective
detection and flame ionization detection (GC/MS-FID), laboratory staff determined ambient air
concentrations of 59 VOC (13 hydrocarbons, 37 halogenated hydrocarbons, and 9 polar
compounds) and 80 SNMOC within the sample. Because isobutene and 1-butene as well as m-
xylene and/>-xylene elute from the GC column at the same time, the VOC analytical method
reports only the sum of the concentrations for these compounds, and not the separate
concentrations for each compound.
Table 2-4 lists the method detection limits for the laboratory analysis of the VOC
samples and Table 2-5 lists the method detection limits for the SNMOC samples. Although the
sensitivity of the analytical method varies from compound to compound, the detection limit for
VOC reported for every compound is lower than 0.53 parts per billion by volume (ppbv); most
of the detection limits were below 0.20 ppbv. Speciated Nonmethane Organic Compound
(SNMOC) detection limits are expressed in parts per billion carbon (ppbC). Most detection
limits were less than 0.30 ppbC, while all were less than 0.77 ppbC.
2-8
-------
Because nondetect results significantly limit the range of data interpretations for ambient
air monitoring programs, participating agencies should note that the approach for treating
nondetects may slightly affect the magnitude of the calculated central tendency concentrations,
especially for compounds with a low prevalence. Following the approach used to process the
1995 - 2001 UATMP monitoring data, data analysts replaced all nondetect observations with
concentrations equal to one-half of the compound's corresponding method detection limit. This
approach is recommended for risk assessments involving environmental monitoring data
(USEPA, 1988).
Similar to last year, the reportable SNMOC analysis option was combined with the
standard VOC sampling. These data are presented in Appendix D.
2.5.2 Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Method
Following the specifications of EPA Compendium Method TO-11 A, ambient air samples
for carbonyl analysis were collected by passing ambient air over silica gel cartridges coated with
2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH), a compound known to react selectively and reversibly with
many aldehydes and ketones. Carbonyl compounds in ambient air remain within the sampling
cartridge, while other compounds pass through the cartridge without reacting with the DNPH-
coated matrix. As with the VOC sampling, the central laboratory distributed the silica gel
cartridges to the monitoring locations, and site operators connected the cartridges to the air
sampling equipment. After each 24-hour sampling period, site operators returned the cartridges
to the central laboratory for chemical analysis.
To quantify concentrations of carbonyls in the sampled ambient air, laboratory analysts
eluted the exposed silica gel cartridges with acetonitrile. This solvent elution liberated a solution
of DNPH derivatives of the aldehydes and ketones collected from the ambient air. High-
performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis and ultraviolet detection of these solutions
determined the relative amounts of individual carbonyls present in the original air sample.
Because butyraldehyde and isobutyraldehyde elute from the HPLC column at the same time, the
2-9
-------
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.
Appreciating Detection Limits
The detection limit of an analytical method must be considered carefully when interpreting
the corresponding ambient air monitoring data. By definition, detection limits represent the
lowest concentrations at which laboratory equipment can 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. Because analytical methods do not quantify concentrations at
levels below the detection limits accurately or precisely, data analysts must exercise caution
when interpreting monitoring data with many reported concentrations at levels near or
below the corresponding detection limits.
Method detection limits are determined at the analytical laboratory by analyzing up to 9
replicate standards prepared on/in the appropriate sampling media (per analytical method).
Instrument detection limits are not determined (9 replicates of standards only) because sample
preparation procedures are not considered.
Table 2-6 lists the method detection limits reported by the analytical laboratory for
measuring concentrations of 13 carbonyl compounds. Although the sensitivity of the analytical
method varies from compound to compound and from site to site, the average detection limit
reported by the analytical laboratory for every compound is less than or equal to 0.16 ppbv.
2-10
-------
When reviewing these data, readers should keep in mind that data analysts replaced all
nondetect observations with concentrations equal to one-half of the compound's corresponding
detection limit.
2.5.3 Semivolatile and Metals Sampling and Analytical Method
Semivolatile sampling is performed completely by the sites in accordance with EPA
Compendium Method TO-13A for semivolatiles and Compendium Method IO-3.5 for inorganic
compounds (metals). Table 2-10 summarizes the HAP inorganics and semivolatiles sampled for
in 2002. ERG supplies prepared sampling media and receives the samples from the sites for
analysis only. Sampling modules containing XAD-2® and petri dishes containing filters,
together with Chain of Custody forms and all associated documentation, are shipped to the ERG
laboratory from the field. Upon receipt at the laboratory, sample preparation and analysis
procedures are based on SW-846 Method 3542 and SW-846 Method 8270.
Table 2-7a lists the method detection limits for the laboratory analysis of the SVOC
samples. The detection limits decreased after June 1, 2002 because of an analytical
improvements. However, only two sites, SLMO and YFMI, were affected. These new MDLs
are given in Table 2-7b. Method detection limits for Semivolatile organic compounds ranged
from 0.02 to 0.25|ig/m3, with most falling below 0.10 |ig/m3 in an average sample volume of 200
m3.
2.5.4 Metals and Hexavalent Chromium Sampling and Analytical Data
Sodium bicarbonate-impregnated filters were connected to the hexavalent chromium
sampler as shown in Figure 2-2. Ambient air was drawn through the filters through a glass
sampling probe using Teflon® sampling lines at a point as close to the ambient air monitoring
point as possible. A total of 30 samples for the 12-day sampling will be analyzed per site.
Additionally, duplicate samples and field blanks were collected and analyzed at a rate of 10% of
the volume of samples.
2-11
-------
ERG shipped bicarbonate-impregnated sodium filters to each site in coolers. The
samples were collected for a 24-hour period. After sampling, the filters were removed from the
sampling apparatus, sealed, and returned to the ERG laboratory in the coolers in which they were
received. Disposable polyethylene gloves were used by the field operators when handling the
filters to reduce background contamination levels. Additional details of the hexavalent
chromium sampling and analysis procedures are presented in the California Air Resources Board
Method 039(30) and in ERG's SOP (ERG-MOR-063).
Table 2-8 lists the method detection limits for the laboratory analysis of the metal and
hexavalent chromium samples. Method Detection limits for metals ranged from 0.5 ng/filter to
100 ng/filter, while the hexavalent chromium method detection limit was 0.013 ng/m3 in an
average sample volume of 12 m3.
2-12
-------
Figure 2-1. Cities Participating in the 2002 Program
to
Des Moines, IA
Cedar Rapids, IA
Portland, OR/
Beulah, NO
Custer, SD
Sioux Falls, SD
f
Salt Lake City[UT
'T — ' , Lincoln, NE
/ Denver, CO
/• *
Grand Junction, CO
/
' 1 : ^_ ^
Underbill, VT
Rutland, VT
Brattleboro, VT
New Brunswick, NJ
camden, NJ
Phoenix, AZ /
Houghton Lake, Ml
Detroit, Ml
>—=«s«^5
Gulf Port, MSx
Pascagoula, MS
St. Petersburg, FL'y
Tampa, FL'
Belle Glade, FL
:^elray Beach, FL
=t. Lauderdale, FL
Homestead, FL
San Juan, PR
Barceloneta, PRV ^
-------
Figure 2-2. Hexavalent Chromium Sampling System
OUTSIDE
Filter
Teflon
Filter
Holder
Teflon
Funnel
i Assembly
Sample
Air
In From
Atmosphere
INSIDE
Teflon
Connecting
Tube
To
Atmosphere
Sample
Flow
Rotameter
/Sample\
Flow
-i Control
I Valve
Key
• Plumbing Connections
Electrical Connections
Recptacle
Outlet
(Optional
Use)
Digital Timer
Channel 2 Channel 1
Elapsed
Timer
2-14
-------
Table 2-1. Monitoring Stations with Past Participation in the UATMP
Monitoring Station
Allen Park, Detroit, MI (APMI)
Azalea Park, St. Petersburg, FL (AZFL)
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico (BAPR)
Beulah, ND (BUND)
Camden, NJ (CANJ)
Cedar Rapids, IA Site 2 (C2IA)
Chester, NJ (CHNJ)
Davenport, IA (DAIA)
Dearborn, Detroit, MI (DEMI)
Denver, CO (DECO)
Des Moines, IA (DMIA)
Dunedin, St. Petersburg, FL (DNFL)
E7 Mile, Detroit, MI (E7MI)
Elizabeth, NJ (ELNJ)
Grand Junction, CO Site 2 (G2CO)
Gandy, Tampa, FL (GAFL)
Grand Junction, CO Site 1 (GJCO)
Gulf Port, MS (GPMS)
Jackson, MS (JAMS)
Lewis, Tampa, FL (LEFL)
Lodge, Detroit, MI (LOMI)
New Brunswick, NJ (NBNJ)
Pascagoula, MS (PGMS)
Program Years During Which Station Past Participated
in the UATMP
1994
/
1995
/
1996
/
1997
/
1998
/
/
1999
2000
/
/
/
/
/
/
2001
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2-15
-------
Table 2-1. (Continued)
Monitoring Station
Portland, OR (PLOR)
Queen Valley, Phoenix, AZ (QVAZ)
River Rouge, Detroit, MI (RRMI)
Salt Lake City, UT (SLCU)
San Juan, Puerto Rico (SJPR)
Sioux Falls, SD (SFSD)
South Phoenix, AZ (SPAZ)
Southwest High School, Detroit, MI
(SWMI)
St. Louis, MO Site 1 (SLMO)
St. Louis, MO Site 2 (S2MO)
St. Louis, MO Site 3 (S3MO)
Supersite, Phoenix, AZ (PSAZ)
Tupelo, MS (TUMS)
Yellow Freight, Detroit, MI (YFMI)
Program Years During Which Station Past Participated
in the UATMP
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
/
/
/
2001
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Note: Some of the stations shown in the table participated in UATMP prior to the 1994 program. However, this
report considers only ambient air monitoring data collected during the current and previous EPA contracts
(i.e., UATMP program years 1994 through 2001).
2-16
-------
Table 2-2. Text Descriptions of the 2002 UATMP Monitoring Locations
UATMP
Code
ANTX
APMI
AZFL
BAPR
Monitoring Location
Arlington, TX
Allen Park, Detroit,
MI
Azalea Park, St.
Petersburg, FL
Barceloneta, PR
Land Use
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Suburban
Suburban
Rural
Estimated
Traffic
14,310
60,000
51,000
10
Traffic
Year
1999
Unknown
Unknown
1994
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
Arlington, Texas is located in Tarrant county, approximately
20 miles west of Dallas. A roadway that averages more than
17,000 vehicles per day is 73 meters from the site. The
monitoring site is located in a residential and light
commercial area of up to one and a half miles. The monitor
itself is located in the TNRCC building with the probe
through the top of the roof, approximately 15 feet from the
ground.
The Allen Park site is an intermediate site located in a
residential neighborhood 300 feet away from Interstate 75.
Historically, this site has been used to detect impacts from
mobile sources. There are no major industrial sources near
the site. Of all the population-oriented sites in the Detroit
MSA, Allen Park has the highest PM10 levels. Therefore, it
has been selected as the PM2 5 trend speciation site and the
collocated site for the federal reference method (FRM)
monitors. Other criteria pollutant measurements that are
collected at Allen Park include CO, O3, SO2, and PM10
A neighborhood spatial scale of representativeness
characterizes this monitoring site selected for the Tampa Bay
pilot project. This monitor is sited in an area of high
population density with uniform mixed land use, consisting
of residential, commercial, and industrial properties. Major
point sources are located approximately 8 to 15 kilometers
from the monitoring site. In addition, this site is at least 150
meters from major roadways. However, given the proximity
of motor vehicle traffic it is expected that mobile sources will
contribute appreciably to the measured samples.
The Barceloneta site is a residential area surrounded by 5
pharmaceutical plants. The greater area outside the city is
rural in character and the city itself is within 2 miles of the
Atlantic Ocean.
to
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
BGFL
BRVT
BTMO
Monitoring Location
Belle Glade, FL
Brattleboro, VT
Bonne Terre, MO
Land Use
Industrial
Commercial
Agricultural
Location
Setting
Rural
Suburban
Rural
Estimated
Traffic
12,200
16,578
4,360
Traffic
Year
Unknown
1996
1995
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
Belle Glade is a city located in Broward County, FL. This is
a rural location with possible pollution come from mobile and
hospital sources as well as sugar cane burning areas (major
source). Broward and Miami-Bade Counties are ranked high
in the range of the air toxics monitoring criteria ranking
document draft. It is the interest of the Southeast Florida
Regional Air Toxics Program to conduct ambient carbonyl
sampling in the Southeast Florida area to assess the potential
health treat and cancer risk.
Brattleboro, a small city in Vermont, is located north of the
town in a vacant lot adjacent to a farm and garden center.
The monitoring station is in a moderately industrial area, not
immediately adjacent to heavily traveled roadways. Interstate
91 passes within one mile of the monitoring station.
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; it
houses ozone, PM2.5 Speciation, and Air Toxics monitors.
There are no nearby sources, except VOCs/Formaldehyde
from nearby forests.
to
I
oo
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
BUND
C2IA
CANJ
CHNJ
Monitoring Location
Beulah, ND
Cedar Rapids, IA
(Site #2)
Camden, NJ
Chester, NJ
Land Use
Agricultural
Residential
Residential
Agricultural
Location
Setting
Rural
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Estimated
Traffic
1,350
1,500
62,000
12,623
Traffic
Year
1998
1994
1986
1995
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
Beulah, North Dakota, located in Mercer County, is a rural,
agricultural area with primarily wheat, small grains, and
cattle farms. There are six lignite coal-fired power plants
within thirty miles of Beulah, one to the east-southeast; one
to the northeast; two to the east; one to the northwest; and
one to the southwest. A petroleum refinery and a lignite
coal-fired power plant are fifty miles southeast of Beulah.
Lignite coal mines are located north of the town, south-
southwest of town and southeast of town. The monitoring
station is located in the approximate area of two coal-fired
power plants and a coal gasification plant (the only
functioning coal gasification plant in the nation). A power
plant is located seven miles to the southwest of the
monitoring station; another is six miles to the northwest; and
the gasification plant is five miles to the northwest.
This site is considered an EPA Urban Scale site with
residential population. Cedar Rapids is a community -wide
exposure area where spatial uniformity in comparison to the
CRIA site is important. This site is located at the Army
Reserve Government building - on the roof with PM2 5
samplers, on the northeast quadrant of Cedar Rapids.
Although this monitoring site in Camden, NJ is in a
residential area, numerous industrial facilities and busy
roadways are located within a ten mile radius. The monitors
are situated in a parking lot of a business complex.
The Chester, NJ site is located in a rural-agricultural,
residential section and is topographically rolling. The data is
located near Lucent Laboratory Building #1. There is
potential population, ozone, NO2, and SO2 exposure.
to
VO
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
Monitoring Location
Land Use
Location
Setting
Estimated
Traffic
Traffic
Year
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
CUSD
Custer, SD
Residential
Suburban
1,940
2002
to
to
o
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 health fires (during the winter months). The main
industries in the area include tourism, logging, and mining of
feldspar/quartz.
CWFL
Clearwater, FL
Commercial
Suburban
1,000
Unknown
This was a replacement site for our Dunedin site, at St.
Petersburg, FL. In addition to carbonyls, we also monitor
VOCs, toxic metals, and ozone at the Clearwater site. Our
objective is to measure HAPs (and ozone) in an area of high
population density. Therefore we are monitoring population
exposure not any specific sources. Clearwater is a
"Neighborhood" spatial scale.
DAIA
Davenport, IA
Residential
Urban
1,000
Unknown
The Davenport, Iowa site, located in Scott County, in a
metropolitan area approximately 650 yards from the
Mississippi valley, is considered a major residential/general
commercial site. Davenport is a core site for PM2 5
monitoring. A meat processing plant, as well as a military
manufacturing arsenal, is within five miles of the sampling
site. An aluminum roll processing plant is located within 10
miles of the site.
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
Monitoring Location
Land Use
Location
Setting
Estimated
Traffic
Traffic
Year
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
DBFL
Delray Beach, FL
Commercial
Urban
201,032
1995
Delray Beach is located in Broward County, FL. This is a
rural location with possible pollution coming from a major
highway (mobile) and hospital sources. Broward and Miami-
Dade Counties are ranked high in the range of the air toxics
monitoring criteria ranking document draft. It is the interest
of the Southeast Florida Regional Air Toxics Program to
conduct ambient carbonyl sampling in the Southeast Florida
area to assess the potential health treat and cancer risk.
DECO
to
to
Denver, CO
Commercial
Urban
44,200
1995
The Denver site, designated as the Denver-CAMP site by the
State of Colorado, is on the northern edge of downtown
Denver on a small triangle of land bounded by Broadway,
Champa St. and 21st St. The site was originally established in
1965 as a maximum concentration site for the Denver
downtown area. The site provides a measure of the air
pollution levels to which a large working population is
exposed. Next to a major road in the downtown Denver area,
the primary influences on the site are motor vehicles. Some
industrial facilities are located to the north of the site, but no
large facilities lie within a one or two mile radius. Residential
areas are located a quarter- to a half- mile to the northeast and
east.
DEMI
Dearborn in Detroit,
MI
Industrial
Suburban
12,791
1990
Dearborn, MI, an addition to the State network, is located in
a residential neighborhood with industrial impacts. An auto
and steel manufacturing plant is located in close proximity to
the monitoring station. Previous violations of the PM10
standard have also occurred at this site. The site lies between
Interstate 75 and Interstate 94. This site is expected to show
some of the highest levels of air toxics in the Detroit Pilot
program area. The SO2 and PM10 measurements are also
made there.
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
DMIA
DNFL
E7MI
EATN
ELNJ
Monitoring Location
Des Moines, IA
Dunedin in St.
Petersburg, FL
E7 Mile in Detroit,
MI
Nashville TN
/Cifp M1\
^oiie TTI)
Elizabeth, NJ
Land Use
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Industrial
Location
Setting
Urban
Suburban
Suburban
Urban
Suburban
Estimated
Traffic
12,400
16,281
6,999
38,450
170,000
Traffic
Year
1996
1997
Unknown
1993
Unknown
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The Des Moines site is located in Polk County, Iowa, central
to the downtown area and atop a one-story building. The
elevation is slightly higher than the surrounding terrain is
approximately a half mile from an Interstate highway. No
major manufacturers are located in the area, 2-3 miles away
from a major facility.
The neighborhood spatial scale of representativeness
characterizes this monitoring site for the Tampa Bay pilot
project. This monitor is in an area of high population density
with less commercial and industrial influences at the
neighborhood scale. Major point sources are located
approximately 8 to 15 kilometers from the monitoring site
and at least 150 meters from major roadways. Given the
proximity of motor vehicle traffic it is expected that mobile
sources will contribute appreciably to the measured samples.
The East 7 Mile site represents a location downwind from the
Detroit urban center city area and is located in a residential
neighborhood near Interstate 94. Criteria pollutants that
include NO2, O3, SO2 PM25, and PAMS are also measured at
East 7 Mile.
This site is located in Nashville, TN and is located on the roof
of East Health Center. The site is north (predominately
downwind) of downtown Nashville and is a population
oriented site predominantly influenced by primarily
commercial and mobile sources.
Elizabeth is located in Union County, NJ, at an urban-
industrial site where the topography is relatively smooth. The
monitoring site is located 75 yards away from the Toll Plaza
and about one mile from Bayway Refinery. The
neighborhood scale is at maximum concentration. The
location has a PM10 filter analyzer for sulfates and nitrates as
well as the UATMP site.
to
to
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
Monitoring Location
Land Use
Location
Setting
Estimated
Traffic
Traffic
Year
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
FLFL
Pompano Beach, FL
Commercial
Suburban
1,000
1989
The City of Pompano Beach is located in Broward County,
FL. This is a urban, residential location in a neighborhood
with pollution sources coming from a major traffic artery
(source) as well as other minor area sources. Broward and
Miami-Bade Counties are ranked high in the range of the air
toxics monitoring criteria ranking document draft. It is the
interest of the Southeast Florida Regional Air Toxics
Program to conduct ambient carbonyl sampling in the
Southeast Florida area to assess the potential health treat and
cancer risk.
G2CO
to
Grand Junction, CO
(Site #2)
Industrial
Urban
2,200
2001
The Grand Junction Site #2 is located at the Mesa County
Health Department north of the Grand Junction downtown
area, a residential area that is exposed to major roadways. A
hospital is located next door to the site and is the only
significant point source in the surrounding area. The site is
also the primary neighborhood PM10 and PM2 5 monitoring
site for Grand Junction.
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 approximately 8 to 15 kilometers
from the monitoring site. Since the emission points from
these sources are elevated and not proximate to the monitor,
concentrations measured during this study should not be
dominated by a single source. In addition, this site is at least
150 meters from major roadways. However, given the
proximity of motor vehicle traffic mobile sources are
expected to contribute appreciably to the measured samples.
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
GJCO
GPMS
HOMI
JAMS
Monitoring Location
Grand Junction, CO
(Site #1)
Gulf Port, MS
Houghton Lake, MI
Jackson, MS
Land Use
Residential
Commercial
Forest/
Agricultural
Commercial
Location
Setting
Suburban
Rural
Rural
Suburban
Estimated
Traffic
10,000
17,000
7,000
12,500
Traffic
Year
Unknown
1995
2002
Unknown
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
Grand Junction Site #1 is southeast of the Grand Junction
downtown area at the Mesa County Traffic Services. GJCO
located in a light industrial area that contains pockets of
residential areas. A variety of industries are located in the
area, including a cement plant, metal fabricators, plating
operations, a linen cleaner, a pump repair facility, and oil and
chemical distributors. This site represents a maximum
concentration neighborhood scale for Grand Junction.
The Gulf Port site is in a light commercial and residential
area. This site was selected because this area is believed to
have high ambient air toxic concentrations based upon
information from the NATA study and Mississippi's major
source emission inventories.
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 mobileing) 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.
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.
to
to
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
LEFL
LINE
LOMI
LONE
LOTN
Monitoring Location
Lewis in Tampa, FL
Lincoln, NE (Site #1)
Lodge in Detroit, MI
Lincoln NE
/Cifp Jf)\
^olie nL)
Nashville, TN
(Site #2)
Land Use
Residential
Residential
Mobile
Residential
Industrial
Location
Setting
Urban
Suburban
Urban
Suburban
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
1,055
6,100
100,000
6,200
3,000
Traffic
Year
1999
2000
1990
2000
Unknown
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
This monitor is located in an area of moderate population
density with fewer commercial and industrial influences at
the neighborhood scale. Major point sources are located
approximately 8 to 15 kilometers and at least 150 meters
from major roadways. Given the proximity of motor vehicle
traffic mobile sources are expected to contribute appreciably
to the measured samples.
The monitoring network for Lancaster County focuses on a
large transportation corridor which includes the Lincoln
Municipal Airport, a large railroad switching yard, various
high volume roadways. This site was set up at a fire station
located within the target during the warmer months (April
though September), the monitor will be placed at a north
location (Fire Station 14) to sample for concentrations
affected by southerly wind flows.
LOMI is a mobile source oriented site established in
Southfield, in the southeast portion of Oakland County. The
site is located at the nexus of 696, Telegraph Road, and the
Lodge Freeway.
The monitoring network for Lancaster County focuses on a
large transportation corridor which includes the Lincoln
Municipal Airport, a large railroad switching yard, various
high volume roadways. This site was set up at a different fire
station (from LINE) from October through March. The
monitor was placed at a south location (Fire Station 13) in
order to sample the affects of notherly wind flows.
This is a 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
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
MDFL
NBNJ
PGMS
PLOR
Monitoring Location
Miami, FL
New Brunswick, NJ
Pascagoula, MS
Porltand, OR
Land Use
Commercial
Agricultural
Commercial
Residential
Location
Setting
Urban
Rural
Urban
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
15,200
63,000
8,600
1,000
Traffic
Year
2002
Unknown
2,000
1989
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
Miami is a city located in Bade County, FL. The monitoring
station is located in a urban, commercial and residential
section of town. Pollution sources can come from mobile,
area and hospital sources. Broward and Miami-Bade
Counties are ranked high in the range of the air toxics
monitoring criteria ranking document draft. It is the interest
of the Southeast Florida Regional Air Toxics Program to
conduct ambient carbonyl sampling in the Southeast Florida
area to assess the potential health treat and cancer risk.
The New Brunswick site is located in a suburban-agricultural,
residential area and is topographically smooth. The actual
site location is in Rutgers University's Horticultural Farm.
The Pascagoula site is mostly in a commercial area in
proximity to perhaps the largest industrial area in Mississippi.
The industries near the Pascagoula site include chemical
processes, petroleum refining, and ship building.
The Northeast Portland site is a neighborhood scale site
located in a primarily residential area. Surrounding housing
is mostly single-family with some nearby apartment
buildings. Within a mile of the site are three elementary
schools, a middle school, a high school, and a major hospital.
The site is located between an arterial street couplet, and
within a quarter of a mile of major arterials having significant
commercial activity, as well as bus and truck traffic. No
major point sources are located in close proximity to the site,
although it is a only a few miles downwind (summertime) of
several Title V sources in the North and Northwest parts of
Portland.
to
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
PSAZ
QVAZ
RRMI
RUVT
Monitoring Location
Supersite in Phoenix,
AZ
Queen Valley in
Phoenix, AZ
River Rouge in
Detroit, MI
Rutland, VT
Land Use
Residential
Desert
Industrial
Commercial
Location
Setting
Urban
Rural
Suburban
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
250
200
500
5,700
Traffic
Year
1993
2001
Unknown
2001
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
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.
The state of Arizona established the Queen Valley Water
Tank site in 2001, near the Superstition Wilderness Class I
area, as a state Class I visibility monitoring location and a
PAMS Type 3 monitoring location. The Queen Valley site
consists of an IMPROVE aerosol sampler, a nephelometer
and meteorological monitoring equipment. The state also
operates O3, trace level NO^, PAMS and air toxics monitors.
The area surrounding the site is primarily undeveloped desert.
The town of Queen Valley is located approximately 0.5 miles
north of the site.
River Rouge, in Detroit, MI, has been part of the state of
Michigan's network since the end of 1993. RRMI is located
in a residential neighborhood that is also impacted by
industrial sources, near Interstate 75 and Southwest High
School. Emissions from a steel plant, which occupies a few
miles along the riverfront, impact the site. There are drywall
manufacturing companies, the waste water treatment plant, a
sewage incinerator, an asphalt plant, an oil refinery, coke
batteries, coke by-product production facilities, various types
of power generation plants, coal and oil fired combustion
sources, paint shops, and assembly plants. The SO2 and PM10
are also monitored at this location.
Rutland is a moderately sized city in central Vermont. The
monitoring station is located in a parking lot in downtown
Rutland. A heavily traveled state highway and several busy
city streets run within one mile of the monitoring station.
to
to
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
S2MO
S3MO
S4MO
SFSD
SJPR
Monitoring Location
St. Louis MO
(Site #2)
St. Louis, MO
(Site #3)
St. Louis, MO
fCitp #4*1
V^OILC TTT-^
Sioux Falls, SD
San Juan, PR
Land Use
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Location
Setting
Urban
Urban
Urban
Urban
Suburban
Estimated
Traffic
1,000
8,532
22,840
4,320
51,000
Traffic
Year
1999
1998
1995
1999
Unknown
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The St. Louis, Grant Street site has residential influences to
the east and commercial influences to the north/northeast.
Wind speed, direction, temperature, relative humidity, solar
radiation, and barometric pressure are also measured at this
site.
The site S3MO at Keokuk Street in St. Louis is a residential
site. Volatile organic compounds were monitored in 2001.
Blair has some industry around it and a fair amount of
industry to the east. It is also only about 250 meters from 1-
70 (at its closest point).
The SFSD monitoring site is located in Sioux Falls, SD, the
largest city in the state, near two grade schools north of the
site and residential areas on the west, east, and south. The
area within 1 mile of the site is mostly residential with a few
retail businesses. The main industrial area of the city is about
3 miles northwest and 2 miles to the west of the site. The site
was selected because it represents population exposure to
chemical and paniculate emissions from the industrial parts
of the city. The predominant wind direction is northwest for
most of the year with southeast winds during the summer
months.
The Site at the Bayamon Regional Jail, in San Juan, conducts
monitoring for VOC and carbonyls. The prevailing sources
within a 3 mile radius of the site include the San Juan power
plant, highways with a nearby toll gate, an asphalt plant, a
sewage authority facility, and industry. Additionally, the San
Juan area has a large number of automobiles.
to
to
oo
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
SLCU
SLMO
SPAZ
Monitoring Location
Salt Lake City, UT
St. Louis, MO
(Site #1)
South Phoenix, AZ
Land Use
Residential
Residential
Residential
Location
Setting
Suburban
Urban
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
20,485
15,016
50,000
Traffic
Year
1995
2,000
1995
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
The West Valley site, where the UATMP sampler is located,
is in the southeast corner of the staff parking lot behind
Hillsdale Elementary School. The sampler is north of the
school playground and west of a large, open residential lot.
The site is a neighborhood scale SLAMS site for PM2 5, CO,
and O3 sampling, not near any point sources of air toxics, but
approximately 100 yards from the nearest street - 12,000 cars
per day on average. The site is several city blocks away from
the nearest major street or freeway. A variety of light
industries and trucking companies are also located in the
area, but not within 2 or 3 blocks.
The SLMO site at Grant School in St. Louis is a residential
site. Commercial influences are approximately 200 yards
east. Volatile organic compounds, carbonyls, hydrocarbons,
meteorological parameters, metals, and PM2 5 speciation were
conducted at this site in 2001.
The Supersite is intended to represent the central core of the
Phoenix metropolitan area in a high emissions area, and is a
PAMS Type 2 site. The site houses a variety of air
monitoring equipment including criteria pollutant samplers
and analyzers, PAMS and air toxics, total NMHC,
meteorology, visibility /urban haze, and has been selected for
several state and national air monitoring studies. The area
surrounding the site is primarily residential neighborhoods.
There is an interstate highway approximately one mile west
of the site, as well as commercial and industrial areas within
five miles of the site.
to
to
VO
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
SWCO
SWMI
TUMS
UNVT
Monitoring Location
Denver, CO (Site #3)
South West High
School in Detroit, MI
Tupelo, MS
Underbill, VT
Land Use
Residential
Commercial
Commercial
Forest
Location
Setting
Urban
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Estimated
Traffic
1,366
18,437
4,900
1,000
Traffic
Year
1993
Unknown
1997/1995
1999
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
Located 3 miles northeast of downtown Denver, Swansea
Elementary School is located in an old residential
neighborhood. The site is one block north of 1-70, a major
interstate highway, and many old industrial sites are located
within a few blocks. These include metal fabrication
facilities, smelters and trucking firms. The site is also within
the Vasquez Boulevard - 1-70 Superfund area. This location
is midway between the DECO and WECO sampling
locations and provides a different and unique
mix of air toxics sources.
Southwest High School has been part of the Michigan
network since 1990 and serves as the long term trend location
for the air toxics network. SWMI is located in a residential
neighborhood that is impacted by industrial sources, near
Interstate 75. The major sources include two steel mills, a
used oil reclamation plant, and various manufacturing
companies. The recent empowerment zone status achieved
by the area will bring in new industries and businesses. The
Detroit Waste Water Treatment plant is also close.
Measurements for PM2 5, SO2 and PM10 are also collected at
the 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 Underbill monitoring site is located in a rural area, about
20 miles east of Burlington, VT. The site is at the base of
Mount Mansfield, a remote field surrounded by forest.
to
OJ
o
-------
Table 2-2. (Continued)
UATMP
Code
WECO
YFMI
Monitoring Location
Denver, CO (Site #2)
Yellow Freight, MI
Land Use
Agricultural
Industrial
Location
Setting
Rural
Urban
Estimated
Traffic
1,500
500
Traffic
Year
Unknown
Unknown
Description of the
Immediate Surroundings
Located 7 miles north-northeast of downtown Denver on the
bank of the South Platte River, this site is ideally located to
measure nighttime drainage of the air mass from the Denver
metropolitan area and the thermally driven, daytime upvalley
flows. This site is located next to agricultural and open space
areas, with residential areas located within one mile. In
addition, major industrial sources are located about one mile
upvalley, including a power plant, sewage treatment plant
and refineries.
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 and 0.75
miles away from the Southwest High School sites. Its
inclusion in the study provides information about the degree
of heterogeneity of toxic air contaminants across a small
scale.
to
BOLD = EPA-designated National Air Toxics Trend System (NATTS) site.
-------
Table 2-3. Site Descriptions for the 2002 UATMP Monitoring Stations
2002
UATMP
Code
ANTX
APMI
AZFL
BAPR
BGFL
BRVT
BTMO
BUND
C2IA
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
CWFL
DAIA
AQS Site Code
48-439-3011
26-163-0001
12-103-0018
72-017-0003
12-099-0008
50-025-0004
29-187-0005
38-057-0004
19-113-0037
34-007-0003
34-027-3001
46-033-0003
12-103-0004
19-163-0015
Location
Arlington, TX
Allen Park in Detroit,
MI
Azalea Park in St.
Petersburg, FL
Barceloneta, PR
Belle Glade, FL
Brattleboro, VT
Bonne Terre, MO
Beulah, ND
Cedar Rapids, IA (Site
#2)
Camden, NJ
Chester, NJ
Custer, SD
Clearwater, FL
Davenport, IA
Population
Residing Within
10 Miles of the
Monitoring
Station a
614,071
1,024,363
592,642
4,253C
34,175
27,420
34,068
7,415
175,516
1,946,547
237,587
4,214
445,472
269,372
County-level Stationary
Source HAP Emissions in the
1999NEIb(tpy)
5,996
15,026
6,783
1,477
4,774
441
203
3,258
2,307
1,606
1,724
383
6,783
1,077
Closest National Weather
Service Station
Dallas Fort Worth
International Airport
Detroit/Metropolitan
Airport
St. Petersburg/Whitted
Airport
San Juan, PR
Hollywood Int'l Airport
Springfield, VT/Hartness
State Airport
Cahokia/St. Louis, IL
Bismarck Municipal
Airport
Cedar Rapids Municipal
Philadelphia, PA
Somerville, NJ
Custer County Airport
St. Petersburg/Clearwater
Davenport Nexrad
to
OJ
to
-------
Table 2-3. (Continued)
2002
UATMP
Code
DBFL
DECO
DEMI
DMIA
DNFL
E7MI
EATN
ELNJ
FLFL
G2CO
GAFL
GJCO
GPMS
AQS Site Code
12-099-2005
08-031-0002
26-163-0033
19-153-0030
12-103-1008
26-163-0019
47-037-0011
34-039-0004
12-011-2004
08-077-0016
12-057-1065
08-077-0003
28-047-0008
Location
Delray Beach, FL
Denver, CO
Dearborn in Detroit,
MI
Des Moines, IA
Dunedin in St.
Petersburg, FL
E7 Mile in Detroit, MI
Nashville, TN
(Site #2)
Elizabeth, NJ
Pompano Beach, FL
Grand Junction, CO
(Site #2)
Gandy in Tampa, FL
Grand Junction, CO
(Site#l)
Gulf Port, MS
Population
Residing Within
10 Miles of the
Monitoring
Station a
479,805
1,278,037
1,225,014
383,791
454,645
1,167,765
518,357
2,189,897
987,475
103,561
458,652
113,004
166,963
County-level Stationary
Source HAP Emissions in the
1999NEIb(tpy)
4,774
1,912
15,026
2,201
6,783
15,026
5,483
2,778
4,601
821
14,368
821
6,697
Closest National Weather
Service Station
Palm Beach International
Denver/Centennial
Airport
Detroit City Airport
Des Moines International
Airport
New Port Ritchie, FL
Detroit City Airport
Nashville/Metro Airport
Newark International
Hollywood International
Airport
Grand Junction, CO
Tampa, FL International
Grand Junction, CO
Gulf Port, MS
to
-------
Table 2-3. (Continued)
2002
UATMP
Code
HOMI
JAMS
LEFL
LINE
LOMI
LONE
LOTN
MDFL
NBNJ
PGMS
PLOR
PSAZ
AQS Site Code
26-113-0001
28-049-0010
12-057-1075
31-109-0023
26-125-0010
31-109-0024
47-037-0023
12-086-4002
34-023-0006
28-059-0006
41-051-0246
04-013-9997
Location
Houghton Lake, MI
Jackson, MS
Lewis in Tampa, FL
Lincoln, NE (Site #1)
Lodge in Detroit, MI
Lincoln, NE (Site #2)
Nashville, TN
(Site #2)
Miami, FL
New Brunswick, NJ
Pascagoula, MS
Portland, OR
Supersite in Phoenix,
AZ
Population
Residing Within
10 Miles of the
Monitoring
Station a
10,391
262,477
592,533
239,999
1,146,230
240,340
552,749
1,152,632
856,367
58,345
894,082
1,377,479
County-level Stationary
Source HAP Emissions in the
1999NEIb(tpy)
82
1,643
14,368
15,474
11,294
15,474
5,483
7,727
4,119
4,564
3,824
9,621
Closest National Weather
Service Station
Houghton
Lake/Roscommon
County Airport
Jackson/Allen C.
Thompson Field
New Port Ritchie, FL
Lincoln Municipal
Airport
Pontiac, MI
Lincoln Municipal
Airport
Nashville Metro Airport
Miami International
Airport
Somerville, NJ
Pascagoula, MS
Portland International
Airport
Phoenix/Deer Valley
Municipal Airport
to
-------
Table 2-3. (Continued)
2002
UATMP
Code
QVAZ
RRMI
RUVT
S2MO
S3MO
S4MO
SFSD
SJPR
SLCU
SLMO
SPAZ
SWCO
AQS Site Code
04-021-8001
26-163-0005
50-021-0002
29-510-0090
29-510-0091
29-510-0085
46-099-0007
72-127-0006
49-035-3007
29-510-0089
04-013-4003
08-031-0023
Location
Queen Valley in
Phoenix, AZ
River Rouge in
Detroit, MI
Rutland, VT
St. Louis, MO
(Site #2)
St. Louis, MO
(Site #3)
St. Louis, MO (Site
#4)
Sioux Falls, SD
San Juan, PR
Salt Lake City, UT
St. Louis, MO
(Site # 1)
South Phoenix, AZ
Denver, Co (Site #3)
Population
Residing Within
10 Miles of the
Monitoring
Station a
87,103
893,937
35,880
796,761
714,905
838,460
148,522
421,958C
827,442
714,905
847,178
1,275,463
County-level Stationary
Source HAP Emissions in the
1999NEIb(tpy)
1,131
15,026
402
4,348
4,348
4,348
705
1,196
3,955
4,348
9,621
1,912
Closest National Weather
Service Station
Phoenix/Sky Harbor
Airport
Detroit City Airport
Burlington International
Airport
Cahokia/St. Louis
Cahokia/St. Louis
Cahokia/St. Louis
Joe Foss Field Airport
San Juan, PR
Salt Lake City
International Airport
Cahokia/St Louis
Phoenix - Deer Valley
Municipal Airport
Denver/Centennial
Airport
to
oo
-------
Table 2-3. (Continued)
2002
UATMP
Code
SWMI
TUMS
UNVT
WECO
YFMI
AQS Site Code
26-163-0015
28-081-0005
50-007-0007
08-031-3001
26-163-0027
Location
South West High
School in Detroit, MI
Tupelo, MS
Underbill, VT
Denver, CO (Site #2)
Yellow Freight in
Detroit, MI
Population
Residing Within
10 Miles of the
Monitoring
Station a
1,179,491
71,430
48,938
852,751
1,196,371
County-level Stationary
Source HAP Emissions in the
1999NEIb(tpy)
15,026
2,946
798
1,995
15,026
Closest National Weather
Service Station
Detroit City Airport
Tupelo, MS
Burlington International
Airport
Denver/Centennial
Airport
Detroit City Airport
to
oo
a Reference: http://zipnet.htm
b Reference: NEI, 2002.
0 For the two Puerto Rico sites, population data reflect county-level, or zona urbana, population from the 2002 Census.
-------
Table 2-4. VOC Method Detection Limits
Compound
Method Detection Limit
(ppbv)
Hydrocarbons
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
«-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
Toluene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
m-,p-Xy\ene
o-Xylene
0.06
0.06
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.05
0.12
0.08
0.12
0.11
0.13
0.14
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
ra-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
/7-Dichlorobenzene
1,1 -Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1 -Dichloroethene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloropropane
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
0.12
0.07
0.13
0.11
0.06
0.09
0.13
0.06
0.09
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.11
0.18
0.17
0.15
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.06
0.07
0.11
2-37
-------
Table 2-4. (Continued)
Compound
Method Detection Limit
(ppbv)
Halogenated Hydrocarbons (Continued)
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -butadiene
Methylene Chloride
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
0.11
0.07
0.06
0.15
0.07
0.19
0.06
0.11
0.05
0.19
0.10
0.14
0.07
0.09
Polar Compounds
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK)
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
fert-Amyl Methyl Ether
0.46
0.52
0.33
0.18
0.34
0.22
0.36
0.23
0.18
Because w-xylene and/>-xylene elute from the GC column at the same time, the VOC
analytical method can only report the sum of w-xylene and/?-xylene concentrations and
not concentrations of the individual compounds.
2-38
-------
Table 2-5. SNMOC Method Detection Limits
Compound
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
c/s-2-Butene
trans-2-Butene
Cyclohexane
Cyclopentane
Cyclopentene
w-Decane
1-Decene
/w-Diethylbenzene
/>-Diethylbenzene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylbutane
2,3 -Dimethylpentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
w-Dodecane
1-Dodecene
Ethane
2-Ethyl-l-butene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene
Method Detection
Limit
ppbC
0.17
0.11
0.26
0.26
0.21
0.19
0.15
0.14
0.24
0.18
0.30
0.30
0.14
0.11
0.13
0.30
0.21
0.76
0.76
0.16
0.26
0.16
0.17
Compound
3-Methyl-l-butene
Methylcyclohexane
Methylcyclopentane
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
2-Methylhexane
3-Methylhexane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
w-Nonane
1-Nonene
w-Octane
1-Octene
w-Pentane
1 -Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
/ra«5-2-Pentene
a-Pinene
p-Pinene
Propane
w-Propylbenzene
Method Detection
Limit
ppbC
0.24
0.16
0.14
0.25
0.17
0.19
0.18
0.13
0.18
0.26
0.26
0.15
0.35
0.16
0.35
0.16
0.20
0.20
0.14
0.30
0.30
0.16
0.29
2-39
-------
Table 2-5. (Continued)
Compound
/w-Ethyltoluene
o-Ethyltoluene
/>-Ethyltoluene
w-Heptane
1-Heptene
w-Hexane
1-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
/raws-2-Hexene
Isobutane
Isobutene/1 -Butene
Isopentane
Isoprene
Isopropylbenzene
2-Methy 1-1 -Butene
2-Methyl-2-Butene
Method Detection
Limit
ppbC
0.16
0.29
0.35
0.23
0.25
0.14
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.24
0.24
0.13
0.30
0.24
0.24
Compound
Propylene
Propyne
Styrene
Toluene
w-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
n-Undecane
1-Undecene
7w-,/>-Xylene
o-Xylene
Method Detection
Limit
ppbC
0.17
0.17
0.05
0.25
0.76
0.76
0.13
0.17
0.19
0.23
0.23
0.20
0.33
0.33
0.14
0.15
Concentration in ppbC = concentration in ppbv x number of carbon atoms in compound.
Because Isobutene and 1-Butene elute from the GC column at the same time, the SNMOC analytical
method can only report the sum of concentrations for these two compounds and not concentrations of the
individual compounds. For the same reason, the /w-xylene and^-xylene concentrations are reported
together as a sum.
2-40
-------
Table 2-6. Carbonyl Method Detection Limits
Compound
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Benzaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
2,5 -Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Hexaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Propionaldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Valeraldehyde
Method Detection Limit (ppbv)
0.015
0.010
0.002
0.16
0.011
0.002
0.030
0.005
0.003
0.012
0.006
0.003
Notes: The carbonyl detection limits vary from site to site. Therefore, the above MDLs are averages.
Because butyraldehyde and isobutyraldehyde elute from the HPLC column at the same time, the
carbonyl analytical method can only report the sum of concentrations for these two compounds
and not concentrations of the individual compounds. For the same reason, the analytical method
also reports only the sum of concentrations for the three tolualdehyde isomers, as opposed to
reporting separate concentrations for the three individual compounds.
2-41
-------
Table 2-7a. Semivolatile Organic Compound Method Detection Limits Prior to 6/1/02
Compound
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminofluorene
4-Aminobiphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
/>/X2-Chloroethyl)ether
/>/X2-Chloroethoxy)methane
fe(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
bis(2 -Ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Carbazole
4-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzilate
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chlorophenylphenyl ether
Chrysene
Method
Detection
Limit
Total ug/m3
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.12
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.05
Compound
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Diphenylamine
Ethyl methane sulfonate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole
3 -Methylcholanthrene
Methyl methane sulfonate
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoquinone
1 -Naphthylamine
2-Naphthylamine
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
4-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodibutylamine
Method
Detection
Limit
Total ug/m3
0.05
0.05
0.13
0.15
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.11
0.03
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.11
0.08
0.05
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.15
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.12
0.05
0.04
0.11
2-42
-------
Table 2-7a. (Continued)
Compound
o-Cresol (2-Methylphenol)
o-Toludine
m, p-Cresol (3,4-Methylphenol)
Diallate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Di-«-butyl phthalate
Di-«-octyl phthalate
Dinoseb
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3 -Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
3 ,3 '-Dichlorobenzidine
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
7, 12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
3 ,3 '-Dimethylbenzidine
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
1 ,3 -Dintrobenzene
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Method
Detection
Limit
Total ug/m3
0.05
0.07
0.04
0.07
0.08
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.07
0.09
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.06
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.05
Compound
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodipropylamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
2-Picoline
Pronamide
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,5 -Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Method
Detection
Limit
Total ug/m3
0.10
0.07
0.13
0.07
0.09
0.11
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.05
0.07
0.08
0.05
0.11
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.14
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.03
0.04
2-43
-------
Table 2-7b. Semivolatile Organic Compound Method Detection Limits After 6/1/02
Compound
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminofluorene
4-Aminobiphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Azobenzene
Benzidine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl alcohol
/>/X2-Chloroethyl)ether
/>/X2-Chloroethoxy)methane
/>/X2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
bis(2 -Ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Carbazole
4-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzilate
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chlorophenylphenyl ether
Chrysene
Method
Detection
Limit
Total ug/m3
0.023
0.022
0.034
0.017
0.132
0.066
0.031
0.030
0.250
0.019
0.018
0.035
0.028
0.028
0.042
0.035
0.035
0.028
0.024
0.030
0.028
0.029
0.047
0.016
0.034
0.020
0.038
0.024
0.029
Compound
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Diphenylamine
Ethyl methane sulfonate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Isodrin
Isophorone
Isosafrole
3 -Methylcholanthrene
Methyl methane sulfonate
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoquinone
1 -Naphthylamine
2-Naphthylamine
2-Nitroaniline
3-Nitroaniline
4-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodibutylamine
Method
Detection
Limit
Total ug/m3
0.033
0.033
0.132
0.035
0.019
0.021
0.023
0.036
0.051
0.025
0.032
0.040
0.023
0.028
0.029
0.032
0.040
0.029
0.034
0.029
0.122
0.121
0.032
0.024
0.030
0.029
0.046
0.034
0.025
2-44
-------
Table 2-7b. (Continued)
Compound
o-Cresol (2-Methylphenol)
o-Toludine
m, p-Cresol (3,4-Methylphenol)
Diallate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Di-«-butyl phthalate
Di-«-octyl phthalate
Dinoseb
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3 -Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
3 ,3 '-Dichlorobenzidine
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Diethyl phthalate
4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
7, 12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
3 ,3 '-Dimethylbenzidine
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
1,3-Dintrobenzene
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Method
Detection
Limit
Total ug/m3
0.046
0.038
0.042
0.023
0.026
0.016
0.024
0.022
0.031
0.031
0.025
0.029
0.036
0.028
0.028
0.023
0.022
0.028
0.250
0.164
0.022
0.038
0.032
0.040
Compound
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodipropylamine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
5 -Nitro-o-Toluidine
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
2-Picoline
Pronamide
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,5 -Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Method
Detection
Limit
Total ug/m3
0.036
0.035
0.033
0.028
0.024
0.037
0.026
0.026
0.044
0.036
0.038
0.024
0.028
0.040
0.161
0.029
0.027
0.059
0.029
0.030
0.035
0.027
0.033
0.024
* These MDLs reflect a reduction in volume from 5 mL to 1 mL.
2-45
-------
Table 2-8. Metals and Hexavalent Chromium Method Detection Limits
Compound
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium (total Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Cr+6
DL
lOng/filter
20 ng/filter
5 ng/filter
50 ng/filter
10 ng/filter
100 ng/filter
100 ng/filter
100 ng/filter
0.5 ng/filter
100 ng/filter
25 ng/filter
0.013 ns/m3
2-46
-------
Table 2-9a. Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Carbonyl Compounds, VOC, SNMOC, and SVOC
Site
ANTX
APMI
AZFL
BAPR
BGFL
BRVT
BTMO
BUND
C2IA
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
CWFL
DAIA
DBFL
Monitoring
Location
Arlington, TX
Allen Park in
Detroit, MI
Azalea Park in St.
Petersburg, FL
Barceloneta, PR
Belle Glade, FL
Brattleboro, VT
Bonne Terre, MD
Beulah, ND
Cedar Rapids, IA
(Site #2)
Camden, NJ
Chester, NJ
Custer Park, SD
Clearwater, FL
Davenport, IA
Delray Beach, FL
Sampling Period
Starting
Date
6/13/02
1/02/02
1/2/02
1/02/02
11/4/02
1/8/02
12/10/02
1/2/02
1/2/02
1/8/02
1/2/02
3/21/02
7/25/02
1/8/02
11/04/02
Ending
Date
12/22/02
9/23/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/22/02
12/22/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/22/02
12/22/02
Carbonyl Data
A
22
10
59
64
5
—
3
78
79
72
69
59
69
31
5
B
23
10
61
81
5
—
4
79
79
81
76
59
69
36
5
C
96
100
97
79
100
—
75
99
100
89
91
100
100
86
100
VOC Data
A
22
67
—
68
—
82
—
76
74
74
69
60
—
31
—
B
23
80
—
79
—
90
—
79
77
80
75
60
36
—
C
96
84
86
91
—
96
96
93
92
100
86
SNMOC
A
—
—
54
—
3
78
78
—
—
60
31
B
—
—
63
—
4
79
79
—
—
60
36
C
—
—
86
—
75
99
99
—
—
100
86
SVOC
A
—
36
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
20
20
—
—
—
—
B
—
36
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
22
23
—
—
—
—
C
—
100
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
91
87
—
—
—
—
to
-------
Table 2-9a. (Continued)
Site
DECO
DEMI
DMIA
DNFL
E7MI
EATN
ELNJ
FLFL
G2CO
GAFL
GJCO
GPMS
HOMI
JAMS
Monitoring
Location
Denver, CO
Dearborn in
Detroit, MI
Des Moines, IA
Dunedin in St.
Petersburg, FL
E7 Mile in
Detroit, MI
Nashville, TN
Elizabeth, NJ
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Grand Junction, CO
(Site #2)
Gandy in Tampa,
FL
Grand Junction, CO
(Site #1)
Gulf Port, MS
Houghton Lake, MI
Jackson, MS
Sampling Period
Starting
Date
1/2/02
1/1/02
1/2/02
1/2/02
1/8/02
5/14/02
1/2/02
11/4/02
1/2/02
1/2/02
1/2/02
1/8/02
8/12/02
1/8/02
Ending
Date
12/28/02
12/28/02
6/13/02
7/31/02
8/30/02
12/16/02
12/4/02
12/10/02
4/26/02
12/28/02
4/26/02
12/22/02
12/22/02
12/22/02
Carbonyl Data
A
48
198
19
77
—
24
73
4
53
69
24
38
—
39
B
51
203
20
81
—
27
76
4
53
77
25
39
—
39
C
94
98
95
95
—
89
96
100
100
90
96
97
—
100
VOC Data
A
50
183
14
—
4
23
73
—
46
—
24
38
11
35
B
51
192
18
—
4
28
79
—
49
—
26
39
15
39
C
98
95
78
100
82
92
94
92
97
73
90
SNMOC
A
—
—
14
8
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
—
16
8
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
C
—
—
88
100
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
svoc
A
—
12
—
—
6
—
22
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
20
—
—
9
—
23
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
C
—
60
—
—
67
—
96
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
to
-U
oo
-------
Table 2-9a. (Continued)
Site
LEFL
LINE
LOMI
LONE
LOTN
MDFL
NBNJ
PGMS
PSAZ
QVAZ
RRMI
RUVT
S2MO
Monitoring
Location
Lewis in Tampa, FL
Lincoln, NE
Fire Station #13
Lodge in
Detroit, MI
Lincoln, NE
Fire Station #14
Nashville, TN
Miami-Bade, FL
New Brunswick, NJ
Pascagoula, MS
Supersite in
Phoenix, AZ
Queen Valley in
Phoenix, AZ
River Rouge in
Detroit, MI
Rutland, VT
St. Louis, MO
(Site #2)
Sampling Period
Starting
Date
1/2/02
3/21/02
1/2/02
10/05/02
4/20/02
11/16/02
1/2/02
1/8/02
1/2/02
1/2/02
1/2/02
1/8/02
1/14/02
Ending
Date
12/28/02
9/29/02
5/22/02
12/28/02
12/16/02
12/22/02
12/28/02
12/22/02
12/22/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/22/02
5/14/02
Carbonyl Data
A
80
41
10
20
21
4
71
38
—
—
21
—
—
B
85
43
10
21
26
5
81
39
—
—
21
—
—
C
94
95
100
95
81
80
88
97
—
—
100
—
—
VOC Data
A
—
37
18
21
18
—
70
38
52
47
10
29
30
B
—
40
20
21
26
—
81
39
58
57
11
30
32
C
93
90
100
69
86
97
90
82
91
97
94
SNMOC
A
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
C
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
svoc
A
—
—
19
—
—
—
23
—
—
—
8
—
—
B
—
—
20
—
—
—
23
—
—
—
9
—
—
C
—
—
95
—
—
—
100
—
—
—
89
—
—
to
-k
VO
-------
Table 2-9a. (Continued)
Site
S3MO
S4MO
SFSD
SJPR
SLCU
SLMO
SPAZ
SWCO
SWMI
TUMS
UNVT
WECO
YFMI
Monitoring
Location
St. Louis, MO
(Site #3)
Denver, CO
Site #4
Sioux Falls, SD
San Juan, PR
Salt Lake City, UT
St. Louis, MO
(Site #1)
South Phoenix, AZ
Denver, CO
Site #3
South West High
School in
Detroit, MI
Tupelo, MS
Underbill, VT
Denver, CO
Site #2
Yellow Freight in
Detroit, MI
Sampling Period
Starting
Date
1/02/02
12/4/02
1/2/02
1/2/02
1/2/02
1/2/02
1/2/02
7/1/02
1/8/02
1/8/02
1/8/02
5/8/02
1/02/02
Ending
Date
5/14/02
12/22/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/22/02
12/22/02
12/28/02
9/11/02
Carbonyl Data
A
—
5
33
71
74
57
—
35
19
38
—
46
14
B
—
5
52
80
85
67
—
36
19
39
—
51
18
C
—
100
63
89
87
85
—
97
100
97
—
90
78
VOC Data
A
31
—
64
72
75
63
51
36
13
37
30
45
20
B
32
—
77
79
82
67
58
38
18
39
31
51
20
C
97
—
83
91
91
94
88
95
72
95
97
88
100
SNMOC
A
—
5
64
54
73
63
—
—
—
—
—
—
B
—
5
77
61
82
67
—
—
—
—
—
—
C
—
100
83
89
89
94
—
—
—
—
—
—
svoc
A
—
—
—
—
—
35
—
—
8
—
—
—
60
B
—
—
—
—
—
36
—
—
9
—
—
—
63
C
—
—
—
—
—
97
—
—
89
—
—
—
95
to
(^
o
-------
Table 2-9a. (Continued)
Qit^
Monitoring
Location
Overall
Sampling Period
Starting
Date
—
Ending
Date
—
Carbonyl Data
A
1,989
B
2,146
C
93
VOC Data
A
2,031
B
2,226
C
91
SNMOC
A
585
B
637
C
92
svoc
A
269
B
293
C
92
A= Days With Valid Samples
B = Days When Samples Were Collected
C = Completeness (%)
Note: The completeness data only indicate the number of days when samples were collected.
-------
Table 2-9b. Sampling Schedules and Completeness for Metals and Hexavalent Chromium
Code
APMI
DECO
DEMI
G2CO
GJCO
LOMI
PLOR
RRMI
SWCO
SWMI
WECO
—
Monitoring
Location
Allen Park in
Detroit, MI
Denver, CO
Dearborn in
Detroit, MI
Grand Junction, CO
(Site #2)
Grand Junction, CO
(Site #1)
Lodge in
Detroit, MI
Portland, OR
River Rouge in
Detroit, MI
Denver, CO
Site #3
South West High
School in
Detroit, MI
Denver, CO
Site #2
Overall
Sampling Period
Starting
Date
1/02/02
1/2/02
1/1/02
1/2/02
1/2/02
1/2/02
9/5/02
1/2/02
7/1/02
1/8/02
5/8/02
—
Ending
Date
9/23/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
4/26/02
4/26/02
5/22/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
12/28/02
—
Metals
A
—
24
—
31
25
—
—
—
18
26
36
160
B
—
24
—
31
25
—
—
—
18
26
37
161
C
—
100
—
100
100
—
—
—
100
100
97
99
Hexavalent Chromium
A
10
—
10
—
—
10
20
36
—
—
86
B
10
—
10
—
—
10
20
40
—
—
90
C
100
—
100
—
—
100
100
90
—
—
96
A= Days With Valid Samples
B = Days When Samples Were Collected
C = Completeness (%)
Note: The completeness data only indicate the number of days when samples were collected.
2-52
-------
Table 2-10. Semi-volatile and Inorganics (Metals) Which Are HAPs
HAP
Category IV
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Phenol
p-Cre$o\
o-Cresol
Quinoline
Analytical Method
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
TO- 13 A
HAP
Category V
Antimony & Compounds
Arsenic & Compounds
Beryllium & Compounds
Cadmium & Compounds
Chromium & Compounds*
Lead & Compounds
Manganese & Compounds
Mercury & Compounds
Nickel & Compounds
Antimony & Compounds
Selenium & Compounds
Cobalt & Compounds
Hexavalent Chromium
Analytical
Method
IC.-3.5P9>
IC.-3.5P9>
IC.-3.5P9>
IC.-3.5P9>
IC.-3.5P9>
IC.-3.5P9>
IC.-3.5P9>
10-3.5^
IC.-3.5P9>
10-3.5^
10-3.5^
10-3.5^
GARB 039(30)
2-53
-------
3.0 Summary of the 2002 UATMP Data
This section summarizes the data gathered during the 2002 UATMP reporting year. A
total of 72 VOC and carbonyl compounds were sampled during this program reporting year.
(Unlike previous years, acrolein was not analyzed.) Within the VOCs, three distinct groups of
compounds were identified: 1) hydrocarbons; 2) halogenated hydrocarbons; and 3) polar
compounds. All four of the these compound groups (including carbonyls) are discussed in
greater detail in Sections 3.2 through 3.5.
A complete presentation of the data is found in Appendices C through N. Specifically:
• Appendix C: 2002 Summary Tables for VOC Monitoring;
Appendix D: 2002 Summary Tables for SNMOC Monitoring;
• Appendix E: 2002 Summary Tables for Carbonyl Monitoring;
• Appendix F: 2002 Summary Tables for SVOC Monitoring;
• Appendix G: 2002 Summary Tables for Metals Monitoring;
• Appendix H: 2002 Summary Tables for Hexavalent Chromium Monitoring;
Appendix I: 2002 VOC Raw Monitoring Data;
Appendix J: 2002 SNMOC Raw Monitoring Data;
• Appendix K: 2002 Carbonyl Raw Monitoring Data;
Appendix L: 2002 SVOC Raw Monitoring Data;
• Appendix M: 2002 Metal Raw Monitoring Data; and
• Appendix N: 2002 Hexavalent Chromium Raw Monitoring Data.
Nearly 141,700 urban air toxics VOC and carbonyl data concentrations (including duplicate and
replicate samples) were collected at the fifty-five sites for the 2002 UATMP reporting year.
Additionally, thirteen sites chose to sample for speciated nonmethane organic compounds
5-1
-------
(SNMOC) accounting for another 45,630 data concentrations. Semivolatile data were collected
at twelve sites totaling nearly 28,500 data concentrations (data listed in Appendix F). Metals
data were collected at six sites totaling nearly 1760 data concentrations (listed in Appendix F).
Finally, Hexavalent Chromium data were collected at five sites totaling over 86 data
concentrations (listed in Appendix H). These data will be analyzed on a site-specific basis in
sections four through twenty of this document. Although there are fifty-six stations listed in
Section 2 of this document, the Portland, OR site (PLOR) did not sample for either VOCs or
carbonyls, however, an Oregon state section is included to summarize the data gathered at this
site.
3.1 Data Summary Parameters
The summary tables in Appendices C through H were uploaded into a database for air
quality analysis. This section will examine five different data summary parameters: 1) number
of sampling detects; 2) concentration range; 3) geometric means; 4) prevalence; and 5)
correlation. The following paragraphs review the basic findings indicated by the summary
tables.
3.1.1 Number of Sampling Detects
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 are sampling detect summaries of the seventy-two VOC and carbonyl
concentrations. Less than 37% of the pollutants sampled were found to be above the method
detection limit (MDL). Of those that were detected:
• 33.2% were hydrocarbons;
24.6% were halogenated hydrocarbons;
4.5% were polar compounds; and
• 37'.7% were carbonyl compounds.
These numbers resemble those from the 2001 report. Benzene and dichlorodifluoromethane had
the greatest number of detectable values reported in samples (2,029 and 2030, respectively),
while eleven compounds had zero detects (see Tables 3-1 and 3-2).
3-2
-------
3.1.2 Concentration Range
Nearly 83% of the detects had concentration values less than 1 ppbv, consistent with the
values from the 2001 report. Less than 2% had concentrations greater than 5 ppbv. Polar
compounds were observed in the highest number of samples with concentrations greater than
5 ppbv (423); halogenated hydrocarbons had the lowest (107). There was at least one
compound sampled at a concentration greater than 5 ppbv on 148 of 310 total sampling days.
An interesting note is that 34 of the seventy compounds never exceeded 1 ppbv.
The range of detectable values for each site is listed in Table 3-3. The APMI, BAPR,
CHNJ, DEMI, GPMS, LOMI, PGMS, SFSD, SJPR,SLCU, SPAZ, SWCO, TUMS, and WECO
sites had maximum concentration values of over 100 ppbv, unusually high when compared to the
other sites. DEMI, which sampled nearly every day for the first quarter of 2002, had the greatest
number of detects (4,381), and also had the greatest number of samples with concentrations
greater than 5 ppbv (96).
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 usually high concentration value. Geometric means for
each site of the four different pollutant groups are presented in Table 3-4 and shown graphically
in Figure 3-1. The SWCO site had the highest geometric mean for total polar compounds
(114.80 ppbv); the G2CO had the highest geometric mean for total hydrocarbons (17.11 ppbv).
The highest total halogenated hydrocarbon geometric mean was at APMI (17.59 ppbv). The
SLMO site has the highest total carbonyl geometric mean (23.61 ppbv).
3.1.4 Prevalence
In the context of the UATMP, prevalence refers to the frequency with which an air
pollutant is found at levels detectable by the corresponding sampling and analytical method. By
indicating the frequency of detection, prevalence can help participating agencies identify
3-3
-------
compounds of concern in urban air pollution, as well as investigate sources of these compounds.
Because part of this report is organized to evaluate trends in ambient air quality primarily on the
basis of compound groups, the prevalent compounds are identified on a program-wide, not site-
specific, basis. More importantly, the number of nondetects for a given compound (indicated by
low prevalence) must be considered when interpreting air monitoring results. Specifically,
annual average concentrations cannot be accurately estimated for compounds that are not
detected in a majority of samples.
When reviewing the data summary tables, readers should note that a prevalence of zero
does not necessarily indicate that a compound is not present in ambient air. Rather, compounds
with a prevalence of zero may be present in the air, but at levels consistently below method
detection limits.
For the purposes of this report, a group of program-wide prevalent compounds was
identified for each of the VOC and carbonyl compound groups listed in Section 3.0. These
groups of program-wide prevalent compounds are discussed in detail in Sections 3.2 through 3.5,
and throughout the remaining chapters of this report on a site-specific basis. Because the
UATMP does not characterize every component of air pollution, many compounds known to be
prevalent in urban air (e.g., ozone and nitrous oxides) are not considered in this report. Readers
should be careful not to confuse the most prevalent compounds program-wide identified by the
2002 UATMP with the most prevalent compounds in urban air pollution.
In previous UATMP reports, program-wide prevalent compounds were identified using
two statistical parameters: the count of the number of nondetects (ND); and the percent
contribution of their mass concentrations. If a compound was detected in at least 75 percent of
all the samples, and if the compound contributed to at least 90 percent of the mass concentration
within a compound group, then that compound was considered "program-wide prevalent". Due
to the significant increase in the number of participating sites during the 2001 program year
(from 15 to 41), this identification scheme was re-evaluated to ensure an acceptable number of
VOC prevalent compounds are identified. Thus the criteria were revised for 2001: 1) to be
3-4
-------
considered prevalent, the compound must be identified and quantified in at least 60% of samples
collected by a site; 2) the compounds must satisfy the first criterion in 34 of the 45 sites sampling
for carbonyls and 33 of 44 sites sampling for VOCs (or 75% for each of the respective sites);
3) the compounds satisfying the first and second criteria must contribute to at least 90% of their
compound group's mass concentration; and 4) the third criterion must satisfy the same 75%
criteria as stated above. The 2002 program year followed this same schema. Twelve
compounds met both of these criteria (3 halogenated hydrocarbons, 8 hydrocarbons, and
1 carbonyl compound).
For the 2002 UATMP, the program-wide prevalent compounds are:
HYDROCARBONS
S 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
S Acetylene
S Benzene
S Ethylbenzene
S #2,/>-xylene
S o-xylene
S Propylene
S Toluene
HALOGENATED HYDROCARBONS
S Chloromethane
S Dichlorodifluoromethane
S Trichlorofluoromethane
POLAR COMPOUNDS
S No polar compounds were considered prevalent. This mirrors the low number of
sampling detects in Section 3.1.1.
CARBONYL COMPOUNDS
S Formaldehyde
Because these compounds were consistently present at detectable levels, the UATMP
monitoring data characterize ambient levels for these compounds much more accurately than
3-5
-------
they characterize ambient levels for the VOCs and carbonyls with lower prevalence. Further, the
high prevalence allows for a meaningful statistical analysis of data correlations and a thorough
review of spatial variations and temporal variations in ambient air quality.
Readers interested in closer examination of data trends for the less program-wide
prevalent compounds should refer to the summary tables in Appendices F through I, and the raw
monitoring data in Appendices J through M. However, the reader should note the limitations
posed by data sets with many nondetect observations.
Figures 3-2 through 3-13 illustrate how geometric mean concentrations for the program-
wide prevalent VOCs and carbonyls varied from one monitoring location to the next.
3.1.5 Pearson Correlations
This report uses Pearson correlation coefficients to measure the degree of correlation
between two variables. By definition, Pearson correlation coefficients always lie between -1 and
+1. Three qualification statements may be made:
A correlation coefficient of-1 indicates a perfectly "negative" relationship, indicating
that increases in the magnitude of one variable are associated with proportionate
decreases in the magnitude of the other variable, and vice versa;
A correlation coefficient of+1 indicates a perfectly "positive" relationship, indicating
that the magnitudes of two variables both increase and both decrease proportionately.
Data that are completely uncorrelated have Pearson correlation coefficients of zero.
Therefore, the sign (positive or negative) and magnitude of the Pearson correlation coefficient
indicate the direction and strength, respectively, of data correlations. Generally, correlations
greater than 0.75 or less than -0.75 are classified as very strong; correlation between 0.50 and
0.75 and -0.50 and -0.75 are classified as strong; and correlations between 0.25 and 0.50 and
-0.25 and -0.50 are classified as moderately strong. Correlations between -0.25 and 0.25 are
classified as weak.
3-6
-------
When calculating correlations among the UATMP data, several measures were taken to
identify spurious correlations and to avoid introducing bias to the correlations:
The statistical significance of the Pearson correlation coefficients was evaluated using a
standard t-test—a test commonly used for this purpose (Harnett, 1982). In this report,
Pearson correlation coefficients were tested for statistical significance using the 5 percent
level of significance. Whenever possible, a 95 percent confidence interval was calculated
around the estimated correlation coefficient. If zero did not fall within the interval, the
coefficient was considered statistically significantly different from zero.
Data correlations were calculated only for the most program-wide prevalent compounds
listed in this report. Because the UATMP monitoring data are least precise for
compounds having many nondetect observations (see Section 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.
Nondetect observations, duplicate sampling events, and replicate laboratory analyses
were all replaced with appropriate surrogate values. With these data quality measures,
data analysts ensured that the calculated correlations characterize actual trends in the
UATMP air monitoring data.
3.2 UATMP Compound Groups
The seventy-two UATMP compounds listed in section 2 are grouped into four compound
groups: hydrocarbons; halogenated hydrocarbons; polar compounds; and carbonyls. Each
member of the compound groups shares similar chemical makeup, as well as exhibits similar
tendencies.
3.2.1 Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons are organic compounds that contain only carbon and hydrogen.
Hydrocarbons are derived mostly from crude petroleum sources and are classified according to
the arrangement of the atoms, as alicyclic, aliphatic, and aromatic. Hydrocarbons are of prime
economic importance because they encompass the constituents of the major fossil fuels,
petroleum and natural gas, as well as plastics, waxes, and oils. In urban air pollution, these
components-along with oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and sunlight—contribute to the formation of
tropospheric ozone.
3-7
-------
As stated above, hydrocarbons in the atmosphere originate from natural sources and from
various anthropogenic sources, such as combustion of fuel and biomass, petroleum refining,
petrochemical manufacturing, solvent use, and gas and oil production and use. Studies have
shown that emissions from different anthropogenic sources vary significantly from location to
location. For example, on a nationwide basis, EPA estimates that 50 percent of anthropogenic
nonmethane volatile organic compound releases in 1996 came from industrial processes,
42 percent from transportation, 6 percent from fuel combustion, and the rest from other sources
(USEPA, 1997). In urban areas, however, the estimated contributions of different source
categories differ from these national averages. For instance, a 1987 study in the Los Angeles
area estimated that 49 percent of nonmethane hydrocarbon emissions come from vehicle exhaust,
11 percent from liquid gasoline, 10 percent from gasoline vapor, and 30 percent from sources
other than motor vehicles (Fujita et al., 1994). These figures suggest that motor vehicles may
play a greater role in hydrocarbon emissions in urban areas than national statistics indicate.
3.2.2 Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Halogenated hydrocarbons are organic compounds that contain carbon, hydrogen, and
halogens - the chemical group that includes chlorine, bromine, and fluorine. Most halogenated
hydrocarbons are used for industrial purposes and as solvents, though some are produced
naturally (Godish, 1997). Once emitted to the air, many volatile halogenated hydrocarbons resist
photochemical breakdown and therefore persist in the atmosphere for relatively long periods of
time (Godish, 1997; Ramamoorthy and Ramamoorthy, 1997). These compounds can cause
chronic health effects as well as contribute to the formation of tropospheric ozone. Similar to
hydrocarbons, only the halogenated hydrocarbons with lower molecular weights are volatile, and
the sampling and analytical methods used in the 2002 UATMP measure a subset of 37 of these
volatile compounds.
3.2.3 Polar Compounds
Polar compounds (i.e., oxygenated compounds such as methyl tert-buty\ ether, methyl
ethyl ketone, etc.) were added to the UATMP analyte list that already included the volatile
halogenated hydrocarbons and selected hydrocarbons because of the nation-wide use of these
3-8
-------
types of compounds as gasoline additives and their toxicity. Because of the prevalence of
compounds characteristic of motor vehicle emissions, any compounds used as gasoline additives
would be expected to be correspondingly prevalent. Other polar compounds such as acetonitrile
were added to the analyte list because the compounds were observed at high concentrations at
one or more monitoring sites.
3.2.4 Carbonyl Compounds
Carbonyl compounds are organic compounds characterized by their composition of
carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and by the presence of at least one carbon-oxygen double bond.
Several different factors are known to affect ambient air concentrations of carbonyl compounds,
most notably:
Combustion sources, motor vehicles, and various industrial processes that emit carbonyl
compounds directly to the atmosphere;
Photochemical reactions that form carbonyl compounds in the air, typically from airborne
hydrocarbons; and
Photochemical reactions that consume carbonyl compounds from the air, generally by
photolysis or by reaction with hydroxyl radicals (Seinfeld, 1986).
3.3 Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters
Ambient air concentration tendencies often correlate favorably with ambient
meteorological observations. The following three sections summarize how each of the prevalent
compound concentrations correlated with eight meteorological parameters: maximum daily
temperature; average daily temperature; average daily dew point temperature; average daily wet
bulb temperature; average daily relative humidity; average daily sea level pressure; and average
wind information. Additionally, for the monitors identified as a NATTS site (Table 1-4), back
trajectory analysis were performed to identify where air flow originated 24 and 48 hours prior to
being sampled.
3-9
-------
3.3.1 Maximum and Average Temperature
Temperature is often a component of high ambient air concentrations for some
compounds, such as ozone. The temperature will help speed up the kinetics as compounds react
with each other. According to Table 3-5, the program-wide prevalent compounds had mostly
weak correlations with maximum temperature and average temperature. Formaldehyde had the
strongest correlation with maximum temperature (0.39), as well as the strongest correlation with
average temperature (0.37).
The poor correlation across the majority of the sites is not surprising due to the complex
and diverse local meteorology associated within the monitoring locations. In the previous
UATMP report, 43 sites are spread across eleven states and one U.S. territory. For this report,
56 sites are spread across sixteen states and one U.S. territory. As discussed in Sections 4
through 20, the temperature parameters correlate much better at certain individual sites.
3.3.2 Moisture Parameters
Three moisture parameters were used in this study for correlation with the prevalent
compounds. The dew point temperature is the temperature to which moist air must be cooled for
it to reach saturation with respect to water. The wet-bulb temperature is the temperature to
which moist air must be cooled by evaporating water into it at constant pressure until saturation
is reached. The relative humidity is the ratio of the mixing ratio to its saturation value at the
same temperature and pressure (Rogers and Yau, 1989). All three of these parameters provide
an indication of how much moisture is presently in the air.
As can be seen in Table 3-5, the three moisture parameters had mostly weak correlations
with the prevalent compounds. Only dew point and wet bulb temperatures had correlations
greater than 0.25 or less than -0.25 (with acetylene, chloromethane, and formaldehyde). The
sites used for sampling in this program year were located in different climatic zones ranging
from a desert climate (Arizona) to a very moist climate (Puerto Rico). Chloromethane
concentrations had the strongest correlation with dew point and wet bulb temperatures (0.31 with
3-10
-------
dew point temperature and 0.33 with wet-bulb temperature). 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 u-component of the wind speed is the vector value traveling toward the x-axis in a
Cartesian grid coordinate system. The u-component is calculated as follows:
u-component = -1* (wind speed) * sin(wind direction, degrees)
Similarly, the v-component of the wind speed is the vector value traveling toward the y-axis in a
Cartesian grid coordinate system. The v-component is calculated as follows:
v-component = -1* (wind speed) * cos(wind direction, degrees)
Using the u- and v- components of the wind speed allows averaging and correlation analyses
with the measured concentrations.
As shown in Table 3-5, the u- and v- components of the wind speed have very weak
correlations with the prevalent compounds across all sites, which is consistent with the
temperature and moisture parameter observations. Geographical features such as mountains or
valleys influence wind speed and wind direction. The sites used for sampling in the 2002
program year were located in different geographic zones ranging from a mountainous region
(Colorado) to a plains region (Iowa). Additionally, sites located downwind may correlate better
3-11
-------
with the measured concentrations than sites upwind. Formaldehyde concentrations had the
strongest correlation with the u-component of the wind speed (-0.14), while chloromethane had
the strongest correlation with the v-component of the wind speed (0.09). As discussed in
Sections 4 through 20, 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 acetylene (0.15), while the strongest negative correlation
occurred with chloromethane and formaldehyde (-0.10).
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 three parameters to evaluate the impact of motor vehicle emissions on
ambient air quality:
• Estimated motor vehicle ownership data;
• Motor vehicle emissions profiles; and
Estimated daily traffic estimates.
3-12
-------
3.4.1 Motor Vehicle Ownership Data
As an indicator of motor vehicle emissions near the UATMP monitoring locations,
Table 3-6 presents estimates of the number of cars owned by residents within 10 miles of each
monitoring location. The total number of motor vehicles owned within a 10-mile radius was
estimated based on a ratio of 0.74 cars per person (U.S. population estimate of 288,368,968 and
total number of motor vehicles in U.S. of 213,393,036).
For purposes of comparison, both motor vehicle ownership data and the geometric mean
of total program-wide prevalent hydrocarbons are presented in Table 3-6. The data in the table
indicate a positive linear correlation between motor vehicle ownership and ambient air
concentrations of hydrocarbons. However, readers should keep in mind other factors that might
impact the reliability of motor vehicle ownership data as an indicator of ambient air monitoring
data results:
Estimates of higher car ownership within a 10-mile radius do not necessarily imply
increased motor vehicle use in the immediate vicinity of a monitoring location.
Conversely, sparsely populated regions often contain heavily traveled roadways.
Emissions sources in the area other than motor vehicles may significantly affect levels of
hydrocarbons in the ambient air.
3.4.2 Motor Vehicles Emissions Profiles
The magnitude of emissions from motor vehicles generally depends on the volume of
traffic in urban areas, but the composition of these emissions depends more on vehicle design.
Because the distribution of vehicle design (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.
3-13
-------
To examine the impact of motor vehicle emissions on air quality at the 2002 UATMP
monitoring sites, Figure 3-14 compares concentration ratios for the BTEX compounds measured
during the 2002 UATMP to the ratios reported in a roadside study (Conner et al., 1995). This
comparison provides a qualitative depiction of how greatly motor vehicle emissions affect air
quality at the UATMP monitoring locations: the more similar the concentration ratios at a
particular monitoring location are to those of the roadside study, the more likely that motor
vehicle emissions impact ambient levels of hydrocarbons at that location.
As Figure 3-14 shows, the concentration ratios for BTEX compounds measured at nearly
every UATMP monitoring station bear some resemblance to the ratios reported in the roadside
study. The BTEX ratios at the CFDSTJ monitoring site appear to be the most similar to the
roadside study profile. For all monitoring locations the toluene:ethylbenzene ratio is clearly the
largest value of the four ratios, with the exceptions of QVAZ and YFMI; the
o-xylene:ethylbenzene ratio is clearly the smallest value of the ratios, with the exceptions of
BAPR, LINE, NBNJ, PGMS, QVAZ, and UNVT. These observations suggest, though certainly
do not prove, that emissions from motor vehicles significantly affect levels of hydrocarbons in
urban ambient air.
3.4.3 Estimated Traffic Data
When a site is being characterized, a parameter often recorded is the number of vehicles
which daily pass the monitor. For 47 of the fifty-six UATMP monitors, traffic data were
available; for the unknown traffic data count, local agencies were contacted to provide an
estimation. Table 3-6 contains the estimated daily traffic values, as well as county-level on-road
and non-road HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutant) emissions.
The highest traffic volume occurs at the DBFL site, with over 200,000 vehicles passing
by this monitor. However, hydrocarbons were not measured at this site. For the sites that
measured hydrocarbons, both ELNJ and LOMI experienced the highest amounts of traffic, yet
their hydrocarbon geometric means rank 13th and 32nd across the sites, respectively. The highest
geometric means were at G2CO, E7MI, and SPQZ, yet the traffic count is ranked 31ST, 24th, and
3-14
-------
7th, respectively. Specific characterizations for these sites appear in the separate state sections.
Estimated on-road county emissions were highest in Wayne County, MI, which is the location of
six UATMP sites: APMI, DEMI, E7MI, RRMI, SWMI, and YFMI. Although hydrocarbon
geometric means in Wayne County varied from 4.51 ppbv (RRMI) to 16.44 ppbv (E7MI), the
highest exposure to traffic occurred at the APMI site. Estimated non-road county emissions
were highest in Maricopa County, AZ, which is the location of two UATMP sites: PSAZ and
SPAZ. Non-road emission sources include, but are not limited to, activities from airplanes,
construction vehicles, and lawn and garden equipment. There does not appear to be any direct
correlation between traffic counts and geometric hydrocarbon concentrations.
3.5 Variability Analysis
Two types of variability were analyzed for this report. The first type examines the
coefficient of variation analysis for each of the prevalent compounds across the UATMP sites.
Figures 3-15 to 3-26 are graphical displays of site standard deviation versus average
concentration. Most of the prevalent compounds are either in a cluster (such as benzene), exhibit
a positive linear correlation (such as propylene), or are spread randomly (such as toluene). The
coefficient of variation provides a relative measure of variability by expressing variations to the
magnitude of the arithmetic mean. This analysis is better suited for comparing variability across
data distributions for different sites and compounds.
Seasonal variability was the second type of variability analyzed in this report. The
UATMP concentration data were divided into the four seasons: spring (March, April, May);
summer (June, July, August); fall (September, October, November); and winter (December,
January, and February). Figures 3-27 to 3-38 provide a graphical display of the average
concentrations by season for the prevalent compounds.
Higher concentration of the prevalent compounds were sampled in winter, although
summer and fall were close. Spring is the season where the lowest concentrations were
measured. Some compound-specific trends were also noted, such as high concentration of:
1) acetylene and benzene were sampled in winter; 2) chloromethane and formaldehyde in
3-15
-------
summer; and 3) dichlorodifluoromethane and trichlorofluoromethane in autumn. However, a
quick review of the profiles reveals most compounds experienced noticeable "spikes" across all
sites, while few exhibited a relatively uniform profile (chloromethane, for example). This
observation validates the variabilities for each of the sites.
3.6 UATMP NATTS Sites
Additional analyses were provided on the EPA-designated pilot sites. These sites will be
used by EPA as participants in the National Air Toxics Trends System (NATTS), which will be a
national monitoring network of air toxic monitors. The monitors will be used to evaluate air
quality, similar to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) monitors that measure
criteria pollutants. The two additional analyses are: 1) back trajectory analysis; and 2) federal
regulation analysis (NATTS sites are designated in bold in Table 2-2).
3.6.1 Back Trajectory Analysis
A back trajectory analysis traces the origin of an air parcel in relation to the location
where it is currently being examined. The method of constructing a back trajectory uses the
Lagrangian frame of reference. In simplest terms, an air parcel can be traced back one hour to a
new point of reference based on the current measured wind speed and direction. At this new
point of reference that is now one hour prior to the current observation, the wind speed and
direction are used again to determine where the air was one hour before. Each time segment is
referred to as a "time step." Typical back trajectories go 24- to 48- hours prior using surface and
upper air meteorological observations, which is what was used for this report. Back trajectory
calculations are also governed by other meteorological parameters, such as pressure and
temperature.
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 2002 sampling year. Back trajectories were constructed
3-16
-------
24- and 48-hours prior to the sampling day, and a wind regime designation was assigned to
characterize the general location for the origin of the sampled air parcel. The eight wind regimes
are similar to the classifications of a standard eight-point compass (north, northeast, east, etc.).
The individual state section discusses these results in full detail.
3.6.2 Federal Regulation Analysis
As stated earlier, urban air toxics are emitted from a variety of stationary industrial and
commercial processes and mobile sources. Many of these emission sources in the areas
surrounding the monitoring stations are already subject to emission limitations. Consequently,
the ambient concentrations of UATMP compounds recorded at the monitoring stations reflect, to
some degree, the emission limitations achieved by facilities and mobile sources in response to
existing air regulations. As additional regulations are implemented, the concentrations of urban
air toxic compounds in the ambient air surrounding the monitoring stations should decrease as
facilities and mobile sources achieve compliance with the new regulations.
3.6.2.1 Regulations for Stationary Sources
The national regulations that have the potential to reduce emissions of UATMP
pollutants from stationary sources are grouped into two categories: standards for VOC
developed under section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (Federal Ozone Measures, Control
of Emissions From Certain Sources), and standards for air toxics developed under section 112(d)
of the CAA (Hazardous Air Pollutants, Emission Standards).
As required by section 183 of the CAA, EPA conducted a study of VOC emissions from
consumer and commercial products and developed categories of products that account for at least
80 percent of the total VOC emissions (on a reactivity-adjusted basis) in areas that violate the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. The EPA divided the
list into four groups for developing regulations based on the best available controls (as defined
by the CAA). In March 1995, EPA included architectural coatings, automobile refmishing,
consumer products, and commercial products among the highest priority consumer and
3-17
-------
commercial product categories listed for regulation. Table 3-7 provides a brief summary of the
national VOC regulations.
As required by section 112 of the CAA, EPA published a list of industrial source
categories that emit one or more of the 188 air toxics (listed in the section 112(b) of the CAA).
(The initial list was published on July 16, 1992 and has undergone several revisions since that
date.). The EPA has developed (or is in the process of developing) standards for all major
sources (those that emit 10 tons/year or more of a listed pollutant or 25 tons/year or more of a
combination of listed pollutants) of air toxics and some area sources that are of particular
concern. Currently, the EPA has promulgated 56 national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) and proposed 31 NESHAP to regulate air toxic emissions from the listed
source categories. Table 3-8 provides an overview of the NESHAP that were identified during
this analysis.
3.6.2.2 Mobile Sources
For mobile sources, there are two applicable programs that have the potential to reduce
ambient concentrations of UATMP pollutants: National Low Emissions Vehicles (NLEV)and
Phasell Reformulated Gasoline (RFG).
The NLEV program is a voluntary nationwide program designed to reduce non-methane
organic compound (NMOC) emissions and NOX emissions from new cars. The NLEV program
is also expected to reduce emissions of air toxics such as benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,
and 1,3-butadiene. The program started in the northeastern states that are part of the Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC) in model year 1999 and nationally in 2001. The standards are
enforceable in the same manner that other federal motor vehicle emissions control requirements
are enforceable.
Under the NLEV program, car manufacturers voluntarily agreed to meet tailpipe
standards for cars and light-duty trucks that are more stringent than EPA can mandate prior to
model year 2004. The EPA projects that vehicles produced under the NLEV program will be
3-18
-------
approximately 70 percent cleaner than 1998 model year cars. These cleaner vehicles will
achieved 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).
For some areas of the country that exceed the national air quality standard for ozone, the
Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that gasoline that had been "reformulated" to achieve reductions
in ozone-forming compounds and toxic air pollutants be made commercially available. For
gasoline to be considered reformulated, it must have an oxygen content of at least 2.0 percent by
weight, a benzene content no greater than 1.0 percent by volume, and no heavy metals. The use
of RFG has been implemented in two phases. Phase I began in January 1, 1995 and Phase II
began in 2000. Emissions of VOC and air toxics from vehicles using 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.
3.6.2.3 Regulation Analysis
To assess the potential reduction in ambient concentrations of UATMP compounds
attributable to future regulations, an analysis of the facilities, emissions, and potentially
applicable regulations was conducted for the areas surrounding each of the pilot monitoring
stations. For this analysis, a list of stationary facilities that emit UATMP compounds within a
10-mile radius of each monitoring station was obtained from the National Emissions Inventory
for HAPs database. The list of facilities from the NEI database was restricted to those facilities
that account for approximately the top 90 percent of the UATMP pollutant emissions in the 10-
mile areas.
For these facilities, the various air regulations were reviewed to determine if they could
potentially be applicable. The regulations reviewed were limited to those with compliance dates
that occur after 1999. This date was selected to coincide with the year of the emissions data in
the NTI database. Regulations with earlier compliance dates would already be in place and no
future emission reduction would be achieved. For this analysis, Standards of Performance for
New Sources (NSPS) were not included since projections of new source construction are not
3-19
-------
available for the target areas. Additionally, since data on traffic patterns around the monitoring
stations are not available, projections of the emission trends associated with the mobile source
regulations were also not included in this analysis.
To determine the applicability of the various regulations to the facilities in the 10-mile
areas, the type of process or operation in use at each facility was obtained from the standard
industrial classification (SIC) codes in the NEI database. Additionally, searches of facility
names were conducted on the World Wide Web to obtain additional information regarding a
facility's activities. For the NESHAP, the preambles that accompany the promulgated
regulations typically identify the SIC codes for the industrial categories and entities that are
potentially subject to the NESHAP. Consequently, the SIC codes were used directly to assign
NESHAP to specific facilities. Unlike the NESHAP, the preambles to the national VOC
regulations do not explicitly identify the SIC codes to which the rules apply. Rather, the general
types of manufacturers or products that the rules are expected to cover are identified in the
preambles. Consequently, the VOC regulations were assigned using facility names,
supplemented by descriptive information obtained from web searches of the facility names.
To determine the potential emission reductions attributable to the regulations, the average
emission reductions that are expected to be achieved by the regulations were obtained from the
rule preambles. These average emission reductions were applied to the urban air toxic
compounds covered by the particular regulation. For example, if a regulation covered emissions
of toluene and xylene and the rule was projected to achieve an average emission reduction of 60
percent, then the toluene and xylene emissions from facilities potentially subject to that rule were
reduced by 60 percent.
For each of the individual monitoring stations, the major contributors to emissions of
UATMP HAP pollutants and the expected trend in emissions are discussed fully in the individual
state sections. Table 3-9 provides a summary of the pollutants and sources regulated for the
NATTS sites.
3-20
-------
3.7 Metals Analysis
Figure 3-39 is a profile of the average metals concentrations that were sampled during the
2002 UATMP. Six sites opted to sample for metal compounds, of which five are located in
Colorado (DECO, SWCO, WECO, GJCO, and G2CO). The sixth is located in Detroit, Michigan
(SWMI). (Only GJCO and G2CO sampled for metals during the 2001 program year). WECO
and SWCO (216,331 and 172,142 ng/filter, respectively) had the highest metal concentrations of
all six sites. These Denver sites are located relatively close to each other, although in separate
counties. GJCO had a considerably lower average concentration when compared to the other
sites (56,464 ng/filter). G2CO had a significantly higher average metal concentration than
GJCO, nearly three times as much. Interestingly, GJCO is located to the north of G2CO, in a
less urban area, whereas G2CO is located near a major highway and in a more industrial part of
town.
3.8 Trends Analysis
Table 2-1 represents past UATMP participation for sites also participating in this year's
program. For sites that participated prior to 2001 and are still participants through the 2002
program year, a trends analysis was conducted. Sites included in the analysis are: BUND (1999-
2003); CANJ (1994-2003); DAIA (2000-2003); DECO (2000-2003); DMIA (2000-2003); ELNJ
(2000-2003); SFSD (2000-2003); and SLCU (1999-2003). The trends analyzed are annual
averages and seasonal averages at each site for three compounds, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, and
formaldehyde.
3.8.1 Trends in Annual Averages
Figures 3-40a thru 3-40h show a comparison of the yearly average concentrations of 1,3-
butadiene, benzene, and formaldehyde for each of the eight sites. At each site analyzed,
formaldehyde consistently had the highest average annual concentrations while 1,3-butadiene
consistently had the lowest.
Of the eight sites, DMIA measured the highest average annual formaldehyde
concentrations, with 2001 having the highest average concentration. Formaldehyde
concentrations were highest in 2001 for three of the seven sites (SFSD did not sample for
3-21
-------
carbonyls until 2002). For CANJ, the site with the most years of participation, the highest
average annual formaldehyde concentration was sampled in 1997.
Average annual concentrations of 1,3-butadiene were highest at SLCU. 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. The highest average 1,3-butadiene
concentrations were generally after 1999. CANJ sampled its highest average 1,3-butadiene
concentration in 1998.
Average annual concentrations of benzene were highest at DECO and SLCU. Average
benzene concentrations were greater than 1.00 ppbv during 2000 at DECO and both 1999 and
2000 for SLCU. The distribution of the highest average benzene concentrations for the sites was
spread fairly evenly across the years. CANJ sampled its highest average benzene concentration
in 1998.
3.8.2 Trends in Seasonal Averages
Figures 3-41a thru 3-41h show a comparison of the seasonal average concentrations for
each year of participation for each of the eight sites. Again, average formaldehyde
concentrations were the highest of the three compounds for each site, year, and season, while
1,3-butadiene had the lowest. For 1,3-butadiene and benzene, the seasons with the highest
average concentrations tended to be autumn and winter. For formaldehyde, the seasons with the
highest average concentrations tended to be summer and autumn.
3-22
-------
Figure 3-1a. Comparison of the Geometric Means of the Compound Groups (ANTX-HOMI)
OJ
to
Q.
0.
o
'+*
CO
k.
•+•»
c
8
o
o
0)
o
c
TO
Q)
0)
O
0)
50.0
40.0
30.0 -
20.0 -
10.0 -
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I |l
D Hydrocarbons
I Halogenated Hydrocarbons
-------
Figure 3-1b. Comparison of the Geometric Means of the Compound Groups (JAMS-YFMI)
50.0
OJ
to
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
-------
Figure 3-2. Geometric Mean of 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene by Monitoring Location
0.9
OJ
to
_ 0.6 --
Q.
ro
01
£ 0.4 +
E
s
o
0.2 --
0.1 --
MDL0.12ppbv
Illllll
II
I.
It
• |
Mill
mill
Monitoring Location
-------
Figure 3-3. Geometric Mean of Acetylene by Monitoring Location
OJ
to
I3
c
re
o
'C
+J
a)
a)
MDL 0.06 ppbv
1
ll
I
1
1
X s o:
£ < a 5
< CD CD CD
CM
O
< X -3
O O o
DI
Q UJ
o
O LU
<
Q Q LU
o o
o o
CM -3
O O
W ^ W LU ^ LU
o
o Q
5 W
a. °-
O O Q a: =)
2 2 w n. o
CM CO 4; ^3 ^
= w
u > ^
I § ?
O
o
Monitoring Location
-------
Figure 3-4. Geometric Mean of Benzene by Monitoring Location
OJ
to
< < m m En
Monitoring Location
-------
Figure 3-5. Geometric Mean of Chloromethane by Monitoring Location
1.25
S- 0.75
to
oo
C
re
o
0)
0.5
0.25
MDL 0.09
1 1 1
< 1 1
§ § 1
-
s 1 1
Monitoring Location
-------
Figure 3-6. Geometric Mean of Dichlorodifluoromethane by Monitoring Location
to
VO
0.75
£1
Q.
C
re
0)
0)
o
-------
Figure 3-7. Geometric Mean of Ethylbenzene by Monitoring Location
OJ
o
0.7
0.6
0.5
I 0.4
| 0.3
a>
0.2
0.1
1
x ^
MDL0.11 ppbv
Ill
Illl
1
11
11
1
Q < 5 5 Q < O
~~ CM ? S W S=
^ < ^
<<^mg°o6cjQQ
is
LU
O O
o o
CM ^>
WNN^I— ooocez>oNo5wtrO
2o-OQ:D:wwwwwCoW>OTK='>
Monitoring Location
-------
Figure 3-8. Geometric Mean of Formaldehyde by Monitoring Location
£1
O.
Q.
re
o>
_o
'c
Q)
E
o
0)
O
Monitoring Location
-------
Figure 3-9. Geometric Mean of m,p-Xylene by Monitoring Location
2 -_.
1.5
OJ
to
C
re
0)
0)
o
0)
1
0.5
MDL0.13ppbv
I
limn
ll
l
tt
fa
!
< 1 =
§ 3 1
-
Monitoring Location
-------
Figure 3-10. Geometric Mean of o-Xylene by Monitoring Location
OJ
oo
0.75
£1
Q.
c
re
0)
0)
o
o o
^ W LU ^
o
X
^ o
w >
g
CL
w
II
Monitoring Location
-------
Figure 3-11. Geometric Mean of Propylene by Monitoring Location
2.5
2
Q. 1 5
3
c
re
0)
o
-------
Figure 3-12. Geometric Mean of Toluene by Monitoring Location
3
C
re
E
o
0)
Monitoring Location
-------
Figure 3-13. Geometric Mean of Trichlorofluoromethane by Monitoring Location
0.8
£1
1 °'6
C
re
0)
0.4
-------
Figure 3-14. Comparison of Concentration Ratios for BTEX Compounds vs. Roadside Study
ROADSIDE ANTX
APMI
BAPR BRVT BUND
Monitoring Location
C2IA
CANJ
CHNJ
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
I Toluene-Ethylbenzene nm,p-Xylene/Ethylbenzene Ho-Xylene/Ethylbenzene
-------
Figure 3-14 (Continued)
OJ
oo
ROADSIDE CUSD
DAIA
DECO DEMI DMIA
Monitoring Location
E7MI
EATN
ELNJ
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
I Toluene-Ethylbenzene
D m,p-Xylene/Ethylbenzene
D o-Xylene/Ethylbenzene
-------
Figure 3-14 (Continued)
OJ
VO
ROADSIDE G2CO
GJCO GPMS HOMI JAMS
Monitoring Location
LINE
LOMI
LONE
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
I Toluene-Ethylbenzene
H m,p-Xylene/Ethylbenzene
-Xylene/Ethylbenzene
-------
Figure 3-14 (Continued)
ROADSIDE LOTN
NBNJ
PGMS PSAZ QVAZ
Monitoring Location
RRMI
RUVT
S2MO
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
I Toluene-Ethylbenzene Om,p-Xylene/Ethylbenzene Oo-Xylene/Ethylbenzene
-------
Figure 3-14 (Continued)
ROADSIDE S3MO
SFSD
SJPR SLCU SLMO
Monitoring Location
SPAZ
SWCO
SWMI
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
I Toluene-Ethylbenzene Om,p-Xylene/Ethylbenzene Oo-Xylene/Ethylbenzene
-------
Figure 3-14 (Continued)
to
16
14
12
£ 10
"TO
c
g
"TO 8
ROADSIDE
TUMS
Concentration Ratio
forYFMI20.42ppbv
UNVT
Monitoring Location
WECO
D Benzene-Ethylbenzene
YFMI
I Toluene-Ethylbenzene Om,p-Xylene/Ethylbenzene Oo-Xylene/Ethylbenzene
-------
1.8
1.6
1.4
1-2
„
.a
Q.
I
'+j
.2
0)
0
0.8
TO
0.4
Figure 3-15. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Across 44 Sites
0.2
0.2
0.4 0.6
Average Concentration (ppbv)
0.8
1.2
-------
25 -,
Figure 3-16. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Acetylene Across 44 Sites
20
.a
| 15
J
'^
.2
0)
0
TO
~° 10
TO
» • ^
* o
*** '
6 8 10 12 14 16
Average Concentration (ppbv)
-------
Figure 3-17. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Benzene Across 44 Sites
14
12
10
.a
a.
J
'^
.2
a>
0
TO
345
Average Concentration (ppbv)
-------
Figure 3-18. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Chloromethane Across 44 Sites
0.7
0.6
0.5
.a
a.
a.
0.4
.2
a>
0
1 0.3
•o
TO
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6 0.8
Average Concentration (ppbv)
1.2
1.4
-------
Figure 3-19. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Dichlorodifluoromethane Across 44 Sites
3.5 -
2.5
.a
a.
T 2
.o
.Is
a>
0
1.5
TO
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Average Concentration (ppbv)
-------
Figure 3-20. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Ethyl benzene Across 44 Sites
oo
1.4
1.2
.a
a.
r 0.8
.o
.Is
a>
0
I °-6
a
0.4
0.2
* *
0.1 0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5
Average Concentration (ppbv)
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
-------
Figure 3-21. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Formaldehyde Across 45 Sites
VO
14
12
10
.0
Q.
r s
o
5
Q
TO
•o
I
w
8 10 12
Average Concentration (ppbv)
14
16
18
-------
Figure 3-22. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of m,p-Xylene Across 44 Sites
OJ
o
.a
a.
J
'^
TO
'> 3
0)
0
TO
o
>%**
0.5
1 1.5
Average Concentration (ppbv)
2.5
-------
Figure 3-23. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of o-Xylene Across 44 Sites
1.8 n
1.6
1.4
1.2
.a
I 1
.Is
0)
0
•g 0.8
TO
TO
55 o,
0.4
0.2
<
*
•
*
* *
0.1
0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Average Concentration (ppbv)
0.7
0.8
0.9
-------
Figure 3-24. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Propylene Across 44 Sites
OJ
to
4.5
3.5
.a
a.
§ 2.5
'^
.2
a>
0
TO
55 1,
0.5
0.5
1.5 2 2.5
Average Concentration (ppbv)
3.5
-------
Figure 3-25. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Toluene Across 44 Sites
OJ
oo
14
12
10
.a
a.
a.
.2
a>
0
1 6
•o
TO
0.5
1.5 2 2.5 3
Average Concentration (ppbv)
3.5
4.5
-------
Figure 3-26. Coefficient of Variation Analysis of Trichlorofluoromethane Across 44 Sites
0.7
0.6
0.5
.a
a.
r 0.4
.o
.Is
a>
0
0.3
0.2
0.1
TO
* *
0.1 0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5
Average Concentration (ppbv)
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
-------
Figure 3-27a. Average 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE)
0.9
0.8
I0'7
Q.
§ 0.6
LINE Summer
AVG Cone 1.56
5
u
o
o
0.5
0.4
O)
>
< 0.3
0.2
0.1
Monitoring Location
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
• Autumn
-------
Figure 3-27b. Average 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI)
0.8
£1
Q.
§
'•?
5
+-
0)
o
c
o
o
-------
10
Figure 3-28a. Average Acetylene Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE)
GJCO Winter
AVG Cone 31.42
£1
Q.
I
'•4-»
5
+-
0)
o
c
o
O)
0)
^
Monitoring Location
<
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
• Autumn
-------
OJ
oo
10
£1
Q.
6
o
c
o
O)
re
0)
Figure 3-28b. Average Acetylene Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI)
HkL
Monitoring Location
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
HAutumn
-------
Figure 3-29a. Average Benzene Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE)
2.5
•°
Q.
c
o
1
1 1.5
o
c
o
o
0)
O)
0.5
Monitoring Location
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
• Autumn
-------
Figure 3-29b. Average Benzene Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI)
OJ
o
2.5
I 2
c
o
1
S 1.5
o
c
o
o
0)
O)
2 *
-------
Figure 3-30a. Average Chloromethane Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE)
1.8
1.6
1.4
">"
t 1.2
c
o
0)
o
o 0.8
O
a>
O)
gj 0.6
0.4
0.2
Monitoring Location
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
• Autumn
-------
Figure 3-30b. Average Chloromethane Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI)
OJ
to
1.8
1.6
1.4
•° i o
Q. 1.2
c
o
o
o 0.8
O
a>
O)
oJ 0.6
0.4
0.2
Monitoring Location
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
• Autumn
-------
Figure 3-31 a. Average Dichlorodifluoromethane Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE)
1.8
1.6
1.4
c
o
I
c
0)
o
o
o
-------
Figure 3-31 b. Average Dichlorodifluoromethane Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI)
1.8
1.6
1" 1'4
Q.
1.2
1
S
o
o
o
-------
1.5
1.25
I 1
c
o
Figure 3-32a. Average Ethylbenzene Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE)
0.75
o
o
o
-------
1.5
Figure 3-32b. Average Ethylbenzene Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI)
Oi
Oi
1.25
I
c
o
'•5
5
1
o
o
o
0)
O)
0.75
0.5
0.25
I
\r
Monitoring Location
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
• Autumn
-------
12
10
Figure 3-33a. Average Formaldehyde Concentration by Season (ANTX-FLFL)
DMIA Spring Avg
Cone 15.33 ppbv
n
Q.
c
o
0)
o
o
o
0)
O)
5
£
n
-------
Figure 3-33b. Average Formaldehyde Concentration by Season (G2CO-YFMI)
OJ
oo
12
10
I
c
o
o
o
O
0)
O)
5
5
2
nn
SFSD Winter
AVG Cone
17.68 ppbv
SLMO Spring AVG
Cone 15.54, Summer
22.40, and Autumn
15.96
Monitoring Location
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
• Autumn
-------
3.5
Figure 3-34a. Average m,p-Xylene Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE)
c
o
?
5
+-
0)
o
c
o
o
0)
O)
ss
0)
<
0.5
1
^
Monitoring Location
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
• Autumn
-------
Figure 3-34b. Average m,p-Xylene Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI)
3.5
OJ
o
>2-
£1
a.
&
c
o
?
5
+-
-------
Figure 3-35a. Average o-Xylene Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE)
1.5
1.25
•°
Q.
C
o
1
1 0.75
o
c
o
o
0)
O)
re
gj 0.5
0.25
1
M
Monitoring Location
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
• Autumn
-------
OJ
to
1.5
1.25
i 1
c
o
ra
0.75
o
c
o
o
0)
O)
5
gj 0.5
0.25
Figure 3-35b. Average o-Xylene Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI)
I
QVAZ Spring AVG
Cone 2.12 ppbv
Monitoring Location
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
• Autumn
-------
Figure 3-36a. Average Propylene Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE)
I
+j
re
+-
a)
o
c
o
o
o>
O)
5
a)
I
*
$y <£r <$> ^
Monitoring Location
cfX ^
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
• Autumn
-------
Figure 3-36b. Average Propylene Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI)
c
o
?
re
+-
0)
o
c
o
o
u
O)
5
0)
2
flt
\r
Monitoring Location
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
• Autumn
-------
Figure 3-37a. Average Toluene Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE)
JAMS Summer AVG
Cone 8.78 ppbv
i4
^
c
o
?
re
+-
C o
0) O
O
c
o
o
0}
O)
5 .
a) 2
1
n.
1
n
il
Monitoring Location
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
• Autumn
-------
Figure 3-37b. Average Toluene Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI)
I 4
o
'•5
O
c
o
o
0}
O)
h
\r
Monitoring Location
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
• Autumn
-------
Figure 3-38a. Average Trichlorofluoromethane Concentration by Season (ANTX-LINE)
0.8
£1
Q.
§
'•5
5
+*
0)
o
c
o
o
a)
O)
5
SJ
0.6
0.4
0.2
Monitoring Location
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
• Autumn
-------
Figure 3-38b. Average Trichlorofluoromethane Concentration by Season (LOMI-YFMI)
OJ
oo
0.8
£1
Q.
§
'•5
o
c
o
a
O)
5
SJ
0.6
0.4
0.2
Monitoring Location
D Winter
• Spring
• Summer
• Autumn
-------
Figure 3-39. Average Metals Concentration
250,000
200,000
0)
O)
c
OJ
vo
~- 150,000
o
'•5
5
+*
0)
o
c
o
o
0)
O)
5
gj
100,000
50,000
DECO
SWCO
WECO G2CO
Monitoring Location
GJCO
SWMI
-------
Figure 3-40a. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the BUND Monitoring Station
oo
o
2.5
2
Q.
C
O
1-5-
0)
o
C
o
o
1-
0.5
99
D1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
00 01
Years of Participation
02
-------
Figure 3-40b. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the CAN J Monitoring Station
oo
6
5
£1
Q.
£ 4-
c
.0
?
5
+-
0) •?
o °
c
o
o
1-
n 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
94
95
96
97 98 99
Years of Participation
00
01
02
-------
Figure 3-40c. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the DAIA Monitoring Station
oo
to
1.8
1.6
1.4
I 1.2
c
o
0)
c 0.8
o
o
0.6
0.4
0.2
D1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
00
01
Years of Participation
02
-------
Figure 3-40d. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the DECO Monitoring Station
OJ
oo
7-
6
O
0)
O
8 3
2
1-
00
D1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
01
Years of Participation
02
-------
Figure 3-40e. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the DMIA Monitoring Station
OJ
oo
D1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
01
Years of Participation
02
-------
Figure 3-40f. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the ELNJ Monitoring Station
OJ
oo
3
2.5
Q.
£ 2
o
'•5
5
*J
§ 1-5-
c
o
o
0.5
n 1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
00
01
Years of Participation
02
-------
Figure 3-40g. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SFSD Monitoring Station
OJ
oo
4.5
4
3.5
I 3
c
o
2-5
0)
o
O
2
1.5
0.5
oo
D1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
01
Years of Participation
02
-------
Figure 3-40h. Comparison of Yearly Averages for the SLCU Monitoring Station
OJ
oo
D1,3-Butadiene
• Benzene
D Formaldehyde
00 01
Years of Participation
02
-------
Figure 3-41 a. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the BUND Monitoring Station
3.5
2.5
£1
Q.
B 2
oo
oo
c
o
c
0)
o
c
o
o
1.5
0.5
Winter Spring Summer Autumn Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn
99 99 99 99 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02
Season and Year
1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
10
Figure 3-41 b. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the CANJ Monitoring Station (1994-
1998)
oo
VO
£1
Q.
c
o
o
o
o
2
J
Autumn 96 Avg Formaldehyde
Cone. 10.72 ppbv; Winter 97
Formaldehyde Cone. 19.47 ppbv
Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn
94 94 95 95 95 95 96 96 96 96 97 97 97 97 98 98 98 98
Season and Year
D1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-41 c. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the DAIA Monitoring Station
VO
o
£1
Q.
C
.0
?
5
+-
0)
o
c
o
o
1
JL
Autumn 00 Winter 01 Spring 01 Summer 01 Autumn 01 Winter 02 Spring 02 Summer 02 Autumn 02
Season and Year
1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
10
Figure 3-41 d. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the DECO Monitoring Station
C
o
'•5
5
+*
0)
o
o
o
2
Summer 02
Formaldehyde Cone.
11.01 ppbv
Winter 00 Spring 00 Autumn 00 Winter 01 Spring 01 Summer 01 Autumn 01 Winter 02 Spring 02 Summer 02 Autumn 02
Season and Year
D1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
VO
to
£1
Q.
C
o
3
0)
o
c
o
o
Figure 3-41 e. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the DMIA Monitoring Station
Summer 01 Formaldehyde
one. 11.87 ppby Autumn 01
11.50 ppbv; and Spring 02 15.33
Dpbv
Autumn 00 Winter 01 Spring 01 Summer 01 Autumn 01
Season and Year
Winter 02
Spring 02
Summer 02
Dl,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
OJ
JD
£1
Q.
C
o
3
o
C
o
o
1
Figure 3-41f. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the ELNJ Monitoring Station
Winter 00 Spring 00 Summer 00 Autumn 00 Winter 01 Spring 01 Summer 01 Autumn 01 Winter 02 Spring 02 Summer 02 Autumn 02
Season and Year
D1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Figure 3-41 g. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the SFSD Monitoring Station
OJ
JD
C
o
'•5 2
5
+-
0)
o
C
o
o
Summer 02
Formaldehyde
Cone. 7.65 ppbv
i—I—I i—I—I i—I—L
Spring 00 Summer 00 Autumn 00 Winter 01 Spring 01 Summer 01 Autumn 01 Winter 02 Spring 02 Summer 02 Autumn 02
Season and Year
1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
10
Figure 3-41 h. Comparison of Seasonal Averages for the SLCU Monitoring Station
£1
Q.
C
o
1
+J
0)
o
C
o
o
2
Summer 01
Formaldehyde
Cone. 10.30 ppbv
Autumn 99 Winter 00 Spring 00 Summer 00 Autumn 00 Winter 01 Spring 01 Summer 01 Autumn 01 Winter 02 Spring 02 Summer 02 Autumn 02
Season and Year
1,3-Butadiene
I Benzene
D Formaldehyde
-------
Table 3-1. Sampling Detect Summaries of the VOC Concentrations
Chemical1
#of
Detects
Min.
Value
(ppbv)
Max.
Value
(ppbv)
Average
Value
(ppbv)
Geometric
Mean
(ppbv)
Median
(ppbv)
1st
Quartile
(ppbv)
3rd
Quartile
(ppbv)
Standard
Deviation
(ppbv)
Coefficient
of
Variation
Hydrocarbons
Acetylene
Benzene
1,3-Butadiene
Ethylbenzene
w-Octane
Propylene
Styrene
Toluene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
jM-,/7-Xylene
o-Xylene
2019
2028
373
1227
384
1996
136
1977
1001
351
1711
1173
0.08
0.064
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.06
0.13
0.09
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.15
84.41
49.75
2.12
7.19
3.79
19.74
13.71
87.44
8.05
2.481
28.07
9.1
1.72
0.57
0.20
0.30
0.25
0.86
0.40
1.26
0.29
0.22
0.61
0.41
1.53
0.51
0.19
0.26
0.22
0.71
0.26
0.91
0.26
0.20
0.49
0.36
1.51
0.51
0.17
0.26
0.21
0.73
0.20
0.88
0.26
0.20
0.47
0.38
1.14
0.38
0.15
0.17
0.16
0.44
0.16
0.55
0.18
0.16
0.30
0.26
2.03
0.67
0.23
0.37
0.27
1.10
0.32
1.35
0.37
0.24
0.78
0.49
1.00
0.30
0.08
0.20
0.14
0.59
0.68
1.47
0.14
0.08
0.47
0.24
0.58
0.54
0.42
0.67
0.58
0.69
1.71
1.39
0.47
0.36
0.77
0.59
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
NA
1
NA
NA
17
1592
4
10
0.12
0.063
0.095
0.15
13.94
0.25
0.18
0.38
2.79
0.10
0.13
0.28
0.71
0.09
0.12
0.27
0.67
0.09
0.11
0.23
0.16
0.11
0.15
0.33
1.21
0.02
0.04
0.08
5.04
0.18
0.33
0.28
1.80
0.21
0.88
0.79
-------
Table 3-1. Sampling Detect Summaries of the VOC Concentrations (Continued)
Chemical1
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloromethylbenzene
Chloroprene
Dibromochloromethane
1, 2-Dibromoethane
/w-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
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Hexachloro- 1 , 3 -Butadiene
Methylene Chloride
#of
Detects
93
2024
Min.
Value
(ppbv)
0.07
0.26
Max.
Value
(ppbv)
0.93
2.32
Average
Value
(ppbv)
0.12
0.63
Geometric
Mean
(ppbv)
0.11
0.62
Median
(ppbv)
0.11
0.62
1st
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.09
0.58
3rd
Quartile
(ppbv)
0.12
0.67
Standard
Deviation
(ppbv)
0.06
0.09
Coefficient
of
Variation
0.53
0.14
NA
2
0.12
0.16
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
85
0.16
13.28
0.44
0.28
0.21
0.20
0.32
0.81
1.82
NA
NA
NA
15
2
0.16
1.14
0.45
1.82
0.37
1.48
0.31
1.44
0.37
1.48
0.29
1.31
0.38
1.65
0.09
0.48
0.27
0.32
NA
1
NA
NA
2030
3
0.27
0.09
21.07
0.15
0.64
0.11
0.63
0.11
0.61
0.10
0.58
0.10
0.68
0.13
0.13
0.03
0.20
0.28
NA
1286
0.08
1210.22
4.51
1.48
1.32
0.50
4.12
7.76
1.72
-------
Table 3-1. Sampling Detect Summaries of the VOC Concentrations (Continued)
Chemical1
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
#of
Detects
Min.
Value
(ppbv)
Max.
Value
(ppbv)
Average
Value
(ppbv)
Geometric
Mean
(ppbv)
Median
(ppbv)
1st
Quartile
(ppbv)
3rd
Quartile
(ppbv)
Standard
Deviation
(ppbv)
Coefficient
of
Variation
NA
315
0.06
2.57
0.20
0.17
0.17
0.12
0.22
0.15
0.77
NA
100
0.051
0.76
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.63
NA
19
2021
1745
0.11
0.17
0.076
54.6
3.03
0.89
6.12
0.32
0.11
0.45
0.30
0.11
0.18
0.29
0.11
0.18
0.26
0.10
0.31
0.34
0.13
17.10
0.13
0.03
2.79
0.41
0.29
NA
Polar Compounds
Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
Ethyl Aery late
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
554
62
27
0.49
0.53
0.20
1241.63
10.70
0.72
27.16
2.42
0.35
11.64
1.98
0.33
12.59
1.95
0.30
3.65
1.31
0.26
38.08
2.90
0.44
41.76
1.91
0.12
1.54
0.79
0.35
NA
NA
961
77
11
460
0.35
0.23
0.38
0.24
42.09
14.0
5.65
7.02
1.51
0.92
1.22
1.13
1.24
0.60
0.68
0.93
1.41
0.50
0.48
0.86
0.80
0.32
0.41
0.64
1.88
1.00
0.62
1.24
1.00
1.35
1.95
0.90
0.67
1.46
1.60
0.80
1 = BOLD indicates the compound is prevalent for 2002 Program Year.
Italics indicates the chemical is an urban air toxics strategy HAP.
-------
Table 3-2. Sampling Detect Summaries of the Carbonyl Concentrations
Chemical1
#of
Detects
Min.
Value
(ppbv)
Max.
Value
(ppbv)
Average
Value
(ppbv)
Geometric
Mean
(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
1986
1980
1979
1972
770
1986
1969
951
254
1875
1939
1915
0.016
0.012
0.002
0.009
0.007
0.002
0.027
0.004
0.003
0.010
0.005
0.003
10.41
11.62
0.65
1.68
0.82
0.72
57.93
2.87
0.27
1.44
0.82
1.44
0.86
0.97
0.04
0.14
0.020
0.017
2.56
0.049
0.021
0.107
0.034
0.037
0.61
0.76
0.03
0.12
0.017
0.009
1.92
0.035
0.014
0.093
0.029
0.031
0.94
1.04
0.03
0.14
0.016
0.008
2.26
0.036
0.013
0.094
0.031
0.032
0.50
0.65
0.02
0.10
0.012
0.006
1.48
0.022
0.007
0.073
0.022
0.023
1.16
1.27
0.05
0.17
0.020
0.012
3.32
0.064
0.025
0.11
0.043
0.049
0.52
0.52
0.03
0.071
0.017
0.045
1.73
0.043
0.024
0.089
0.018
0.023
0.61
0.53
0.67
0.49
0.87
2.57
0.67
0.86
1.19
0.83
0.55
0.62
VO
VO
1 = BOLD indicates the compound is prevalent for 2002 Program Year.
Italics indicates the chemical is an urban air toxics strategy HAP.
-------
Table 3-3. Range of Detectable Values by Site
UATMP Site
ANTX
APMI
AZFL
BAPR
BGFL
BRVT
BTMO
BUND
C2IA
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
CWFL
DAIA
DBFL
DECO
DEMI
DMIA
DNFL
E7MI
EATN
ELNJ
FLFL
G2CO
GAFL
GJCO
GPMS
HOMI
JAMS
LEFL
LINE
LOMI
LONE
LOTN
MDFL
NBNJ
PGMS
PSAZ
QVAZ
Range of
Detectable Values
(ppbv)
0.0065-34.42
0.0026-1210.22
0.0050-6.37
0.0037-143.92
0.0058-4.14
0.0600-2.42
0.0041-1.99
0.0039-5.29
0.0044-10.97
0.0035-23.28
0.0029-264.01
0.0033-7.83
0.0044-4.59
0.0036-16.81
0.0089-3.59
0.0098-14.81
0.0022-147.77
0.0035-42.09
0.0038-54.59
0.0700-16.58
0.0081-6.27
0.0024-19.74
0.0054-3.62
0.0045-27.69
0.0043-54.03
0.0065-84.41
0.0081-459.63
0.0800-11.60
0.0028-96.73
0.0034-3.82
0.0025-23.25
0.0038-177.68
0.0033-58.80
0.0044-6.39
0.0030-0.87
0.0048-41.11
0.0085-444.38
0.0600-32.38
0.0600-19.08
Number of Sampling
Days
Carbonyl
22
10
59
64
5
N/A
3
78
79
72
69
59
69
31
5
48
198
19
77
N/A
24
73
4
53
69
24
38
N/A
39
80
41
10
20
21
4
71
38
N/A
N/A
voc
22
67
N/A
68
N/A
82
N/A
76
74
74
69
60
N/A
31
N/A
50
183
14
N/A
4
23
73
N/A
46
N/A
24
38
11
35
N/A
37
18
21
18
N/A
70
38
52
47
Number
of Detects
476
1075
551
1601
46
898
29
1428
1512
1680
1485
1120
620
607
45
1354
4381
375
718
79
577
1820
37
1245
607
618
851
104
943
735
1007
334
397
447
32
1612
871
984
536
Number of
Samples
> Sppbv
7
15
1
44
0
0
0
1
7
27
28
8
0
10
0
43
96
19
3
7
5
34
0
32
11
27
23
1
37
0
40
6
5
7
0
18
16
28
12
3-100
-------
Table 3-3. Range of Detectable Values by Site (Continued)
UATMP Site
RRMI
RUVT
S2MO
S3MO
S4MO
SFSD
SJPR
SLCU
SLMO
SPAZ
SWCO
SWMI
TUMS
UNVT
WECO
YFMT
Range of
Detectable Values
(ppbv)
0.0060-57.93
0.0700-4.04
0.0627-17.65
0.0600-17.07
0.0053-4.66
0.0039-779.21
0.0042-496.92
0.0048-104.76
0.0031-52.05
0.0600-381.57
0.0039-238.64
0.0044-5.91
0.0045-121.83
0.0700-1.68
0.0025-1241.63
00031-4975
Number of Sampling
Days
Carbonyl
21
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
33
71
74
57
N/A
35
19
38
N/A
46
14
voc
10
29
30
31
N/A
64
72
75
63
51
36
13
37
30
45
20
Number
of Detects
343
371
387
379
55
1060
1857
1858
1474
1032
925
378
872
246
1186
406
Number of
Samples
> Sppbv
3
0
12
1
0
31
32
45
68
52
50
5
32
0
55
10
3-101
-------
Table 3-4. Geometric Means by Site
UATMP Site
ANTX
APMI
AZFL
BAPR
BGFL
BRVT
BTMO
BUND
C2IA
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
CWFL
DAIA
DBFL
DECO
DEMI
DMIA
DNFL
E7MI
EATN
ELNJ
FLFL
G2CO
GAFL
GJCO
GPMS
HOMI
JAMS
LEFL
LINE
LOMI
LONE
LOTN
MDFL
NBNJ
PGMS
PSAZ
QVAZ
RRMI
Geometric Mean (ppbv)
Carbonyls
5.53
3.35
5.54
5.20
2.52
N/A
4.27
2.77
4.53
2.86
6.13
5.65
8.80
3.41
5.01
13.93
3.31
13.43
10.76
N/A
5.85
4.46
5.21
16.52
5.38
6.48
5.80
N/A
6.57
4.65
8.06
2.16
4.47
5.66
1.26
5.33
5.95
N/A
N/A
6.81
Halogenated
Hydrocarbons
6.03
17.59
N/A
8.47
N/A
8.30
N/A
4.12
4.25
4.80
6.77
3.82
N/A
4.26
N/A
4.31
8.09
5.46
N/A
4.20
4.38
4.35
N/A
6.66
N/A
4.17
4.31
3.57
4.63
N/A
4.15
6.09
3.93
4.03
N/A
5.28
4.14
4.77
3.47
3.58
Hydrocarbons
3.94
9.74
N/A
7.55
N/A
7.23
N/A
1.89
2.63
5.96
3.52
2.72
N/A
3.10
N/A
11.53
5.99
3.77
N/A
16.44
6.33
8.52
N/A
17.11
N/A
13.58
4.39
1.57
9.35
N/A
5.16
4.05
4.07
4.28
N/A
6.20
6.57
9.49
2.19
4.51
Polar
6.10
4.62
N/A
5.50
N/A
4.07
N/A
2.19
2.19
3.06
2.97
1.92
N/A
3.30
N/A
2.44
4.12
3.34
N/A
8.17
3.08
3.63
N/A
5.03
N/A
11.15
5.35
1.98
26.58
N/A
8.24
2.29
5.01
2.94
N/A
2.66
3.38
3.92
2.85
2.37
3-102
-------
Table 3-4. Geometric Means by Site (Continued)
UATMP Site
RUVT
S2MO
S3MO
S4MO
SFSD
SJPR
SLCU
SLMO
SPAZ
SWCO
SWMI
TUMS
UNVT
WECO
YFMI
Geometric Mean (ppbv)
Carbonyls
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.96
6.18
4.90
8.47
23.61
N/A
8.83
5.65
5.76
N/A
8.05
3.34
Halogenated
Hydrocarbons
3.54
4.73
4.61
N/A
4.43
5.13
4.50
4.82
4.08
4.05
4.45
4.68
3.37
4.33
3.62
Hydrocarbons
4.23
5.13
4.50
N/A
3.63
11.31
9.33
6.16
14.38
11.41
6.95
3.63
1.30
9.23
10.87
Polar
1.66
3.01
1.99
N/A
3.77
5.41
3.70
3.13
8.75
114.80
2.18
8.69
1.49
56.67
1.43
3-103
-------
Table 3-5. Summary of Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Selected Meteorological Parameters and Prevalent Compounds
Prevalent Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.06
-0.25
-0.12
0.31
0.13
-0.01
0.39
-0.01
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.07
Average
Temperature
0.06
-0.28
-0.15
0.31
0.13
-0.02
0.37
-0.03
-0.01
0.03
0.04
0.07
Dew Point
Temperature
0.05
-0.27
-0.15
0.31
0.11
-0.05
0.29
-0.05
-0.03
0.01
0.05
0.04
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.03
-0.31
-0.17
0.33
0.11
-0.05
0.32
-0.06
-0.04
0.00
0.03
0.04
Relative
Humidity
0.05
0.08
0.07
-0.01
0.01
0.01
-0.15
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.05
0.02
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.03
0.15
0.09
-0.10
-0.05
0.01
-0.10
0.00
0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
u-component
of wind speed
-0.13
-0.07
-0.11
-0.06
-0.05
-0.11
-0.14
-0.11
-0.12
-0.13
-0.12
0.02
v-component
of wind speed
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
0.09
-0.01
-0.03
-0.01
0.00
-0.03
-0.01
-0.03
-0.01
-------
Table 3-6. Summary of Mobile Information by Site
UATMP
Site
ANTX
APMI
AZFL
BAPR
BGFL
BRVT
BTMO
BUND
C2IA
CANJ
CHNJ
CUSD
CWFL
DAIA
DBFL
DECO
DEMI
DMIA
DNFL
E7MI
EATN
ELNJ
FLFL
G2CO
GAFL
GJCO
GPMS
HOMI
JAMS
LEFL
LINE
LOMI
LONE
LOTN
MDFL
NBNJ
PGMS
PLOR
PSAZ
Estimated
No. of Motor
Vehicles
Owned
454,413
758,029
438,555
N/A
25,290
20,291
25,210
5,487
129,882
1,440,445
175,814
3,118
329,649
199,335
355,056
945,747
906,510
284,005
336,437
864,146
383,584
1,620,524
730,732
76,635
339,402
83,623
123,553
7,689
194,233
438,474
177,599
848,210
177,852
409,034
852,948
633,712
43,175
661,621
1,019,334
Estimated
Traffic
14,310
60,000
51,000
10
12,200
16,578
4,360
1,350
1,500
62,000
12,623
1,940
1,000
1,000
201,032
44,200
12,791
12,400
16,281
6,999
38,540
170,000
1,000
2,200
81,460
10,000
17,000
7,000
12,500
1,055
6,100
100,000
6,200
3,000
15,200
63,000
8,600
1,000
250
County-Level
On-Road
Emissions
(tpy)
7,752
12,015
4,692
104
5,091
342
336
34
906
2,100
1,719
50
4,692
822
5,091
2,754
12,015
1,974
4,692
12,015
4,014
1,866
7,608
556
4,958
556
1,080
55
1,488
4,958
1,203
6,296
1,203
4,014
8,665
2,625
803
3,110
10,839
County-Level
Non-Road
Emissions
(tpy)
2,255
2,016
2,183
127
3,890
130
62
60
352
663
1,368
35
2,183
347
3,890
874
2,016
1,087
2,183
2,016
1,083
669
2,825
227
2,274
227
1,455
292
259
2,274
360
2,103
360
1,083
3,891
1,331
1,165
870
4,894
Hydrocarbon
Geometric
Mean (ppbv)
3.94
9.74
N/A
7.55
N/A
7.23
N/A
1.89
2.63
5.96
3.52
2.72
N/A
3.10
N/A
11.53
5.99
3.77
N/A
16.44
6.33
8.52
N/A
17.11
N/A
13.58
4.39
1.57
9.35
N/A
5.16
4.05
4.07
4.28
N/A
6.02
6.57
N/A
9.49
3-105
-------
Table 3-6. Summary of Mobile Information by Site (Continued)
UATMP
Site
QVAZ
RRMI
RUVT
S2MO
S3MO
S4MO
SFSD
SJPR
SLCU
SLMO
SPAZ
SWCO
SWMI
TUMS
UNVT
WECO
YFMI
Estimated
No. of Motor
Vehicles
Owned
64,456
661,513
26,551
589,603
529,030
620,460
109,906
322,887
612,307
529,030
626,912
943,843
872,823
52,858
36,214
631,036
872,823
Estimated
Traffic
200
500
5,700
1,000
8,532
22,840
4,320
51,000
20,485
15,016
50,000
1,366
18,437
4,900
1,000
1,500
500
County-Level
On-Road
Emissions
(tpy)
1,134
12,015
364
2,013
2,013
2,013
670
1,787
4,059
2,013
10,839
2,754
12,015
540
1,095
1,783
12,015
County-Level
Non-Road
Emissions
(tpy)
141
2,016
160
352
352
352
219
2,183
1,915
352
4,894
874
2,016
170
379
353
2,016
Hydrocarbon
Geometric
Mean (ppbv)
2.19
4.51
4.23
5.13
4.50
N/A
3.63
11.31
9.33
6,16
14.38
11.41
6.95
3.63
1.30
9.23
8.30
3-106
-------
Table 3-7. Summary of the National Emission Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds
Rule Title
Applicability
Affected
Equipment
Overall
Percent
Reduction
Compliance Date
National Volatile
Organic Compound
Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings
(40 CFR part 59,
subpart D
Manufacturers and importers of architectural
coatings (e.g., interior and exterior paints,
traffic markings, sign paints, industrial
maintenance coatings) that are recommended
for field application to stationary structures and
their appurtenances.
The rule
establishes VOC
content limits in
coatings rather
than VOC
emission limits for
process equipment
20
Coatings that are manufactured after
September 13, 1999, and for any
architectural coating registered under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Section 136, et
seq.), the rule applies to any such coating
manufactured on or after March 13, 2000
for sale or distribution in the United
States.)
OJ
o
National Volatile
Organic Compound
Emission Standards for
Consumer Products (40
CFR part 59, subpart C)
The rule applies to manufacturers, importers,
and distributors of subject consumer products3
manufactured or imported on or after December
10, 1998 for sale or distribution in the United
States, including the District of Columbia and
all United States territories.
The rule
establishes VOC
content limits in
products rather
than VOC
emission limits for
process equipment
20
Consumer products manufactured or
imported on or after December 10, 1998
National Volatile
Organic Compound
Emission Standards for
Automobile Refinish
Coatings (40 CFR part
59, subpart B)
The provisions of the rule apply to automobile
refinish coatings
and coating components that are manufactured
on or after January 11, 1999 for sale or
distribution in the United States, including the
District of Columbia and all U.S. territories.
The rule
establishes VOC
content limits in
refinish coatings
and coating
components rather
than VOC
emission limits for
process equipment
33
Refinish coatings and coating
components that are manufactured on or
after January 11, 1999
aConsumer product means any household or institutional product (including paints, coatings, and solvents), or substance, or article (including any container or
packaging) held by any person, the use, consumption, storage, disposal, destruction, or decomposition of which may result in the release of VOC.
-------
Table 3-8. Summary of Potentially Applicable National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
SIC Description
Grade Petroleum and Natural Gas
(SIC Code 13 11)
Office Furniture, Except Wood (SIC
Code 2522)
Miscellaneous Publishing (SIC Code
2741)
Ordnance and Accessories, NEC
(SIC Code 3489)
Commercial Printing, NEC (SIC
Code 2759)
Commercial Printing, Gravure (SIC
Code 2754)
Medicinal Chemicals and Botanical
Products (SIC Code 2833)
Pharmaceutical Preparations (SIC
Code 2834)
Cyclic Organic Grades and
Intermediates, and Organic Dyes and
Pigments (SIC Code 2865)
Fabricated Rubber Products, NEC
(SIC Code 3069)
Plastics Foam Products (SIC Code
3086)
Manufacturing Industries, NEC (SIC
Code 3999)
Regulation Citation
40 CFR part 63, subpart HH
40CFRpart63, subpart
RRRR
40 CFR part 63, subpart KK
40 CFR part 63, subpart
GGG
40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE
40 CFR part 63, subpart
OOOO
40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMMM
Regulation Title
Oil and Natural Gas Production
and Natural Gas Transmission
and Storage NESHAP
Surface Coating of Metal
Furniture NESHAP
Printing and Publishing Industry
NESHAP
Pharmaceuticals Production
NESHAP
Organic Liquids Distribution
(Non-Gasoline) NESHAP
Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of
Fabrics and Other Textiles
NESHAP (Proposed Rule)
Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Production NESHAP (Proposed
Rule)
UAT Pollutants Covered
by Regulation
Benzene, ethylbenzene,
toluene, and xylene
Ethylbenzene, methyl ethyl
ketone, toluene, and xylene
Ethylbenzene, methyl ethyl
ketone, methyl isobutyl
ketone, toluene, and xylene
Hexane, methylene chloride,
and toluene
Benzene, ethylbenzene,
toluene, vinyl chloride, and
xylene
Ethylbenzene, methyl ethyl
ketone, methyl isobutyl
ketone, toluene, and xylene
Methylene chloride
Overall Percent
Reduction
77
70
69
65
28
60
70
Compliance
Date
2002
2005
1999
2001
2002
2002
2001
o
oo
-------
Table 3-8. Summary of Potentially Applicable National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Continued)
SIC Description
Regulation Citation
Regulation Title
UAT Pollutants Covered
by Regulation
Overall Percent
Reduction
Compliance
Date
Plastics Plumbing Fixtures (SIC
Code 3088)
Plastics Products, NEC (SIC Code
3089)
Sporting and Athletic Goods, NEC
(SIC Code 3949)
40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWW
Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production NESHAP (Proposed
Rule)
Methylene chloride, methyl
methacrylate, and styrene
65
2006
Metal Cans (SIC Code 3411)
40 CFR part 63, subpart
KKKK
Surface Coating of Metal Cans
NESHAP (Proposed Rule)
Hexane, ethylbenzene,
methyl ethyl ketone, methyl
isobutyl ketone, toluene, and
xylene
71
2005
Metal Shipping Barrels, Drums,
Kegs, and Pails (SIC Code 3412)
Fabricated Structural Metal (SIC
Code 3441)
Farm Machinery and Equipment
(SIC Code 3523)
Construction Machinery and
Equipment (SIC Code 3531)
Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car
Bodies (SIC Code 3711)
Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories
(SIC Code 3714)
Railroad Equipment (SIC Code
3743)
Automatic Controls for Regulating
Residential and Commercial
Environments and Appliances (SIC
Code 3822)
40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMM
Surface Coating of Miscellaneous
Metal Parts and Products
NESHAP (Proposed Rule)
Ethylbenzene, methyl ethyl
ketone, methyl isobutyl
ketone, phenol, styrene,
toluene, and xylene
48
2002
-------
Table 3-8. Summary of Potentially Applicable National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Continued)
SIC Description
Coating, Engraving, and Allied
Services, NEC (SIC Code 3479)
Boat Building and Repairing (SIC
Code 3732)
Ship Building and Repairing (SIC
Code 3731)
2522, 3086, 3089, 3579, 3663, 3711,
3714, 3715, 3716, 3792, 3799, 3841,
3949, 3993, and 3999
Regulation Citation
40 CFR part 63, subpart
ssss
40 CFR part 63, subpart
WW
40 CFR part 60, subpart
PPPP
Regulation Title
Surface Coating of Metal Coil
NESHAP
Boat Manufacturing NESHAP
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Surface Coating of Plastic Parts
and Products
(Proposed Rule)
UAT Pollutants Covered
by Regulation
Methyl ethyl ketone, toluene,
and xylene
Hexane, methylene chloride,
methyl ethyl ketone, methyl
isobutyl ketone, methyl
methacrylate, styrene,
toluene, and xylene
Methyl ethyl ketone, methyl
isobutyl ketone, toluene, and
xylene
Overall Percent
Reduction
53
35 (from 1997
emission levels)
80
Compliance
Date
2005
2004
2004
-------
Table 3-9. Summary of Pollutants and Sources Regulated
Monitoring
Station
Colorado:
GJCO/G2CO
Florida:
AZFL
Florida:
CWFL
Florida:
DNFL
Ten Mile Point
UAT
Emissions
(tpy)
83.46
329.34
566.46
303.97
Number of Point
Source Facilities
Within Ten Miles
16
12
16
10
Number of Point Source
Facilities Subject to
Future Regulations
5
8
9
7
UATMP Pollutants
Covered in New
Regulations
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Styrene
Toluene
Xylene
Methyl Methacrylate
Styrene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Styrene
Toluene
Expected
Reduction
(%)
56
63
56
56
22
33
35
99
54
51
54
35
65
35
55
35
-------
Table 3-9. Summary of Pollutants and Sources Regulated (Continued)
Monitoring
Station
Florida:
GAFL
Florida:
LEFL
Iowa:
C2IA
Ten Mile Point
UAT
Emissions
(tpy)
238.22
182.78
121.18
Number of Point
Source Facilities
Within Ten Miles
25
15
4
Number of Point Source
Facilities Subject to
Future Regulations
14
6
3
UATMP Pollutants
Covered in New
Regulations
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Styrene
Toluene
Xylene
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Toluene
Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Styrene
Toluene
Xylene
Expected
Reduction
(%)
21
10
57
12
33
54
19
13
14
1
65
2
15
20
53
61
20
44
-------
Table 3-9. Summary of Pollutants and Sources Regulated (Continued)
Monitoring
Station
Michigan:
APMI
Michigan:
DEMI
Michigan:
E7MI
Ten Mile Point
UAT
Emissions
(tpy)
909.41
843.46
448.96
Number of Point
Source Facilities
Within Ten Miles
10
11
11
Number of Point Source
Facilities Subject to
Future Regulations
6
5
7
UATMP Pollutants
Covered in New
Regulations
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Toluene
Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Toluene
Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Methacrylate
Expected
Reduction
(%)
54
43
58
10
58
51
47
58
14
58
37
52
52
52
-------
Table 3-9. Summary of Pollutants and Sources Regulated (Continued)
Monitoring
Station
Michigan:
E7MI (Cont.)
Michigan:
HOMI
Michigan:
RRMI
Michigan:
SWMI
Michigan:
YFMI
Ten Mile Point
UAT
Emissions
(tpy)
8.35
646.13
856.49
Number of Point
Source Facilities
Within Ten Miles
5
12
12
Number of Point Source
Facilities Subject to
Future Regulations
0
4
5
UATMP Pollutants
Covered in New
Regulations
Styrene
Toluene
Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Toluene
Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Toluene
Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Expected
Reduction
(%)
52
33
52
49
43
58
8
56
51
47
52
12
58
51
47
-------
Table 3-9. Summary of Pollutants and Sources Regulated (Continued)
Monitoring
Station
Michigan:
YFMI (Cont.)
Puerto Rico:
BAPR
Puerto Rico:
SJPR
Ten Mile Point
UAT
Emissions
(tpy)
2,213.46
469.69
Number of Point
Source Facilities
Within Ten Miles
4
4
Number of Point Source
Facilities Subject to
Future Regulations
4
3
UATMP Pollutants
Covered in New
Regulations
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Xylene
Expected
Reduction
(%)
47
58
65
65
28
28
71
70
2
28
-------
4.0 Sites in Arizona
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the three
UATMP sites in Arizona (PSAZ, QVAZ, and SPAZ). All three of these sites are located in the
Phoenix metropolitan statistical area. Figures 4-1 through 4-3 are topographical maps showing
the monitoring stations in their urban locations. Figures 4-4 and 4-5 are maps identifying
facilities within ten miles of the sites that reported to the 1999 NEI. The PSAZ and SPAZ sites
are within a few miles of each other, with numerous sources between them, while the QVAZ site
has only three nearby industries. PSAZ and SPAZ are located near two main types of industries:
surface coating and fuel combustion. QVAZ is nearest to a surface coating facility.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2002 at two weather stations near
these sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The two weather stations are Phoenix-Sky Harbor and Phoenix-
Deer Valley (WBAN 23183 and 3184, respectively).
Table 4-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration (VOC only) at each of these
sites, along with temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point
temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information
(average u- and v- components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the
entire year and on days samples were taken. Normally, the Phoenix area is extremely hot and
dry, and the high average temperature and low average relative humidity values in Table 4-1 also
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).
4.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Arizona Sites
Carbonyl compounds were not measured at any of the three sites, as indicated in Tables
3-3 and 3-4. PSAZ had a hydrocarbon compound geometric mean more than double its
halogenated hydrocarbon geometric mean (9.49 ppbv vs. 4.77 ppbv, respectively), while SPAZ's
4-1
-------
hydrocarbon geometric mean was more than three times its halogenated hydrocarbon geometric
mean (14.38 ppbv vs. 4.08 ppbv). QVAZ measured the lowest geometric mean for hydrocarbons
at 2.19 ppbv. The average total UATMP daily concentration at QVAZ was also significantly
lower compared to the other two sites and was computed to be 10.66 (±1.84) ppbv; at PSAZ, the
value was more than double (22.08 ±2.80 ppbv) and at SPAZ, the value was almost quadruple
(42.64 ±19.09 ppbv). This trend is fairly consistent with the 2001 report. Table 4-1 also lists the
averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2002 to December 2002, which is
the same time period covered in this report.
Tables 4-2a-c are 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. At PSAZ, nearly all of the
correlations between maximum and average temperature, dew point and wet bulb temperature
and the compounds were negative. The Pearson Correlation coefficients for acetylene, benzene,
and propylene were strong, and for ethylbenzene, the xylenes, and toluene were moderately
strong. Acetylene, benzene, ethylbenzene, w-,/?-xylene, o-xylene, propylene, and toluene all had
at least one correlation which was considered strong. Over half of the compounds had
moderately strong correlations with pressure, and all but one was positive. The u- and v-
components of the wind speed were all negative for each of the eleven compounds, with seven
compounds with strong negative correlations with the v-component. The prevalent compounds
generally increase when the temperature, moisture content, and wind speeds are decreasing and
pressure is increasing.
At QVAZ, the correlations were generally not as strong. However, acetylene had strong
to very strong negative correlations with maximum and average temperature, dew point and wet
bulb temperature, and the v-component of the wind, and a strong positive correlation with sea
level pressure, while chloromethane had strong positive correlations with maximum and average
temperature and the wet bulb temperature. Both positive and negative moderately strong
correlations were seen with sea level pressure. Overall, the correlations at this site were rather
weak correlations, making it difficult to ascertain when UATMP concentrations will increase.
4-2
-------
The compounds at the SPAZ site had many strong and moderately strong negative
correlations with the maximum, average, dew point and wet bulb temperatures and the wind
components. The strongest correlations were with the v-component of the wind speed.
Acetylene, benzene, and o-xylene all had correlations less than -0.70 with the v-component.
These same compounds, as well as m,p-xy\ene and propylene, also had strong positive
correlations with sea level pressure. This observation indicates that prevalent compounds
generally increase when the temperature and wind speeds are decreasing and sea level pressure is
increasing.
4.2 Spatial Analysis
Using the population within ten miles of each site, an estimate of the number of motor
vehicles operating in proximity to the monitoring station can be established. The ratio used in
this report is 0.74 motor vehicles to every one person (refer to section 3.4.1 for more information
on this ratio). At the time of this report, the population near the PSAZ site is 1,377,479 people,
all of whom are estimated to be operating approximately 1,019,334 vehicles. A population of
847,178 people is driving 626,912 motor vehicles near the SPAZ site, while a considerably
lower population of 87,103 people is driving 64,456 vehicles near the QVAZ site. This
information is compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at each
Arizona site in Table 4-3. Also included in Table 4-3 is average daily traffic data, or more
specifically, the average number of cars passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to
each site on a daily basis. The SPAZ site has the largest amount of traffic passing by on a daily
basis.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area. (For more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.) Figure 3-14 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. SPAZ and PSAZ resemble the ratios of the roadside study while
the QVAZ site does not resemble these ratios at all. The highest and lowest ratios for the
roadside study, PSAZ, and SPAZ were toluene-ethylbenzene and o-xylene-ethylbenzene,
4-3
-------
respectively. QVAZ's highest ratio is the m,/>-xylene-ethylbenzene ratio and its lowest is
benzene-ethylbenzene, while the toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is second lowest.
4-4
-------
Figure 4-1. Phoenix, Arizona Site 1 (PSAZ) Monitoring Station
V»«rtM»«.n-v :
< Il!i;h Srh . -V 'I .
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
4-5
-------
Figure 4-2. Phoenix, Arizona Site 2 (QVAZ) Monitoring Station
W Ml T LOW
(FLQOH "9-0HT B
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
4-6
-------
Figure 4-3. Phoenix, Arizona Site 3 (SPAZ) Monitoring Station
__. vr--
...
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
4-7
-------
Figure 4-4. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of PSAZ and SPAZ
W Q
f-C
fiBF S,
Marieopa County ^
/ Final County
rZOITW 112 15'0"W 1!2'!0*
-------
Figure 4-5. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of QVAZ
' Wtaricopa County
' -L
Final County '
Note: Due to facility density and cofocatiOEX the total facilities
displayed may not represent ail facilities within the area of interest
Legend
@ QVAZ UATMP site
10 mile radius
, | County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
f Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
u Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products facility (1)
4-9
-------
Table 4-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Arizona
Site
Name
PSAZ
QVAZ
SPAZ
Type
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
\X\\^
xxxV^
22.08
(±2.80)
\vvv
\vX^\>
10.66
(±1.84)
vvvv
^Vx^s>
42.64
(±19.09)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
84.04
(±1.63)
83.62
(±4.41)
87.04
(±1.64)
89.62
(±4.56)
84.04
(±1.63)
84.10
(±4.53)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
73.41
(±1.59)
72.74
(±4.39)
76.11
(±1.60)
78.12
(±4.64)
73.41
(±1.59)
73.14
(±4.52)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
33.60
(±1.53)
32.18
(±4.45)
35.52
(±1.32)
35.35
(±4.01)
33.60
(±1.53)
32.06
(±4.32)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
53.48
(±1.06)
52.75
(±3.00)
55.21
(±0.97)
55.93
(±2.92)
53.48
(±1.06)
52.78
(±2.99)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
27.57
(±1.54)
26.33
(±3.77)
27.77
(±1.49)
25.27
(±3.51)
27.57
(±1.54)
25.84
(±3.76)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1011.8
(±5.52)
1011.9
(±14.90)
1012.1
(±5.60)
1011.1
(±15.87)
1011.8
(±5.52)
1011.9
(±15.40)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-2.15
(±0.14)
-1.29
(±0.39)
-1.44
(±0.18)
-0.33
(±0.53)
-2.15
(±0.14)
-1.35
(±0.38)
Average \-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
1.65
(±0.16)
1.52
(±0.43)
2.54
(±0.15)
2.12
(±0.45)
1.65
(±0.16)
1.46
(±0.44)
-------
Table 4-2a - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at Supersite in
Phoenix, Arizona (PSAZ)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
-0.26
-0.60
-0.52
-0.05
-0.30
-0.41
-0.38
-0.37
-0.56
-0.43
-0.06
Average
Temperature
-0.30
-0.64
-0.57
-0.05
-0.30
-0.46
-0.44
-0.42
-0.59
-0.48
-0.03
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.16
-0.35
-0.42
0.09
-0.05
-0.34
-0.31
-0.31
-0.35
-0.33
0.34
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.29
-0.58
-0.57
0.00
-0.23
-0.47
-0.44
-0.43
-0.55
-0.48
0.14
Relative
Humidity
0.14
0.31
0.14
0.22
0.30
0.11
0.12
0.09
0.25
0.15
0.49
Sea Level
Pressure
0.21
0.49
0.45
0.03
0.25
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.47
0.40
-0.02
u-component
of wind speed
-0.20
-0.40
-0.46
-0.22
-0.32
-0.39
-0.36
-0.36
-0.43
-0.42
-0.04
v-component
of wind speed
-0.45
-0.66
-0.66
-0.24
-0.41
-0.63
-0.61
-0.60
-0.67
-0.66
-0.14
-------
Table 4-2b - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at Queen Valley in
Phoenix, Arizona (QVAZ)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.03
-0.73
-0.38
0.50
0.32
-0.23
-0.23
-0.23
0.28
0.12
0.28
Average
Temperature
0.03
-0.76
-0.40
0.53
0.33
-0.24
-0.23
-0.23
0.27
0.11
0.31
Dew Point
Temperature
0.01
-0.50
-0.21
0.49
0.52
-0.32
-0.32
-0.32
0.21
0.16
0.41
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.02
-0.73
-0.36
0.58
0.46
-0.29
-0.28
-0.28
0.27
0.15
0.39
Relative
Humidity
-0.05
0.35
0.26
-0.06
0.19
-0.10
-0.11
-0.11
0.06
0.02
0.13
Sea Level
Pressure
0.00
0.69
0.47
-0.49
-0.34
0.44
0.43
0.43
-0.10
-0.15
-0.33
u-component
of wind speed
-0.15
-0.34
-0.15
0.41
0.13
-0.17
-0.16
-0.15
0.05
0.05
0.05
v-component
of wind speed
-0.04
-0.61
-0.45
0.44
0.18
-0.07
-0.06
-0.06
-0.02
0.22
0.14
to
-------
Table 4-2c - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
South Phoenix, Arizona (SPAZ)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
-0.29
-0.54
-0.49
0.31
-0.09
-0.54
-0.52
-0.48
-0.51
-0.31
0.10
Average
Temperature
-0.33
-0.58
-0.56
0.30
-0.10
-0.57
-0.55
-0.52
-0.57
-0.37
0.12
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.19
-0.30
-0.42
0.30
0.05
-0.44
-0.43
-0.42
-0.38
-0.24
0.34
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.30
-0.51
-0.57
0.32
-0.04
-0.56
-0.55
-0.53
-0.55
-0.36
0.23
Relative
Humidity
0.19
0.31
0.14
0.00
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.17
0.14
0.27
Sea Level
Pressure
0.31
0.52
0.53
-0.19
0.06
0.56
0.54
0.52
0.53
0.35
-0.06
u-component
of wind speed
-0.32
-0.38
-0.43
0.05
-0.15
-0.50
-0.51
-0.51
-0.38
-0.36
0.01
v-component
of wind speed
-0.63
-0.72
-0.72
0.15
-0.30
-0.68
-0.65
-0.72
-0.69
-0.68
-0.12
-------
Table 4-3. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Arizona
Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
PSAZ
QVAZ
SPAZ
Population
within Ten
Miles
1,377,479
87,103
847,178
Estimated
Number of
Vehicles Owned
1,019,334
64,456
626,912
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
250
200
50,000
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
22.08 (±2.80)
10.66(±1.84)
42.64 (±19.09)
4-14
-------
5.0 Sites in Colorado
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the five
UATMP sites in Colorado (DECO, SWCO, WECO, G2CO, and GJCO). Two of the five sites
are located in Grand Junction; the others are located in Denver. Figures 5-1 through 5-5 are
topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in their urban locations. Figures 5-6
through 5-9 are maps identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites that reported to the 1999
NEI. The Denver sites are surrounded by numerous sources. A large number of sources near
DECO fall into four categories: liquid distribution; surface coating; personal services; and fuel
combustion. SWCO and WECO have an extremely large number of fuel combustion industrial
facilities, liquids distribution facilities, surface coating processes, and personal service sites
nearby. The G2CO site is to the south of GJCO and both are surrounded by fewer industrial
sites, most of which are liquid distribution facilities.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2002 at two weather stations near
these sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The two weather stations are Denver-Centennial and Grand
Junction (WBAN 93067 and 23066, respectively).
Table 5-1 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. Climatologically, the Denver area is rather dry, as the relative
humidity in Table 5-1 indicates, and the daily temperatures can fluctuate drastically between the
seasons, providing the area with rather cold winters and warm summers. Wind speeds can vary
for the site, but the wind flows from the south-southeast on average. Grand Junction is located
in a mountain valley, and is slightly warmer than Denver, as the average maximum and average
temperatures indicate in Table 5-1. Grand Junction tends to be just as dry, if not drier, with a
somewhat similar wind pattern. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth
edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
5-1
-------
5.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Colorado Sites
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were sampled at each of the sites. Carbonyl, halogenated
hydrocarbons, and hydrocarbon compounds had the highest geometric means at G2CO (16.52
ppbv, 6.66 ppbv, and 17.11 ppbv, respectively), while polar compounds were highest at SWCO
(114.80 ppbv). Polar compound geometric means ranged between 2.44 ppbv (DECO) and
114.80 ppbv (SWCO), halogenated hydrocarbon geometric means ranged from 4.05 ppbv
(SWCO) to 6.66 ppbv (G2CO), the hydrocarbon geometric means varied from 9.23 ppbv
(WECO) and 17.11 ppbv (G2CO), and carbonyl geometric means ranged from 6.48 ppbv
(GJCO) to 16.52 ppbv (G2CO) among the sites. The average total UATMP daily concentration
at the sites varied significantly, between 30.09 ±2.39 ppbv (DECO) and 162.32 ±287.71 ppbv
(WECO). Table 5-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January
2002 to December 2002, which is the same time period covered in this report. The Colorado
sites also opted to have metals sampled during their air toxic sampling. The average
concentration ranged from 56,463.71 (±10,741.58) ng/filter at GJCO to 172,142.02 (±27,098.23)
ng/filter at SWCO. This information is given in Table 5-3. Unfortunately, ozone concentrations
were not sampled at any of these sites.
Tables 5-2a-e present the summary of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for
each of the prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters by site. Identification
of the prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. At DECO, the majority of
correlations are relatively weak, with the exception of formaldehyde, with strong positive
correlations with maximum, average, dew point and wet bulb temperatures, and chloromethane,
with moderately strong positive correlations with the same parameters. These two compounds
also exhibited this behavior at the other two Denver sites, SWCO and WECO. At SWCO and
WECO, formaldehyde's correlations were greater than 0.80 for maximum and average
temperatures, indicating a very strong correlation. Also at SWCO, the xylenes had strong
positive correlations with maximum and average temperature. Acetylene had a strong negative
correlation with the dew point at all three sites, as well as with wet bulb temperature at WECO.
At all three sites, many compounds had moderately strong negative correlations with relative
humidity. Also at all three Denver sites, most compounds had negative correlations with the u-
5-2
-------
component and positive correlations with the v-component. As relative humidity and the east-
west wind decrease and the north-south wind increases, UATMP concentrations tend to increase
at the Denver sites.
Very few of the compounds exhibited strong correlations at either Grand Junction site.
Only chloromethane and dichlorodifluoromethane registered correlations that were considered
strong at G2CO, both negative and with the dew point. Neither demonstrated this correlation at
the other site. Interestingly, the correlations between the compounds and maximum, average,
and wet bulb temperatures at G2CO were all negative. Acetylene and dichlorodifluoromethane
both had moderately strong to strong negative correlations with maximum, average, dew point,
and wet bulb temperatures at G2CO and GJCO. GJCO measured a higher number of
correlations between weather parameters and compounds that were considered strong. Benzene
and formaldehyde both measured strong positive correlations with relative humidity. The
overall weak and inconsistent correlations between the compounds and weather parameters make
it difficult to ascertain when UATMP concentrations will increase.
As part of the 2002 UATMP report, back trajectory analyses were conducted for the EPA-
designated NATTS sites to determine whether where a parcel came from could be a contributor
to its air toxics concentration. A back trajectory analysis was performed on sample days for the
Grand Junction sites, which are both pilot sites. The highest concentrations of UATMP
compounds typically occurred during the winter period, in January and February. Table 5-4 is a
summary of the back trajectory analyses. Generally, these high concentrations occurred when
air originated west, northwest, and north of the monitors. As seen in Figure 5-9, there are
numerous industrial facilities to the northwest, north, and northeast of the monitors. Figures 5-
10 and 5-11 are back trajectory maps for each site when the highest concentration occurred,
31.58 ppbv at G2CO and 74.05 ppbv at GJCO.
5.2 Spatial Analysis
Using the population within ten miles of each site, an estimate of the number of cars
operating in proximity to the monitoring station can be established. The ratio used in this report
5-3
-------
is 0.74 automobiles to every one person (refer to section 3.4.1 for more information on this
ratio). At the time of this report, the population near the DECO site is 1,278,037 people, all of
whom are estimated to be operating approximately 945,747 vehicles; SWCO's 1,275,463
population is operating 943,843 vehicles; and WECO's 852,751 residents drive 631,036
automobiles. A population of 113,004 people is driving 83,623 automobiles near the GJCO site,
while a slightly lower population of 103,561 people is driving 76,635 vehicles near the G2CO
site. This information is compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent
compounds at each Colorado site in Table 5-4. Also included in Table 5-5 are average daily
traffic data, or more specifically, the average number of cars passing the monitoring sites on the
nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. The site with the largest population, DECO, also
had the highest traffic volume passing the site on a daily basis.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area. (For more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.) Figure 3-14 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. The ratios for the Denver sites all generally resemble those of
the roadside study. The DECO and WECO sites had higher toluene-ethylbenzene ratios than the
roadside study, while the SWCO site exhibited a lower benzene-ethylbenzene ratio than the
roadside study. The G2CO site's ratios also resemble the roadside study's, but with a larger
toluene-ethylbenzene ratio. However, GJCO appears different in that its benzene-ethylbenzene
ratio is the next highest after toluene-ethylbenzene, rather than m,/>-xylene-ethylbenzene like the
roadside study.
5.3 Regulation Analysis
There are two NATTS sites in Grand Junction, Colorado: GJCO and G2CO. Since these
two sites are located in close proximity to each other, the analysis of the industries in the 10-mile
areas around the two monitoring sites produces the same list of facilities. Table 3-9 shows that
sixteen facilities within 10 miles around these two monitoring sites account for approximately 90
5-4
-------
percent of the total UATMP pollutant emissions. Only five facilities are potentially subject to
future regulations. Table 5-6 summarizes the regulations that are potentially applicable.
The regulations shown in Table 5-6 are expected to achieve emission reductions of the
following UATMP pollutants: benzene, ethylbenzene, methyl ethyl ketone, styrene, toluene, and
xylene. Based on this approach, benzene, methyl ethyl ketone, and styrene emissions are
projected to be reduced by 56 percent. Ethylbenzene emissions are projected to be reduced by
63 percent. Toluene and xylene are projected to be reduced to lesser degrees (22 and 33 percent,
respectively).
The reductions of benzene, ethylbenzene, and toluene are attributable to two facilities
projected to comply with the NESHAP for organic liquids and oil and natural gas distribution
(the latest compliance date is 2007). The methyl ethyl ketone reductions are attributable to a
single facility projected to comply with the NESHAP for fabric printing and dyeing in 2003.
The reduction in styrene emissions is attributable to a single facility projected to comply with the
reinforced plastic composites production NESHAP in 2006. Xylene reductions are projected to
occur from four facilities complying with regulations for organic liquids and oil and natural gas
distribution; fabric printing and dyeing; and surface coating of metal products.
5-5
-------
Figure 5-1. Denver, Colorado (DECO) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
5-6
-------
Figure 5-2. Denver, Colorado (SWCO) Monitoring Station
Wv.topo2one.com - Copyright ©t'OOl Kiaps a la carte, Inc.
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
5-7
-------
Figure 5-3. Denver, Colorado (WECO) Monitoring Station
, Sr^eiPit. •% /f-;:'- f3L
iww.topozone.com - Copyright ® 2001 N
Sourcer.USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
5-8
-------
Figure 5-4. Grand Junction, Colorado Site 2 (G2CO) Monitoring Station
• • ~]i: |.- Jm,
N^-E.V-
>-
,'*K*' Tffk.Sfti, v— •— - J It"?" utf11 '*n
•.ll^w*,
T^x '• 'STS?^ J /
XEJ35
,. -r,
> » ijLJas »*•
.-,-s:M^''^^-ii^Mii$
;:J:ss,;-; _-.isr-,. < /- -:-^ '.^ ,-•..--:.r,
^K'v^grj^^Bfe — ::,....,, .-^':
_j':i—I±JI—Hjaiar-^l^BSk^'1*^!. ~lt?Ai- _ ••*' '."-• FT t ™ ^* ' " •
74 •
,
1. -'\ , r "
,-.'-. "'."I :iOir.hard Mesa
,
, , . >:.\T_
Jt\^"J
: ,.- A.CC- 'V^ '".":
->\]
. - .v
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
5-9
-------
Figure 5-5. Grand Junction, Colorado Site 1 (GJCO) Monitoring Station
^
.'
.
,
i Si
8— //*- -
f OL 1^»
••"<*' -< "'^
T"
s--.
TS,. / " • ; ••'•=• rr
•J-^SsL «* . ' '-.v ' ":'';:P;;!S;
. , i :;£
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
5-10
-------
Figure 5-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DECO
!04'5StTW 104 50'0"W
Legend
@ DECO UATMP site
• 10 mile radius
LJ County boundary
Source Category Group {No. of Facilities}
Ad?mrs of human resources i t >
Auto dealers & gas service ssabems m
Auto repair services £ parkin® facility |18J
Building fflettenala. hsrdiA'cirs. garden supply S mobile hom
Business servsoes fscHity (1)
Chemicals 4 ai?isd p^oducss faosity (8?
Educational services faciWy {1 (
Note Due to facility density and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent al! facilities wtthrn the area of interest.
Bednc. gsS & sanitary services (
-..- Execulsve . l
ti ve
era^ govsf nmen! faality ^ 1 1
0 Fsbrtcated metaf products facility O9)
G food & Ksnarsd products teolrty (2i
H FiimstureS fixtures faciSily (3}
4 Heaim services raaiity &)
* Heavy construction ca^ntractors fan lily (i )
9 HoSels. roomsng houses, camps, & ofher l
Industrial machinery S equ^p fscrirty {6} W
instrumems a Fslaisd products faafiJy (3) X
Leather 8. feather products faaltty |1) ^
Loc-al S interuJtoan passenger transit i 1)
Lumtief & wood produdSs facrirty (2) »
Peftgus Metals Processing industrial Fscrttiy (4j N
Food S Ag Processes fndustnai Faatity (31 2
Fuel Comfcustion Industna.1 Fsality (151) @
inonerahon mdu$tnai f aalrty (6} Q
LiQuids Dssinb. industnal FsaSity (3771 }
Msnerai PfodLKis Processing industrial Facility {7} Q
Mssc Processes industrial Fsoiity (64) ft
Non-ferrous Mstals Proeess^hg Industnal FaciJity (i j x
Pe^oteuin/Nat Gss Prod S Refining mdustnal FaaisSy f5) Y
Polymers S Resins Prod Industrial Faafity (3j
Pfad of inorganic Chermcs& lndy$tns! Faality (2\ U
Prod of *DrganK Chemicals lodusma! Facihty j 1} T
Surface Coatsng Processes indusinat Fsoifty (171} ?
Waste Trestment/Disposa! InduslnaJ Factlffy {32>
Mssc itiafiiifactuftrig mdystnes faotfSy {^}
M«sc repair services fsoiity (2)
Moto*" freight transport tesrehousng c 11
Naff securely S, tntsmational atfaffs faoSfSy s!)
Nondassifia&l^ EstabHshmerrfs (i)
NonmeJaOiC minerals, excep! fu&ts j t}
Paper 8, a!!ied products facilrty i ^}
Person^ services facility {158J
Petfoteum & eaaf products H)
Primary metaJ industries faONty i 1)
Prifitsng £ pubbsliing facilrty (59}
Raiiraad Trsnsporatson p;
Rubber and mssc plastics praSucts fsoiity (3i
Special trade contractors facility (3)
StQTie. djjy. g!a?s. & concrete products facility (4
Transportation equipment (2)
Unknown {1 f
Vt^olesaig trad^-dyra&fe goods Hi
WioJes^Jetradg-TOndurgbte goods{6?
5-11
-------
Figure 5-7. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SWCO
Boulder County
Adams County
- ^^^pi -7^r^_
y ^i .tsa \
/T i f, e '
/L f. I o Lo-84 * ffl « L „
/ o^o'H ",u t
7 ' -' E! L*4i| F ' b
-a J>.
fr* -I L ^ ,L
" R* w ^-
BF
(F
\ / Denver
_ g_V County
Arapahoe County ^
, W^£
Note Due to facility density and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
f j Coynlv boundary
Source Category Group (No. of FaciEttJes)
C Admin af SluJftafl cesc^rces (11
± Ajjlo dealers & gas service sUtrws H)
¥ Auto repair sefwees S parking taoisty •{ 17j
* Bwildin^ malenals. naidware. garden s^ippty,.
C Ch^rrucals & allied pudduets faciiisy tTj
5 EducsTio^af services facility (l i
E EleciriC, gas. S samiary services (6)
Z Eiectrscal S electronic e^yipm«nl faculty \3'>
H E3ig«n»ef?ng & mariagesrffBnrt services facsiify (3]
-.* Executive, legislative, S ^eoeira; ^gvemmem faalrty {1
D Fatoncsled metal products facitfly 07i
K Ferr&us yesais Process^g indusinai FaDiity i3j
1 Food S Ag. Prrj^esses Jndusmal Fac^Jrly j2j
G Focid $ tenured products lacilisy (2i
F Fuel CcffltiustKSfi irs^ttslJsai Facility O'Slt
H FumUure S ftxsures iaciiity i3i
f
J
mobile twine !1) "^
HeaSh services tsoitfy i.2)
HiJleis. roamtpg hOuS«s. camps. S othSK iodgmg
tnetaefatiafs tnaustrisi FaaSrty (5:
tncktsmaj machinery S eguip faisirty (5j
mstrurvisfifs S related pratJuds Jac^!ity (2)
Lsaiher Sieattie^ products *ac*My d)
Uquids DisSnto ireclustnat Facilfly t3S7s
Loca? S mterurban passenger traissst ( 1 1
Lumber S wood products facifay f2J
Mtnerat Products Pfoe«s>&!ng Infly&tna! F safety (
Misc manuladwrmg in3ustne5 fjioitfy (4>
Wise Processes industrial Faatrty (S7f
Misc repair ^emces tacsMy (2)
Mf^or (reigfi! tfans^od /w§rehsusin9 (1)
Nail s«uf% S fltemalsonaf affass faeMy os
P&!&0f»ai sSrvsCes facility j 1
Rubber and rmsc ptaslscs ^foduds fasihiy ^3)
Specta! tiacte cointrgetofs fecrtfty (2}
Stone, clay, gisss. « tofiereie prodwds (aowy (2)
Sustace Coating Processes Sn^ustra! FactfrtyOSD
Transportation e^uspment i2f
Ufiknown tl)
Waste TftaSsneni'Disposa! Iftfestnat FaetMy 03}
Whole-sale 4f3!Je--!3u3'3^e goods (3?
lA^ioles^le irade»'no^dyrate gso^s (6)
5-12
-------
Figure 5-8. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of WECO
105 IS'CTW IDS 1WW 105 S'Q'W
14 55'G*W 104''SO'0"W IM'45'O'W
W/
/ Denver
County
^ J
^>*j£r,fl""
i Adams County
~t — —
unty
SOS tO'0~W 10$ $'9"W 10$ O'Q'W
Legend
S- WECO UATMP site
Note Due to facility density and coiocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent al! facilities within the area of interest.
Source Category Group {No, of Facilities}
$ Admin of human resources (1}
± Auto dealers & ^s service stations {5)
¥ Auto sepisr. services. & parking facility f 16)
•f Suildsog materials, hardware gard&rs supply. S mobile home i ij
C CtMOTiicals & all*d produces facilily <7)
E Electric> gas. & sanitary slices (3t
Z &ecweai& e!
5-13
-------
Figure 5-9. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of G2CO and GJCO
10$ 45'0"W log-40'0*W
Note- Due to facility density and coiocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
@ GJCO
10 mite radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No, of Facilities) p
± Auto dealers & gas service stations (1)
c Chemicals & allied products facility (2) °
• Engineering & management services facility (1) v
D Fabricated metal products facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (9) u
i Incineration Industrial Facility (1) s
L Liquids Distrib, Industrial Facility (52) 9
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1) w
Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (2)
Oil & gas extraction (1)
Personal services facility (6)
Rubber and misc. plastics products facility (1)
Special trade contractors facility (2)
Stone, clay, glass, & concrete products facility (1)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (10)
Transportation services facility (1)
Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (2)
Wholesale trade-nondurable goods (1)
5-14
-------
Figure 5-10. Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to G2CO's Highest Concentration
NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Backward trajectories ending at 18 UTC 20 Jan 02
CDC1 Meteorological Data
ro
oo
01/19
18
Job ID: 341689 Job S1aM: Tue Api 15 1 5:20:33 G WIT 2003
N.: 39.12 lon.: -103.53 hgts: 50,250, 500 m AGL
T lajedo ly Direct io n: Backwa rd Du ia1 ion: 4S h is
Vertical Wbtfcm CBfcutaHon WVglhod: fAxlel Vertical VebcHy
Pioduced usirq tslOAA ARL WabsBe I'wiVw.ail.nQaa.gov.'ieady,')
5-15
-------
Figure 5-11. Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to GJCO's Highest Concentration
'-150
NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Backward trajectories ending at 18 UTC 01 Feb 02
CDC1 Meteorological Data
oo
01/31
18
Job ID: 341830 Job Start Tue Api 15 15:30:46 G(AT 3303
lal.: 39.12 Ion.:-1 OS.53 hgls: 50,250,500 m AGL
T rajedo ly Diiec-1 io n: Backwa id Dma1 ion: 4S n is
Vertical Molion Cafculalion Kfelhod: tjtodel Vertical Vetacily
Pioduccd using IvJOAA ARL Websrle fwwiv.aM.noaa.gov.''iead'yv')
5-16
-------
Table 5-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Colorado
Site
Name
DECO
G2CO
GJCO
SWCO
WECO
Type
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
SSS
30.09
(±2.39)
^
23.15
(±2.62)
^
54.85
(±13.55)
SSS
148.09
(±19.29)
SSfc
162.32
(±87.71)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
62.81
(±2.05)
69.56
(±5.89)
66.20
(±2.22)
50.05
(±6.69)
66.20
(±2.22)
51.39
(±7.16)
62.81
(±2.05)
68.63
(±7.10)
62.81
(±2.05)
70.44
(±6.67)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
50.01
(±1.88)
56.48
(±5.38)
53.38
(±2.04)
37.17
(±6.01)
53.38
(±2.04)
38.50
(±6.39)
50.01
(±1.88)
55.29
(±6.40)
50.01
(±1.88)
57.31
(±5.99)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
26.23
(±1.56)
29.88
(±4.34)
26.89
(±1.30)
16.46
(±4.19)
26.89
(±1.30)
17.02
(±4.57)
26.23
(±1.56)
28.94
(±5.29)
26.23
(±1.56)
31.22
(±4.89)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
39.08
(±1.42)
43.47
(±3.88)
40.87
(±1.33)
29.21
(±4.34)
40.87
(±1.33)
30.16
(±4.62)
39.08
(±1.42)
42.59
(±4.63)
39.08
(±1.42)
44.38
(±4.31)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
46.50
(±1.88)
42.72
(±5.81)
44.90
(±2.26)
48.61
(±7.06)
44.90
(±2.26)
47.54
(±7.64)
46.50
(±1.88)
43.25
(±7.25)
46.50
(±1.88)
43.90
(±6.70)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1018.4
(±11.44)
1015.3
(±19.45)
1017.7
(±11.74)
1022.6
(±45.91)
1017.7
(±11.74)
1022.9
(±50.81)
1018.4
(±11.44)
1015.7
(±x.xx)
1018.4
(±11.44)
1015.8
(±20.00)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.63
(±0.23)
-0.13
(±0.70)
-1.88
(±0.16)
-1.01
(±0.98)
-1.88
(±0.16)
-1.08
(±1.07)
-0.63
(±0.23)
0.00
(±0.79)
-0.63
(±0.23)
-0.35
(±0.76)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
3.79
(±0.17)
2.65
(±0.51)
2.91
(±0.18)
1.83
(±0.75)
2.91
(±0.18)
1.85
(±0.82)
3.79
(±0.17)
2.50
(±0.65)
3.79
(±0.17)
2.64
(±0.55)
-------
Table 5-2a - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Denver, Colorado (DECO)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
-0.05
-0.35
-0.09
0.45
0.22
0.11
0.69
0.12
0.21
-0.17
0.03
0.36
Average
Temperature
-0.12
-0.40
-0.16
0.46
0.20
0.05
0.72
0.07
0.16
-0.23
-0.03
0.33
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.30
-0.52
-0.46
0.38
0.14
-0.23
0.67
-0.21
-0.13
-0.46
-0.11
0.24
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.20
-0.47
-0.29
0.46
0.19
-0.07
0.74
-0.05
0.05
-0.33
-0.06
0.31
Relative
Humidity
-0.17
-0.08
-0.33
-0.15
-0.09
-0.31
-0.21
-0.33
-0.37
-0.22
-0.13
-0.16
Sea Level
Pressure
0.20
0.53
0.23
-0.11
-0.11
0.13
-0.38
0.12
0.04
0.29
0.23
-0.23
u-component
of wind speed
-0.21
-0.04
-0.18
-0.11
-0.11
-0.12
-0.08
-0.11
-0.13
-0.09
-0.17
0.04
v-component
of wind speed
-0.03
-0.07
-0.03
0.19
0.10
-0.02
0.29
0.03
0.07
0.00
0.05
0.23
oo
-------
Table 5-2b - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Denver, Colorado (SWCO)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.18
-0.35
0.04
0.69
0.39
0.43
0.86
0.51
0.50
-0.04
0.07
-0.06
Average
Temperature
0.12
-0.41
-0.04
0.69
0.38
0.41
0.84
0.51
0.51
-0.11
0.01
-0.11
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.22
-0.54
-0.40
0.45
0.16
0.12
0.50
0.27
0.27
-0.42
-0.32
-0.35
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.01
-0.48
-0.18
0.66
0.33
0.32
0.74
0.44
0.43
-0.23
-0.11
-0.19
Relative
Humidity
-0.45
-015
-0.46
-0.46
-0.42
-0.39
-0.53
-0.37
-0.36
-0.37
-0.40
-0.28
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.11
0.22
0.13
-0.32
-0.22
-0.20
-0.45
-0.23
-0.25
0.10
-0.13
-0.04
u-component
of wind speed
-0.37
-0.29
-0.33
-0.40
-0.43
-0.30
-0.25
-0.27
-0.27
-0.39
-0.25
-0.19
v-component
of wind speed
0.14
-0.10
0.08
0.57
0.62
0.14
0.37
0.20
0.19
0.00
0.13
0.05
-------
Table 5-2c - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Denver, Colorado (WECO)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.12
-0.36
-0.08
0.28
0.06
0.40
0.88
0.39
0.39
-0.11
0.22
0.21
Average
Temperature
0.08
-0.42
-0.16
0.31
0.07
0.39
0.89
0.38
0.38
-0.17
0.21
0.22
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.26
-0.62
-0.52
0.37
0.17
0.04
0.57
0.07
0.05
-0.50
0.01
0.12
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.06
-0.53
-0.31
0.35
0.10
0.26
0.80
0.27
0.25
-0.31
0.13
0.18
Relative
Humidity
-0.41
-0.21
-0.44
0.06
0.14
-0.46
-0.55
-0.41
-0.42
-0.38
-0.28
-0.13
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.06
0.18
0.13
-0.09
-0.01
-0.24
-0.51
-0.22
-0.24
0.11
-0.07
-0.06
u-component
of wind speed
-0.10
-0.01
-0.16
-0.42
-0.09
-0.31
-0.23
-0.38
-0.28
-0.26
-0.14
-0.11
v-component
of wind speed
0.11
-0.08
0.06
-0.11
-0.18
0.19
0.45
0.17
0.15
-0.02
0.09
0.03
to
o
-------
Table 5-2d - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Grand Junction, Colorado Site 1 (GJCO)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.03
-0.57
-0.30
0.15
-0.52
0.10
-0.20
0.03
0.04
-0.04
0.01
-0.26
Average
Temperature
0.04
-0.62
-0.32
0.19
-0.53
0.08
-0.25
0.01
0.02
-0.01
0.01
-0.30
Dew Point
Temperature
0.34
-0.40
0.01
0.09
-0.45
0.33
0.19
0.27
0.30
0.30
0.36
-0.28
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.16
-0.61
-0.24
0.18
-0.54
0.18
-0.14
0.11
0.13
0.11
0.13
-0.33
Relative
Humidity
0.39
0.41
0.51
-0.15
0.20
0.31
0.59
0.34
0.36
0.41
0.44
0.07
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.11
0.29
0.00
0.23
0.49
-0.18
0.10
-0.13
-0.11
-0.14
0.01
0.32
u-component
of wind speed
-0.06
-0.35
-0.32
0.43
0.00
-0.16
-0.49
-0.16
-0.20
0.06
-0.13
-0.20
v-component
of wind speed
-0.12
-0.48
-0.38
0.02
-0.45
-0.08
-0.28
-0.11
-0.11
-0.20
-0.17
-0.24
-------
Table 5-2e - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Grand Junction, Colorado Site 2 (G2CO)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
-0.15
-0.43
-0.25
-0.11
-0.42
-0.20
-0.08
-0.23
-0.23
-0.30
-0.17
-0.20
Average
Temperature
-0.16
-0.43
-0.27
-0.09
-0.41
-0.22
-0.07
-0.24
-0.24
-0.31
-0.19
-0.23
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.10
-0.27
0.06
-0.55
-0.53
-0.06
0.17
-0.04
-0.07
-0.05
0.00
-0.27
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.15
-0.41
-0.19
-0.22
-0.46
-0.18
-0.01
-0.19
-0.20
-0.24
-0.14
-0.25
Relative
Humidity
0.10
0.28
0.45
-0.49
-0.03
0.23
0.30
0.28
0.24
0.35
0.25
0.03
Sea Level
Pressure
0.08
0.20
0.12
0.22
0.44
0.10
-0.14
0.07
0.05
0.15
0.05
0.40
u-component
of wind speed
-0.09
-0.02
-0.14
0.19
0.05
-0.17
0.08
-0.12
-0.08
-0.08
-0.10
-0.18
v-component
of wind speed
-0.06
-0.23
-0.16
-0.13
-0.38
-0.09
-0.35
-0.06
-0.04
-0.25
-0.02
-0.18
to
to
-------
Table 5-3. Average Metal Concentrations Measured by the Colorado Monitoring Stations
Monitoring
Station
DECO
G2CO
GJCO
SWCO
WECO
Average Metals Concentration
(ng/filter)
145,831.74 (±16,717.90)
113,505. 14 (±17,567.66)
56,463.71 (±10,741.58)
172,142.02 (±27,098.23)
144,220.91 (±21,783.17)
5-23
-------
Table 5-4. Average UATMP Concentrations By Wind Regime for the Grand Junction
Sites
Wind
Regime
North
Northeast
East
Southeast
South
Southwest
West
Northwest
G2CO
24 hr
17.38*
ND
ND
ND
ND
11.76
9.86
15.44
48 hr
15.23
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.25
22.42*
14.85
GJCO
24 hr
45.38*
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.22
7.70
16.40
48 hr
38.55*
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.16
28.48
23.31
ND = Not Detected
* = highest for the site
5-24
-------
Table 5-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Colorado
Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
DECO
G2CO
GJCO
SWCO
WECO
Population
within Ten
Miles
1,278,037
103,561
113,004
1,275,463
852,751
Estimated
Number of
MotorVehicles
Owned
945,747
76,635
83,623
943,843
631,036
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
44,200
2,200
10,000
1,366
1,500
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
30.09 (±2.39)
23. 15 (±2.62)
54.85 (±13.55)
148. 09 (±19.29)
162.32 (±87.71)
5-25
-------
Table 5-6. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding GJCO and G2CO
Facility
Name
Primary
SIC Code
SIC Code Description
Regulation Citation
Regulation Name
Wesfrac, Inc.
1311
Oil And Gas Extraction, Crude
Petroleum And Natural Gas, Crude
petroleum and natural gas
40CFRpart63, subpart
HH
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants from Oil and Natural Gas
Transmission and Storage (proposed rule)
Western
Filament Inc.
2269
Textile Mill Products, Textile
Finishing, except Wool, Finishing
plants, NEC
40 CFR part 63, subpart
oooo
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants from Fabric Printing and
Dyeing
ABC
Industries,
Inc.
3089
Rubber And Misc. Plastics Products,
Miscellaneous Plastics Products,
NEC, Plastics products, NEC
40 CFR part 63, subpart
wwww
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants from Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production (proposed rule)
to
Colorado
Bridge &
Iron, Inc.
3441
Fabricated Metal Products,
Fabricated Structural Metal
Products, Fabricated structural metal
40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMM
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants from Surface Coating of
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
(proposed rule)
Wescourt
Group, Inc. -
Fruita
Terminal
5171
Wholesale Trade-Nondurable
Goods, Petroleum and Petroleum
Products, Petroleum bulk stations &
terminals
40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants from Organic Liquids
Distribution
-------
6.0 Sites in Florida
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the five
UATMP sites in and near the Tampa/St. Petersburg, FL area (AZFL, CWFL, DNFL, GAFL,
LEFL) and four South Florida sites (BGFL, DBFL, FLFL, MDFL). Two of these sites are
located in St. Petersburg, two in Tampa, one in Clearwater, and the south Florida sites are
scattered among Belle Glade, Delray Beach, Pompano Beach and in Miami. Figures 6-1 through
6-9 are topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in their urban locations. Figures 6-
10 through 6-13 are maps identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites and that reported to
the 1999 NEI. The Tampa-St. Petersburg sites are clustered around each other, with a majority
of the facilities between CWFL, AZFL, and GAFL, and between GAFL and LEFL. A large
number of fuel combustion and surface coating sources are located in this region. BGFL is
located south of Lake Okeechobee, with only five facilities within ten miles of the monitoring
station, of which two are food and kindred product facilities, two are fuel combustion facilities,
and one is a liquid distribution facility. DBFL and FLFL are both located on the east coast of
Florida, with DBFL to the north of FLFL. There are more facilities near FLFL, most of which
are fuel combustion or waste treatment and disposal facilities. MDFL is located in Miami. Due
to its coastal location, most of the facilities are located to the west of the monitoring station.
Most of the facilities located within ten miles of MDFL are surface coating, incineration, and
fuel combustion sources.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2002 at six weather stations near
these sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The six weather stations are Tampa-International, St. Petersburg,
St. Petersburg/Clearwater, Hollywood International, Palm Beach International, and Miami
International (WBAN 12842, 92806, 12873, 12849,12844, and 12839, respectively).
Table 6-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at each of the sites, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. The Tampa/St. Petersburg area is located on Florida's Gulf Coast,
6-1
-------
Belle Glade is in south central Florida, and the remaining sites are located along the east coast of
southern Florida. Florida's climate is subtropical, with very mild winters and warm, muggy
summers as Table 6-1 confirms. The annual average maximum temperature is in the 80s for all
of the locations and relative humidity is in the 70 to 80 percent range. Although land and sea
breezes affect each of the locations, wind generally blows from a southeasterly direction due to
high pressure offshore. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition
(Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
6.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Florida Sites
Only carbonyl compounds were measured at the nine sites, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and
3-4. Geometric means of the carbonyl compounds ranged from 1.26 ppbv (MDFL) to 10.76
ppbv (DNFL), while the average daily UATMP concentration had a greater range of 1.28 ±0.23
ppbv (MDFL) to 7.13 ±2.49 ppbv (GAFL). Table 6-1 also lists the averages for selected
meteorological parameters from January 2002 to December 2002, which is the same time period
covered in this report.
Table 6-2 is the summary of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for the prevalent
carbonyl compound (formaldehyde) and selected meteorological parameters by site.
Identification of the prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. Formaldehyde
had moderately strong to very strong positive correlations with maximum, average, dew point,
and wet bulb temperatures at AZFL, BGFL, CWFL, and LEFL. However, this compound also
had moderately strong to very strong negative correlations with the same four weather
parameters at both DNFL and FLFL. Moderately strong negative correlations between
formaldehyde and dewpoint and wet bulb temperature were also calculated at DBFL. With the
exception of GAFL, all of the sites had negative correlations with relative humidity. DBFL
registered a nearly perfect negative correlation between formaldehyde and relative humidity (-
0.99). FLFL also registered a nearly perfect positive correlation between formaldehyde and sea
level pressure (0.99). BGFL, DBFL, FLFL, and MDFL each had a strong correlation between
formaldehyde and either the u- or v-component of the wind. These four sites are also the four
sites not located on the west coast of Florida. UATMP concentrations (formaldehyde) tend to
6-2
-------
increase at the Florida sites as relative humidity decreases. However, predicting concentration
increases based on the remainder of the meteorological parameters would be difficult.
As part of the 2002 UATMP report, back trajectory analyses were conducted for EPA-
designated NATTS sites to determine whether where a parcel originated could be a contributor
to its air toxics concentration. A back trajectory analysis was performed on sample days for the
Tampa/St. Petersburg sites, all of which are pilot sites. The highest concentrations of UATMP
compounds typically occurred during the spring and summer months, from April through
September. These high concentrations occurred when air originated from a variety of directions,
not a single direction. Table 6-3 is a summary of the back trajectory analyses. As seen in Figure
6-10, the monitors are clustered around each other and industrial facilities are located in all
directions in relation to the monitors. Figures 6-14 through 6-16 are sample back trajectory
maps for the each of the participating sites, on days where the highest concentration occurred
(6.36 ppbv for AZFL; 4.59 ppbv for CWFL; 54.59 ppbv for DNFL; 38.03 ppbv for GAFL; and
3.82 ppbv for LEFL). For three of the five sites, the highest concentration occurred on the same
day, September 17, 2002.
6.2 Spatial Analysis
Using the population within ten miles of each site, an estimate of the number of motor
vehicles operating in proximity to the monitoring station can be established. The ratio used in
this report is 0.74 automobiles to every one person (refer to section 3.4.1 for more information
on this ratio). The population is the highest near the MDFL site, with 1,152,632 people
operating approximately 852,948 vehicles. The lowest population of the Florida sites is near
BGFL, where 34,175 people are driving 25,290 automobiles. This information is compared to
the average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at each Florida site in Table 6-3.
Also included in Table 6-4 is average daily traffic data, or more specifically, the average number
of cars passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. The
largest amount of traffic passes by the GAFL monitoring station (81,460).
6-3
-------
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 3-14 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. As the Florida sites only measured carbonyl compounds, these
nine sites are not included in Figure 3-14.
6.3 Regulation Analysis
Five NATTS sites are located in Tampa/St. Petersburg, FL: AZFL, CWFL, DNFL,
GAFL and LEFL, all within close proximity to each other. Consequently, many of the facilities
identified in the 10-mile areas around the monitoring sites overlap. Table 3-9 lists the number of
facilities within 10 miles that account for approximately 90 percent of the total UATMP
pollutant emissions.
At AZFL, of the twelve facilities listed in Table 3-9, eight facilities are potentially
subject to future regulations. Table 6-5 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable.
Based on this analysis, the ambient concentrations of methyl methacrylate and styrene recorded
by monitoring station AZFL are expected to decrease. The regulations shown in Table 6-5 are
projected to achieve emission reductions of methyl methacrylate (35 percent) and styrene (49
percent). These reductions are attributable to regulation of facilities that manufacture reinforced
plastic products (e.g., spas, boats) projected to comply with the applicable regulations by 2006.
At CWFL, of the sixteen facilities listed shown in Table 3-9, nine facilities are potentially
subject to future regulations. Table 6-6 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable.
Based on this analysis, the ambient concentration of ethylbenzene, styrene, and xylene recorded
by monitoring station CWFL are expected to decrease. The regulations shown in Table 6-5 are
projected to achieved a 51 percent decrease in emissions of styrene and 54 percent decrease in
xylene emissions. The styrene reductions are attributable to regulation of facilities that
manufacture reinforced plastic products (e.g., spas, boats) (the latest compliance date of the
applicable regulations is 2006). The reductions of ethylbenzene and xylene emissions are
6-4
-------
primarily attributable to a single facility projected to have complied with the printing and
publishing NESHAP in 1999. Additional reductions of UATMP compound emissions are
possible from the Florida Power Corporation facility, due to compliance with the combustion
turbine and reciprocating engine standards. However, sufficient information is not available to
estimate those potential reductions.
At DNFL, of the ten facilities listed in Table 3-9, seven facilities are potentially subject
to future regulations. Table 6-7 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable. The
regulations shown are projected to achieved a 55 percent decrease in emissions of styrene and a
65 percent decrease in methyl ethyl ketone emissions. Based on this analysis, the ambient
concentrations of styrene and methyl ethyl ketone recorded by the monitoring station have the
potential to decrease (particularly for methyl ethyl ketone). These reductions are attributable to
regulation of facilities that apply surface coatings to metal products and facilities that
manufacture reinforced plastic products (e.g., spas, boats). Ethylbenzene, methyl methacrylate,
and toluene are all expected to have a 35 percent decrease in emissions. The latest compliance
date of those applicable regulations is 2006.
At GAFL, of the twenty-five facilities listed in Table 3-9, fourteen facilities are
potentially subject to future regulations. Table 6-8 identifies the regulations that are potentially
applicable. Based on this analysis, reductions are projected for methylene chloride (57 percent)
and styrene (54 percent) emissions. The reductions in methylene chloride emissions are
attributable to a single facility projected to have complied with the printing and publishing
NESHAP. The styrene emission reductions are primarily attributed to reductions achieved by
boat and reinforced plastic product (e.g., spas) manufacturing facilities. Benzene and methyl
isobutyl ketone emissions are projected to decrease by 21 and 33 percent, respectively. The
benzene emission reductions are primarily attributed to facilities projected to be subject to the
organic liquid distribution NESHAP. Consequently, ambient concentrations of these four
compounds recorded by the station should decrease as the regulations are implemented (the
latest compliance date is 2006). Lower reductions are projected for ethylbenzene (10 percent),
6-5
-------
methyl ethyl ketone (12 percent), toluene (19), and xylene (13 percent). Therefore, decreases in
ambient concentrations of these compounds may not be significant.
At LEFL, of the fifteen facilities listed in Table 3-9, six facilities are potentially subject
to future regulations. Table 6-9 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable.
Significant reductions are projected for styrene (65 percent). This reduction is attributable to a
single facility that is projected to comply with the reinforced plastics composite NESHAP in
2006. Consequently, ambient styrene concentrations are expected to decrease in this area.
Much lower reductions are projected for benzene (14 percent), ethylbenzene (1 percent), toluene
(2 percent) and xylene (15 percent). These reductions in emissions may not lead to reductions in
measured concentrations.
6-6
-------
Figure 6-1. St. Petersburg, Florida (AZFL) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
6-7
-------
Figure 6-2. Belle Glade, Florida (BGFL) Monitoring Station
/? j/ Pelican/
vw-ff-i.topo20ne.com - Copyright §2001 h
-------
Figure 6-3. Clearwater, Florida (CWFL) Monitoring Station
Ifcf *Y)<^
- i&w . J ,L,.
. H-.vwAv.topcigQne.com - Copyright &2001 l^faps a la carte, Inc
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
6-9
-------
Figure 6-4. Delray Beach, Florida (DBFL) Monitoring Station
~|J ( -'ii!ll!^MN—'' I..--
.com - Copyright © 2001 Maps a la carte. Inc.
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
6-10
-------
Figure 6-5. St. Petersburg, Florida Site 2 (DNFL) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
6-11
-------
Figure 6-6. Pompano Beach, Florida (FLFL) Monitoring Station
T^T. - II ^,-f^-^-^3**^—^SS^ni'
- Copyright ©2001 Maps a la carte, Inc
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
6-12
-------
Figure 6-7. Tampa, Florida Site 1 (GAFL) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
6-13
-------
Figure 6-8. Tampa, Florida Site 2 (LEFL) Monitoring Station
TEEfeM' aSr;isl
I
^
',•.' !:-:f .^-ur^.crin-i - Copyright <3JOi:n h-tep:? a la carte. Inc
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
6-14
-------
Figure 6-9. Miami, Florida (MDFL) Monitoring Station
.toposone.com - Copyriqht @2001 Ivtaps a la carte. Inc.
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
6-15
-------
Figure 6-10. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of AZFL, DNFL, GAFL, LEFL, CWFL
82'3S'G"W 82 3
L - f
r
... > _ - -s .,
-*'l /
C /1
ix
w - r
Y
V. FfB S > B , _ / - ~> -
Ai ' - - - . I \
>.
c - ^
1 -S-'
!N
•V
SrS'frw 63 0'0'W
Legend
-& AZFL UATMP site
GAFL UATMP site
ifc DNFL UATMP site ^ LEFL UATMP site
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & allied products facility (6)
E Electric, gas, & sanitary services (4)
z Electrical & electronic equipment facility (4)
• Engineering & management services facility ( 1 )
D Fabricated metal products facility (4)
f Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (47)
e General building Contractors (1)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (6)
J Industrial machinery & equip, facility (1)
= Instruments & related products facility (3)
L Liquids Distribution Industrial Facility (13)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (6)
x Misc. manufacturing industries facility (1) _
Note: Due to facility density and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
CWFL UATMP site
10 mile radius
P Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (7)
=: Misc. repair service facility (1)
/ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
1 Petroleum & coal products (1)
> Pharmaceutical Prod. Processes Industry Facility (2)
v Polymers & Resins Prod. Industrial Facility (7)
R Printing & publishing facility (8)
# Production of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
Y Rubber and misc. plastics products facility (3)
•f Transportation by air (1)
T Transportation equipment (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (33)
w Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (11)
s Wholesale trade-nondurable goods (1)
6-16
-------
Figure 6-11. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BGFL
Note: Due to facility density and colooation, the tolal facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
S BGFL UATMP site
10 mile radius
| | County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
G Food & kindred products Facility (2)
f Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (2)
L Liquids Distrib. Industrial Facility (1)
6-17
-------
Figure 6-12. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DBFL and FLFL
3'25'CnrV aQ'2&'»"W SO 15"trW 80 10'0"W 80'5'0"W TO O'CTW ?9'§3TG"W 7§'50"G"*W
Legend
SO'S'tTW 8G'0'G"W
Note: Due to facility density and colocatton, the total facilities
displayed may not represent a!l facilities wtthin the area of interest.
t&] DBFL UA1TVIP site
@ FLFL UATMP site
10 mile radius
[ j County boundary
Source Category Group (No of Facilities) '•'
c Chemicals & allied products facility (1)
H Furniture & fixtures facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (32)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (13)
L Liquids Distrib, Industrial Facility (8)
P Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (2)
i Petroleum & coal products (1)
Polymers & Resins Prod. Industrial Facility (1)
Printing & publishing facility (1)
Prod, of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
Rubber and misc. plastics production facility (2)
Stone, clay, glass, & concrete products facility (1)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (9)
Transportation equipment (1)
Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (25)
Wholesale trade-nondurable goods (3)
6-18
-------
Figure 6-13. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of MDFL
Legend
Note: Due to facility density and colocatton, the total facilities
displayed may not represent a!l facilities wtthin the area of interest.
t MDFL UATMP site
10 mile radius
J County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) x
o Apparel & other textile products facility (2) p
c Chemicals & allied products facility (2) a
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1) v
G Food & kindred products facility (1) *
H Furniture & fixtures facility (2)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (5)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (7)
= Instruments & related products facility (1)
L Liquids Distrib. Industrial Facility (1)
Misc. manufacturing industries facility (1)
Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (4)
Misc. services facility (1)
Polymers & Resins Prod. Industrial Facility (5)
Prod, of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (2)
Rubber and misc. plastics products facility (2)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (16)
Transportation equipment (1)
Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (2)
Wholesale trade-nondurable goods (1)
6-19
-------
Figure 6-14. Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to AZFL, CWFL, and LEFL's
Highest Concentrations
NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Backward trajectories ending ai 18 UTC 17 Sep 02
CDC1 Meteorological Data
Job ID: 352119 Job 51ar1: Thu Apt 17 18:53:02 GrVTT 2003
lal.: 27.97 Ion.: £2.53 hgte: 50, 250, 500 m AGL
Trajectory Diiedion: Backward Duialbn: -IS his
VerlicalMdionCalcLjIalion Mel hod: rA>del Vertical VebcHy
Pioduced using MOAA ARL WebsHs (www.ai I.noaa.gowisady,1)
6-20
-------
Figure 6-15. Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to DNFL's Highest Concentration
NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Backward "trajectories ending a118 UTC 08 Jan 02
CDC1 Meteorological Data
00
01/07
Job ID: 349146 Job S1aM: Wed Apr 16 19:45:OS G fJTT 2003
lal.: 27.97 bn.: -S2.53 hgte: 50, 250, 500 rn AGL
Tiajeelory Diiedbn: Backwaid Duralcn: 4S his
VeMlcalK'IdbnCatukilion K'1=lhod: Model Vertical VetacHy
using WQAA ARL W=bsH= I'wwiv.aiI.noaa.gov/isady,)
6-21
-------
Figure 6-16. Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to GAFL's Highest Concentration
NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Backward trajectories ending at 18 UTC 25 Jun 02
CDC1 Meteorological Data
Job ID: 351B73 Job S1aM: Thu Apr 17 18:01:43 GMT 2003
la!.: 27.97 bn.: -B2.S3 hgte: 50, 250. 500 m AG L
Tiajsdory Diiedbn: Backward Duialbn: 4S HIT
Ve rl ica I h jfcn1 io n Cafcu lalion Msl hod: li'lods I Ve |1 ca I Ve tacHy
Fioducgd using NOAA ARL Websile (www.ail.noaa.gov;'ieady,')
6-22
-------
Table 6-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Florida
Site
Name
AZFL
BGFL
CWFL
DBFL
DNFL
FLFL
Type
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
^
5.72
(±0.36)
^
3.40
(±2.15)
^
4.72
(±2.64)
^
5.25
(±0.57)
^
5.95
(±1.85)
^
5.29
(±0.93)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
80.33
(±0.94)
79.95
(±2.24)
82.40
(±0.58)
80.20
(±2.44)
81.26
(±0.97)
82.26
(±3.53)
82.55
(±0.66)
79.80
(±3.06)
80.33
(±0.94)
78.81
(±2.86)
82.40
(±0.58)
81.25
(±2.01)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
73.45
(±0.96)
73.51
(±2.27)
76.70
(±0.67)
73.44
(±3.78)
72.86
(±0.99)
74.33
(±3.68)
75.81
(±0.75)
71.10
(±4.68)
73.45
(±0.96)
72.05
(±2.79)
76.70
(±0.67)
74.90
(±3.49)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
64.98
(±1.13)
66.05
(±2.62)
68.69
(±0.78)
65.98
(±4.50)
66.15
(±1.13)
68.28
(±4.19)
67.46
(±0.83)
64.53
(±5.17)
64.98
(±1.13)
64.23
(±3.43)
68.69
(±0.78)
67.70
(±4.17)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
68.22
(±0.96)
68.83
(±2.25)
71.46
(±0.67)
68.61
(±3.90)
68.66
(±1.00)
70.45
(±3.77)
70.38
(±0.73)
66.93
(±4.68)
68.22
(±0.96)
67.27
(±2.82)
71.46
(±0.67)
70.16
(±3.49)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
76.43
(±1.08)
78.91
(±2.51)
77.41
(±0.91)
78.56
(±7.02)
81.10
(±0.96)
82.69
(±2.94)
76.59
(±0.78)
81.10
(±5.71)
76.43
(±1.08)
78.14
(±3.79)
77.41
(±0.91)
79.39
(±8.59)
Sea Level
Pressure (mb)
1017.5
(±3.71)
1016.9
(±9.43)
1017.2
(±3.31)
1016.6
(±33.82)
1017.9
(±3.75)
1016.5
(±14.59)
1017.7
(±3.39)
1017.0
(±34.40)
1017.5
(±3.71)
1017.8
(±11.08)
1017.2
(±3.31)
1015.5
(±34.30)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-1.70
(±0.30)
-0.88
(±0.70)
-2.36
(±0.28)
-0.05
(±1.69)
-1.96
(±0.28)
-1.31
(±0.76)
-2.09
(±0.30)
0.10
(±1.73)
-1.70
(±0.30)
-0.71
(±1.06)
-2.36
(±0.28)
0.22
(±2.02)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
3.63
(±0.24)
1.99
(±0.52)
3.13
(±0.19)
2.03
(±2.10)
3.12
(±0.21)
1.63
(±0.69)
3.28
(±0.20)
1.24
(±2.34)
3.63
(±0.24)
2.29
(±0.63)
3.13
(±0.19)
1.82
(±2.59)
to
-------
Table 6-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Florida (Continued)
Site
Name
GAFL
LEFL
MDFL
Type
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
^$$S
7.13
(±2.49)
SSS
3.89
(01.21)
^
1.28
(±0.23)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
81.30
(±0.94)
80.59
(±2.36)
81.30
(±0.94)
81.38
(±2.26)
83.50
(±0.61)
80.00
(±2.08)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
72.93
(±0.99)
72.41
(±2.50)
72.93
(±0.99)
73.26
(±2.33)
77.16
(±0.66)
72.73
(±3.70)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
64.33
(±1.13)
64.95
(±2.83)
64.33
(±1.13)
65.44
(±2.61)
68.75
(±0.78)
66.91
(±5.63)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
67.58
(±0.99)
67.74
(±2.50)
67.58
(±0.99)
68.31
(±2.29)
71.65
(±0.67)
69.04
(±4.68)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
76.22
(±0.92)
78.95
(±2.24)
76.22
(±0.92)
78.16
(±2.26)
76.44
(±0.78)
83.02
(±6.39)
Sea Level
Pressure (mb)
1018.0
(±3.73)
1017.6
(±9.72)
1018.0
(±3.73)
1017.4
(±9.71)
1017.5
(±3.25)
1016.7
(±39.26)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-1.81
(±0.21)
-0.75
(±0.56)
-1.81
(±0.21)
-0.65
(±0.56)
-2.35
(±0.26)
0.65
(±1.38)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
2.21
(±0.17)
1.31
(±0.39)
2.21
(±0.17)
1.39
(±0.38)
2.68
(±0.17)
1.61
(±2.27)
to
-------
Table 6-2. Formaldehyde Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters in Florida
Site
AZFL
BGFL
CWFL
DBFL
DNFL
FLFL
GAFL
LEFL
MDFL
Maximum
Temperature
0.49
0.72
0.50
0.20
-0.48
-0.72
0.16
0.55
0.30
Average
Temperature
0.48
0.80
0.47
0.01
-0.43
-0.56
0.15
0.51
0.17
Dew Point
Temperature
0.32
0.31
0.39
-0.42
-0.43
-0.87
0.15
0.35
0.08
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.38
0.47
0.42
-0.28
-0.43
-0.85
0.16
0.41
0.12
Relative
Humidity
-0.27
-0.59
-0.07
-0.99
-0.21
-0.53
0.07
-0.29
-0.05
Sea Level
Pressure
0.02
-0.17
-0.06
0.54
0.29
0.99
0.07
-0.15
0.11
u-component of
wind speed
-0.37
-0.76
-0.14
-0.28
0.16
0.08
-0.05
-0.05
0.94
v-component of
wind speed
-0.16
0.09
-0.12
-0.82
0.22
-0.93
-0.03
-0.18
-0.34
to
-------
Table 6-3. Average UATMP Concentrations By Wind Regime for the
Tampa/St.Petersburg Sites
Wind
Regime
North
Northeast
East
Southeast
South
Southwest
West
Northwest
AZFL
24 hr
3.37
3.97*
3.61
3.14
2.60
3.53
3.55
3.05
48 hr
3.07
3.91*
3.40
3.24
3.02
3.33
2.33
3.01
CWFL
24 hr
2.47
3.75*
2.07
2.71
1.80
ND
3.04
2.54
48 hr
ND
2.80
3.11
2.83
2.12
3.30*
ND
2.14
DNFL
24 hr
3.45
2.91
3.65
2.75
9.85
2.41
1.98
15.85*
48 hr
2.76
3.24
3.43
7.10
2.72
2.41
2.00
29.15*
GAFL
24 hr
2.97
3.21
3.14
5.13*
2.65
2.71
3.35
3.27
48 hr
2.86
3.31
2.76
5.40*
2.28
3.42
2.36
2.46
LEFL
24 hr
2.12
2.45
1.98
2.18
1.73
2.22
2.63*
2.21
48 hr
1.94
2.34*
2.15
2.24
2.12
2.29
0.98
1.97
ND = Not Detected
* = Highest for the site
6-26
-------
Table 6-4. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Florida
Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
AZFL
BGFL
CWFL
DBFL
DNFL
FLFL
GAFL
LEFL
MDFL
Population
within Ten
Miles
592,642
34,175
445,472
479,805
454,645
987,475
458,652
592,533
1,152,632
Estimated
Number of
Motor Vehicles
Owned
438,555
25,290
329,649
355,056
336,437
730,732
339,402
438,472
852,948
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
51,000
12,200
1000
44,200
16,281
1,000
81,460
1,055
15,200
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
5.72 (±0.36)
3. 40 (±2. 15)
4.72 (±0.25)
5.25 (±0.57)
5. 95 (±1.85)
7. 13 (±2.49)
3. 89 (±0.21)
5. 56 (±1.14)
1.28 (±0.23)
6-27
-------
Table 6-5. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding AZFL
Facility Name
Quality Acrylic
Baths Of Clearwater,
Inc.
Shakespeare
Products Group
Hydro Spa
Catalina Yachts
Intrepid Powerboats,
Inc.
Traditional
Watercraft DBA
Island Packet
Endeavour
Catamaran
Corporation
Blue Hawaiian
Products
Primary
SIC Code
3089
3732
3949
SIC Code Description
Rubber And Misc. Plastics Products,
Miscellaneous Plastics Products,
NEC, Plastics products, NEC
Transportation Equipment, Ship and
Boat Building and Repairing, Boat
Building and Repairing
Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Industries, Toys and Sporting
Goods, Sporting and Athletic Goods,
NEC
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
wwww
40 CFR part 63, subpart
vvvv
40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWW
Regulation Name
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production (proposed rule)
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Boat Manufacturing
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production (proposed rule)
to
oo
-------
Table 6-6. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding CWFL
Facility Name
GSP Marketing
Technologies, Inc.
Quality Acrylic
Baths Of Clearwater,
Inc.
Shakespeare
Products Group
Hydro Spa
Catalina Yachts
Intrepid Powerboats,
Inc.
Traditional
Watercraft DBA
Island Packet
Endeavour
Catamaran
Corporation
Florida Power
Corporation
Primary
SIC Code
2759
3089
3732
4911
SIC Code Description
Printing And Publishing,
Commercial Printing, Commercial
Printing, NEC
Rubber And Misc. Plastics
Products, Miscellaneous Plastics
Products, NEC, Plastics Products,
NEC
Transportation Equipment, Ship
and Boat Building and Repairing,
Boat Building and Repairing
Electric, Gas, And Sanitary
Services, Electric Services, Electric
services
Regulation
Citation
40CFRpart
63, subpart
KK
40CFRpart
63, subpart
wwww
40CFRpart
63, subpart
vvvv
40CFRpart
63, subparts
YYYYand
zzzz
Regulation Name
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Printing and Publishing
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production (proposed rule)
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Boat Manufacturing
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Stationary Combustion Turbines
(proposed rule) and from Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines (proposed rule)
-------
Table 6-6. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding CWFL (Continued)
Facility Name
Blue Hawaiian
Products
Primary
SIC Code
3949
SIC Code Description
Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Industries, Toys and Sporting
Goods, Sporting and Athletic
Goods, NEC
Regulation
Citation
40CFRpart
63, subpart
wwww
Regulation Name
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production (proposed rule)
-------
Table 6-7. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding DNFL
Facility Name
Quality Acrylic
Baths Of Clearwater,
Inc.
Shakespeare
Products Group
Hydro Spa
Catalina Yachts
Traditional
Watercraft DBA
Island Packet
Endeavour
Catamaran
Corporation
Blue Hawaiian
Products
Primary
SIC Code
3089
3732
3949
SIC Code Description
Rubber And Misc. Plastics Products,
Miscellaneous Plastics Products,
NEC, Plastics Products, NEC
Transportation Equipment, Ship and
Boat Building and Repairing, Boat
Building and Repairing
Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Industries, Toys and Sporting
Goods, Sporting and Athletic Goods,
NEC
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
wwww
40 CFR part 63, subpart
vvvv
40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWW
Regulation Name
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production (proposed rule)
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Boat Manufacturing
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production (proposed rule)
-------
Table 6-8. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding GAFL
Facility Name
Quality Acrylic
Baths Of Clearwater,
Inc.
Tampa Fiberglass,
Inc.
Spa Manufacturers,
Inc.
Lazzara Yachts, Inc.
Endeavour
Catamaran
Corporation
Citgo Petroleum
Corporation
Central Florida
Pipeline
Sifco Turbine
Component Services
Primary
SIC Code
3089
3732
5171
3724
SIC Code Description
Rubber And Misc. Plastics Products,
Miscellaneous Plastics Products,
NEC, Plastics Products, NEC
Transportation Equipment, Ship and
Boat Building and Repairing, Boat
Building and Repairing
Wholesale Trade-Nondurable
Goods, Petroleum and Petroleum
Products, Petroleum Bulk Stations &
Terminals
Transportation Equipment, Aircraft
and Parts, Aircraft Engines and
Engine Parts
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
wwww
40 CFR part 63, subpart
vvvv
40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE
40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPPPP
Regulation Name
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production (proposed rule)
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Boat Manufacturing
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Organic Liquids Distribution
National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Engine Test Cells
to
-------
Table 6-8. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding GAFL (Continued)
Facility Name
Tampa Steel Erecting
Company
Pops Painting, Inc.
Misener Marine
Construction
Premdor
Master Packaging Inc
GSP Marketing
Technologies, Inc.
Primary
SIC Code
3441
2759
SIC Code Description
Fabricated Metal Products,
Fabricated Structural Metal
Products, Fabricated Structural
Metal
Printing And Publishing,
Commercial Printing, Commercial
Printing, NEC
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
MMMM
40 CFR part 63, subpart
KK
Regulation Name
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Surface Coating of
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products (proposed rule)
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Printing and Publishing
-------
Table 6-9. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding LEFL
Facility Name
Tampa Fiberglass,
Inc.
Group Technologies
Corporation
Citgo Petroleum
Corporation
Central Florida
Pipeline
Tampa Can Plant
Sifco Turbine
Component Services
Primary SIC
Code
3089
3663
5171
3411
3724
SIC Code Description
Rubber And Misc. Plastics Products,
Miscellaneous Plastics Products,
NEC, Plastics Products, NEC
Electronic & Other Electric
Equipment, Communications
Equipment, Radio & TV
Communications Equipment
Wholesale Trade-Nondurable
Goods, Petroleum and Petroleum
Products, Petroleum Bulk Stations &
Terminals
Fabricated Metal Products, Metal
Cans and Shipping Containers,
Metal Cans
Transportation Equipment, Aircraft
and Parts, Aircraft Engines and
Engine Parts
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subparts
PPPP and WWWW
40CFRpart63, subpart
PPPP
40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE
40 CFR part 63, subpart
KKKK
40 CFR part 63, subpart
PPPPP
Regulation Name
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Surface Coating of Plastic Parts
and Products and Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production
(proposed rule)
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Surface Coating of Plastic Parts
and Products
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Organic Liquids Distribution
National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Surface Coating of Metal Cans
(proposed rule)
National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Engine Test Cells
-------
7.0 Sites in Iowa
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the three
UATMP sites in Iowa (C2IA, DAIA, and DMIA). Two of these sites are located in eastern Iowa
(C2IA and DAIA), while the third is located in central Iowa (DMIA). The Iowa cities
participating in the 2002 UATMP report include Cedar Rapids (C2IA), Davenport (DAIA), and
Des Moines (DMIA). Figures 7-1 through 7-3 are topographical maps showing the monitoring
stations in their urban locations. Figures 7-4 through 7-6 are maps identifying facilities within
ten miles of the sites that reported to the 1999 NEI. The bulk of the industrial facilities located
near C2IA are mostly fuel combustion and food product industries. DAIA has the largest
number of industrial facilities nearby, generally located to the east and southeast. DMIA has a
number of facilities to its northeast and east, and just three to its west and west-southwest.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2002 at three weather stations near
these sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The three weather stations are Cedar Rapids Municipal Airport,
Des Moines International, and Davenport (WBAN 14990, 14933, and 94982, respectively).
Table 7-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at each of these sites, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. Typically, Iowa experiences cold, rather dry winters and warm, moist
summers, thanks to its continental climate. The seasons show marked contrast, producing
variable weather. Table 7-1 shows that the weather parameters vary little among the stations.
This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
7.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Iowa Sites
Carbonyl compounds and VOC (volatile organic compounds) were measured at all of the
sites, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. With the exception of the carbonyls, there was little
variation in geometric means among the sites. Carbonyl compound geometric means ranged
7-1
-------
from 3.41 ppbv (DAIA) to 13.43 ppbv (DMIA), consistent with last year's report. C2IA had the
lowest geometric means and DMIA had the highest for all three types of VOC. Halogenated
hydrocarbons ranged from 4.25 ppbv to 5.46 ppbv; hydrocarbons ranged from 2.63 ppbv to 3.77
ppbv; and polar compounds ranged from 2.19 ppbv to 3.34 ppbv. This trend is also seen in daily
average UATMP concentrations. DMIA had the highest average, 24.51 (±12.87) ppbv,
approximately twice the concentration of both C2IA and DAIA. This information is listed in
Table 7-1. Table 7-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January
2002 to December 2002, which is the same time period covered in this report.
These sites 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
SNMOC/NMOC trends and concentrations. The average total NMOC value for C2IA was
146.24 (±26.23) ppbC, of which nearly 59% could be identified through speciation; the average
total NMOC for DAIA was 219.66(±59.53) ppbC, of which nearly 53% could be identified; the
average total NMOC for DMIA was 278.32 (±88.29) ppbC, of which nearly 46% could be
identified. Of the speciated compounds, ethane, w-hexane, and w-undecane measured the highest
concentrations at the Iowa sites. These values are included in Table 7-3. Ozone concentrations
were also sampled on 214 sample days at sites within the same counties as the three Iowa sites,
and were retrieved from the U.S. EPA's AIRS database. The average ozone concentration for
each sample day at C2IA was 47.75 (±1.89) ppbv, 53.42 (±2.11) ppbv at DAIA, and 40.05
(±1.81) ppbv at DMIA. This information is also summarized in Table 7-3.
Tables 7-2a-c are 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. At C2IA, formaldehyde had strong
positive correlations with maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures,
chloromethane also had moderately strong positive correlations with these variables, and
7-2
-------
acetylene had moderately strong to strong negative correlations with these same parameters.
Also at C2IA, nearly all the compounds had negative, albeit weak, correlations with sea level
pressure and the u-component of the wind, and positive correlations with relative humidity. At
this site, as relative humidity increases, and pressure and the east-west wind speed decreases,
UATMP concentrations tend to increase.
With the exception of acetylene and trichlorofluoromethane, all of the compounds at
DAIA had weak, moderate, or strong positive correlations with the maximum, average, dew
point, and wet bulb temperatures. These two compounds had strong negative correlations with
these parameters. Like C2IA, most of the compounds at DAIA demonstrated negative
correlations with sea level pressure and the u-component of the wind. All of the compounds,
with the exception of trichlorofluoromethane, had positive correlations with the v-component of
the wind. UATMP concentrations tend to increase at DAIA when temperature and the north-
south wind increase, and pressure and the east-west wind decrease.
The compounds at the DMIA site had mostly strong or moderately strong correlations
with the temperature and moisture variables, but were split between positive and negative.
Several compounds exhibited a moderately strong or strong negative correlation with the u-
component of the wind, and a moderately strong or strong positive correlation with the v-
component of the wind. Depending on direction, as the wind speed increases at DMIA, UATMP
concentrations may increase or decrease.
As part of the 2002 UATMP report, back trajectory analyses were conducted for the
EPA-designated NATTS sites to determine whether where a parcel came from could be a
contributor to its air toxics concentration. A back trajectory analysis was performed on sample
days for the Cedar Rapids site (C2IA). Generally, the highest concentrations occurred when the
air originated from a southerly direction, and the lowest concentrations occurred when the air
originated over from a northerly or northwesterly direction. Table 7-4 is a summary of the back
trajectory analyses. As seen in Figure 7-4, the majority of the industrial sites are located to the
south of the monitoring station, and there are no facilities to the north or northwest. Figure 7-7 is
7-3
-------
an example of a back trajectory map, and is the trajectory for the date with the highest UATMP
concentration at C2IA (17.83 ppbv).
7.2 Spatial Analysis
Using the population within ten miles of each site, an estimate of the number of motor
vehicles operating in proximity to the monitoring station can be established. The ratio used in
this report is 0.74 automobiles to every one person (refer to section 3.4.1 for more information
on this ratio). The population near the DMIA site is the highest with 383,791 people operating
approximately 284,005 vehicles. The lowest population of the Iowa sites is near C2IA, with
175,516 people driving 129,882 automobiles. This information is compared to the average daily
concentration of the prevalent compounds at each Iowa site in Table 7-5. Also included in this
table are average daily traffic data, or more specifically, the average number of cars passing the
monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. DMIA, by far, has the
largest amount of traffic volume passing by the site on a daily basis.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area. (For more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.) Figure 3-14 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. All three Iowa sites' concentration ratios somewhat resemble
those of the roadside study. However, both C2IA and DAIA have larger benzene-ethylbenzene
ratios than the roadside study, C2IA and DMIA have greater toluene-ethylbenzene ratios, and all
three sites have lower w,/>-xylene-ethylbenzene ratios.
7.3 Regulation Analysis
One NATTS site (C2IA) is located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Table 3-9 lists the number of
facilities that account for approximately 90 percent of the total UATMP pollutant emissions in
the 10-mile areas around this monitoring site. Of the four facilities shown in Table C2IA, three
facilities are potentially subject to future regulations. Table 7-5 identifies the regulations that are
potentially applicable.
7-4
-------
Based on this analysis, methyl ethyl ketone, styrene, and xylene emissions are expected
to be reduced to the greatest degree (53, 61, and 44 percent, respectively). Both ethyl benzene
and toluene emissions are estimated to be reduced by only 20 percent. The reductions are
projected to come from compliance with coating and reinforced plastic product standards (the
latest compliance date of the regulations is 2006).
7-5
-------
Figure 7-1. Cedar Rapids, Iowa (C2IA) Monitoring Station
^l i & :. -^gSLM-^MH
iU O.^rf---" _ «• »,r^ mm., '"• 2T."-,,
.. .. , ... _
s? '" "
f ^:^:^:^l
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
7-6
-------
Figure 7-2. Davenport, Iowa (DAIA) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
7-7
-------
Figure 7-3. Des Moines, Iowa (DMIA) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
7-8
-------
Figure 7-4. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of C2IA
Linn
County
Benton
Cdunty
W
17 V
6 G
I W
Legend
[§j C2IA UATyP site
10 mile radius
I [County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
E Electric, gas, & sanitary services (3)
D Fabricated metal products facility (1 )
7 Food & Ag. Processes Industrial Facility (4)
G Food & kindred products facility (3)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (8)
J Industrial machinery and equipment (1)
P Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (1)
v Polymers & Resins Prod. Industrial Facility (3)
Q Primary metal industries facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
w Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (2)
7-9
-------
Figure 7-5. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DAIA
County
Scott
County
Bj
g_ '_ _ _ f - -1«
"fj^6' ^.
'. [ N
B t'N UF
Henry
!/ ' County
Rock Island |
County
90 &Q't!"^ SiO^S'O'W &C
Legend
@ DAIA UATMP site
10 mile radius
Lj County boundary
Source Cat Group (No. of Facilities)
A Agricultural services facility (3)
% Amusement & recreational services (1)
•*• Eating & drinking places (1)
E Electric, gas. & sanitary services (1)
D Fabricated metal products facility (6)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (4)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (67)
+ Health services facility (2)
9 Hotels, rooming houses, camps, & other lodging (1)
J Industrial machinery & equip facility (8)
* Justice, public order, & safety facility (1)
L Liquids Distrib Indusirial Facility (4)
& Lumber & wood products facility (1}
I Incineration Industrial Facility (2)
Note Due to facility density and colocation. the total facilities
displayed may no! represent ail facilities within the area of interest
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (4)
P Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (8)
X Misc. manufacturing industries facility (2)
; Misc. retail facility (2)
Motor freight transport./warehousing (1)
N Nonclassifiable Establishments (6)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2)
O Personal services facility (2)
V Polymers & Resins Prod. Industrial Facility (1)
• Real estate facilities (2)
Y Rubber and misc plastics products facility (2)
U Stone, clay, glass. & concrete products facility (5)
S Surface Coating processes Industrial Facility (6)
W Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (2)
$ Wholesale trade-durable goods (1)
6 Wholesale trade-nondurable goods (1)
7-10
-------
Figure 7-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of DMIA
83 SS'&rW 93'50'0"W §3 45'CTW
&3'30'0™W 93 2
Polk County
Dallas t
County !\
Madison
County
Warren
County
-» - - - - -.
Note Due to facility density and allocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent ail facilities within the area of Merest.
Legend
@ DMIA UATMP site
10 mile radius
[ ] County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & allied products facility (1)
o Fabricated metal products facility (1)
7 Food & Ag. Processes Industrial Facility (4)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (6)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (4)
P Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (3)
R Printing & publishing facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (2)
7-11
-------
Figure 7-7. Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to Cedar Rapids' Highest Concentration
NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Backward "trajectories ending at 00 UTC 17 Oc1 02
CDC1 Meteorological Data
06
oo
10,15
Job ID: 348785 Job S1aM: Wed Apr 16 1S :42:57 G rVTT 2003
lal.:41.ae Ion.:-91.7 ngls:50,250,500 m AGL
Tiajedory Direction: Backward Duialbn: 48 his
VeMicaltAilitjnCalcijlalion Ltelhod: t,'fcd?l V^ilical Vebcily
Pioduc?d using I-JO^A ARL 'jV^birt? r.v.v.v.ciiI.noaa.gov isady.)
7-12
-------
Table 7-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Iowa
Site
Name
C2IA
DAIA
DMIA
Type
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
SSS
11.92
(±0.94)
^
12.82
(±1.95)
^
24.51
(±12.87)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
59.12
(±2.05)
58.16
(±5.41)
59.62
(±2.07)
57.92
(±7.87)
60.70
(±2.11)
55.64
(±12.22)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
49.38
(±1.98)
48.04
(±5.07)
50.21
(±1.97)
47.62
(±7.72)
51.27
(±2.03)
45.82
(±11.41)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
40.23
(±2.02)
38.75
(±5.05)
41.07
(±1.98)
39.03
(±7.73)
40.05
(±2.04)
32.51
(±10.75)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
45.02
(±1.87)
43.64
(±4.72)
45.78
(±1.85)
43.59
(±7.23)
45.86
(±1.87)
39.86
(±10.10)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
73.32
(±1.17)
72.96
(±2.90)
73.26
(±1.11)
74.02
(±3.91)
68.34
(±1.26)
62.69
(±5.23)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1018.1
(±8.94)
1018.8
(±23.24)
1018.2
(±8.31)
1019.5
(±45.48)
1018.4
(±9.00)
1018.6
(±51.04)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.84
(±0.36)
1.01
(±0.95)
1.02
(±0.37)
2.12
(±1.53)
0.95
(±0.35)
2.09
(±2.17)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
4.26
(±0.27)
1.48
(±0.74)
4.53
(±0.28)
1.74
(±1.25)
4.42
(±0.29)
-0.07
(±2.37)
-------
Table 7-2a - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Cedar Rapids, Iowa (C2IA)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluorobenzene
Maximum
Temperature
-0.02
-0.36
0.00
0.27
0.08
-0.06
0.73
-0.05
-0.12
0.12
-0.06
0.08
Average
Temperature
0.02
-0.38
-0.01
0.25
0.06
-0.03
0.75
-0.05
-0.10
0.12
-0.03
-0.05
Dew Point
Temperature
0.08
-0.33
0.03
0.27
0.09
0.04
0.73
0.01
-0.03
0.11
0.02
-0.02
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.05
-0.36
0.01
0.26
0.07
0.00
0.74
-0.02
-0.07
0.12
-0.01
-0.04
Relative
Humidity
0.26
0.17
0.18
0.13
0.15
0.32
0.05
0.25
0.29
0.03
0.26
0.13
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.09
0.02
-0.13
-0.12
-0.08
-0.05
-0.32
-0.08
-0.12
-0.18
-0.06
0.09
u-component
of wind speed
-0.18
0.02
-0.16
-0.09
0.07
-0.16
-0.36
-0.20
-0.13
-0.20
-0.04
0.32
v-component
of wind speed
-0.08
0.08
0.20
-0.12
-0.18
0.00
0.38
0.05
0.02
0.20
0.06
-0.05
-------
Table 7-2b - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Davenport, Iowa (DAIA)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluorobenzene
Maximum
Temperature
0.35
-0.46
0.35
0.29
0.24
0.14
0.78
0.24
0.09
0.43
0.41
-0.61
Average
Temperature
0.28
-0.50
0.32
0.20
0.26
0.11
0.81
0.21
0.06
0.42
0.41
-0.70
Dew Point
Temperature
0.19
-0.50
0.28
0.25
0.31
0.03
0.74
0.12
-0.03
0.32
0.33
-0.74
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.23
-0.50
0.30
0.23
0.29
0.06
0.78
0.16
0.00
0.37
0.36
-0.73
Relative
Humidity
-0.33
-0.07
-0.14
0.28
0.25
-0.32
-0.13
-0.32
-0.35
-0.40
-0.29
-0.25
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.27
0.09
-0.15
-0.18
-0.08
-0.04
-0.46
-0.14
0.00
-0.11
-0.18
0.15
u-component
of wind speed
-0.15
0.03
-0.35
-0.16
-0.07
-0.04
-0.32
-0.15
0.04
-0.33
-0.31
0.41
v-component
of wind speed
0.22
0.14
0.25
0.16
0.20
0.12
0.40
0.30
0.05
0.05
0.29
-0.09
-------
Table 7-2c- Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Des Moines, Iowa (DMIA)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluorobenzene
Maximum
Temperature
0.57
-0.24
0.33
-0.35
-0.73
0.39
-0.23
0.45
0.36
0.61
0.24
-0.45
Average
Temperature
0.55
-0.31
0.27
-0.41
-0.75
0.41
-0.20
0.44
0.36
0.58
0.25
-0.41
Dew Point
Temperature
0.48
-0.29
0.28
-0.42
-0.71
0.29
-0.14
0.39
0.30
0.54
0.17
-0.31
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.52
-0.31
0.26
-0.41
-0.74
0.36
-0.18
0.42
0.32
0.56
0.22
-0.39
Relative
Humidity
-0.31
0.15
0.06
-0.09
0.26
-0.46
0.28
-0.16
-0.20
-0.16
-0.34
0.52
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.32
0.19
-0.25
0.28
0.54
0.10
0.00
-0.08
0.01
-0.35
0.15
0.25
u-component
of wind speed
-0.54
-0.14
-0.44
0.13
0.40
-0.61
0.62
-0.67
-0.53
-0.63
-0.53
0.28
v-component
of wind speed
0.40
0.42
0.55
0.00
-0.18
0.23
-0.41
0.52
0.35
0.57
0.10
-0.02
-------
Table 7-3. TNMOC and Ozone Measured by the Iowa Monitoring Stations
Monitoring
Location
C2IA
DAIA
DMIA
Average Ozone
Concentrations
(ppbv)
47.75 (±1.89)
53. 42 (±2. 11)
40.05(±1.81)
Total Number
of Ozone
Sampling Days
214
214
214
Average
TNMOC
speciated
(ppbC)
89.44 (±22.24)
124.01 (±57.70)
142.89 (±83. 81)
Average
TNMOC w/
unknowns
(ppbC)
146.24 (±26.23)
219.66(±59.53)
278.32 (±88.29)
% TNMOC
Identified
59%
53%
46%
SNMOC Compound
with the Highest
Concentration (ppbC)
Ethane (6.82)
w-Hexane (30.66)
w-Undecane (20.45)
-------
Table 7-4. Average UATMP Concentrations By Wind Regime for the Cedar Rapids Site
Wind
Regime
North
Northeast
East
Southeast
South
Southwest
West
Northwest
C2IA
24 hr
4.87
4.13
5.37
5.74
7.01*
5.94
4.46
4.84
48 hr
4.67
4.40
7.79*
5.69
5.54
5.92
4.96
5.38
7-18
-------
Table 7-5. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Iowa Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
C2IA
DAIA
DMIA
Population
within Ten
Miles
175,516
269,372
383,791
Estimated
Number of
MotorVehicles
Owned
129,882
199,335
284,005
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
1,500
1,000
12,400
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
11. 92 (±0.94)
12.82(±1.95)
24.51 (±12.87)
7-19
-------
Table 7-6. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding C2IA
Facility Name
Cedar Manufacturing
Blastcoating
Technologies, Inc.
Klinger Paint Co.,
Inc.
Primary SIC
Code
3088
3479
2851
SIC Code Description
Rubber And Misc. Plastics Products,
Miscellaneous Plastics Products,
NEC, Plastics Plumbing Fixtures
Fabricated Metal Products, Metal
Services, NEC, Metal Coating and
Allied Services
Chemicals And Allied Products,
Paints and Allied Products, Paints
and Allied Products
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
wwww
40 CFR part 63, subpart
SSSS
40 CFR part 59, subpart D
Regulation Name
National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production
(proposed rule)
National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from Surface Coating of Metal
Coil (proposed rule)
National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards
for Architectural Coatings
to
o
-------
8.0 Sites in Michigan
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the eight
UATMP sites in Michigan (APMI, DEMI, E7MI, HOMI, LOMI, RRMI, SWMI, and YFMI).
Seven of these sites are located in the Detroit metropolitan statistical area, while the eighth,
HOMI, is located in northern Michigan, just south of Houghton Lake. Figures 8-1 through 8-8
are topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in their urban locations. Figures 8-9
through 8-11 are maps identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites that reported to the 1999
NEI. The E7MI and LOMI sites are farther north of the city than the other five monitoring
locations, and the majority of the industrial sites are fuel combustion and surface coating
industries. The bulk of the industrial facilities is to the south of E7MI and LOMI. The DEMI,
RRMI, SWMI, and YFMI sites are close to each other, and are surrounded by numerous sources,
most of which are fuel combustion and incineration facilities. APMI is just to the southwest of
the cluster of other sites. HOMI, located in north-central Michigan, has very few nearby
facilities.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2002 at four weather stations near
the sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The weather stations are Pontiac, Detroit-Metropolitan, Detroit
City Airport, and Houghton Lake/Roscommon Airport (WBAN 94817, 94847, 14822, and
94814, respectively).
Table 8-1 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
8-1
-------
keep the city wanner than outlying areas. Winds are often breezy and generally flow from the
southwest on average, as can be confirmed by Table 8-1. Houghton Lake is a small lake in
north-central Michigan and does not have quiet the moderating effect of Lake St. Clair. The area
is rural, without an urban heat island effect, which allows a greater temperature fluctuation than
in the Detroit area. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition
(Ruffner and Bair, 1987), and at the following web site:
http://meetings.sixcontinentshotels.com/destinations/detroit/weather.html.
8.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Michigan Sites
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were measured at six of the eight sites, with E7MI and
HOMI measuring only VOC, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. Of the sites that measured
carbonyls, RRMI had the highest geometric mean (6.81 ppbv) while YFMI had the lowest (1.93
ppbv). APMI had the highest geometric mean (17.59 ppbv) for halogenated hydrocarbons, more
than double and triple the geometric means of the other sites. E7MI had the highest geometric
mean for the hydrocarbons (16.44 ppbv), a value much higher than the other sites. This site also
had the largest value for polar compounds (8.17 ppbv), again significantly more than the other
sites. HOMI consistently had the lowest geometric means for each of the VOC types, 3.57 ppbv
for the halogenated hydrocarbons, 1.57 ppbv for the hydrocarbons, and 1.98 ppbv for the polar
compounds. The average total UATMP daily concentration at APMI was the highest of the
stations, 38.34 (±33.60) ppbv, similar to last year, while the remaining sites ranged between 7.93
±2.04 ppbv (HOMI) and 32.62 ±7.79 ppbv (E7MI). Table 8-1 also lists the averages for selected
meteorological parameters from January 2002 to December 2002, which is the same time period
covered in this report.
SVOC concentrations were sampled at all seven of the Detroit sites. Average SVOC
concentrations ranged from 3.87 (±0.20) //g/m3 at RRMI to 21.22 (±6.03) //g/m3 at YFMI. E7MI
also opted to have total NMOC and SNMOC measured during its sampling. SNMOC/NMOC
compounds are of particular interest because of their role in ozone formation. Readers are
encouraged to review EPA's 2001 Nonmethane Organic Compounds (NMOC) and Speciated
Nonmethane Organic Compounds (SNMOC) Monitoring Program, Final Report (EPA, 2002) for
8-2
-------
more information on SNMOC/NMOC trends and concentrations. The average total NMOC
value for E7MI was 307.47 (±127.71)ppbC, of which 69% could be identified through
speciation. Of the speciated compounds, ethane measured the highest concentration at the E7MI
site (24.28 ppbC). Ozone concentrations were also sampled at E7MI on 183 sample days, and
were retrieved from the U.S. EPA's AQS database. The average ozone concentration for each
sample day was 51.45 (±2.79)ppbv. Unfortunately, ozone concentrations were not sampled at
the other sites. Four sites (APMI, DEMI, LOMI, and RRMI) also sampled hexavalent
chromium. Hexavalent chromium concentrations ranged from 0.029 (±0.02) ng/m3 at DEMI to
0.055 (±0.020) ng/m3 at RRMI. SWMI also sampled metals from May 2001 through April 2002.
The average concentration was 155,107.63 (±45,898.47) ng/filter. Information on SVOC,
TNMOC, hexavalent chromium, metals, and ozone concentrations is given in Table 8-4.
Tables 8-2a-h are the summaries of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for each
of the prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters by site. Identification of the
prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. At APMI, very few strong
correlations were calculated. Only ethylbenzene and the xylenes had strong positive correlations
with the v-component of the wind. However, moderately strong positive correlations were found
between 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, benzene, chloromethane, dichlorodifluoromethane, propylene,
and toluene and maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures. Formaldehyde had
moderately strong negative correlations with maximum, average, and wet bulb temperatures.
While DEMI also had very few strong correlations, nearly all of the compounds had moderately
strong positive correlations with maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures, and
all of the correlations with these parameters were positive for all of the compounds. All of the
correlations between the compounds and the u-component of the wind speed were negative,
albeit weak, at DEMI. UATMP concentrations generally increase at APMI and DEMI as the
temperature and moisture content increases, and as the east-west wind decreases at DEMI.
With the exception of chloromethane and formaldehyde, only weak correlations with the
temperature parameters were found at LOMI. Interestingly, all of the compounds exhibited
weak, moderate, or strong positive correlations with the three moisture parameters. Moderately
8-3
-------
strong to strong negative correlations were established between all of the compounds and sea
level pressure. Mostly moderately strong to strong negative correlations with the u-component
of the wind and weak, moderate, or strong positive correlations with the v-component of the
wind were also calculated. Generally, UATMP concentrations tend to increase as moisture
content and the north-south wind increases, and pressure and the east-west wind decreases at
LOMI.
At RRMI, with the exception of chloromethane, dichlorodifluoromethane, and
formaldehyde, moderately strong to strong negative correlations with maximum, average, dew
point, and wet bulb temperatures and the compounds were established. Moderately strong to
strong positive correlations were also found between most of the compounds and relative
humidity. Mostly negative correlations exist between the compounds and the v-component of
the wind and mostly positive correlations exist between the compounds and the u-component of
the wind. As temperature and the north-south wind speed decrease, relative humidity and the
east-west wind increase, UATMP concentrations tend to increase at RRMI.
Formaldehyde had strong positive correlations with maximum, average, dew point, and
wet bulb temperatures at SWMI, and trichlorofluoromethane had moderately strong positive
correlations with the same four parameters. All of the compounds had negative correlations with
relative humidity and sea level pressure, except acetylene and benzene, both of which had
moderately strong or strong positive correlations with these two parameters. Most of the
compounds also had positive correlations with the u-component of the wind and negative
correlations with the v-component of the wind. As relative humidity, pressure, and the north-
south wind decrease, and the east-west wind increases, UATMP concentration of the prevalent
compounds generally tend to increase.
Nearly all of the compounds at YFMI had positive correlations with maximum, average,
dew point, and wet bulb temperatures, with chloromethane having the strongest correlations.
Most of the compounds also had negative correlations with relative humidity and sea level
pressure, and positive correlations with the v-component of the wind. Increasing temperature
8-4
-------
and the north-south wind speed, and decreasing relative humidity and pressure generally result in
increasing UATMP concentrations at this site.
With the exception of chloromethane, all of the compounds had strong to very strong
positive correlations with maximum and average temperatures, strong to very strong negative
correlations with dew point, wet bulb temperature, and the wind components at the E7MI site.
Many compounds also had moderately strong positive correlations with sea level pressure and
moderately strong to very strong negative correlations with the v-component of the wind. An
important thing to note is that this site only took samples on four days.
At HOMI, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene and ethylbenzene were not detectable and therefore
have no correlations listed in Table 8-2d. o-Xylene, and propylene had moderately strong
positive correlations with maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures, while
benzene, chloromethane, and m,p-xy\ene had moderately strong negative correlations with the
same four parameters. Nearly all of the compounds had negative correlations with relative
humidity, and all of the compounds had negative correlations with sea level pressure. The
strongest correlation at this site was between dichlorodifluoromethane and the u-component of
the wind.
Pearson correlation coefficients were also calculated between the aforementioned
weather parameters and hexavalent chromium, which can be found in Table 8-3. With the
exception of relative humidity at RRMI, all of the participating Michigan sites had weak,
moderate, or strong positive correlations with the temperature and moisture parameters. The
strongest correlation was between hexavalent chromium and relative humidity at LOMI. The
four sites also had weak, moderate, or strong negative correlations with sea level pressure. With
the exception of the u-component of the wind at DEMI and LOMI, all of the participating
Michigan sites had weak or moderately strong negative correlations with both components of
the wind speed. Generally, hexavalent chromium concentrations tend to increase as temperature
and moisture content increase, and pressure and wind speed decrease.
8-5
-------
As part of the 2002 UATMP report, back trajectory analyses were conducted for the
EPA-designated NATTS sites to determine whether where a parcel came from could be a
contributor to its air toxics concentration. A back trajectory analysis was performed on sample
days for all of the Detroit sites and the Houghton Lake site. Tables 8-5 and 8-6 are summaries of
the back trajectory analyses. At HOMI, the highest UATMP concentrations occurred when air
originated out of the southwest. However, the HOMI site only sampled air toxics on ten days,
which makes it difficult to establish a connection between wind direction and UATMP
concentrations. For the Detroit sites, the largest concentrations generally occurred when the air
originated from the south. As illustrated in Figures 8-9 and 8-10, APMI, DEMI, RRMI, SWMI,
and YFMI are surrounded by numerous facilities, and are located to the south of E7MI and
LOMI, both of which are surrounded by a large number of industrial sites as well. Figures 8-11
and 8-17 are the back trajectory maps for each site where the highest concentration occurred
(48.56 ppbv at APMI; 29.88 ppbv at DEMI; 26.33 ppbv at E7MI; 13.36 ppbv at LOMI; 57.93
ppbv at RRMI; 25.57 ppbv at SWMI; 71.34 ppbv at YFMI; and 3.89 ppbv at HOMI).
8.2 Spatial Analysis
Using the population within ten miles of each site, an estimate of the number of motor
vehicles operating in proximity to the monitoring station can be established. The ratio used in
this report is 0.74 motor vehicles to every one person (refer to section 3.4.1 for more information
on this ratio). The Michigan site with the highest population is the DEMI site, where 1,225,014
people are estimated to be operating approximately 906,510 vehicles. Not surprisingly, the
HOMI site had the lowest population of the Michigan sites, with only 10,391 people driving
7,689 automobiles. This information is compared to the average daily concentration of the
prevalent compounds at each Michigan site in Table 8-7. Also included in Table 8-7 are average
daily traffic data, or more specifically, the average number of cars passing the monitoring sites
on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. The LOMI site had the most traffic passing
by the site on a daily basis.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
8-6
-------
urban area. (For more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.) Figure 3-14 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 at APMI look very similar to those of
the roadside study, with just slightly lower values for each of the ratios. DEMI's toluene-
ethylbenzene ratio is larger than the roadside study's value for the same ratio. Also at DEMI, the
benezene-ethylbenzene ratio is greater than its m,/>-xylene-ethylbenzene ratio, where the
opposite is true for the roadside study. Similar to DEMI, E7MI, HOMI, LOMI, RRMI, and
SWMI also had greater b-e ratios. Another interesting difference at both LOMI and RRMI is
that the benzene-ethylbenzene and toluene-ethylbenzene ratios are closer together and have
higher values than the roadside study. YFMI looks the least like the roadside study, having a
benzene-ethylbenzene ratio more than triple that of the roadside study. In fact, its concentration
ratio for these two compounds is the largest in compared to all of the sites participating in the
2002 UATMP.
8.3 Regulation Analysis
There are seven NATTS sites in Michigan. Six NATTS sites are located in the Detroit
area (APMI, DEMI, E7MI, RRMI, SFMI, and YFMI) and one NATTS site (HOMI) is located in
Houghton Lake. Most of the pilot monitoring stations in the Detroit area are located in close
proximity to each other. Consequently, many of the facilities identified in the 10-mile areas
around the monitoring stations overlap. Table 3-9 summarizes the number of facilities that
account for approximately 90 percent of the total UATMP pollutant emissions in the 10-mile
area around the monitoring stations
At APMI, of the ten facilities listed, six are potentially subject to future regulations.
Table 8-8 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable. Based on this analysis, the
regulations shown are expected to achieve reductions in ambient concentrations of the following
UATMP pollutants: ethylbenzene, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, and xylene.
Reductions in toluene concentrations may not be measured. Reductions are projected for
ethylbenzene (54 percent), methyl ethyl ketone (43 percent), methyl isobutyl ketone (58
percent), and xylene (58 percent) as the regulations are implemented (the latest compliance date
3-7
-------
is 2004). Emissions of toluene are estimated to be reduced to a lesser degree (10 percent). The
emission reductions are primarily attributed to regulation of surface coating operations at
automobile and metal coil manufacturing facilities.
At DEMI, of the eleven facilities listed, eight are potentially subject to future regulations.
Table 8-9 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable. Based on this analysis, the
regulations shown are expected to achieve emission reductions of ethylbenzene (51 percent),
methyl ethyl ketone (47 percent), methyl isobutyl ketone (58 percent), and xylene (58 percent) as
they are implemented (the latest compliance date is 2005). Emissions of toluene are estimated to
be reduced to a lesser degree (14 percent). The emission reductions are primarily attributed to
regulation of surface coating operations at automobile and metal coil manufacturing facilities.
At E7MI, of the eleven facilities listed, seven are potentially subject to future regulations.
Table 8-10 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable. For this area, the regulations
shown are expected to achieve emission reductions of methyl ethyl ketone (52 percent), methyl
isobutyl ketone (52 percent), methyl methacrylate (52 percent), styrene (52 percent), and xylene
(52 percent) as the regulations are implemented. The emission reductions, which could lead to
decrease ambient concentrations of these compounds, are primarily attributed to regulation of
metal surface coating operations (the latest compliance date is 2005). Lesser reductions of
ethylbenzene and toluene emissions (37 and 33 percent, respectively) are projected to be
achieved by automobile coating operations.
At HOMI, of the five facilities listed, none are potentially subject to future regulations
although all of the solid waste disposal facilities are potentially subject to the emission
guidelines for large and small municipal waste combustors (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb (large
MWC) and subpart BBBB (small MWC)). However, those regulations do not directly regulate
emissions of UATMP compounds. Consequently, the ambient concentration of UATMP
pollutants is not projected to decrease in this area.
-------
At RRMI, of the twelve facilities listed, only four are potentially subject to future
regulations. Table 8-11 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable. The regulations
shown are expected to achieve emission reductions of the following UATMP pollutants:
ethylbenzene, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, toluene, and xylene. Based on this
analysis, the regulations are projected to achieve reductions of ethylbenzene (49 percent), methyl
ethyl ketone (43 percent), methyl isobutyl ketone (58 percent), and xylene (56 percent). These
emission reductions, which could lead to decrease ambient concentrations of these compounds,
are primarily attributed to regulation of surface coating operations at automobile and metal coil
manufacturing facilities (the latest compliance date is 2005). Emissions of toluene are estimated
to be reduced to a lesser degree (8 percent).
At SWMI and YFMI, of the twelve facilities listed, only five are potentially subject to
future regulations. Table 8-12 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable. The
regulations shown are expected to achieve emission reductions of ethylbenzene (51 percent),
methyl ethyl ketone (47 percent), methyl isobutyl ketone (52 percent), toluene, and xylene (58
percent) as the regulations are implemented (the latest compliance date is 2005). These emission
reductions, which could lead to decrease ambient concentrations of these compounds, are
primarily attributed to regulation of surface coating operations at automobile and metal coil
manufacturing facilities (the latest compliance date is 2005). Emissions of toluene are estimated
to be reduced to a lesser degree (12 percent).
8-9
-------
Figure 8-1. Detroit, Michigan Site 1 (APMI) Monitoring Station
-/' .„:.."" •••', if* •h.T* '-:'
\lK • ^OrTHGATE/u;
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
8-10
-------
Figure 8-2. Detroit, Michigan Site 2 (DEMI) Monitoring Station
'lyMr^
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
8-11
-------
Figure 8-3. Detroit, Michigan Site 3 (E7MI) Monitoring Station
lit,-;
-vl - .« n
•• ••• - • . .1 vi.
- ji -• _• _ * li-i ^--4
1^., J ,-
_ l,^.- J^r'* •
'
-
;
-, '• 'V NT
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
8-12
-------
Figure 8-4. Houghton Lake, Michigan (HOMI) Monitoring Station
r afc^'
ii SBffiS
nMMp1^
.•
-------
Figure 8-5. Detroit, Michigan Site 4 (LOMI) Monitoring Station
LOMI --y.:.--'
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
8-14
-------
Figure 8-6. Detroit, Michigan Site 5 (RRMI) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
8-15
-------
Figure 8-7. Detroit, Michigan Site 6 (SWMI) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
8-16
-------
Figure 8-8. Detroit, Michigan Site 7 (YFMI) Monitoring Station
k ""V7»»,_ -~* . W r i ; "*1
f^S^Wf 4 ^ '
' vA- f • ---i^-
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
8-17
-------
Figure 8-9. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of APMI, DEMI, RRMI, SWMI, and YFMI
83 S'O'W 82"5510"W
Note Due to facility density and coiocation. the total facilities
displayed may not represent at! facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
"A" APMI UATMP site 10 mile radius
•fa DEMI UATMP site ( (County boundary
•& RRMI UATMP site
if SWMi UATMP site
•if YFMI UATMP site
Source Category Group (No, of Facilities)
c Chemicals & allied products facility (7)
E Eiectric, gas, & sanitary services (8)
o Fabricated metal products facility (12)
x Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (80)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (69)
J Industrial machinery & equip, facility (2)
= Instruments & Related Products Facility (1)
L Liquids Distrib. Industrial Facility (8)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (2)
x Misc. manufacturing industries facility (1)
P Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (8)
1 Petroleum & coal products (2)
:'•! Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (1)
* Pharmaceutical Prod. Processes Industrial Facility (1)
v Polymers & Resins Prod. Industrial Facility (2)
* Prod, of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (3)
Y Rubber and misc. plastics products facility (1)
u Stone, clay, glass, & concrete products facility (2)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (15)
T Transportation equipment (2)
? Unknown (1)
w Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (17)
8-18
-------
Figure 8-10. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of E7MI and LOMI
Note" Due to facility density and colocatton. the total facilities
displayed may not represent ail faciirtses within Hie area of interest.
Legend
@ E7MI UATMP site 10 mile radius
[§j LOMI UATMP site | jCounty boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) B
c Chemicals & allied products facility (5) P
E Electric, gas, & sanitary services (3) x
z Electrical & electronic equipment facility (1) 1
D Fabricated metal products facility (9) v
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (3) Q
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (37) u
i Incineration Industrial Facility (10) s
J Industrial machinery & equip, facility (1) T
= Instruments & related products facility (1) ?
w
Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1)
Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (12)
Misc. manufacturing industries facility (1)
Petroleum & coal products (1)
Polymers & Resins Prod. Industrial Facility (1)
Primary metal industries facility (4)
Stone, clay, glass, & concrete products facility (1)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (13)
Transportation equipment (1)
Unknown (1)
Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (2)
8-19
-------
Figure 8-11. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of HOMI
Missaukee
County
Allies
\ R QSCOffi man
! <
-
-a\
Clare, County
Note Due to facility density and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all fadi&es wrthtn tne area of interest
Legend
gj HOMI UATMP site
10 mile radius
jCounty boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
L Liquids Distrib. Industrial Facility (1)
w Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (11)
8-20
-------
Figure 8-12. Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to APMI's Highest Concentration
NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Backward trajectories ending at 18 UTC 09 Mar 02
CDC1 Meteorological Data
500
2SO
15QD
1000
500
12
06
00
0309
18
12
00
0308
18
Job ID: 356754 Job S1aM: Fii Apr 1fl 20:47 39 G rvTT 2003
lal.: 42.23 Ion.: £3.33 hgte: 50, 250, 500 m AGL
Tiajedoiy Diiedbn: Backward Duialbn: 43 his
Vertical Motion Calculation Mel hod: Model Vertical Vetacily
Produced using NOM ARL Webshe (www.ai I.noaa.gov,''ieady,Q
8-21
-------
Figure 8-13. Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to DEMI's Highest Concentration
NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Backward trajectories ending at 18 UTC 04 Jun 02
CDC1 Meteorological Data
12
Job ID: 345451 Job Slail: Thu May 15 19:53:53 GMT 2003
N.: 42.23 tan.: £3.33 hgte: 50, 250, 500 m AG L
Trajectory Diredbn: Backward Duralbn: 4S his
VeriicalMolbnCalculalion Mel hod: fvtodel Vertical Vebcily
Produced using t\IOAA ARL WefasHe (www.arl.noaa.gov.''isady.'li
8-22
-------
Figure 8-14. Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to E7MI and RRMI's
Highest Concentration
NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Backward trajectories ending at 18 UTC 13 Jul 02
CDC1 Meteorological Data
oo
07/12
18
Job ID: 31175 Job S1ai1: Mon /tat 21 19:47:43 GMT2003
lart.: 42.23 bn.: ^33.33 hgte: 50, 250. 500 m AGL
Trajectory Diiedbn: Backwaid Duialbn: 48 his
Vertical Motion Cakulallan M=1hod: \Jtods\ Vertical Vebcily
Piodur^d using I^JOAA ARL WsbsHe r.v.v.v.ail.noaa.go
8-23
-------
Figure 8-15. Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to LOMI's Highest Concentration
NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Backward trajectories ending a118 UTC 14 Jan 02
CDC1 Meteorological Data
500
oo
01/13
Job ID: 355293 Job S1ar1: Fci Apr 1fi 1730:54 GMT 2003
lal.: 42.23 tan.: ^3.33 hgte: 50, 250, 500 m AG L
Tiajedoiy Diiedbn: Backward Duialbn: 48 his
Ve M ica I Mai b n C at u lalion \A3\ hod: \j\xi° I Ve M ica I Ve tacrly
Pioduced using (-JOAA ARL WsbsHe (wvvw.ai I.noaa.opv;ieady;l
8-24
-------
Figure 8-16. Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to SWMI's Highest Concentration
NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Backward trajectories ending at 18 UTC 17 Oct 02
CDC1 Meteorological Data
-\2
00
10/17
JoblD:316vO Job Start: Man fipi 21 30:33:14GMT2003
lal.: 42.23 Ion.:-63.33 hgte: 50, 250, 500 m AGL
T rajedo ry Diiecl io n: Backwa id Du ia1 ion: 43 n is
VeMical \Jb\on Cafculalion t^elhod: tAxJel Vertical VebcHy
Pioduoed using f-JQAA ARL VJabsHe (www.ail.noaa.gov.'ieady,1!)
8-25
-------
Figure 8-17. Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to YFMI's Highest Concentration
NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Backward trajectories ending at 18 UTC 19 Jan 02
CDC1 Meteorological Data
ra
500
250
12
u-3
00
01/19
18
12
00
01/18
18
Job ID: 355363 Job S1aM: Fi i Ap r 18 17:44:19 G WTT 2003
lal.: 42.23 tan.: ^3.33 hgte: 50, 250, 500 m AGL
Trajsdoiy Diiedion: Backwaid DmaliDn: 48 his
Vertical Morton Calculation Mai hod: Model Vertical Velocity
Produced using NQAA ARL Websiie (www.ail.noaa.gov/iaady.')
8-26
-------
Figure 8-18. Back Trajectory Map Corresponding to HOMI's Highest Concentration
NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Backward trajectories ending a118 UTC 10 Dec 02
CDC1 Meteorological Data
oo
12.™
Job ID: 352654 Job S1ai 1: Th u Apr 17 20:35:39 G rVTT 2003
lal.: 44.37 bn.: -84.68 htgte: 50, 250, 500 rn AGL
Trajectory Diisdbn: Backward Duration: 48 his
Ve Mica I Md ion Calculation h/telhod: ModeI Vertical Velocity
Pioducad using tslOAA ARL Vi'sbsila (www.ail.noaa.gQV,1'ready,')
8-27
-------
Table 8-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Michigan
Site
Name
APMI
DEMI
E7MI
HOMI
LOMI
RRMI
Type
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
SSS
38.34
(±33.40)
^
17.65
(±2.62)
^
32.62
(±7.79)
SSS
7.93
(±2.04)
SSfc
24.71
(±18.43)
^
10.19
(±3.85)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
59.05
(±2.09)
61.82
(±5.76)
58.72
(±2.08)
49.99
(±3.03)
58.72
(±2.08)
82.25
(±2.44)
53.98
(±2.18)
51.20
(±11.69)
57.36
(±2.14)
44.58
(±5.02)
58.72
(±2.08)
57.17
(±6.47)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
51.05
(±1.91)
53.29
(±5.45)
51.53
(±1.91)
43.15
(±2.77)
51.53
(±1.91)
73.18
(±1.72)
45.02
(±1.94)
43.16
(±9.81)
49.37
(±1.94)
36.17
(±4.37)
51.53
(±1.91)
50.13
(±6.15)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
41.34
(±1.82)
42.73
(±5.13)
39.04
(±1.78)
30.88
(±2.49)
39.04
(±1.78)
58.38
(±4.38)
36.37
(±1.80)
36.25
(±9.90)
39.03
(±1.78)
26.14
(±4.59)
39.04
(±1.78)
36.35
(±5.24)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
46.25
(±1.73)
47.99
(±4.88)
45.58
(±1.68)
38.02
(±2.39)
45.58
(±1.68)
64.30
(±1.98)
40.93
(±1.75)
40.07
(±9.32)
44.30
(±1.72)
o ^> o o
32.38
(±4.12)
45.58
(±1.68)
43.58
(±5.19)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
71.79
(±1.09)
69.84
(±3.10)
65.08
(±1.21)
64.45
(±1.96)
65.08
(±1.21)
63.19
(±12.19)
74.56
(±1.03)
78.07
(±4.33)
70.44
(±1.12)
69.01
(±4.83)
65.08
(±1.21)
61.82
(±4.01)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1018.7
(±9.21)
1017.4
(±20.20)
1018.7
(±9.42)
1019.4
(±15.46)
1018.7
(±9.42)
1018.8
(±53.31)
1018.9
(±10.48)
1025.2
(±145.59)
1018.5
(±9.77)
1017.0
(±32.30)
1018.7
(±9.42)
1022.8
(±54.32)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.33
(±0.33)
1.26
(±1.04)
0.18
(±0..32)
1.40
(±0.56)
0.18
(±0.32)
-1.25
(±0.70)
0.58
(±0.30)
1.83
(±1.82)
0.45
(±0.32)
2.34
(±1.47)
0.18
(±0.32)
1.31
(±1.13)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
4.22
(±0.25)
1.84
(±0.78)
3.81
(±0.21)
1.10
(±0.35)
3.81
(±0.21)
0.08
(±1.01)
3.67
(±0.21)
1.70
(±0.65)
3.88
(±0.21)
2.19
(±1.04)
3.81
(±0.21)
0.90
(±0.77)
oo
to
oo
-------
Table 8-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Michigan (Continued)
Site
Name
SWMI
YFMI
Type
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
^^
13.49
(±3.31)
^Ss
21.03
(±6.94)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
58.72
(±2.08)
61.17
(±8.14)
58.72
(±2.08)
45.65
(±4.32)
Average
Temperature
51.53
(±1.91)
54.51
(±7.32)
51.53
(±1.91)
37.83
(±3.74)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
39.04
(±1.78)
40.80
(±6.02)
39.04
(±1.78)
24.40
(±3.04)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
45.58
(±1.68)
47.52
(±6.09)
45.58
(±1.68)
33.14
(±3.25)
Average
Relative
Humidity
65.08
(±1.21)
63.03
(±5.17)
65.08
(±1.21)
59.78
(±4.57)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1018.7
(±9.42)
1023.2
(±69.10)
1018.7
(±9.42)
1017.2
(±31.25)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.18
(±0.32)
0.96
(±1.28)
0.18
(±032)
2.43
(±1.35)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
3.81
(±0.21)
0.91
(±0.83)
3.81
(±0.21)
1.94
(±1.14)
oo
to
VO
-------
oo
I
OJ
o
Table 8-2a - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at Allen Park in
Detroit, Michigan (APMI)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoroethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.49
0.23
0.38
0.35
0.39
-0.08
-0.49
-0.09
-0.06
0.32
0.48
0.08
Average
Temperature
0.46
0.17
0.34
0.34
0.39
-0.12
-0.31
-0.13
-0.10
0.28
0.48
0.10
Dew Point
Temperature
0.41
0.16
0.29
0.35
0.38
-0.10
-0.21
-0.12
-0.09
0.24
0.42
0.13
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.43
0.17
0.31
0.35
0.38
-0.11
-0.27
-0.13
-0.10
0.25
0.45
0.11
Relative
Humidity
-0.15
0.01
-0.14
0.02
-0.06
0.02
0.18
0.02
0.00
-0.11
-0.18
0.16
Sea Level
Pressure
0.02
0.00
0.01
-0.07
-0.08
-0.11
0.28
-0.10
-0.11
0.01
-0.01
-0.16
u-component
of wind speed
-0.24
-0.15
-0.16
-0.27
-0.41
0.06
-0.19
0.06
0.05
-0.24
-0.08
-0.21
v-component
of wind speed
-0.18
0.15
-0.05
-0.16
-0.31
0.60
-0.30
0.60
0.59
0.06
-0.20
0.09
-------
Table 8-2b - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at Dearborn in
Detroit, Michigan (DEMI)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoroethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.40
0.11
0.39
0.41
0.37
0.26
0.34
0.28
0.37
0.20
0.32
0.04
Average
Temperature
0.42
0.09
0.38
0.43
0.40
0.25
0.35
0.28
0.39
0.17
0.32
0.08
Dew Point
Temperature
0.44
0.11
0.40
0.43
0.41
0.26
0.36
0.28
0.42
0.13
0.39
0.12
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.42
0.09
0.39
0.47
0.44
0.27
0.36
0.29
0.41
0.16
0.36
0.11
Relative
Humidity
0.02
0.08
0.02
-0.08
-0.04
-0.02
0.00
-0.03
0.06
-0.14
0.14
0.09
Sea Level
Pressure
0.01
-0.04
0.07
-0.05
-0.09
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.01
0.01
-0.03
u-component
of wind speed
-0.20
-0.13
-0.19
-0.26
-0.13
-0.15
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
-0.03
-0.18
-0.14
v-component
of wind speed
-0.12
0.04
0.02
-0.13
-0.15
-0.06
0.11
-0.04
-0.09
0.21
-0.09
-0.19
oo
-------
oo
OJ
to
Table 8-2c - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at E7 Mile in Detroit,
Michigan (E7MI)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoroethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.76
0.63
0.84
0.30
0.96
0.84
0.86
0.87
0.63
0.47
0.90
Average
Temperature
0.81
0.72
0.88
0.16
0.94
0.87
0.90
0.90
0.69
0.50
0.83
Dew Point
Temperature
-1.00
-0.95
-0.98
0.38
-0.78
-0.97
-0.97
-0.96
-0.99
-0.90
-0.60
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.97
-0.93
-0.92
0.49
-0.67
-0.92
-0.91
-0.90
-1.00
-0.94
-0.50
Relative
Humidity
-0.99
-0.92
-1.00
0.19
-0.89
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
-0.95
-0.83
-0.73
Sea Level
Pressure
0.24
-0.06
0.30
0.44
0.47
0.33
0.27
0.30
0.22
0.56
0.64
u-component
of wind speed
-0.78
-0.57
-0.80
-0.04
-0.78
-0.82
-0.78
-0.80
-0.77
-0.93
-0.78
v-component
of wind speed
-0.64
-0.51
-0.59
0.35
-0.39
-0.61
-0.55
-0.56
-0.72
-0.93
-0.36
-------
Table 8-2d - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at Houghton Lake,
Michigan (HOMI)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoroethane
Maximum
Temperature
N/A*
0.35
-0.41
-0.41
0.22
N/A*
-0.39
0.42
0.42
0.15
-0.08
Average
Temperature
N/A
0.26
-0.37
-0.39
0.13
N/A
-0.45
0.33
0.42
0.06
-0.19
Dew Point
Temperature
N/A
0.24
-0.38
-0.43
0.06
N/A
-0.46
0.32
0.36
0.00
-0.24
Wet Bulb
Temperature
N/A
0.24
-0.37
-0.41
0.10
N/A
-0.46
0.32
0.39
0.02
-0.22
Relative
Humidity
N/A
0.00
-0.28
-0.47
-0.33
N/A
-0.25
0.06
-0.20
-0.42
-0.32
Sea Level
Pressure
N/A
-0.14
-0.25
-0.26
-0.26
N/A
-0.16
-0.02
-0.14
-0.29
-0.25
u-component
of wind speed
N/A
-0.25
0.25
0.18
-0.84
N/A
0.30
-0.37
-0.44
-0.14
-0.57
v-component
of wind speed
N/A
-0.03
0.17
0.10
-0.27
N/A
0.14
-0.04
0.44
0.54
-0.04
*These compounds had no reportable values, only non-detects, and therefore have no correlations.
oo
-------
Table 8-2e - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at Lodge in
Detroit, Michigan (LOMI)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoroethane
Maximum
Temperature
-0.04
0.04
0.00
0.60
-0.01
0.09
0.33
-0.02
-0.07
0.08
0.06
-0.07
Average
Temperature
0.07
0.04
0.09
0.60
0.03
0.18
0.37
0.10
0.00
0.18
0.18
-0.07
Dew Point
Temperature
0.29
0.09
0.27
0.66
0.12
0.38
0.48
0.27
0.17
0.36
0.35
-0.03
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.16
0.05
0.17
0.64
0.05
0.26
0.43
0.17
0.07
0.26
0.25
-0.07
Relative
Humidity
0.58
0.13
0.48
0.36
0.23
0.55
0.30
0.47
0.43
0.51
0.50
0.07
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.48
-0.40
-0.45
-0.24
-0.54
-0.48
-0.42
-0.59
-0.38
-0.47
-0.52
-0.39
u-component
of wind speed
-0.52
-0.14
-0.36
-0.23
0.03
-0.50
-0.52
-0.43
-0.46
-0.54
-0.49
0.32
v-component
of wind speed
0.22
0.32
0.22
0.20
0.63
0.22
0.26
0.35
0.20
0.26
0.38
0.59
oo
-------
Table 8-2f - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at River Rouge in
Detroit, Michigan (RRMI)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoroethane
Maximum
Temperature
-0.60
-0.38
-0.66
0.45
0.12
-0.55
0.35
-0.52
-0.52
-0.71
-0.51
-0.27
Average
Temperature
-0.57
-0.43
-0.65
0.48
0.13
-0.55
0.34
-0.51
-0.53
-0.65
-0.51
-0.32
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.49
-0.46
-0.65
0.59
0.15
-0.51
0.27
-0.46
-0.48
-0.57
-0.50
-0.28
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.55
-0.45
-0.66
0.51
0.13
-0.55
0.31
-0.51
-0.52
-0.64
-0.52
-0.32
Relative
Humidity
0.69
0.23
0.43
0.28
0.06
0.55
-0.30
0.55
0.56
0.72
0.44
0.41
Sea Level
Pressure
0.29
-0.13
0.04
0.22
-0.44
0.08
-0.14
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.03
-0.06
u-component
of wind speed
0.16
0.29
0.14
-0.45
-0.01
0.35
-0.18
0.21
0.28
0.16
0.16
0.47
v-component
of wind speed
-0.25
-0.04
-0.46
-0.42
0.38
-0.15
-0.18
-0.25
-0.21
-0.12
-0.25
0.30
oo
-------
oo
OJ
a\
Table 8-2g - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
South West High School in Detroit, Michigan (SWMI)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoroethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.03
-0.16
0.03
0.26
0.06
-0.22
0.64
-0.20
-0.17
-0.26
-0.19
0.43
Average
Temperature
0.03
-0.12
0.05
0.27
0.04
-0.23
0.62
-0.20
-0.17
-0.25
-0.18
0.43
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.16
-0.03
0.23
0.27
-0.02
-0.31
0.54
-0.28
-0.27
-0.39
-0.26
0.34
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.06
-0.07
0.15
0.27
0.02
-0.26
0.59
-0.24
-0.22
-0.32
-0.22
0.38
Relative
Humidity
-0.49
0.32
0.50
-0.10
-0.21
-0.11
-0.42
-0.14
-0.19
-0.26
-0.14
-0.39
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.38
0.57
0.89
0.26
-0.07
-0.21
-0.19
-0.19
-0.28
-0.29
-0.10
-0.17
u-component
of wind speed
0.15
0.14
0.19
-0.12
-0.14
0.21
-0.23
0.22
0.21
0.29
0.21
0.02
v-component
of wind speed
-0.39
0.26
0.49
0.20
-0.16
-0.32
-0.17
-0.31
-0.32
-0.24
-0.27
-0.06
-------
Table 8-2h - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Yellow Freight, Michigan (YFMI)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoroethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.28
0.03
0.28
0.66
0.08
0.35
0.14
0.32
0.32
-0.09
0.35
-0.20
Average
Temperature
0.32
0.05
0.34
0.64
0.05
0.40
0.10
0.37
0.37
-0.06
0.40
-0.28
Dew Point
Temperature
0.34
0.14
0.33
0.69
0.09
0.37
-0.04
0.35
0.34
0.02
0.36
-0.29
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.40
0.04
0.39
0.67
0.18
0.46
0.04
0.43
0.42
-0.01
0.45
-0.20
Relative
Humidity
-0.14
0.16
-0.19
-0.07
-0.05
-0.24
-0.17
-0.22
-0.22
0.11
-0.25
-0.01
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.25
0.13
-0.24
-0.41
-0.59
-0.27
0.37
-0.25
-0.21
-0.06
-0.26
-0.05
u-component
of wind speed
-0.29
-0.29
-0.22
-0.37
0.25
-0.22
0.10
-0.22
-0.23
-0.02
-0.20
0.53
v-component
of wind speed
0.49
-0.01
0.41
0.09
0.66
0.49
-0.45
0.47
0.46
0.32
0.48
0.44
oo
-------
oo
OJ
oo
Table 8-3 - Hexavalent Chromium Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters
with the Michigan Sites
Site
APMI
DEMI
LOMI
RRMI
Maximum
Temperature
0.23
0.11
0.36
0.65
Average
Temperature
0.30
0.08
0.40
0.68
Dew Point
Temperature
0.58
0.26
0.69
0.66
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.45
0.22
0.54
0.69
Relative
Humidity
0.78
0.23
0.84
-0.14
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.33
-0.42
-0.33
-0.07
u-component of
wind speed
-0.58
-0.14
-0.30
-0.52
v-component of
wind speed
-0.41
0.28
0.10
-0.09
-------
Table 8-4. TNMOC, SVOC, Hexavalent Chromium, Metal, and Ozone Measured by the Michigan Monitoring Stations
Monitoring
Station
APMI
DEMI
E7MI
LOMI
RRMI
SWMI
YFMI
TNMOC
speciated
(ppbC)
N/A
N/A
230.35
(±118.83)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TNMOC
w/
unknowns
(ppbC)
N/A
N/A
307.47
(±127.71)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
%of
TNMOC
identified
N/A
N/A
69%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SNMOC
Compound with
the Highest
Concentration
(ppbC)
N/A
N/A
ethane 24.28
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Average
Hexavalent
Chromium
Concentration
(ng/m3)
0.042 (±0.028)
0.029 (±0.018)
N/A
0.052 (±0.029)
0.055 (±0.020)
N/A
N/A
Average Metal
Concentration
(ng/filter)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
155,107.63
(±45898.47)
N/A
Average Ozone
Concentration
(ppbv)
N/A
N/A
51.45 (±2.79)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total
Number of
Ozone
Sampling
Days
N/A
N/A
183
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Average SVOC
Concentration
(ug/m3)
3.93 (±0.09)
4. 19 (±0.19)
3. 96 (±0.10)
3. 95 (±0.11)
3.87 (±0.20)
4.42 (±0.76)
21.22
(±6.03)
oo
OJ
VO
-------
Table 8-5. Average UATMP Concentrations By Wind Regime for the Detroit Sites
Wind
Regime
North
Northeast
East
Southeast
South
Southwest
West
Northwest
APMI
24 hr
7.87
8.50
2.85
ND
10.17*
4.93
6.76
1.85
48 hr
6.42
8.68
11.94
25.01*
2.99
3.73
ND
5.57
DEMI
24 hr
7.18
8.85
3.98
12.78*
9.91
6.66
6.64
6.24
48 hr
6.05
8.29
28.13*
11.33
9.69
6.92
7.66
6.12
E7MI
24 hr
19.61*
16.89
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
48 hr
ND
19.61*
16.89
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
LOMI
24 hr
5.48
ND
ND
ND
8.30*
5.07
4.26
4.56
48 hr
4.91
6.06
ND
6.33
7.73*
6.35
ND
4.68
RRMI
24 hr
12.52*
3.57
3.92
9.02
4.04
5.62
3.86
4.91
48 hr
2.82
17.50*
4.86
4.62
3.75
6.19
ND
4.58
SWMI
24 hr
7.78
5.16
8.76
4.02
17.23*
12.23
7.41
8.91
48 hr
4.03
11.54
5.70
ND
17.23*
8.06
12.51
8.22
YFMI
24 hr
8.28
ND
ND
ND
30.83*
11.23
5.66
6.36
48 hr
6.46
10.10
ND
33.07
45.88*
12.80
ND
6.04
oo
-k
o
ND = Not Detected
* = Highest for that site
-------
Table 8-6. Average UATMP Concentrations By Wind Regime for the Houghton Lake Site
Wind
Regime
North
Northeast
East
Southeast
South
Southwest
West
Northwest
HOMI
24 hr
3.23
ND
ND
ND
2.12
3.53*
ND
2.94
48 hr
3.07
ND
ND
ND
2.12
3.65*
3.31
3.03
ND = Not Detected
* = Highest for the site
8-41
-------
Table 8-7. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Michigan
Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
APMI
DEMI
E7MI
HOMI
LOMI
RRMI
SWMI
YFMI
Population
within Ten
Miles
1,024,363
1,225,014
1,167,765
10,391
1,146,230
893,937
1,179,491
1,179,491
Estimated
Number of Motor
Vehicles Owned
758,029
906,510
864,146
7,689
848,210
661,513
872,823
872,823
Traffic Data
(Daily
Average)
60,000
12,791
6,999
7,000
100,000
500
18,437
500
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
38. 34 (±33. 60)
17.65 (±2.62)
32.62 (±7.79)
7.93 (±2.04)
24.71 (±18.43)
10.19 (±3. 85)
13.49 (±3.31)
21.03 (±6.94)
8-42
-------
Table 8-8. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding APMI
Facility Name
Autoalliance
International, Inc.
Ford Motor Co.
Dearborn Assembly
Plant
GMC MLCG
Hamtramck
Assembly Plant
DaimlerChrysler AG,
Warren Truck
Assembly Plant
Wolverine Coil
Coating Inc.
Crown Group
Detroit, MI Plant
Primary
SIC Code
3711
3479
SIC Code Description
Transportation Equipment, Motor
Vehicles and Equipment, Motor
Vehicles and Car Bodies
Fabricated Metal Products, Metal
Services, Nee, Metal Coating and
Allied Services
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
mi
40 CFR part 63, subpart
SSSS
Regulation Name
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Surface Coating of Automobiles
and Light-Duty Trucks
(proposed rule)
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Surface Coating of Metal Coil
(proposed rule)
oo
-------
Table 8-9. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding DEMI
Facility Name
Ford Motor Co.
Dearborn Assembly
Plant
GMC MLCG
Hamtramck
Assembly Plant
DaimlerChrysler AG,
Warren Truck
Assembly Plant
Wolverine Coil
Coating Inc.
Crown Group
Detroit, MI Plant
Primary SIC
Code
3711
3479
SIC Code Description
Transportation Equipment, Motor
Vehicles and Equipment, Motor
Vehicles and Car Bodies
Fabricated Metal Products, Metal
Services, Nee, Metal Coating and
Allied Services
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
mi
40 CFR part 63, subpart
SSSS
Regulation Name
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Surface Coating of Automobiles
and Light-Duty Trucks
(proposed rule)
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Surface Coating of Metal Coil
(proposed rule)
oo
-------
Table 8-10. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding E7MI
Facility Name
DaimlerChrysler AG,
Warren Truck
Assembly Plant
GMC MLCG
Hamtramck
Assembly Plant
E/M Corporation
Adelphia, Inc.
Hi-Tech Coatings,
Inc.
Cambridge
Industries, Inc.
Uni-Bond Brake, Inc.
Primary SIC
Code
3711
3479
3089
3714
SIC Code Description
Transportation Equipment, Motor
Vehicles and Equipment, Motor
Vehicles and Car Bodies
Fabricated Metal Products, Metal
Services, Nee, Metal Coating and
Allied Services
Rubber And Misc. Plastics Products,
Miscellaneous Plastics Products,
Nee, Plastics Products, Nee
Transportation Equipment, Motor
Vehicles and Equipment, Motor
Vehicle Parts and Accessories
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
mi
40 CFR part 63, subpart
SSSS
40 CFR part 63, subpart
wwww
40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMM
Regulation Name
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Surface Coating of Automobiles
and Light-Duty Trucks
(proposed rule)
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Surface Coating of Metal Coils
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production (proposed rule)
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Surface Coating of
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products (proposed rule)
oo
-------
Table 8-11. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding RRMI
Facility Name
Ford Motor Co.
Dearborn Assembly
Plant
DaimlerChrysler AG,
Warren Truck
Assembly Plant
Wolverine Coil
Coating Inc.
Crown Group
Detroit, MI Plant
Primary
SIC Code
3711
3479
SIC Code Description
Transportation Equipment, Motor
Vehicles and Equipment, Motor
Vehicles and Car Bodies
Fabricated Metal Products, Metal
Services, Nee, Metal Coating and
Allied Services
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
mi
40 CFR part 63, subpart
SSSS
Regulation Name
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Surface Coating of Automobiles
and Light-Duty Trucks
(proposed rule)
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Surface Coating of Metal Coil
(proposed rule)
oo
-------
Table 8-12. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding SWMI and YFMI
Facility Name
Ford Motor Co.
Dearborn
Assembly Plant
GMC MLCG
Hamtramck
Assembly Plant
DaimlerChrysler
AG, Warren Truck
Assembly Plant
Wolverine Coil
Coating Inc.
Crown Group
Detroit, MI Plant
Primary
SIC Code
3711
3479
SIC Code Description
Transportation Equipment, Motor
Vehicles and Equipment, Motor
Vehicles and Car Bodies
Fabricated Metal Products, Metal
Services, Nee, Metal Coating and
Allied Services
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63,
subpart IIII
40CFRpart63,
subpart SSSS
Regulation Name
National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from Surface Coating of
Automobiles and Light-Duty
Trucks (proposed rule)
National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from Surface Coating of
Metal Coil (proposed rule)
oo
-------
9.0 Sites in Mississippi
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the four
UATMP sites in Mississippi (GPMS, JAMS, PGMS, and TUMS). All four of these sites are
located in different cities in Mississippi: Gulf Port; Jackson; Pascagoula; and Tupelo. Figures
9-1 through 9-4 are topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in their urban locations.
Figures 9-5 through 9-8 are maps identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites that reported
to the 1999 NEI. The GPMS and PGMS sites are the furthest south, with both locations along
the Gulf Coast. Further east is PGMS, where the majority of the sources are located within a
four mile radius of the monitoring station and are mostly chemical and surface coating facilities.
GPMS is farther west along the Mississippi shoreline, and the few nearby sources, which are
mainly involved in fuel combustion, are mainly to the north. JAMS, somewhat centrally located,
also has few sites nearby. These sources are located to the southwest of the site and are mostly
involved in surface coating processes. The industrial facilities within a ten mile radius of
TUMS, which is located in northeast Mississippi, are mainly to the east of the site. A large
number of the sources near the TUMS site are involved in rubber and plastic production.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2002 at four weather stations near
these sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The weather observations were reported from each of the four
cities' reporting stations (WBAN 93874, 3940, 53858, and 93862, respectively).
Table 9-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at each site, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. Climatologically, all four of the Mississippi cities can be considered
warm and humid, especially Gulfport and Pascagoula, the two sites nearest the coast. Table 9-1
reflects this, as GPMS and PGMS have the highest maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb
temperatures and relative humidity. High temperatures and humidity, due to proximity to the
Gulf of Mexico, can make the region very oppressive. Annual average wind direction tends to be
9-1
-------
from the east (PGMS) and southeast (GPMS, JAMS, and TUMS). This information can be
found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
9.1 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. JAMS and PGMS each sampled hydrocarbon compounds' geometric means nearly
double that of the other sites (9.35 ppbv and 6.57 ppbv, respectively). JAMS also had the
highest geometric means for carbonyl and polar compounds (6.57 ppbv and 26.58 ppbv,
respectively). The range of the geometric means of the halogenated hydrocarbons was very
small, with the lowest at PGMS (4.14 ppbv) and the highest at TUMS (4.68 ppbv). The average
total UATMP daily concentration at TUMS was the lowest in comparison to the other three sites
and was computed to be 22.85 (±6.44) ppbv. GPMS had the highest value with 65.42 (±39.86)
ppbv, while the other sites' average daily concentration fell into the forties and fifties. Table 9-1
also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2002 to December
2002, which is the same time period covered in this report.
Tables 9-2a-d are 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. Formaldehyde and chloromethane
had consistently moderately strong to strong positive correlations with the temperature
parameters and two of the three moisture parameters (dew point and wet bulb temperatures) at all
four Mississippi sites. Formaldehyde had the strongest correlation with maximum temperature at
the TUMS site (0.81). Dichlorodifluoromethane and trichlorofluoromethane both had
moderately strong positive correlations with these parameters as well. Acetylene and benzene
had moderately strong to strong negative correlations with the same four parameters at both
coastal sites. The compounds at the two coastal sites had mostly positive correlations with
relative humidity. Otherwise, few patterns between the compounds and meteorological
parameters exist, making it difficult to ascertain when UATMP concentrations will increase.
9-2
-------
9.2 Spatial Analysis
Using the population within ten miles of each site, an estimate of the number of motor
vehicles operating in proximity to the monitoring station can be established. The ratio used in
this report is 0.74 motor vehicles to every one person (refer to section 3.4.1 for more information
on this ratio). The population near the JAMS site is 262,477 people, all of whom are operating
approximately 194,233 vehicles. This site had the largest population (and most motor vehicles)
of the four Mississippi sites. The site with the lowest population was PGMS, with a population
of 58,345 people driving 43,175 motor vehicles. This information is compared to the average
daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at each Mississippi site in Table 9-3. Also
included in Table 9-3 are average daily traffic data, or more specifically, the average number of
cars passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. The
largest traffic flow near a monitoring station occurred at GPMS.
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 3-14 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. All four sites ratios looked relatively similar to those of the
roadside study, although the toluene-ethylbenzene ratios at GPMS, JAMS, and TUMS exceeded
those of the roadside study. Also, the benzene-ethylbenzene ratios at each of the Mississippi
sites were all less than the roadside study's benzene-ethylbenzene ratios.
9-3
-------
Figure 9-1. Gulf Port, Mississippi (GPMS) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
9-4
-------
Figure 9-2. Jackson, Mississippi (JAMS) Monitoring Station
: 7V- f*" • vS
..,..., . u
JUADlSntt
>^.
$
r--SSf '" "I
Ol *-r • - ^-^>
1
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
9-5
-------
Figure 9-3. Pascagoula, Mississippi (PGMS) Monitoring Station
*••-•. -••• ''- - -'Ai' r^TT ''-^' . -
a* .ql -,*'
re^4^JB
/ ,!LJV\ '*'.,' •
^wfe-;l ; ±^^* A&
SLjrfn p *• u
•^rfe^
i- .' •" .- ' ,— • "' .' " v" N«JL
—l—- ' K J c . * n-1 . I'-'
PASCAGOUIA' ! .
Ui-_-J^ %*
r.rwa^aH ' - -u^u
- MM|^ -''t •- ly^5Qsi^^^
rT ' -V , *•• ' gtiM*^g—a... '•!!» ". C'^-;>
^r^U"--.-^
r*~T^ lira PirC
r ijT
•JU ife :'
,, ^ ••••
i_X. " ^«.«!-,:*,
; -f•:•:•:••-> <.;.r-. - '. I >.
-------
Figure 9-4. Tupelo, Mississippi (TUMS) Monitoring Station
TUMS
~~"ru" pn
'
r>efe^r x-
•-'-•
,
K9KSfM^.^£S.. ?:*.. .:':-:
-?ji£ ^MfJHf h V. T
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
9-7
-------
Figure 9-5. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of GPMS
Note Due to facility density and cotocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent a!f facilities within the area of interest
Legend
50 GPMS UATMP site
10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group
c Chemicals & allied products facility (1) B
-J Industrial machinery & equip, facility (1) *
& Lumber & wood products facility (1) •''•
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (8) s
i Incineration Industrial Facility (1) w
u
Liquids Oistrib, Industrial Facility (1)
Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1)
MACT: Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industry Group (1)
Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (1)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (4)
Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
Stone, clay, glass, & concrete products facility (1)
9-8
-------
Figure 9-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of JAMS
Madison County
Hinds County
r"
/ Rankin County
Note' Due to facility density and relocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
@ JAMS UATMP site
10 mile radius
| ___ County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) B
z Electrical & electronic equipment facility (1)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1) 2
7 Food &Ag. Processes Industrial Facility (1) '<••'•
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (5) v
H Furniture & fixtures facility (1 ) Y
J Industrial machinery & equip, facility (3) s
Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (2)
Nat'l security & international affairs facility (1)
Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels (1)
Petroleum/Nat, Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (2)
Polymers & Resins Prod, Industrial Facility (1)
Rubber and misc. plastics products facility (3)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (9)
Stone, clay, glass, & concrete products facility (1)
9-9
-------
Figure 9-7. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of PGMS
Jackson County
\
S S
Note: Due to facility density and relocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
@ PGMS UATMP site
10 mile radius
HI] County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & allied products facility (5)
f Fuel Combustion industrial Facility (3)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (1)
i Liquids Distrib. Industrial Facility (1)
P Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (5)
@ Paper & allied products facility (1)
Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod, & Refining Industrial Facility (2)
Polymers & Resins Prod. Industrial Facility (1)
Primary metal industries facility (1)
Prod, of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (6)
Transportation equipment (1)
Water transportation facility (1)
9-10
-------
Figure 9-8. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of TUMS
Note: Due to facility density and relocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
© TUMS UATMP site
10 mile radius
[31] County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
D Fabricated metal products facility (1)
H Furniture & fixtures facility (1)
J Industrial machinery & equip, facility (2)
l Incineration Industrial Facility (2)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1)
P Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (1)
v polymers & Resins Prod. Industrial Facility (6)
Q Primary metal industries facility (1)
Y Rubber and misc. plastics products facility (9)
u Stone, clay, glass, & concrete products facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (4)
w Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
9-11
-------
Table 9-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Mississippi
Site
Name
GPMS
JAMS
PGMS
TUMS
Type
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
SSS
65.42
(±39.86)
^
42.75
(±8.12)
^
52.50
(±20.99)
SSS
22.85
(±6.44)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
75.64
(±1.29)
75.90
(±4.73)
74.90
(±1.52)
74.03
(±5.54)
76.80
(±1.28)
76.97
(±4.58)
72.22
(±1.65)
71.70
(±6.12)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
67.32
(±1.38)
67.63
(±4.83)
64.51
(±1.51)
63.81
(±5.25)
66.36
(±1.37)
67.10
(±4.58)
62.33
(±1.61)
62.00
(±5.72)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
59.94
(±1.56)
59.71
(±5.22)
55.40
(±1.67)
54.75
(±5.40)
59.72
(±1.56)
60.35
(±4.85)
53.25
(±1.73)
53.15
(±5.76)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
63.05
(±1.37)
63.03
(±4.69)
59.41
(±1.47)
58.70
(±4.96)
62.49
(±1.38)
63.03
(±4.44)
57.33
(±1.54)
57.06
(±5.34)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
79.45
(±1.12)
78.33
(±3.87)
75.29
(±1.12)
75.12
(±3.03)
81.50
(±0.93)
81.11
(±3.04)
75.16
(±1.21)
75.45
(±3.55)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1018.1
(±5.49)
1018.1
(±14.04)
1018.3
(±5.90)
1018.8
(±15.52)
1018.5
(±5.44)
1018.4
(±13.48)
1018.6
(±5.38)
1018.9
(±15.83)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-2.14
(±0.23)
-0.87
(±0.83)
-2.16
(±0.19)
-0.56
(±0.74)
-2.24
(±0.18)
-0.65
(±0.61)
-1.84
(±0.21)
-0.01
(±0.86)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
2.15
(±0.21)
0.35
(±0.70)
1.26
(±0.18)
0.13
(±0.67)
0.19
(±0.17)
-0.29
(±0.61)
2.35
(±0.20)
1.71
(±0.56)
VO
I
to
-------
Table 9-2a - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Gulf Port, Mississippi (GPMS)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.16
-0.58
-0.32
0.26
0.29
0.08
0.61
0.07
0.09
0.03
-0.02
0.23
Average
Temperature
0.11
-0.64
-0.39
0.30
0.30
0.07
0.56
0.07
0.09
-0.01
-0.04
0.25
Dew Point
Temperature
0.17
-0.54
-0.32
0.33
0.39
0.17
0.38
0.17
0.19
0.07
0.03
0.34
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.15
-0.59
-0.35
0.33
0.36
0.13
0.46
0.13
0.15
0.04
0.01
0.32
Relative
Humidity
0.24
0.11
0.12
0.19
0.41
0.34
-0.38
0.35
0.33
0.25
0.21
0.37
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.03
0.55
0.40
-0.14
-0.16
0.01
-0.31
0.03
0.00
0.10
0.31
-0.03
u-component
of wind speed
-0.18
0.17
-0.06
-0.12
-0.04
-0.11
-0.30
-0.12
-0.13
-0.02
0.08
0.13
v-component
of wind speed
0.05
0.05
-0.01
0.12
0.17
0.01
0.13
-0.02
-0.02
0.07
0.20
0.17
VO
-------
Table 9-2b - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Jackson, Mississippi (JAMS)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.56
0.05
-0.11
0.47
0.41
0.09
0.67
0.19
0.31
0.17
0.25
0.27
Average
Temperature
0.49
-0.02
-0.20
0.50
0.40
0.04
0.64
0.09
0.20
0.10
0.26
0.29
Dew Point
Temperature
0.49
0.00
-0.14
0.49
0.43
0.02
0.56
0.05
0.15
0.12
0.28
0.31
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.49
-0.01
-0.18
0.50
0.42
0.03
0.59
0.07
0.18
0.10
0.27
0.30
Relative
Humidity
0.15
0.14
0.24
0.02
0.25
-0.04
-0.14
-0.12
-0.14
0.16
0.11
0.13
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.48
-0.01
-0.01
-0.32
-0.30
0.00
-0.54
-0.01
-0.08
-0.21
-0.16
-0.20
u-component
of wind speed
-0.23
-0.31
-0.18
0.03
-0.11
-0.12
-0.30
-0.02
-0.05
-0.17
-0.04
-0.03
v-component
of wind speed
-0.04
0.15
-0.01
0.41
0.05
0.25
0.10
0.21
0.19
0.17
-0.05
0.05
VO
-------
Table 9-2c - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Pascagoula, Mississippi (PGMS)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.06
-0.47
-0.42
0.66
0.29
-0.29
0.61
-0.32
-0.30
0.03
0.01
0.28
Average
Temperature
0.00
-0.52
-0.47
0.69
0.34
-0.37
0.58
-0.42
-0.38
0.00
-0.03
0.34
Dew Point
Temperature
0.05
-0.46
-0.43
0.71
0.39
-0.31
0.51
-0.38
-0.34
0.03
0.02
0.43
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.02
-0.50
-0.45
0.71
0.37
-0.34
0.54
-0.40
-0.36
0.01
0.00
0.40
Relative
Humidity
0.22
0.07
0.07
0.32
0.33
0.06
-0.09
-0.01
0.01
0.17
0.17
0.46
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.02
0.39
0.32
-0.50
-0.17
0.34
-0.34
0.41
0.35
-0.09
0.05
-0.22
u-component
of wind speed
-0.16
-0.03
-0.01
-0.10
-0.12
0.07
-0.15
0.11
0.09
-0.12
-0.10
-0.13
v-component
of wind speed
-0.19
0.02
-0.02
-0.01
0.21
-0.28
-0.08
-0.25
-0.26
0.19
-0.09
-0.02
VO
-------
Table 9-2d - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Tupelo, Mississippi (TUMS)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.15
-0.23
-0.25
0.66
0.42
0.08
0.81
-0.07
0.08
0.24
0.00
0.41
Average
Temperature
0.18
-0.25
-0.29
0.64
0.43
0.04
0.78
-0.12
0.03
0.28
0.02
0.43
Dew Point
Temperature
0.22
-0.26
-0.21
0.56
0.38
-0.04
0.66
-0.22
-0.02
0.34
0.02
0.38
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.20
-0.26
-0.25
0.60
0.40
-0.01
0.71
-0.17
0.00
0.31
0.02
0.40
Relative
Humidity
0.15
-0.08
0.22
-0.22
-0.06
-0.32
-0.30
-0.42
-0.25
0.26
0.00
-0.12
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.27
0.06
0.10
-0.42
-0.18
-0.10
-0.44
0.07
-0.09
-0.27
-0.13
-0.19
u-component
of wind speed
0.14
0.15
0.08
-0.14
-0.26
0.08
-0.36
0.18
0.18
-0.12
0.27
-0.22
v-component
of wind speed
-0.35
0.21
-0.10
0.17
-0.30
0.09
0.04
0.23
0.06
-0.13
-0.04
-0.20
VO
-------
Table 9-3. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Mississippi
Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
GPMS
JAMS
PGMS
TUMS
Population
within Ten
Miles
166,963
262,477
58,345
71,430
Estimated
Number of
Motor Vehicles
Owned
123,553
194,233
43,175
52,858
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
17,000
12,500
8,600
4,900
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
65.42 (±39.86)
42.75 (±8. 12)
52.50 (±30.99)
22.85 (±6.44)
9-17
-------
10.0 Sites in Missouri
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the five
UATMP sites in Missouri (BTMO, S2MO, S3MO, S4MO, and SLMO). Four of these sites are
located in the St. Louis metropolitan statistical area, while the fifth (BTMO) is located to the
south of the city. Figures 10-1 through 10-5 are topographical maps showing the monitoring
stations in their urban locations. Figure 10-6 and 10-7 are maps identifying facilities within ten
miles of the sites that reported to the 1999 NEI. Many of the sources near the St. Louis sites are
fuel combustion, surface coating, and miscellaneous industries, while BTMO has very few
nearby sources. Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2002 at a weather station
near these sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient
air concentration measurements. The weather station is Cahokia-St. Louis (WBAN 3960).
Table 10-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at each of these sites, along
with temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature,
average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and
v- components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. St. Louis has a climate that is continental in nature, with cold, rather
dry winters, warm, somewhat wetter summers, and a significant seasonal variability. Wind
speeds are generally light and wind flows from the southeast on average, as indicated in Table
10-1. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair,
1987).
10.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Missouri Sites
Carbonyl compounds were measured at BTMO and S4MO, VOC compounds were
measured at S2MO and S3MO, and both types of compounds were sampled at SLMO, as
indicated in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. For the sites that measured carbonyls, the range of
concentrations was between 4.27 ppbv (BTMO) and 23.61 ppbv (SLMO). For the sites that
measured VOC, the ranges were much smaller. The lowest geometric mean for the
hydrocarbons was 4.50 at S3MO while the highest was 6.16 ppbv at SLMO. The polar
compounds had the lowest geometric means for the sites that measured VOC, ranging from 1.99
10-1
-------
ppbv at S3MO to 3.13 ppbv at SLMO. The range for the halogenated hydrocarbons was the
smallest, ranging from 4.61 ppbv at S3MO to 4.82 ppbv at SLMO. The average total UATMP
daily concentration at SLMO was nearly three times the concentration of the other sites (33.21
±3.03 ppbv vs. 13.75 ±2.40 ppbv at S2MO, 9.77 ±1.47 ppbv at S3MO, 8.19 ±1.81 ppbv at
S4MO, and 4.31 ±0.16 ppbv at BTMO). Table 10-1 also lists the averages for selected
meteorological parameters from January 2002 to December 2002, which is the same time period
covered in this report.
SLMO also opted to have total NMOC, SNMOC, and SVOC sampled during its air toxic
sampling. S4MO and BTMO opted to sample total NMOC and SNMOC as well.
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 210 (±25.80) ppbC, of which nearly 63% could be identified
through speciation. Of the speciated compounds, ethane measured the highest concentration at
the SLMO site (10.74 ppbC). The average total NMOC value for S4MO was 368 (±189.39)
ppbC, of which nearly 67% could be identified through speciation. Of the speciated compounds,
ethane measured the highest concentration at the S4MO site (32.51 ppbC). The average total
NMOC value for BTMO was 122 (±41.24) ppbC, of which nearly 46% could be identified
through speciation. Of the speciated compounds at BTMO, propane measured the highest
concentration (9.11 ppbC). This information is given in Table 10-3. Ozone concentrations were
also sampled near SLMO and S4MO on 214 days and were retrieved from the U.S. EPA's AQS
database. The average ozone concentration near these sites was 52.27 (±2.89) ppbv. The
average SVOC concentration at SLMO was 3.81 (±0.24) ug/m3 and is also listed in Table 10-3.
Tables 10-2a-d are the summaries of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for each
of the prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters by site. Identification of the
prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. As indicated in Table 10-2a,
BTMO and S4MO only sampled carbonyls, and therefore only have correlations listed for
formaldehyde. At BTMO, a strong positive correlation between formaldehyde and maximum
10-2
-------
temperature and a strong negative correlation between formaldehyde and the u-component of the
wind were found. Otherwise, the correlations at BTMO were weak. However, at S4MO, almost
all of the correlations were strong or moderately strong. Strong positive correlations with dew
point, wet bulb, and relative humidity and moderately strong positive correlations with
maximum and average temperature were found. Also, strong negative correlations with sea level
pressure and the v-component of the wind were found at S4MO. One thing to note is that both
of these sites only sampled on a few days in December.
At S2MO, most of the correlations with maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb
temperatures were negative. Dichlorodifluoromethane and trichlorofluoromethane both
registered moderately strong to strong negative correlations with these parameters. This trend
continues at S3MO, where the correlations tended to be stronger. One exception was
chloromethane, where moderately strong to strong positive correlations were established at
S3MO. Moderately strong positive correlations were also noted between chloromethane and
these parameters at S2MO. This trend is not exhibited at SLMO, where most of the correlations
are positive, rather than negative. Chloromethane and formaldehyde had the strongest
correlations with these four parameters at this site. Also of interest at SLMO is the negative
correlation with the u-component of the wind speed with all of the compounds. S2MO and
S3MO had a similar trends, but between most of the compounds and the v-component of the
wind. These two sites also exhibited a positive correlation with sea level pressure and all of the
compounds except chloromethane. UATMP concentrations tend to increase with decreasing
temperature and humidity at S2MO and S3MO, while the opposite is true at SLMO. As pressure
increases at S2MO and S3MO, UATMP concentrations also increase. UATMP concentrations
generally increase as wind speeds decrease at all of the sites, but wind direction is an important
factor.
10.2 Spatial Analysis
Using the population within ten miles of each site, an estimate of the number of motor
vehicles operating in proximity to the monitoring station can be established. The ratio used in
this report is 0.74 motor vehicles to every one person (refer to section 3.4.1 for more information
10-3
-------
on this ratio). The population near the S3MO and SLMO sites is 714,905 people, all of whom
are operating approximately 529,030 motor vehicles. The S2MO site is populated with 796,761
people driving 589,603 motor vehicles. The most populous site is S4MO, with 838,460 people
driving 620,460 vehicles, while BTMO is the least populated, with 34,068 people operating
25,210 automobiles. This information is compared to the average daily concentration of the
prevalent compounds at each Missouri site in Table 10-4. Also included in Table 10-4 are
average daily traffic data, or more specifically, the average number of cars passing the
monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. The number of vehicles
passing the S4MO site daily is 22,840, making it the site with the highest traffic volume.
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 3-14 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. BTMO and S4MO did not measure VOCs and are therefore not
represented in Figure 3-14. SLMO's concentration ratios most resembles those of the roadside
study, although its toluene-ethylbenzene and benzene-ethylbenzene ratios are lower than those of
the study. The concentration ratios at S3MO also somewhat resemble the roadside study's
ratios, but its toluene-ethylbenzene and benzene-ethylbenzene ratios are higher and its m,p-
xylene-ethylbenzene and o-xylene-ethylbenzene ratios are lower. At S2MO, most of the values
are slightly lower than those of the roadside study, the exception being benzene-ethylbenzene.
Also, the benzene-ethylbenzene ratio is higher than the m,/>-xylene-ethylbenzene ratio at this
site, where the opposite is true for the roadside study.
10-4
-------
Figure 10-1. Bonne Terre, Missouri (BTMO) Monitoring Station
"JTlXVv JIJ^A
topozone .com - Copyright @ £001 Maps a la carte. Inc.
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
10-5
-------
Figure 10-2. St. Louis, Missouri Site 2 (S2MO) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
10-6
-------
Figure 10-3. St. Louis, Missouri Site 3 (S3MO) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
10-7
-------
Figure 10-4. St. Louis, Missouri Site 4 (S4MO) Monitoring Station
VAWY. top ozone .com - Copyright ©2001 Map; a la carte. Inc.
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
10-8
-------
Figure 10-5. St. Louis, Missouri Site 1 (SLMO) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
10-9
-------
Figure 10-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BTMO
Jefferson County
Ste Genevieve County
Legend
gg BTMO UATOP site
10 mite radius
] County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
E Electric, gas, & sanitary services (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (1)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (1)
P Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (2)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
T Transportation equipment (1)
Note: Due to facility density and coiocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
10-10
-------
Figure 10-7. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SLMO, S2MO, S3MO, and S4MO
Legend
® SLMO UATMP site gj S4MO UATMP site
® S2MO UATMP site 10 mile radius
3f] S3MO UATMP site | County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
A Agricultural services facility (1)
0 Apparel & other textile products facility (1)
c Chemicals & allied products facility (27)
E Electric, gas, & sanitary services (8)
z Electrical & electronic equipment facility (6)
D Fabricated metal products facility (14)
G Food & kindred products facility (4)
H Furniture & fixtures facility (2)
+ Health services facility (1)
J Industrial machinery & equip, facility (6)
= Instruments & related products facility (2)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (8)
7 Food & Ag, Processes Industrial Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (107)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (11)
Liquids Distrib, Industrial Facility (12)
§0 ! §tfW 90 t
Note: Due to facility density and colocation. the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
; Misc. retail facility (1)
» Nat'l security & international affairs facility (1)
N Nonclassifiable Establishments (3)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (4)
2 Nonmetallic minerals, except fuels (1)
i Petroleum & coal products (2)
> Pharmaceutical Prod. Processes Industrial Facility (6)
v Polymers & Resins Prod. Industrial Facility (1)
Q Primary metal industries facility (5)
R Printing & publishing facility (7)
* Prod, of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (3)
4 Prod, of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (2)
i Railroad Transporation (2)
Y Rubber and misc. plastics products facility (1)
Special trade contractors facility (1)
u Stone, clay, glass, & concrete products facility (11)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (39)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (3) w Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (7)
P Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (49) s Wholesale trade-durable goods (1)
6 Wholesale trade-nondurable goods (1)
10-11
-------
Table 10-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Missouri
Site
Name
BTMO
S2MO
S3MO
S4MO
SLMO
Type
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
SSS
4.31
(±0.61)
^
13.75
(±2.40)
^
9.77
(±1.47)
SSS
8.19
(±1.81)
SSfc
33.21
(±3.03)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
66.83
(±1.98)
46.67
(±4.37)
66.83
(±1.98)
55.38
(±6.24)
66.83
(±1.98)
54.14
(±6.39)
66.83
(±1.98)
43.00
(±7.08)
66.83
(±1.98)
66.10
(±5.50)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
56.86
(±1.86)
35.40
(±2.96)
56.86
(±1.86)
45.77
(±5.72)
56.86
(±1.86)
44.49
(±5.90)
56.86
(±1.86)
34.43
(±4.35)
56.86
(±1.86)
55.95
(±5.23)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
47.14
(±1.90)
23.30
(±0.56)
47.14
(±1.90)
37.06
(±6.18)
47.14
(±1.90)
35.66
(±6.38)
47.14
(±1.90)
24.94
(±5.16)
47.14
(±1.90)
46.32
(±5.24)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
51.80
(±1.73)
30.74
(±1.96)
51.80
(±1.73)
41.98
(±5.49)
51.80
(±1.73)
40.73
(±5.68)
51.80
(±1.73)
30.90
(±4.18)
51.80
(±1.73)
50.97
(±4.85)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
72.82
(±1.14)
64.11
(±5.64)
72.82
(±1.14)
73.99
(±4.83)
72.82
(±1.14)
73.39
(±4.70)
72.82
(±1.14)
71.66
(±9.16)
72.82
(±1.14)
73.01
(±2.75)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1018.6
(±6.60)
1020.3
(±19.48)
1018.6
(±6.60)
1018.0
(±30.60)
1018.6
(±6.60)
1018.2
(±31.10)
1018.6
(±6.60)
1020.5
(±42.42)
1018.6
(±6.60)
1018.3
(±16.36)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-1.39
(±0.25)
1.10
(±2.21)
-1.39
(±0.25)
2.10
(±1.48)
-1.39
(±0.25)
2.20
(±1.39)
-1.39
(±0.25)
-1.00
(±2.66)
-1.39
(±0.25)
0.35
(±0.86)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
2.66
(±0.19)
1.41
(±1.44)
2.66
(±0.19)
1.52
(±0.85)
2.66
(±0.19)
1.61
(±0.81)
2.66
(±0.19)
0.58
(±1.26)
2.66
(±0.19)
0.97
(±0.46)
-------
Table 10-2a - Formaldehyde Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at Bonne Terre (BTMO)
and St. Louis, Site 4 (S4MO)
Site
BTMO
S4MO
Maximum
Temperature
0.75
0.38
Average
Temperature
0.18
0.36
Dew Point
Temperature
0.09
0.65
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.06
0.51
Relative
Humidity
0.19
0.53
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.01
-0.50
u-component of
wind speed
-0.88
-0.19
v-component of
wind speed
0.07
-0.64
-------
Table 10-2b - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
St. Louis, Missouri Site 2 (S2MO)
Compound
1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
-0.20
0.02
-0.22
0.24
-0.39
-0.20
-0.15
-0.22
0.18
-0.08
-0.43
Average
Temperature
-0.29
0.03
-0.25
0.34
-0.52
-0.29
-0.23
-0.33
0.18
-0.10
-0.54
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.23
-0.03
-0.15
0.33
-0.48
-0.25
-0.16
-0.24
0.15
-0.03
-0.52
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.27
-0.01
-0.22
0.35
-0.51
-0.29
-0.21
-0.30
0.15
-0.08
-0.54
Relative
Humidity
0.13
-0.18
0.32
0.09
-0.08
0.05
0.17
0.18
0.00
0.20
-0.14
Sea Level
Pressure
0.34
0.20
0.26
-0.14
0.24
0.40
0.31
0.35
0.11
0.18
0.43
u-component
of wind speed
-0.02
0.14
-0.35
-0.18
0.55
0.19
0.03
0.04
-0.11
0.06
0.42
v-component
of wind speed
-0.16
-0.08
0.01
0.15
-0.31
-0.42
-0.31
-0.17
-0.13
-0.33
-0.38
-------
Table 10-2c - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
St. Louis, Missouri Site 3 (S3MO)
Compound
1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
-0.31
-0.51
-0.49
0.48
-0.32
-0.28
-0.28
-0.36
-0.02
0.11
-0.24
Average
Temperature
-0.33
-0.58
-0.52
0.50
-0.35
-0.26
-0.27
-0.37
-0.09
0.14
-0.27
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.31
-0.52
-0.45
0.47
-0.36
-0.26
-0.23
-0.34
-0.04
0.21
-0.24
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.33
-0.57
-0.50
0.50
-0.35
-0.27
-0.27
-0.36
-0.08
0.17
-0.26
Relative
Humidity
-0.08
0.00
0.07
0.05
-0.23
-0.11
0.04
-0.03
0.19
0.32
0.02
Sea Level
Pressure
0.41
0.56
0.47
-0.31
0.20
0.48
0.39
0.47
0.18
0.07
0.28
u-component
of wind speed
0.11
0.19
-0.07
-0.10
0.47
-0.01
-0.08
0.12
0.05
-0.37
0.27
v-component
of wind speed
-0.14
-0.49
-0.17
0.14
-0.31
-0.29
-0.22
-0.20
-0.54
-0.13
-0.22
-------
Table 10-2d - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
St. Louis, Missouri Site 1 (SLMO)
Compound
1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.29
-0.38
0.02
0.40
0.31
0.20
0.47
0.16
0.22
0.26
0.32
0.22
Average
Temperature
0.26
-0.40
-0.01
0.42
0.28
0.20
0.50
0.16
0.22
0.25
0.30
0.16
Dew Point
Temperature
0.25
-0.38
-0.02
0.44
0.27
0.23
0.45
0.19
0.25
0.25
0.31
0.13
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.26
-0.40
-0.02
0.43
0.27
0.22
0.47
0.18
0.24
0.25
0.30
0.14
Relative
Humidity
0.06
0.08
0.05
0.17
-0.01
0.18
-0.21
0.17
0.18
0.09
0.15
-0.11
Sea Level
Pressure
0.07
0.22
0.19
-0.12
0.13
-0.02
-0.06
-0.01
-0.02
0.02
0.04
0.11
u-component
of wind speed
-0.31
-0.05
-0.34
-0.16
-0.08
-0.14
-0.17
-0.11
-0.15
-0.34
-0.31
-0.28
v-component
of wind speed
-0.08
-0.20
-0.25
-0.08
-0.20
0.02
0.07
0.06
0.04
-0.17
-0.11
-0.06
-------
Table 10-3. SVOC, Ozone, and SNMOC Measured by the Missouri Monitoring Stations
Site
BTMO
S4MO
SLMO
Average Ozone
Concentrations
(ppbv)
N/A
52.27 (±2.89)
52.27 (±2.89)
Total
Number of
Ozone
Sampling
Days
N/A
214
214
Average
SVOC
Concentration
0/g/m3)
N/A
N/A
3.81 (±0.24)
TNMOC
speciated
(ppbC)
53.75
(±14.02)
230.62
(±96.18)
126.59
(±12.10)
TNMOC with
unknowns
(ppbC)
121. 60 (±41. 24)
367.98
(±189.39)
210.00 (±25. 80)
%of
TNMOC
Identified
46%
67%
63%
SNMOC
Compound with
the Highest
Concentration
(ppbC)
propane (9.11)
ethane (3 2.51)
ethane (10.74)
-------
Table 10-4. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Missouri
Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
BTMO
S2MO
S3MO
S4MO
SLMO
Population
within Ten
Miles
34,068
796,761
714,905
838,460
714,905
Estimated
Number of
Motor Vehicles
Owned
25,210
589,603
529,030
620,460
529,030
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
4,360
1,000
8,532
22,840
15,016
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
4.31 (±0.61)
13.75 (±2.40)
9.77 (±1.47)
8. 19 (±1.81)
33.21 (±3.03)
10-18
-------
11.0 Sites in Nebraska
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
sites in Nebraska (LINE and LONE). Both sites are located in Lincoln, situated in southeastern
Nebraska. Although both of these sites are in Lincoln, it is not possible to accurately compare
the measured values with each other. The LINE site sampled for the first part of the year
(3/21/02 - 9/29/02), while the LONE site sampled the latter part of the year (10/05/02 -
12/28/02). Figures 11-1 and 11-2 are topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in
their urban locations. Figure 11-3 is a map identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites that
reported to the 1999 NEI. The map shows that the sites are in close proximity to each other,
oriented north-south, and that most of the industrial facilities are to the east of the sites. Fuel
combustion, surface coating, and miscellaneous industrial sites make up the majority of the
nearby sources. Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2002 at the Lincoln
Municipal Airport weather station (WBAN 14939) near the sites with the purpose of calculating
correlations of meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements.
Table 11-1 highlights the UATMP average concentration at each site, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. The Lincoln area has a continental climate, with cold winters and
warm summers. Lincoln is affected by most storm systems that track across the country,
allowing day to day weather fluctuations. Precipitation varies throughout the year, but is
typically concentrated in the springtime. On average, wind blows from a southerly direction, as
indicated in Table 11-1. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition
(Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
11.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Nebraska Sites
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were measured at this site, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and
3-4. The polar compounds had the highest geometric means at both LINE and LONE (8.24
ppbv and 5.01 ppbv, respectively), while the halogenated hydrocarbons had the lowest geometric
11-1
-------
means at both sites (4.15 ppbv and 3.93 ppbv, respectively). The average total UATMP daily
concentration at LINE was higher than at LONE, 23.58 (±3.57) ppbv vs. 16.06 (±5.27) ppbv,
respectively. Table 11-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from
January 2002 to December 2002, which is the same time period covered in this report.
Tables 1 l-2a and b are the summaries of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for
each of the prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters. Identification of the
prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. At the LINE monitoring station,
strong positive correlations were found between chloromethane, formaldehyde, and propylene
and maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures, while 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene,
dichlorodifluoromethane, the xylenes, and trichlorofluoromethane all had moderately strong
positive correlations with the same four weather parameters. In fact, only acetylene and toluene
had negative correlations with these parameters. With the exception of acetylene, benzene, and
toluene, all of the compounds had negative correlations with sea level pressure. At LINE, as
temperature, dew point, and wet bulb temperature increase and sea level pressure decreases,
UATMP concentrations of the prevalent compounds tend to increase.
At LONE some similarities exist, but not nearly as strong. Only chloromethane,
dichlorodifluoromethane, and trichlorofluoromethane had moderately strong positive
correlations with maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures, while formaldehyde
had moderately strong positive correlations with maximum and average temperatures. With the
exception of acetylene, all of the compounds had negative correlations with sea level pressure,
and all of the compounds had negative correlations with the u-component of the wind. Nearly
half of each of these correlations registered as at least moderately strong. At LONE, UATMP
concentrations of the prevalent compounds tend to increase as the pressure and u-component of
the wind decrease.
11.2 Spatial Analysis
Using the population within ten miles of each site, an estimate of the number of cars
operating in proximity to the monitoring station can be established. The ratio used in this report
11-2
-------
is 0.74 automobiles to every one person (refer to section 3.4.1 for more information on this
ratio). The populations near LINE and LONE are very similar, with 239,999 people operating
approximately 177,599 vehicles near LINE and 240,340 people driving 177,852 vehicles near
LONE. This information is compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent
compounds at the Nebraska sites in Table 11-3. Also included in Table 11-3 are average daily
traffic data, or more specifically, the average number of cars passing the monitoring sites on the
nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Like population, traffic flow near the sites is fairly
similar.
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 3-14 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. The concentrations ratios at LINE resemble those of the roadside
study, but the values of benzene-ethylbenzene and toluene-ethylbenzene tended to be less, while
the o-xylene-ethylbenzene value was greater at LINE than for the roadside study. At LONE, the
benzene-ethylbenzene ratio was higher than the m,/?-xylene-ethylbenzene ratio, while the
opposite is true for the roadside study. The toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is higher at LONE than
the roadside study, while the o-xylene-ethylbenzene ratios are similar.
11-3
-------
Figure 11-1. Lincoln, Nebraska Site 1 (LINE) Monitoring Station
Map Data Unavailable
^•T--- Iri1- • ; li-A—Bilffl
Copyright ® 2001 l"faps 3 la carte, Inc
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
11-4
-------
Figure 11-2. Lincoln, Nebraska Site 2 (LONE) Monitoring Station
B»i«^_xty
. _lci
N
"^ • "i .
K3-^:^^y
L^i4?^
•rr^v v;r^
^ kwAM.topozone.com - Copyright ©2001 Maps a la carte. Inc.
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
11-5
-------
Figure 11-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of LINE and LONE
§7 D 0 «V 96 SS'iT
Lancaster County
Seward County
P ' JT-jp 1 p F^ f ,\
B I 'Si W B f \
T K s TKP ! \
s R " '
• 1 P'
It
Salihe County o
Legend
g] LINE UATMP site
© LONE UATMP site
10 mile radius
| County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
z Electrical & electronic equipment facility (2)
• Heavy construction contractors facility (1)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (39)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (2)
L Liquids Distrib. Industrial Facility (2) ?
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (3) w
Note Due to facility density and coiocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (14)
Nonclassifiable Establishments (1)
Personal services facility (3)
Printing & publishing facility (1)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (13)
Transportation equipment (6)
Unknown (1)
Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
11-6
-------
Table 11-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Sites in Nebraska
Site
Name
LINE
LONE
Type
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
^^
23.58
(±3.57)
^^N
16.06
(±5.27)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
63.79
(±2.24)
78.59
(±6.11)
63.79
(±2.24)
49.67
(±6.36)
Average
Temperature
52.33
(±2.13)
67.25
(±5.50)
52.33
(±2.13)
39.26
(±5.07)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
39.49
(±1.99)
52.28
(±5.53)
39.49
(±1.99)
30.65
(±5.24)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
45.91
(±1.87)
58.65
(±4.83)
45.91
(±1.87)
35.67
(±4.72)
Average
Relative
Humidity
65.46
(±1.23)
62.12
(±3.20)
65.46
(±1.23)
74.10
(±6.36)
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1018.7
(±10.31)
1015.5
(±24.88)
1018.7
(±10.31)
1019.7
(±32.86)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.00
(±0.32)
-0.39
(±1.10)
0.00
(±0.32)
0.55
(±1.32)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
4.63
(±0.32)
2.56
(±1.37)
4.63
(±0.82)
1.05
(±1.45)
-------
Table ll-2a - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Lincoln, Nebraska Site 1 (LINE)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichloromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.27
-0.43
0.10
0.58
0.39
0.23
0.76
0.26
0.27
0.46
-0.01
0.39
Average
Temperature
0.28
-0.45
0.11
0.62
0.37
0.26
0.77
0.28
0.30
0.50
-0.03
0.36
Dew Point
Temperature
0.23
-0.48
0.09
0.69
0.42
0.22
0.67
0.24
0.26
0.51
-0.11
0.37
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.25
-0.47
0.10
0.66
0.40
0.24
0.72
0.26
0.28
0.51
-0.07
0.37
Relative
Humidity
-0.12
-0.22
-0.05
0.35
0.28
-0.16
-0.26
-0.13
-0.14
0.11
-0.28
0.14
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.24
0.36
0.13
-0.35
-0.20
-0.17
-0.35
-0.20
-0.21
-0.12
0.24
-0.17
u-component
of wind speed
0.24
-0.11
-0.07
-0.25
-0.19
0.25
0.03
0.23
0.23
-0.23
-0.06
-0.22
v-component
of wind speed
0.02
-0.28
-0.07
0.20
0.19
-0.11
0.41
-0.08
-0.05
0.07
-0.07
0.18
oo
-------
Table ll-2b - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Lincoln, Nebraska Site 2 (LONE)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichloromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.15
-0.21
-0.13
0.29
0.37
-0.10
0.31
-0.07
-0.22
-0.06
0.20
0.38
Average
Temperature
0.31
-0.37
-0.31
0.31
0.44
0.06
0.25
0.07
-0.08
-0.07
0.26
0.42
Dew Point
Temperature
0.47
-0.32
-0.29
0.27
0.49
0.26
0.13
0.24
0.12
0.05
0.37
0.46
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.40
-0.37
-0.31
0.29
0.46
0.16
0.21
0.16
0.02
-0.02
0.31
0.44
Relative
Humidity
0.45
0.06
0.00
-0.02
0.13
0.48
-0.21
0.43
0.45
0.29
0.31
0.13
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.50
0.03
-0.11
-0.17
-0.09
-0.28
-0.28
-0.39
-0.21
-0.34
-0.33
-0.20
u-component
of wind speed
-0.37
-0.11
-0.05
-0.24
-0.16
-0.35
-0.06
-0.39
-0.36
-0.23
-0.17
-0.05
v-component
of wind speed
-0.04
0.11
0.17
0.33
0.34
-0.30
0.44
-0.09
-0.31
0.20
0.26
0.43
-------
Table 11-3. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Nebraska
Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
LINE
LONE
Population
within Ten
Miles
239,999
240,340
Estimated
Number of
Vehicles Owned
177,599
177,852
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
6100
6200
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
23.58 (±3.57)
16.06 (±5.27)
11-10
-------
12.0 Sites in New Jersey
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the four
UATMP sites in New Jersey (CANJ, CHNJ, ELNJ, and NBNJ). Each of the four sites is located
in different cities (Camden, Chester, Elizabeth, and New Brunswick, respectively). Figures 12-1
through 12-4 are topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in their urban locations.
Figures 12-5 through 12-7 are maps identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites that
reported to the 1999 NEI. CANJ is located on the southeast side of the state, near the PA/NJ
border and east of Philadelphia. A number of sources are located mainly to its north and west,
most of which are involved in fuel combustion. CFINJ is located in the north-central part of New
Jersey and has only twelve industrial sites nearby, most of which lie just within the ten mile
radius from the site and are also involved in fuel combustion. ELNJ and NBNJ are somewhat
closer to each other, with the outer portions of their ten mile radius intersecting. These two sites
are near the New Jersey/New York border, just west of Staten Island, and have a number of
sources in the vicinity, most of which are fuel combustion and chemicals and allied product
facilities.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2002 at three weather stations near
these sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The weather stations are Philadelphia, Newark International
Airport, and Somerville, NJ (WBAN 94732, 14734, and 54785, respectively).
Table 12-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at each of these sites, along
with temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature,
average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and
v- components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. 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. Annual average wind speed and
12-1
-------
direction tend to vary among the sites, as indicated in Table 12-1. A southwesterly wind is most
common in the summer and a northwesterly wind is typical in the winter. This information can
be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
12.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the New Jersey Sites
Carbonyl compound and VOC were measured at all four of the sites, as indicated in
Tables 3-3 and 3-4. CHNJ has the highest carbonyl and halogenated hydrocarbon geometric
means of the four sites (6.13 ppbv and 6.77 ppbv, respectively). The highest hydrocarbon
geometric mean was measured at ELNJ (8.52 ppbv). The polar compounds have the lowest
range of geometric means out of the four classifications and ranged from 2.66 ppbv atNBNJ and
3.63 ppbv at ELNJ. The average total UATMP daily concentration at CHNJ was the highest of
the four at 44.05 (±17.52) ppbv, while the remaining three sites were all relatively similar in
value, ranging from 17.82 (±2.17) ppbv at CANJ to 19.73 (±1.93) ppbv at ELNJ. Table 12-1
also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2002 to December
2002, which is the same time period covered in this report. SVOC concentrations were sampled
at all four of the sites. Average SVOC concentrations ranged from 3.69 (±0.07) //g/m3 atNBNJ
to 4.20 (±0.18) //g/m3 at ELNJ. Information on SVOC concentrations is given in Table 12-3.
Tables 12-2a-d are 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. Overall, very few correlations
between the sites and compounds were considered strong. Yet many fell into the moderately
strong category. At CANJ, chloromethane had strong positive correlations with maximum,
average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures, while dichlorofluoromethane had moderately
strong positive correlations with the same parameters. Acetylene, benzene, ethylbenzene, and
the xylenes measured moderately strong negative correlations with the aforementioned four
weather variables. Interestingly, nearly all of the compounds at CANJ exhibited a moderately
strong positive correlation with sea level pressure, a weak negative correlation with the u-
component of the wind and a weak to moderately strong positive correlation with the v-
12-2
-------
component of the wind. The prevalent compounds tend to increase during periods of increasing
pressure, decreasing east-west wind speeds, and increasing north-south wind speeds.
Formaldehyde registered a strong positive correlation with the temperature (maximum
and average) and moisture (dew point and wet bulb temperatures) variables at CHNJ, while
chloromethane registered a moderately strong correlation with the same four variables. Similar
to CANJ, benzene and acetylene at CHNJ had moderately strong negative correlations with these
same parameters. Aside from these correlations, the majority of the correlations at CHNJ were
relatively weak, making it difficult to determine when UATMP concentrations will increase,
based on the weather parameters.
The two sites closest together are ELNJ and NBNJ. Chloromethane and formaldehyde
had strong positive correlations with the same temperature and moisture variables mentioned
above at ELNJ, while dichlorodifluoromethane and formaldehyde registered moderately strong
positive correlations at NBNJ. With the exception of acetylene and benzene, all the compounds
at ELNJ had positive correlations with the temperature and moisture parameters, but the same
does not hold true at NBNJ. In fact, at NBNJ, acetylene, benzene, ethylbenzene, and m,p-xy\ene
all have at least one moderately strong negative correlation with the previously mentioned
variables. Interestingly, at least half of the compounds at both ELNJ and NBNJ have moderately
strong positive corrrelations with relative humidity, while the remaining compounds have weak
positive and negative correlations. The ambiguity in the correlations between weather
parameters and compounds makes it difficult to determine when UATMP concentrations will
increase at these two monitoring stations.
12.2 Spatial Analysis
Using the population within ten miles of each site, an estimate of the number of motor
vehicles operating in proximity to the monitoring station can be established. The ratio used in
this report is 0.74 motor vehicles to every one person (refer to section 3.4.1 for more information
on this ratio). The population near the ELNJ site is 2,189,897 people, all of whom are operating
approximately 1,620,524 motor vehicles. This site had the largest population (and vehicles) of
12-3
-------
the four New Jersey sites. The site with the lowest population was CHNJ, with a population of
237,587 people driving 175,814 motor vehicles. This information is compared to the average
daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at each New Jersey site in Table 12-4. Also
included in Table 12-4 are average daily traffic data, or more specifically, the average number of
cars passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. Not
surprisingly, the site closest to Newark and New York City, ELNJ, had the largest amount of
traffic passing by the monitoring station.
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 3-14 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. CFtNJ's concentration ratios most resemble those of the roadside
study of the four sites, with just slightly lower toluene-ethylbenzene and benzene-ethylbenzene
ratios. NBNJ has a higher toluene-ethylbenzene ratio and a lower benzene-ethylbenzene ratio
than does the roadside study. ELNJ has a higher toluene-ethylbenzene and benzene-
ethylbenzene ratio in comparison to the those of the roadside study. Also, ELNJ's benzene-
ethylbenzene ratio is higher than its w,/>-xylene-ethylbenzene ratio, which isn't true for the
roadside study. The concentration ratios for CANJ resemble the roadside study the least, with a
toluene-ethylbenzene ratio more than double that of the roadside study, and a higher benzene-
ethylbenzene ratio than its m,/>-xylene-ethylbenzene ratio.
12-4
-------
Figure 12-1. Camden, New Jersey (CANJ) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
12-5
-------
Figure 12-2. Chester, New Jersey (CHNJ) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
12-6
-------
Figure 12-3. Elizabeth, New Jersey (ELNJ) Monitoring Station
* • •• * . V - t/ffa v. *:*
?; ** •-' '• / ? .•<• "'//// ' :l -ft, ,$• ,
:••••;%• -fm • -^'
1 'V ,c«"/ ..•;.,,i|fr,',v,-.-i ' V--
.-• / /. - ',"::^ •"•:•• < yV'^V
.JJfl ' . j»a» «3j
vr \
;-:4t..- \
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
12-7
-------
Figure 12-4. New Brunswick, New Jersey (NBNJ) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
12-8
-------
Figure 12-5. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CANJ
a-
'' Montgomery ' / County
» County i
" '
i /Philadelphia ''< \ Sucks_ _
' .. Bounty i
Burlington
County
.\i'
f
Delaware
County
Camtten
County
Legend
^ CANJ UATMP site
10 mile radius
[ f County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
C Chemicals & allied products facility (21)
5 Educational services facility (1)
E Electric, gas, S sanitary services (8)
D Fabricated metal products facility (3)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (3)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (77)
+ Health services facility (3)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (9)
= Instruments & related products facility (1)
L Liquids Distrib. Industrial Facility (10)
i Local & interurban passenger transit (1)
x Misc. manufacturing industries facility (1)
P Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (6)
Note Due to faciWy density and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
' Misc. repair services facility (1)
k Museums, art galleries, botanical & zoological gardens
- Nat'l security & international affairs facility (1)
^ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (3)
1 Petroleum & coal products (3)
; : Petroleum/Nat, Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (6)
> Pharmaceutical Prod, Processes Industrial Facility (1)
v Polymers & Resins Prod. Industrial Facility (1)
O Primary metal industries facility (5)
R Printing & publishing facility (1)
# Prod, of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (2)
4 Prod, of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
v Rubber and misc. plastics products facility (1)
U Stone, clay, glass, & concrete products facility (1)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (15)
w waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (4)
12-9
-------
Figure 12-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CHNJ
* Sussex v \
I County )
Morris County
W
^ Warren A \
s County / ' \
'' / »F /
* If \
Hunterdon
' County
Somerset \
County \
Note Due to faciWy density and coSocatton, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
@ CHNJ UATMP site
10 mile radius
[ 1 County boundary
Source Category Group (No, of Facilities)
c Chemicals & allied products facility (1)
f Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (7)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (1)
P Misc, Processes Industrial Facility (1)
11 Nat'l security & international affairs facility (1)
w Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
12-10
-------
Figure 12-7. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ELNJ and NBNJ
) Bergenl| Hudson j / / .,, - '
Bounty;A County i, •/ / 'Queens
/ /--.. 'County
:F>5 Ly I,/-- F/v
-
\ \, Kings
County
V?|% F / / County y.
,0 ,2* si 14 s ' -
l i ' i i—l—t—i 1 1\ s- '
?4 25'0"W 74'2CTO"W 74'15'0"W 74 IQ'O'W 74 5'O^V
Note Due to facility density and coloration, the total facilities
displayed may not represent a3t facilities within the area of interest
Legend
tg? ELNJ UATMP site 10 mile radius
jj§3 NBNJ UATMP site | | County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) p Wise Processes Industrial Facility (30)
Ag. Chemicals Prod, Industrial Facility (3)
C Chemicals & allied products facility (35)
E Electric, gas, & sanitary services (9)
Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2)
'< ' Petroleum/Nat- Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (5)
Pharmaceutical Prod. Processes Industrial Facility (8)
, ,
Electrical & electronic equipment facility (1) v Polymers & Resins Prod. Industrial Facility (5)
0 Fabricated metal products facility (8)
* Pr°d. of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (4)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (5) " Prod, of Organic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (112) ° Primary metal industries facility (4)
l Incineration Industrial Facility (6) Y Rubber and misc. plastics products facility (4)
• Industrial machinery and equipment (1 ) u Stone, clay, glass, & concrete products facility (1 )
= Instruments & related products facility (1) s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (25)
L Liquids Distrib. Industrial Facility (19) + Transportation by air (1 )
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (3) ? Unknown (4)
x Misc. manufacturing industries facility (1) w Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (6)
s Wholesale trade-durable goods (4)
12-11
-------
Table 12-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in New Jersey
Site
Name
CANJ
CHNJ
ELNJ
NBNJ
Type
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
SSS
17.82
(±2.17)
^
44.05
(±17.52)
^
19.73
(±1.93)
SSS
19.59
(±2.98)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
64.73
(±1.85)
64.02
(±4.51)
63.64
(±1.88)
60.25
(±4.38)
64.17
(±1.87)
65.49
(±4.20)
63.64
(±1.88)
60.77
(±4.13)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
56.29
(±1.73)
55.38
(±4.27)
53.13
(±1.73)
49.95
(±4.27)
56.56
(±1.74)
58.03
(±4.07)
53.13
(±1.73)
50.62
(±3.98)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
42.34
(±1.80)
42.23
(±4.45)
42.26
(±1.85)
39.86
(±4.57)
42.64
(±1.81)
44.99
(±4.08)
42.26
(±1.85)
40.47
(±4.28)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
49.53
(±1.55)
49.04
(±3.87)
47.91
(±1.63)
45.28
(±4.05)
49.80
(±1.56)
51.47
(±3.58)
47.91
(±1.63)
45.90
(±3.78)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
63.12
(±1.51)
64.29
(±3.57)
70.42
(±1.30)
71.67
(±3.07)
62.80
(±1.51)
65.07
(±3.76)
70.42
(±1.30)
71.69
(±2.99)
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1019.5
(±8.94)
1018.9
(±23.30)
1019.2
(±9.68)
1020.1
(±27.25)
1019.3
(±9.65)
1019.7
(±24.82)
1019.2
(±9.68)
1019.5
(±27.12)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.54
(±0.31)
0.81
(±0.78)
-1.95
(±0.16)
-0.83
(±0.46)
1.50
(±0.36)
0.90
(±0.95)
-1.95
(±0.16)
-0.83
(±0.47)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
3.63
(±0.22)
1.06
(±0.60)
0.36
(±0.14)
0.19
(±0.34)
4.30
(±0.27)
0.98
(±0.67)
0.36
(±0.14)
0.26
(±0.39)
to
to
-------
Table 12-2a - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Camden, New Jersey (CANJ)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluorormethane
Maximum
Temperature
-0.22
-0.40
-0.33
0.55
0.32
-0.30
0.12
-0.36
-0.27
-0.21
-0.22
0.08
Average
Temperature
-0.22
-0.45
-0.35
0.53
0.32
-0.30
0.04
-0.37
-0.27
-0.23
-0.22
0.11
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.17
-0.41
-0.33
0.54
0.31
-0.25
0.04
-0.34
-0.22
-0.28
-0.17
0.14
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.21
-0.44
-0.35
0.55
0.32
-0.29
0.05
-0.36
-0.26
-0.26
-0.20
0.13
Relative
Humidity
0.10
-0.01
-0.05
0.17
0.06
0.07
0.03
-0.01
0.07
-0.17
0.05
0.10
Sea Level
Pressure
0.35
0.37
0.29
0.12
0.35
0.29
0.26
0.29
0.26
0.23
0.03
0.01
u-component
of wind speed
-0.26
-0.21
-0.07
-0.09
0.04
-0.17
-0.16
-0.15
-0.24
-0.16
0.08
0.21
v-component
of wind speed
0.02
0.14
0.05
0.24
0.14
0.00
0.34
0.01
0.07
0.04
-0.07
0.16
to
-------
Table 12-2b - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Chester, New Jersey (CHNJ)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluorormethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.02
-0.38
-0.39
0.41
0.18
0.07
0.70
0.12
0.11
0.21
0.18
0.15
Average
Temperature
0.07
-0.40
-0.39
0.35
0.17
0.03
0.66
0.06
0.06
0.21
0.19
0.16
Dew Point
Temperature
0.13
-0.33
-0.31
0.30
0.17
0.02
0.55
0.04
0.07
0.27
0.24
0.20
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.11
-0.37
-0.36
0.33
0.16
0.03
0.61
0.05
0.07
0.24
0.22
0.18
Relative
Humidity
0.25
0.11
0.12
-0.06
0.05
-0.02
-0.11
-0.06
0.03
0.33
0.21
0.19
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.12
0.20
-0.05
-0.08
-0.07
-0.16
-0.09
-0.18
-0.18
0.03
-0.06
-0.05
u-component
of wind speed
0.00
-0.05
0.00
-0.07
0.11
0.07
-0.04
0.04
0.05
-0.19
0.08
0.06
v-component
of wind speed
-0.17
-0.14
0.02
-0.12
0.09
-0.13
-0.18
-0.10
-0.14
-0.16
-0.10
0.02
to
-------
Table 12-2c - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Elizabeth, New Jersey (ELNJ)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluorormethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.13
-0.31
-0.07
0.60
0.35
0.12
0.68
0.08
0.08
0.17
0.06
0.29
Average
Temperature
0.15
-0.33
-0.10
0.60
0.37
0.14
0.66
0.09
0.10
0.15
0.09
0.31
Dew Point
Temperature
0.25
-0.22
-0.07
0.58
0.40
0.24
0.55
0.20
0.22
0.15
0.22
0.32
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.20
-0.29
-0.09
0.61
0.40
0.19
0.61
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.32
Relative
Humidity
0.30
0.25
0.08
0.03
0.12
0.28
-0.21
0.30
0.32
0.03
0.34
0.05
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.08
0.22
-0.06
-0.26
-0.10
-0.07
-0.20
-0.06
-0.06
-0.22
0.00
-0.12
u-component
of wind speed
-0.31
-0.33
-0.15
-0.08
-0.14
-0.33
0.00
-0.42
-0.38
0.13
-0.37
-0.10
v-component
of wind speed
0.19
0.21
0.16
0.16
-0.02
0.10
0.17
0.20
0.13
0.36
0.02
-0.18
to
-------
Table 12-2d - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
New Brunswick, New Jersey (NBNJ)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluorormethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.08
-0.27
-0.24
0.14
0.30
-0.24
0.47
-0.26
-0.16
-0.13
0.02
0.21
Average
Temperature
0.13
-0.32
-0.25
0.17
0.30
-0.29
0.43
-0.31
-0.21
-0.12
0.07
0.24
Dew Point
Temperature
0.22
-0.25
-0.17
0.25
0.35
-0.29
0.34
-0.34
-0.24
-0.04
0.14
0.32
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.17
-0.29
-0.22
0.21
0.33
-0.29
0.39
-0.32
-0.22
-0.08
0.12
0.29
Relative
Humidity
0.43
0.17
0.24
0.33
0.32
-0.10
-0.10
-0.19
-0.14
0.32
0.27
0.38
Sea Level
Pressure
0.37
0.23
0.34
0.44
0.34
-0.01
-0.25
-0.07
-0.05
0.48
-0.09
0.07
u-component
of wind speed
-0.09
-0.04
-0.07
-0.06
-0.15
0.21
-0.02
0.22
0.20
-0.16
0.05
-0.20
v-component
of wind speed
-0.21
0.01
-0.12
-0.04
-0.14
0.15
0.06
0.21
0.17
-0.11
-0.08
-0.06
to
-------
Table 12-3. SVOC Measured by the New Jersey Monitoring Stations
Monitoring
Station
CANJ
CHNJ
ELNJ
NBNJ
Average SVOC
Concentration
Oug/m3)
4. 17 (±0.22)
3. 69 (±0.04)
4.20 (±0.1 8)
3.83 (±0.07)
12-17
-------
Table 12-4. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for New Jersey
Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
CANJ
CHNJ
ELNJ
NBNJ
Population
within Ten
Miles
1,946,547
237,587
2,189,897
856,367
Estimated
Number of
Motor Vehicles
Owned
1,440,445
175,814
1,620,524
633,712
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
62,000
12,623
170,000
63,000
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
17.82 (±2. 17)
44.05 (±17.52)
19.73 (±1.93)
19.59 (±2.98)
12-18
-------
13.0 Site in North Dakota
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in North Dakota (BUND). This site is located in Beulah, and Figure 13-1 is a topographical
map showing the monitoring station in its urban location. Figure 13-2 is a map identifying
facilities within ten miles of the site and that reported to the 1999 NEI. The BUND site has very
few sources nearby, mainly in fuel combustion industries. Hourly meteorological data were
retrieved for all of 2002 at the Bismarck Municipal Airport (WBAN 24011) with the purpose of
calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements.
Table 13-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at the site, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
sampling days. Beulah is located to the northwest of Bismarck, and Beulah's climate is
continental in nature. Cold, dry winters and generally mild summers are normally expected.
Climatologically, moderate northerly winds are expected in the winter, with southerly winds in
the summer. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and
Bair, 1987).
13.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the North Dakota Site
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were measured at the site, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and
3-4. BUND's lowest geometric mean was 1.89 ppbv for the hydrocarbons, and the highest
geometric mean was 4.12 ppbv for the halogenated hydrocarbons. Polar and carbonyl compound
values fell between these values. The average total UATMP daily concentration at BUND was
9.71 (±0.57) ppbv. Table 13-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters
from January 2002 to December 2002, which is the same time period covered in this report.
This site also opted to have total and speciated nonmethane organic compounds
(TNMOC/SNMOC) measured during its air toxic sampling. SNMOC/NMOC compounds are of
particular interest because of their role in ozone formation. Readers are encouraged to review
13-1
-------
EPA's 2001 Nonmethane Organic Compounds (NMOC) and SpeciatedNonmethane Organic
Compounds (SNMOC) Monitoring Program, Final Report (EPA, 2002) for more information on
SNMOC/NMOC trends and concentrations. The average total NMOC value for BUND was 223
(±180.67) ppbC, of which nearly 66% could be identified through speciation. Of the speciated
compounds, isopentane measured the highest concentration at the BUND site (39.05 ppbC).
Ozone concentrations were also sampled at BUND on 365 sample days, and were retrieved from
the U.S. EPA's AQS database. The average ozone concentration for each sample day was 40.36
(±1.15) ppbv. This information is available in Table 13-3.
Table 13-2 is the summary of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters. Identification of the prevalent
compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. Formaldehyde was the only compound to
measure correlations that were considered strong. Strong positive correlations were indicated
between maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures and formaldehyde, all of
which were greater than or equal to 0.71. A moderately strong negative correlation between
benzene and acetylene and the same four meteorological parameters also exists at BUND.
Chloromethane exhibited a moderately strong positive correlation with dew point and wet bulb
temperature. Aside from these compounds, no other correlations between concentration and
weather parameter appear to exist, making a prediction of when UATMP concentrations will
increase, based on meteorology, difficult at best.
13.2 Spatial Analysis
Using the population within ten miles of each site, an estimate of the number of motor
vehicles operating in proximity to the monitoring station can be established. The ratio used in
this report is 0.74 motor vehicles to every one person (refer to section 3.4.1 for more information
on this ratio). The population near the BUND site is 7,415 people, all of whom are operating
approximately 5,487 motor vehicles. This information is compared to the average daily
concentration of the prevalent compounds at the North Dakota site in Table 13-4. Also included
in Table 13-4 are average daily traffic data, or more specifically, the average number of cars
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
13-2
-------
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 3-14 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at the monitoring site. The BUND site's concentration ratios look somewhat different than those
of the roadside study. The m,/>-xylene-ethylbenzene ratio is significantly lower than that of the
roadside study, and is not the second highest concentration as in the roadside study, but the third
highest behind benzene-ethylbenzene. Also, the benzene-ethylbenzene and toluene-
ethylbenzene ratios are slightly higher than the roadside study's ratios for the same compounds.
Only the ratio for o-xylene-ethylbenzene appears similar to that of the roadside study.
13-3
-------
Figure 13-1. Beulah, North Dakota (BUND) Monitoring Station
j r^ V
~y. Jf1
*~r- r*l
\ m
S^-v^l A
^ • (pr« :; •
(J
i
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
13-4
-------
Figure 13-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BUND
101'55'0"W 101 50'trW 1CH'45'CrW
0!tver
County
ssmv isrso'crw 1014S'ff!w torwo-'w torsg'O'w 10130!o"w
Note, Due to facility density and coiocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
@ BUND UATMP site
10 mile radius
[ jCounty boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (4)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (1)
C Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (1)
w Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (2)
13-5
-------
Table 13-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in North Dakota
Site
Name
BUND
Type
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
^S\S\X
^XXX\
9.71
(±0.57)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
54.86
(±2.51)
53.82
(±6.28)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
43.48
(±2.28)
42.48
(±5.75)
Average
Dewpoint
Temperature
(°F)
31.34
(±1.90)
30.89
(±4.96)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
37.74
(±1.93)
37.07
(±4.98)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
66.83
(±1.32)
67.97
(±3.40)
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1019.0
(±13.38)
1018.1
(±32.72)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-0.09
(±0.37)
0.17
(±0.89)
Average v-
component
of the Wind
(kts)
4.21
(±0.26)
1.14
(±0.76)
-------
Table 13-2. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Beulah, North Dakota (BUND)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.06
-0.32
-0.43
0.21
0.01
-0.09
0.75
-0.21
-0.23
0.05
0.00
-0.21
Average
Temperature
0.08
-0.36
-0.42
0.24
0.03
-0.05
0.76
-0.21
-0.20
0.05
0.01
-0.21
Dew Point
Temperature
0.04
-0.33
-0.43
0.30
0.10
-0.05
0.71
-0.21
-0.16
0.02
0.00
-0.17
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.07
-0.35
-0.43
0.28
0.06
-0.05
0.75
-0.22
-0.18
0.04
0.01
-0.20
Relative
Humidity
-0.16
0.25
0.11
0.10
0.19
0.03
-0.39
0.12
0.19
-0.14
-0.02
0.23
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.02
0.03
0.16
-0.01
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.01
-0.11
0.00
u-component
of wind speed
-0.18
-0.11
0.11
-0.16
-0.13
-0.16
-0.22
-0.11
0.05
0.09
-0.17
-0.01
v-component
of wind speed
0.12
-0.18
-0.24
0.11
0.07
0.21
0.27
-0.03
-0.05
-0.10
0.04
-0.18
-------
Table 13-3. TNMOC and Ozone Measured by the Beulah, ND (BUND) Monitoring Station
Average Ozone
Concentrations
(ppbv)
40.36 (±1.15)
Total Number of
Ozone Sampling
Days
365
Average
TNMOC
speciated
(ppbC)
181 (±173.29)
Average TNMOC
w/ unknowns
(ppbC)
223 (±180.67)
% TNMOC
Identified
66%
SNMOC Compound with
the Highest Concentration
(ppbC)
Isopentane (39.05)
oo
-------
Table 13-4. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the North Dakota
Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Station
BUND
Population
within Ten
Miles
7,415
Estimated
Number of
Motor Vehicles
Owned
5,487
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
1,350
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
9.71 (±0.57)
13-9
-------
14.0 Site in Oregon
This section focuses on a few specific meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends
for the UATMP site in Oregon (PLOR), located in Portland. Figure 14-1 is a topographical map
showing the monitoring station in its urban location. Figure 14-2 is a map identifying facilities
within ten miles of the site that reported to the 1999 NEI. Most of the industrial facilities within
ten miles of the site are to the west and northwest, many of which are surface coating and
miscellaneous industries. Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2002 at the
Portand International Airport weather station (WB AN 24229) with the purpose of calculating
correlations of meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements.
The Portland site sampled only hexavalent chromium and therefore does not have an
average UATMP concentration to report in Table 14-1, like the other state sections. However,
Table 14-1 does list temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point
temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information
(average u- and v- components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the
entire year and on days samples were taken. Portland is nestled between the Cascades to the east
and the coast range to the west. The proximity to the Pacific Ocean has a moderating effect on
Portland's temperatures, while the mountains can act as both a barrier and an enhancer for
temperatures and precipitation. The rainy season occurs during the winter months, while
summer is rather dry. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition
(Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
14.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Oregon Site
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were not measured at this site; only hexavalent
chromium was sampled. The average hexavalent chromium concentration at PLOR was 0.260
(±0.049) ng/m3, and is summarized in Table 14-3. Pearson Correlation coefficients were
calculated for this site for hexavalent chromium and are listed in Table 14-2. Moderately strong
to strong negative correlations were found between hexavalent chromium concentrations and
maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures, as well as with the u-component of
the wind. A moderately strong positive correlation is also noted with relative humidity. As
14-1
-------
temperature and wind speed decrease, and relative humidity increases, hexavalent chromium
concentrations tend to increase at PLOR.
14.2 Spatial Analysis
Using the population within ten miles of each site, an estimate of the number of motor
vehicles operating in proximity to the monitoring station can be established. The ratio used in
this report is 0.74 motor vehicles to every one person (refer to section 3.4.1 for more information
on this ratio). The population near the PLOR site is 894,082 people, all of whom are operating
approximately 661,621 motor vehicles. This information is listed in Table 14-3. Also included
in Table 14-3 are average daily traffic data, or more specifically, the average number of cars
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
14-2
-------
Figure 14-1. Portland, Oregon (PLOR) Monitoring Station
.com - Copyright ©2001 Maps a la
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
14-3
-------
Figure 14-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of PLOR
122'55'ff'W 122 S
Columbia, County "*"" -/ /
Muftnomah .(County
\ Clark County t
Washington / /
' Coun^ ,, /
-
ijj , K
<
*
' Pueblo County
"""
-5lT
Crackamagf County
Note' Due to facility density and cofocatJoo. the Eotal facilities
displayed may not represent aiE facilities wrthin the area of interest.
PLOR UATMP site
10 mile radius
, I County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) p
(> Apparel & other textile products facility (1) ^
C Chemicals & allied products facility (4) '
"i. Electrical & electronic equipment facility (1) v
D Fabricated metal products facility (3) °
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (6) R
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (7) *
J Industrial machinery & equip, facility (2) s
Leather & leather products facility (1) ?
L Liquids Distrib. Industrial Facility (7) w
Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (8)
Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (4)
Polymers & Resins Prod. Industrial Facility (3)
Primary metal industries facility (1)
Printing & publishing facility (1)
Prod, of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (17)
Unknown (1)
Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (2)
14-4
-------
Table 14-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Oregon
Site
Name
PLOR
Type
All
2002
sample
day
Average
Hexavalent
Chromium
Concentration
(ng/m3)
OsAAyN
xxxC^
0.260
(±0.049)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
62.68
(±1.44)
59.70
(±5.48)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
53.95
(±1.10)
51.79
(±3.62)
Average
Dewpoint
Temperature
(°F)
44.09
(±0.89)
44.11
(±2.88)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
48.91
(±0.87)
47.96
(±2.82)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
72.96
(±1.38)
78.57
(±5.59)
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1020.1
(±9.53)
1021.5
(±58.48)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
1.05
(±0.27)
-0.73
(±0.93)
Average v-
component
of the Wind
(kts)
3.18
(±0.20)
1.84
(±0.66)
-------
Table 14-2. Hexavalent Chromium Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at Portland, Oregon
(PLOR)
Site
PLOR
Maximum
Temperature
-0.48
Average
Temperature
-0.55
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.35
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.48
Relative
Humidity
0.39
Sea Level
Pressure
0.00
u-component of
wind speed
-0.40
v-component of
wind speed
-0.01
-------
Table 14-3. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Oregon
Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Station
PLOR
Population
within Ten
Miles
894,082
Estimated
Number of
Motor Vehicles
Owned
661,621
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
1000
Average Daily
Hexavalent
Chromium
Concentration
(ng/m3)
0.260 (±0.049)
14-7
-------
15.0 Sites in Puerto Rico
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the two
UATMP sites in Puerto Rico (BAPR and SJPR). These sites reside along Puerto Rico's northern
coastline, with SJPR in San Juan and BAPR further west in Barceloneta. No topographical maps
are available for these sites, but Figures 15-1 through 15-2 are maps identifying facilities within
ten miles of the sites that reported to the 1999 NEI. There are a number of pharmaceutical
production and fuel combustion industrial facilities just to the east of BAPR. SJPR has nearly as
many facilities nearby but they are more scattered around the monitoring site, and are mostly
involved in fuel combustion. Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2002 at the
San Juan weather station (WBAN 11641) with the purpose of calculating correlations of
meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements.
Table 15-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at each of these sites, along
with temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature,
average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and
v- components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. Puerto Rico is located in the northern Caribbean and experiences a
tropical climate, where the air is warm and humid year-round (as Table 15-1 confirms). Breezy
winds flow from the northeast to the east on average with the aid of the sub-tropical high
pressure that resides over the tropical Atlantic.
15.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Puerto Rico Sites
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were measured at the two Puerto Rican sites, as indicated
in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. The largest geometric mean calculated was at the SJPR site for
hydrocarbons (11.31 ppbv). The smallest of the means was also calculated at the SJPR site for
carbonyls (4.90 ppbv). The other geometric means were located within the range. The average
total UATMP daily concentration at the two sites demonstrated a large difference in the sampled
compounds, with SJPR's average (59.28 ±25.30 ppbv) nearly twice that of BAPR (30.38 ±8.24
ppbv). Table 15-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January
2002 to December 2002, which is the same time period covered in this report.
15-1
-------
These sites also opted to have total NMOC and 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 BAPR was 280 (±31.67) ppbC, of which nearly 56% could be
identified through speciation, and the average total NMOC value for SJPR was 377 (±36.91)
ppbC, of which nearly 68% could be identified through speciation. Of the speciated compounds,
propane measured the highest concentrations at the BAPR and SJPR sites (18.36 ppbC and 34.40
ppbC, respectively). This information is given in Table 15-3. Unfortunately, ozone
concentrations were not sampled at these sites.
Tables 15-2a-b are 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 calculated Pearson
Correlations for the sites in Puerto Rico resembled each other. While BAPR had no strong
correlations, SJPR only had one, between propylene and dew point. At the BAPR monitoring
station, dichlorodifluoromethane had moderately strong positive correlations with maximum,
average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures. Many compounds exhibited a moderately strong
positive corrrelation to the three moisture parameters at SJPR. In fact, all but one compound,
formaldehyde, had at least a positive correlation with the moisture variables. This trend
continues at BAPR with a majority of the compounds. At BAPR, all of the compounds exhibited
a negative correlation with sea level pressure, and a positive correlation with the wind
components. With the exception of formaldehyde, this trend holds true at the SJPR site as well.
The prevalent compounds generally increase with increasing moisture content, decreasing
pressure, and increasing winds.
15.2 Spatial Analysis
Data used to estimate the number of motor vehicles operating in proximity to the
monitoring stations were not available for the Puerto Rico sites. However, the average daily
15-2
-------
traffic data, or, more specifically, the average number of motor vehicles passing the monitoring
sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis was available. This information is
compared to the average daily concentration of the prevalent compounds at the Puerto Rico sites
in Table 15-4. As evident in Table 15-4, the San Juan site has significantly more nearby traffic
than the Barceloneta site.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area. (For more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.) Figure 3-14 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at the monitoring sites. Overall, the two Puerto Rican sites' concentration ratios resemble those
of the roadside study. However, the benzene-ethylbenzene concentration ratio is significantly
lower at both BAPR and SJPR than at the roadside study.
15.3 Regulation Analysis
There are two NATTS sites in Puerto Rico: Barceloneta (BAPR) and San Juan (SJPR).
The monitoring locations are sufficiently far apart so that the facilities identified in each of the
10-mile areas do not overlap. Table 3-9 shows the number of facilities that account for
approximately 90 percent of the total UATMP pollutant emissions in the 10-mile area around the
monitoring stations
At BAPR, all of the facilities shown are potentially subject to a future regulation. Table
15-5 identifies the regulation that is potentially applicable. The regulation is expected to achieve
emission reductions of methylene chloride and toluene. By applying the national average
percent reductions that are projected for the regulation to the NTI emissions for the potentially
subject facilities, significant reductions are projected for both methylene chloride and toluene
(65 percent) due to compliance with the Pharmaceuticals production NESHAP in 2001.
At SJPR, three of the four facilities shown are potentially subject to future regulations.
Table 15-6 identifies the regulations that are potentially applicable. The regulations are
15-3
-------
projected to achieve emission reductions of methyl isobutyl ketone (71 percent) and methylene
chloride (70 percent). The reduction of methyl isobutyl ketone is attributable to a single facility
projected to comply with the NESHAP for metal can coating by 2005. The reduction of
methylene chloride is attributable to a single facility projected to comply with the flexible
polyurethane foam production NESHAP in 2001. Benzene, ethylbenzene, and xylene emissions
are estimated to be reduced to a lesser degree (28 percent) with minimal reductions in toluene
emissions (2 percent).
15-4
-------
Figure 15-1. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BAPR
W«X)-W W35tTW 6§ 3WW eS^STTW WHHTW
b
o.
Z
b
1
|
g
s-
*G
-' "' ' ' \ > -- " ' \
\ ) -
^ '' -- "" ^
' " '' A x ., - "* ~ /^\ v
^ / ', \ „ - ~' ^ ff"' \\ \VegaBaj3
\ / , „ " ______ j. -i — — ~~® \ \ ' Municipio
, / 'l , -^ - — r<'"8arcetoneta *j \ > \ \ \
/ ^. ^" " ,-''^'^ 1 ^ Municipio ^/-; ^ T \ \ 3 -*" "'
'• " X' /''" (l kieJkFF> /''' -- "' "Manati / 1 \
- " ' .-- -X''E \ W^* _/"-- " Municipio I.
\ \ \ Areabo Munidpjp - " < '' \ '• ^'' \ 1 "•
Hatillo \ '* \ ,. " \ ' 'Vr'\ San Juan N /'''*" s X ^ -\
Municipio \ \ -- . \ Municipio i ,/ ^ / \ •?. '"
\ \ - ' F ^ "\ \ / \ /-- *\ Morovis
\ V- '\ \ i /-' ^ "I \Municipio
•^ " v \ . /" / - ^ / \
V - " I i \ \ V .,"-"'"'•' " ' "• /
\ ^ \ \ /'-''; ' / 1"
\ \ \ , «~^ Jl / '' L
] \ *' X^ , v- ' -•''" * \^\_ /-^Municipio^
Camuyj \ y _, ^ " .,-,--pi"~-^ ^— -' " ' IIIUMUII Ml -""'"' V ^•••^ V '" -
^
.§
s
1
1
Z
fe
Note: Due to facility density and colocation. the total facilities
. . displayed may not represent ail facilities *ithin the area of interest.
@ BAPR UATMP site
10 mile radius
| County Boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals S allied products facility (3)
E Electric, gas. & sanitary services (1)
1 Food & Agriculture Processes Industrial Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (18)
•- Instruments and related products facility (1)
Leather and leather products facility (1)
P Miscellaneous Processes Industrial Facility (1)
> Pharmaceutical Production Processes Industrial Facility (13)
Q Primary metal industries facility (2)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
15-5
-------
Figure 15-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SJPR
Z 6S iO'O-W S§ 5-Q-W 66 ffO"W WSStTN 65 SS'CTW
§'
j£
P
Z
o
"•
z
b
K-
s
!•
s
E
s-
'•
- - v \
'" _ - ' ' \ ^
., ^ - ^. \ \
\fS^-^" ^-"^'' •« ~"~""\ - " ''
,/" ' ^ - - ><\ v
/ ^ _ - V" \_ ^ Canovanas
'' / \ _, •" ' i: \ \ Municipio,
'•>/" \ .'' v \ V,;—
> V ,- "\ _-V-"*i Lol£a
^ / , " '' c — "" \ 'Municipio
/'--•' > \ r~-, \ \
^ / \ ^ •' \ -., «~ — 'x ^
/ -- r Catano ^ „ ,A ^-^ "->\A- "' / 1
. --/ ''Municipio ..--'"~^ " '>— ~'~ 'L ^ X -- >v, /
,-''"'/ ^ ^ vl ""^A , "v. ,\- -,' ' ^
' l L A ^ AV -SA /"Ap , --' ^"> FF ^?
. J .^--/f " V F •"' lf- \ ?• ' r < P Y V
~ / 0; F / y\ ' fgf c y F \
, ^ " Toa B«ia V"x^|^r j \ " ..""^ i V Carolina [^'
Dorado V,1' (Municipio ,_,/ (K S \ , / "^ Municipio, -A
Municipio " \ \ ^-- ,s i^ \ ^ San Juan ', F ' \ L '
^ \ - ~ ^ , \/ v- — \ Municipio \ ^ \ -' ^ i
' ~- '""' \ F ^ f;-^ - .j \ \ 1 Tru]ilSo^A|to^ ' \ /
")- ' ' O /"~\ \ * / Guaynabo/ \ ^Y ™ 'R'° , ,/ |
Veia V-T" \ 1 \ v Muncipio 1 - \ ' / /x~- \
13 / \ 1 Bayamon N, v— -A / _ ,.tf /
Municipio •-''" ^ \ '' Munictpio V ' ' I'1 ^"'>' \ /
./^ Toa Alia '"\ \ ^ ^ ( \ {'"£~*~~* F V Y Gurabo
| Municipio \ ) _.--"" ''--^, \,-J> \ "~ ~/( \ Municipio -•
""^^^"x ^-Al]\ \ ( A i /''''A - -
• Corozal \ ,-,,~..^\-'' \ "~^^ v " ,•' \ j ,-'" -V'1"
\ Municapto -- °'v^'~" ^ ^-^^. ^'" ^ ^ ^~"~~^ ^ ~' N ^ .""'^"
' \ Naranjito Municipio \ (^ Aguas Buenas- -" ^/ Ca9uas w ^ — \ {
\ > ">'\ / '' MuniraprS / Municipio t t y San
f i ; , A , , \ 1 i Corner^/ V - " / '. ^-f I A0^0
\ "i-A l 1 Municipio >.,:' ' / \ % /Muniupiu
z
•1
z
o
•a
aji
?
C3
•a
•»
Z
P
Legend
@ SJPR UATMP site
10 mite radius
[ [County Boundary
Source Category Group
C Chemicals & allied products facility (3)
E Electric, gas. & sanitary services (2)
D Fabricated metal products facility (1)
& Lumber S wood products facility (1)
7 Food & Ag. Processes Industrial Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (127)
I Incineration Industrial Facility (4)
L Liquids Distrib. Industrial Facility (5)
Note: Due to facility density and colocation. the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
x Miscellaneous manufacturing industries (2)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1)
P Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (5)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
t Petroleum & coal products (1 j
; : Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod. & Refining Industrial Facility (2)
> Pharmaceutical Prod. Processes Industrial Facility (5)
Y Rubber and misc. plastics products facility (1)
S Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (3)
15-6
-------
Table 15-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Puerto Rico
Site
Name
BAPR
SJPR
Type
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
^^
30.38
(±8.24)
^^N
59.28
(±25.30)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
85.99
(±0.29)
86.11
(±0.77)
85.99
(±0.29)
86.27
(±0.77)
Average
Temperature
79.89
(±0.24)
79.93
(±0.61)
79.89
(±0.24)
80.05
(±0.61)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
72.56
(±0.31)
72.67
(±0.64)
72.56
(±0.31)
72.94
(±0.62)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
74.86
(±0.24)
74.93
(±0.53)
74.86
(±0.24)
75.14
(±0.52)
Average
Relative
Humidity
79.17
(±0.61)
79.40
(±1.53)
79.17
(±0.61)
79.80
(±1.46)
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1016.1
(±1.87)
1016.1
(±4.63)
1016.1
(±1.87)
1016.0
(±4.67)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-3.27
(±0.13)
-3.18
(±0.34)
-3.27
(±0.13)
-3.02
(±0.33)
Average v-
component
of the Wind
(kts)
-1.07
(±0.11)
-1.04
(±0.31)
-1.07
(±0.11)
-0.98
(±0.31)
-------
Table 15-2a - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico (BAPR)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
-0.15
-0.06
-0.01
-0.05
0.26
-0.10
0.08
-0.14
-0.11
0.04
-0.12
0.15
Average
Temperature
-0.15
-0.17
-0.10
-0.05
0.31
-0.19
0.00
-0.22
-0.19
-0.03
-0.17
0.20
Dew Point
Temperature
0.17
0.09
0.20
0.17
0.35
0.07
-0.15
0.07
0.07
0.28
0.14
0.13
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.08
0.01
0.12
0.12
0.39
-0.01
-0.12
-0.03
-0.02
0.20
0.05
0.17
Relative
Humidity
0.34
0.27
0.32
0.25
0.06
0.27
-0.16
0.30
0.27
0.34
0.34
-0.07
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.21
-0.20
-0.24
-0.09
-0.34
-0.17
-0.30
-0.17
-0.18
-0.20
-0.22
-0.08
u-component
of wind speed
0.36
0.33
0.36
0.23
0.09
0.24
0.18
0.24
0.24
0.33
0.24
0.03
v-component
of wind speed
0.19
0.14
0.17
0.07
0.15
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.06
0.23
0.03
0.10
oo
-------
Table 15-2b - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
San Juan, Puerto Rico (SJPR)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.09
0.07
0.12
0.11
0.23
-0.08
0.17
-0.10
-0.07
0.18
0.02
0.14
Average
Temperature
0.09
0.03
0.09
0.15
0.29
-0.15
0.03
-0.17
-0.15
0.19
-0.02
0.27
Dew Point
Temperature
0.41
0.28
0.46
0.28
0.34
0.12
-0.14
0.13
0.10
0.51
0.30
0.35
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.33
0.23
0.37
0.26
0.37
0.03
-0.11
0.04
0.02
0.45
0.23
0.37
Relative
Humidity
0.36
0.28
0.42
0.14
0.05
0.30
-0.15
0.34
0.29
0.37
0.37
0.09
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.37
-0.28
-0.29
-0.05
-0.29
-0.20
0.27
-0.19
-0.19
-0.27
-0.37
-0.20
u-component
of wind speed
0.47
0.38
0.41
0.17
0.13
0.24
-0.08
0.26
0.24
0.37
0.31
0.16
v-component
of wind speed
0.24
0.17
0.21
0.02
0.16
0.11
0.02
0.13
0.11
0.27
0.20
0.08
-------
Table 15-3. TNMOC Measured by the Puerto Rico Monitoring Stations
Monitoring
Station
BAPR
SJPR
Average
TNMOC
speciated
(ppbC)
149 (±18. 72)
249 (±26.45)
ppbC
Average
TNMOC w/
unknowns
(ppbC)
280 (±3 1.67)
377 (±36.91)
% TNMOC
Identified
56%
68%
SNMOC Compound
with the Highest
Concentration (ppbC)
Propane (18. 3)
Propane (34.40)
15-10
-------
Table 15-4. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Puerto Rico
Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
BAPR
SJPR
County
Population"
4,253
421,958
Estimated
Number of
Motor Vehicles
Owned
N/A
N/A
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
10
51,000
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
30.38 (±8.24)
59.28 (±25.30)
3 Population based on "zona urbana" for each city from the 2002 Census, and is available at
http://factfmder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet
15-11
-------
Table 15-5. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding BAPR
Facility Name
Abbott Chemicals,
Inc.
Abbott Health
Products, Inc.
Upjohn
Manufacturing Co.
Pharmacia & Upjohn
Caribe, Inc.
Primary SIC
Code
2833
2834
SIC Code Description
Chemicals And Allied Products,
Drugs, Medicinals and Botanicals
Chemicals And Allied Products,
Drugs, Pharmaceutical Preparations
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
GGG
Regulation Name
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Pharmaceuticals Production
to
-------
Table 15-6. Summary of Future Regulations That May be Applicable for Nearby Facilities Surrounding SJPR
Facility Name
Caribbean Petroleum
Corp.
Island Can
Caribbean, Inc.
Tech Aerofoam
Products
International, Inc.
Primary
SIC Code
2911
3411
3086
SIC Code Description
Petroleum And Coal Products,
Petroleum Refining, Petroleum
Refining
Fabricated Metal Products, Metal
Cans and Shipping Containers,
Metal Cans
Rubber And Misc. Plastics Products,
Miscellaneous Plastics Products,
NEC, Plastics Foam Products
Regulation Citation
40CFRpart63, subpart
EEEE
40 CFR part 63, subpart
KKKK
40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMMM
Regulation Name
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Organic Liquids Distribution
National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Surface Coating of Metal Cans
(proposed rule)
National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Production (proposed rule)
-------
16.0 Sites in South Dakota
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
sites in South Dakota (CUSD and SFSD). One site is located in Sioux Falls, situated in
southeastern South Dakota, and the other in Custer, in western South Dakota, south of Rapid
City. Figures 16-1 and 16-2 are topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in their
urban locations. Figures 16-3 and 16-4 are maps identifying facilities within ten miles of the
sites that reported to the 1999 NEI. The SFSD map shows that there are very few industrial
facilities near the monitoring site, most of which are to the northwest. The CUSD site shows no
facilities nearby. Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2002 at the Sioux Falls
weather station (WBAN 14944) and the Custer City Airport weather station (WBAN 94032)
near the sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements.
Table 16-1 highlights the UATMP average concentration at each site, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. The Sioux Falls area has a continental climate, with cold winters,
warm summers, and often drastic day to day variations. Precipitation varies throughout the year,
but is typically sufficient for the springtime growing season. On average, a south wind blows in
the summer and a northwesterly wind blows in the winter. The weather in Custer is considered
semi-arid continental; annual precipitation is light. Warm summers and relatively mild winters
are characteristic of this area, thanks to the Black Hills to the west, allowing winters to be more
mild in comparison to the rest of the state. This information can be found in The Weather
Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
16.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the South Dakota Sites
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were measured at this site, as indicated in Tables 3-3 and
3-4. The highest computed geometric means belonged to the carbonyls at both CUSD and SFSD
(5.65 ppbv and 6.18 ppbv, respectively). The halogenated hydrocarbons shared the second
16-1
-------
highest geometric means while the polar compounds and hydrocarbons split the lowest
geometric mean designation, with 1.92 ppbv at CUSD for polar compounds and 3.63 ppbv at
SFSD for the hydrocarbons. The average total UATMP daily concentration at SFSD was 74.72
(±37.53) ppbv, while at CUSD it was considerably lower, 14.01 (±1.21) ppbv. Table 16-1 also
lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2002 to December 2002,
which is the time period covered in this report.
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 336
(±202.93) ppbC, of which nearly 54% could be identified through speciation. Of the speciated
compounds, isopentane measured the highest concentration at the SFSD site (31.03 ppbC). The
average total NMOC value for CUSD was 130(±17.95) ppbC, of which nearly 71% could be
identified through speciation. Of the speciated compounds, propane measured the highest
concentration at the CUSD site (21.71 ppbC). This information is given in Table 16-3. Ozone
concentrations were also sampled at the SFSD site on 110 sample days, and were retrieved from
the U.S. EPA's AIRS database. The average ozone concentration for each sample day was 50.70
(±2.16) ppbv.
Tables 16-2a and 16-2b are the summaries of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients
for each of the prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters. Identification of
the prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. At CUSD, only three
correlations could be deemed strong. Formaldehyde had strong positive correlations with
maximum, average, and wet bulb temperatures, while its correlation with dew point can be
considered moderately strong and positive. Dichlorodifluoromethane and chloromethane both
had moderately strong positive correlations with the same four parameters. Interestingly, all of
the correlations with relative humidity were negative, some moderately so. Also, all of the
16-2
-------
correlations with the v-component of the wind were positive, with the exception of 1,2,4-
trimethylbenzene. Increasing winds from the north or south and decreasing relative humidity
seem to occur with increasing UATMP concentrations at the CUSD monitoring site.
At the SFSD site, no correlations registered as strong. In fact, only chloromethane had
calculated correlations that are considered moderately strong. Chloromethane had moderately
strong positive correlations with the maximum and average temperature, dew point and wet bulb
temperature, and the v-component of the wind. All other correlations were weak, regardless of
their sign. The large number of weak correlations makes it difficult to determine when UATMP
concentrations will increase, based on meteorological factors.
16.2 Spatial Analysis
Using the population within ten miles of each site, an estimate of the number of cars
operating in proximity to the monitoring station can be established. The ratio used in this report
is 0.74 automobiles to every one person (refer to section 3.4.1 for more information on this
ratio). The population near the SFSD site is 148,522 people, all of whom are operating
approximately 109,906 vehicles, while a considerably lower population of 4,214 is driving 3,118
vehicles in Custer. This information is compared to the average daily concentration of the
prevalent compounds at the South Dakota sites in Table 16-3. Also included in Table 16-3 are
average daily traffic data, or more specifically, the average number of cars passing the
monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. As expected, more traffic
passes by the SFSD monitoring station than the CUSD monitoring station.
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 3-14 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 and SFSD tend to resemble
one another, rather than those of the roadside study. CUSD's toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is
nearly double that of the roadside study and SFSD's toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is nearly triple.
16-3
-------
Both CUSD and SFSD's benzene-ethylbenzene ratios are larger than their m,p-xy\ene-
ethylbenzene ratios, where for the roadside study, the opposite is true. However, similar to the
roadside study, the toluene-ethylbenzene ratio is the largest ratio and o-xylene-ethylbenzene is
the smallest ratio for both CUSD and SFSD.
16-4
-------
Figure 16-1. Custer, South Dakota (CUSD) Monitoring Station
\\ > s I
.M ft /
I \C , ..^^^=^.1 $
|^^^^^v.lopogone.com - Copyright 1^2001 Map; a la carte.. Inc.
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
16-5
-------
Figure 16-2. Sioux Falls, South Dakota (SFSD) Monitoring Station
-\ \——
+ SFSFI
-! • • i f
- | ,;^XU,r^-^
-M MT^i-.-
^TT^T ^"V;V
ri—I? "I - •Jftif •• ;' ;*f
r^"-:"
^ it ^S^^r
^\ '
:
L-'\ m
:..---.
;. :-
:: -. ' / .
K?
.;
Source: USGS 1.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
16-6
-------
Figure 16-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of CUSD
103'25'G*W (03 2ff(
Pennington
County '
Custer
County
Legend
^ CUSD UATMP site
10 mile radius
I County boundary
*There were no point facilities from the 1999 NEI within 10 miles of CUSD.
16-7
-------
Figure 16-4. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SFSD
Note Due to facility density and coEocation. the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
•&> SFSD UATMP site
10 mile radius
'County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
D Fabricated metal products facility (2)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (1)
J Industrial machinery & equip, facility (3)
v Polymers & Resins Prod. Industrial Facility (1)
16-8
-------
Table 16-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Sites in South Dakota
Site
Name
CUSD
SFSD
Type
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
^^
14.01
(±1.21)
^^N
74.72
(±37.53)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
52.48
(±2.08)
57.77
(±5.74)
57.61
(±2.31)
55.61
(±6.65)
Average
Temperature
42.17
(±1.90)
47.10
(±5.16)
47.29
(±2.20)
44.84
(±6.19)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
26.28
(±1.59)
29.68
(±3.98)
36.82
(±2.03)
33.56
(±5.61)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
35.05
(±1.55)
38.80
(±4.04)
42.19
(±1.96)
39.53
(±5.46)
Average
Relative
Humidity
58.65
(±1.72)
56.43
(±4.41)
70.08
(±1.13)
68.11
(±3.19)
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1017.6
(±12.89)
1017.2
(±32.52)
1018.3
(±11.97)
1016.5
(±24.65)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.92
(±0.28)
0.95
(±0.81)
-0.28
(±0.37)
0.59
(±1.00)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
3.19
(±0.16)
1.33
(±0.43)
4.64
(±0.31)
1.59
(±1.05)
-------
a\
o
Table 16-2a - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Custer, South Dakota (CUSD)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichloromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.16
-0.12
0.03
0.36
0.38
-0.01
0.62
0.23
0.01
0.20
0.23
0.26
Average
Temperature
0.16
-0.16
-0.02
0.33
0.35
-0.04
0.62
0.19
-0.02
0.19
0.18
0.22
Dew Point
Temperature
0.14
-0.35
-0.22
0.29
0.34
-0.12
0.45
0.06
-0.09
0.01
0.06
0.17
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.16
-0.23
-0.10
0.32
0.35
-0.08
0.56
0.14
-0.05
0.12
0.14
0.21
Relative
Humidity
-0.09
-0.25
-0.30
-0.14
-0.15
-0.12
-0.45
-0.28
-0.12
-0.35
-0.27
-0.18
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.16
0.48
0.05
-0.07
-0.24
-0.15
0.07
-0.26
-0.16
0.42
-0.29
-0.30
u-component
of wind speed
-0.29
0.23
0.09
-0.07
-0.10
-0.24
-0.10
-0.17
-0.25
0.18
0.13
0.05
v-component
of wind speed
-0.06
0.22
0.30
0.15
0.15
0.13
0.16
0.25
0.17
0.10
0.22
0.16
-------
Table 16-2b - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Sioux Falls, South Dakota (SFSD)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichloromethane
Maximum
Temperature
-0.11
-0.16
-0.08
0.31
0.05
-0.07
-0.11
-0.08
-0.10
-0.05
0.01
0.10
Average
Temperature
-0.12
-0.19
-0.11
0.35
0.02
-0.09
-0.05
-0.10
-0.12
-0.08
-0.02
0.13
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.13
-0.20
-0.12
0.32
-0.02
-0.10
0.02
-0.11
-0.13
-0.09
-0.05
0.16
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.13
-0.19
-0.12
0.34
0.00
-0.10
-0.02
-0.11
-0.13
-0.08
-0.03
0.14
Relative
Humidity
0.02
0.00
-0.03
-0.22
-0.15
-0.03
0.22
-0.01
-0.01
-0.05
-0.12
0.05
Sea Level
Pressure
0.14
0.09
0.05
-0.03
-0.09
0.07
-0.20
0.07
0.09
0.01
-0.05
-0.23
u-component
of wind speed
-0.05
0.01
-0.02
0.06
0.05
-0.01
-0.10
-0.03
-0.02
-0.02
0.03
0.19
v-component
of wind speed
0.10
0.03
0.09
0.28
0.11
0.10
-0.03
0.09
0.08
0.11
0.11
-0.06
-------
Table 16-3. TNMOC and Ozone Measured by the Custer (CUSD) and Sioux Falls, SD (SFSD) Monitoring Stations
Monitoring
Station
CUSD
SFSD
Average Ozone
Concentrations
(ppbv)
N/A
50.70 (±2. 16)
Total Number
of Ozone
Sampling Days
N/A
110
Average
TNMOC
speciated
(ppbC)
89 (±11. 01)
214 (±177.76)
Average
TNMOC w/
unknowns
(ppbC)
130 (±17.95)
336 (±202.93)
% TNMOC
Identified
71%
54%
SNMOC
Compound with
the Highest
Concentration
(ppbC)
Propane (2 1.71)
Isopentane (31.03)
to
-------
Table 16-4. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the South Dakota
Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
CUSD
SFSD
Population
within Ten
Miles
4,214
148,522
Estimated
Number of
Vehicles Owned
3,118
109,906
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
1,940
4,320
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
14.01(±1.21)
74.72 (±37.53)
16-13
-------
17.0 Sites in Tennessee
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
sites in Tennessee (EATN and LOTN), both located in Nashville. Figures 17-1 and 17-2 are
topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in their urban locations. Figure 17-3 is a
map identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites that reported to the 1999 NEI. The sites
are very close to each other, with a majority of the industrial sites located to the southeast, south,
and southwest of the UATMP sites. Most of these industrial sites are surface coating, printing
and publishing, and fuel combustion sources. Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all
of 2002 at the Nashville Municipal Airport weather station (WBAN 13897) near the sites with
the purpose of 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), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. Nashville's climate is rather moderate in nature, lacking extreme
fluctuations in temperature. The city has a long growing season and boasts four distinct seasons.
As indicated in Table 17-1, though, humidity can make the air uncomfortable. 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.
17.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Tennessee Sites
Carbonyl compounds and VOC were measured at these sites, as indicated in Tables 3-3
and 3-4. At EATN, the hydrocarbons had the highest geometric mean (6.33 ppbv), while the
carbonyls had the highest geometric mean at LOTN (5.66 ppbv). The lowest geometric means
for both sites were polar compounds, 3.08 ppbv at EATN and 2.94 ppbv at LOTN. The average
total UATMP daily concentration at EATN was 18.98 (±2.09) ppbv, while at LOTN it was
slightly lower, 15.61 (±2.96) ppbv. Table 17-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological
17-1
-------
parameters from January 2002 to December 2002, which is the same time period covered in this
report.
Tables 17-2a and b are the summaries of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for
each of the prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters. Identification of the
prevalent compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. The Pearson Correlations for the
two sites look very similar. At both sites, formaldehyde had strong positive correlations with
maximum, average, and wet bulb temperatures, and moderately strong positive correlations with
the dew point. At LOTN, toluene also exhibited moderately strong positive correlations with
these four parameters. Also at both sites, moderately strong to strong negative correlations were
found with dichlorodifluoromethane and trichlorofluoromethane and the previously mentioned
four weather parameters, as well as relative humidity. Interestingly, nearly all of the compounds
had a negative correlation with relative humidity and most had a negative correlation with sea
level pressure at both sites. Dichlorodifluoromethane, chloromethane, and
trichlorofluoromethane each had a moderately strong to strong positive correlation with the u-
component of the wind at both sites. Generally, as relative humidity and sea level pressure
decrease, UATMP concentrations of the prevalent compounds increase.
17.2 Spatial Analysis
Using the population within ten miles of each site, an estimate of the number of cars
operating in proximity to the monitoring station can be established. The ratio used in this report
is 0.74 automobiles to every one person (refer to section 3.4.1 for more information on this
ratio). The population near the EATN site is 518,357 people, all of whom are operating
approximately 383,584 vehicles, while a somewhat higher population of 552,749 is driving
409,034 vehicles near LOTN. This information is compared to the average daily concentration
of the prevalent compounds at the Tennessee sites in Table 17-3. Also included in Table 17-3
are average daily traffic data, or more specifically, the average number of cars passing the
monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. The EATN site has a
significantly higher volume of traffic passing by than does the LOTN site.
17-2
-------
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 3-14 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. The concentration ratios for both EATN and LOTN resemble
those of the roadside study with one exception. The roadside study found that m,p-xy\ene-
ethylbenzene ratios tend to be slightly higher than benzene-ethylbenzene ratios, while the two
Nashville sites had slightly benzene-ethylbenzene ratios.
17-3
-------
Figure 17-1. Nashville Site 1, Tennessee (EATN) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
17-4
-------
Figure 17-2. Nashville Site 2, Tennessee (LOTN) Monitoring Station
CHR
Kfff--,,•-?=? --^i*. *' • -v
s*Pf^i*«; ;' g| ll^B^ ~iOW
-y«^yi-( . ;| , .y..;-'!1' v"?
•'•;^^'. 4",^'-^=-
i^mmm^m
-... ' vftwj.topo2one.com - Copyright ©2001 Maps a la carte, Inc
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
17-5
-------
Figure 17-3. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of EATN and LOTN
Legend
5) EATN UATMP site
@ LOTN UATMP site
10 mile radius
| JGounty boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
A Agricultural services facility (8)
c Chemicals & allied products facility (11)
E Electric, gas, & sanitary services (2)
D Fabricated metal products facility (9)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (2)
T Food & Ag. Processes Industrial Facility (1)
G Food & kindred products facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (18)
H Furniture & fixtures facility (1)
+ Health services facility (1)
• Heavy construction contractors facility (2)
s Hotels, rooming houses, camps, & other lodging (1)
i Incineration Industrial Facility (1)
J Industrial machinery & equip, facility (4)
Leather & leather products facility (2)
L Liquids Distrib. Industrial Facility (16)
Note. Due 10 facility density and coloration, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (5)
Misc. manufacturing industries facility (7)
Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (4)
Motor freight transport/warehousing (1)
Personal services facility (1)
Polymers & Resins Prod. Industrial Facility (1)
Primary metal industries facility (1)
Printing & publishing facility (24)
Rubber and misc. plastics products facility (6)
Stone, clay, glass, & concrete products facility (1)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (43)
Textile mill products facility (1)
Tobacco manufacturers (1)
Transportation by air (1)
Transportation equipment (5)
Unknown (5)
Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (3)
Wholesale trade-durable goods (2)
Wholesale trade-nondurable goods (1)
17-6
-------
Table 17-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Sites in Tennessee
Site
Name
EATN
LOTN
Type
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
^^
18.98
(±2.09)
^^N
15.61
(±2.96)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
69.26
(±1.77)
75.44
(±6.90)
69.26
(±1.77)
74.72
(±6.60)
Average
Temperature
60.20
(±1.70)
66.78
(±6.45)
60.20
(±1.70)
65.96
(±6.10)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
50.22
(±1.81)
57.26
(±6.29)
50.22
(±1.81)
56.60
(±5.96)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
54.89
(±1.61)
61.10
(±5.87)
54.89
(±1.61)
60.42
(±5.52)
Average
Relative
Humidity
72.53
(±1.33)
73.89
(±5.03)
72.53
(±1.33)
74.24
(±5.64)
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1018.8
(±5.01)
1017.6
(±19.56)
1018.8
(±5.01)
1017.1
(±22.32)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-1.22
(±0.21)
-0.53
(±0.96)
-1.22
(±0.21)
-0.51
(±0.93)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
2.78
(±0.21)
1.27
(±0.83)
2.78
(±0.21)
1.24
(±0.91)
-------
Table 17-2a - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Nashville, Tennessee Site 1 (EATN)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichloromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.04
-0.10
-0.23
-0.10
-0.44
0.06
0.63
0.00
0.10
0.18
0.12
-0.53
Average
Temperature
0.01
-0.14
-0.25
-0.06
-0.41
0.01
0.64
-0.04
0.06
0.14
0.07
-0.49
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.06
-0.14
-0.27
-0.14
-0.50
-0.06
0.49
-0.10
-0.01
0.11
0.05
-0.57
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.03
-0.15
-0.26
-0.09
-0.44
-0.02
0.56
-0.07
0.03
0.11
0.06
-0.52
Relative
Humidity
-0.24
0.00
-0.08
-0.34
-0.34
-0.26
-0.50
-0.21
-0.26
-0.07
-0.08
-0.32
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.16
-0.16
-0.24
0.10
-0.11
-0.33
-0.12
-0.28
-0.24
-0.04
-0.25
-0.07
u-component
of wind speed
0.03
-0.03
0.16
0.35
0.50
0.18
-0.33
0.11
0.05
-0.36
-0.02
0.49
v-component
of wind speed
0.16
0.00
0.03
-0.26
-0.07
0.14
0.18
0.10
0.09
-0.12
0.03
-0.06
oo
-------
Table 17-2b - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Nashville, Tennessee Site 2 (LOTN)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichloromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.10
-0.13
0.01
-0.01
-0.38
0.12
0.64
0.30
0.20
0.24
0.37
-0.52
Average
Temperature
0.09
-0.18
0.00
0.01
-0.37
0.11
0.65
0.29
0.19
0.21
0.36
-0.51
Dew Point
Temperature
0.00
-0.14
-0.02
-0.09
-0.54
0.03
0.46
0.20
0.08
0.22
0.28
-0.68
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.04
-0.16
-0.01
-0.02
-0.44
0.06
0.54
0.24
0.13
0.21
0.32
-0.59
Relative
Humidity
-0.24
0.09
-0.06
-0.35
-0.52
-0.23
-0.47
-0.28
-0.33
0.05
-0.23
-0.53
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.07
-0.39
-0.20
-0.20
0.09
-0.07
0.01
-0.19
0.03
-0.51
-0.21
0.16
u-component
of wind speed
0.07
0.19
0.06
0.56
0.46
0.05
-0.26
0.00
0.11
0.14
-0.16
0.33
v-component
of wind speed
0.20
0.30
0.09
0.03
-0.14
0.17
0.11
0.14
0.12
0.38
0.00
-0.22
-------
Table 17-3. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Tennessee
Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
EATN
LOTN
Population
within Ten
Miles
518,357
552,749
Estimated
Number of
Vehicles Owned
383,584
409,034
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
38,450
3,000
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
18.98 (±2.09)
15.61 (±2.96)
17-10
-------
18.0 Site in Texas
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Texas (ANTX), located in Arlington, wedged between Dallas and Ft. Worth. Figure 18-1
is a topographical map showing the monitoring station in its urban location. Figure 18-2 is a
map identifying facilities within ten miles of the site that reported to the 1999 NEI. Most of the
sources within ten miles of the site are well to the north and northeast or to the south. Many of
these sources are surface coating and miscellaneous industries. Hourly meteorological data were
retrieved for all of 2002 at the Dallas/Ft. Worth weather station (WBAN 3927) with the purpose
of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air concentration measurements.
Table 18-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration at the site, along with
temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point temperature, average
wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. Arlington is located in north central Texas, and experiences both a
continental climate, due to its centralized location, and a subtropical humid climate in the
summer due to the Gulf of Mexico's influence: long, hot, often humid summers, and mild, yet
variable winters. Winds blow from the south and southeast, on average. This information can
be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
18.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Texas Site
Carbonyl compounds and VOC (volatile organic compounds) were measured at the site,
as indicated in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. ANTX's lowest geometric mean was 3.94 ppbv for the
hydrocarbons, and the highest geometric mean was 6.10 ppbv for the polar compounds.
Halogenated hydrocarbons and carbonyl compound values fell between these values. The
average total UATMP daily concentration at ANTX was 18.91 (±3.58) ppbv. Table 18-1 also
lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January 2002 to December 2002,
which is the same time period covered in this report.
18-1
-------
Table 18-2 is the summary of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters. Identification of the prevalent
compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. With few exceptions, nearly all of the
correlations between the compounds and maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb
temperatures, relative humidity, sea level pressure, and the v-component of the wind were
calculated to be at least moderately strong, if not stronger. 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, acetylene,
benzene, ethylbenzene, the xylenes, and toluene had moderately strong to strong negative
correlations with maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures. However,
chloromethane, dichlorodifluoromethane, formaldehyde, and trichlorofluoromethane all had
moderately strong to very strong positive correlations with the same four parameters. With the
exception of chloromethane, dichlorodifluoromethane, formaldehyde, and
trichlorofluoromethane, the prevalent compounds had moderately strong to strong positive
correlations with pressure. In fact, three of those four compounds had moderately strong to
strong negative correlations with pressure. The wide range in negative and positive correlations
for the same weather parameters makes it difficult to predict whether the UATMP concentrations
will increase or decrease.
18.2 Spatial Analysis
Using the population within ten miles of each site, an estimate of the number of motor
vehicles operating in proximity to the monitoring station can be established. The ratio used in
this report is 0.74 motor vehicles to every one person (refer to section 3.4.1 for more information
on this ratio). The population near the ANTX site is 614,071 people, all of whom are operating
approximately 454,413 motor vehicles. This information is compared to the average daily
concentration of the prevalent compounds at the Texas site in Table 18-3. Also included in
Table 18-3 are average daily traffic data, or more specifically, the average number of cars
passing the monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area. (For more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.) Figure 3-14 depicts the
18-2
-------
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at the monitoring site. Generally, the ANTX concentration ratios resemble those of the roadside
study. The o-xylene-ethylbenzene ratios are very similar. The benzene-ethylbenzene and
toluene-ethylbenzene ratios are both higher than those of the roadside study, while the m,p-
xylene-ethylbenzene ratio at ANTX is slightly lower than the roadside study's ratio.
18-3
-------
Figure 18-1. Arlington, Texas (ANTX) Monitoring Station
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
18-4
-------
Figure 18-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of ANTX
Tarrant County
s 9
Dallas CountyX
CP S
^--'jfillis County
Note' Due to facility density and relocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
Legend
!& ANTX UATMP site
10 mile radius
j County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities) L
c Chemicals & allied products facility (4)
z Electrical and electronic equipment (1)
o Fabricated metal products facility (1)
J Industrial machinery & equipment facility (1)
& Lumber & wood products facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (6)
Liquids Distrib, Industrial Facility (1)
Misc, Processes Industrial Facility (7)
Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (15)
Misc. manufacturing industries facility (1)
Rubber & misc. plastics production facility (2)
Transportation equipment (5)
Wholesale trade-nondurable goods (1)
18-5
-------
Table 18-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Texas
Site
Name
ANTX
Type
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
^S\S\X
^XXX\
18.91
(±3.58)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
74.76
(±1.61)
79.59
(±8.29)
Average
Temperature
65.09
(±1.61)
70.29
(±7.95)
Average
Dewpoint
Temperature
52.96
(±1.70)
58.08
(±7.39)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
58.31
(±1.48)
62.80
(±6.87)
Average
Relative
Humidity
68.12
(±1.38)
68.25
(±5.46)
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1016.7
(±5.95)
1016.8
(±21.47)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-1.18
(±0.28)
-1.21
(±0.89)
Average v-
component
of the Wind
(kts)
4.46
(±0.31)
1.86
(±1.02)
oo
-------
Table 18-2. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Arlington, Texas (ANTX)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
-0.42
-0.68
-0.59
0.82
0.53
-0.44
0.85
-0.58
-0.40
-0.12
-0.62
0.46
Average
Temperature
-0.45
-0.73
-0.64
0.81
0.51
-0.43
0.83
-0.59
-0.39
-0.20
-0.59
0.48
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.36
-0.73
-0.64
0.79
0.51
-0.37
0.72
-0.51
-0.27
-0.23
-0.48
0.47
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.41
-0.73
-0.65
0.82
0.52
-0.41
0.77
-0.56
-0.34
-0.22
-0.55
0.48
Relative
Humidity
0.30
0.04
0.07
-0.12
-0.06
0.26
-0.43
0.36
0.42
-0.05
0.43
-0.09
Sea Level
Pressure
0.65
0.84
0.88
-0.61
-0.32
0.62
-0.49
0.75
0.48
0.56
0.66
-0.14
u-component
of wind speed
0.23
0.08
0.29
-0.14
-0.09
0.11
-0.12
0.19
-0.02
0.37
0.17
-0.02
v-component
of wind speed
-0.43
-0.67
-0.40
0.36
0.34
-0.24
0.17
-0.43
-0.27
0.03
-0.36
0.09
oo
-------
Table 18-3. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the
Texas Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Station
ANTX
Population
within Ten
Miles
614,071
Estimated
Number of
Motor Vehicles
Owned
454,413
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
14,310
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
18.91 (±3.58)
18-8
-------
19.0 Site in Utah
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the UATMP
site in Utah (SLCU), located in Salt Lake City, in north central Utah. Figure 19-1 is a
topographical map showing the monitoring station in its urban location. Figure 19-2 is a map
identifying facilities within ten miles of the site that reported to the 1999 NEI. The map shows
that there are numerous industrial facilities, mostly fuel combustion facilities, near the
monitoring site, and most of them are to the northeast and east. Hourly meteorological data were
retrieved for all of 2002 at Salt Lake City International Airport's weather station (WBAN 24124)
near the site with the purpose of 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), wind information (average u- and v-
components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the entire year and on
days samples were taken. The Salt Lake City area has a semi-arid continental climate, with large
seasonal variations. The area is dry, located on the west side of the Wasatch Mountains, and the
Great Salt Lake tends to have a moderating influence on the city's temperature. Moderate winds
flow out of the southeast on average. This information can be found in The Weather Almanac.
fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
19.1 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 highest computed geometric mean belonged to the hydrocarbons (9.33 ppbv). The
polar compounds had the lowest geometric mean, with a value of 3.70 ppbv, and the carbonyls
and halogenated hydrocarbons' geometric means fell between with values of 8.47 ppbv and 4.50
ppbv, respectively. The average total UATMP daily concentration at SLCU was 29.72 (±6.54)
ppbv. Table 19-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological parameters from January
2002 to December 2002, which is the time period covered in this report. This site also opted to
have total and speciated nonmethane organic compounds (TNMOC/SNMOC) sampled during its
19-1
-------
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 SLCU was 345 (±53.45) ppbC, of which
nearly 63% could be identified through speciation. Of the speciated compounds, toluene
measured the highest concentration at the SLCU (17.42 ppbC). This information is given in
Table 19-3. Ozone concentrations were also sampled at this site on 153 sample days, and were
retrieved from the U.S. EPA's AQS database. The average ozone concentration for each sample
day was 63.69 (±2.32) ppbv.
Table 19-2 is the summary of calculated Pearson Correlation coefficients for each of the
prevalent compounds and selected meteorological parameters. Identification of the prevalent
compounds is discussed in Section 3 of this report. Acetylene and propylene both had
moderately strong to strong negative correlations with maximum, average, and wet bulb
temperatures, while chloromethane and dichlorodifluoromethane each had moderately strong
positive correlations with the previously mentioned parameters (with the exception of dew point
for chloromethane). Seven compounds had moderately strong to strong positive correlations
with the relative humidity and nine compounds had moderately strong negative correlations with
the v-component of the wind. As humidity increases and the north-south wind decreases,
concentrations of the prevalent UATMP compounds tend to increase.
19.2 Spatial Analysis
Using the population within ten miles of each site, an estimate of the number of motor
vehicles operating in proximity to the monitoring station can be established. The ratio used in
this report is 0.74 motor vehicles to every one person (refer to section 3.4.1 for more information
on this ratio). The population near the SLCU site is 827,442 people, all of whom are operating
approximately 612,307 motor vehicles. This information is compared to the average daily
concentration of the prevalent compounds at the Utah site in Table 19-4. Also included in Table
19-2
-------
19-4 are average daily traffic data, or more specifically, the average number of cars passing the
monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis.
A roadside study conducted to measure emissions from motor vehicles determined that
the concentration ratios of the BTEX compounds were relatively consistent from urban area to
urban area. (For more information on this study, refer to section 3.4.2.) Figure 3-14 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. The SLCU site's concentration ratios look somewhat similar to
those of the roadside study. However, the values for each of the ratios are higher for SLCU.
The ratio for toluene-ethylbenzene is considerably higher than those of the roadside study, while
the remaining concentration ratios are only slightly higher.
19-3
-------
Figure 19-1. Salt Lake City, Utah (SLCU) Monitoring Station
tar V*T
1.9:- ,
•
*
I -— MO
V
•",'
I
SLCU
^
•
>•
,
zc
\
__i r
.
»•
'I
"Ti.r.'vjf
• * •!
J
•
»•
•,
: Oo»
'*' " \! >'
T^f
H-. » SC
r ^%
i
A
2T
'
J /
WEST, VALLEY CITY '
, v-v-
c_ajfti
* •-i*-.V;:liir-^-j
--• •»h^c:^:
V "^1
- - vaiBHimuui
> i •:>.•,•::,•".""•
'•'••'• i !
e^K--bA
-r/
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:24,000.
19-4
-------
Figure 19-2. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of SLCU
Legend
@ SLCU UATMP site
10 mile radius
I j County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & allied products facility (5)
E Electric, gas, & sanitary services (2)
z Electrical & electronic equipment facility (5)
o Fabricated metal products facility (6)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (38)
H Furniture & fixtures facility (1)
J Industrial machinery & equip, facility (1)
== Instruments & related products facility (2)
Note- Due to facility density and relocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest.
x Misc. manufacturing industries facility (1)
P Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (4)
\ Non-ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
P Petroleum/Nat. Gas Prod, & Refining Industrial Facility (4)
v Polymers & Resins Prod, Industrial Facility (1)
Q Primary metal industries facility (4)
Y Rubber and misc. plastics products facility (3)
u Stone, clay, glass, & concrete products facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (11)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (3) T Transportation equipment (2)
w Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (5)
19-5
-------
Table 19-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for the Site in Utah
Site
Name
SLCU
Type
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
\s\s\OSs
vXX^S
29.72
(±6.54)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(°F)
62.46
(±2.26)
62.60
(±5.72)
Average
Temperature
(°F)
52.31
(±2.03)
53.06
(±5.26)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
(°F)
31.61
(±1.01)
31.55
(±2.70)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
(°F)
41.89
(±1.31)
42.28
(±3.38)
Average
Relative
Humidity
(%)
53.28
(±2.20)
51.94
(±5.80)
Sea Level
Pressure
(mb)
1017.4
(±9.50)
1017.7
(±27.27)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.09
(±0.20)
-0.37
(±0.55)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
3.62
(±0.17)
3.21
(±0.55)
VO
-------
Table 19-2. Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Salt Lake City, Utah (SLCU)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
-0.03
-0.47
-0.19
0.45
0.34
0.00
0.06
-0.03
0.01
-0.33
0.04
0.19
Average
Temperature
-0.09
-0.52
-0.25
0.44
0.32
-0.05
0.02
-0.08
-0.05
-0.40
-0.02
0.18
Dew Point
Temperature
0.18
-0.24
0.03
0.24
0.29
0.17
0.25
0.15
0.17
-0.17
0.12
0.04
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.01
-0.48
-0.18
0.38
0.32
0.01
0.10
-0.02
0.01
-0.36
0.02
0.15
Relative
Humidity
0.35
0.65
0.47
-0.43
-0.23
0.29
0.21
0.32
0.29
0.50
0.15
-0.24
Sea Level
Pressure
0.10
0.24
0.09
-0.21
-0.25
0.05
-0.10
0.01
-0.02
0.20
-0.03
0.01
u-component
of wind speed
0.01
-0.13
-0.06
-0.01
0.07
0.00
-0.11
0.01
0.00
-0.11
0.07
0.39
v-component
of wind speed
-0.30
-0.37
-0.34
0.31
0.09
-0.30
-0.21
-0.32
-0.30
-0.29
-0.32
-0.34
VO
-------
Table 19-3. TNMOC and Ozone Measured by the Salt Lake City, UT (SLCU) Monitoring Station
Average Ozone
Concentrations
(ppbv)
63. 69 (±2.32)
Total Number of
Ozone Sampling
Days
153
Average
TNMOC
speciated (ppbC)
205 (±26.41)
Average TNMOC
w/ unknown
(ppbC)
345 (±53.45)
% TNMOC
Identified
63%
SNMOC Compound with the
Highest Concentration
(ppbC)
Toluene (17.42)
VO
oo
-------
Table 19-4. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for the Utah
Monitoring Site
Monitoring
Station
SLCU
Population
within Ten
Miles
827,442
Estimated
Number of
Motor Vehicles
Owned
612,307
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
20,485
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
29.72 (±6.54)
19-9
-------
20.0 Sites in Vermont
This section focuses on meteorological, concentration, and spatial trends for the three
UATMP sites in Vermont (BRVT, RUVT, and UNVT). The northernmost site is UNVT, in
Underhill, to the east of Burlington. The RUVT site is in Rutland, located in central Vermont,
while the BRVT site is in Brattleboro, located in the southeast corner of the state. Figures 20-1
through 20-3 are topographical maps showing the monitoring stations in their urban locations.
Figures 20-4 through 20-6 are maps identifying facilities within ten miles of the sites that
reported to the 1999 NEI. None of the sites have a large amount of facilities nearby. Most of the
industries are to the north or south of BRVT; to the southeast and southwest of RUVT, and
scattered about UNVT on the outer perimeter of the ten mile radius. The most numerous type of
source surrounding all three sites is fuel combustion.
Hourly meteorological data were retrieved for all of 2002 at two weather stations near
these sites with the purpose of calculating correlations of meteorological data with ambient air
concentration measurements. The two weather stations are Springfield/Hartness State Airport
and Burlington International Airport (WBAN 54740 and 14742, respectively).
Table 20-1 highlights the average UATMP concentration (VOC only) at each of these
sites, along with temperature (average maximum and average), moisture (average dew point
temperature, average wet-bulb temperature, and average relative humidity), wind information
(average u- and v- components of the wind), and pressure (average sea level pressure) for the
entire year and on days samples were taken. The sites in Vermont see some of the chilliest
yearly temperatures compared to the other participating sites, as indicated in Table 20-1.
Vermont is affected by most storm systems that track across the country, producing variable
weather. Average annual winds come from the south, ahead of advancing weather systems.
This information can be found in The Weather Almanac, fifth edition (Ruffner and Bair, 1987).
20.1 Meteorological and Concentration Averages at the Vermont Sites
Carbonyl compounds were not measured at any of the three sites, as indicated in Tables
3-3 and 3-4. BRVT had the largest geometric mean for all three types of VOC, while UNVT
20-1
-------
consistently had the lowest. Halogenated hydrocarbons ranged from 3.37 ppbv at UNVT to 8.30
ppbv at BRVT. Hydrocarbons ranged from 1.30 ppbv at UNVT to 7.23 ppbv at BRVT. Polar
compounds ranged from 1.49 ppbv at UNVT to 4.07 ppbv at BRVT. The average total UATMP
daily concentration was largest at RUVT, at 9.98 (±1.02) ppbv, while the lowest concentration
was at UNVT, at 6.26 (±0.30). Table 20-1 also lists the averages for selected meteorological
parameters from January 2002 to December 2002, which is the same time period covered in this
report.
Tables 20-2a-c are 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. At BRVT, chloromethane,
dichlorodifluoromethane, and trichlorofluoromethane had moderately strong positive
correlations with maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures, while acetylene had
moderately strong negative correlations with the same four parameters. All of the compounds
had positive correlations with relative humidity, of which five were moderately strong and three
were considered strong. Most of the compounds had negative correlations with sea level
pressure and the wind components. The UATMP concentrations of prevalent compounds tend to
increase as pressure and wind speed decrease and relative humidity increases.
At RUVT, acetylene, benzene, and propylene had moderately strong negative
correlations with maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures, while the remaining
compounds had mostly weak positive correlations with these parameters. With the exception of
trichlorofluoromethane, all of the compounds had weak to moderate negative correlations with
sea level pressure. With the exception of chloromethane, all of the compounds had moderately
strong to strong negative correlations with the u-component of the wind, and most of the
compounds had weak to moderate positive correlations with the v-component of the wind. The
UATMP concentrations of prevalent compounds tend to increase as pressure and the east-west
wind speed decreases and the north-south wind speed increases.
20-2
-------
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, ethylbenzene, and the xylenes did not measure any detectable
values at UNVT, and therefore do not have reportable correlations. Very few of the compounds
and weather variables registered correlations that could be considered moderately strong. The
strongest correlations were with acetylene and the v-component of the wind speed, and toluene
and the u-component of the wind speed. The weak correlations between the compounds and the
weather parameters make it difficult to ascertain when UATMP concentrations will increase at
UNVT.
20.2 Spatial Analysis
Using the population within ten miles of each site, an estimate of the number of motor
vehicles operating in proximity to the monitoring station can be established. The ratio used in
the this report is 0.74 motor vehicles to every one person (refer to section 3.4.1 for more
information on this ratio). The site with the largest population is UNVT, where 48,938 people
are operating approximately 36,214 vehicles. A population of 35,880 people is driving 26,551
motor vehicles near the RUVT site, while a lower population of 27,420 people is driving 20,291
vehicles near the BRVT site. This information is compared to the average daily concentration of
the prevalent compounds at each Vermont site in Table 20-3. Also included in Table 20-3 is
average daily traffic data, or more specifically, the average number of cars passing the
monitoring sites on the nearest roadway to each site on a daily basis. The site with the largest
traffic volume is BRVT and, as indicated in Figure 20-1, BRVT is located near an interstate
highway.
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 3-14 depicts the
average concentration ratios of the roadside study and compares them to the concentration ratios
at each of the monitoring sites. The RUVT site's concentration ratios most resemble those of the
roadside study. BRVT's toluene-ethylbenzene and benzene-ethylbenzene ratios are higher than
those of the roadside study. BRVT's benzene-ethylbenzene ratio is higher than its m,p-xy\Qne-
ethylbenzene ratio, which is the reverse of those from the roadside study. The only ratio that
20-3
-------
resembles the roadside study for the UNVT site is the toluene-ethylbenzene ratio, only in that it
is the largest for both sets. The toluene-ethylbenzene and benzene-ethylbenzene ratios are very
close at UNVT, with a considerably lower toluene-ethylbenzene ratio, and a slightly higher
benzene-ethylbenzene ratio at UNVT compared with the roadside study. Also at UNVT, the
TO,/>-xylene-ethylbenzene and o-xylene-ethylbenzene ratios are very close, with the o-xylene-
ethylbenzene ratio slightly higher. The opposite is true for the roadside study in both instances.
20-4
-------
Figure 20-1. Brattleboro, Vermont (BRVT) Monitoring Station
VAWv.toposone.com - Copyright ©2001 Maps a la carte, Inc
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
20-5
-------
Figure 20-2. Rutland, Vermont (RUVT) Monitoring Station
vfffN.topozone .com - Lopvnght ©2001 Maps a la carte. Inc.
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
20-6
-------
Figure 20-3. Underbill, Vermont (UNVT) Monitoring Station
'\YfW4.top020ne.com - Copyright ©2001 Maps a la carte. Inc.
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Series. Map Scale: 1:25,000.
20-7
-------
Figure 20-4. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of BRVT
Cheshire1 County
/ \
Windrjam County
~T '
\ Franklin County
72'5elO'W 72'B'(J"»
!TW Tl J5'0"W 72 30XTW 72-25'0-W
Note Due to facilrty density and coSocatton, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
•& BRVT UATMP site
10 mile radius
r^n County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
c Chemicals & allied products facility (1 )
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (8)
P Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (2)
@ Paper S allied products facility (1 )
R Printing & publishing facility (1 j
# Prod, of Inorganic Chemicals Industrial Facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
20-8
-------
Figure 20-5. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of RUVT
^ V^ndsor County \
w
Washington^ \
County ^ \-
,
\ X/ '
Rufiand County \
\
\ \ Mtes_
73'IS'OI/V 73'10'0-« 73'5'0"« 73'0'0'W 72'55'0-W 72 60'ffW
Note Due to facility derssrty and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
:& RUVT UATMP site
10 mile radius
j County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
z Electrical & electronic equipment facility {1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (10)
B Mineral Products Processing Industrial Facility (1)
p Misc. Processes Industrial Facility (1)
u Stone, clay, glass, & concrete products facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (2)
w Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (3)
20-9
-------
Figure 20-6. Facilities Located Within 10 Miles of UNVT
S'IC'O-W 73'5'S-W 73'ffO-W 72'S5'0"W 72'WO-ffl 72'45'irW
Note Due to faeilrty density and colocation, the total facilities
displayed may not represent all facilities within the area of interest
Legend
IS UNVT UATMP site
10 mile radius
County boundary
Source Category Group (No. of Facilities)
K Ferrous Metals Processing Industrial Facility (1)
F Fuel Combustion Industrial Facility (5)
R Printing & publishing facility (1)
s Surface Coating Processes Industrial Facility (1)
w Waste Treatment/Disposal Industrial Facility (1)
20-10
-------
Table 20-1. Average Concentration and Meteorological Parameters for Sites in Vermont
Site
Name
BRVT
RUVT
UNVT
Type
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
All
2002
sample
day
Average
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
\\^
8.32
(±0.28)
X^X^
9.98
(±1.02)
J^s^
6.26
(±0.30)
Average
Maximum
Temperature
56.29
(±2.08)
56.07
(±7.01)
55.53
(±2.11)
55.69
(±6.83)
55.53
(±2.11)
54.67
(±6.83)
Average
Temperature
46.29
(±1.82)
46.10
(±6.28)
47.47
(±1.92)
47.54
(±6.35)
47.47
(±1.92)
46.46
(±6.38)
Average
Dew point
Temperature
36.22
(±1.80)
35.46
(±6.17)
37.19
(±1.85)
36.61
(±6.17)
37.19
(±1.85)
35.57
(±6.27)
Average Wet
Bulb
Temperature
41.74
(±1.66)
41.34
(±5.69)
42.73
(±1.74)
42.56
(±5.77)
42.73
(±1.74)
41.61
(±5.81)
Average
Relative
Humidity
71.93
(±1.33)
70.40
(±4.59)
70.27
(±1.18)
68.58
(±3.83)
70.27
(±1.18)
68.36
(±3.61)
Average Sea
Level Pressure
(mb)
1020.0
(±10.91)
1019.3
(±36.54)
1019.5
(±12.16)
1021.1
(±57.18)
1019.5
(±12.16)
1021.2
(±55.41)
Average u-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
-1.72
(±0.61)
-0.42
(±0.53)
-0.01
(±0.25)
0.49
(±0.83)
-0.01
(±0.25)
0.55
(±0.81)
Average v-
component of
the Wind
(kts)
0.65
(±0.13)
0.55
(±0.55)
3.72
(±0.23)
2.73
(±0.82)
3.72
(±0.23)
2.52
(±0.85)
to
o
-------
Table 20-2a - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at Brattleboro,
Vermont (BRVT)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
-0.12
-0.29
-0.15
0.44
0.26
-0.16
-0.04
-0.18
-0.12
0.05
0.30
Average
Temperature
-0.08
-0.32
-0.17
0.45
0.25
-0.17
-0.05
-0.18
-0.15
0.06
0.28
Dew Point
Temperature
0.07
-0.28
-0.06
0.43
0.35
-0.02
0.12
-0.04
0.01
0.23
0.30
Wet Bulb
Temperature
-0.01
-0.31
-0.13
0.45
0.30
-0.12
0.01
-0.13
-0.09
0.13
0.31
Relative
Humidity
0.48
0.06
0.33
0.01
0.37
0.45
0.56
0.44
0.51
0.58
0.12
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.03
-0.33
-0.22
-0.04
0.13
-0.18
-0.18
-0.13
-0.27
-0.11
0.19
u-component
of wind speed
-0.15
-0.09
-0.09
-0.18
-0.21
-0.23
-0.26
-0.21
-0.33
-0.25
0.13
v-component
of wind speed
-0.27
0.03
-0.11
0.02
-0.29
-0.25
-0.20
-0.22
-0.19
-0.24
-0.20
to
o
-------
Table 20-2b - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters in Rutland,
Vermont (RUVT)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
0.03
-0.39
-0.29
0.06
0.13
0.09
0.07
0.07
-0.29
0.10
0.14
Average
Temperature
0.07
-0.36
-0.28
0.10
0.16
0.10
0.07
0.08
-0.26
0.12
0.15
Dew Point
Temperature
-0.01
-0.38
-0.28
0.09
0.11
0.07
0.03
0.04
-0.29
0.05
0.13
Wet Bulb
Temperature
0.04
-0.37
-0.29
0.10
0.14
0.09
0.05
0.06
-0.27
0.09
0.15
Relative
Humidity
-0.26
-0.13
0.01
0.00
-0.12
-0.04
-0.08
-0.07
-0.13
-0.17
-0.02
Sea Level
Pressure
-0.04
-0.25
-0.23
-0.04
-0.06
-0.13
-0.14
-0.12
-0.22
-0.14
0.05
u-component
of wind speed
-0.37
-0.28
-0.42
-0.15
-0.26
-0.57
-0.61
-0.58
-0.38
-0.60
-0.29
v-component
of wind speed
0.26
0.51
0.29
0.04
-0.08
0.18
0.12
0.15
0.33
0.23
-0.07
to
o
-------
Table 20-2c - Prevalent Compound Concentration Correlations with Selected Meteorological Parameters at
Underbill, Vermont (UNVT)
Compound
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetylene
Benzene
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ethylbenzene
m-,p - Xylene
o - Xylene
Propylene
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Maximum
Temperature
N/A*
-0.10
-0.10
0.10
0.20
N/A*
N/A*
N/A*
0.12
-0.10
0.22
Average
Temperature
N/A
-0.08
-0.07
0.15
0.22
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.15
-0.09
0.22
Dew Point
Temperature
N/A
-0.04
-0.02
0.15
0.20
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.16
-0.04
0.20
Wet Bulb
Temperature
N/A
-0.06
-0.05
0.15
0.22
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.16
-0.08
0.21
Relative
Humidity
N/A
0.14
0.19
0.02
-0.01
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.07
0.27
-0.02
Sea Level
Pressure
N/A
-0.18
-0.04
-0.20
-0.12
N/A
N/A
N/A
-0.01
0.02
0.13
u-component
of wind speed
N/A
-0.22
-0.08
0.04
-0.20
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.07
-0.38
-0.26
v-component
of wind speed
N/A
0.46
0.16
-0.09
-0.10
N/A
N/A
N/A
-0.29
0.09
0.00
* These compounds had no reportable values, only non-detects, and therefore have no correlations.
to
o
-------
Table 20-3. Motor Vehicle Information vs. Daily Concentration for Vermont
Monitoring Sites
Monitoring
Station
BRVT
RUVT
UNVT
Population
within Ten
Miles
27,420
35,880
48,938
Estimated
Number of
Vehicles Owned
20,291
26,551
36,214
Traffic Data
(Daily Average)
16,578
5,700
1,000
Average Daily
UATMP
Concentration
(ppbv)
8.32 (±0.28)
9.98 (±1.02)
6.26 (±0.30)
20-15
-------
21.0 Data Quality
This section discusses the precision and accuracy of ambient air concentration
measurements during the 2002 UATMP. As indicators of the reliability of experimental
measurements, both precision and accuracy must be considered when interpreting ambient air
monitoring results. In general, this section shows that the 2002 UATMP monitoring data are of a
known and high quality, particularly for the most program-wide prevalent compounds in urban
air. Collocated duplicate samples were collected in the State of Michigan. The precision and
accuracy of these collocated samples are discussed further in Sections 21.1.1 and 21.2. All
calculations were based on sample concentrations detected above the method detection limits for
each compound. The precision level is well within the UATMP data quality objectives (USEPA,
2002) and guidelines in the Compendium Methods (USEPA, 1999) which is 15 percent
coefficient of variation for each site and each compound.
Method precision for the UATMP is determined by repeated analysis of duplicate
samples. A duplicate sample is a sample collected simultaneously with a primary sample using
the same sampling system(i.e., two separate samples through the same sampling system at the
same time). This simultaneous collection is typically achieved by teeing the line from the
sampler to each of the two canisters and doubling the flow rate applied to achieve integration
over the 24-hour collection period. Ten percent of all sample collections were duplicate
samples.
The only exceptions to this approach were one site for the State of Vermont, two sites for
Tennessee, and two sites in Michigan. At these sites, collocated samples were collected and
analyzed in replicate. The difference between duplicate and collocated samples is that the
duplicate samples are collected from two canisters using one collection system, whereas
collocated samples are collected at the same time but using two completely separate collection
systems.
Both approaches provide valuable, but different, assessments of method precision:
21-1
-------
Replicate analysis of duplicate samples provides information on the potential for
variability (or precision) expected from a single collection system, but does not
provide information on the variability expected between different collection
systems.
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.
21.1 Precision
Precision refers to the agreement between independent measurements performed
according to identical protocols and procedures. To quantify "sampling and analytical
precision" (i.e., how precisely the sampling and analytical methods measure ambient air
concentrations), concentrations measured during analysis of duplicate samples are compared.
Applied to ambient air monitoring data, precision is a measurement of random errors
inherent to the process of sampling and analyzing ambient air.
21.1.1 Analytical Precision
Analytical precision is a measurement of random errors associated with laboratory
analysis of environmental samples. These errors may result from various factors, but typically
originate from random "noise" inherent to analytical instruments. Laboratories can easily
evaluate analytical precision by comparing concentrations measured during replicate analysis of
the same ambient air samples. This report uses three parameters to quantify random errors
indicated by replicate analyses of 2002 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 2002 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
21-2
-------
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:
IX, -X2 I
= I 1 2 1
Where:
, 2
RPD = 1 _ 2 x 100
X
Xl is the ambient air concentration of a given compound measured in one
sample;
X2 is the concentration of the same compound measured during replicate
analysis; and
Xis the arithmetic mean of X1 and X2.
As Equation 1 shows, replicate analyses with low variability have lower RPDs
(and better precision), and replicate analyses with high variability have higher
RPDs (and poorer precision).
Coefficient of Variation (CV) provides a relative measure of data dispersion
compared to the mean.
Cv = = x 100 (2\
X ^ '
Where:
a is the standard deviation of the sets or duplicate or replicate results;
Xis the arithmetic mean of the sets or duplicate or replicate results;
The CV is used to measure the imprecision in survey estimates introduced from
analysis. A low coefficient of 1 percent would indicate that the analytical results
could vary slightly due to sampling error, while a variation of 50% means that the
results are more imprecise.
The following approach was employed to estimate how precisely the central laboratory
analyzed 2002 UATMP samples:
21-3
-------
S 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.
S Second, 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 representing all sites for VOC, representing all
replicate analyses in duplicate and collocated samples, replicate analyses of collocated samples
and replicate analyses of duplicate samples, respectively.
In Table 21-1, the replicate analyses for duplicate and collocated samples show that
laboratory VOC analysis precision was within the control limits of 85 to 115 percent for CV,
with the exception of 1,3-butadiene, acetonitrile, methylene chloride, and w-octane at 15.86,
18.41, 20.04 and 18.08 percent, respectively. The method was most precise when measuring air
concentrations for the program-wide prevalent compounds (i.e., compounds consistently found at
levels exceeding their detection limits). The poor precision for 1,3-butadiene was due to poor
agreement from replicate samples from the Nashville, TN site (EATN). The slightly high
variability for w-octane resulted from poor agreement from replicate analyses from Camden, NJ
(CANJ), Denver, CO (DECO), Elizabeth, NJ (ELNJ), and Salt Lake City, UT (SLCU). w-Octane
and 1,3-butadiene were detected in less than 20% of all replicate samples analyzed (114 samples
for w-octane and 125 for 1,3-butadiene). In terms of average concentration difference, the
precision of the VOC analytical method ranged from 0.01 ppbv for chlorobenzene to 10.87 ppbv
for acetonitrile.
Table 21-2 shows the results from replicate analyses of collocated VOC samples taken at
the Dearborn site in Detroit, Michigan, two sites in Nashville, TN (EATN and LOTN), and
Brattleboro, VT (BRVT). The replicate results from collocated samples showed variation for the
compounds ranging from 2.45 percent to 28.57 percent. The four highest CVs calculated (1,3-
butadiene at 16.23%, acetonitrile at 26.85%, methylene chloride at 28.57%, methyl ethyl ketone
21-4
-------
at 15.29%, and w-octane at 22.59%) had average concentration differences of 0.08, 0.92, 0.11,
0.56, and 0.09 ppbv, showing a low precision and variation for 1,3-butadiene, methylene
chloride, and w-octane, but medium variation for acetonitrile and methyl ethyl ketone. This
variation is likely due to the polar nature of these compounds.
Table 21-3 shows the results from replicate analyses of duplicate VOC samples. The
replicate results from duplicate samples vary little for the majority of the compounds, ranging
from 1.57 percent to 15.49 percent. The highest CVs (15.49% for 1,3-butadiene and 15.06% for
acrylonitrile) had average concentration differences of 0.08 and 0.64 ppbv, showing a low to mid
variability between compounds.
Tables 21-4 through 21-7 present results from VOC replicate analyses for all of the
duplicate and collocated samples at the NATTS sites that sampled VOC (BAPR and SJPR,
G2CO and GJCO, C2IA, and DEMI). Table 21-8 presents the overall CV for each site
separately, giving the average CV per compound and per site. The replicate results from
duplicate samples vary little for the majority of the compounds and show low to mid-level
variability between compounds.
Table 21-9 presents replicate analytical data for all duplicate SNMOC samples. Twenty-
six out of 78 SNMOCs showed greater variation than the target 15 percent. The average
concentration differences observed for replicate analyses of SNMOC compounds ranged from
0.11 to 1.58 ppbC. The total speciated and total hydrocarbons (speciated and unspeciated)
showed the greater average concentration differences, 11.95 and 31.93 ppbC, respectively.
Tables 21-10 and 21-11 present the results from SNMOC replicate analyses for all of the
NATTS sites (BAPR, SJPR, and C2IA). Table 21-12 presents the overall CV for each site
separately, giving the average CV per compound and per site. The replicate results from
duplicate samples vary little for the majority of the compounds and show low to mid-level
variability between compounds.
21-5
-------
In Table 21-13, the replicate analyses for duplicate and collocated samples show that
laboratory carbonyl analysis precision was within the control limits of 15 percent CV, with the
exception of isovaleraldehyde and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde at 17.45 and 19.43 percent,
respectively. The method was most precise when measuring air concentrations for the program-
wide prevalent compounds (i.e., compounds consistently found at levels exceeding their
detection limits). The poor precision for isovaleraldehyde was due to poor agreement from
replicate samples from the Detroit, MI (DEMI), St. Petersburg, FL (CWFL), and Tampa, FL
(GAFL) sites. The slightly high variability for 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde resulted from poor
agreement from replicate analyses from Detroit, MI (DEMI), Grand Junction, CO (G2CO), Salt
Lake City, UT (SLCU), San Juan, PR (SJPR), and Sioux Falls, SD (SFSD). Isovaleraldehyde
and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde were detected in less than 12% of all replicate samples analyzed
(81 samples for isovaleraldehyde and 47 for 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde out of 722 possible
analyses). In terms of average concentration difference, the precision of the carbonyl analytical
method ranged from 0.003 ppbv for valeraldehyde to 0.02 ppbv for formaldehyde, acetone,
isovaleraldehyde, and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde.
Table 21-14 shows the results from replicate analyses of collocated carbonyl samples
taken at the Dearborn site in Detroit, Michigan, and two sites in Nashville, TN (EATN and
LOTN). The replicate results from collocated samples showed variation for the compounds
ranging from 0.22 percent to 21.37 percent. The highest CVs calculated (isovaleraldehyde at
21.37% and 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde at 15.53%) had average concentration differences of
0.004 and 0.03 ppbv, showing a low-level variation.
Table 21-15 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 0.57 percent to 23.33 percent. The highest CV (23.33% for 2,5-
dimethylbenzaldehyde) had average concentration differences of 0.01, showing a low-level of
variability between compounds.
21-6
-------
Tables 21-16 through 21-20 present the CV results from replicate analyses for all of the
NATTS sites that sampled for CARBS (BAPR, SJPR, G2CO, GJCO, C2IA, DEMI, CWFL,
DNFL, GAFL and LEFL) samples. Table 21-21 presents the overall CV for each site separately,
giving the average CV per compound and per site. The replicate results from duplicate and
collocated samples vary little and have a 15% overall variability for each site for the year 2002.
Replicate analytical data for semivolatile analyses are presented in Table 21-22. The CV
was calculated for the two collocated Michigan sites that sampled for semivolatiles in 2002. All
replicate analyses were less than 15.0 percent for all detected compounds. The average
concentration differences observed for all replicate analyses were 6.02 total jig or less.
Replicate analytical data for hexavalent chromium (Cr6+) analyses are presented in Table
21-23. The CV was calculated for only one of the four sites that sampled for Cr6+ in 2002. This
site was at River Rouge in Michigan, with collocated samplers. All replicate analyses CV were
less than 14.82 percent. The average concentration differences observed on the replicate
analyses were less than 0.015 |ig/m3.
Overall, replicate analyses for both duplicate and collocated of VOC, SNMOC, carbonyl
compounds, semivolatile, and hexavalent chromium samples suggest the precision level is well
within the UATMP data quality objectives (USEPA, 2002) and guidelines in the Compendium
Methods (USEPA, 1999).
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 in the field.
This form of precision is most easily evaluated by comparing concentrations measured in
duplicate samples collected from the same manifold. During the 2002 UATMP, duplicate
samples were collected on approximately 10 percent of the scheduled sampling days, and most
of these samples were analyzed in replicate. Collocated samples were collected on a schedule
designed by the State of Michigan.
21-7
-------
To calculate sampling and analytical precision, data analysts first averaged the results
from each replicate analyses performed, then compared these average concentrations between
the two samples in each duplicate. Also, the CV for two duplicate samples was calculated for
each compound and each site - the target recovery being 15%, similar to the replicate analyses.
Tables 21-24 through 21-26, 21-31,21-35 through 21-35 through 21-37, and 21-44 through 21-
46 present average concentration differences, RPDs, and CVs as estimates of duplicate and
collocated sampling and analytical variability for VOC, SNMOC, carbonyls, semivolatiles,
metals, and hexavalent chromium measurements, respectively. The number of observations from
Tables 21-1 through 21-26, in comparison to the respective tables listed for duplicate analyses in
Tables 21-27 through 21-46, is approximately twice as high.
Table 21-24 presents the sampling and analytical data for VOC and shows that the total
duplicate and collocated samples collected during the 2002 UATMP were in agreement (i.e.,
below 15 percent average CV), with the exception of acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, methylene
chloride, methyl ethyl ketone, w-octane, tetrachloroethylene, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene at
48.38, 24.00, 27.23, 15.84, 19.71, 25.60 and 21.01, respectively. The average concentration
difference ranged from 0.02 ppbv for c/5-l,2-dichloroethylene to 11.61 ppbv for acetonitrile.
The collocated VOC sampling and analytical data are presented in Table 21-25, and the
duplicate samples are shown in Table 21-26. The greatest differences in average CV for
collocated samples (Table 21-25) were measured for acetylene (16.72%), propylene (19.67%),
acetonitrile (74.38%), methylene chloride (28.54%), benzene (16.32%), carbon tetrachloride
(15.23%), toluene (16.68%), w-octane (27.05%), tetrachloroethylene (15.88%), and 1,3,5-
trimethylbenzene (17.19%). Acetylene, propylene, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and toluene
were collected in greater than 99% of the samples, whereas all of the other compounds with CVs
over 15% were collected in less than 23% of the samples (exception, methylene chloride at
68%).
The greatest differences in average CV for duplicate samples (Table 21-26) were
measured for acetonitrile (22.38%), acrylonitrile (24.00%), methylene chloride (25.92%), methyl
ethyl ketone (MEK) (18.30%), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (15.18%), tetrachloroethylene (35.31%),
21-8
-------
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (24.84%), and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (15.15%). The samples that are
represented as Not Applicable ("NA"), and have a RPD for the corresponding duplicate or
collocated sample, are also flagged with an "NA".
Tables 21-27 through 21-29 present the results from VOC duplicate analysis for all of the
NATTS sites (BAPR, SJPR, C2IA, and DEMI) that sampled VOC. Table 21-30 presents the
overall CV for each site separately, giving the average CV per compound and per site. The
duplicate samples vary little for the majority of the compounds and show low to mid-level
variability between compounds.
The SNMOC precision for duplicate samples is presented in Table 21-31. Coefficient of
variation for duplicate samples ranged from 2.38 % for propane to 44.86 % for w-undecane. This
variation is due to the low detections - less than 5 times the detection limit. The VOC and
SNMOC sampling and analytical precision data do not differ significantly from the analytical
precision data as presented in tables above. This similarity suggests that limitations associated
with laboratory analysis of the VOC and SNMOC samples during the 2002 UATMP probably
outweighed random errors associated with sampling procedures.
Tables 21-32 and 21-33 present the results from SNMOC duplicate analysis for the
NATTS sites (BAPR, SJPR, and C2IA) that sampled SNMOC. Table 21-34 presents the overall
CV for each site separately, giving the average CV per compound and per site. The duplicate
samples vary little for the majority of the compounds and show low to mid-level variability
between compounds.
Table 21-35, presenting the sampling and analytical data for carbonyl compounds, shows
that the total duplicate and collocated samples collected during the 2002 UATMP varied greatly
with 6 compounds below the 15% target criterion and 6 above (acetone (15.79%), benzaldehyde
(15.96%), isovaleraldehyde (23.48%), tolualdehydes (16.72%), hexaldehyde (18.88%), and 2,5-
dimethylbenzaldehyde (60.94%)). Of the four sites that collected 2,5-dimethylbenzaldehyde, two
were out of control at 68.75% (DEMI) and 72.03% (SLCU). Both of these sites collected 2,5-
21-9
-------
dimethylbenzaldehyde in less than 14% of the duplicate samples possible. The average
concentration difference ranged from 0.01 for crotonaldehyde, benzaldehyde, isovaleraldehyde,
valeraldehyde, and tolualdehydes to 0.53 ppbv for formaldehyde.
The collocated carbonyl sampling and analytical data are presented in Table 21-36, and
the duplicate samples results are shown in Table 21-37. All carbonyl compounds exceeded the
15% target with the exception of propionaldehyde, crotonaldehyde, and butyr/isobutyraldehyde.
The greatest differences in average CV for duplicate samples (Table 21-37) showed a better
agreement, with isovaleraldehyde (23.37%), hexaldehyde (16.82%), and 2,3-
dimethylbenzaldehyde (53.12%). The samples that are represented as Not Applicable ("NA"),
with RPD for the corresponding duplicate or collocated sample, are also flagged with an "NA".
The duplicate sampling results presented in Table 21-37 show that the results for
carbonyl compounds were relatively precise in relation to amount detected. The high variability
(RPD above 30 percent) is due to detection at low concentrations. Variability is higher at these
low concentrations because measurement of small values is inherently less reproducible. High
variability is also shown for the collocated samples presented in Table 21-36, but the variability
is not caused by low concentrations in the samples. For most compounds, the CVs for duplicate
sampling and analysis (see Table 21-37) were notably higher than the CVs for analytical
precision (see Table 21-15) — a trend that differs from the trend observed for VOC or SNMOC.
This observation suggests that random errors associated with collecting air samples and random
errors associated with analyzing these samples both contributed significantly to overall
imprecision in the carbonyl compound sampling and analytical method. As the estimates of
sampling and analytical precision show, however, such sources of contamination did not have
significant impacts on the carbonyl compound monitoring results.
Tables 21-38 through 21-42 present the results from carbonyl duplicate analysis for the
NATTS sites that sampled for CARBS (BAPR, SJPR, G2CO, GJCO, C2IA, DEMI, CWFL,
DNFL, GAFL and LEFL). Table 21-43 presents the overall CV for each site separately, giving
21-10
-------
the average CV per compound and per site. The duplicate samples vary little for the majority of
the compounds and show low to mid precision and variability between compounds.
The sampling and analytical variation for collocated semivolatile samples is presented in
Table 21-44, and was less than 15 percent for all compounds detected. The greatest differences
in average CV for duplicate samples were shown by pyridine (31.82%), 2-methylphenol
(18.76%), di-w-butyl phthalate (121.51%), bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (33.08%),
benzo(a)anthracene (24.33%), and benzo(k)fluoranthene (15.18%). The samples that are
represented as Not Applicable ("NA") and have a RPD for the corresponding duplicate or
collocated sample are also flagged with an "NA".
Duplicate analytical data for hexavalent chromium (Cr6+) samples are presented in Table
21-45. The CV is 36.34 percent for this collocated site. Similarly to the carbonyl precision data,
duplicate sampling and analytical CVs were notably higher than the analytical precision CVs
(see Table 21-23). This observation suggests that random errors associated with collecting air
samples and random errors associated with analyzing these samples both contributed
significantly to overall imprecision in the Cr6+ sampling and analytical method. As the estimates
of sampling and analytical precision show, however, such sources of contamination did not have
significant impacts on the Cr6+ monitoring results.
The sampling and analytical variation for duplicate metals samples are presented in Table
21-46. The average CV values, as well as the average RPD values, are relatively low, with the
exception of the values for cadmium and mercury. The greatest differences in average CV for
duplicate samples are 18.10% and 21.00%, for cadmium and mercury, respectively.
Measurements from collocated samplers have higher variations than the standard
duplicate sampling as performed by the National UATMP. Because collocated sampling varies
the sampling media as well as the sampler (including sampling probes), higher RPD values
should be expected.
21-11
-------
21.2 Accuracy
Highly accurate air sampling and analytical methods can measure air concentrations in
very close agreement to actual ambient levels. Laboratories typically evaluate their accuracy by
analyzing external audit samples and comparing measured concentrations to the known
concentrations of the audit samples.
Accuracy indicates the extent to which experimental measurements represent their
corresponding "true" or "actual" values.
Air Toxics Pilot Laboratory Intercomparison studies were performed in November 2002.
A Quality Assurance Report for all laboratories that participated in this study is available on
EPA's web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/airtox/atpilot.pdf. ERG has also
prepared audit standards for different State laboratories.
The accuracy of the 2002 UATMP monitoring data can also be assessed qualitatively by
reviewing the accuracy of the monitoring methods and how they were implemented:
S The sampling and analytical methods used in the 2002 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.
S 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 2002 UATMP monitoring data accurately represent
ambient air quality.
21-12
-------
Table 21-1. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
640 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 (MEK)
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
Number of
Observations
634
638
640
639
0
0
125
4
0
170
639
10
0
419
570
0
0
126
283
2
4
0
31
0
0
41
638
519
0
0
0
0
6
5
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
12.34
17.51
7.63
11.93
NA
NA
18.61
2.26
NA
21.30
10.51
9.87
NA
70.62
14.76
NA
NA
6.15
16.55
NA
NA
NA
12.32
NA
NA
16.72
14.20
16.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.00
3.16
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.79
0.57
0.59
0.60
NA
NA
1.11
0.30
NA
10.87
0.70
0.33
NA
0.58
1.14
NA
NA
0.07
0.73
0.14
0.16
NA
0.06
NA
NA
0.04
0.45
1.38
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.08
0.27
NA
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
8.97
8.70
5.74
7.45
NA
NA
21.58
1.57
NA
11.93
7.60
10.86
NA
13.59
8.86
NA
NA
7.82
12.44
NA
NA
NA
10.11
NA
NA
15.17
7.23
11.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.72
2.28
NA
21-13
-------
Table 21-1. Continued
Compound
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
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
ra-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 .3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
15
0
0
632
0
0
114
88
4
403
553
0
27
0
381
108
330
0
0
19
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
5.95
NA
NA
8.52
NA
NA
23.54
14.64
5.94
8.12
7.67
NA
10.52
NA
8.77
13.31
13.96
NA
NA
11.65
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.32
NA
NA
0.68
NA
NA
0.11
2.24
0.01
0.63
0.76
NA
0.10
NA
0.57
1.85
0.94
NA
NA
0.13
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
4.09
NA
NA
6.47
NA
NA
15.33
13.32
4.08
6.42
6.04
NA
15.43
NA
6.84
9.58
8.36
NA
NA
8.69
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented
in bold font.
21-14
-------
Table 21-2. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Total 184 Replicate Analyses of 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 (MEK)
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
178
184
184
184
0
0
33
0
0
31
184
2
0
105
180
0
0
8
75
0
3
0
15
0
0
9
184
175
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
12.28
14.23
8.22
15.54
NA
NA
19.48
NA
NA
33.52
10.67
3.53
NA
66.75
19.42
NA
NA
0.54
18.19
NA
NA
NA
9.75
NA
NA
NA
18.39
19.96
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.22
0.17
0.06
0.10
NA
NA
0.08
NA
NA
0.92
0.03
0.03
NA
0.11
0.03
NA
NA
0.01
0.56
NA
0.02
NA
0.03
NA
NA
0.03
0.06
0.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.25
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
8.82
10.29
6.05
11.96
NA
NA
16.23
NA
NA
26.85
6.84
2.45
NA
28.57
13.62
NA
NA
0.40
15.29
NA
NA
NA
6.40
NA
NA
NA
7.34
14.20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-15
-------
Table 21-2. Continued
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-~X.ylene
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
Number of
Observations
184
0
0
20
31
0
109
162
0
4
0
96
26
94
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
7.80
NA
NA
42.66
17.13
NA
7.59
7.42
NA
6.11
NA
8.33
20.25
18.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.11
NA
NA
0.09
0.03
NA
0.02
0.05
NA
0.08
NA
0.03
0.04
0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
5.66
NA
NA
22.59
13.29
NA
5.25
5.41
NA
4.48
NA
6.10
13.78
11.10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not Applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-16
-------
Table 21-3. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Total 456 Replicate Analyses of 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 (MEK)
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-\,3 -Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Number of
Observations
456
454
456
455
0
0
92
4
0
139
455
8
0
314
390
0
0
118
208
2
1
0
16
0
0
32
454
344
0
0
0
0
6
5
0
10
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
13.16
21.45
7.99
9.25
NA
NA
19.81
2.26
NA
15.81
11.60
16.21
NA
72.25
12.32
NA
NA
11.77
15.29
NA
NA
NA
14.89
NA
NA
16.72
10.72
14.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.00
3.16
NA
5.95
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.26
0.13
0.05
0.07
NA
NA
0.08
0.30
NA
16.16
0.05
0.64
NA
0.24
0.03
NA
NA
0.13
0.50
0.14
0.29
NA
0.09
NA
NA
0.06
0.05
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.08
0.27
NA
0.39
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
8.78
8.38
5.73
6.76
NA
NA
15.49
1.57
NA
9.98
7.69
15.06
NA
11.50
8.04
NA
NA
8.54
11.94
NA
NA
NA
11.80
NA
NA
13.08
7.47
11.21
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.72
2.28
NA
4.09
21-17
-------
Table 21-3. Continued
Compound
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
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
w-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 .3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
0
448
0
0
94
57
4
294
391
0
23
0
285
82
236
0
0
19
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
NA
NA
10.25
NA
NA
18.62
16.52
5.94
9.82
9.25
NA
14.94
NA
10.22
11.09
11.63
NA
NA
11.65
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
NA
NA
0.12
NA
NA
0.13
0.06
0.01
0.04
0.07
NA
0.13
NA
0.05
0.09
0.05
NA
NA
0.13
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
NA
NA
6.64
NA
NA
13.58
12.72
4.08
6.76
6.27
NA
12.47
NA
7.30
7.48
7.68
NA
NA
8.69
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not Applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-18
-------
Table 21-4. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Total 48 Replicate Analyses of Duplicate Samples in Puerto Rico
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 (MEK)
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
48
48
48
48
0
0
18
0
0
13
48
0
0
41
36
0
0
4
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
48
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
8.32
12.50
6.35
9.12
NA
NA
15.18
NA
NA
25.72
8.48
NA
NA
9.37
14.56
NA
NA
30.96
10.68
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.95
10.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.36
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.13
0.10
0.04
0.08
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
41.52
0.03
NA
NA
0.08
0.04
NA
NA
0.17
0.50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.08
0.06
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.41
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
5.56
8.34
4.43
6.34
NA
NA
12.00
NA
NA
15.34
5.55
NA
NA
7.41
10.17
NA
NA
26.49
9.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.19
7.38
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.11
NA
NA
21-19
-------
Table 21-4. Continued
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
w,yK>-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ra-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
yO-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
48
0
0
5
1
0
41
48
0
5
0
45
19
44
0
0
10
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
10.44
NA
NA
8.35
NA
NA
11.78
8.55
NA
13.72
NA
11.43
5.30
11.27
NA
NA
12.19
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.17
NA
NA
0.11
0.10
NA
0.08
0.07
NA
0.09
NA
0.05
0.04
0.05
NA
NA
0.13
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
7.02
NA
NA
5.66
NA
NA
7.06
5.89
NA
9.80
NA
8.01
4.01
7.67
NA
NA
9.16
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not Applicable.
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-20
-------
Table 21-5. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Total 44 Replicate Analyses of Duplicate Samples in Grand Junction, CO
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 (MEK)
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
44
44
44
44
0
0
18
0
0
14
44
0
0
36
44
0
0
8
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
44
34
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
3.78
5.80
2.84
1.86
NA
NA
4.12
NA
NA
9.25
10.79
NA
NA
53.10
6.06
NA
NA
9.22
7.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.62
6.96
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.16
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
1.67
0.09
0.06
0.06
NA
NA
0.09
NA
NA
2.61
0.12
NA
NA
0.28
0.02
NA
NA
0.04
0.65
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.08
0.07
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.14
NA
0.72
NA
NA
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
2.48
3.77
1.88
1.21
NA
NA
2.94
NA
NA
3.39
6.15
NA
NA
18.75
4.01
NA
NA
6.49
4.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.78
5.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.28
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-21
-------
Table 21-5. Continued
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
w,yK>-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
ra-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
yO-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
44
0
0
15
13
0
38
44
0
4
0
40
15
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
3.19
NA
NA
16.71
12.99
NA
3.21
2.86
NA
1.48
NA
4.15
2.04
3.59
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.14
NA
NA
0.23
0.04
NA
0.02
0.08
NA
0.03
NA
0.04
0.07
0.06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
2.20
NA
NA
6.53
9.52
NA
2.21
1.98
NA
1.07
NA
2.95
1.50
2.50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not Applicable.
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-22
-------
Table 21-6. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Total 24 Replicate Analyses of Duplicate Samples in Cedar Rapids, IA
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 (MEK)
Chloroprene
cis- 1,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl fert-Butyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis- 1 , 3 -Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Number of
Observations
24
24
24
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
0
7
20
0
0
0
14
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
24
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
29.09
25.33
6.47
7.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.17
NA
NA
5.93
27.97
NA
NA
NA
11.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.62
11.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
0.05
0.04
NA
NA
NA
0.36
NA
0.29
NA
0.11
NA
NA
0.08
0.04
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
13.08
14.62
4.29
5.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.10
NA
NA
4.00
13.07
NA
NA
NA
7.68
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.98
8.08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-23
-------
Table 21-6. Continued
Compound
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
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
w-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 .3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
0
16
0
0
3
0
0
4
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
NA
NA
44.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.57
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
NA
NA
0.08
NA
NA
0.10
NA
NA
0.12
0.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
NA
NA
20.65
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.44
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not Applicable.
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-24
-------
Table 21-7. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Total 104 Replicate Analyses of Collocated Samples in Detroit, Michigan
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 (MEK)
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
104
104
104
104
0
0
25
0
0
26
104
2
0
95
103
0
0
0
41
0
0
0
9
0
0
7
104
102
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
7.97
8.35
7.12
7.93
NA
NA
21.18
NA
NA
20.52
8.56
3.53
NA
15.12
12.38
NA
NA
NA
13.05
NA
NA
NA
19.21
NA
NA
NA
6.07
13.53
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.13
0.07
0.05
0.05
NA
NA
0.09
NA
NA
1.91
0.03
0.03
NA
0.09
0.02
NA
NA
NA
0.35
NA
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.05
0.04
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.22
NA
NA
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
5.74
5.80
4.91
5.54
NA
NA
17.19
NA
NA
10.84
5.92
2.45
NA
10.37
8.80
NA
NA
NA
10.48
NA
NA
NA
12.61
NA
NA
NA
4.34
9.36
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-25
-------
Table 21-7. Continued
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
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
104
0
0
13
31
0
74
92
0
0
0
63
20
68
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
6.94
NA
NA
8.39
17.13
NA
7.13
7.73
NA
NA
NA
7.51
16.69
10.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.09
NA
NA
0.11
0.03
NA
0.02
0.04
NA
NA
NA
0.03
0.03
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
5.04
NA
NA
5.90
13.29
NA
5.53
5.75
NA
NA
NA
6.02
12.19
7.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not Applicable.
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-26
-------
Table 21-8. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficients of Variation for each Compound for all Replicate Analyses, all sites
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl fert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Average
8.97
8.70
5.74
7.45
NA
NA
21.58
1.57
NA
11.93
7.60
10.86
NA
13.59
8.86
NA
NA
7.82
12.44
NA
NA
|
<
%
I
<
12.77
13.69
15.53
13.67
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
26.42
NA
NA
15.87
NA
NA
NA
26.44
10.71
NA
NA
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
6.62
6.32
3.23
5.60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.55
4.52
NA
NA
6.76
8.12
NA
NA
NA
16.21
NA
NA
Beulah, ND (BUND)
6.21
15.78
6.61
15.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.36
NA
NA
18.89
12.55
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Brattleboro, VT
(BRVT)
9.39
10.67
8.37
10.40
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.56
NA
NA
NA
9.96
NA
NA
0.40
4.28
NA
NA
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
8.87
3.75
4.66
5.22
NA
NA
NA
1.57
NA
NA
6.28
NA
NA
8.35
4.89
NA
NA
6.84
12.42
NA
NA
3
5«
2
'S.
sS
C£
«3
«s
u B
13.08
14.62
4.29
5.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.10
NA
NA
4.00
13.07
NA
NA
NA
7.68
NA
NA
2
$s
JB
SB
9.47
9.18
6.35
6.34
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.17
10.86
NA
NA
9.86
15.02
NA
NA
2.73
12.68
NA
NA
0
!/5
^ff
3 S
1 S3
uB
12.80
10.40
9.32
8.81
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.04
NA
NA
Davenport, IA
(DAIA)
24.50
9.64
7.28
4.31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.73
NA
NA
NA
7.53
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O
u
f§
*=
4.18
6.06
4.29
7.80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.84
2.44
NA
12.37
7.15
NA
NA
NA
16.51
NA
NA
Denver, CO
(SWCO)
11.36
3.85
4.86
6.22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.91
6.86
NA
NA
19.08
17.14
NA
NA
NA
6.20
NA
NA
to
-------
Table 21-8. Continued
Compound
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Average
NA
10.11
NA
NA
15.17
7.23
11.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.72
2.28
NA
4.09
NA
NA
6.47
NA
NA
15.33
1
^
X
H
1
^
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.55
6.73
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.25
NA
NA
NA
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.08
3.84
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.69
NA
NA
NA
Beulah, ND (BUND)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.53
19.58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.26
NA
NA
NA
Brattleboro, VT
(BRVT)
NA
0.20
NA
NA
NA
12.61
11.28
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.41
NA
NA
NA
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.06
8.96
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.87
NA
NA
28.51
Cedar Rapids, IA
(C2IA)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.98
8.08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.65
NA
NA
NA
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.18
8.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.74
NA
NA
12.12
0
!/5
£ &
£ C/3
2 H=
3^
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.67
15.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.96
NA
NA
NA
Davenport, IA
(DAIA)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.69
7.07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.54
NA
NA
NA
Denver, CO
(DECO)
NA
9.43
NA
NA
6.80
3.88
12.56
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.07
NA
NA
4.41
NA
NA
20.65
Denver, CO
(SWCO)
NA
3.37
NA
NA
NA
11.26
4.16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.31
NA
NA
NA
to
oo
-------
Table 21-8. Continued
Compound
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Average
Average
13.32
4.08
6.42
6.04
NA
15.43
NA
6.84
9.58
8.36
NA
NA
8.69
NA
NA
NA
9.25
1
^
X
H
f
^
NA
NA
NA
19.80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.28
Barceloneta, PR
(BAPR)
NA
NA
9.19
5.93
NA
NA
NA
6.89
NA
11.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.06
Beulah, ND (BUND)
NA
NA
NA
6.43
NA
NA
NA
4.88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.18
Brattleboro, VT
(BRVT)
NA
NA
2.43
4.87
NA
NA
NA
2.55
NA
2.55
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.81
Camden, NJ
(CANJ)
NA
NA
5.38
3.80
NA
NA
NA
6.34
NA
5.44
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.12
Cedar Rapids, IA
(C2IA)
NA
NA
NA
2.44
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.11
Chester, NJ
(CHNJ)
NA
NA
9.90
5.91
NA
NA
NA
5.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.71
0
!/5
£ &
£ C/3
2 H=
3^
29.91
NA
6.15
13.82
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.83
Davenport, IA
(DAIA)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.70
Denver, CO
(DECO)
20.72
NA
8.13
2.83
NA
NA
NA
6.98
8.46
5.67
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.15
Denver, CO
(SWCO)
NA
NA
9.26
12.12
NA
NA
NA
12.29
NA
15.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.77
to
VO
-------
Table 21-8. Continued
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Bromochloromethane
Average
8.97
8.70
5.74
7.45
NA
NA
21.58
1.57
NA
11.93
7.60
10.86
NA
13.59
8.86
NA
NA
7.82
12.44
NA
NA
NA
Denver, CO
(WECO)
8.45
9.31
9.73
10.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.69
9.04
NA
NA
12.21
14.72
NA
NA
3.48
39.22
NA
NA
NA
—
s»
« s
5 S
If
O a.
7.61
8.50
6.03
7.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.14
2.45
NA
17.39
8.78
NA
NA
NA
16.17
NA
NA
NA
Detroit, MI (Dearborn)
(DEMI)
3.87
3.10
3.79
3.96
NA
NA
12.86
NA
NA
10.84
4.70
NA
NA
3.35
8.82
NA
NA
NA
4.78
NA
NA
NA
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
8.32
13.38
4.88
5.60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.21
NA
NA
11.13
6.48
NA
NA
4.62
11.92
NA
NA
NA
Grand Junction, CO
(G2CO)
2.01
1.22
1.10
1.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.30
1.67
NA
NA
3.42
1.79
NA
NA
NA
4.68
NA
NA
NA
Grand Junction, CO
(GJCO)
2.95
6.32
2.66
1.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.47
10.63
NA
NA
34.08
6.24
NA
NA
6.49
5.06
NA
NA
NA
Gulf Port, MS (GPMS)
7.95
5.45
3.86
4.83
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.56
2.35
NA
NA
19.15
1.86
NA
NA
4.98
15.79
NA
NA
NA
Jackson, MS
(JAMS)
8.96
8.15
6.58
6.81
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.28
14.34
NA
NA
15.89
9.52
NA
NA
4.58
14.08
NA
NA
NA
Lincoln, NE (LINE)
4.13
3.26
2.41
5.56
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.50
5.64
27.68
NA
NA
3.54
NA
NA
NA
23.08
NA
NA
NA
Lincoln, NE (LONE)
24.50
9.64
7.28
4.31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.73
NA
NA
NA
7.53
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nashville, TN (EATN)
7.42
15.90
6.05
12.17
NA
NA
30.30
NA
NA
NA
5.78
NA
NA
64.98
15.85
NA
NA
NA
33.82
NA
NA
NA
oo
o
-------
Table 21-8. Continued
Compound
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
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
Average
10.11
NA
NA
15.17
7.23
11.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.72
2.28
NA
4.09
NA
NA
6.47
NA
Denver, CO
(WECO)
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.68
34.16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.14
NA
£
c«
a.
—
§,
hH
S
-H »
ss
%%
p S
12.61
NA
NA
NA
5.79
9.47
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.70
NA
Detroit, MI (Dearborn)
(DEMI)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.88
9.26
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.38
NA
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.81
8.32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.14
NA
Grand Junction, CO
(G2CO)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.85
2.90
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.28
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.10
NA
Grand Junction, CO
(GJCO)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.71
7.41
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.29
NA
Gulf Port, MS (GPMS)
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.17
12.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.14
NA
Jackson, MS
(JAMS)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.93
14.88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.51
NA
Lincoln, NE (LINE)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.99
7.94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.84
NA
Lincoln, NE (LONE)
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.69
7.07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.54
NA
Nashville, TN (EATN)
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.01
17.42
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.22
NA
to
oo
-------
Table 21-8. Continued
Compound
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-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Average
Average
NA
15.33
13.32
4.08
6.42
6.04
NA
15.43
NA
6.84
9.58
8.36
NA
NA
8.69
NA
NA
NA
9.25
Denver, CO
(WECO)
NA
12.12
18.76
NA
6.57
8.22
NA
NA
NA
8.53
17.56
7.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.46
£
ft
a.
—
§,
hH
S
-H »
ss
*%
p S
NA
5.90
18.90
NA
5.71
5.95
NA
NA
NA
6.68
13.51
8.09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.98
Detroit, MI (Dearborn)
(DEMI)
NA
NA
7.69
NA
5.35
5.54
NA
NA
NA
5.36
10.88
7.65
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.27
Elizabeth, NJ
(ELNJ)
NA
20.19
2.62
NA
6.69
7.72
NA
NA
NA
8.56
NA
7.19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.10
Grand Junction, CO
(G2CO)
NA
6.53
1.35
NA
1.12
1.00
NA
1.07
NA
1.08
1.50
1.53
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.90
Grand Junction, CO
(GJCO)
NA
NA
17.68
NA
3.31
2.96
NA
NA
NA
4.82
NA
3.48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.09
Gulf Port, MS (GPMS)
NA
6.73
NA
NA
5.21
1.70
NA
NA
NA
7.73
NA
13.96
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.03
Jackson, MS
(JAMS)
NA
NA
18.45
NA
6.34
4.43
NA
NA
NA
12.52
NA
10.27
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.70
Lincoln, NE (LINE)
NA
NA
5.92
NA
2.63
2.81
NA
NA
NA
2.76
4.26
5.21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.95
Lincoln, NE (LONE)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.70
Nashville, TN (EATN)
NA
39.28
NA
NA
11.04
5.88
NA
4.48
NA
11.05
16.94
8.80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.97
oo
to
-------
Table 21-8. Continued
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Average
8.97
8.70
5.74
7.45
NA
NA
21.58
1.57
NA
11.93
7.60
10.86
NA
13.59
8.86
NA
NA
7.82
12.44
NA
NA
Nashville, TN (LOTN)
15.81
13.30
5.98
26.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
42.86
5.05
NA
NA
NA
24.69
NA
NA
NA
17.38
NA
NA
New Brunswick, NJ
(NBNJ)
6.32
7.06
3.66
4.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.22
4.74
NA
NA
3.66
5.46
NA
NA
6.59
5.53
NA
NA
Pascagoula, MS
(PGMS)
15.98
5.41
14.01
17.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.81
17.99
NA
NA
1.24
2.08
NA
NA
NA
9.12
NA
NA
O
S
•N
- ^
3 O
o ^
J.S
££
5.64
6.81
2.14
4.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.59
NA
NA
3.46
9.75
NA
NA
8.94
0.35
NA
NA
O
s
fS
5£<
O
S
€v
.^
O
-J
*J
!/5
3.46
3.28
2.18
4.96
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.68
NA
NA
6.28
8.59
NA
NA
3.86
15.73
NA
NA
O
s
fi
5£<
O
S
€v
.^
O
J
*J
!/5
11.24
22.96
2.59
4.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.31
NA
NA
34.04
2.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
H
P
•N
>-»
-^-1
u
a
3§
i^
<% S
4.48
4.34
7.19
4.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.57
11.44
NA
NA
13.70
6.70
NA
NA
NA
17.70
NA
NA
C£
a.
S3
^£
§^
^S
4.51
10.37
5.63
7.08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.13
6.58
NA
NA
8.06
12.22
NA
NA
26.49
2.08
NA
NA
&
!/5
ti.
!£
0
!/5
€v
%
"3
u.
M
_o
c«
4.77
11.09
6.31
8.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.62
5.17
NA
NA
2.62
8.68
NA
NA
NA
12.16
NA
NA
ST
S
P
B^
!/5
g
•V
_0
"3
s.
H
9.41
5.56
4.74
5.13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.39
6.43
NA
NA
3.59
4.67
NA
NA
3.10
9.88
NA
NA
-------
Table 21-8. Continued
Compound
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
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Average
NA
10.11
NA
NA
15.17
7.23
11.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.72
2.28
NA
4.09
NA
NA
6.47
NA
NA
15.33
Nashville, TN (LOTN)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.41
23.57
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.60
NA
NA
NA
New Brunswick, NJ
(NBNJ)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.38
14.59
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.78
NA
NA
5.66
Pascagoula, MS
(PGMS)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.24
20.76
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.18
NA
NA
NA
O
S
•N
- ^
3 O
o ^
J.S
££
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.53
8.10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.92
NA
NA
NA
O
s
fS
5£<
O
S
€v
.^
O
-J
*J
!/5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.04
7.34
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.81
NA
NA
NA
O
s
fi
5£<
O
S
€v
.^
O
J
*J
!/5
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.44
9.37
6.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.44
NA
NA
NA
H
P
•N
>-»
+^
u
a
3§
i^
<% S
NA
NA
NA
NA
28.28
4.35
17.11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.61
NA
NA
20.66
C£
a.
S3
^£
§^
^S
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.29
10.92
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.11
NA
NA
6.35
NA
NA
5.66
&
!/5
ti.
^
0
!/5
€v
%
"3
u.
M
_o
\fi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.41
5.70
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.32
NA
NA
NA
vi
s
p
B^
!/5
s
•V
_0
"3
s.
H
NA
24.96
NA
NA
NA
5.41
11.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.06
NA
NA
NA
to
oo
-------
Table 21-8. Continued
Compound
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1,3-Butadiene
Average
Average
13.32
4.08
6.42
6.04
NA
15.43
NA
6.84
9.58
8.36
NA
NA
8.69
NA
NA
NA
9.25
Nashville, TN (LOTN)
NA
NA
1.72
4.79
NA
NA
NA
4.88
NA
28.39
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.04
New Brunswick, NJ
(NBNJ)
NA
NA
6.24
4.26
NA
NA
NA
2.79
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.88
Pascagoula, MS
(PGMS)
NA
NA
11.76
8.17
NA
35.23
NA
8.59
NA
2.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.72
O
S
•N
- ^
3 O
O *H
J.S
££
4.51
NA
5.08
3.61
NA
NA
NA
9.09
NA
11.81
NA
NA
16.44
NA
NA
NA
6.47
O
S
fS
5£<
O
S
€v
.^
O
-J
*J
!/5
NA
4.08
6.51
7.42
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.72
NA
NA
NA
5.74
O
S
fi
!£,
O
s
€v
.^
O
J
*J
!/5
NA
NA
2.62
3.61
NA
NA
NA
4.88
NA
4.64
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.43
H
P
•N
>*
+^
u
a
3§
i^
<% S
NA
NA
7.73
4.52
NA
NA
NA
8.15
9.06
7.34
NA
NA
7.44
NA
NA
NA
9.90
C£
a.
S3
^£
§^
^S
NA
NA
4.93
5.85
NA
9.80
NA
9.13
4.01
3.88
NA
NA
9.16
NA
NA
NA
8.10
&
!/5
ti.
^
0
!/5
€v
%
"3
u.
M
_o
c«
NA
NA
14.28
5.87
NA
26.58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.79
ST
S
P
B^
!/5
g
•V
_0
"3
s.
H
NA
NA
7.97
8.85
NA
NA
NA
8.70
NA
14.31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.46
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
-------
Table 21-9. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
184 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples
Compound
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
Isobutane
Isobutene/1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
trans-2-Butene
c/s-2-Butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2 -Methyl- 1 -butene
w-Pentane
Isoprene
trans -2-PentQnQ
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
w-Hexane
trans -2-HexQnQ
c/s-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
Number of
Observations
184
184
184
184
184
0
184
184
65
184
171
172
13
170
148
105
184
181
180
177
117
177
35
1
181
183
184
184
26
181
0
184
9
6
183
Average
RPD for
Replicate
Analyses
(%)
11.93
11.56
8.00
23.28
9.13
NA
12.60
18.30
11.61
9.86
28.09
26.53
4.04
18.32
29.46
17.35
10.19
35.73
45.20
40.79
12.01
50.90
11.43
NA
37.23
45.44
20.98
31.88
22.24
56.24
NA
33.41
11.86
7.97
26.41
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.34
0.25
0.39
0.26
0.98
NA
0.27
0.26
0.11
0.42
0.20
0.24
0.25
1.34
0.23
0.16
0.27
0.22
0.18
0.20
0.13
0.27
0.24
0.38
0.19
0.35
0.40
0.38
0.42
0.32
NA
0.33
0.42
0.85
0.20
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
7.04
7.43
5.08
11.97
6.01
NA
7.10
10.44
7.85
5.81
12.51
13.11
2.74
8.
15.09
10.45
5.73
11.84
16.96
16.22
7.92
16.70
8.59
NA
17.76
16.61
11.56
14.34
13.59
20.91
NA
14.05
9.31
5.90
12.57
21-36
-------
Table 21-9. Continued
Compound
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
w-Heptane
Methyl cy cl ohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3 -Methylheptane
1-Octene
w-Octane
Ethylbenzene
m-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
w-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
w-Propy Ib enzene
w-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
&-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
w-Decane
Number of
Observations
180
184
182
172
179
182
46
184
176
181
66
178
176
165
179
33
183
173
175
144
173
20
179
116
63
109
173
119
144
97
40
174
0
175
Average
RPD for
Replicate
Analyses
(%)
53.53
12.35
39.16
49.88
36.87
33.19
22.72
28.44
20.76
47.16
16.14
31.78
12.41
41.53
29.98
13.45
30.34
23.57
21.82
96.47
34.01
11.19
26.20
24.20
26.44
39.24
21.07
14.63
43.63
17.29
17.76
28.35
NA
40.42
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.26
0.24
0.33
0.42
0.45
0.40
0.32
0.26
0.15
0.25
0.20
0.19
0.64
0.25
0.17
0.18
0.17
0.25
0.54
0.40
0.33
0.75
0.15
0.40
1.05
0.30
0.17
0.33
0.20
0.37
0.99
0.26
NA
0.56
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
17.27
7.20
16.74
16.93
16.42
14.92
15.08
13.02
10.87
17.51
11.79
15.27
7.30
19.73
14.37
10.57
13.45
16.54
13.31
34.38
17.44
7.69
12.77
16.39
19.93
18.80
11.30
10.73
20.94
12.08
14.59
15.00
NA
18.59
21-37
-------
Table 21-9. Continued
Compound
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Di ethy Ib enzene
p-Di ethy Ib enzene
1-Undecene
w-Undecane
1-Dodecene
w-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
w-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Number of
Observations
144
61
87
16
179
6
118
3
29
176
176
Average
RPD for
Replicate
Analyses
(%)
53.17
28.19
27.46
6.60
15.91
16.56
14.97
NA
12.83
16.63
16.81
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.26
0.58
0.24
0.22
0.62
0.84
0.93
1.37
1.58
11.95
31.93
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
24.40
20.20
19.87
4.57
9.71
12.21
11.08
NA
9.20
8.52
9.90
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-38
-------
Table 21-10. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
40 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Puerto Rico
Compound
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
Isobutane
Isobutene/1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
trans-2-Butene
c/s-2-Butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2 -Methyl- 1 -butene
w-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-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
w-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
Number of
Observations
40
40
40
40
40
0
40
40
27
40
40
40
3
36
40
30
40
40
40
40
35
40
10
0
40
40
40
40
13
40
0
40
4
5
Average
RPDfor
Replicate
Analyses
(%)
8.06
6.83
8.91
13.32
6.70
NA
7.43
11.57
17.19
7.89
17.80
18.68
NA
6.22
23.80
15.21
5.56
6.66
18.44
21.54
8.69
15.52
6.81
NA
23.81
23.24
12.78
13.90
7.79
39.32
NA
8.10
3.61
7.97
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.38
0.24
0.28
0.27
1.63
NA
0.35
0.25
0.14
0.55
0.18
0.21
0.32
0.66
0.17
0.25
0.21
0.24
0.22
0.19
0.11
0.29
0.27
NA
0.21
0.39
0.54
0.36
0.17
0.29
NA
0.25
0.50
0.71
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
5.28
5.23
5.75
7.59
4.70
NA
4.96
7.29
11.27
5.37
9.89
10.15
NA
4.50
14.00
9.89
3.75
4.81
9.28
11.62
6.16
8.95
5.07
NA
13.32
11.98
8.04
8.57
5.58
16.60
NA
5.35
2.51
5.90
21-39
-------
Table 21-10. Continued
Compound
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
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
w-Octane
Ethylbenzene
w-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
w-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
w-Propy Ib enzene
m-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
&-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
w-Decane
1 ,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
Number of
Observations
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
26
40
40
40
22
40
40
40
40
9
40
40
40
40
40
2
40
39
16
40
40
40
40
23
14
40
0
40
39
Average
RPDfor
Replicate
Analyses
(%)
12.63
28.82
16.36
11.82
22.96
30.84
15.37
32.84
13.07
9.10
30.16
17.88
24.20
7.38
18.54
18.96
8.30
11.67
8.66
9.34
49.16
9.23
23.52
9.10
21.74
39.12
9.75
10.47
10.05
13.78
17.10
14.90
8.36
NA
44.83
34.55
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.20
0.25
0.38
0.27
0.58
0.49
0.29
0.20
0.26
0.15
0.37
0.14
0.20
0.89
0.15
0.18
0.16
0.18
0.19
0.70
0.38
0.22
0.11
0.09
0.23
0.40
0.07
0.16
0.10
0.14
0.40
0.89
0.21
NA
0.51
0.25
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
7.81
14.33
8.72
7.05
13.61
16.21
9.91
21.39
9.23
6.10
14.92
11.28
14.25
5.87
11.20
11.81
6.06
7.37
6.57
7.30
25.66
6.77
14.88
6.55
15.40
16.74
7.08
7.78
7.04
10.33
11.14
12.84
6.10
NA
17.28
20.16
21-40
-------
Table 21-10. Continued
Compound
m-Di ethy Ib enzene
p-Di ethy Ib enzene
1-Undecene
w-Undecane
1 -Dodecene
w-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
w-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Number of
Observations
7
10
0
40
5
38
2
22
40
40
Average
RPDfor
Replicate
Analyses
(%)
NA
33.19
NA
13.70
16.56
11.48
NA
12.15
5.63
26.77
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
1.10
0.36
NA
0.23
0.58
0.44
1.11
1.80
10.10
83.76
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
NA
28.17
NA
7.32
12.21
8.37
NA
9.14
3.96
16.25
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-41
-------
Table 21-11. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
28 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Cedar Rapids, IA
Compound
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
Isobutane
Isobutene/1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
w-Butane
trans-2-Butene
c/s-2-Butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2 -Methyl- 1 -butene
w-Pentane
Isoprene
trans-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
w-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
Number of
Observations
28
28
28
28
28
0
28
28
5
28
24
24
0
20
22
15
28
24
25
25
14
24
3
0
26
28
28
28
1
26
0
28
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
24.57
18.12
14.12
41.71
23.51
NA
39.78
38.96
3.38
31.61
29.99
34.52
NA
44.15
30.50
30.79
39.34
12.05
52.15
64.72
32.43
67.34
NA
NA
60.79
137.05
41.43
50.61
NA
27.87
NA
99.09
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.40
0.21
0.61
0.31
0.77
NA
0.39
0.36
0.07
0.60
0.23
0.30
NA
0.81
0.33
0.09
0.46
0.41
0.23
0.29
0.25
0.21
0.19
NA
0.25
0.43
0.52
0.43
0.63
0.42
NA
0.42
NA
NA
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
2.32
1.26
5.60
1.05
6.00
NA
2.69
1.79
NA
3.63
0.55
0.73
NA
4.81
0.70
0.32
2.61
3.85
0.52
0.56
0.34
0.80
NA
NA
0.51
0.76
1.50
1.80
0.63
1.14
NA
0.83
NA
NA
21-42
-------
Table 21-11. Continued
Compound
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
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
w-Octane
Ethylbenzene
w-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
w-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
w-Propy Ib enzene
w-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
&-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 -Decene
w-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
Number of
Observations
27
26
28
27
23
26
27
8
28
20
26
7
26
20
24
25
10
26
18
20
13
19
5
26
16
10
16
18
18
13
15
5
19
0
25
11
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
60.56
83.73
22.14
100.02
33.19
87.65
34.25
22.51
78.12
48.34
68.34
22.79
64.51
39.11
13.36
32.91
8.31
46.36
59.87
73.72
109.07
93.77
7.76
53.75
15.83
18.89
138.99
60.77
92.23
65.73
70.94
24.67
89.28
NA
45.33
33.58
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.28
0.35
0.28
0.46
0.39
0.59
0.40
0.13
0.32
0.21
0.31
0.18
0.25
0.68
0.22
0.26
0.09
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.31
0.40
0.12
0.22
0.37
0.58
0.31
0.32
0.31
0.34
0.33
2.99
0.41
NA
1.20
0.32
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
0.78
0.66
1.50
0.84
1.04
0.92
1.06
0.26
0.73
0.52
0.61
NA
0.51
3.56
0.60
0.57
0.37
0.67
0.81
1.50
0.51
0.79
0.30
0.63
0.55
1.98
0.56
1.24
0.74
1.13
1.07
3.73
1.70
NA
2.98
0.67
21-43
-------
Table 21-11. Continued
Compound
m-Di ethy Ib enzene
p-Di ethy Ib enzene
1 -Undecene
w-Undecane
1 -Dodecene
w-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
w-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Number of
Observations
13
7
0
27
1
23
5
11
20
20
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
25.04
23.54
NA
20.42
NA
43.30
13.33
27.69
62.28
41.64
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.29
0.27
NA
0.62
0.58
0.54
0.17
0.57
20.98
22.08
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
0.30
0.48
NA
7.84
0.58
11.72
0.69
1.67
76.03
125.38
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-44
-------
Table 21-12. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Analyses
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
Average
7.04
7.43
5.08
11.97
6.01
NA
7.10
10.44
7.85
5.81
12.51
13.11
2.74
8.20
15.09
10.45
5.73
11.84
16.96
Barceloneta, PR (BAPR)
4.61
6.86
4.41
4.15
4.55
NA
5.17
6.52
11.74
5.73
10.61
8.38
NA
7.01
15.51
9.15
4.94
7.12
12.82
Beulah, ND (BUND)
5.48
5.08
1.28
10.16
3.70
NA
7.78
12.72
NA
4.04
9.41
10.80
NA
6.50
7.30
NA
7.91
13.07
9.48
«f
hH
fS
U
3
€v
5«
2
'o.
S5
C£
•_
S5
•a
1>
U
12.38
9.37
8.13
18.18
12.30
NA
17.08
15.89
2.37
14.05
11.95
13.12
NA
19.19
13.50
13.43
17.09
17.75
18.12
e
in
P
u
0
>
-*^
U
£
3§
^ J
^^
2.29
4.81
3.01
4.97
3.01
NA
3.43
4.51
8.07
4.51
12.78
12.42
2.74
2.14
12.55
7.65
5.20
5.99
7.81
San Juan, PR (SJPR)
5.96
3.60
7.08
11.02
4.85
NA
4.75
8.06
10.80
5.01
9.17
11.91
NA
2.00
12.48
10.62
2.56
2.51
5.74
&
in
u.
^
0
-------
Table 21-12. Continued
Compound
cis-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
w-Hexane
tmns-2-Hexene
c/5-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
Average
16.22
7.92
16.70
8.59
NA
17.76
16.61
11.56
14.34
13.59
20.91
NA
14.05
9.31
5.90
12.57
7.20
16.74
15.08
13.02
Barceloneta, PR (BAPR)
9.56
6.97
6.87
5.07
NA
10.51
8.46
9.66
7.71
5.87
8.34
NA
5.84
NA
NA
7.04
12.11
6.38
16.24
9.14
Beulah, ND (BUND)
9.61
NA
11.68
5.51
NA
13.23
6.88
13.83
14.76
NA
19.95
NA
14.97
NA
NA
8.32
4.04
11.31
12.72
11.71
3
wT
"S
'S.
C«
C£
1^
ss
10.68
7.69
11.14
NA
NA
19.53
26.82
19.14
20.18
NA
12.79
NA
29.83
NA
NA
23.68
11.02
31.35
8.14
23.70
8"
-------
Table 21-12. Continued
Compound
w-Heptane
Methyl cy cl ohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
w-Octane
Ethylbenzene
w-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
w-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
w-Propylbenzene
Average
10.87
17.51
11.79
15.27
7.30
19.73
14.37
10.57
13.45
16.54
13.31
34.38
17.44
7.69
12.77
16.39
19.93
18.80
Barceloneta, PR (BAPR)
5.40
7.88
10.64
13.45
6.52
7.32
8.55
8.06
4.65
7.65
7.07
23.43
7.42
14.88
8.03
17.33
30.52
7.51
Beulah, ND (BUND)
10.10
10.88
NA
11.61
8.56
15.03
11.54
11.65
10.98
14.62
8.41
22.47
20.17
NA
13.18
27.39
14.57
19.97
«f
hH
fS
U
3
0T
•a
'o.
-2
cS
"8
u
16.88
14.57
24.51
11.98
16.76
7.82
15.85
4.01
19.54
21.52
29.01
31.74
30.78
3.94
12.57
6.46
5.04
8.05
ff
-------
Table 21-12. Continued
Compound
o-Ethyltoluene
b-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
w-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Di ethy Ib enzene
1-Undecene
w-Undecene
1-Dodecene
w-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
w-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Average
Average
12.08
14.59
15.00
NA
18.59
24.40
20.20
19.87
4.57
9.71
12.21
11.08
NA
9.20
8.52
9.90
13.07
Barceloneta, PR (BAPR)
2.01
23.15
7.92
NA
24.94
26.46
NA
25.92
NA
10.71
NA
8.57
NA
11.72
4.66
18.48
10.03
Beulah, ND (BUND)
12.42
18.43
16.22
NA
18.30
27.06
NA
16.94
NA
10.85
NA
13.58
NA
NA
8.36
7.05
12.09
Cedar Rapids, IA
(C2IA)
10.41
20.74
25.09
NA
25.26
20.02
9.56
17.86
NA
10.62
NA
4.54
NA
NA
23.41
17.88
15.74
&
!/5
P
u
0
!/5
c
at
-*^
5«
u
14.40
13.76
10.11
NA
28.65
42.11
NA
NA
NA
18.52
NA
25.89
NA
NA
9.94
15.67
17.55
Davenport, IA (DAIA)
NA
NA
38.28
NA
23.16
33.96
20.81
19.93
NA
9.39
NA
7.42
NA
NA
13.55
5.29
28.58
O
S
j
!£,
O
S
•V
5«
o
J
55
22.11
NA
4.69
NA
21.79
21.58
NA
NA
3.76
9.53
NA
12.23
NA
NA
3.65
3.44
8.63
H
P
•V
£>
U
£
3g
i^
<% S
8.96
8.93
8.35
NA
6.82
16.42
23.80
19.04
5.37
6.23
NA
3.20
NA
9.33
2.39
2.62
7.89
e?
BS
5£<
C£
0.
CS
^
!/5
20.27
2.54
4.29
NA
9.61
13.87
NA
30.43
NA
3.92
12.21
8.18
NA
6.56
3.27
14.03
9.98
&
!/5
ti.
^
0
!/5
^
%
"3
u.
M
_o
c«
6.09
NA
20.05
NA
8.78
18.12
26.63
8.97
NA
7.59
NA
16.13
NA
NA
7.45
4.67
14.42
oo
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
-------
Table 21-13. Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision:
722 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
719
722
722
693
290
716
719
81
700
710
712
47
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
0.56
7.61
3.77
6.95
13.72
4.40
11.27
28.25
8.21
11.73
14.85
28.34
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.003
0.01
0.01
0.02
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
0.39
1.42
1.34
4.87
9.19
3.14
8.25
17.45
5.82
8.60
10.47
19.43
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-49
-------
Table 21-14. Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision:
96 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
93
96
96
85
70
96
96
15
84
92
95
12
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
0.31
0.73
1.47
7.30
10.32
4.30
12.10
30.09
5.10
9.57
11.40
25.18
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.004
0.01
0.01
0.004
0.003
0.01
0.01
0.03
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
0.22
0.51
1.05
5.11
7.47
3.12
9.26
21.37
3.52
7.06
8.50
15.53
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-50
-------
Table 21-15. Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision:
626 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
626
626
626
608
220
620
623
66
616
618
617
35
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
0.81
14.50
6.06
6.60
17.13
4.51
10.44
26.41
11.32
13.90
18.31
31.50
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.004
0.01
0.01
0.01
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
0.57
2.33
1.63
4.62
10.92
3.16
7.23
13.52
8.13
10.15
12.43
23.33
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-51
-------
Table 21-16. Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision:
52 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Puerto Rico
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
52
52
52
50
8
52
52
21
50
50
50
5
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
0.52
0.79
2.09
4.20
16.11
2.19
10.87
24.15
7.22
11.55
16.50
25.65
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
0.37
0.56
1.41
3.04
10.41
1.57
7.97
10.67
5.43
8.79
10.07
22.70
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-52
-------
Table 21-17. Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision:
52 Replicate Analyses in Grand Junction, CO
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
52
52
52
52
44
52
52
0
52
52
52
5
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
0.47
0.36
0.67
5.16
52.23
3.27
7.30
5.41
10.59
17.65
92.29
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
0.33
0.25
0.48
3.79
28.44
2.30
5.28
4.00
7.38
10.20
50.11
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-53
-------
Table 21-18. Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision:
28 Replicate Analyses in Cedar Rapids, IA
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
28
28
28
24
2
28
28
2
27
28
28
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
2.10
1.26
4.97
15.24
13.41
5.64
16.31
5.79
7.11
10.49
21.16
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.04
0.01
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
1.45
0.88
4.42
13.22
10.17
4.06
10.49
4.21
5.09
7.25
13.54
NA
NA = Not applicable
21-54
-------
Table 21-19. Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision:
84 Replicate Samples for all Collocated Samples in Detroit, MI
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
81
84
84
73
59
84
84
15
72
80
83
11
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
0.61
1.43
0.85
3.50
13.20
4.13
10.86
30.09
7.24
12.56
8.91
25.18
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
0.43
1.00
0.60
2.51
9.10
2.89
8.62
21.37
4.99
8.48
6.47
15.53
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-55
-------
Table 21-20. Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision:
112 Replicate Analyses for all Duplicate Samples in Florida
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
112
112
112
112
20
112
112
5
112
111
112
6
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
0.86
1.33
1.02
5.57
7.21
5.13
8.82
89.87
10.24
12.35
21.80
1.32
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.002
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
0.61
0.93
0.72
3.63
5.01
3.34
6.39
43.85
7.25
8.83
14.41
0.93
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-56
-------
Table 21-21. Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Replicate Samples
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
0.50
2.72
1.37
5.14
11.17
3.69
7.17
15.17
7.75
9.84
13.08
22.88
8.37
Z
X
H
=
0
_a
•_
0.45
64.90
0.61
12.01
NA
5.64
3.95
NA
5.12
4.77
23.24
NA
13.41
go,
a.
ft
0)
§
sS
09
0.27
0.20
0.60
2.41
10.41
1.49
6.13
NA
6.00
5.52
10.91
NA
4.39
ff
Z
09
z
A
09
0.54
1.39
0.41
10.54
NA
7.55
12.58
4.97
4.99
15.01
17.84
NA
7.58
Z
y.
a
•a
B
sS
U
0.82
4.03
10.07
7.47
4.62
3.93
14.54
NA
11.08
11.08
16.68
6.35
8.24
U
•X
•O
sS
C£
sS
•a
o
U
1.45
0.88
4.42
13.22
10.17
4.06
10.49
4.21
5.09
7.25
13.54
NA
6.80
M
U
—,
Z
•_
u
0.84
0.33
0.45
6.06
NA
3.28
4.07
NA
11.16
6.20
14.01
NA
5.16
ff
y
a
c
u
0.20
0.45
0.20
3.38
6.49
3.82
7.97
NA
6.76
16.99
18.25
NA
6.45
a
^
•N
r
=
sS
O
0.46
1.03
1.09
10.40
6.02
0.99
1.60
NA
20.31
9.01
34.92
NA
8.58
O
U
a
o
u
=
o
0.18
0.37
0.26
1.25
10.89
1.52
4.34
NA
1.58
7.34
6.32
NA
3.41
O
vi
o
u
=
o
0.50
0.17
1.11
1.87
7.92
2.29
8.08
NA
18.60
7.78
9.41
NA
5.77
0
U
^
o
u
=
o
0.35
0.13
0.25
4.49
12.39
3.32
13.26
NA
5.28
12.43
7.67
NA
5.96
-------
Table 21-21. Continued
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
0.50
2.72
1.37
5.14
11.17
3.69
7.17
15.17
7.75
9.84
13.08
22.88
8.37
^
^
g
£
—
»r
a
o
P
0.12
1.30
0.98
10.29
12.79
6.69
9.62
NA
10.88
18.16
13.07
NA
8.39
I
P
^
H
O
,&
•_
sS
0)
&
hH
^
o
P
0.43
1.00
0.60
2.51
9.10
2.89
8.62
21.37
4.99
8.48
6.47
15.53
6.83
^•^
W
-,
Z
J3~
"5
CS
.-
0.33
0.67
0.38
3.17
14.35
2.35
6.03
NA
17.56
12.87
22.96
NA
8.07
O
U
3
o
u
'-£
o
3
^
•a
B
cS
O
0.32
0.34
0.34
2.76
16.06
1.63
5.18
NA
2.76
4.96
4.90
50.11
8.12
O
U
3
o
u
€N
'-£
o
s
^
•a
B
sS
O
0.34
0.17
0.62
4.82
40.81
2.98
5.39
NA
5.24
9.80
15.51
NA
8.57
^
^fi
^5
£
*§
S
•V
0
a.
1
0.19
0.60
0.39
7.30
NA
18.90
2.42
NA
9.67
9.41
5.24
NA
6.01
w
|
*
B
O
Jl
0.19
0.72
0.69
3.32
NA
2.58
6.38
NA
12.04
11.87
13.53
NA
5.70
, — v
Z
hH
d
L^
z
B
0
J
0.36
0.46
0.80
3.87
20.92
2.06
4.07
NA
5.85
17.60
2.09
NA
5.81
H?
Z
o
d
Ld
z
a
0
J
0.33
0.16
0.24
3.15
NA
2.03
7.21
NA
5.79
9.24
12.85
NA
4.56
^_^
^
^H
s
Z
H
oJ"
j
Z
0.05
0.31
0.84
9.31
7.49
1.72
2.71
NA
2.27
10.31
11.11
NA
4.61
/ ^
Z
H
s
Z
H
oJ"
ja
Z
0.17
0.22
1.71
3.51
5.81
4.75
16.45
NA
3.29
2.38
7.92
NA
4.62
-------
Table 21-21. Continued
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
0.50
2.72
1.37
5.14
11.17
3.69
7.17
15.17
7.75
9.84
13.08
22.88
8.37
M
Z
•V
.a
5«
CO
^
z
0.82
0.52
0.33
6.77
16.90
3.37
11.40
NA
7.46
8.09
24.58
NA
8.02
§
tt.
~
g
cf
I
cS
o
cS
0.
2.11
2.15
9.00
5.01
NA
6.93
3.13
NA
7.99
11.20
10.61
NA
6.46
O
J
Tfl
O
O
— 1
55
0.32
0.27
0.29
2.59
8.04
1.81
3.16
3.26
6.88
8.97
4.14
0.32
3.34
U
-J
H
P
•V
U
M
cS
J
C5
0.40
0.61
0.44
3.93
9.56
1.49
4.21
NA
6.12
8.84
10.43
64.40
10.04
to
U
J
go
3
-*^
0.
55
0.52
0.58
0.74
2.19
NA
3.35
6.15
22.37
9.14
10.48
17.98
NA
7.35
J
to
Z
Q,
J
go
s
-*^
0.
55
0.72
0.95
0.88
5.04
5.60
4.73
5.84
NA
6.34
11.88
14.21
0.93
5.19
P?
fc
rs>
&
0.
s
_
cS
0.47
0.92
2.22
3.66
NA
1.66
9.82
10.67
4.86
12.05
9.23
22.70
7.11
1
C/)
\_^
0
SB'
tL.
s
ci
0.47
0.92
2.22
3.66
NA
1.66
9.82
10.67
4.86
12.05
9.23
22.70
7.11
_
g
!3
O
J
ti.
•V
CS
S.
S
H
0.55
1.07
0.65
2.06
4.20
2.13
4.51
43.85
7.17
8.07
17.20
NA
8.31
hJ
tM
J
J
ti.
•N
B
H
0.55
0.76
0.64
3.79
5.23
3.16
8.82
NA
8.22
6.55
11.83
NA
4.96
5?
&
H
!/2
_O~
H
0.53
1.17
0.85
3.81
NA
5.03
8.55
NA
10.43
8.09
13.87
NA
5.81
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
-------
Table 21-22. SVOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
35 Replicate Analyses for Collocated Samples in Michigan
Compound
Phenol
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Di-«-butyl phthalate
Number of
Observations
2
5
35
34
10
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
8.25
18.82
6.70
4.44
5.90
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(MS)
2.96
6.02
3.61
1.07
2.93
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
5.61
14.76
4.69
3.30
6.10
Table 21-23. Hexavalent Chromium Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Total 40 Replicates on Collocated Samples
Compound
iexavalent Chromium
Number of
Observations
21
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
18.51
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(//g/m3)
0.015
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
14.82
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-60
-------
Table 21-24. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Total 334 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 (MEK)
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
332
332
334
333
0
0
69
2
1
100
332
7
0
236
292
0
0
68
155
2
2
0
15
0
0
26
334
276
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
11
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
19.15
23.42
10.08
10.31
NA
NA
11.88
2.74
NA
61.90
14.79
29.02
NA
42.57
14.37
NA
NA
10.31
25.00
NA
11.11
NA
15.20
NA
NA
20.06
17.83
17.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.11
13.33
NA
5.70
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.55
0.19
0.07
0.07
NA
NA
0.09
0.38
0.33
11.61
0.06
1.13
NA
0.69
0.02
NA
NA
0.20
0.52
0.14
0.02
NA
0.07
NA
NA
0.05
0.10
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.09
0.23
NA
0.10
NA
NA
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
11.95
14.92
7.74
8.00
NA
NA
7.07
1.96
NA
48.38
11.35
24.00
NA
27.23
10.27
NA
NA
7.32
15.84
NA
8.32
NA
10.84
NA
NA
14.02
11.39
12.39
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.44
0.32
NA
4.07
NA
NA
21-61
-------
Table 21-24. Continued
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
334
0
0
60
49
2
218
294
0
17
0
209
70
185
0
0
10
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
23.78
NA
NA
31.65
74.78
NA
15.64
17.10
NA
6.63
NA
15.25
39.75
20.24
NA
NA
11.46
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.28
NA
NA
0.15
0.09
NA
0.06
0.14
NA
0.10
NA
0.09
1.39
1.80
NA
NA
0.15
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
14.53
NA
NA
19.71
25.60
NA
10.76
12.08
NA
4.86
NA
10.46
21.01
13.84
NA
NA
9.23
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-62
-------
Table 21-25. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Total 102 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 (MEK)
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
100
102
102
102
0
0
22
0
1
24
102
2
0
69
101
0
0
8
48
0
0
0
7
0
0
8
102
101
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
27.35
33.28
11.54
13.12
NA
NA
8.41
NA
NA
89.49
14.36
NA
NA
46.44
14.98
NA
NA
4.94
21.47
NA
NA
NA
14.29
NA
NA
20.00
26.01
19.75
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.41
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.45
0.28
0.08
0.08
NA
NA
0.11
NA
0.33
2.90
0.05
1.00
NA
1.13
0.02
NA
NA
0.25
0.44
NA
NA
NA
0.05
NA
NA
0.05
0.15
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.09
NA
NA
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
16.72
19.67
9.24
10.31
NA
NA
5.82
NA
NA
74.38
11.18
NA
NA
28.54
12.44
NA
NA
3.59
13.38
NA
NA
NA
10.88
NA
NA
12.86
16.32
15.23
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.25
NA
NA
21-63
-------
Table 21-25. Continued
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
w-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
102
0
0
15
22
0
66
92
0
4
0
60
21
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
28.87
NA
NA
44.24
29.24
NA
15.35
20.84
NA
9.16
NA
17.27
22.43
20.54
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.32
NA
NA
0.09
0.07
NA
0.05
0.14
NA
0.12
NA
0.06
0.08
0.08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
16.68
NA
NA
27.05
15.88
NA
9.56
13.54
NA
6.79
NA
10.42
17.19
12.52
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-64
-------
Table 21-26. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Total 232 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 (MEK)
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
232
230
232
231
0
0
47
2
0
76
230
5
0
167
191
0
0
60
107
2
2
0
8
0
0
18
232
175
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
5
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
10.95
13.56
8.61
7.51
NA
NA
15.34
2.74
NA
34.32
15.23
29.02
NA
38.71
13.76
NA
NA
15.68
28.52
NA
11.11
NA
16.11
NA
NA
20.13
9.66
14.50
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.11
13.33
NA
3.99
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.66
0.09
0.06
0.07
NA
NA
0.07
0.38
NA
20.33
0.07
1.26
NA
0.25
0.03
NA
NA
0.15
0.60
0.14
0.02
NA
0.10
NA
NA
0.05
0.04
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.09
0.23
NA
0.12
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
7.19
10.17
6.23
5.68
NA
NA
8.32
1.96
NA
22.38
11.52
24.00
NA
25.92
8.09
NA
NA
11.05
18.30
NA
8.32
NA
10.79
NA
NA
15.18
6.47
9.55
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.44
0.32
NA
2.90
NA
NA
21-65
-------
Table 21-26. Continued
Compound
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-~X.ylene
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
232
0
0
45
27
2
152
202
0
13
0
149
49
125
0
0
10
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
18.69
NA
NA
19.05
120.32
NA
15.92
13.37
NA
4.10
NA
13.23
57.06
19.93
NA
NA
11.46
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.24
NA
NA
0.22
0.11
NA
0.07
0.14
NA
0.09
NA
0.12
2.71
3.53
NA
NA
0.15
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
12.37
NA
NA
12.38
35.31
NA
11.95
10.62
NA
2.94
NA
10.50
24.84
15.15
NA
NA
9.23
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-66
-------
Table 21-27. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Total 26 Duplicate Samples from Two Sites in Puerto Rico
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 (MEK)
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
Toluene
Number of
Observations
26
26
26
26
0
0
11
0
0
7
26
0
0
24
19
0
0
2
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
26
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
26
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
8.93
7.77
10.19
7.30
NA
NA
19.88
NA
NA
35.28
20.44
NA
NA
14.81
11.15
NA
NA
29.51
25.92
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.36
26.22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.47
NA
NA
10.53
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.20
0.08
0.06
0.07
NA
NA
0.05
NA
NA
49.11
0.06
NA
NA
0.07
0.02
NA
NA
0.18
0.60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.08
0.05
0.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.11
NA
NA
0.25
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
6.27
5.68
7.23
5.45
NA
NA
13.75
NA
NA
34.77
13.04
NA
NA
10.00
7.87
NA
NA
24.48
21.68
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.91
15.58
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.73
NA
NA
7.39
21-67
-------
Table 21-27. Continued
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
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
0
2
0
0
24
26
0
3
0
25
12
24
0
0
6
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.66
7.25
NA
5.26
NA
8.82
6.89
10.97
NA
NA
20.83
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
NA
NA
1.10
NA
NA
0.03
0.06
NA
0.08
NA
0.05
0.05
0.06
NA
NA
0.17
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.23
5.28
NA
3.82
NA
6.63
5.08
8.33
NA
NA
16.97
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-68
-------
Table 21-28. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Total 12 Duplicate Samples from Cedar Rapids, IA
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 (MEK)
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-\,3 -Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans- 1 ,3 -Dichloropropene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Number of
Observations
12
12
12
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
3
10
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
14.54
25.31
18.35
19.27
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.72
NA
NA
20.00
111.02
NA
NA
NA
6.09
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.58
20.59
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.96
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.06
0.14
NA
NA
NA
0.41
NA
NA
NA
0.11
NA
NA
NA
0.04
0.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.02
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
11.00
17.31
11.85
13.93
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.73
NA
NA
12.86
31.12
NA
NA
NA
4.54
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.30
16.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.41
21-69
-------
Table 21-28. Continued
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
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.65
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
NA
NA
0.11
NA
NA
NA
0.03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-70
-------
Table 21-29. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Total 62 Collocated Samples from Two Sites in Detroit Metropolitan Area, Michigan
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 (MEK)
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
Number of
Observations
62
62
62
62
0
0
17
0
1
21
62
2
0
60
62
0
0
1
31
0
0
0
6
0
0
7
62
62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
40.64
59.39
11.95
14.61
NA
NA
8.41
NA
NA
94.48
15.42
NA
NA
78.99
14.40
NA
NA
NA
32.79
NA
NA
NA
14.29
NA
NA
20.00
40.85
20.48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.52
0.35
0.08
0.09
NA
NA
0.09
NA
0.33
5.24
0.05
1.00
NA
2.20
0.02
NA
NA
0.42
0.47
NA
NA
NA
0.04
NA
NA
0.05
0.20
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.22
NA
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
21.68
30.39
10.57
11.83
NA
NA
5.82
NA
NA
45.30
12.66
NA
NA
46.22
12.74
NA
NA
NA
19.11
NA
NA
NA
10.88
NA
NA
12.86
21.38
16.72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21-71
-------
Table 21-29. Continued
Compound
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
o-Xylene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
w-Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Number of
Observations
0
62
0
0
10
22
0
46
57
0
0
0
42
16
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
NA
46.52
NA
NA
50.58
29.24
NA
23.65
31.95
NA
NA
NA
24.68
16.97
29.89
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
NA
0.38
NA
NA
0.09
0.07
NA
0.08
0.17
NA
NA
NA
0.10
0.07
0.11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
NA
22.80
NA
NA
27.32
15.88
NA
12.80
19.44
NA
NA
NA
12.65
11.64
16.22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-72
-------
Table 21-30. VOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation 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
Average
9.55
12.07
7.22
6.90
NA
NA
8.73
1.96
NA
27.52
11.67
24.00
NA
26.72
8.99
NA
NA
10.47
18.17
NA
X
H
Z
^
>?
H
c~
o
%
a
T3
-------
Table 21-30. Continued
Compound
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
Dibromochloromethane
Average
8.32
NA
10.84
NA
NA
12.71
8.00
10.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.44
0.32
NA
4.07
NA
NA
11.44
NA
X
H
Z
<
e
Cv
O
-*j
OK
_C
~
<:
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.33
NA
Barceloneta, PR (BAPR)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.67
14.26
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.61
NA
Beulah, ND (BUND)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.99
11.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.02
NA
Brattleboro, VT (BRVT)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.30
10.13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.53
NA
Camden, NJ (CANJ)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.14
5.86
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.11
NA
<
HH
n
U
<
HH
*v
X
T3
'5,
«
«
•_
«
•o
0>
U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.30
16.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.41
NA
Chester, NJ (CHNJ)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.38
15.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.50
NA
a
VI
u
Q
VI
-------
Table 21-30. Continued
Compound
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3-Butadiene
Average
Average
NA
17.12
31.50
NA
8.75
9.75
NA
3.63
NA
7.70
19.18
11.56
NA
NA
9.23
NA
NA
NA
11.81
X
H
Z
^
>?
H
a
O
%
a
13
-------
Table 21-30. Continued
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Average
9.55
12.07
7.22
6.90
NA
NA
8.73
1.96
NA
27.52
11.67
24.00
NA
26.72
8.99
NA
NA
10.47
18.17
NA
8.32
Denver, CO (WECO)
4.88
10.98
4.60
5.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.31
1.91
NA
NA
15.08
9.22
NA
NA
2.51
20.32
NA
NA
£
es
a.
1
^
hH
S
ts £+
S5
i a.
e^
16.73
29.32
9.52
6.17
NA
NA
5.45
NA
NA
NA
12.00
NA
NA
39.96
12.54
NA
NA
NA
12.65
NA
NA
Detroit, MI (Dearborn)
(DEMI)
26.64
31.45
11.62
17.48
NA
NA
6.20
NA
NA
45.30
13.31
NA
NA
52.49
12.94
NA
NA
NA
25.58
NA
NA
Elizabeth, NJ (ELNJ)
6.91
5.55
7.17
7.59
NA
NA
3.02
NA
NA
NA
6.34
NA
NA
5.17
8.59
NA
NA
3.66
3.74
NA
NA
Grand Junction, CO (G2CO)
6.09
5.61
2.17
2.78
NA
NA
11.72
NA
NA
3.74
14.72
NA
NA
25.19
2.82
NA
NA
NA
27.29
NA
NA
Grand Junction, CO (GJCO)
20.46
13.44
5.11
1.84
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.04
37.05
NA
NA
71.77
4.16
NA
NA
18.89
23.53
NA
NA
Gulf Port, MS (GPMS)
9.99
14.19
8.76
2.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.49
9.99
NA
NA
38.76
7.86
NA
NA
16.90
NA
NA
NA
Jackson, MS (JAMS)
25.58
20.99
16.44
7.98
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.28
16.85
NA
NA
83.89
7.88
NA
NA
21.56
0.60
NA
NA
Lincoln, NE (LINE)
4.12
14.57
1.09
3.52
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.35
4.40
24.00
NA
35.86
3.72
NA
NA
NA
18.93
NA
NA
Lincoln, NE (LONE)
16.31
11.12
6.31
4.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.62
NA
NA
NA
22.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nashville, TN (EATN)
19.59
25.10
11.50
11.72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.73
NA
NA
12.86
18.60
NA
NA
NA
9.53
NA
NA
-------
Table 21-30. Continued
Compound
Bromochloromethane
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Average
NA
NA
NA
12.71
8.00
10.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.44
0.32
NA
4.07
NA
NA
11.44
NA
NA
17.12
31.50
Denver, CO (WECO)
NA
NA
NA
12.86
3.72
17.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.70
NA
NA
24.01
9.43
¥
ft
a.
—
^
hH
S
•B ^
BE
*%
o S
NA
NA
NA
NA
24.74
11.78
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.63
NA
NA
12.59
13.18
Detroit, MI (Dearborn)
(DEMI)
NA
NA
NA
12.86
18.01
21.66
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.97
NA
NA
42.04
18.59
Elizabeth, NJ (ELNJ)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.72
5.97
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.88
NA
NA
3.63
NA
Grand Junction, CO (G2CO)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.98
2.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.32
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.01
NA
NA
4.96
NA
Grand Junction, CO (GJCO)
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.59
4.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.75
NA
NA
NA
NA
Gulf Port, MS (GPMS)
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.05
7.86
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.94
NA
NA
NA
NA
Jackson, MS (JAMS)
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.65
6.84
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
Lincoln, NE (LINE)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.96
15.88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.64
NA
NA
NA
17.59
Lincoln, NE (LONE)
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.01
6.73
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.79
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nashville, TN (EATN)
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.73
15.59
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.05
NA
NA
13.54
NA
NA
26.52
NA
-------
Table 21-30. Continued
Compound
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1 ,3 -Butadiene
Average
Average
NA
8.75
9.75
NA
3.63
NA
7.70
19.18
11.56
NA
NA
9.23
NA
NA
NA
11.81
O
u
W
c>
o
u
•*
0
NA
2.56
3.24
NA
NA
NA
5.06
13.69
9.79
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.87
&
es
Q-
B
^
hH
~ —
"— 5
O o
NA
15.96
18.42
NA
NA
NA
15.10
11.57
19.38
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.98
^
0
•s
C3
4>
0
hH
•v s-^
""" ^
la
NA
9.64
20.47
NA
NA
NA
10.19
11.70
13.05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.73
Q
W
Hn
Z
•V
•5
.-
NA
9.13
9.20
NA
NA
NA
5.79
NA
8.76
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.16
O
u
O
O
u
a"
.0
a
3
Hn
•a
S
O
NA
3.64
3.20
NA
3.14
NA
2.25
5.87
4.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.65
O
U
3
o
u
a
_o
B
S
Hn
•a
S
O
NA
4.04
11.27
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.47
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.38
r-\
H
a.
O
«
^
o
PH
-=
NA
5.80
3.36
NA
NA
NA
10.31
NA
5.06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.10
5T
^
^
~
B
O
u
sS
NA
25.49
28.54
NA
NA
NA
9.08
92.81
13.83
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.99
^_^
Z
hH
hH^
Z
B
|
NA
NA
5.65
NA
NA
NA
3.66
2.62
14.27
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.60
6?
Z
o
hH^
z
B
1
'hi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.43
H
K!
z
H
£
^
a
Z
NA
4.41
11.44
NA
6.79
NA
11.68
28.28
12.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.10
oo
-------
Table 21-30. Continued
Compound
Acetylene
Propylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromethane
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3 -Butadiene
Bromomethane
Chloroethane
Acetonitrile
Trichlorofluoromethane
Acrylonitrile
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
trans - 1,2 - Dichloroethylene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Chloroprene
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Average
9.55
12.07
7.22
6.90
NA
NA
8.73
1.96
NA
27.52
11.67
24.00
NA
26.72
8.99
NA
NA
10.47
18.17
NA
8.32
Nashville, TN (LOTN)
14.73
4.76
7.31
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
103.45
15.04
NA
NA
NA
10.10
NA
NA
NA
10.02
NA
NA
New Brunswick, NJ
(NBNJ)
4.55
8.83
3.94
4.86
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
33.06
9.26
NA
NA
4.18
8.61
NA
NA
2.60
36.14
NA
NA
Pascagoula, MS (PGMS)
7.16
8.93
5.30
9.16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
73.32
9.84
NA
NA
13.34
11.23
NA
NA
NA
4.49
NA
NA
O
s
-J
££
o
S
€v
5«
O
J
55
2.46
5.38
7.83
2.44
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
57.67
28.61
NA
NA
22.19
2.74
NA
NA
18.83
5.77
NA
NA
O
s
fS
5£<
O
S
€v
5«
O
J
55
1.36
5.30
1.12
3.50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.64
NA
NA
27.43
6.98
NA
NA
5.05
7.95
NA
NA
O
s
fi
5£<
O
S
€v
5«
O
J
55
2.40
3.72
4.71
1.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.50
NA
NA
12.48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
P
u
J
Q
H
P
$
b
M
es
J
-*^
13
!/5
5.84
5.83
4.05
4.62
NA
NA
7.07
NA
NA
15.68
15.47
NA
NA
11.19
2.48
NA
NA
NA
17.23
NA
NA
P?
BS
!£,
C£
a.
•N
es
3
sS
!/5
6.54
7.00
9.13
3.66
NA
NA
17.39
NA
NA
13.22
19.08
NA
NA
11.42
9.67
NA
NA
24.48
14.13
NA
NA
S"
!/5
tL.
!£
0
!/5
€v
%
"3
u.
M
_o
c^
1.63
7.03
4.50
5.47
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.65
4.22
NA
NA
14.14
6.34
NA
NA
NA
33.81
NA
NA
Tupelo, MS (TUMS)
6.76
11.42
3.83
2.26
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.46
11.76
NA
NA
7.54
2.24
NA
NA
4.62
8.73
NA
NA
VO
-------
Table 21-30. Continued
Compound
Bromochloromethane
Chloroform
Ethyl tert-Butyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
tert-Amyl Methyl Ether
1,2 - Dichloropropane
Ethyl Acrylate
Bromodichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Methyl Methacrylate
cis -1,3 - Dichloropropene
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
trans - 1,3 - Dichloropropene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Toluene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
«-Octane
Tetrachloroethylene
Average
NA
10.84
NA
NA
12.71
8.00
10.46
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.44
0.32
NA
4.07
NA
NA
11.44
NA
NA
17.12
31.50
Nashville, TN (LOTN)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.30
16.97
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.44
NA
NA
15.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
New Brunswick, NJ (NBNJ)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.41
9.48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.65
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pascagoula, MS (PGMS)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.64
7.06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
O
S
-J
Q
O
S
5«
i
-4-2
Ifl
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.76
3.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.88
NA
NA
NA
36.82
O
S
fS
Q
O
S
.*
s
-4-2
!/5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.67
5.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.44
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
O
S
r»i
!£,
O
S
.*
s
-4-2
!/5
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.73
3.45
3.72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
P
u
J
!£,
H
P
S^j
-*^
u
&
sS
J
-4^
"3
!/5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.39
6.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.42
NA
NA
12.92
NA
San Juan, PR (SJPR)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.14
16.90
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.73
NA
NA
8.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
&
!/5
ta
5£<
0
!/5
5«
"33
u.
H
0
ijl
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.88
8.31
8.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
tSl
%
P
B^
!/5
g
•V
_0
"3
8.
£
NA
7.44
NA
NA
NA
6.46
9.88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.89
NA
NA
NA
NA
oo
o
-------
Table 21-30. Continued
Compound
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
m,p - Xylene
Bromoform
Styrene
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
o - Xylene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
m - Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethylbenzene
p - Dichlorobenzene
o - Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro- 1,3-Butadiene
Average
Average
NA
8.75
9.75
NA
3.63
NA
7.70
19.18
11.56
NA
NA
9.23
NA
NA
NA
11.81
Z
H
O
z
H
•N
—
A
sS
Z
NA
12.30
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.88
NA
6.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.15
z
CO
&
Z
a
1
=
g
M
z
NA
3.18
9.39
NA
NA
NA
7.94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.63
^
O
&
i
•N
I
ft
a.
NA
8.38
2.75
NA
2.60
NA
3.87
NA
3.49
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.63
O
-J
O
'3
$
-*^
NA
8.40
3.53
NA
NA
NA
12.81
NA
18.65
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.15
O
1
O
'3
£
NA
1.81
1.65
NA
NA
NA
13.69
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.49
NA
NA
NA
5.93
O
i
O
'3
£
NA
5.24
4.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.68
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.77
-
U
Q
H
>>
U
sS
J
£
NA
18.82
13.74
NA
NA
NA
12.46
17.60
14.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.35
P?
£9
«
a.
sS
^
£
NA
5.01
5.55
NA
3.82
NA
7.91
5.08
6.38
NA
NA
16.97
NA
NA
NA
10.20
0
fe
0
X
13
M
3
_o
NA
28.28
7.76
NA
1.79
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.78
^
g
H
C/5
€v
o
OJ
8.
NA
8.04
10.49
NA
NA
NA
8.22
NA
28.01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.95
to
oo
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
-------
Table 21-31. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
98 Duplicate Samples
Compound
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
Isobutane
Isobutene/ 1 -Butene
1,3 -Butadiene
«-Butane
trans -2-Butene
c/s-2-Butene
3-Methyl- 1 -butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
«-Pentane
Isoprene
fra«s-2-Pentene
c/s-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2 -butene
2,2-Dimethylbutane
Cyclopentene
4-Methyl- 1 -pentene
Cyclopentane
2, 3 -Dimethylbutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl- 1 -butene
«-Hexane
trans -2-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Number of
Observations
98
98
98
98
98
0
98
98
37
98
87
88
6
90
74
54
98
95
94
92
60
94
20
1
95
97
98
98
17
95
0
98
5
4
97
94
98
96
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses
(%)
12.02
9.69
8.13
16.04
11.09
NA
34.95
24.74
9.45
15.04
14.12
16.15
5.45
28.69
31.05
19.31
35.86
33.53
23.64
11.21
18.29
11.85
20.91
NA
25.26
16.94
18.56
28.11
15.75
28.66
NA
23.87
39.62
10.80
16.41
11.98
8.47
32.22
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.30
0.14
0.49
0.23
1.01
NA
0.77
0.32
0.07
0.62
0.08
0.12
0.28
1.54
0.29
0.13
1.90
0.38
0.12
0.08
0.21
0.15
0.33
0.38
0.20
0.20
0.33
0.35
0.27
0.19
NA
0.49
0.52
1.03
0.22
0.12
0.19
0.63
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
7.62
5.39
5.56
10.43
7.97
NA
13.86
15.13
6.38
8.40
7.90
9.01
3.74
15.63
16.91
10.75
21.13
17.32
11.90
6.61
12.20
7.10
16.42
NA
18.03
8.58
11.82
15.71
10.36
15.52
NA
15.84
23.38
8.07
11.71
7.34
5.68
22.65
21-82
-------
Table 21-31. Continued
Compound
2-Methylhexane
2, 3 -Dimethy Ipentane
3 -Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
«-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3 -Trimethy Ipentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3-Methylheptane
1-Octene
«-Octane
Ethylbenzene
ra-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
«-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
«-Propylbenzene
w-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1 , 3 ,5 -Trimethy Ibenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
6-Pinene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
«-Decane
1 ,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
«-Undecane
1-Dodecene
«-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
Number of
Observations
91
93
95
26
98
94
95
40
94
94
86
93
17
97
91
93
80
92
10
94
57
36
53
91
62
76
44
24
92
0
92
78
34
44
6
94
3
62
2
20
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses
(%)
31.46
18.55
29.43
19.66
22.44
19.18
25.79
29.19
23.64
30.41
24.94
37.10
60.36
40.98
19.71
18.33
48.03
25.17
7.71
42.45
24.65
80.95
42.05
29.93
51.87
53.73
71.29
38.76
40.54
NA
86.46
47.57
37.71
24.41
39.13
111.31
NA
122.23
NA
109.71
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.29
0.27
0.41
0.39
0.29
0.19
0.24
0.21
0.16
2.37
0.27
0.25
0.35
0.47
0.20
0.51
0.41
0.37
0.34
0.29
0.26
1.12
0.30
0.27
0.38
0.29
0.50
1.27
0.49
NA
1.45
0.25
0.35
0.20
0.55
3.09
1.11
3.07
1.11
2.29
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
16.49
11.46
23.55
14.79
12.04
12.77
12.83
14.93
15.24
18.83
11.06
17.18
30.35
16.31
12.20
11.91
27.55
17.30
5.22
17.98
14.63
37.25
19.73
14.90
20.32
20.05
28.67
35.26
20.14
NA
39.73
25.68
25.17
17.79
23.14
41.17
NA
43.03
NA
56.54
21-83
-------
Table 21-31. Continued
Compound
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC
-------
Table 21-32. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
22 Duplicate Samples in Puerto Rico
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 -Dimethy Ibutane
2-Methylpentane
3-Methylpentane
2-Methyl- 1 -pentene
1-Hexene
2-Ethyl-l -butene
«-Hexane
fra«5-2-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Number of
Observations
22
22
22
22
22
0
22
22
16
22
22
22
1
20
22
16
22
22
22
22
19
22
7
0
22
22
22
22
10
22
0
22
2
3
22
22
22
22
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses
(%)
6.94
3.59
7.38
9.97
3.44
NA
7.03
9.24
9.38
5.17
9.39
13.51
NA
7.22
27.46
10.26
10.01
8.78
5.10
8.87
11.20
10.71
13.99
NA
12.51
17.96
10.97
12.86
22.18
27.53
NA
8.93
NA
10.80
11.09
20.39
7.60
25.31
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.32
0.16
0.23
0.32
1.06
NA
0.56
0.22
0.04
0.36
0.11
0.16
0.46
1.16
0.23
0.06
0.64
0.66
0.11
0.09
0.15
0.23
0.30
NA
0.13
0.34
0.48
0.38
0.08
0.22
NA
0.43
0.75
1.06
0.22
0.17
0.24
1.03
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
4.89
2.55
4.91
7.36
2.38
NA
5.06
6.40
6.23
3.82
6.16
8.66
NA
5.12
18.63
7.50
6.71
6.42
3.49
5.27
8.70
6.57
11.28
NA
8.64
8.63
7.68
8.93
14.44
15.23
NA
6.16
NA
8.07
8.13
10.69
5.31
17.90
21-85
-------
Table 21-32. Continued
Compound
2-Methylhexane
2, 3 -Dimethy Ipentane
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-Xylene/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
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
«-Undecane
1-Dodecene
«-Dodecane
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
Number of
Observations
22
22
21
16
22
22
22
15
22
22
22
22
4
22
22
22
22
22
2
22
22
9
22
22
22
22
12
8
22
0
22
22
7
6
0
22
3
20
2
14
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses
(%)
11.11
20.27
10.24
22.78
18.45
9.67
46.80
52.79
22.57
10.46
72.52
65.70
NA
108.77
10.19
4.98
46.80
10.03
NA
76.15
43.58
20.71
13.94
10.26
12.20
15.30
17.47
43.27
14.06
NA
78.06
20.83
14.19
13.39
NA
94.16
NA
90.67
NA
73.87
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.31
0.30
0.42
0.20
0.30
0.25
0.65
0.22
0.15
1.81
0.65
0.62
0.39
1.65
0.21
0.44
0.77
0.24
0.43
0.66
0.33
0.46
0.09
0.19
0.12
0.16
0.36
1.21
0.37
NA
1.13
0.17
0.29
0.31
NA
2.68
1.11
3.72
1.11
3.23
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
7.65
11.89
7.55
15.21
11.88
5.96
17.62
22.70
12.55
6.68
18.98
18.20
NA
18.36
7.24
3.74
31.36
6.42
NA
16.48
22.46
17.70
9.63
7.01
8.37
9.98
12.58
37.97
10.37
NA
31.59
16.66
11.52
10.72
NA
44.86
NA
44.04
NA
41.71
21-86
-------
Table 21-32. Continued
Compound
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns^
Number of
Observations
22
?.?.
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses
(%)
11.03
51 15
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
20.92
171 17
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
7.77
2536
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-87
-------
Table 21-33. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
14 Duplicate Samples in Cedar Rapids, IA
Compound
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
Isobutane
Isobutene/1 -Butene
1,3-Butadiene
w-Butane
^ram--2-Butene
c/s-2-Butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
2-Methyl- 1 -butene
w-Pentane
Isoprene
^ram--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
w-Hexane
trans-2-Rexene
c/s-2-Hexene
Methylcyclopentane
2,4-Dimethylpentane
Number of
Observations
14
14
14
14
14
0
14
14
2
14
10
10
0
10
10
7
14
10
11
11
8
12
1
0
12
14
14
14
1
12
0
14
0
0
13
12
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses
(%)
21.01
20.86
11.75
21.76
14.59
NA
113.34
40.67
1.13
28.93
57.01
55.46
NA
39.21
52.11
39.96
8.84
33.05
43.21
40.05
74.95
5.43
NA
NA
10.94
19.02
19.95
52.27
NA
16.79
NA
27.71
NA
NA
23.69
24.58
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.49
0.27
0.62
0.25
0.77
NA
1.55
0.43
0.00
0.98
0.12
0.17
NA
2.00
0.20
0.13
0.32
0.68
0.14
0.15
0.42
0.04
0.21
NA
0.06
0.17
0.43
0.83
0.63
0.17
NA
0.34
NA
NA
0.18
0.16
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
12.76
11.44
7.62
12.87
9.16
NA
24.57
21.59
0.80
15.00
19.51
20.12
NA
17.10
24.66
22.03
6.07
18.63
17.58
17.62
36.83
3.83
NA
NA
6.92
11.20
13.50
25.78
NA
10.86
NA
23.73
NA
NA
13.72
12.79
21-88
-------
Table 21-33. Continued
Compound
Benzene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
3-Methylhexane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
«-Heptane
Methylcyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2,3 ,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3 -Methylheptane
1-Octene
«-Octane
Ethylbenzene
ra-Xylene/p-Xylene
Styrene
o-Xylene
1-Nonene
«-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
«-Propylbenzene
ra-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5 -Trimethylbenzene
o-Ethyltoluene
6-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
«-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
w-Diethylbenzene
p-Diethylbenzene
1-Undecene
«-Undecane
1-Dodecene
«-Dodecane
Number of
Observations
14
13
11
12
13
4
14
10
12
3
12
10
10
11
4
12
8
10
6
9
3
12
6
4
7
8
8
5
6
3
9
0
11
5
5
2
0
13
1
10
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses
(%)
14.87
34.13
25.05
31.67
31.25
14.76
15.52
18.15
17.96
NA
31.49
58.33
18.39
47.47
95.39
28.70
67.29
64.95
132.60
23.36
NA
30.49
19.99
378.67
76.17
131.38
79.04
256.47
169.18
13.74
144.57
NA
284.56
89.72
69.00
NA
NA
528.39
NA
576.33
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.23
0.21
0.45
0.36
0.62
0.19
0.14
0.10
0.19
0.66
0.13
1.82
0.08
0.26
0.31
0.17
0.39
0.97
0.37
0.18
0.33
0.17
0.08
1.75
0.29
0.80
0.38
0.86
0.57
4.24
1.14
NA
4.15
0.36
0.16
0.35
NA
6.07
0.58
6.53
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
9.74
15.21
23.77
26.42
28.26
11.27
10.99
11.47
13.63
NA
18.06
23.32
10.81
25.92
45.67
16.91
32.79
34.86
48.79
15.34
NA
16.60
12.08
92.54
31.65
34.69
24.19
63.72
45.42
10.43
33.39
NA
58.43
34.21
36.21
NA
NA
35.86
NA
47.66
21-89
-------
Table 21-33. Continued
Compound
1-Tridecene
«-Tridecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Number of
Observations
2
7
10
10
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses
(%)
NA
10.69
47.75
34.44
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate Analyses
(ppbv)
0.47
0.73
34.75
39.20
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
NA
7.50
18.42
15.96
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-90
-------
Table 21-34. SNMOC Sampling and Analytical Precision Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples
Compound
Ethyl ene
Acetylene
Ethane
Propylene
Propane
Propyne
Isobutane
Isobutene/1 -Butene
1,3-Butadiene
rc-Butane
trans-2-ButQne
c/s-2-Butene
3 -Methyl- 1 -butene
Isopentane
1-Pentene
trans-2-PentQnQ
c/s-2-Pentene
2-Methyl-2 -butene
Average
7.78
5.81
4.38
9.42
6.43
NA
10.70
14.87
6.38
7.45
7.32
9.08
3.74
11.61
17.21
11.76
6.78
12.20
Barceloneta, PR (BAPR)
5.44
2.35
3.22
4.99
1.04
NA
4.84
6.43
5.75
5.64
6.19
7.59
NA
5.05
18.37
2.58
2.13
8.67
Beulah, ND (BUND)
11.73
19.35
5.24
14.51
9.88
NA
26.03
16.57
NA
16.28
6.78
4.49
NA
29.23
7.42
13.63
5.40
NA
3
fS
U
3
»T
-O
1
C£
•_
sS
•a
1>
U
12.76
11.44
7.62
12.87
9.16
NA
24.57
21.59
0.80
15.00
19.51
20.12
NA
17.10
24.66
17.58
17.62
28.05
Custer, SD (CUSD)
13.78
1.49
2.22
9.06
1.71
NA
3.63
21.48
NA
2.89
4.62
14.13
NA
11.37
16.22
14.30
6.19
11.62
Davenport, IA (DAIA)
6.19
5.27
2.40
12.15
3.66
NA
4.61
28.06
NA
5.67
1.99
5.71
NA
12.26
27.45
4.91
2.62
NA
O
S
-j
Q
O
S
wT
s
-4-2
!/5
1.95
1.33
1.97
3.60
12.54
NA
2.53
8.54
6.57
2.55
6.33
4.61
NA
2.41
6.73
3.42
5.28
4.64
P
u
-j
!£
H
P
>>
-*^
U
at
^
cS
J
•^
"33
!/5
3.83
4.34
3.40
4.31
3.43
NA
18.14
8.14
12.10
8.64
6.77
9.36
3.74
17.88
22.25
13.18
8.85
12.44
e?
&
0.
*•
cS
Hn
§
!/5
4.33
2.74
6.61
9.73
3.72
NA
5.28
6.37
6.70
2.01
6.13
9.74
NA
5.20
18.89
4.40
8.40
8.72
ff
!/5
tL.
!£,
0
!/5
»T
13
u.
H
_o
X
9.97
3.95
6.78
13.58
12.69
NA
6.63
16.63
NA
8.34
7.60
5.95
NA
3.93
12.84
31.84
4.49
11.29
to
-------
Table 21-34. Continued
Compound
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
ft-Hexane
trans-2-Hexene
c/s-2-Hexene
Cyclohexane
2-Methylhexane
2,3-Dimethylpentane
1-Heptene
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
Average
7.65
16.42
NA
11.65
8.93
10.64
15.12
10.36
16.47
NA
11.31
23.38
8.07
18.86
15.70
11.77
10.86
12.62
Barceloneta, PR (BAPR)
4.22
21.29
NA
6.85
2.47
7.93
8.91
18.11
7.04
NA
4.75
NA
NA
20.59
6.05
10.05
13.57
13.09
Beulah, ND (BUND)
7.96
29.95
NA
16.08
4.62
22.42
22.22
NA
22.49
NA
18.89
NA
NA
14.36
18.32
14.41
NA
16.63
3
fS
U
3
»T
-O
1
C£
•_
sS
•a
1>
U
3.83
NA
NA
6.92
11.20
13.50
25.78
NA
10.86
NA
23.73
NA
NA
15.21
23.77
18.94
11.27
10.99
Custer, SD (CUSD)
20.41
NA
NA
7.58
7.39
5.86
23.30
NA
18.85
NA
7.42
NA
NA
14.63
18.38
17.01
NA
21.24
Davenport, IA (DAIA)
1.71
NA
NA
10.90
3.83
18.08
17.57
NA
18.82
NA
15.04
NA
NA
40.07
42.82
3.62
NA
13.68
O
S
-j
Q
o
S
wT
s
-4-2
!/5
4.96
NA
NA
12.22
5.23
4.58
11.96
NA
10.41
NA
4.02
NA
NA
10.42
4.43
4.59
NA
4.88
P
u
-j
!£
H
P
>>
+*
U
at
^
cS
J
•^
"33
!/5
10.98
13.18
NA
11.37
12.10
5.01
5.24
6.87
8.61
NA
11.19
23.38
NA
15.58
7.51
6.08
1.74
3.39
e?
&
0.
*•
cS
Hn
§
Ifl
8.93
1.27
NA
10.43
14.79
7.44
8.96
10.76
23.42
NA
7.57
NA
8.07
15.20
9.25
13.74
16.84
10.68
ff
!/5
tL.
!£,
0
!/5
»T
13
u.
H
_o
X
5.84
NA
NA
22.46
18.71
10.89
12.17
5.71
27.71
NA
9.20
NA
NA
23.66
10.75
17.45
NA
19.01
VO
to
-------
Table 21-34. Continued
Compound
^-Heptane
Methyl cy cl ohexane
2,2,3 -Trimethylpentane
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
Toluene
2-Methylheptane
3 -Methylheptane
1-Octene
^-Octane
Ethylbenzene
ra-Xylene/p-Xylene
ft-Nonane
Isopropylbenzene
a-Pinene
n-Pmpy Ib enzene
ra-Ethyltoluene
p-Ethyltoluene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Average
9.42
12.56
14.93
10.96
12.58
12.21
17.77
48.71
14.57
13.39
12.53
17.21
14.27
29.09
20.73
15.12
20.79
20.44
Barceloneta, PR (BAPR)
3.87
9.14
17.27
8.47
3.46
10.99
11.14
NA
9.66
7.11
2.11
10.29
25.40
NA
8.78
8.71
7.19
9.00
Beulah, ND (BUND)
19.97
19.36
NA
11.31
31.41
17.14
12.53
NA
12.36
13.52
16.72
10.76
4.04
16.83
NA
19.26
NA
6.99
3
fS
U
3
»T
-O
1
C£
•_
sS
•a
1>
U
11.47
13.63
NA
15.56
23.32
10.81
25.92
NA
16.91
32.79
34.86
16.60
26.74
92.54
68.25
34.69
84.85
63.72
Custer, SD (CUSD)
10.77
5.62
NA
13.66
9.61
8.72
31.18
NA
7.81
16.25
18.78
12.29
17.60
3.45
NA
17.74
13.74
13.55
Davenport, IA (DAIA)
5.14
7.84
13.23
5.07
2.34
1.04
14.86
NA
2.97
9.49
5.50
11.56
NA
NA
NA
12.51
NA
5.58
O
S
-j
Q
o
S
wT
s
-4-2
!/5
4.56
5.37
5.99
3.21
5.88
8.18
10.19
NA
6.32
4.69
2.49
18.26
9.02
12.82
10.36
9.73
11.23
12.27
P
u
-j
!£
H
P
>>
+*
U
o
^
cS
J
-^
"33
in
5.78
8.11
8.60
4.10
20.86
12.24
8.58
48.71
23.68
15.68
11.89
24.92
2.88
56.65
18.77
18.18
17.79
19.97
e?
&
0.
*•
cS
Hn
§
Ifl
8.06
26.11
28.14
16.62
9.89
26.98
25.26
NA
27.05
7.36
5.37
22.67
19.52
17.70
10.47
5.32
9.55
10.97
ff
!/5
tL.
^
0
15.15
17.90
16.37
20.61
6.42
13.83
20.23
NA
24.36
13.59
15.01
27.54
8.96
3.65
7.74
9.98
1.19
41.88
VO
oo
-------
Table 21-34. Continued
Compound
o-Ethyltoluene
&-Pinene
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1-Decene
rc-Decane
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
m-Di ethy Ib enzene
p-Di ethy Ib enzene
1-Undecene
rc-Undecane
TNMOC (speciated)
TNMOC (w/ unknowns)
Average
Average
28.67
35.26
21.04
NA
34.42
24.55
20.03
14.01
23.14
34.79
10.27
15.88
15.75
Barceloneta, PR (BAPR)
13.36
17.33
10.27
NA
23.13
21.31
0.99
NA
NA
47.90
7.88
37.23
11.12
Beulah, ND (BUND)
14.81
10.51
19.24
NA
46.57
40.94
NA
4.19
NA
28.38
17.95
13.32
17.11
u
1
•_
sS
•a
1>
U
88.56
10.43
33.39
NA
58.43
34.21
NA
10.39
NA
35.86
18.42
15.96
23.90
Custer, SD (CUSD)
34.86
89.84
28.30
NA
41.49
10.32
NA
7.62
NA
60.70
9.92
25.70
17.10
Davenport, IA (DAIA)
NA
NA
26.96
NA
31.82
26.08
37.07
25.79
NA
35.73
3.54
9.35
13.85
O
J
O
NA
43.44
10.31
NA
29.26
22.66
3.35
NA
23.14
18.55
1.83
4.41
8.62
u
H
U
cS
J
"33
7.54
16.66
22.65
NA
28.57
33.99
36.66
14.64
NA
26.09
11.51
14.06
15.05
a.
•V
CS
3
c3
11.80
58.61
10.46
NA
40.05
12.00
22.05
10.72
NA
41.82
7.66
13.48
14.02
^^
^^
0
"eS
tL.
_o
29.78
NA
27.76
NA
10.44
19.42
NA
24.70
NA
18.08
13.76
9.41
15.06
VO
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in bold font.
-------
Table 21-35. Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision:
352 Replicate Samples 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
350
352
352
339
155
349
351
31
342
346
348
22
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses
(%)
48.67
52.40
62.73
25.00
18.52
24.74
33.67
44.92
34.56
28.41
37.88
120.00
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.53
0.13
0.22
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
11.90
11.70
15.79
13.32
12.81
10.65
15.96
23.48
14.36
16.72
18.88
60.94
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-95
-------
Table 21-36. Carbonyl Compound Sampling and Analytical Precision:
48 Replicate Samples for all Collocated Samples
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
46
48
48
42
35
48
48
7
42
46
48
6
Average RPD
for Collocated
Analyses
(%)
80.49
92.14
102.52
34.93
17.29
24.62
46.22
28.59
48.92
31.65
46.43
189.23
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Collocated
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.59
0.16
0.34
0.05
0.004
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
17.11
15.90
22.47
18.51
11.44
11.31
19.75
23.58
16.00
18.63
20.94
68.75
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-96
-------
Table 21-37. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
304 Duplicate Samples
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
304
304
304
297
120
301
303
24
300
300
300
16
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses
(%)
16.84
12.66
22.93
15.06
19.76
24.86
21.12
61.25
20.20
25.17
29.33
50.77
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.48
0.11
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
6.69
7.51
9.10
8.14
14.19
9.99
12.17
23.37
12.71
14.82
16.82
53.12
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-97
-------
Table 21-38. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
26 Duplicate Samples in Puerto Rico
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
26
26
26
25
4
26
26
10
25
25
25
2
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses
(%)
47.53
33.11
21.92
40.52
12.00
32.60
44.98
211.23
34.82
44.60
56.79
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.67
0.32
0.09
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
14.19
16.48
15.61
10.40
8.00
17.10
19.48
51.70
15.36
16.88
17.21
NA
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-98
-------
Table 21-39. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
26 Duplicate Samples in Grand Junction, CO
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
26
26
26
26
22
26
26
0
26
26
26
2
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses
(%)
3.50
3.12
4.79
6.20
17.53
5.66
6.09
NA
5.46
12.67
9.68
75.18
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.11
0.02
0.10
0.004
0.01
0.01
0.003
NA
0.002
0.01
0.01
0.01
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
2.48
2.19
3.48
4.63
10.08
3.79
4.39
NA
3.85
9.49
7.20
85.18
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-99
-------
Table 21-40. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
14 Duplicate Samples in Cedar Rapids, IA
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
14
14
14
12
1
14
14
1
13
14
14
0
Average
RPDfor
Duplicate
Analyses
(%)
11.91
11.34
9.80
23.11
NA
14.97
22.63
NA
18.38
19.96
25.36
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
0.18
0.13
0.13
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.004
0.02
0.004
0.01
0.01
NA
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
8.38
8.23
7.21
15.21
NA
11.53
16.77
NA
13.90
14.80
19.05
NA
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-100
-------
Table 21-41. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
42 Replicate Samples for all Collocated Samples in Michigan
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
40
42
42
36
29
42
42
7
36
40
42
5
Average RPD
for Collocated
Analyses
(%)
237.32
272.52
266.87
73.52
28.04
68.07
108.19
28.59
136.64
53.67
91.28
189.23
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Collocated
Analyses
(ppbv)
1.56
0.41
0.49
0.08
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
48.37
44.95
41.59
35.34
18.50
29.91
35.07
23.58
41.03
32.49
31.00
68.75
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-101
-------
Table 21-42. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
76 Duplicate Samples in Florida
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Number of
Observations
76
76
76
76
16
75
76
6
75
75
76
4
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses
(%)
10.02
10.62
14.68
11.14
47.61
15.00
14.93
15.32
17.81
28.46
27.98
5.22
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
1.77
0.21
0.14
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.002
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
7.69
7.63
12.03
7.33
39.78
11.35
10.94
12.43
13.91
17.71
20.26
3.59
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-102
-------
Table 21-43. Carbonyl Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Coefficient of Variation for all Duplicate Samples
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
7.55
8.82
11.09
10.23
15.68
11.51
13.68
23.40
13.21
15.98
19.46
48.69
16.61
Arlington, TX (ANTX)
3.33
66.09
3.64
29.40
NA
9.09
11.06
NA
13.71
14.25
23.11
NA
19.30
Barceloneta, PR (BAPR)
1.90
1.50
5.12
2.22
8.00
2.62
8.91
NA
9.78
6.64
10.92
NA
5.76
Beulah, ND (BUND)
4.05
3.59
5.15
12.59
NA
20.73
15.92
5.42
9.62
13.81
29.96
NA
12.09
Camden, NJ (CANJ)
22.18
22.93
36.55
4.22
12.52
14.51
27.34
NA
9.48
30.57
29.28
13.88
20.32
hH
U
hH
1
•_
•a
U
8.38
8.23
7.21
15.21
NA
11.53
16.77
NA
13.90
14.80
19.05
NA
12.79
(?
u
z
c
u
4.31
4.62
12.98
13.22
NA
14.98
10.71
NA
20.71
14.95
16.05
NA
12.50
p"
u
p
u
3.33
4.77
5.81
5.48
10.87
4.81
6.19
NA
8.48
13.53
26.90
NA
9.02
Davenport, IA
(DAIA)
19.80
15.02
25.64
10.13
NA
59.84
42.15
NA
5.70
14.50
75.32
NA
29.79
Denver, CO
(DECO)
1.28
0.41
7.36
3.99
5.19
6.53
7.08
NA
5.67
6.23
6.73
NA
5.05
Denver, CO
(SWCO)
4.96
3.63
7.40
4.41
6.82
1.74
8.60
NA
22.54
9.88
14.38
NA
8.44
Denver, CO (WECO)
0.35
0.13
0.25
4.49
12.39
3.32
13.26
NA
5.28
12.43
7.67
NA
5.96
-------
Table 21-43. Continued
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
7.55
8.82
11.09
10.23
15.68
11.51
13.68
23.40
13.21
15.98
19.46
48.69
16.61
S
a
•N
_a
'o
su
Q
4.16
0.66
11.65
18.68
9.21
13.67
44.72
NA
36.74
22.58
54.60
NA
21.67
Detroit, MI (Dearborn)
(DEMI)
48.37
44.95
41.59
35.34
18.50
29.91
35.07
23.58
41.03
32.49
31.00
68.75
37.55
£>
*^i
•N
I
3
10.14
6.14
9.23
5.00
13.08
8.81
10.37
NA
16.58
23.17
13.44
NA
11.60
Grand Junction, CO (G2CO)
3.91
1.79
2.18
2.61
10.08
1.72
6.06
NA
4.56
6.54
5.80
85.18
11.86
Grand Junction, CO (GJCO)
1.04
2.60
4.77
6.65
NA
5.86
2.72
NA
3.13
12.43
8.60
NA
5.31
Gulf Port, MS (GPMS)
8.82
9.05
21.66
34.19
NA
34.60
6.52
NA
11.46
21.30
10.87
NA
17.61
Jackson, MS (JAMS)
2.48
3.75
5.72
11.31
NA
1.83
4.52
NA
23.90
18.37
10.15
NA
9.11
Lincoln, NE (LINE)
7.62
7.75
9.25
6.97
28.92
8.29
13.94
NA
11.98
31.45
16.84
NA
14.30
Lincoln, NE (LONE)
2.86
1.90
2.24
3.10
NA
8.29
25.44
NA
19.10
16.03
14.84
NA
10.42
H
•N
^
sS
Z
1.06
1.43
19.74
4.14
9.73
2.91
3.68
NA
5.16
17.56
16.80
NA
8.22
Nashville, TN (LOTN)
1.90
1.31
6.08
16.04
6.07
1.13
20.50
NA
1.82
5.83
15.02
NA
7.57
-------
Table 21-43. Continued
Compound
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Propionaldehyde
Crotonaldehyde
Butyr/Isobutyraldehyde
Benzaldehyde
Isovaleraldehyde
Valeraldehyde
Tolualdehydes
Hexaldehyde
2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde
Average
Average
7.55
8.82
11.09
10.23
15.68
11.51
13.68
23.40
13.21
15.98
19.46
48.69
16.61
z
CO
g
Z
J"
.a
£
a
CO
fe
o
Z
0.81
2.14
9.61
9.97
8.10
6.18
10.98
NA
11.01
13.61
41.04
NA
11.35
!/5
O
g
ef
I
sS
o
sS
a.
2.11
2.15
9.00
5.01
NA
6.93
3.13
NA
7.99
11.20
10.61
NA
6.46
0
j
C/5
O
wT
O
— 1
55
10.09
3.29
3.42
8.96
7.97
7.95
5.88
47.54
6.89
9.52
7.17
NA
10.79
u
Q
H
P
•V
U
|
J
cS
2.70
2.30
3.74
4.73
11.19
3.69
2.65
NA
9.71
10.93
6.77
72.03
11.86
J
to
go
3
'— /—-
a- ^
£ y,
3.10
3.34
12.72
3.16
NA
9.54
5.06
2.02
7.28
9.46
15.07
NA
7.07
to
Z
£
J
ta
go
3
•_
-*^
O
0.
55
3.50
3.47
7.96
8.19
6.35
10.27
9.43
NA
10.66
11.16
19.32
3.59
8.54
£
&
^
^
a.
§
a
cS
26.47
31.46
26.09
18.57
NA
31.58
30.05
51.70
20.94
27.12
23.51
NA
28.75
0
E/5
> — *
0
-------
Table 21-44. SVOC Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Total 49 Collocated Samples in Michigan
Compound
Pyridine
Phenol
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
2-Methylphenol
3&4-Methylphenol
Acetophenone
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthoquinone
Acenaphthylene
4-Nitrophenol
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
4-Nitroaniline
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-«-butyl phthalate
Isodrin
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Number of
Observations
3
24
35
3
2
16
12
49
49
1
13
1
24
30
1
26
32
18
11
23
1
25
18
13
2
2
2
2
2
1
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
58.08
7.91
10.92
5.04
30.59
17.43
13.74
13.36
10.16
NA
6.99
NA
9.51
8.26
NA
8.97
9.77
15.76
15.05
796.26
NA
17.45
14.39
30.92
41.56
34.29
9.14
24.06
2.35
NA
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
17.74
21.84
4.16
4.65
3.49
11.57
6.35
310.94
42.19
10.88
1.05
8.18
9.14
5.94
6.38
5.69
7.79
3.74
3.04
44.16
5.67
5.13
4.69
102.98
2.61
3.83
0.94
1.66
0.10
6.11
Coefficient
of Variation
(%)
31.82
5.66
7.29
3.48
18.76
12.77
10.31
9.42
7.18
NA
4.66
NA
6.48
5.69
NA
6.07
6.67
11.36
10.85
121.51
NA
11.25
9.64
33.08
24.33
20.70
6.77
15.18
1.68
NA
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-106
-------
Table 21-45. Hexavalent Chromium Sampling and Analytical Precision:
Total 20 Collocated Samples
Compound
iexavalent Chromium
Number of
Observations
10
Average RPD
for Replicate
Analyses
(%)
39.28
Average
Concentration
Difference for
Replicate
Analyses
Oug/m3)
0.09
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
36.34
Table 21-46. Metals Sampling and Analytical Precision for 22 Duplicate Samples
Compound
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Number of
Observations
22
22
0
20
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
Average RPD
for Duplicate
Analyses
(%)
9.79
8.65
NA
31.82
10.09
5.52
15.80
9.44
29.76
21.51
6.25
Average
Concentration
Difference
for Duplicate
Analyses
(ppbv)
129.43
15.13
NA
77.69
134.96
322.87
2842.89
9081.34
15.33
552.96
113.04
Coefficient of
Variation
(%)
7.40
6.27
NA
18.10
7.60
4.08
12.46
6.95
21.00
11.00
4.66
NA = Not applicable
NOTE: Coefficients of variation greater than the program target of 15 percent are presented in
bold font.
21-107
-------
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 2002 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 concentrations of hydrocarbons. Levels of airborne hydrocarbons were
highest at the two Grand Junction, CO monitoring locations and were lowest at the
Underhill, VT monitoring location.
Ambient air concentrations of halogenated hydrocarbons. Levels of airborne
halogenated hydrocarbons were highest at the Allen Park, Detroit, MI monitoring
location and were lowest at the Underhill, VT monitoring location. The Allen Park site
had the same distinction in the 2001 UATMP report. The Allen Park site's concentration
was more than double the next highest site's average concentration (Chester, NJ).
Ambient air concentrations of polar compounds. No polar compounds were determined
to be "prevalent" in this year's UATMP. Levels of airborne polar compounds were
highest at two of the three Denver sites (SWCO and WECO) and were lowest at the
Underhill, VT monitoring location. The Underhill, VT site had the lowest average
concentrations for all three types of VOC.
Ambient air concentrations ofcarbonyl compounds. Levels of airborne carbonyl
compounds were highest at the St. Louis, MO (Site 1) monitoring location and were
lowest at the Miami, FL monitoring location.
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 85-100% is desired for a complete data set. For sites sampling for carbonyl
compounds, an overall completeness of 93% was determined. Twenty-five, or more than
22-1
-------
half, of these sites had a completeness of 95% or higher, while only three sites had a
completeness of 75% or less. For sites sampling for VOC, an overall completeness of
91% was determined. Sixteen, or nearly one-third, of these sites had a completeness of
95% or higher, while only three sites had a completeness of 75% or less. For sites
sampling for SNMOC, an overall completeness of 92% was determined. Five, or nearly
one-third, of these sites had a completeness of 95% or higher, while only one site had a
completeness of 75% or less. For sites sampling for SVOC, an overall completeness of
92% was determined. Six, or one-half, of these sites had a completeness of 95% or
higher, while only two sites had a completeness of 75% or less. For sites sampling for
metals, an overall completeness of 99% was determined. Five out of six of these sites
had a completeness of 95% or higher. For sites sampling for hexavalent chromium, an
overall completeness of 96% was determined. Five out of six of these sites had a
completeness of 95% or higher.
Prevalence. Using the schema described in section 3.1.4, twelve compounds were
determined to be "prevalent", that is, these compounds were consistently sampled at
detectable levels and contributed to at least 90 percent of the mass concentration within
its compound group. Three halogenated hydrocarbons (chloromethane,
dichlorodifluoromethane, and trichlorofluoromethane), eight hydrocarbons (1,2,4-
trimethylbenzene, acetylene, benzene, ethylbenzene, m,p-xylene, o-xylene, propylene,
and toluene), and one carbonyl compound (formaldehyde) make up the prevalent
compounds for the 2002 UATMP program year. In comparison to the 2001 report,
trichlorofluoromethane, w,/?-xylene, and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene were added to the list
and methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone, acetaldehyde, and acetone were removed.
Pearson Correlations. The calculated average Pearson Correlation Coefficients between
the eight meteorological parameters and the twelve prevalent compounds were not
terribly strong, yet it is important to note several key points. Geography and climatology
vary from geographic setting to geographic setting and are important influences in many
factors that determine a location's air quality. Wind regimes, temperatures, and pressure
patterns all play key roles. Location of emissions sources in relation to the monitoring
site is also an important factor. Therefore, it is extraordinarily difficult to forecast
concentration increases based on meteorological factors on a nation-wide scale.
However, a few general tendencies can be noted. Chloromethane and formaldehyde
tended to have more positive correlations at a number of sites, while acetylene tended to
have negative correlations with the temperature parameters and two of the three moisture
parameters. The wind components, on average, tended to have more negative
correlations with the prevalent compounds, indicating that as wind speeds increased,
concentrations decreased. Stronger winds have a tendency to transport pollutants out of
one area and advect them to another. However, the reverse is also true, and this is where
the location of the monitor in relation to emission sources becomes vital. In addition,
light winds associated with high pressure systems or stagnant air masses allow little
movement of air within a layer.
22-2
-------
• Stationary emission sources of toxics. Lancaster County, NE (sites LINE and LONE)
had the highest stationary source emissions, followed by Wayne County, MI (sites APMI,
DEMI, E7MI, RRMI, SWMI, and YFMI). Despite these high emissions, the geometric
means for LINE and LONE were not ranked in the top five for carbonyl compounds,
halogenated hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons, or polar compounds. The SWMI and DEMI
sites ranked 1st and 4th for halogenated hydrocarbon geometric means, while E7MI ranked
2nd for hydrocarbons.
• Mobile Emissions and Traffic Data. It was estimated that the Elizabeth, NJ site had the
highest number of cars within a 10-mile radius (1,620,523 cars), while the Custer, SD site
had the fewest (3,118 cars). The Elizabeth site ranked fairly low for its average UATMP
concentration, at 23rd highest overall. The Custer site's average UATMP concentration
ranking was 34th highest out of 55 sites. It is estimated that the Delray Beach, FL site had
the highest traffic volume passing the site (201,032 automobiles), but had the third-
lowest average UATMP concentration. Elizabeth, New Jersey had the second highest
traffic flow near the site (170,000). The Barceloneta, Puerto Rico site had the lowest
number of vehicles (10) passing by the site, while its average UATMP concentration
ranked fairly high, with the 12th highest average concentration. Performing a Pearson
Correlation between the sites' hydrocarbon geometric means and the number of
automobiles within a 10-mile radius of each site revealed a moderate positive correlation,
while only a weak positive correlation existed between the hydrocarbon geometric means
and the number of vehicular traffic passing each site on a daily basis. A comparison of
the BTEX compounds (Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes) with a Roadside
speciation profile suggests the high influence of motor vehicles as an emission source.
The Chester, NJ site BETX profile bore the closest resemblance to the Roadside
speciation profile, and this site's average UATMP concentration ranked 10th highest.
• Trends Analysis. Three compounds were further analyzed for a trends analysis:
formaldehyde, benzene, and 1, 3-butadiene. Eight UATMP sites have participated
continuously to the UATMP program prior to 2001. Formaldehyde consistently
measured the highest concentrations among the three pollutants of interest, while 1, 3-
butadiene measured the lowest. Seasonal highest average concentrations for benzene and
butadiene were in autumn and winter; formaldehyde seasonal average concentrations
were higher in summer and autumn.
22.1.2 State-level Conclusions
• Arizona. UATMP concentrations at the Phoenix sites tended to increase with increasing
pressure, but tended to decrease with rising temperatures. Both positive and negative
correlations were calculated for the moisture parameters, with mostly negative
correlations with the dew point and wet bulb temperatures, and positive correlations with
relative humidity. Average UATMP concentrations varied among the sites, with the
South Phoenix site having the highest and the Queen Valley site having the lowest
concentration. The South Phoenix and Supersite sites had higher average hydrocarbon
concentrations than the Queen Valley site. There were eighteen nearby facilities that
22-3
-------
were sources of fuel combustion emissions. The Queen Valley site had lower average
halogenated hydrocarbon concentrations than the Supersite and South Phoenix site.
Average polar compound concentrations were highest at South Phoenix, the same site
with the highest number of operating motor vehicles. Carbonyl compounds were not
measured at these three sites.
Colorado. At the Denver sites, with few exceptions, most of the compounds had positive
correlations with the temperature variables, and were split between the moisture
variables, similar to the Phoenix sites. UATMP concentrations increased or decreased as
wind speeds increased, depending on direction. Few similarities in correlations existed
between the Grand Junction sites. However, as relative humidity and pressure increased
and wind speeds (those with a northerly or southerly component) decreased, UATMP
concentrations tended to increase. Average UATMP concentrations varied among the
sites. Denver Site 2 and 3's concentrations were nearly five times that of Site 1. In
relation to other UATMP sites, the Colorado sites average UATMP concentrations were
all in the 21 highest concentrations, with Denver's Site 2 and 3 claiming the highest two
concentrations overall. All three Denver sites were surrounded by numerous emission
sources, while the Grand Junction sites were surrounded by far fewer facilities. Liquid
distribution facilities were the most numerous sources surrounding all five sites. Denver
had a much higher population than Grand Junction, resulting in a higher number of
vehicles owned. Traffic flow was much heavier near Denver's Site 1 than Site 2 and 3.
In fact, both Grand Junction sites experienced heavier traffic flow than Denver's Site 2
and 3. As the two Grand Junction sites are EPA-designated NATTS sites, back trajectory
analyses were performed. A comparison of NOAA's HYSPLIT model and UATMP
concentrations indicated that the highest concentrations tended to occur when air
originated from the west, northwest, and north. Metals were samples at all five Colorado
sites, with the highest average concentration at Denver Site 2. A large difference in
average metal concentrations was noted between the two Grand Junction sites.
Florida. No clear pattern or consistencies among the St.Petersburg/Tampa sites or
among the South Florida sites seemed to exist based on Pearson Correlation Coefficients
between formaldehyde and the eight meteorological parameters. It is important to note
that several of the Florida sites sampled for less than two months. With the exception of
Underbill, VT, and Bonne Terre, MO, the Florida sites collectively had the lowest
average UATMP concentrations of all the UATMP sites. However, carbonyl compounds
were the only compounds sampled for at the Florida sites, which may attribute to this.
Of the Florida sites, the Gandy site had the highest average UATMP concentration, while
the Miami site had the lowest. In regards to average carbonyl compound concentrations,
the Gandy site was the highest of the Florida sites and again the Miami site was the
lowest. The Tampa/St. Petersburg sites had the most nearby emission sources, of which
most were surface coating facilities. Several of the Florida sites had large traffic volumes
passing the monitors, with the Delray Beach site having the highest not only of the
Florida sites, but the highest among the UATMP sites. The Miami site had the highest
population of the Florida sites and therefore number of estimated vehicles owned nearby.
Of the three Florida sites that sampled year-round, the highest concentrations of
22-4
-------
formaldehyde tended occur in the summer. As the Tampa/St. Petersburg sites are EPA-
designated NATTS sites, back trajectory analyses were performed. A comparison of
NOAA's HYSPLIT model and UATMP concentrations indicated that the highest
concentrations tended to occur when air originated in a variety of directions, which
makes pin-pointing when concentrations will increase that much more difficult.
Iowa. As temperature, wet bulb and dew point temperatures increased, concentrations of
acetylene tended to decrease and propylene tended to increase at the Iowa sites. Also, as
wind speeds increased from a northerly or southerly direction, UATMP concentrations
tended to increase. The Des Moines site had the highest average UATMP concentration
among the Iowa sites, while the Davenport and Cedar Rapids concentrations were lower
and relatively similar to each other. The Davenport site had the largest number of
emission sources nearby, mostly fuel combustion industrial facilities located to the south
and east of the monitor, while the Cedar Rapids and Des Moines sites had only a few.
The Des Moines site had, by far, the largest traffic volume passing the monitor. The
populations, and therefore number of vehicles owned within 10 miles, near the sites were
relatively similar. As the Cedar Rapids site is an EPA-designated NATTS site, back
trajectory analysis was performed. A comparison of NOAA's HYSPLIT model and
UATMP concentrations indicated that the highest concentrations tended to occur when
air originated from a southerly direction, although the highest recorded concentration
occurred on a day when air originated from the north and northwest. TNMOC and ozone
were sampled at the Iowa sites. The highest average ozone concentration was sampled at
the Davenport site, and the lowest at the Des Moines site. The Des Moines site sampled
the largest average TNMOC concentrations, speciated and with unknowns, and Cedar
Rapids sampled the lowest. The SNMOC compound with the highest concentration was
different at each site.
Michigan. The average UATMP concentration varied among the Michigan sites, with
the Allen Park and E7 Mile sites having the highest concentrations and the Houghton
Lake site having the lowest. Detroit is a fairly industrial area, and only Houghton Lake,
located in north-central Michigan, had few emission sources surrounding it. Fuel
combustion and incineration facilities were the most numerous source types in the Detroit
area. The Lodge/696 site had the largest traffic volume passing the monitor of the
Michigan sites.
The River Rouge site had the highest average carbonyl compound concentration among
the Michigan sites. For hydrocarbons, the E7 Mile and Yellow Freight sites had the
highest average concentrations, while Houghton Lake had the lowest. Allen Park,
Lodge/696, and Dearborn had the highest average halogenated hydrocarbon
concentrations of the Michigan sites. Of the three Michigan sites that sampled year-
round, the highest concentrations of the prevalent compounds were sampled during the
summer and fall months. As all of the Michigan sites are EPA-designated NATTS sites,
back trajectory analyses were performed. A comparison of NOAA's HYSPLIT model
and UATMP concentrations indicated that the highest concentrations at the Detroit sites
tended to occur when air originated from a southerly direction. Although the Houghton
Lake site is also a NATTS site, only ten samples were taken at this site during the 2002
program year, making it difficult to establish a connection between wind direction and
22-5
-------
UATMP concentration. TNMOC and ozone were sampled at the E7 Mile site. The
SNMOC compound with the highest concentration at this site was ethane. The Detroit
sites also sampled SVOC. The Yellow Freight site had the largest average SVOC
concentration, while the remaining sites were approximately one-quarter of the Yellow
Freight concentration and were relatively similar to each other. Four Detroit sites also
sampled hexavalent chromium. The River Rouge site had the highest average
concentration and the Dearborn site had the lowest.
Mississippi. Chloromethane and formaldehyde concentrations tended to increase with
increasing temperature, dew point, and wet bulb temperature at each of the Mississippi
sites. Otherwise, few patterns seemed to exist across all four Mississippi sites between
the prevalent compounds and the meteorological parameters. Average UATMP
concentrations varied among the sites, with the Gulfport site having the highest and the
Tupelo site having the lowest concentration. The Gulfport site had the highest traffic
volume flowing past the monitoring site. The Jackson site had the largest number of
vehicles owned within a ten-mile radius. The Jackson site had the highest average
carbonyl compound concentration of the Mississippi sites. This site also had the highest
average hydrocarbon concentration, while the Tupelo site had the lowest. The Tupelo
site had the highest average halogenated hydrocarbon concentration. The Mississippi
sites had relatively high average polar compound concentrations. Although differing
among the compounds, the Gulfport, Jackson, and Tupelo sites tended to sample the
highest concentration of prevalent compounds in the summer and fall, while the
Pascagoula site sampled its highest concentrations during the fall and winter.
Missouri. The Bonne Terre and St. Louis Site 4 sites sampled only carbonyl compounds;
Site 2 and 3 sampled only VOC; and Site 1 sampled both carbonyl compounds and VOC.
This makes it difficult to establish patterns in correlations between compounds and
weather parameters. However, most compounds at the sites tended to have a positive
correlation with relative humidity and sea level pressure; that is, as pressure and humidity
levels increased, UATMP concentrations tended to increase as well. Also,
chloromethane and formaldehyde concentrations tended to increase as maximum,
average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures increased. St. Louis Site 1 had the
highest average UATMP concentration of the Missouri sites, more than double those of
the remaining sites. However, as previously mentioned, the other sites did not sample
VOC and carbonyl compounds, which could result in lower average concentrations. Few
industrial emission sources were located near the Bonne Terre site, but a large number of
sources were located around the St. Louis sites. A majority of these sites were fuel
combustion industrial facilities. The site with the largest traffic volume passing the
monitor was Site 4, while Site 2 had the least. The St. Louis sites had relatively similar
vehicle ownership, while the Bonne Terre site had significantly less. It is difficult to
compare the average compound concentrations by compound type for all five sites since
each of the Missouri sites sampled differently. However, comparisons can be made
between the Bonne Terre, Site 1, and Site 4 sites for carbonyl compounds, and Site 1,
Site 2 and 3 for VOC. Site 1 had the highest average carbonyl compound concentration
of the three Missouri sites. The Bonne Terre site had the lowest. Sites 1, 2, and 3 had
relatively similar average halogenated hydrocarbon concentrations. Site 2 had the
22-6
-------
highest average hydrocarbon concentration, while Site 1 had the highest average polar
compound concentration of the Missouri sites. For sites measuring VOC, a seasonal
comparison was made. Site 2 and 3 only sampled during the winter and spring. Of the
two seasons, the highest concentrations were sampled during the winter. Site 1 sampled
year-round, and although differing among the compounds, the highest average
concentrations were sampled in the summer and fall. Site 1 also sampled SVOCs. This
site's average SVOC concentration was one of the lowest reported by those sites that
sampled for these compounds. TNMOC was sampled at the three of the five Missouri
sites. Site 4 had the highest TNMOC sampled, and Bonne Terre had the lowest. The
SNMOC compound with the highest concentration was propane at Bonne Terre and
ethane at Sitel and 4. Ozone was sampled near Site 4 and 1 as well, and was one of the
highest average ozone concentrations.
Nebraska. For both Nebraska sites, as average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures
increased and sea level pressure decreased, UATMP concentrations of the prevalent
compounds tended to increase. The average UATMP concentration at Site 1 was higher
than that of Site 2. The emission sources within 10 miles of the sites tended to be to the
south and east of Site 1 and to the east and northeast of Site 2. The bulk of the emission
sources were fuel combustion industries. Lincoln Site 1 had a higher carbonyl compound
concentration than Site 2. Site 1 sampled during the spring, summer, and fall, and Site 2
sampled during the fall and winter. Therefore, a seasonal analysis was not performed.
New Jersey. Average chloromethane, dichlorodifluoromethane, formaldehyde, and
trichlorfluoromethane concentrations tended to increase as temperature and moisture
increased at each of the New Jersey sites. The Chester site had the highest average
UATMP concentration of the New Jersey sites, while the remaining sites concentrations
were relatively similar. However, the Chester site had few industrial emission sources
nearby. On the other hand, the New Brunswick, Camden, and Elizabeth sites had
numerous facilities surrounding them, of which most were fuel combustion industrial
facilities. The Elizabeth site had the most traffic volume passing the monitor on a daily
basis, and was second only to Delray Beach, FL for highest traffic volume. The Chester
site sampled the highest average carbonyl compound concentration of the New Jersey
sites. Elizabeth sampled the highest average hydrocarbon concentration. Once again
Chester had the highest average polar compound concentration of the New Jersey sites.
Although differing among the compounds, the New Jersey sites tended to sample the
highest concentration of prevalent compounds in the summer and winter. The New
Jersey sites also sampled SVOC. The Elizabeth site had the largest average SVOC
concentration, although the concentrations were relatively similar among all four sites.
North Dakota. As maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures increased,
concentrations of formaldehyde tended to increase, while concentrations of acetylene and
benzene tended to decrease. There were only seven emission sources within 10 miles of
the site, and most were fuel combustion industrial facilities. Although the average
concentrations of the prevalent compounds did not differ greatly from season to season,
22-7
-------
the highest concentrations tended to be sampled during the winter and fall. TNMOC and
ozone were sampled at the Beulah site. The SNMOC compound with the highest
concentration at this site was isopentane. This site had one of the lowest average ozone
concentrations sampled.
Oregon. The majority of the emission sources surrounding the monitor were surface
coating processing facilities. Because hexavalent chromium was the only compound
sampled for, no UATMP concentration is available. However, of the five sites that
sampled for hexavalent chromium, the Portland site had the highest average
concentration.
Puerto Rico. As moisture content and wind speeds increased and as pressure decreased
at the Puerto Rico sites, average UATMP concentrations of the prevalent compounds
tended to increase. The average UATMP concentration at the San Juan site was
significantly higher than the Barceloneta site. The emission sources within 10 miles of
the San Juan tended to be to the east and west of the site, and those near Barceloneta
were to the east of the site. The bulk of the emission sources were fuel combustion
industries. The San Juan site had more traffic volume passing by than the Barceloneta
site. Average carbonyl compound concentrations for the Puerto Rico sites were very
similar. The Barceloneta site's average halogenated hydrocarbon concentration was
higher than the San Juan site's, however, the San Juan site's average hydrocarbon
concentration was higher than the Barceloneta site's. The San Juan site also had the
highest average polar compound concentration of the two sites. The Barceloneta site
sampled its highest concentrations during the winter months, while the San Juan site
sampled its highest concentrations during the fall and winter seasons. TNMOC was
sampled at the Puerto Rico sites. The average TNMOC concentration sampled at the San
Juan site was significantly higher than that of the Barceloneta site. The SNMOC
compound with the highest concentration at each site was propane.
South Dakota. As relative humidity decreased and wind speeds increased (from a
northerly or southerly direction), average UATMP concentrations of the prevalent
compounds tended to increase. Also, as maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb
temperatures increased, concentrations of acetylene and ethylbenzene tended to decrease,
and concentrations of chloromethane and triclorofluromethane tended to increase. The
Sioux Falls site's average UATMP concentration was significantly higher than that the
Custer site. There were no emission sources within 10 miles of the Custer site, and there
were only a few to the northwest of the Sioux Falls site. The South Dakota sites had
similar traffic volumes passing the sites. The Sioux Falls site had a significantly higher
population near the site than the Custer site, resulting in much higher vehicle ownership
near the Sioux Falls site. The Sioux Falls site had the highest average concentration for
each of the compound groups between the two South Dakota sites. The Sioux Falls site
tended to sample its highest concentrations during the spring season, while the Custer site
sampled its highest concentrations throughout the year. TNMOC was sampled at the
South Dakota sites, and the average TNMOC concentration sampled at the Sioux Falls
site was significantly higher than that of the Custer site. The SNMOC compound with
22-8
-------
the highest concentration at the Sioux Falls site was propane, and isopentane at the
Custer site. Ozone was also sampled at Sioux Falls.
Tennessee. As relative humidity and sea level pressure decreased and wind speeds
increased, UATMP concentrations of the prevalent compounds tended to increase. Also,
as maximum, average, dew point, and wet bulb temperatures increased, concentrations of
formaldehyde tended to increase, and concentrations of dichlorodifluoromethane and
trichloroflurormethane tended to decrease. Site 1's average UATMP concentration was
higher than Site 2's. The majority of the emission sources within 10 miles of the sites
were located to the south of the monitors. Most of these sources were facilities involved
in surface coating processes. Site 1 had a significantly higher amount of traffic passing
by the monitor than Site 2. Site 2 had slightly higher average carbonyl and polar
compound concentrations while hydrocarbon and halogenated hydrocarbon
concentrations were slightly higher at Site 1. Site 1 tended to sample its highest
concentrations during the fall and winter, while Site 2 sampled its highest concentrations
in the summer and fall.
Texas. Most of the compounds and weather parameters had at least moderate
correlations, and many were considered strong. Most of the emission sources near the site
were located to north or south and were involved in surface coating processes. The
Arlington site measured its highest average concentrations during the winter months,
although it is important to consider that this site did not sample during the spring.
Utah. As relative humidity increased and wind speeds decreased (from a northerly or
southerly direction), UATMP concentrations of the prevalent compounds tended to
increase at the Salt Lake City site. Most of the emission sources scattered around the site
were located to northeast or east and were fuel combustion industrial facilities. The Salt
Lake City site measured its highest average concentrations during the fall months.
TNMOC was sampled at the Salt Lake City site. The SNMOC compound with the
highest concentration was toluene. Of the sites that sampled TNMOC and ozone, Salt
Lake City measured the highest average ozone concentration.
Vermont. Pressure and wind speed were the predominant meteorological parameters
affecting UATMP concentrations at the Vermont sites. However, the Underhill site
failed to detect measurable quantities of certain compounds, and therefore have no
Pearson Correlation Coefficients. None of the sites had many emission sources within a
ten-mile radius of the monitor. Traffic flow varied among the Vermont sites, with the
Brattleboro site having the highest of the three and Underhill having the lowest. The
Vermont sites did not measure carbonyl compounds. The Rutland site sampled the
highest average concentrations for each of the compound groups among the Vermont
sites. For halogenated hydrocarbons and polar compounds, there was little variation in
concentration. There was more variation in average hydrocarbon concentrations.
Underhill had the lowest average concentrations for both hydrocarbons and polar
compounds. The Brattleboro site measured its highest average concentrations during the
winter, summer, and fall seasons while Rutland sampled its highest average
22-9
-------
concentrations during its fall and winter seasons. Average concentrations were evenly
distributed throughout the year at Underhill.
22.1.3 Data Quality
The precision of the sampling methods and concentration measurements were analyzed
for the 2002 UATMP using relative percent difference (RPD), coefficient of variation (CV), and
average concentration difference calculations based on duplicate and collocated samples. The
overall precision was well within UATMP data quality objectives and Compendium Method
guidelines. Sampling and analytical method accuracy is assured by using proven methods and
following strict quality control and quality assurance guidelines.
22.2 Recommendations
In light of the lessons learned from the 2002 UATMP, a number of recommendations for
future ambient air monitoring are warranted:
Encourage state/local/tribal agencies to develop HAP emission inventories.
State/local/tribal agencies should use the data collected from the UATMP to develop and
validate an emissions inventory, or at the very least, identify emission sources of concern.
The next base year for the NEI is for 2002, and through the sampling and analysis efforts
described in this report, the groundwork for preparing an emissions inventory has begun.
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.
22-10
-------
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.
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. Desert Research Institute
can provide a listing of potential signature compounds for mobile sources.
2. Micro-Climate Assessment. An assessment is needed of the immediate
micro-climate for a representative "urban" and "rural" site, to determine a
reasonable geographic radius of influence. It is absolutely critical to determine a
rough estimate of the maximum radius of concern (R^) in order to know what
sources need to be included in the characterization. A value for R^ may be
determined with relatively little effort using simple dispersion models, such as
CALINZ4 for urban settings. In these models R^ would be defined for non-
reactive species such as CO or PM. Since most/all of the toxic compounds of
concern have some level of reactivity, R^ would actually be somewhat less.
Therefore this method would provide a conservative estimate for R^.
3. Identify Roadways of Concern. All roadways within a distance of R,^ should be
identified for each site. Local area maps are best suited for this purpose.
4. 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.
5. Site-Specific Information. Additional information could be collected as needed to
improve the quality of discussions of air quality at specific sites. For example, for
the El Paso site from the 2001 report, the UATMP could obtain a vehicle count
split for US versus Mexican vehicles. Mexican vehicles have dramatically higher
pollution rates and should be considered separately. This estimate could be
22-11
-------
obtained from the EPA or Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Border Liaisons.
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.
22-12
-------
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.
Draxler, R.R. and Rolph, G.D., 2003. HYSPLIT (Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated
Trajectory) Model access via NOAA ARL READY Website
(http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.htmn. NOAA Air Resources Laboratory. Silver
Spring. MD.
ERG, 1997. "1995 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program - Final Report." Eastern Research
Group. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. January, 1997.
Fujita, et al., 1994. "Validation of the Chemical Mass Balance Receptor Model Applied to
Hydrocarbon Source Apportionment in the Southern California Air Quality Study." Eric
M. Fujita, John G. Watson, Judith C. Chow, and Zhiqiang Lu. Environmental Science
and Technology, 28:1633-1649. 1994.
Godish, 1997. "Air Quality." Thad Godish. Lewis Publishers. 1997.
Harnett, 1982. "Statistical Methods." Donald L. Harnett, Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, Third Edition. 1982.
Ramamoorthy and Ramamoorthy, 1997. "Chlorinated Organic Compounds in the Environment:
Regulatory and Monitoring Assessment." Sub Ramamoorthy and Sita Ramamoorthy.
Lewis Publishers. 1997.
Rogers and Yau, 1989. "A Short Course in Cloud Physics." R. R. Rogers and M. K. Yau.
Pergamon Press. 1989.
Ruffner and Bair, 1987. "The Weather Almanac." James A. Ruffner and Frank E. Bair. Gale
Research Company. 1987.
Seinfeld, 1986. "Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics of Air Pollution." John H. Seinfeld. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1986.
Topozone. Maps a la Carte, Inc. 2002. www.topozone.com
USEPA, 1988. "Data Quality Objectives for the Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (Stages
I and II)." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards. June, 1988.
23-1
-------
USEPA, 1997. "National Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1900- 1996." U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. December, 1997.
USEPA, 1999. "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, 1999. "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, 2002. 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, 2002. "2001 Nonmethane Organic Compounds (NMOC) and Speciated Nonmethane
Organic Compounds (SNMOC) Monitoring Program." July 2002.
23-2
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-454/R-03-010
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
2002 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP)
Final Report
5. REPORT DATE
October 2003
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
OAQPS-EMAD-MQAG
7. AUTHOR(S)
Eastern Research Group
1600 Perimeter Park
Morrisville NC 27560-8421
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-d-99-007
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 2002
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Reporting data results for the Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP) for 2002.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATT Field/Group
Carbonyls, SNMOC, VOC, Semivolatiles,
Dioxins, Metals, Hexavalent chromium,
Analysis and Monitoring
Air Pollution control
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
598+1902
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-03-010
Environmental Protection Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division October 2003
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC
------- |